THE honorable judge DUDLEY ‘es­teem'd the method of ordination, as practised in Scotland, at Gene­va, among the dissenters in England, and in the churches in this country, to be safe, scriptural and valid.’ And he firm­ly believed, ‘that the great head of the church, by his blessed spirit, had own'd, sanctified and blest the administration of gospel ordinances by persons ordained in this way; and that he would continue so to do to the end of the world.’ It [Page 6] was accordingly his intention, that the dis­course at this lecture should be adapted to the purpose of "explaining and maintain­ing" this kind of ordination. Not that he questioned "the validity of what is commonly called episcopal ordination, as performed in the church of England," or had it in his heart to encourage the saying any thing that would insinuate as tho' God had not blest, and would not go on to bless, the ministry of those who were thus or­dained. Had none of the friends to ecclesi­astical superiorities, according to the present episcopal form, been less wanting in candor and charity towards those who differ from them, we should never have heard of this lecture. It took rise, in the honorable founder's mind, from the narrow principles of those anathamatising zealots, who would confine salvation to their own church, by confining the validity of gospel ordinances to the administration of them by persons, upon whom the hands of a bishop, in their sense of the word, have been imposed. And he wisely ordered the preaching of it in this place, that our sons, who are sent here, from all parts of the land, to be trained up for public service, might be under advan­tage to hear and know the reasons, upon which they may, with all good conscience, join in communion with these churches, [Page 7] and officiate as pastors in them, should they, when fitted for it, be called thereto in the providence of God.

YOU are, by this time, at no loss to know the design of the present discourse; that it is to vindicate the New-England churches in their method of ordination by presbyters: or, in other words, to assert and maintain the safety and validity of what is commonly called presbyterian ordination, to the pur­poses of the gospel ministry.

ONLY, before I come to the argument upon this head, it may not be amiss to men­tion a few things, in which we agree with our opponents.

WE agree with them, it is the will of Christ there should be officers in his church to preach the word, to administer the sacra­ments, to exercise discipline, and to com­mit these powers to other faithful men; and that this will of his extends to all ages, till time shall be no more. "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." Whether it be his will, made known in the new-testament-revelation, or else-where, that this work of the sacred ministry should be divided, and differently lodged in the hands of two distinct orders of men, the [Page 8] one superior, the other inferior, we shall hear afterwards.

WE agree with them, that none should take upon them the ministerial office, unless they are qualified for it conformably to the apostolic directions in the epistles to Timo­thy and Titus; and, if they are thus quali­fied, that they have no right to officiate as pastors in the church of Christ, till they are called hereto. "No man taketh this ho­nor to himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron." This call, in the opinion of the church of England, includes not on­ly an ability given by God for the work of the ministry, but the excitement of an ac­tual readiness in the persons who have it freely to devote themselves to the gospel service. We go farther, and add hereto, the voice of the church. And herein the advantage lies undeniably on our side, whe­ther an appeal be made to scripture, or pri­mitive antiquity. Even after the distinction between bishops and presbyters took place, it was by the suffrage of the people that this or that person was selected for this or the other cure. In this way, Alexander was chosen bishop of Jerusalem ^†; in the same way Fabianus was advanced to the see of Rome, upon the death of Anterus ^*, [Page 9] as was also his successor Cornelius ^†; and it was by the same favor and suffrage of the people, "plebis favore," ^§ "populi suffra­gio," ^* that Cyprian was elected bishop of Carthage. — But instead of mispending the time to prove that which is so well known to all, in any measure acquainted with an­tiquity, it may rather be lamented, that the churches of Christ have so generally had wrested from them, in one way or another, this invaluable privilege. The people, con­stituting the episcopal church at home, scarce know what it is to have pastors of their own chusing. And the case is much the same with most of the protestant chur­ches in Europe. The right of nomination is almost universally lodged, not with the people, but with princes or patrons, either clerical or secular, in consequence whereof their ministers are not of their own chusing, but such as others chuse for them. The New-England churches, blessed be God, possess and exercise the right of electing their pastors in the most ample manner of any in the whole christian world. May they ever "stand fast in this liberty" where­with he who is "head over all things," has "made them free"! And may their glory, in this respect, be never taken from them!

[Page 10]WE agree with them, that, besides the call to, their must be an investiture in, the ministerial office, before persons may, in or­dinary cases, regularly undertake to do the work that is proper to it: And we are fur­ther agreed, that ordination, meaning here­by imposition of hands with solemn prayer, is the scripture-mode of this investiture. By the use of this rite, with prayer, Paul and Barnabas were separated to the work to which God had called them. So was Ti­mothy; and so were those seperated by him to the like work. And this has been the rite of ministerial investiture in use in the church all along from the beginning to this day.

ONLY, let it be remembered here, if, by ordination, our opponents suppose any moral gift, or spiritual power, inherent in the ordainers, is conveyed from them to the persons upon whom they lay their hands, we beg leave to dissent from them in this: Apprehending, and, as we judge, upon good grounds, that the authority of gospel ministers comes solely from Christ; while the ordainers are nothing more than his ser­vants in instating the persons they ordain in the regular exercise of this authority. As in the case of the mayor of a city, the king▪ charter of incorporation grants the power; [Page 11] the burgesses and recorder only indigitate the proper recipient of it, and put him legally into the execution of his office. So here, Christ, in the gospel-charter, gives the power to act as his ministers; it only be­longs to the ordainers to point out the per­sons with whom this power is intrusted, and regularly admit them to the exercise of it. The ordainers are to be considered, not as granting this power, but as acting mi­nisterially in introducing capable persons, according to gospel-order, into the posses­sion and use of it; the power itself having already been granted by Christ, the alone fountain of all power in the church, which is properly jure divino.

IT follows from hence, as we judge, very obviously and justly, that those who are re­gularly vested with the ministerial office may fairly claim, and warrantably exercise, all the power that belongs to it, be the words of their investiture, or the intention of their ordainers, what they will. For as their office is from Christ his instituting will, not the intention or words of their ordain­ers, must be the true and only measure of their power.

IN fine, we agree with our opponents, that the investiture by ordination must be [Page 12] the act of those, and only these, who are authorised to perform it. It is not left, in the sacred scriptures, a work common to all, and that may be done by any; but is the appropriate trust of some, in distinction from others. The brethren may not impose hands in consecrations to the gospel-mini­stry. Nothing occurs in the new-testament that can be construed to countenance such a practice. The business belongs to those only who are officers in the church of Christ; tho' not to these indiscriminately. For dea­cons, no more than more brethren, may be allowed to lay on hands in ordination. The gospel officers who may do this are only those, who are authorised hereto; that is to say, they are only those whose office contains in it this, among other ministerial powers.

BUT who are those officers? This is the grand question: And the true answer to it will be decisive in the present dispute.

OUR opponents say, bishops, considered as an order of men distinct from, and su­perior to, presbyters, are the only church-officers, who are vested with a right to ordain.

[Page 13]WE say, on the contrary, the scripture knows of no such order of officers in the church; and that gospel-presbyters, or such ministers of Christ as are allowed to have a right to preach the word, and administer the sacraments, are true scripture bishops, and cloathed with authority to do every thing that is to be done in the business of ordination.

AND this is the point I am to make evi­dent to you. In order whereto I might call your attention to those various argu­ments which have commonly been made use of upon like occasions with this: but, as I am confined within too narrow limits to do them proper justice, I shall wholly pass them over, though they carry in them, as I imagine, conclusive force, that I may leave room to enlarge on the following considerations, namely,

THAT the apostles of Christ, in settling the churches, constituted (besides the order of deacons) no more than one order of standing pastors; That these pastors, in their day, were called sometimes bishops, sometimes presbyters, and promiscuously pointed out by either of these names; and finally, that these bishops or presbyters were endowed with all the ordinary powers that [Page 14] were to be exercised in the church of Christ, particularly with that of ordination.

THESE premises will, if set in a just point of light, unavoidably justify us in concluding, that presbyterian ordination, or, as it might with equal propriety be called, ordination by scripture-bishops, is safe and valid.

IT scarce needs to be previously remark'd here, that the apostles, considered as such, were immediately sent by God, and this under the infallible guidance of inspiration, to preach the gospel to Gentiles as well as Jews, to gather churches in all parts of the world, and to appoint the officers, both for instruction and government, which were to be perpetuated in them for their edification in faith and holiness, till the time of the appearing of our Saviour to put an end to the present gospel-oeconomy. This being taken for granted, I proceed to say,

THAT the apostles, in virtue of this plenitude of power, which they received immediately from Christ, constituted no more (besides the order of deacons, with which we have nothing to do at present) than one order of standing officers in the gospel-church. It is not my business, in [Page 15] this part of the discourse, to say who these officers are: This will be done afterwards. At present I am concerned only with the fact itself; the proof of which is to be fetched from the sacred writings. And the proof from hence is as full as could reason­ably be desired.

NEITHER Christ nor his apostles have any where given instructions, descriptive of the persons fit for the work of the ministry, that are adapted to the supposition of a dif­ference of order in the pastoral office. Had there been such a difference, different qua­lifications would have been requisite to the suitable discharge of the different trusts ari­sing therefrom; and it might justly have been expected, that the scriptures would have distinguished between the qualificati­ons respectively proper for the manage­ment of each of these trusts. But they no where thus distinguish. They no where intimate, that such different endowments were necessary. Far from this, they have specified the qualifications of one order of pastors only; as may be seen at large in the epistles to Timothy and Titus. And what is strange, they have been very particular in discribing the qua­lifications of this one order, while they are totally silent with respect to the other that [Page 16] is pleaded for, tho' that other is said to be by much the most honorable and important of the two.

IN like manner, no rules are any where laid down for the guidance of ordainers in vesting ordinary ministers with different degrees of honor and power. They are no where told of the institution of two distinct orders of standing pastors; they are no where instructed to exercise their ordaining right conformably to this distinction, by placing some in an higher, others in a lower rank in the church. The sacred writings of the apostles say nothing to such a pur­pose as this. On the contrary, they present to our view a very full and explicit directo­ry for the ordination of one order only of standing pastors. This we have in the Pauline instruction, referring to the settle­ment of the churches in Crete. The great apostle of the Gentiles gives it in charge to Titus, whom he left in this island with a direct view "to set in order the things that were wanting," to ordain fixed pastors in the several churches there. But what pas­tors were they? Of a different rank, some superior, others inferior? Not a word leading to such a tho't is to be found thro'­out his whole epistle. No; but the pastors he directs should be ordained were precisely [Page 17] of the same rank or degree: Nor did Titus ordain any other. He could not indeed have done it, unless he had acted counter to the direction he had received from the inspired Paul.

THE plea here is, Titus was himself, at this time, the sole bishop of Crete, and as such entrusted with the power of ordaining inferior pastors. But this is a plea that can't be supported upon just and solid reasons; as we shall have occasion, by and by, to make plain to you. In the mean time, we go on and say further,

THAT, in the churches settled in apos­tolic times, no ordinary gospel-ministers are to be found but of one order only. No o­ther were in Lystra, Iconium and Anti­och. The apostle Paul, with Barnabas, constituted such pastors in all the churches in these places, but no other. Tis said, ^* "they ordained elders," officers of one and the same rank, "in every city." Should the words, [...], be rendered, not, "when they had ordain­ed them elders in every city"; but, accord­ing to Dr. Hammond's ^† mind, "when they had ordain'd them elders church by church"; meaning, that a plurality of elders was constituted in these churches collectively [Page 18] taken, not that there was this plurality in each individual church: I say, should this be allowed to be the sense of the words, it would notwithstanding remain the truth of fact, that one order of officers only was here spoken of; which is all I am at pre­sent proving from this text. Tho' I see not but a plurality of elders might be ordained "from church to church," in one church after another, and so in every church, as well as a single one in each church. And this is undoubtedly the true sense of the place, as it best accords with what was ac­tually done in other churches.

AT Ephesus, as in the place we have just been considering, no pastors had been settled but of equal degree. No other are mentioned by the apostle Paul, when he sent from Miletus to Ephesus to call to him the pastors of that church. He speaks of them in the stile of elders, ^* evidently de­scribing them as officers of one and the same rank. Had there been a bishop in this church, a single person of a superior or­der, to whom these elders were in subjecti­on, 'tis strange he did not send for him like­wise. Or if, at this time, he had been so far distant from his cure as not to be with­in call, it is equally strange he should say nothing relative to him; especially, as he [Page 19] was now to take his final leave of this church, ^§ "knowing that they should see his face no more." This, if ever, was a fit season to mind them of their duty to their principal pastor. And it might the rather have been expected now, as he speaks of it as a thing known to him, "that after his departure, grievous wolves would enter in among them, not sparing the flock." ^* Who so proper to have received instructions, in this case, as the chief shepherd? He tells them also, "that of their own selves men should arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them." ^‡ And who so suitable to be charged with the care of withstanding these men as the bishop? And yet, the whole care of this church, now the apostle was going from them to return no more, he devolves on the elders; and this, tho' he knew they would be ex­posed to hazards, both from within them­selves, and from abroad. This conduct is so unlike to the manner of after times, when bishops were advanced to superior dig­nity and power, that it must be supposed, either that the church of Ephesus had no such bishop, or that the apostle was strange­ly forgetful of him. Ignatius, a primitive father, who lived in this same century, if his epistles are genuine, as they are said to [Page 20] be by our opponents, did not treat the bi­shop of this, or any other of the churches he wrote to, with such neglect. He rather esteemed them officers so highly important as to make obedience to them an article worthy of his inculcation repeated to disgust. If the apostle Paul had been of the like spi­rit, he could not have omitted mentioning the bishop of Ephesus, if there had been one in the church there, in his day.

AT Philippi likewise there were no fixt pastors but of one order. Very observable to this purpose is the inscription of the epistle to the church there. "To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." ^† Besides the deacons, no gospel pastors but of one order are here taken notice of. And the same si­lence runs thro' the epistle itself. These pastors, 'tis true, are called bishops; but they were bishops of the same class with the el­der at Lystra, Iconium, Antioch and E­phesus. To be sure, they were not bishops in the sense of the church of England; and for this very good reason, because there was a plurality of them in this church at the same time; which flatly contradicts that essential article in the episcopal scheme, "one church one bishop."

[Page 21]NO pains have been wanting to evade this difficulty. Some, in order to it, have adopted the sense, the counterfeit Ambrose, but the true Hilary, would put upon the inscription, and read it thus, "Paul and Timothy, with the bishops and deacons, to the saints at Philippi." Should this con­struction be allowed to be just it would not solve the difficulty. For it would still remain true, that there was a plurality of bishops in this church, unless it should be said, that these were the bishops, not of the church of Philippi, but of other churches happening to be there at this time; which is a meer random-conjecture, arbitrarily made without the least proof. But the con­struction itself is forc'd, and incapable of being justified. Should the inscriptions prefixt to the two epistles to the Corinthians be thus read and interpreted, no episcopa­rian, however zealous, would venture to say, we should have the true sense. And why any should pretend, that this is the sense of the inscription in dispute, no imaginable reason can be assign'd, setting aside that of serving an hypothesis; as the mode of dic­tion is precisely the same in all these inscrip­tions. Besides, as some of the best critics have observed, if the apostle had intended to have taken in the bishops and deacons with him in saluting this church, he would [Page 22] not have wrote, [...], I say, he would not have wrote thus, but [...]. This was his mode of expres­sion, when the brethren were co-partners with him in writing to the churches of Galatia. The form of words is, ^* [...]. This same form of expression is used like­wise by Polycarp, who had conversed with those who had seen our Lord, in his epistle to the Philippian church. ^† [...] to the church of God that so­journeth with the Philippians.—But this is too uncouth a sense to require any thing more to be said in confutation of it.

THE learned Dr. Hammond, to avoid the supposition of more bishops than one in this church, makes Philippi a metropolitan city, and the bishops of it, not the bishops of that single city only, but of the cities under that metropolis. ^§ In answer where­to, Dr. Whitby assures us. ^‡ that Philippi was not, at this time, a metropolitan city, but under the metropolis of Thessalonica, which was the metropolis of all Mace­donia. And, as to its being a metropolitan [Page 23] church, the learned bishop Stillingfleet has abundantly prov'd, ^* that there are no tra­ces of it within the first six centuries. But it would be needless to enlarge here. The irreconcileableness of this notion with the [...] of things in apostolic times is so appa­rent, that the bare mentioning of it is enough to refute it. Dr. Maurice, tho' a strenuous advocate for diocesan episcopacy, in oppo­sition to Mr. Clarkson, speaks of this learn­ed author, ^* as "alone" in this solution of the difficulty, and declines the defence of it; at the same time, professing "that he could never find sufficient reason to believe these bishops any other than presbyters, as the generality of the fathers, and of the church of England, have done." This is fairly and freely said.

I SHALL only add here, the apostle is as forgetful of the bishop of this church, as he was of the bishop of Ephesus; for he takes no notice of any single pastor superior in rank to the other pastors. And the same silence is observable in Polycarp's epistle to this church a few years after. Will any pretend, that non-residency was a common custom in those primitive times? It is far more likely there were no such superi­or pastors, than that they should be thus [Page 24] absent from their cures. And yet, this must have been the case, or it can't easily be ac­counted for, that no mention is made of them; especially when inferior pastors are applied to, and even the deacons are not neglected.

THERE is yet further evidence, that pastors of one order only were settled in the churches, in the first times of the gospel, from the apostle Peter's first epistle, which he directs to the christians ^* "scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia." Had this apostle been acquainted with any distinction of order between bishops and other pastors, he would undoubtedly have taken some notice of it in an epistle inscribed to chris­tains in so many parts of the world. But, instead of this, he mentions only such pas­tors as were of equal rank; and these, while silent about others, he is express in urging to the faithful discharge of their duty as officers in the church of Christ. "The el­ders," says he, ^† "which are among you, I exhort, feed the flock of God."

AND, from that apostolic injunction, ^‡ "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over them": I say, from this apostolic rule, it [Page 25] should seem, that the then known ordinary pastors of the church were only elders. Why else are they particularly named, and christians instructed to apply to them to as­sist them with their prayers? Had there been, in those days, another and superior order of pastors, it cannot easily be suppo­sed, they should have been wholly over­looked.—But I may not enlarge.

IT is sufficiently evident, I would hope, from what has been offered, that the apos­tles of our Lord constituted no more than one order of standing pastors in the gospel-church. And so the way is prepared to show,

IN the next place, that the names, bishop and presbyter, were, in apostolic times, reciprocal terms, and accordingly used as such to point out this constituted order of pastors. The text to this purpose are full and strong. Thus, the elders, [...], whom the apostle Paul called to him from Ephesus, are applied to in the stile of overseers, [...]. Having sent for them under the former name, he exhorts them under the latter. So we read, ^§ "He sent to Ephesus, and called the elders, [...], of the church; and when they were come to him, he said unto them — Take heed [Page 26] to the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers," [...]. The same persons, who are stiled presbyters in one part of the same continued sentence, are in the other called bishops; and this, while spoken of in their proper character as offi­cers of the church. In like manner, the a­postle Peter promiscuously uses these names, applying them to the same pastors.^* "The elders ( [...]) that are among you, I exhort—feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof," [...]; acting the part, exercising the office, of bishops in it. The same promiscuous use is made of these names by the apostle Paul, in his epistle to Titus: For, having said some things de­scriptive of the qualifications of those he would have ordained elders, ^† [...], he gives this as the reason of what he had offered, ^‡ "a bishop, [...] must be blameless —." There would be no con­nection, no force, in this reasoning, unless he meant by the names elders and bishops, [...] and [...], precisely the same church-officers.

IT may not be amiss to observe here, for the sake of those who are so apt, in this dispute, to recur to antiquity, that both the greek and latin fathers, if we may believe [Page 27] Dr. Whitby, ^* an episcoparian writer, "do with one consent declare, that bishops were called presbyters, and presbyters bishops, in apostolic times, the names then being common. So Chrysostom, Thodoret. Occumenius and Theophylact, among the Greeks; and, among the Latins, Jerom, Pseud-Ambrosius, Pelagius, and Primasius."

AND if the names were then common, and, as we have proved, promiscuously used to point out the same church-officers, it is obvious, and yet just to conclude, that these are the officers always intended, whether they are called bishops or pres­byters. And upon the truth of this con­clusion, we may warrantably affirm, that the bishops, whose qualifications are de­scribed in the epistle to Timothy, are pre­cisely the same with the elders Titus was directed to ordain in Crete; as also, that the bishops of the church at Philippi were the same with the elders spoken of in other churches, and, è contra, the elders in other churches the same with these bishops. And in this view of the scripture-language a perfect harmony runs thro' the whole new-testament upon this head of ordinary pastors.

[Page 28]I SHALL finish this part of the discourse with the following remark, worthy of special notice, namely, that in all the a­bove scripture-passages, the argument, in proof that bishops and presbyters are one and the same order of pastors, is not ground­ed meerly on the promiscuous use of these names, but their being so used as to point out the work, or describe the qualifications, that are proper to one and the same office. Perhaps, the argument would have been valid, could we have reasoned only from the reciprocal use of these names; but, as we reason not meerly from this, but from the appropriation also of the same work, and the same moral endowments, to the same persons under these different names, the arguing is unexceptionably strong and conclusive. And so it is confessed to be by some of the best writers in favor of episcopacy, particularly by the late celebra­ted bishop Hoadly, who, far from calling in question the strength of this way of argu­ing, acknowledges it's force, ^* [...] pleads, that the bishops of the church of England don't answer to those that are promiscuously called either bishops or presbyters in the new-testament, but to officers superior to them: A suggestion we shall have opportu­nity afterwards to consider. But, previous [Page 29] to this, we shall go on to the last branch of the present argument, and say,

THAT these officers of equal rank, who are promiscuously called either bishops or presbyters, were endowed with all the or­dinary powers proper to be exercised in the church of Christ, with that of ordination, as well as those of teaching, baptising and administering the Lord's supper.

THAT they were authorised to preach and administer the sacraments, our opponents do freely allow. And from hence it might be consequentially argued, á fortiori, that they were empowered also to ordain. For these are ministerial acts more excellent and important in their nature, than that of or­dination. — But the limits to which I am confined oblige me to pass over this argu­ment.

IT is also allowed, and even insisted on, by episcopal writers, that the same persons who are authorised to govern, are in like manner, empowered to ordain. Now, it were easy to show, from the scrip­tures, that the former of these powers was given to presbyters; from whence it might be inferred, that they were vested with the latter. But this argument also I shall dis­miss, [Page 30] that I may have time more fully to lay before you the direct proof we have, that the power of ordination was lodged with ordinary pastors or presbyters.

AND we prove this from scripture-instan­ces of this kind of ordination.

IF the sacred books of the new-testament present to our view examples of ordination by presbyters, we shall take it for granted, this will be esteemed a good reason why we should think, they were vested with ordaining power; and that presbyters now will act warrantably, while they copy after the pattern that is set them in the inspired writings. It only remains therefore to pro­duce these instances.

THE first is that of the separation of Barnabas and Paul to the work to which God had called them; the account whereof is recorded ^* in these words, "There were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers.—As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Paul to the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away." This is the most circumstantial account [Page 31] given in scripture of an ordination. The persons ordained were previously called of God; they were set apart to the special work to which they had been called; all the ministerial acts any where mentioned, in the new-testament, as accompanying the separation of persons to the service of the church of Christ, were performed, impositi­on of hands, fasting and prayer; and what is more directly to our purpose, the ordainers were "the prophets and teachers" of the church at Antioch. These teachers were its ordinary pastors, the same officers that are elsewhere promiscuously called bishops or presbyters. Most certainly, they could not be bishops, in the sense of the church of England, because there was a plurality of them in this church. What more can be wanting to make this a compleat instance in our favor?

THE objections against it only serve as so many occasions to place it in a stronger point of light.

'TIS said, by Turrianus, bishop Bilson▪ and some others, that this separation of Barnabas and Paul was the act, not of the teachers, but of the prophets (extraordinary officers) who imposed hands with them. But this is only said not proved; nor can [Page 32] it be proved. The divine order, "separate me Barnabas and Paul," was as truly di­rected to these teachers, as to the prophets; they as certainly laid hands on these persons; and prayed over them, in separating them to their work: and as much is attributed to them, relative to their separation, as to the prophets. And consequently, if it can be argued, from any thing that is here said to these prophets, or that is spoken of as done by them, that they were vested with the power of ordination; it may, in the same way, and with equal strength, be argued, that the teachers also were endowed with the same power; for there is nothing said to the prophets, but what is equally said to the teachers; nor was any thing done by the former but the same was done by the letter.

IT is pleaded, by the whole body of episcopal writers▪ that Barnabas and Paul were, before this, commissioned ministers of Christs and that their present separation was only to a special service among the Gentiles. It is acknowledged; but, at the same time, denied that this makes any real alteration in the case. For it is to be re­membered, the thing intended by ordina­tion is not, that the ordainers should com­mission persons to do the work of the mini­stry. [Page 33] This is done by Christ. It only be­longs to them to declare who these persons are, and separate them to the work to which Christ has commissioned them. They don't make them ministers; but, being authorised hereto, give them an authentic character as such in the eye of the world. They don't confer upon them their authority in the gospel-kingdom; but let them into the exercise of the authority proper to their of­fice, with the solemnity the scripture esteems regular and decent. And it might seem good to the holy Ghost to order, that Bar­nabas and Paul, tho' before commissioned and sent by Christ, should yet, at this time, be separated to their work by man, in the common and ordinary way. Neither of them, from any thing said of the matter in the sacred books, appear to have been thus separated before now; and as they were now separated to the work to which they had been called by imposition of hands, with fasting and prayer, it may with all reason be affirmed, that this separation was a true scripture-ordination. All the out­ward actions common to an ordination were performed upon this occasion, and particularly that of laying on of hands. They were, in a word, separated to the service assigned them in the same way that Timothy was separated to the ministerial [Page 34] work, and afterwards separated others to it; in the same way Titus was directed to ordain elders in the churches at Crete; yea, in the same way they themselves ordained elders at Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch in Pisidia, and this, while upon the very ser­vice they were now separated to. And why their separation, at this time, should not be esteemed as proper a scripture-ordination as their's, which was effected by the per­formance of the same outward actions, no better reason can be given, than that it will not fall in with the scheme of our opponents.

IT is further objected, this separation of Barnabas and Paul was in consequence of an immediate order from the holy Ghost, and therefore a precedent not pleadable but in like circumstances. The answer is ob­vious. Both Timothy and Titus were im­mediately directed by an apostle of Jesus Christ, speaking to them under the inspira­tion of the holy Ghost, to ordain pastors at Ephesus and Crete; and yet, the objectors themselves plead these instances in support of the right of bishops, in their sense of the word, to ordain; and this, to the exclusion of presbyters. And if the plea is good on their side, it is equally so on our's. I would say further, this objection, instead of setting aside the instance before us as a precedent, [Page 35] makes it the more strongly valid. For it cannot be supposed, if ordinary teachers were unsuitable church-officers to perform the business of ordination, that the holy Ghost would have ordered them to do it. And, by his committing this work to them, we have an authentic precept, as well as example, for ordination by common tea­chers, standing ordinary pastors of the churches. And let me add here, it is high­ly probable, this direction from the holy Ghost, giving rise to this instance of ordi­nation by ordinary teachers, was intended for a precedent to the Gentile churches in all after times. This was the judgment of the learned Dr. Lightfoot. "No better reason, says he ^*, can be given of this pre­sent action, than that the Lord did hereby set down a platform of ordaining ministers to the church of the Gentiles in future times."

ANOTHER instance to our purpose we have in the case of Timothy, who was se­parated to the gospel-ministry with the lay­ing on of the hands of the presbytery; as is evident from that exhortation of the apostle Paul addressed to him, in my text, "Neg­lect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery:" The [Page 36] meaning of which words, compared with what is said upon the matter in 2 Tim. i. 6. may, I think, be fully expressed in the fol­lowing paraphrase, "Improve the gift of the holy Ghost, which I imparted to you in an extraordinary measure, according to the prophesies which went before concern­ing you, when you was separated to the work of the ministry with the laying on of the hands of the consistory of presbyters."

YOU observe, I do not interpret the gift here said to be in Timothy of his office as a minister, but of the communication of the holy Ghost, in an extraordinary man­ner qualifying him for it; which appears to me the most easy and natural sense. You observe likewise, I speak of this gift of the holy Ghost as imparted to Timothy, thro' the hands of the apostle Paul, not the hands of the presbytery. There is no certain ex­ample of such a communication to be met with in the new-testament. Perhaps, the holy Ghost, in the days of the apostles, was never imparted thro' any hands but those of an apostle. But should it have been o­therwise, this was the way of communi­cation in the present case. For the apostle Paul expressly speaks of this gift ^* as a gift that was in Timothy "by the putting on of his hands." These presbyters therefore did [Page 37] not impose hands on Timothy with a view to communicate to him this gift. It was imparted wholly thro' the hands of the a­postle Paul. And yet, the presbytery as certainly imposed their hands on Timothy as Paul imposed his. And why? No good reason can be assigned for it but this, that they might separate him to the gospel-mi­nistry in the ordinary way, by using the scripture-rite common upon such an occa­sion. And if it be supposed, that this gift of the holy Ghost was imparted to Timothy thro' the hands of Paul, about the time that he was separated to the ministry by the laying on of the hands of the concessus of presbyters, we shall have an easy and consistent sense of this whole affair.

THE truth of the case seems plainly to be this. The apostle Paul imposed his hands on Timothy to communicate to him the gift of the holy Ghost; and either with the apostle, or, as I rather think, afterwards, the council of presbyters laid on their's, separating him, by this rite, to his work, as Paul himself, with Barnabas, some time before, had been separated to their's. And very observable, it may be proper to re­mark here, is the analogy between this se­paration of Timothy, and that of Paul and Barnabas. They were separated by express [Page 38] direction from the holy Ghost; so was Timothy, for he was pointed out by prophecy, that is, by holy men propheti­cally speaking of him by inspiration of the holy Ghost, as a fit person to be employed in the service of the gospel. And it was probably owing to this, that he was so soon separated to this work, being, at this time, a very young man, and in danger, on that account, of being despised. They were seperated also by the laying on of the hands of the prophets and teachers, that is, the ordinary pastors of the church at Anti­och; so was Timothy, by the laying on of the hands of the company of presbyters, residing where he now was.

BUT the pertinency of this instance will appear with a brighter lustre, by consider­ing the objections that are made to it; as, by this means, we shall have an opportuni­ty of going more critically into the exami­nation of it.

IT is objected, the word presbytery, [...], here used, means the office ordained to, not the consistory of ordaining presbyters. This was Calvin's interpreta­tion, when he wrote his institutions ^*; [Page 39] tho' afterwards, in his commentary upon this text, having attained to greater matu­rity of judgment, he fell in with the com­monly received sense ^‡. The other, by whomsoever it is given, will exhibit a down-right piece of nonsense, unless the substantive [...] is made the genitive case, not to the immediately foregoing word [...], but to that far distant one [...], and the text be accordingly read, "Neglect not the gift of the presbyteratus which was given thee by the laying on of hands." But this grammatical transposition is arbi­trary beyond all reasonable bounds. And should the like liberty be taken in other cases, we might make the scripture speak, in any place, just what we please. Besides, the word [...] is never used in this sense in the new-testament; but always as signifying "concessus, senatus presbyterorum." This also is it's meaning in the wri­tings of the fathers, as may be seen in the fa­mous Blondell's "apologia pro sententia Hveronimi." ^† And this is its meaning particularly in Ignatius's epistles, whose authority will not be questioned by those we are at present concerned with. He often uses this word, and never in any other sense.

[Page 40]BUT should we allow this pretended sense of the word to be the true one, and, in con­sequence hereof, that Timothy was ordain­ed, not by an assembly of presbyters, but to the degree of the presbyterate; instead of helping the cause of our opponents, it would, unluckily for them, very much serve our's. For Timothy, according to this interpreta­tion, was, at the time, when this epistle was wrote, nothing more than a presbyter, whatever he might be afterwards: And yet, he is particularly apply'd to, in the epistle itself, as one intrusted with the power of ordination, and accordingly instructed to use caution and prudence in the management of this trust, "not suddenly laying hands on any man." And if Timothy, while a meer presbyter, was spoken of, by an inspir­ed apostle, as one vested with ordaining power, it is as good a proof of the power we are establishing, as if he was ordained by a consistory of presbyters.

'TIS again said, by the presbytery here is intended, not an assembly of presby­ters, but the college of apostles. So speak Chrysostom, Theophilus, Theodoret, Oe­cumenius, and after them such learned men as Dr. Hammond, Mr. Drury, and some others; but, as we imagine, without any sufficient reason to support this sense of the [Page 41] word. It is indeed a sense that carries with it not the least probability of truth. The apostle Peter, 'tis true, introduces an ex­hortation to Presbyters, by taking to him­self the stile of a fellow-presbyter, [...] ^*; but the apostles, in a collective view, are never once spoken of, in the new-testament, as a presbytery; nor is the word, [...], ever used by any ancient writer (as Mr. Boyse observes) to signify the bench of apostles. Far from this, when met together in council at Jerusalem, upon a special occasion, with the elders, they are carefully and particularly distinguished from them, every time they are mentioned.^‡ Nor can it well be imagined, if the other apostles had joined with Paul in laying their hands on Timothy, either for imparting the holy Ghost, or separating him to the gospel-ministry, that this humble apostle would have omitted mentioning their names, since he so expressly mentions his own. Besides, there is not the least reason to think, that either all, or most, or any considerable number of the apostles were together at this time. 'Tis far more likely, from the history we have in the acts of their travels, and dispersions from each other, that Paul only was now present, and that the pres­bytery that laid their hands on Timothy was not the company of apostles, but such [Page 42] presbyters as they had constituted in the se­veral churches.

BUT should it be supposed, that the apos­tles were now together, and that this pres­bytery was the assembly of apostles, it would be of no real service to the episcopal cause. For 'tis plain, they acted not, in their apostolical character, but as presbyters. Why else are they called a presbytery? It cannot reasonably be thought, if the holy Ghost intended to declare, in this text, that Timothy was ordained by apostolical au­thority, and not that which is vested in pres­byters, he would so expressly have spoken of the apostles as acting in this affair as a presbytery. It should rather seem evident from hence, that the work they now did was common and ordinary, and such as might be done by these officers, under whose style they are represented as perform­ing this action.

FINALLY, it is pleaded, that Timothy was vested with his office by the laying on of the apostle Paul's hands, while the con­sistory of presbyters, by imposing their's, only gave their concurring approbation. And for the proof of this we are turned to 2 Tim. i. 6. where Paul, calling upon Ti­mothy "to stir up the gift that was in him," [Page 43] adds, "which is in thee by the putting on of my hands."

THE answer is easy. This same apostle attributes as much to the hands of the pres­bytery in 1 Tim. 4.14. as he does to his own hands in the place referred to in his second epistle; and consequently there is just the same reason to say, that the pres­bytery ordained Timothy, as that Paul or­dained him. Besides, it cannot be reaso­nably supposed, that an inspired apostle should permit a number of presbyters to join with him in the sacred solemnity of imposing hands, if they had not a right, as officers in the church of Christ, to perform this action; and their performing it is a sure argument of their right to do the thing intended by it, that is, to separate a person to the work of the gospel-ministry: As they that have a right to apply water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, have a right to baptise; and they that have a right to set apart bread and wine, and distribute it to the people, have a right to administer the Lord's supper.

BUT the truth of the matter is, it is far from being evident, that Paul imposed hands with the presbytery in Timothy's ordination; and I am strongly inclined to [Page 44] think he did not. The gift the apostle speaks of, in his second epistle to Timothy, which, says he, "is in thee by the putting on of my hands," was undoubtedly the gift of the holy Ghost in miraculous powers; but whatever the gift was, it was imparted by the apostle's own hands. Not a word is said of the presbytery, or any person whatever, as joining with him, not so much as in a way of concurring approba­tion. Whereas, in the passage we are now considering, recorded in the first epistle, the thing that was done, whatever it was, was done with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Their hands only are mentioned, not a word is drop'd insinuating that Paul's hands were joined with theirs. It is therefore highly probable, if not cer­tain, that Paul imposed hands on Timothy to confer the gift of the holy Ghost, which was usually, if not always, done by some apostle in this way; and that the presbytery afterwards laid on their hands for another purpose, that of separating him to the work of the ministry, which also was usually done in this way.

OR if it should be still said, that Paul laid hands on Timothy at the same time the presbytery imposed their's, he did it prin­cipally that through his hands, being an apostle, the holy Ghost might be imparted [Page 45] to him; they, that he might, in the ordi­nary method, be separated to the gospel-ministry. So that, in either of these ways, we have an evident instance of ordination by presbyters. In the former, they were sole ordainers; in the latter, ordainers in partnership with the apostle Paul.

I CAN'T help saying here, if, instead of, "the laying on of the hands of the pres­bytery," it had been wrote, "the lay­ing on of the hands of the episcopate," our opponents would have triumphed in having an unexceptionable instance of episcopal ordination. But this occasion of glorying is happily taken away. And it is remarkable, tho' we have examples, in scripture, of ordination by both extraor­dinary and ordinary officers, by apostles, by prophets, by evangelists, by teachers or common pastors and presbyters; yet we no where read of an ordination by any person under the name of a bishop. There is a total silence throughout the new-testa­ment upon this head. This observation, to use the words of your worthy Divinity-professor, in a book of his, relative to this controversy, wrote near 40 years ago, enti­tled, "sober remarks," and which I would recommend to your diligent perusal, "This observation, says he, ^* ‘may perhaps draw [Page 46] some weak persons into doubts about the validity of episcopal ordination.—But the truth of the case is, that bishops and presbyters are one and the same order by divine institution; and that they succeed the apostles, in all their ordinary powers, of which that of ordination is one; which is warrant enough for ordi­nation by presbyters, and the very same warrant which those have for it, who are now, by custom and human consti­tution, dignified and distinguished with the title of bishops.’

I HAVE now considered the argument at first proposed, in all its parts. And the sum of what has been said, that we may have it in one view, is this; that the apos­tles of Christ, in consequence of their com­mission from him, and as acting under the inspiration of the holy Ghost, constituted and settled in the church, besides the order of deacons, no more than one order of fixed pastors; that they promiscuously point out the pastors of this one order by the names bishop and presbyter, sometimes using the former, sometimes the latter, and meaning by either precisely these pastors of one and the same order; and finally that they give us abundant reason to believe, that these pastors of this one order were [Page 47] endowed particularly with the power of ordination, instances whereof they have left upon sacred record. The conclusion from which premises, if they have been clearly and fully evidenced to be true, as I trust they have, is unquestionably this, that ordination by presbyters, according to the usual method in these churches, is safe and valid, because agreeable to the holy scriptures, and warranted by them.

BUT notwithstanding all that has been offered in proof of the point we have been upon, it ought not, it is acknowledged, to be received as truth, unless the contrary evidence can fairly be set aside. This therefore makes it necessary to consider what is pleaded on the other side of the question. And this I shall now do, giving what is said its full strength, so far as I am able. For if the counter-evidence, in it's full weight, will not admit of a just and solid answer, we ought, in all reason, to esteem the above proof to be defective, how plausible soever it may appear in a separate view.

THE first thing said in favor of the supe­riority of bishops to presbyters, and in vin­dication of their claim to the powers of ordination and government is, that they [Page 48] are successors to the apostles, and derive from them this superiority of order and power.

THE answer is ready. The apostles, as such, were extraordinary officers, and had no successors. They received their commission immediately from Christ, their charge was unlimited, their province the whole world. They were, by office, the teachers of all nations, had power to gather churches every where, to settle them with proper officers, to inspect over them, and give binding rules and orders for the good government of them; and all this, under the infallible guidance of the holy Ghost. It will not be pretended, I trust, that bi­shops, in these respects, are successors to the apostles. In their proper apostolic cha­racter, they were far exalted above all bi­shops. As the great Dr. Barrow expresses it, (to adapt his words to the present case) ‘It would be a disparagement to an apos­tle to take upon him the bishoprick of Rome; as it would be to the king, to become mayor of London; or to the bi­shop of London, to become vicar of Pan­crass.’ The apostolic office, as such, was personal and temporary; not succes­sive and communicable: Neither did the apostles communicate it. Those parts in­deed [Page 49] of their office which were ordinary, and intended for perpetual use, such as feeding the church of God with the word and sacraments, and restraining them within the rules of good order, were communica­ted from them to others. We have accor­dingly seen, that they appointed standing pastors in the churches, vesting them with all the powers proper for the work of the ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ. And in a lax sense, these may be called suc­cessors to the apostles, as having derived their power from them in Christ's name. And in this loose sense only may bishops be said to be successors to the apostles. They certainly do not succeed them in their office, considered as apostolic; but in such powers of it only as are ordinary and communica­ble. And here they are perfectly upon a par with common pastors or presbyters, unless it can be proved, that the apostles in communicating these powers, made a dif­ference, committing some to a superior or­der called bishops, and others to an inferior one described by the name of presbyters. This is what we may reasonably expect to see evidenced. The new-testament is o­pen. If it contains any such evidence, let it be produced. We imagine it contains clear evidence of the contrary, and that we have given such evidence. Meerly the cal­ling [Page 50] bishops successors to the apostles won't prove their superiority; tho', by the way, they are never so called in the sacred books. And should it be allowed, that the fathers, in after times, speak of them in this stile, it can be in a loose sense only; meaning, that apostolic power had been communica­ted to them, tho' what that power was, can never be determined meerly by their being called the apostles successors. The bible only can settle this point.

IT is further said, in defence of the epis­copal scheme, that Timothy and Titus were bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete, meaning hereby officers of a rank superior to the other pastors of the churches in those places, with whom, as such, were lodged the powers of ordination and juris­diction.

'TIS reply'd, they are neither of them called bishops any where in the new-testa­ment. This name, 'tis true, is given them in the postscripts to the epistles that are di­rected to them. But I need not say, that these postscripts are after-additions, and not very ancient ones neither. This is suffici­ently known to all men of learning, who accordingly lay no stress upon them. 'Tis true likewise, that they are called bishops, [Page 51] the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete, by the fathers; but not by the more primitive ones. Dr. Whitby honestly confesses, ^‡ that "he could not find, within the three first centuries, any intimations that they bore this name." He adds indeed, "this defect is abundantly supplyed by the con­current suffrage of the 4th and 5th centuries." But these were times too far distant from Timothy and Titus to be rely'd on for the truth of this fact; especially, as, in these times, they had greatly departed from the simplicity of the gospel. And 'tis observa­ble, Eusebius, the great source of primitive ecclesiastical history, only says, "it is re­ported," [...] ^* dicitur, "that Timo­thy was bishop of Ephesus, and Titus bishop of Crete." And he has himself taught us, how far we may depend upon this report, by what he tells us a little be­fore, ^§ "that he could trace no foot-steps of others going before him, only in a few narratives." And the suffrage of these cen­turies is the less to be regarded, in this par­ticular, because it does not agree with the scripture-account of Timothy and Titus. Timothy is expressly called "an evangelist," 2 Tim. iv. 6. And his work, as such, was in­consistent with his being the bishop of Ephe­sus, or any other church. The business of [Page 52] an evangelist, as Eusebius ^‡ justly represents it, was, ‘to lay the foundation of faith in strange nations, to constitute them pastors; and, having committed to them the cul­tivating those new plantations, to pass on to other countries and nations.’ And this description of evangelists perfectly a­grees with what the scripture says both of Timothy and Titus. They evidently ap­pear to have been itinerant missionaries, not settled pastors. To be sure, they sustained no fixed relation to the churches of Ephesus and Crete, and consequently were not the bishops of them; for they continually went about from place to place, as the service of the churches made it necessary, and were as long, and it may be longer, in other churches than those that are said to be their settled charge. And would any man, as Mr. Boyse expresses it,^† "call him the fixt bishop of London that should only perform the episcopal functions there for a year or two, but for twenty or thirty years is found to perform the same episcopal functions in most other dioceses of England, nay in ma­ny dioceses in France, Spain and Italy?" Can such an itinerary ministry as this con­sist with a man's fixt relation to a particu­lar church, which enjoys no more of his labors and care than twenty or thirty churches more?

[Page 53]BUT the strength of the argument from Timothy and Titus chiefly lies in this, that they were charged with the management of ordination at Ephesus and Crete. Titus particularly was left in Crete with a profes­sed view to his ordaining elders in the cities there. The answer is, it will not from hence follow, that they were vested with an exclusive power of ordination. I argue upon the matter thus; either elders had been settled before this in the churches at Ephesus and Crete, or they had not; and whether our opponents proceed upon the former, or latter of these suppositions, their reasoning is inconclusive.

IF elders had been settled in these chur­ches, the consequence is far from being just, Timothy and Titus were particularly en­trusted with the affair of ordination in these churches, therefore the power was in them exclusive of the standing pastors. By this way of arguing, they must have been sole preachers, as well as ordainers; for they are as particularly charged to do the work of preaching, as that of ordaining. And by this same method of reasoning, the church of Rome must be justified in their plea for Peter's supremacy; for there are not wanting texts of scripture, in which he is particularly apply'd to, and charged with [Page 54] instructions and orders without mentioning the other apostles. The plain truth is, as these evangelists were assistants to the a­postles, and left in those churches extraor­dinarily qualified to supply their place, it was proper they should have particularly committed to them the chief management of ordination, and all other affairs pertain­ing to the kingdom of Christ, while they continued among them. But how does this prove, that, when they were gone, as was soon the case, this same work might not be done by the standing pastors? Or that the standing pastors might not, or that they did not, join with them in doing it, while they were actually present? 'Tis far more probable that they did, than that they did not. Timothy's ordination by the consistory of presbyters would natural­ly put him upon going into the like prac­tice. To be sure, some positive good evi­dence ought to be given, that he did not, and that the power of ordination was solely and exclusively vested in him.

THE other supposition was that of there being no settled pastors in these churches, when these instructions were given to Ti­mothy and Titus. And in this view of the fact, I see not but the dispute must be at [...] ended; for their being directed to or­dain [Page 55] pastors in churches that as yet had none, can't possibly prove, that these pas­tors, when ordained, might not ordain o­thers also. And perhaps this is the real truth of the case. I am well assured, it will be found, upon trial, to be an insupe­rable task to make it appear, that either of these churches, at this time, were settled with pastors. They were, most probably, in the same imperfect state with the chur­ches of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, be­fore Barnabas and Paul, upon their return to them, ordained them elders. And, it may be, as Dr. Benson well observes, ^* most of the churches the apostle Paul writes to were in the same imperfect unsettled state, at the time when he wrote to them.

I SHALL only add here, as Timothy and Titus were evangelists, they had no succes­sors; or if they had, fixed bishops could not be their successors. Nor will it follow, be­cause these evangelists were left at Ephesus and Crete to manage the affair of ordination, that therefore bishops, any more than pres­byters, have this power. It must first be proved, and upon the foot of good evidence, that bishops, meaning hereby officers in the church superior to presbyters, were fix­ed [Page 56] in those places, and that the ordaining power was lodged with them, to the exclu­sion of presbyters; which has never yet been done, and I am fully persuaded never will.

IT is pleaded yet further, that the angels of the seven Asian churches, in the book of the Revelation, were bishops; that is, such bishops as the present argument is con­cerned with, or they are mentioned to no purpose. But how does it appear, that these angels were bishops in this sense? If the word is here used collectively, meaning the pastors of these churches, and not a single one in each church, the argument is at once superseded. And it ought to be thus understood. Such an exposition best agrees with the manner of speaking thro'­out this whole book, in which like words are commonly used in this collective sense. Nor, unless the word is thus interpreted, will the other pastors of these churches have any concern in the messages that are sent to the churches, which it would be highly unreasonable to suppose. But, if every one of these angels should be allowed to mean a single person, how will it follow here­from, that they were bishops vested with the sole power of ordination and govern­ment in these churches? The word angel [Page 57] carries in it's meaning nothing that im­ports this; nor is there any thing said, in the epistles themselves, from whence it can be deduced. The argument therefore must be wholly grounded on this, that these an­gels are singled out, and particularly wrote to. But this they might be, supposing there was no greater distinction between them and the other pastors, than between Peter and the other apostles; between rec­tors and curates; between an assembly of equal ministers and their praeses. In short, it must be proved by other evidence than what is contained in the word angel, or the application of this word to a single person, if proved at all, that bishops were hereby intended, meaning by bishops of­ficers in these churches endowed with the sole power of ordination and govern­ment; which evidence has never yet been produced.

THE last plea, and that which is trium­phed in as decisive, is the suffrage of all antiquity in favor of bishops, as an order of men in the church superior to presbyters, to whom belonged the powers of ordina­tion and government.

BUT, before I come to this plea, it may be proper just to observe, that we are now [Page 58] disputing against the episcopal scheme, and particularly that branch of it, the confining ordination to bishops, not as a meer eccle­siastical appointment, a prudential expe­dient; but as an institution of Jesus Christ, and an institution of his essentially connec­ted with the validity of gospel-administra­tions. And in this view of the matter, the demand, we imagine, is highly reasonable, "what saith the scripture?" It is to little purpose to tell us of the fathers, and that it is uninterruptedly handed down from them as a fact, that bishops were superior to pres­byters, and had the sole right of ordination. This cannot make episcopal-ordination ne­cessary to the validity of gospel-ordinances. It must be constituted necessary, if so at all, by the revelations of God, and in fair and legible characters too. We may, with all reason, expect to find both the constitution itself, and it's necessity, delivered in the sacred books, not by innuendoes, far-fetch'd arguments, or probable conjectures; but with so much positive clearness, and express affirmation, as to leave no reasonable room for doubt. And there would now be no need of testimonies from the fathers. It would indeed be dishonorary to the sacred scriptures, and a gross reflection on them as not being a perfect and sufficient rule, if we might not, without traditionary helps from [Page 59] the elders, depend on them for the essen­tials of salvation. And, considering the sentiments of our Saviour concerning the traditions handed down to the Jews from their elders, this kind of tradition seems to be one of the last things suitable to be re­curred to, in order to our knowing what is necessarily connected with true christia­nity.

HAVING remark'd this, I come to consi­der the plea that is so much gloried in, as carrying with it even demonstration. And, that it might lose none of its strength, I shall give it you in the words of the cele­brated bishop Hoadly, who has wrote, per­haps, in as masterly a way, upon this side of the controversy, as any who have hand­led it. In his book entitled, "The rea­sonableness of conformity to the church of England," in order to prove, "that the apostles left the power of ordaining presby­ters in the hands of fix'd bishops," he says,^* ‘This being a matter of fact, past many ages ago, the only method by which we can come to the knowledge of it, is the testimony of writers who liv'd in that, and the following ages. And there is the more reason to rely upon their testi­mony in this case, because this is a matter of a simple, uncompounded nature, per­fectly [Page 60] within their knowledge; not stand­ing in need of any curious niceness of learning, or reasoning, but level to all capacities; a matter in which they might very easily have been contradicted, had they represented it falsly; and a mat­ter in which they could not in the first ages be biass'd by Interest. And here— I think I may say, that we have as univer­sal and as unanimous a testimony of all writers, and historians from the apostles days, as could reasonably be expected, or desired: Every one who speaks of the government of the church in any place, witnessing that episcopacy was the settled form; and every one who hath occasion to speak of the original of it, tracing it up to the apostles days, and fixing it up­on their decree; and what is very remar­kable, no one contradicting this, either of the friends or enemies to christianity, either of the orthodox, or heretical, thro' those ages, in which only such assertions concerning this matter of fact could well be disprov'd.’ — ‘Were there only testi­monies to be produc'd, that this was the government of the church in all ages, it would be but reasonable to conclude it of apostolical institution; it being so highly improbable that so material a point should be established without their [Page 61] advice or decree, when we find the chur­ches consulting them upon every occa­sion, and upon matters not of greater importance than this. But when we find the same persons witnessing not only that the government of the church was episcopal, but that it was of apostolical institution, and delivered down from the beginning as such, this adds weight to the matter, and makes it more undoubt­ed. So that here are two points to which they bear witness, that this was the government of the church in their days, and that it was of apostolical insti­tution. And in these there is such a con­stancy, and unanimity, that even St. Je­rome himself (who was born near 250 years after the apostles, and is the chief person in all that time whom the presby­terians cite for any purpose of their's) traces up episcopacy to the very apostles, and makes it of their institution; and in the very place where he most exalts pres­byters, he excepts ordination as a work always peculiar to bishops.’ — He says, a little further on ^‡ — ‘The testimony we speak of, is not concerning the apos­tolical institution of the exorbitant power claimed by later bishops, or of any ex­ternal ensigns of worldly grandeur, or riches appropriated to them: But meerly [Page 62] of the institution of one person to ordain and govern presbyters, within such or such a district, and according to the de­sign and rules of christianity.’ —He adds, ^† ‘All churches and christians, as far as we know, seem to have been agreed in this point, amidst all their other diffe­rences, as universally as can well be imagined.’

HAD I met with this representation of ancient testimony in a declamatory second­hand writer, who knew little himself, and only retailed, in a flourishing manner, what he had heard from this and the other party-zealot, it would not have been surprising; but it really was so, to find a truly great and deservedly renowned author bringing in the ancient fathers, universally, unani­mously, and constantly affirming it to be fact, and this in all ages from the apostles, that "the government of the church was episcopal," and "of apostolical institution;" yea, and that it was "of apostolical insti­tution too, that one person should ordain and govern presbyters within a certain dis­trict." One would imagine, from this re­presentation, that, if the writings of the fathers were consulted, episcopacy, both the thing, and the divine institution of it, would so glaringly appear to have been [Page 63] acknowledged by all the fathers, in all ages from the beginning, that there would be no room left for the least debate upon the matter.

AND is this the truth of fact? We shall soon see whether it is, or no. In order whereto let it be observed.

A DISTINCTION ought always to be made between the two first centuries, and the succeeding ones for the difference be­tween the writers in these centuries, as witnesses in the present cause, is both obviously and certainly very great. Per­haps, due attention has not been given to this distinction by the disputants on either side of the question in debate. Sir Peter King's "account of the primitive church," is, it may be, as impartial an one as any extant; but it would, as I apprehend, have been less faulty, and more perfect, if he had kept in his eye this distinction thro' the whole of his work. Nor have any of the writers on our side of the dispute, so far as I have had opportunity to read them, ma­naged the cause with the advantage they might have done, if they had particularly pointed out the difference between the two first and following centuries, and made the use of it they might have done to their purpose.

[Page 64]IT is readily acknowledged, the name bishop, towards the close of the second cen­tury began to be an appropriated term; signifying something more than the word presbyter. In the third century, and on­wards, the appropriation was common. Bishop and presbyter pointed out officers in the church distinct from each other; tho' to say precisely what, and how great, this distinction was, will, I believe, be found to be exceeding difficult. It was undoubtedly small at first. The bishop was no more than "primus interpares," the "head-presbyter," the "praeses" of the consistory. And it was by gradual steps that he attained to that dignity and power with which he was af­terwards vested. Those ecclesiastical su­periorities and inferiorities which have, for a long time, been visible in the christian world, were unknown in the first and purest ages. Nor did they at once take place. It was the work of time. From prime-presbyters arose city-bishops; from city-bishops, diocesan ones; from diocesan bishops, metropolitans; from metropolitans, patriarchs; and finally, at the top of all, his holiness the pope, claiming the cha­racter of universal head of the church. But to return to the distinction between bishops and presbyters in the centuries im­mediately following the second. And it is [Page 65] own'd, there was a distinction between them; but, at the same time, utterly de­nied, that the fathers are universal, and unanimous, in affirming it for fact, that it was a distinction importing a superiority of order, or that it was of apostolical institu­tion. The learned professor Jameson, in [...] Cyprianus Isotimus, is positive in decla­ring, ^* that even "Cyprian did not be­lieve the divine right of episcopacy;" and that "he, with his colleagues, most clearly depose, that bishop and presbyter, are, by Christ's institution, reciprocally one and the same." More full to our purpose is what I find related, in Calamy's defence of non-conformity,^‡ from the renowned Dr. Ray­nolds. The account is, "Dr. Bancroft, afterwards Arch-bishop of Canterbury, preaching at Paul's cross, told his auditory, that Acrius was condemned of heresy, with the consent of the universal church, for asserting that there was no difference, by divine right, between a bishop and a pres­byter; and that the puritans were condem­ned, by the church, in Aerius. The fa­mous Sir Francis Knolls, being surprised at such doctrine, to which they were not in that day, so much used as we have been since, wrote to the learned Dr. John Ray­nolds, who was universally reckoned the wonder of his age, to desire his sense about [Page 66] the matter. The Doctor wrote him word in answer, that even Bellarmine the Jesuit owned the weakness of the answer of Epi­phanius to the argument of Aerius; that Austin esteemed the assertion of Aerius he­retical, meerly because he found it so re­presented by Epiphanius; and that Austin himself owned, that there was no difference between a bishop and a presbyter by divine right. He cites also bishop Jewel, who, when Harding had asserted the same thing as Dr. Bancroft, alledged against him Chry­sostom, Austin, Jerom, and Ambrose. He mentions, from Medina, several other an­cient fathers; and further adds himself, Oecumenius, Anselm arch-bishop of Can­terbury, another Anselm, Gregory, and Gratian." And bishop Stillingfleet, who appears to have been as well read in the fathers as any man in his day, or since, free­ly says, ^* "I believe, upon the strictest enquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Jerom, Austin, Ambrose, Sedu­lius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judgment, as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church." And again, a little onwards, ^† "I do as yet despair of finding any one single testimony in all antiquity, which doth in plain terms assert episcopacy, as it [Page 67] was settled by the practice of the primitive church, in the ages following the apostles, to be of unalterable divine right." If any regard is to be paid to the judgment of these celebrated writers, who had made it their business to study the fathers, one would think there was reason, at least, to suspect, whether the evidence in favor of episcopacy, as an apostolical institution, is so universal and constant as has been affirmed.

BUT, leaving these later centuries, let us go back to the two first. And we may, with the more pertinency, do this, as the famous bishop, whose plea we are consider­ing, has said, ^‡ ‘We do not argue meerly from the testimony of so late writers as these (meaning Jerom and Austin) that episcopacy is of apostolical institution. We grant it doth not follow, St. Jerom thought so, therefore it is so. But wri­ters of all ages in the church witness, that this was the government in their days; that it was instituted by the apostles, and delivered down as such. All that we produce St. Jerom for in this case, is that it was in his time, and that he believed it to be apostolical, and received it as such: But without the testimony of the ages before him, I should not esteem this a sufficient argument that it was really so.’

[Page 68]AND do the fathers, in the two first ages, witness what they are thus peremptorily said to do? I was at the pains, in my younger years, to read these fathers, par­ticularly with a view to this controversy, and am obliged to say, upon my own knowledge of the matter, that the above representation is really a mistake, and a very great one too; which I candidly attribute to inattention, or some undiscerned preju­dice of mind. Would the time permit, I could give you the whole of what is said, relative to the plea before us, by Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexan­dria, all writers in the two first centuries, and satisfy you from the very words of these fathers themselves, that they give no such evidence as is here pretended. But it must suffice to say at present,

THAT, Ignatius only excepted, the fa­thers, within the two first centuries, united­ly concur in speaking of bishops and pres­byters much in the same language with the sacred scriptures. They never once say, either in so many words, or in words from whence it can fairly be collected, that bi­shops were an order in the church superior to that of presbyters; they never once say, that ordination was the work of bishops in [Page 69] distinction from presbyters; they never once say, that episcopacy was the govern­ment in the church, or that it was institu­ted either by Christ himself, or any of his apostles; nor do they ever say, that it was so handed down to them from the begin­ing. Far from this, unless it strangely slipt my observation, which I do not in the least suspect it did, Clement of Alexandria, who flourished towards the close of the se­cond century, is the first father (Ignatius excepted) who used that mode of speech, "bishops, presbyters and deacons." And the terms seem not even then to have lost their promiscuous use; for this same Cle­ment, speaking of one under the name of a bishop, calls him, in the same sentence, the presbyter.^* Irenaeus, 'tis true, a few years before, once uses that form of expres­sion, "bishops and presbyters." His words are,^† "Paul called together to Mile­tus the bishops and presbyters of Ephesus." But, as the learned Mr. Jameson very justly observes, ^‡ "for his seeming here to distin­guish bishops from presbyters, this scripture where they got both names, and which I­renaeus then had in view, and his frequent promiscuous using of these names, persuade me that he only respected the 19th and 28th [Page 70] verses, and so took bishop and presbyter synonimically (as the apostle Paul did) for one and the same."

I MADE the remark, while upon the ar­gument from scripture, that no instance was to be met with there of an ordination, by any person under the name of a bishop. I now add, neither have I been able to find an instance of ordination under the like name and meaning by it a bishop as distin­guished from a presbyter, in any writer till we come to the times when it is owned, a distinction obtained between these officers of the church. Episcoparians have some­times, with an air of triumph, called for an instance of presbyterian ordination for some hundreds of years after Christ. If they will be pleased to favor us with only one exam­ple of episcopal ordination, in their sense of it, within the time above-described, which is a very considerable space; longer, counting from Christ, than from the first settlement of this country to the present day, we will take it into consideration, and give so notable a discovery all the weight it deserves. In the mean time, we hope to be excused, if we do not believe it to be a fact, either universally, or unanimously, or constantly handed down from the days of the apostles, that single persons, meaning [Page 71] hereby bishops as distinguished from pres­byters, exercised the ordaining power with­in such and such districts, or that they were ever vested with a right, by apostoli­cal institution, so to do. We rather think, there is no just reason to affirm this to be fact, upon the testimony of any one genuine writer whatever, within the limits we are now speaking of.

THE plain truth is, no more can be col­lected from the writings of the fathers, till toward the close of the second century, or the coming in of the third, in favor of epis­copacy, than from the scriptures themselves. And were it proper to settle the controver­sy by an appeal to the general suffrage of these writers, I should willingly put it on that issue; as being fully persuaded, that the advantage would lie on our side of the question, as much as if it was to be deter­mined by the scriptures only.

IT is readily owned, the epistles ascribed to Ignatius, a truly primitive father, do as certainly, as strongly, and as constantly distinguish bishops from presbyters, as any of the writings of the third or fourth cen­turies. But this we esteem of little weight in the present cause, as there is so much reason to think, that these epistles are not [Page 72] his genuine works. If he wrote these epis­tles (which, by the way, is far from being a point beyond dispute) it is not in the least probable, that they came out of his hands as they now appear. The Usserian and Vossian copies, the only ones their great ad­vocate, bishop Pearson, pretends, in his "Vindiciae Ignatianae," [...]o defend, carry in them too many, and too notorious, evi­dences of interpolation to induce a belief, in any unprejudiced mind, that it is always the true primitive Ignatius that is the wri­ter. For my own part, I esteem it an easy thing to reduce it to an high degree of mo­ral certainty, that these epistles, even in their purest editions, contain such unques­tionable marks of a later date than the times of Ignatius, that they ought never to be mentioned in this, or any other contro­versy, unless to prove that religious cheat and knavery were in practice so far back as the days of the fathers. Instead of going into the proof of what I have now said, which would put me upon trying your pa­tience beyond all reasonable bounds, I shall refer you to the two celebrated French mi­nisters, Daille and L'arrogue, on our side of the question, and the celebrated bishops, Beveredge and Pearson on the other; in whose writings you will find antiquity ran­sack'd, and every thing said upon the mat­ter, [Page 73] that learning or good sense can suggest. Read them carefully (they are to be found in the College-library) and judge for your­selves.

I TRUST, I may now say, it has been made sufficiently clear, from the positive evidence that has been exhibited in the for­mer part of this discourse, and from its not being invalidated, but rather strengthened, by the counter-evidence we have examined in the latter part, that the power of ordi­nation was not deposited in the hands of bishops as distinguished from presbyters; but that bishops or presbyters, meaning by these terms one and the same order of of­ficers, were vested with power to ordain in the church of Christ; and consequently that ordination by a council of presbyters, as practised by these churches, is valid to all the ends of the gospel-ministry.

THE institution of a lecture, on purpose to vindicate the New-England churches in this method of ordination, may, perhaps, be represented to their disadvantage. Oc­casion may be taken herefrom to insinuate, that the method is novel and peculiar, not practised or approbated by the other reformed protestant churches, any more than by the church of England.

[Page 74]IN order to guard against suggestions of this kind, it it may be proper to let you know, that the protestant churches abroad, in common with our's, far from owning the jus divinum of episcopacy, assert a pa­rity between bishops and presbyters, allow­ing the latter, equally with the former, to perform the work of ordination.

THE churches of this denomination, in Germany, speak fully to the point in their book, entitled, "Liber concordiae," prin­ted at Leipsic in the year 1580, and again in 1612, in which are contained "the con­fession of Augsburg, and the apology for it, the Smalcaldic articles, and Luther's greater and smaller catechisms." One of the "Smalcaldic articles, has these words, ^* "'Tis manifest from the confession of all, our adversaries themselves, that this power [in the foregoing words, the power men­tioned was that of "preaching, dispensing the sacraments, absolution, and jurisdiction"] "is common to all that are set over the churches, whether they be called pastors, presbyters, or bishops. Jerom therefore [Page 75] plainly affirms, that there is no difference between bishop and presbyter; but that every pastor was a bishop.— Here Jerom teaches, that the distinction of degrees be­tween a bishop, and a presbyter or pastor, was only appointed by human authority. And the matter itself declares no less; for, on bishop and presbyter is laid the same du­ty, and the same injunction. And only or­dination, in AFTER TIMES, made the difference between bishop and pastor.—By divine right there is no difference between bishop and pastor." Mr. Boyse mentions the following words as further contained in this article, ^‡ "Since bishops and pastors are not different degrees by divine right, 'tis manifest, that ORDINATION, perfor­med by a pastor in his own church, is VA­LID." It is remarkable, the articles composed at Smalcald, of which the fore­going is one, were subscribed by three elec­tors, the prince Palatine, and the electors of Saxony and Brandenburg; by forty-five dukes, marquesses, counts, and barons; by the consuls and senators of thirty-five cities; by [...], Melancton, Bucer, Fagius, and many other noted divines. The number of ministers who signed these articles, as it has been computed, was eight thousand.^†

[Page 76]THE other protestant churches as plain­ly assert the equality of all pastors, in point of divine right; as appears from their "public confessions of faith," which are, without all doubt, a truer and more authen­tic standard of their doctrine, than the pri­vate sentiments of this or the other particu­lar person, however noted or learned. In the "confession of the churches of Helve­tia," it is expressly said, ^* ONE and that EQUAL POWER and office is given to all ministers in the church. Certainly from the beginning, bishops or presbyters gover­ned the church with a common care. None set himself above another, or usurped a larger power or dominion over his fellow-bishops.—Nevertheless, for order's sake, one or other of the ministers called the assembly together, proposed matters to be consulted on in the meeting, gathered the opinions of the rest, and finally took care, as much as in him lay, to prevent confusion. So St. Peter is said to have done in the acts of [Page 77] the apostles, who notwithstanding WAS NOT SET OVER THE REST, NOR VES­TED WITH GREATER POWER." This confession is the more worthy of notice, as it contains virtually the sense of most of the protestant churches, besides those we have already mentioned; for it was sub­scribed, not only by the church of Helve­tia, but by the churches of Scotland, Po­land, Hungary, Geneva, Neocome, Myll­husium, &c. as is expressly declared in the preface that introduces it.

CONSONANT hereto is the confession of the French church, presented to Charles the ninth. Their thirtieth article runs thus, "We believe, that all true pastors, where­ever they are placed, are endued with E­QUAL POWER under that only head, the chief and sole universal bishop: And there­fore no church ought to claim an empire or domination over any other church." ^*

THE Belgic confession is much the same. Their thirty-first article says, — "As con­cerning the ministers of the word of God, [Page 78] in whatever place they are, they have all the SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY, as being all the ministers of Christ, that only universal bishop and head of the church."^†

TO these may be added the Waldenses and Albigenses, of whom Alphonsus de Castro relates, "that they denied any dif­ference between bishop and presbyter, and herein differed nothing from Aerius;" which also may be learnt from Thuan, who compares them with "the English non-conformists." The Waldenses were in this, as in the rest of their articles, followed by J. Huss, and his adherents, who also asser­ted, "there ought to be no difference be­tween bishops and presbyters, or among priests." Yea, so universal hath this doc­trine, of the identity of bishop and presbyter, been, that it hath, all along, by the Ro­manists, been reckoned a prime doctrine of Rome's opposers. ^‡

'TIS readily acknowledged, in most of the protestant churches there are ecclesiasti­cal officers, who bear the style of bishops, super-intendants, inspectors, or seniors; as [Page 79] may be seen in Stillingfleet's "Irenicum," where these churches are all mentioned by name: But, as that learned author observes, "all these reformed churches acknowledge no such thing as a divine right of episco­pacy, but stifly maintain Jerom's opinion of the primitive equality of gospel-mini­sters" ^*. Nor could they consistently do any other; for they have, at bottom, no o­ther than presbyterian ordination among them. "Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Melancton, Bugenhagius," &c. and all the first refor­mers and founders of these churches, who ordained ministers among them, were them­selves presbyters, and no other. And tho', in some of these churches, there are mini­sters which are called super-intendants, or bishops; yet these are only "primi inter pares," the first among equals; not preten­ding to any superiority of order. Having themselves no other orders than what either presbyters gave them, as were given them as presbyters, they can convey no other to those they ordain. ^†

[Page 80]OUR adversaries indeed do themselves, when they speak out their mind, freely tell us, that "all the trans-marine reformed churches are really presbyterian." Dr. Heylin, upon this account, thro' a large folio, bespatters, with the blackest of rail­ings and calumnies, every one of the refor­med churches in particular. Howel also makes Calvin "the first broacher of the presbyterian religion." And says, "Geneva lake swallowed up the episcopal see; and church lands were made secular, which was the white they levelled at. This Geneva bird flew thence to France, and hatched the Huguenots, which make about a tenth part of that people. It took wing also to Bohe­mia and Germany, high and low, as the Palatinate, the land of Hesse, and the confe­derate provinces of the States of Holland."^†

IF, to the protestant churches that have been mentioned, we add the congregational dissenting brethren in England, who, at the revolution, are supposed to have made nearly two thousand churches; the large body of presbyterian dissenters in the north of Ireland; as also the dissenters of other denominations in Britain, the united pro­vinces, and other parts of Europe, who are all of one mind as to the right of presbyters to ordain: — I say, if we add all these to­gether, [Page 81] they will make a number vastly greater than that which constitutes the e­piscopal church of England, should we take into the computation every member of this church. But should we leave out of the reckoning those, who live in love and har­mony with dissenters, esteeming their ordi­nations valid, tho' not according to the established form, and bring such only into the account, who are so strenuous for the jus divinum of episcopacy as to nullify all ordinations, unless by a bishop, in their sense of the word, they will sink into a number too inconsiderable to be mentioned in comparison with the many, who differ from them in their sentiments. Not that we rely upon numbers. The scriptures only can determine, what is truth in the present debate. But still, it is a satisfaction to us, that our ordinations are such as agree with the declared sentiments of almost the whole protestant world. And our satisfaction is the greater, as we have so much reason to believe, that they agree with the principles even of the church of England itself, at the beginning of the reformation, and for some time afterwards.

THE generality of it's pious and learned divines in those days, whether of higher or lower dignity, were far from insisting [Page 82] on the divine right of episcopacy; as may be seen in quotations, from their writings to this purpose, by the celebrated Stillingfleet. ^* And it is worthy of of special notice here, in Henry the eighth's time, when things were tending to a refor­mation, the arch-bishops, bishops, arch-deacons, and clergy of England, in their book intitled, "the instruction of a chri­stian man," subscribed with all their hands and dedicated to the king an. 1537; and king Henry himself, in his book stiled, "a necessary crudition for any christian man," approved by both houses of parliament, prefaced with his own epistle, and published by his command, expressly resolve, "that priests and bishops by God's law are one and the same, and that the power of ordi­nation and excommunication belongs e­qually to them both." ^† Herewith, it may be further noted, agrees the manuscript mentioned by bishop Stillingfleet, in which archbishop Cranmer, one of the assembly, called together by the special command of king Edward sixth, in answer to his questions, has these words, ^‡ bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but one office in the beginning of Christ's religion." The bishop of A [...]ph, Therleby, Redman, and Cox were all of [Page 83] the same opinion with the arch-bishop; and the two latter expressly cite the opinion of Jerom with approbation. Upon which the learned writer, to whom we are in­debted for this account observes, ^* "Thus we see by the testimony chiefly of him, who was instrumental in our reformation, that he owned not episcopacy, as a distinct order from presbytery, of divine right, but only a prudential constitution of the civil magistrate for the better governing in the church." This same arch-bishop Cranmer was "the first of six and forty, who, in the time of king Henry the eighth, affir­med (in a book called "the bishop's book," to be seen in "Fox's martyrology") that "the difference of bishops and presbyters was a device of the ancient fathers, and not mentioned in the scripture." ^‡

IT is indeed beyond dispute, that the e­piscopal form of government was settled, at the reformation, upon a very different foot from that of a jus divinum. How else can it be accounted for, that not only in king Henry the eighth's reign, but likewise in king Edward the sixth's, the bishops took out commissions from the crown, by which they were to hold their bishopricks only during the king's pleasure, and were im­powered [Page 84] powered in the king's name, as his dela­gates, to perform all the parts of the epis­copal function? Archbishop Cranmer, that excellent and holy martyr, set an example to the rest in taking out one of them. ^* This method of acting is certainly better adjusted to a constitution, sounded on poli­cy, than divine right. Nay, as far from the beginning of the reformation as the days of queen Elisabeth, in the articles of religion agreed upon, the English form of church-government was only determined "to be agreeable to God's word;" which ^† had been a very low and diminishing ex­pression, had they looked on it as absolute­ly prescribed in scripture, as the only neces­sary form to be observed in the church.

THE truth is, says Mr. Owen, this notion of the jus divinum of episcopacy, as a su­perior order, was first promoted in the church of England by arch-bishop Land. Dr. Holland, the king's professor of divinity in Oxon, was much offended with him, for asserting it in a disputation for his de­grees. He checked him publicly, and told him, "he went about to make a division between the English, and the other refor­med churches." ^‡

[Page 85]AND it was in this archbishop's time, that the point of re-ordination began to be urged. Through his influence, as Mr. Prin tells us, ^* bishop Hall re-ordained Mr. John Dury, a minister of the reformed church. But the old church of England did not re­quire or practise re-ordination. In king Edward the sixth's time, Peter Martyr, Mar­tin Bucer, and P. Fagius had ecclesiastical preferments in the church of England with­out re-ordination.^† Mr. William Whiting­ham was made dean of Durham, about 1563; tho' ordained by presbyters only. ^‡ In like manner, Mr. Travers, ordained by a presbyter beyond sea, was seven years lecturer at the temple, and had the bishop of London's letter for it. ^§ And even in the reign of king James the first, the vali­dity of ordination by presbyters was not set aside; as appears from the case of the three presbyters that were consecrated bishops for Scotland at London. Before their conse­cration, Dr. Andrews, bishop of Ely, moved the question, "whether they should not be first episcopally ordained presbyters, that they might be capable of being ad­mitted into the order of bishops?" Upon which arch-bishop Bancroft (a most rigid assertor of episcopacy) answered, "there [Page 86] was no need of it, since ordination by pres­byters was valid." The bishop of Ely yeilded; and without repeating their or­dination as presbyters, they were consecra­ted bishops. ^*

HOW far this practice, in the episcopal church, at home, in those days, would be countenanced at present, I don't pretend to determine; but thus much has been said by your highly esteemed divinity-professor, upon a proper occasion; whose words are well worth transcribing here, ‘I cannot learn, whether there has been even in England, to this very day, properly any public and express assertion of the "di­vine right" of prelacy, either by parlia­ment, or convocation. I think no such thing can be found in the thirty-nine ar­ticles, or in the homilies, or in the form of ordination, or in the common prayer-book, &c. Unless it may be thought con­tained in the preface to the book of ordi­nation, where there is a hint that seems to carry such an aspect; but, I believe, will appear too slender a foundation to build upon, in the present case; especial­ly if we remember who were the chief compilers of that book; and what rea­son we have to conclude, they were of the judgment, that "priests and bishops [Page 87] are, by God's law, one and the same"; and that the episcopal dignity is rather by custom, than by divine institution.’ ^*

WHAT has been offered will, I believe, be tho't sufficent to make it evident, that ordination by presbyters is no new thing under the sun, a singularity peculiar to the New-England churches; since we have seen it approved by so many of the prote­stant reformed churches, and by the church of England itself, at least in its first protes­tant and reformed state, and for a considera­ble time afterwards. And had there been an establishment, in those days, putting the power of ordination into the hands of pres­byters, it would have been, according to the then general opinion, as agreeable to scripture, as that which put it into the hands of bishops. Possibly, the latter would not have been the establishment, had it not been for ecclesiastical dignities and reve­nues; which enter not into the jus divinum of the thing.

I SHALL now put an end to the trial of your patience, by speaking a few words to the young gentlemen of the college, who are under tuition in order to their being formed for usefulness, when they go out into the world.

[Page 88]WE have such a question as that in the prophesies of the prophet Jeremiah, "Hath a nation changed their gods, which yet are no gods?" And it beautifully represents the strength of a people's attachment to the religious sentiments and practices of their fore-fathers, the difficulty with which they are wrought upon to depart from them. Even the nations, who have been taught by their ancestors, to worship idol-gods, which, in reality, are no gods, will not easily change the object of their devoti­on. 'Tis not, it is owned, a sufficient plea in favor of any religious principles, or mode of worship, that they are such as were handed down to us from our fathers. They may, notwithstanding, be superstiti­ous, absurd, and sinful. And should this be the case, filial reverence towards the fa­ther of our spirits should take place of the reverence due to the fathers of our flesh. But should they, on the other hand, be consonant to the dictates of uncorrupted reason, and the truth of revelation, 'twould be strange, if posterity should desert them; especially, if, instead of adhereing to them, they should go back to those their progeni­tors had renounced, and were really right in having so done. This, if I mistake not, is a thought well worthy of the attention of [...]sons, who are sent to this collegiate-school [Page 89] to be fitted for public service. We don't advise you to hold fast the religion of your country, meerly because it is the religion of your fathers. This would be to act below your dignity as intelligent and moral agents. But still it deserves, on this account, your serious examination. And we would exhort you to the greatest care and diligence in studying the reasons upon which the religion you have been educated in is grounded; and, in this way, we doubt not but you will, and upon the foot of just and solid conviction, be firmly attached to it. We would particularly recommend it to you thoroughly to enquire into the rea­sons of that "mode of worship," and "form of church order," which your pro­genitors left every thing that was dear to them, in their native land, that they might enjoy themselves in this place of retreat, and transmit to their posterity: Especially would we recommend this to those among you, who are designed for the ministry; and the more exact and critical you are in your enquiries upon this head, the less will be our concern as to the event; being ful­ly satisfied, you will find abundant reason, with all freedom, to join in communion with the New-England churches, and to settle in them as pastors, in the method of investiture common among us, should you be called thereto in the providence of God.

[Page 90]WE advise you all, our beloved sons, to make the wisest and best use of the rich advantages you are here favoured with, to lay the foundation for such acquirements in learning as will make you eminent blessings to the world, in the various sta­tions of life, when you go from hence. 'Tis pity any of you should misimprove the valuable price that is put into your hands; a thousand pities you should idle away your time, much more that you should mispend it in needless diversion, in vain company, or, what is vastly worse, in the pursuit of those follies, by which young men are too apt to be drawn aside and en­ticed.

ABOVE all, we advise and beseech you to cultivate in your minds a serious sense of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God and Christ. Rest not satisfied with any at­tainments, till you have secured the justifi­cation of life, the sanctification of the spi­rit, and the adoption of children. You may then live joyfully, and you will die safely. The great God will be the guide of your youth, your guide thro' the world, your guide thro' death, and your portion for ever. AMEN.