[Page]
[Page]

A COMPLEAT VIEW OF EPISCOPACY. As exhibited from the FATHERS of the CHRISTI­AN CHURCH, until the Close of the Second Century: CONTAINING An IMPARTIAL Account of them, of their Writings, and of what they say concerning BISHOPS and PRES­BYTERS; WITH OBSERVATIONS, AND REMARKS, Tending to shew, that they esteemed these ONE and the SAME ORDER of Ecclesiastical Officers.

IN ANSWER To those, who have represented it as a CERTAIN FACT, universally handed down, even from the Apostles Days, that GOVERNING and ORDAINING AUTHORITY was ex­ercised by such Bishops only, as were of an ORDER SUPE­RIOR to Presbyters.

By CHARLES CHAUNCY, D. D. Pastor of the First Church of CHRIST in BOSTON.

‘I hope my Reader will see what weak Proofs are brought for this Distinction and Superiority of Order [i. e. between Bishops and Presbyters]. No Scripture, no primitive general Coun­cil, no general Consent of primitive Doctors and Fathers, no, not one primitive Father of Note, speaking particularly, and home, to our purpose.’ Bishop Croft's Naked Truth, P. 47.

BOSTON: Printed by DANIEL KNEELAND, in Queen-Street, for THOMAS LEVERETT, in Corn-hill. M,DCC,LXXI.

[Page iii]

PREFACE.

THE materials for the following work were collected more than twenty years ago, and would then have been put to­gether for public use, had it not been thought unseasonable; as the Colonies were not, at that time, disposed to attend to the episcopal-dispute: nor would this have been their in­clination at present, had it not been excited in them, more especially by the clergy of the church of England, who, not being satisfied with having transmitted petitions to their superiors at home, begging their influence in favor of the settlement of an Episcopate in America, deputised one of their number to write "an appeal to the Public," citing object­ors to their impartial tribunal for tryal of the weight of their objections, if any they had to offer, against the reasonableness of their re­quest. This conduct of their's has constrained [Page iv] those of a different persuasion to speak in their own behalf; and the rather, as it was, in a formal manner, given out, that, "if nothing was said against an American Episcopate, it would be taken for granted, all parties acqui­esced, and were satisfied."

IN consequence of this extraordinary chal­lenge, that has been said, which, I believe, the episcopalians will not find themselves easily able to answer. But there is still room for such a work as that professes to be, which is emitted herewith: and it was judged by many to be seasonable at this day; more especially, as it has been openly and repeatedly declared, 'that it is a FACT certainly and universally handed down by the Christian Fathers, even from the earliest days, that GOVERNING and ORDAIN­ING AUTHORITY was exercised ONLY BY BISHOPS OF AN ORDER, IN THE CHURCH, DISTINCT FROM, AND SUPERIOR TO PRESBYTERS.'

HOW far the above affirmation is agreea­ble to truth, or whether it will at all consist with it, every man of common understanding, who will be at the pains to read the subsequent pages, will be able, from what he may see with his own eyes, to judge. Those, most certainly, [Page v] may be thought well qualified to form a judg­ment in this matter, who are men of capacity and learning, though they have had neither oppor­tunity, nor leisure, to acquaint themselves with the writings of the antient Fathers. It was principally for the sake of persons in each of these kinds, whether episcopalians, or Christians of any other denomination, that the present work was engaged in, and made public. And for this reason it was thought proper to be more particular, than would otherwise have been ne­cessary, in giving an account, not only of these Fathers, but of their writings; distinguishing between those that have been falsely attribu­ted to them, and those that may he esteemed truly genuine; as also between those that are pure, and those that have been adulterated with corrupt mixtures. In the doing of this, which has enlarged the work, and increased my labour, I pretend to be little more than a collector; though, instead of transcribing from others, I have used my own words, unless when I give notice to the contrary: and this I chose to do, that I might be more concise, and have it in my power to convey only that to others, which I believe contains the exact truth.

THE passages from the Fathers, called apostolical, that is, the Fathers who may be [Page vi] supposed to have conversed with one, or more, of the apostles, I have given in the version of Arch-Bishop Wake; not so much to save my­self the trouble of a translation, as to prevent all suspicion of too high, or too low, a turn to any modes of expression, in order to favor my own sense of the fact in dispute. I should have been glad, could I have done the like in regard of what is offered from the other Fathers. I am myself accountable for the translation of the extracts from them; in which I have not so much studied elegance, as an exact representa­tion of their real meaning. I can truly say, I have, to the best of my capacity, given the WHOLE that is contained in the writings of the Fathers, within the time specified. Sure I am, I have willingly omitted no passage, or word, that may be found in any of their works; but have been as free to insert those, episcopa­lians would desire might have a place here, as others they might wish had been kept out of sight. It is possible, after all, there may be omissions, or mistakes, through inattention, for­getfulness, or some other cause more or less faul­ty; though I am not conscious of any, and be­lieve there are none that are material. If any such there should be, I should esteem it a favor to see them corrected. As to those of small importance, the learned and judicious, should they [Page vii] observe any such, will candidly overlook and excuse them.

HAD there been a sufficiency of Greek types in town, and dexterity to use them, more of the language in which many passages were wrote would have been printed: but this de­fect may be thought pardonable, as I have all along inserted such original words, though in English letters, as may be thought to be of importance in the present debate. I could easily have crowded the margin with references to the books, and particular pages in them, I have had occasion to consult; but this, to save room, and a vain shew of learning, I have omitted: at the same time, taking care to name my au­thors, and particular places in their writings, in all instances that have an argumentative connection with any considerable part of the grand subject in dispute.

IT is hoped, the following work will not be altogether useless. Much indeed has been al­ready, and repeatedly, published relative to the Fathers, and their writings; and nothing more frequently to be met with than quotations from them, in support of the episcopal cause, by those who have appeared in its defence. But no one, within the compass of my knowledge, has [Page viii] collected together, and brought to view, ALL that they have said expressive of their sentiments upon this head. This, if I mistake not, was a work much needed, and may be improved to good purpose. The truth of the FACT in debate may herefrom be brought to a clear and full de­termination.

IF any should complain of it as a fault, that I have confined myself within too narrow limits, not going beyond the close of the second century;— I would briefly say, when we have passed these bounds we have got into times, in which there was very visibly a departure from the purity and simplicity of the gospel. The MAN OF SIN now began to make his appearance, * though it [Page ix] was in a gradual way that he attained to that exaltation in dignity and power, as to be "above all that is called god." Besides, if there are no witnesses for the first two hundred years, or insufficient ones only, to certify the truth of the fact in question, the great argument in favor of episcopacy, fetched from the UNIVERSAL CONSENT OF ALL AGES FROM THE BEGIN­NING OF CHRISTIANITY, must inevitably lose its force. And this is acknowledged by the cele­brated Bishop Hoadly, who has wrote, as I judge, in the most masterly way, upon this side of the contro­versy, of any who have handled it. Says he, ‘We do not argue meerly from the testimony of so late writers as these [Jerom and St. 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 [Page x] HIM, I should not esteem this a sufficient argument that it was really so.

I SHALL only add, that I have endea­voured to exhibit the following account of the ancient episcopacy, not only with honest impar­tiality, but meekness and candor, so as to give no just occasion for complaint, that I have wrote with bitterness, and under the influence of that "wrath of man which worketh not the rightous­ness of God." All I desire is, that those into whose hands this work may fall, would read it with like impartiality and candor; in which case, I may venture to say, they will be at no loss to determine on which side the truth lies, with respect to the fact, that is the subject in debate.

[Page i]

INTRODUCTION.

IN all disputes relative to gospel-truth, the demand is just, "what saith the scrip­ture? To the law, and to the testimony." Such a demand is eminently proper, when the point in dispute is said to be nearly and closely connected with the very being of christianity itself. The sacred books of the new-testament, if at all the rule of christian truth, must be allowed to be so in instances that are thus highly interesting and im­portant.

IT were to be wished, these inspired books had been more generally honored, as the only sufficient rule of judgment, by those who have wrote in favor of EPISCOPACY, upon the plan of a DIVINE RIGHT; and the rather, as they speak of it, not meerly as an institution of the gospel, but an essen­tially necessary one; insomuch, that gos­pel-ordinances [Page ii] will be invalid, unless admi­nistred by those, who have been episcopally vested with holy orders.

IN a matter of such momentous concern, they would not have acted an unworthy part, if they had confined their pleas to the sacred writings; producing such passages from them as speak to the point, not im­plicitly and darkly; but in peremptory and express terms, so as to leave no reasonable room for hesitation or doubt. It would be dishonorary to the BIBLE, and a gross re­flection on the penmen of it, to call that an "appointment of Christ," and an "es­sentially necessary" one, which is not contained in this sacred volume, and with such clearness and precision, that sober and impartial inquirers may readily perceive it to be there, without foreign help to assist their sight. And yet, such help is made necessary by episcopal-writers. They scarce ever fail of turning us to the FATHERS in vindication of their cause; hereby vir­tually reflecting disgrace on the scriptures, as though they were insufficient, simply of themselves, to bring this controversy to an issue.

[Page iii]WE object not against paying all due re­spect to the primitive worthies, who were called after the name of Christ, and ho­nored that name by their faithful labors in the service of the gospel. But we re­member, our Savior has bid us "call no man master on earth," as we have "a mas­ter in heaven," the only one he will allow us to own by that name. We cannot there­fore but judge it unwarrantable to take our sentiments, relative to any christian truth, from meer men, however pious, learned, or ancient; or however assembled in coun­cils or synods. This, we imagine, would be a dishonor to Christ, the founder and revealer of our holy religion. He has given us the writings of the evangelists and apostles to be the rule of our faith and practice; and it is, as we think, so perfect and sufficient an one, that we have no need to have recourse to human, and therefore fallible, writers, either ancient or modern; yea, it is our firm persuasion, that all that is delivered for "the truth as it is in Je­sus" by the FATHERS of whatever age, station, country, or character, ought to be judged of by this sacred and unerring rule: and if what they say does not agree here­with, there is, so far, no light nor truth in them.

[Page iv]IN order to reconcile the appeal that is so often made to the FATHERS with that honor which is due to the scriptures, the epis­copalian-plea is, that they consider these fathers, not as judges, but witnesses only in their cause. But what are they brought to witness? Is it, that episcopacy is an institution of Jesus Christ? If this is witnessed to in the sacred books, of which we, having these in our hands, are as good judges as they, it is sufficient. There is no need of any foreign testimony. If it is not, no other testimony can supply this defect. Are these fathers cited as witnesses to what was the PRACTICE in their day? This is now generally the pretence. They may, say the episcopalians, be properly appealed to, in order to know the truth of FACT in the ages in which they lived. And if, from their unanimous testimony, even from the first days of christianity, it appears, that GO­VERNING and ORDAINING AUTHORITY was exercised by BISHOPS ONLY, in distinc­tion from Presbyters, and as an order in the the church above them, it would argue great arrogance, if not obstinate perverseness, to dispute the divine original of episcopacy. But we must be excused, however perverse we may be accounted, if we cannot bring [Page v] our selves to think, that the practice of the church, since the apostles days, however universal, will justify our receiving that as an institution of Christ, and an essentially important one, which he himself hath not clearly and evidently made so, either in his own person, or by those inspired writers, whom he commissioned and instructed to declare his will: nor can we believe, the great author of christianity would have put the professors of it to the difficult, I may say, as to most of them, the impossible task of collecting any thing essential to their sal­vation from the voluminous records of an­tiquity. We are rather persuaded, he has ordered every article that is necessary, either in point of faith or practice, to be so fairly and legibly wrote by the sacred penmen, as that there should be no need of having recourse to the ancient Fathers as WITNESSES, any more than judges, to ascertain his mind. To suppose the contrary, would, in reality of construction, substitue TRADITION the rule of essential truth, in the room of the SCRIP­TURES, which were "given by inspiration of God;" or, at least, make the former so much a part of this rule, as that the latter, without it, would not be sufficiently compleat. Such dishonor ought not to be cast on [Page vi] the one only standard of the real mind of Christ.

NOT that we should be under any fear­ful apprehension, was the episcopal-dispute to be decided SOLELY by what can be prov­ed to be FACT, respecting the practice of the church before the coming on of those ages, in which it is known that superstition and corruption had unhappily got mixed with most, if not all the appointments of Jesus Christ. It has indeed been long given out, and of late with more positive as­surance than common, that within the two first centuries, those purest and truly primi­tive ones, and all along through them, as well as in after ages, UNIVERSAL CONSENT is justly pleadable in favor of episcopacy. The design of the ensuing work is to put it in the power of all intelligent readers, whe­ther learned or unlearned, to judge for them­selves in this matter; and that they might be able to do it upon just and solid grounds, not here and there a detached testimony, from this and the other selected father, is brought to view, but the WHOLE, until towards the close of the second century, they have ALL said relative to the affair of Bishops. If the consent of the church, through this long [Page vii] and important period, without which it is impossible it should be UNIVERSAL, can be known at all, it may be known in this way; and it is the only one in which it can be known with any degree of certainty. The dispute about episcopacy, so far as it depends upon UNIVERSAL CONSENT, may be fairly and fully determined by every one for himself, by what is herewith offered to his perusal.

THE method, according to which I pro­pose to proceed, is this easy and plain one. The fathers will be distinctly mentioned one by one, their characters given, their writ­ings specified, and what they say relative to EPISCOPACY faithfully set down, with such observations and remarks as may be thought needful. And they will severally be brought to view in the order in which they are commonly placed, by the learned in subjects of this nature; or, in other words, according to the time, in which it is supposed they wrote. *

[Page viii]ONLY, before I proceed, I would make the following reasonable request. It is, that every one would keep critically in view, as he goes along, the SPECIFIED FACT in dis­pute. And that he may be able to do this without mistake, I shall, in a few words, distinctly point it out.

THE Bishop, in whose defence an appeal is made to antiquity, is not related, by his office, to a single congregation of christians only, with one or more Presbyters belong­ing to it; but his charge is a DIOCESS, con­sisting of a number of congregations, great­er or less, with their respective Presbyters. The inquiry therefore is, whether it be an UNI­VERSALLY ATTESTED FACT, that episco­pacy, in this sense, took place in, and through, the two first ages? A Bishop, at the head of a number of congregations, greater or less, is an officer in the church of Christ quite different from the pastor of a single congregation; though he should be called Bishop, as being the HEAD-PRESBYTER, or vested with the character of PRIMUS INTER PARES. It should be particularly noted, which of these kinds of episcopacy has the voice of the specified antiquity in its favor. It is willingly left with every man of com­mon [Page ix] understanding, after he has gone over the following testimonies, to say, whether he thinks, that Bishops, after the DIOCESANMODE, were known in the first ages of the church?

THE Bishop, for whom the fathers are called in as WITNESSES, is an officer in the church of an ORDER SUPERIOR to that of Presbyters, and as distinct from it as the or­der of Presbyters is for that of Deacons; the pretence being this, that Presbyters were thought to have, in primitive times, no more right to meddle with the peculiar work of Bishops, than Deacons have to concern themselves with the peculiar work of Pres­byters. The question therefore is, Whe­ther it will appear, from the following evi­dence, to be at all a FACT, much less an UNIVERSALLY known, and certainly attest­ed one, that there were Bishops, in this sense, in any church, in any part of the christian world, within the two first cen­turies?

THE Bishop, in whose favor the ancient Fathers are said universally to speak, is one to whom the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF GO­VERNMENT has been committed by the appointment of Jesus Christ, or his apostles [Page x] as commissioned by him. Says the famous Bishop Hoadly, treating of the government of the church, as belonging to Bishops only, in the above appropriated sense, * ‘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.—Were there only testimonies to be produced, that this was the government of the church in all ages, it would be but reasonable to con­clude it of apostolical institution;—but when we find the same persons witnessing, not only that it 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 [Page xi] in their days, and that it was of aposto­lical institution. And in these there is such a constancy and unanimity, that even St. Jerom himself traces up episcopacy to the very apostles, and makes it of their institution.’ — 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.’ One would suppose, from the peremptory manner in which this citation is expressed, that the FACT it affirms was so evidently clear, as to leave no room for the least doubt. Those, who may think it worth while to look over the testimonies brought to view, in the fol­lowing pages, will perhaps, by critically ob­serving their real and just import, be sur­prized, that any man of learning, who pro­fesses a regard to truth, should speak of it, and with such a degree of assurance, as the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF ALL AGES from the apostles, that episcopacy, in the impleaded sense, was the "form of go­vernment in the church in their day," and that it was by "apostolical institution;" espe­cially, if they should not be able to find, as it is certain they will not, so much as a single witness, for two hundred years, [Page xii] whose evidence is clear, direct, express, and full, in affirming, either that this was the form of government in the church, or that it was ever instituted by Christ, or his aos­tles: so far is it from the truth, that this is a FACT UNANIMOUSLY and CONSTANTLY TESTIFIED TO, even from the beginning, and through all ages.

THE Bishop, for the support of whose claims antiquity is repaired to, is one with whom the SOLE POWER of ORDINATION is lodged; insomuch, that he only can con­vey holy orders conformably to the appoint­ment of Jesus Christ; and should Presbyters presume to do this, they would take that upon them which they have no more a right to, than Deacons have to baptise, or admi­nister the Lord's supper. This part of the UNANIMOUS report of ALL AGES concern­ing the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT of Bishops de­serves most of all the special notice of the reader; and he is particularly desired, as he goes along, to point out to himself, for his own satisfaction; or to others, for their in­formation, any one among all the testi­monies he will have placed before his view, that plainly and directly affirms the RIGHT OF ORDINATION to be peculiar to Bishops as a distinct order from Presbyters, and superi­or to them; or that this right was ever thus ex­ercised [Page xiii] by them. If he should not be able to do this, as unquestionably he will not, how strange must that affirmation appear, which says, in the most positive terms, not only that this is FACT, but a fact CONSTANTLY and UNANIMOUSLY witnessed to by the fathers, in ALL AGES from the days of the apostles.

THE Bishop, in whose defence antiquity is pleaded, is vested with the power of CON­FIRMATION, according to the mode of the church of England; and it is appropriated to him as his right in distinction from all others. But I need not assure the reader, he will in vain look to find it a FACT, with­in the two first ages, that Bishops were ei­ther vested with, or ever exercised this pow­er. For he must come down below these ages, before a word is said, by any one of the fathers, relative to this superstitious practice. Tertullian is the first that mentions it; and he mentions likewise some other corrup­tions, which had got mingled with christi­anity in that day.

IN short, the question in debate, so far as it relates to FACT, is, not whether there were officers in the christian church, known by the name of Bishops in the apo­stolic age, and down along through the two first centuries? We join with the episcopa­lians [Page xiv] in affirming this to be a truth univer­sally testified to in those times: but the pro­per question is, what is FACT with refer­ence to the ORDER of these Bishops, and the POWERS PECULIAR TO THEIR OFFICE, and as EXERCISED by them in it? The name of Bishop is one thing, and the POWER claimed for, or exercised by him, is another. The dispute is, not about the name, but the POWER appropriated to it. This therefore should be heedfully attended to by all, in their examination of the evidences that will be produced; and they may, in this way, clearly and satisfactorily determine, each one for himself, whether it be at all an at­tested FACT, much less a CONSTANT and UNANIMOUSLY ATTESTED ONE, from the apostles days, and down along through the two first ages, as well as after ones, that Bi­shops were vested with, and did actually exer­cise, the above specified powers, which are at this day claimed for them, as the appropriate work of their office by divine appointment?

HAVING thus prepared the way, I now go on to introduce the FATHERS, and point out what they say upon the head of EPIS­COPACY; and shall do it in the order that has been mentioned.

[Page 15]

BARNABAS.

WE read, in the sacred books, of an eminent convert to the chris­tian faith, under the name of Barnabas. If our Barnabas was this venerable per­son, he is justly placed first among the writers in our proposed collection. For he lived in the days of the apostles, was then a preacher of the gospel, and a fel­low-laborer with Paul in a special mission to the gentile nations, to which they were both separated by express direction of the Holy Ghost. But whether he was this Barnabas, or some other person, in or near the apostolic age, who was called by this name, or chose, for certain ends, to borrow it, is a point in which neither an­cient nor modern writers are agreed; as we shall presently have occasion to make evident. If he was the scripture-Barna­bas, the best account of him is contain­ed [Page 16] in the new-testament-books, which every one is at liberty to consult at his leisure. If he was not this Barnabas, we can know nothing about him, with any degree of certainty, but what may be col­lected from the epistle that goes under this name.

I SHALL not amuse the reader with the history of his supposed sufferings, as a martyr for the cause of Christ; much less with the MIRABILIA that are told of him, and with an air of too much faith, even by Arch-Bishop Wake, as well as Dr. Cave. For, to speak the truth, I pay no regard to the idle legandary stories, invented by monks, and other ecclesiastics, in the Roman church, after the visible rise of anti-christ, to impose upon the people to serve their own base and wick­ed designs.

LEAVING therefore these extraordina­ries, as not worthy of notice, I go on to speak of his works. Tertullian seems to have been of the opinion, that he was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews; for he plainly quotes it as his: but it is, with Jerom, a matter of doubt, whether it [Page 17] ought to be ascribed to him, or Luke, or Clement, or Paul. It does not appear, that Barnabas wrote any thing more than an epistle that is still extant, at least in part, both in greek and latin. The la­tin is thought to be a very ancient ver­sion from the greek; though, when, in what country, or by what hand, it was translated, none, so far as I can learn, pre­tend so much as to conjecture. Neither the greek or latin copies are perfect. The beginning is wanting in the greek, and the end in the Latin. * Dr. Cave, who was apt to entertain as high an opi­nion of ancient writings as they deserve, describes the epistle of Barnabas in the following words. ‘The frame and con­texture of it is intricate and obscure, made up of uncouth allegories, forced and improbable interpretations of scrip­ture; though the main design of it is to shew, that the christian religion has [Page 18] superseded the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law. The latter part of it contains an useful and excellent ex­hortation, managed under the notion of two ways; the one of light, the other of darkness; the one under the guidance of the angels of God, the other under the conduct of the angels of satan, the prince of the iniquity of the age.’

THE chief difficulty, relative to this epistle, is to know, whether the scrip­ture-Barnabas was its author, or some other person, really of this name, or by ar­bitrary assumption.

SOME of the ancient Fathers seem to have been of the mind, that the Barna­bas, who was Paul's companion, was the writer of it. Clement of Alexan­dria quotes it in that form, "says the apostle Barnabas." Origin, in his ans­wer to Celsus, gives this epistle the title of catholic, "the catholic epistle of Bar­nabas;" which it is supposed he would not have done, had he not esteem­ed its author to have been the Barnabas, [Page 19] whose memory is celebrated in the inspired writings. Others, among the fathers, to say the least, were in doubt, whether this epistle was wrote by Barnabas, who, with Paul, was "separated to the work, whereunto the Holy Ghost had called them." Eusebius and Jerom both reck­on it among the "apocryphal books;" and doubtless for the same reason. What this is, we may learn from the epistle of the latter of these fathers to Laeta, in which he says, "Those books are apo­cryphal that do not belong to the authors whose name they bear."

THE moderns differ likewise in their judgment. Pearson, Cave, Du-pin, Wake, and others, suppose the scripture-Barna­bas to have been the writer of this epi­stle. Cotelerius rather thinks it was some other person * of this name, or that appeared under it. Others are of [Page 20] opinion, it is utterly unworthy of so ex­cellent a man as the Barnabas celebrated in the inspired books. Basnage and Jones have largely offered their objections against this epistle as the genuine work of Barnabas, the companion of Paul. And they appear to me, I truly confess, to be unanswerable. It would carry me too far out of my way to give so much as an abstract of these objections. I shall content myself with only transcribing a few passages in this epistle, as translated by Arch-Bishop Wake; leaving it with every judicious reader to say, whether he can think it at all probable, that such a man as the scripture-Barnabas is known to have been, could have been the author [Page 21] of them; a convert to the faith in the days of Christ; one personally acquaint­ed with the apostles; a fellow-laborer with them, by the express appointment of heaven, in spreading the name and reli­gion of Christ; and, in a word, one that is characterised by an inspired pen as "a good man, full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith." Acts xi. 24.

THE passages, I would bring to view, are these that follow.

SECT. V.—"And when he chose his apostles, which were afterwards to pub­lish his gospel, he took men that had been VERY GREAT SINNERS; that thereby he might plainly shew, "he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

THIS passage, in the Arch-Bishop's translation, may not appear very striking­ly exceptionable; but it really is so, both in the original greek, and old latin versi­on. What he translates, "men that had been very great sinners," is in the greek, uper pasan amartian anomôterous; justly translated by Cotelerius, "omni peccato iniquiores." The old lattin ver­sion [Page 22] has it, "super omne peccatum, pec­catores;" in literal english, "sinners be­yond all sin." It is readily allowed, the mode of diction is hyperbolical. But the thought intended to be conveyed could be nothing short of this, that the apostles of our Lord had been "the worst of men, the vilest of all sinners." Is this the truth of fact? Will any thing, in the new-testa­ment-books, justify this account of them? It is a false slanderous report, * highly injurious to them: nor is the reason as­signed for our Lord's chusing such wick­ed men any other than an abuse of the sacred text mentioned in its support. No such reason was ever given by our Lord, or any of his inspired apostles.

SECT. IX.—"Understand therefore, children, these things more fully, that Abraham, who was the first that brought in circumcision, looking forward in the spirit to Jesus, circumcised, having receiv­ed [Page 23] the mystery of THREE LETTERS. For the scripture says, "Abraham circumcised THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN men of his house." But what therefore was the mystery that was made known to him? Mark, first the EIGHTEEN; and next the THREE HUNDRED. For the numeral letters of TEN and EIGHT are I.H; and these denote JESUS. And because the CROSS was that by which we were to find grace, therefore he adds, three hundred, the note of which is T [the figure of his cross]. Wherefore, by two letters, he signified JESUS, and by the third his CROSS. He who has put the engrafted gift of his doctrine within us knows, that I never taught to any one a more certain truth: but I trust that ye are worthy of it."

SECT. X. "But why did Moses say, "Ye shall not eat of the swine, neither the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the crow, nor any fish that has not a scale upon him?" I answer, that, in the spiritual sense, he comprehended three doctrines that were to be gathered from thence. Besides which he says to them in the book of Deuteronomy, "and I will give my sta­tutes [Page 24] unto this people." Wherefore, it is not the command of God that they should not eat these things; but Moses in the spirit spake to them. Now, "the sow he forbad them to eat"; meaning thus much, thou shalt not join thyself to such persons as are like unto swine.—"Nei­ther shalt thou eat of the hare." To what end? To signify this to us, thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor liken thy­self to such persons. For the hare eve­ry year multiplies the places of its concep­tion; and as many years as it lives, so many it has. "Neither shalt thou eat of the hyaena;" that is, again, be not an adulterer, nor a corrupter of others, nei­ther be like unto such. And wherefore so? Because that creature every year changes its kind, and is sometimes male, and sometimes female. For which cause also he justly hated the weesel; to the end they should not be like such persons, who with their mouths commit wicked­ness, by reason of their uncleanness; nor join themselves with those impure wo­men, who with their mouths commit wickedness; because that animal con­ceives with its mouth." Moses therefore speaking as concerning meats, delivered [Page 25] indeed three great precepts to them in the spiritual signification of those commands. But they, according to the desires of the flesh, understood him as if he had only meant it of meats. And therefore David took aright the knowledge of his threefold command, saying in like manner; "blessed is the man that hath not walked in the coun­sel of the ungodly;" as the fishes before mentioned in the bottom of the deep in darkness: "nor stood in the way of sinners;" as they who seem to fear the Lord, but yet sin as the sow. "And hath not sat in the seat of the scorners;" as those birds who sit and watch that they may devour. Here you have the law concerning meat perfectly set forth, and according to the true knowledge of it.

THESE passages are only a very small part of those, in which the scriptures are placed, in this epistle, in a most ludicrous point of light. It is, as I imagine, be­yond the power of man to reconcile such trifling, uncouth, romantic explications of the holy word of God, with the excel­lent character it has given us of the apos­tolic-Barnabas.

I SHALL only add, no mention is made, in this epistle, of Bishops, or Presbyters; [Page 26] nor the least hint given, from whence it may be collected, what was this writer's opinion about either of them. Both the greek and latin copies are absolutely silent with reference to every thing con­troverted between the episcopalians and presbyterians: for which reason I have said less of this primitive writer, than might otherwise have been proper. I shall observe the same rule, respecting those other fathers, whose writings have not reached us, or contain nothing in them to the purpose of the argument we are upon.

[Page]

DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA.

THIS Dionysius is stiled the areopa­gite, partly to distinguish him from several others of the same name; but principally because he is thus pointed out by the inspired writer of the book of the acts.

THE areopagite-senate, so denomina­ted from the famous areopagus, a court-house, built upon a hill in Athens, was the most sacred and venerable tribunal in Greece. All the greater and more capi­tal causes were brought before it; espe­cially matters of religion, blasphemy a­gainst the gods, and contempt of the ho­ly mysteries. Dionysius is supposed to have been one of the judges, when Paul was arraigned before this senate, as "a setter forth of strange gods" for "preach­ing Jesus and anastasis," or the resurrec­tion. It is said, and upon just grounds, that he was converted by this apostle, while, in the midst of mars-hall, he made the address to the men of Athens, recor­ded [Page 28] in the 17th Chapter of the Acts. For though we are told, that "some mock­ed" at this preaching; it is also affirmed, that "certain men believed, among the which was Dionysius the areopagite." Acts xvii. 32, 34.

NOTHING more is recorded, in the sa­cred books, concerning this truly primi­tive father. Eusebius says, "he was the first Bishop of Athens; and intro­duces Dionysius of Corinth mentioning the same thing. * No further notice is taken of him, until we come to ages re­mote from that in which he lived; on which account no great regard is to be paid to the commendations that are there bestowed on him, in the highest strains of hyperbolical language.

NUMEROUS are the writings said to be left by this Dionysius; for which rea­son only I have given him, among the other fathers, a place in this work. Some there are who strenuously plead for these writings as genuine; though it is uni­versally thought by protestants, and by some of fame even in the roman commu­nion, that they are falsely attributed to [Page 29] him. None have wrote more largely, or with greater learning, in proof of their being spurious, than Monsieur D'aille; who has said enough to convince all, that are capable of conviction, that this is their true character. The learned Du­pin not only entertained this opinion of them, but has said that which is abun­dantly sufficient to lead others into the same judgment about them. I shall here transcribe one of the many arguments, he has used to evidence their being supposi­titious; and I have selected this for a rea­son that will obviously be suggested to the reader, when he sees what may be offered re­lative to the writings of another father, held in great reputation, at least among some.

HIS argument is this; ‘The manner of the first appearing of these books ought to be suspected. For it is cer­tain, that, being unknown to all anti­quity, they were first quoted by the seve­rian heretics, in a conference holden be­tween them, and the orthodox Bishops at Constantinople, in the palace of the emperor Justinian, 532 years after the nativity of Jesus Christ. The si­lence of all the ancient ecclesiastical [Page 30] writers is, without doubt, a very great prejudice to them; for who can ima­gine, that so considerable an author as St. Denys (if these books had been real­ly composed by him) should have been unknown to Eusebius and St. Jerom? And who can believe, that, if they had known them, they should take no no­tice of them, when they composed an exact catalogue of all the authors, of whom they had any knowledge; not omitting even those that had [...] little reputation, that they were scarcely heard of in the world? Is it possible that Eusebius, in making mention of Dionysius the aropagite, in tw [...] several places, should not have observed, ac­cording to his usual method, that he had written several books? St. Jerom, in his epistle to Magnus, doth not omit the testimony of one single author to prove, that it is lawful to make use of prophane books; whereas the wri­tings of St. Denys might have served as a notable proof. Why then doth he not speak so much as one word con­cerning them? He gives us an ac­count, in his catalogue, of Quadratus Bishop of Athens, and of Aristides [Page 31] the athenian philosopher: is it pos­sible, that St. Denys should be more ob­scure than these two writers, or less esteemed by St. Jerom? How could it happen, that all the ancient writers mention St. Dionysius the areopagite, as Dionysius Corinthius, St. Chyso­stom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and the author of the dialogues ascri­bed to St. Caesarius, the brother of St. Gregory Nazianzen, should give us no intimation of these books? In short, why were these books, which contain many things relating to the doctrine and discipline of the christian church, and that would have been of great au­thority, as proceeding from so ancient and considerable an author as St. Di­onysius the areopagite, never cited ei­ther for, or against any heretic, or for the illustration of any point of dis­cipline before the sixth age of the church?’

THE writings falsely atributed to Di­onysius the areopagite are as follow. A book "concerning the celestial hierar­chy;" another of "the divine names," another of "mystical divinity;" ten [Page 32] epistles; four to "Caius," one to "Dorotheus," another to "Sosipater," another to "Polycarp," another to "De­mophilus," another to "Titus," another to "John the evangelist." These have been printed, and reprinted, both in greek and latin, in many parts of Europe. Du-pin says, several other books were compo­sed by this author, and quoted by him­self; such as a book concerning "symbo­lical knowledge;" another of "the soul;" another of "divine hymns;" another of the "just judgment of God; another of "those things that are understood by the mind, and that may be perceived by the senses."—But these are all lost.

THESE books, as Johannes Scotus, the first translator of them into latin, tells us, are infinitely intricate and perplexed, far beyond the reach of modern apprehen­sion, and which few are able to pierce in­to, by reason of the sublimity of the mys­teries whereof they treat. And, as Dr. Cave justly and judiciously observes, ‘Who­ever was their genuine parent, or up­on what account soever he wrote them, it is plain, that he laid the foundation of a mystical and unintelligible divi­nity [Page 33] among christians, and that hence proceeded all those wild rosicrusean notions, which some men are so fond of, and the life and practice whereof they cry up as the very soul and per­fection of the christian religion. And that this author does immediately mi­nister to this design, let the reader judge by one instance, and I assure him none of the most obscure and intricate passages in these books.’ This instance he gives us, as he himself declares, ex­pressed word for word. It is as follows; ‘God is known in all things, and without all things. He is known by knowledge, and by ignorance. There is both a co­gitation of him, and a word, and a sci­ence, and a touch, and a sense, and an opinion, and a name, and all other things; and yet, he is neither thought, nor spoken, nor named. He is not any thing of those things that are, nor is he known in any of the things that are; he is both all things in all, and nothing in nothing; out of all things he is known to all, and out of nothing to nothing. These are the things which we rightly discourse concerning God. And this again is the most divine knowledge of [Page 34] God, that which is known by ignorance, according to the union that is above un­derstanding; when the mind getting at a distance from all things that are, and ha­ving dismissed itself, is united to those superillustrious beams from whence, and where, it is enlightened in the unfa­thomable depths of wisdom.’

‘MORE of this, (say the Doctor,) and the like stuff is plentifully scattered up and down these books. And if this be not mystical and profound enough, I know not what is; and which certainly any man, but one well versed in this sort of theology, would look upon as strange jargon of nonsense and contradiction. And yet, this is the height of devotion and piety, which some men earnestly press after, and wherein they glory: as if a man could not truly understand the mysteries of religion, until he had re­signed his reason; nor be a christian, without first becoming an enthusiast, nor be able to speak sense, unless in a language which none can understand.’

[Page]

HERMAS.
His character, writings, testimonies from them with observations, and remarks.

THIS Hermas has sometimes been mis­taken for Hermes, brother to Pius I. an ecclesiastic beyond the middle of the second century. The author of the "pontifi­cal" fathered upon Damasus, the pre­tended "decretals of the Bishops of Rome," together with some other ancient, as well as modern writers, have fallen in­to this error, as Du-pin calls it, and has, in common with many other learned men, proved it to be, from all the primi­tive fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Ter­tullian, Origin, Eusebius, and Jerom; who always call him Hermas never Her­mes.

[Page 36]IT is unquestionable, that there was, in the first age, a person of this name; as the apostle Paul, among other christians at Rome, salutes Hermas by name. * It is certain also, that several of the fathers thought the scripture-Hermas to be the same with him, of whom we are speak­ing. This was the opinion of Origin, Eusebius, and Jerom. But that he was really this person, is not certain: nor have we any particular account of his just character; where he lived; what he did in promoting the cause of Christ; when, how, and in what place, he died. Arch-Bishop Wake, from some passages in his "Pastor," mentions several things, by way of conjecture, descriptive of him; but, as the more ancient records are si­lent about him, I shall pass from his person to his

WRITINGS.

AND we have no account of any thing he ever wrote, but only the book en­tituled, "Pastor;" than which, per­haps, no piece is more frequently menti­oned [Page 37] in antiquity. And yet, it is not easy to say, what its authority was in those days. Irenaeus seems to quote it under * "the name of scripture." Clement of Alexandria introduces a ci­tation from it in that language, "the power which spake divinely to Hermas by revelation." Tertullian, before his professing himself a montanist, speaks of it, if not with any high encomium, yet without intimating a suspicion as if it was of no good authority. Origin calls it "a very useful writing, and in his opini­on divinely inspired. Eusebius brings it in doubted of, as to its "canonical au­thority;" but allows that it was received as a "justifiable book, publicly read in the churches, and quoted by ancient au­thors." Jerom stiles it, "a truly profi­table book, cited by the greek fathers."

BUT notwithstanding all this, it is sometimes even despised as a work of no value; and this, by some of the very per­sons above-named. Tertullian, after his [Page 38] being infected with the monastical errors, speaks of it in language denoting the highest contempt. It was says he, * "rejected by all the churches as a false and spurious writing." Origin some­times makes the supposition, "if it be a book to be received;" and mentions it moreover, "as despised by some." Je­rom calls it "an apocryphal book, to be condemned for the folly contained in it." Such difficulty is there in ascer­taining the true estimate put upon this writing in ancient times.

NOR are the moderns united in the judgment they pass on it. They are in­deed unanimously agreed to renounce it as "a canonical book;" yet, they differ widely in the value they express for it. Some receive it with respect, as "a vene­rable ancient piece;" while others look upon it as of "little worth." The learn­ed Du-pin gives that account of it, ‘It hath not been so much valued by mo­dern authors; and there are very few, [Page 39] at present, that commend it, or that have the same regard to it as those that lived in the primitive ages of the church. And indeed, if we may judge by the method according to which it is wrote, and by the things therein con­tained, it does not seem to deserve much esteem. The first part, entitled, "the visions," is full of many revelations that are explained to Hermas by "a wo­man" representing the church. They all relate to the state of the church, and the manners of christians. The second part, which is most useful, is called "the ordinances," wherein are comprised diverse precepts of morality, and pious instructions, which the pastor," or "angel of Hermas" pre­scribes to him. The third part is cal­led, the "similitudes," because it be­gins with several "similies," or com­parisons, and concludes with visions. These three books comprehend very many moral instructions concerning the practice of christian virtues; but the great number of visions, allegories, and similitudes, make them tedious. And all these moral truths would, in my opinion, have been more useful, if [Page 40] the author had propounded them sim­ply, as the apostles had done in their epistles.’

THIS work was penned in greek; though we have now extant only an old latin version. Barthius supposes it not to have been translated until the days of Jerom, because that writer speaks of it as "much used among the greeks, but scarce known to the latins" But Cote­lerius herein opposes him, proving it to have been read, by several of the latins before the age of Jerom; and probably they read it in the present translation: though it is not known, at this day, by whom it was made: nor can the time of writing this "pastor" be brought, with certainty, to an exact period. Arch-Bishop Wake places it the last piece but one in his "aposto­lical fathers." He might probably think it was wrote after the epistles of Igna­tius and Polycarp. But it is most common­ly supposed to have been wrote much sooner. Some place its date about the year 90, a little before the dioclesian persecution which he is thought to re­fer to in his "fourth vision." Others [Page 41] are persuaded, it was wrote sooner yet, before the destruction of Jerusalem, and not many years after some of the epistles of the apostle Paul. Of this opi­nion was the learned Dodwell; and he says that in defence of it, which is well worthy of consideration.

TESTIMONIES from HERMAS.

VIS. II. Sect. II.—"Thou shalt there­fore say to those who are over the church, * that they order their ways in righte­ousness, that they may fully receive the promise with much glory."

VIS. ibid. Sect. IV.—"After this I saw a vision at home in my own house, and the old woman, whom I had seen before, came to me, and asked me, whe­ther I had yet delivered her book to the elders of the church. And I answered, [Page 42] I had not yet. She replied, thou hast well done; for I have certain words more to tell thee. And when I shall have finished all the words, they shall be clearly under­stood by the elect. And thou shalt write * two books, and send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. For Clement shall send it to the foreign cities, because it is per­mitted to him to do so. But Grapte shall admonish the widows and orphans. But thou shalt read in this city with the elders of the church."

VIS. III. Sect. V. "Hear now con­cerning the stones that are in the build­ing. The square and white stones, which agree exactly in their joynts, are the apostles, and bishops, and doctors, [Page 43] and ministers, who, through the mercy of God, have come in, and governed, and taught, and ministred holily and modest­ly, to the elect of God, both that are fallen asleep, and which yet remain, and have always agreed with them, and have had peace within themselves, and have heard each other."

VIS. ib. Sect. IX.—"Ye that are more eminent, search out those that are hungry, whilst the tower is yet unfinish­ed. For when the tower shall be finish­ed, ye shall be willing to do good, and shall not find any place in it. Beware therefore, ye that glory in your riches, lest perhaps they groan who are in want, and their sighing come up unto God, and ye be shut out with your goods without the gate of the tower. Behold I * now warn you who are set over the church, and love the highest seats; be not like un­to those that work mischief.—Take heed, my children, that your dissentions de­prive you not of your lives. How will [Page 44] ye instruct the elect of God, when ye yourselves want correction? Wherefore admonish one another, and be at peace among yourselves, that I, standing before your father, may give an account for you unto the Lord."

COMMAND. XI. Sect. III. "Hear now concerning the earthly spirit, which is empty, and foolish, and without virtue. And first of all, the man who is supposed to have this spirit * exalteth himself, and desires to have the first seat, and is wick­ed, and full of words; and spends his time in pleasure, and in all manner of voluptuousness, and receives the reward of his divination."

SIMIL. VIII. Sect. VII.—"As for those who had their rods green, but yet cleft; they are such as were always faithful and good, but they had some envy and strife among yourselves concerning dig­nity and preheminence. Now all such are [Page 45] vain, and without understanding, as con­tend with one another about these things. Nevertheless, seeing they are otherwise good, if, when they shall hear these com­mands, they shall amend themselves, and shall, at my persuasion, suddenly repent; they shall at last dwell in the tower, as they who have truly and worthily re­pented. But, if any one shall again re­turn to his dissentions, he shall be shut out of the tower, and lose his life. For the life of those, who keep the command­ments of the Lord, consists in doing what they are commanded; * not in principa­lity, or in any other dignity."

SIMIL. IX. Sect. XV.—"But, sir, what were taken out of the deep, and fitted into the building? The ten, said he, which were placed at the foundation, are the first age; the following five and twenty, the second, of righteous men. The next thirty-five are the prophets and ministers of the Lord. And the forty are the apostles and doctors of the preach­ing of the son of God.

[Page 46]SIMIL. ib. Sect. XVI.—"And I said; why then, sir, did these forty stones also ascend with them out of the deep, hav­ing already received that seal? He ans­wered, because * these apostles and teach­ers, who preached the name of the son of God, dying after they had received his faith and power, preached to them who were dead before, and they gave this seal to them."

SIMIL. ib. Sect. XXV. As concerning the eighth mountain, in which were ma­ny springs, by which every kind of all the creatures of God was watered, they are such as have believed the apostles which the Lord sent into all the world to preach; and some of them, being teach­ers, have preached and taught purely and sincerely, and have not in the least yield­ed to any evil designs, but have constant­ly walked in righteousness and truth. These therefore have their conversation among the angels."

[Page 47]SIMIL. ib. Sect. XXVII. For what concerns the tenth mountain, in which were the trees covering the cattle, they are such as * have believed, and some of them been Bishops, that is, Governors of the churches. Others are such stones as have not feignedly, but with a chearful mind, entertained the servants of God. Then such as have been set over inferior ministries, and have protected the poor, and the widows, and have always kept a chaste conversation. These men there­fore are protected of the Lord."

[Page 48]

OBSERVATIONS and REMARKS upon the foregoing testimonies.

FROM these passages in Hermas, which are all I can find to the purpose of the present controversy, the reader may, in some measure, perceive the obscurity, with which his writings are perplexed. It appears that he has, here and there, drop­ed a few words that bear relation to the point we are upon; but what he has said is generally so blended with visionary or parabolical matter, that it is not easy, by any rational connection in his discourse, to determine his meaning; and if we would understand him, we must ordina­rily confine ourselves to the words bare­ly as they lie; unless, by comparing them with others of the like import, in other parts of his writing, we may be helped in fixing their true sense.

BUT dark as he is, there are some plain intimations, that the world, in his day, were not acquainted with Bishops, as offi­cers superior in their ORDER to Presbyters; yea, that the churches were so far from being modelled after the present episcopal form, that the management of their reli­gious [Page 49] affairs was in the hands, not of SINGLE PERSONS, but a PLURALITY; and this, of EQUAL RANK. It is a com­mon phrase in these writings, "qui praesunt ecclesiae," that is, "who are set over the church." And lest it should be pretended, the word, church, is used to signify the church-catholic, in which sense it might be true, that it had a plurality set over it, though parti­cular churches had only a single Bishop at their head: I say, to take away all ground for such a pretence, we have such an ob­servable passage as that, * "And thou (Hermas) shalt read in THIS CITY with the elders who are set over the church." A more express testimony could not well be given to this FACT, that the church of Rome, at least, was, in this age, go­verned, not by any single pastor but a plu­rality, which plurality were Presbyters, or if you please Bishops; meaning hereby the SAME ORDER of officers in the church. For it is remarkable, the word, Bishops, (Episcopi) is explained by Hermas him­self to signify, "Praesides ecclesiarum;" that is to say, he describes Bishops by [Page 50] their being "those who are set over the church;" and those who are "set over the church" he expressly calls * ("Se­niores") Elders, or Presbyters; so that, as it happily falls out, Bishops and Presby­ters, according to Hermas's own explana­tion of himself, are one and the same offi­cers in the church, spoken of promis­cuously, as in the new-testament-writings, under the names of Bishops or Pres­byters.

BUT that this matter may be set in a yet stronger point of light, I shall bring to view, and consider, what is brought from Hermas in favor of the distincti­on, he is supposed, by episcopalian writers, to make between Bishops and Presby­ters. And,

THE first passage to this purpose, we have in Vis. II. Sect. IV, in which it is said, "Thou shalt write two books, and send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. And Clement shall send it to the foreign cities; for to him it is permitted." In these words, some are so sharp-sighted as [Page 51] to perceive plain evidence of episcopal superiority. For, say they, Clement was now Bishop of Rome, and the care of "sending this book," or letter, to the "foreign cities," was devolved on him, without all doubt, in virtue of his office, as head of the church; to whom, upon this account, this business most properly belonged.

THE answer is easy. That Clement was now Bishop of Rome, meaning here­by the single head, or governor of this church, is so far from being probable, that the direct contrary hereto is most evidently signified by Hermas's "pastor," in the latter part of this very paragraph; where he speaks of the church of Rome as under the government, not of any sin­gle person. And thou "shalt read in THIS CITY with the ELDERS who are set over the church:" which words, I am persuaded, can never be made to consist with Clement's being now the episcopal head of this church. He might, at this time, be related to the church of Rome, as one of their Bishops, or Elders; and he might also be the most accomplished and distinguished among them; the most [Page 52] known, valued, and respected: to whom, upon these accounts, it might be given in charge, rather than to any of the other Elders or Bishops, to send this book, or epistle; but not because it so belonged to him of right, and in virtue of his office, as that it could not have been devolved upon any other. It does not appear, either from Hermas, or any other ancient writer, that the care of sending letters to the churches was the work of Bishops, as a peculiar badge of their office. The most capable, or most universally known officer, in any church, might ordinarily be pitched upon to do this; and nothing more can be ar­gued from it, than that he was thought the best qualified person for such a work. Most certainly, it is too trifling a matter on which to found a distinction of order between the officers of a church.

THE next passage recurred to we have, in Vis. III. Sect. V. in which are these words; "The square and the white stones are the Apostles, and Bishops, and Doctors, and Ministers, who, through the mercy of God, have come in, and exercised episco­pacy, and taught, and ministred." Co­telerius's note here is. "Hic habes.—In [Page 53] English thus, "You have here the dis­tinct orders of the hierarchy, in apostles, in Bishops exercising episcopacy, in Doc­tors or Presbyters teaching, and in Dea­cons ministring." And the common plea of prelatical writers, from this pas­sage, is, that the three officers of the church, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, are here directly mentioned; and the distinction of their offices plainly insi­nuated by distinct work assigned them; the Bishops being described by their "ex­ercising episcopacy," the Doctors or Pres­byters by their "teaching," and the Dea­cons by their "ministring."

THIS turn given to the words, may, to those who have not read the "pastor of Hermas," carry the appearance of plau­sibility; but, when fairly and impartial­ly examined, they will be found to make nothing against the affirmation, that Bi­shops and Presbyters are one and the same order of officers in the church of Christ. Two things are here pleaded.

THE first is, that direct mention is here made of three sorts of officers in the church, viz. Bishops, Doctors or Presby­ters, [Page 54] and Ministers or Deacons." But if the word, Doctors, is here used exegeti­cally; not specifying distinct officers from Bishops, but meaning only a difference in the work of one and the same officers, there is plainly no force in the argument from this enumeration. And that this is really the truth of the matter, I shall now make evident, beyond all reasonable dispute, even from Hermas himself. In order whereto,

LET us turn to Simil. IX. Sect. XXVII. where we have these words, "As con­cerning the tenth mountain, in which were trees that covered the cattle, they are such as have believed, certain Bishops, that is, persons set over the churches,— and then such as are set over the services, who have protected the poor and widows," In this passage two or three things are very observable. (1) That the word, Bishops, is particularly explained, and its sense, as used in the writings of Hermas, punc­tually ascertained: which I thus notice, presuming it will be acknowledged rea­sonable to stand to that sense of a word, in an author, which he himself has given of it. (2) It is plain, the words, "Epis­copi," and "Praesides ecclesiarum," do, in [Page 55] Hermas, signify precisely one and the same thing. That is to say, "Bishops," and "such as are set over the church," do intend one and the same order of church-officers. For the explanati­on, given by Hermas, of the word "Bi­shops," is, their being persons that are "set over the church." (3) Here are evi­dently TWO, and ONLY TWO ORDERS of church-officers specified; namely, Bishops and Deacons: Bishops, under that stile, "Praesides ecclesiarum," persons "set over the church;" and DEACONS, characterised by the phrase, "Praesides ministeriorum," such as were "set over the services;" that is, that had the care of "the poor, and the widows," as follows in the next words; which perfectly co­incide with the original reason of the in­stitution of the Deacon's office, and de­scribe its proper work.

THESE things considered, I fear not to say, that there is good reason, why, when Hermas speaks of "Bishops, and Doc­tors, and Ministers," we should under­stand the words, "Doctors," exegetically, or explicative of the word, "Bishops;" not intending a distinct order of officers, [Page 56] but rather pointing our thoughts to dif­ferent work of the same officers. And, in truth, unless we interpret the word after this, or some such sense, we shall set Her­mas at odds with himself. For he has most punctually ascertained the meaning of the word, "Bishops," making it to sig­nify precisely the same thing with "prae­sides ecclesiarum," persons "set over the church." Now the phrase, "Praesides ec­clesiarum," is perfectly the same with, "qui praesunt ecclesiae;" which, in Vis. II. Sect. IV, is, in the most express man­ner, applied to Presbyters or Elders. "Thou shalt read [cum Senioribus, qui praesunt ecclesiae] with the Elders, or Presbyters, that are set over the church." So that, by the most easy and natural deduction, Bishops and Presbyters, according to Her­mas, are the SAME ORDER of officers in the church: Nor can Hermas be ever made consistent with himself, unless, when he speaks of "Bishops and Doctors," we take him to use the word, "Doctors," as exegetical of the word, "Bishops," or a synonimous expletive; meaning only the same order of persons by both these terms. And, this interpretation will appear more easy, if it be considered, that the words, [Page 57] "Bishops" and "Doctors," are common­ly used in the writings of all antiquity, as synonimous terms. Nor is the term, "Doctor," ever appropriated to Presbyters in distinction from Bishops. Far from this, even after the distinction between Bishops obtained in the church, the word, "Doctors", is commonly applied to Bi­shops: nor was it ever an appropriated term to point out Presbyters in distinction from Bishops.

MOREOVER, it ought to be considered, Hermas never makes the like enumerati­on, "Apostles, and Bishops, and Doc­tors, and Ministers;" but several times makes another, by which this ought, in all reason, to be explained. In Simil IV. Sect. XV. it is said, "the forty stones are the Apostles and Doctors of the preaching of the son of God. Again, in Sim. ib. Sect. XVI. These same "forty stones" are explained to mean, "the Apostles and Doctors of the preaching of the name of the Son of God." Yet again Sim. ib. Sect. XXV. We read of such as "be­lieved the Apostles and certain Doctors, who sincerely preached the word." In all these places, mention is made only of [Page 58] "Apostles" and "Doctors." But, if Doctors did not mean the same thing with Bishops, it is very extraordinary, and no episcopalian can account for it, that Bi­shops should always be omitted in these enumerations, and "Doctors" always men­tioned. And truly, by this frequent coupling of Apostles and Doctors, it is quite natural to think, that Doctors were, in the opinion of Hermas, the next offi­cers in the church to Apostles, and by no means an order INFERIOR to Bishops.

IT may be properly added, as Hermas had been speaking of "four-cornered stones," it is highly probable, if not cer­tain, that he mentions the four names, "apostles, Bishops, Doctors, and Mini­sters," only to make out something that might look like an analogy. In other pla­ces, where he had not to do with "square stones," he gives us no such enumera­tion. For myself, I am fully persuaded, we should not have had it here, had it not been for this trifling circumstance. Put if any should insist upon the necessi­ty of a strict and proper analogy, and that it was Hermas's design to exhibit one, the consequence would be as fatal [Page 59] to the cause of episcopacy, as to that of presbyterianism. For, upon this suppositi­on, there must be FOUR ORDERS in the church, not THREE, answering to the "four corners" of these "square-stones;" and the "Apostles," here mentioned, must be officers as distinct from the "Bi­shops," as the "Bishops" are from the "Doctors:" but how consistent this will be with the pretence, that Bishops are vest­ed with the apostolic office, as their pro­per and only successors; I must leave those to determine, whose concern it is to do so.

THE other branch of the plea is, that Hermas not only mentions "Bishops, and Doctors or Presbyters, and Ministers or Deacons;" but plainly insinuates a dis­tinction of order between them, by dis­tinct works assigned them: for, he re­presents the Bishops, as "exercising epis­copacy;" the Doctors, as "teaching;" and the ministers, as "ministring."

AND it is confessed, if, in the age of Hermas, the work of "exercising epis­copacy," and the work of "preaching," were separated from each other, as they too commonly are now a days, the argu­ment [Page 60] would carry with it some force. It is in fact true, at present, that those "exercise episcopacy," who seldom or never exercise themselves in "preaching." And, indeed, it rarely happens, that the persons vested with the episcopal office concern themselves much with this other business. But it was not thus from the beginning. Preaching was not then looked upon as the distinguishing mark of officers inferior to Bishops: but, for many ages, the work of "exercising epis­copacy," and the work of "preaching," were both united in one and the same of­ficer of the church; and "laboring in the word and doctrine" was the most known, and distinguishing character of all that were Bishops: insomuch, that a single instance cannot be produced (I speak it with great positiveness) of a per­son "exercising episcopacy," that did not, at the same time, make it his chief business to "preach;" until we come in­to those ages, in which the grossest cor­ruptions were prevalent among all orders and degrees of men in the church. So that, it is no argument, that the "Doc­tors" in Hermas were distinct officers from Bishops, because they are spoken of [Page 61] as "preaching," and the Bishops as "ex­ercising episcopacy." For these are both parts of one and the same office; and were always joined together, until, by corruption, they were separated. A Bi­shop that was not a "Doctor," or "teach­er," was not known in the world in pri­mitive times. It is therefore impossible, the "Doctors", in this passage, could be distinct officers from the "Bishops," for this reason; as it had no existence until hundreds of years after its being penned. It is far more reasonable to suppose, the same order of officers are here called both "Bi­shops" and "Doctors," as pointing us to both parts of their office, "exercising episcopacy" and "preaching," or "teach­ing."

THE only remaining places in Hermas, in which episcopacy is sought for, are Vis. III. Sect. IX. "I say unto you who are set over the church, and love the first seats." Mand. XII. Sect. VII. "The earthly spirit exalteth itself, and will have the first chair." Simil. VI. Sect. VII. "They are such—as had some envy and strife among themselves for principality and dignity." The plea here is, though [Page 62] Hermas blames all contention about "precedence;" yet he plainly supposes, at the same time, a first or chief seat; some superior place in the church, proper to persons of a superior rank or order; such as Bishops in that, and succeeding ages.

TO which I would say, it is very plain, from these passages in Hermas, that there was an assuming ambitious spirit then prevailing among those, who were "set over the church," which "earthly spirit," as he terms it, he cautions against, as what ought not to be encouraged. But that he supposes, when he warns against "pride, envy, and a love of the first seats," there were any officers in the church of a rank or order superior to that of Pres­byters, there is no just ground to think. When Hermas dehorts from "loving the first seats, desiring the first chair, con­tending for principality and dignity;" he undoubtedly intends, by all these phrases, one and the same thing: that is to say, he had it in view to discountenance that proud, ambitious spirit, which reigned in some; unreasonably pushing them on to aspire after superiority and prece­dence. It does not appear to have been [Page 63] his aim to insinuate a superiority of or­der between Bishops and Presbyters; but to check the growing vanity of those, who, being of one and the same rank, yet sought for pre-eminence, and strove to get exalted above their brethren. The temper of the persons Hermas here finds fault with, seems to have been much the same with that, which the Apostles dis­covered when they contended, "who among them should be greatest:" or, ra­ther, like that of Diotrephes, of whom it is said, "that he loved to have the pre­heminence;" or (as the word Philopró­teuein signifies) "loved to hold the first place." But, as it is no argument, that there was among the Apostles any superi­ority of order, because they affected some to be greatest; or, that there was a like superior office in the church, to which a chief seat was appropriated, because Dio­trephes was of an aspiring haughty spirit: so neither is it any argument of the same thing, that Hermas blames the same spi­rit, and warns against it.

NOR if, in the days of Hermas, there had been a known first seat, or chief chair, appropriated to some special person, would [Page 64] it at once follow from hence, that there was a SUPERIORITY OF ORDER between Bishops and Presbyters. Hermas, to be sure, neither plainly mentions, or tacitly suggests, such a thing; nor makes any ap­plication of these seats to this purpose. And as a chief seat, or first chair, is com­monly assigned to the moderators of all ecclesiastical consistories, whether greater or less, who yet have no PRIMACY OF POWER, no SUPERIORITY OF OFFICE, but meerly for the sake of decency and order, this might be the case here: though I am rather inclined to think, that no­thing more is intended by these phrases, than an indication of that pride and va­nity, which too much prevailed, even in those early days, among the officers of the christian church; which Hermas there­fore endeavours, by proper considerations, to restrain and curb.

[Page]

CLEMENT OF ROME.
His character, writings, and testimonies from them, with observations and remarks.

THE account we have in the "Re­cognitions" falsely ascribed to this Clement, of his noble birth and parentage; his being sent by his father Faustinus to be a student at Athens; the manner and circumstances of his conversion; his in­struction under Barnabas; his baptism by the Apostle Peter, together with the various adventures of some of his nearest relatives I shall pass over in silence: not looking upon that supposititious piece of authority sufficient to encourage a belief of these things.

NOR is it absolutely certain, that this is that Clement, of whom we read in the [Page 66] fourth chapter to the Philippians; though, as we know of no one under this name, to whom this text may be so well applied, the conjecture in which the generality of learned writers are agreed, seems no ways improbable, that he is the person there intended: especially, considering the an­cient fathers do either expressly call him the scripture-Clement, or so describe him as naturally to point our thoughts to this father, rather than any other of the same name. Irenaeus speaks of him as one that "had seen the Apostles, conversed with them, and attended on their preach­ing." Origen, Eusebius, and Jerom do all of them directly take notice of him, as the Clement "spoken of in scripture." And if this was he, the honorable men­tion an inspired pen makes of him, as "an Apostle's fellow-laborer in the gospel, and one whose name was in the book of life," is a very recommending cir­cumstance, and cannot well fail of giv­ing us a favorable opinion of any ge­nuine writing, we may meet with under his name.

BUT however this be, he was a person anciently had in great veneration. Scarce [Page 67] any of the first fathers are more frequent­ly mentioned in antiquity, or their names remembered in higher expressions of re­spect and honor. Clement of Alexan­dria speaks of him in the stile of "an Apostle"; Origin (or Ruffin his transla­tor) calls him "the faithful Clement"; the author of "the questions and answers" ascribed to Justin Martyr, "the blessed Clement;" Jerom, "an apostolical man."

HE is said to have been Bishop of Rome: though It must be observed here, we shall be much mistaken, if, from his being spoken of in the stile of Bishop, we should imagine him like one of our English diocesans. It is indeed probable enough, the ancients, that call him Bishop, after the episcopal power and grandeur had arose to some height, might, by this ap­pellation, mean such a kind of ecclesiastic as the Bishop was in their day. But this is no argument that he was so, either in reality, or in the esteem of the more pri­mitive fathers. We shall afterwards see it to be the truth, that, until towards the close of the second century, Bishops and Presbyters were only different names for one and the same order of officers in the [Page 68] christian church, and promiscuously used just in the same manner, as in the Apostles days: upon which account, when Cle­ment is spoken of as Bishop of Rome, it amounts to no more than if he had been called the Pastor, or one of the Pres­byters of that church. Agreably Ire­naeus, in mentioning the persons that succeeded in the roman church, sometimes does it under the name of Bishops, and sometimes under the names of Pres­byters; evidently using these names pro­miscuously, as signifying one and the same order of church officers. This will be fully shewn in its proper place.

BUT though he was Bishop, or Pastor, of the church of Rome, yet the particular time of his entering upon this charge is matter of great difficulty; as is also the exact place he bears in the order of suc­cession: the ancient fathers being so strangely divided in their accounts upon this head. Tertullian derives the suc­cession from Peter; and makes Clement his immediate successor. The author of the "apostolical constitutions" places at the head of the succession the Apostle Paul, as well as Peter; and make Linus [Page 69] to succeed Paul, and Clement Peter; but not until after the death of Linus. Irenaeus and Eusebius, besides Linus, name Anacletus before Clement; giving the order thus, Linus, Anacletus, Clement. And, after the days of Eusebius, still grea­ter confusion is to be seen in the cata­logues of this succession. In some Ana­cletus is expunged, and Cletus placed in his room; while others retain both Cle­tus and Anacletus. And the order in which these are placed, is much varied. In some the line is seen running thus, Li­nus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus. In others, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anacle­tus. And again in others, Linus, Cle­tus, Anacletus, Clement. And agrea­bly the later Greeks (as Bishop Pearson observes from Cotelerius) do call Cle­ment, sometimes the second, and some­times the third Bishop of Rome.

IN such confusion is the line, in one of the greatest and most celebrated chur­ches in primitive antiquity: upon which the learned Stillingfleet pleasantly observes, "The succession here is as muddy as Tyber itself." Nor would the remark Dr. Cave makes upon the writers of the [Page 70] Romish church, be less pertinent, if we should apply it to those of the English: "They are (says he) involved in an in­extricable labyrinth about the first four Bishops of this (the Roman) see; scarce two of them, of any note, bringing in the same account." And after all that has been, or can be said, perhaps, there is no way of accommodating this matter, but by supposing Linus, Cletus, and Cle­ment to be Bishops of Rome, not suc­cessively, but at the same time: which, though it breaks in upon the unity of the Episcopate, gives no just occasion for terror, since the old maxim, "one Bi­shop one altar," does not appear to be sacred and inviolable, either from reason, scripture, or antiquity.

I CANNOT help digressing so far here, as to insert a few words from the judici­ous Dr. Calamy. ‘If (says he) such con­fusion reigns here, (in the succession at Rome) where one would apprehend the matter to be clearest, how weak is it to place our whole dependance on these sort of tables? How poor a foun­dation do those Gentlemen chuse to build upon, who lay their main stress [Page 71] on their derivation from the Roman table, in proof of their ministerial au­thority? Were it not a thousand times more candid, and ingenuous, to confess we are in the dark, and left at uncertain­ty, than to make pompous boasts, the ground of which examined, vanish from under us? These sort of pretences to apostolical right, and apostolical tradi­tion, backed with the tables of suc­cession, in the several churches, make, I confess, a mighty noise, and may dazzle the eyes of the weak, and pass for a justification with those that have the civil authority on their side, which may seem to give them validity: but they disappear, whenever they are exa­mined in cold blood, and viewed na­ked as they are themselves. When we make the best of them we can, Eusebius is the main author that we have to depend on for the credit of these tables. And his account of the succession, in the several churches, is made up mostly of conjectures at three hundred years distance from aposto­lical times, vouched by uncertain au­thors. And where he has left vacan­cies, Nicephorus Callistus, and Simeon [Page 72] the Metaphrast, and other such histori­cal tinkers, as Bishop Stillingfleet plea­santly calls them, have taken effectual care to fill them up.—He that from the blind, broken, and uncertain ta­bles of succession, that are transmitted to us in the records of antiquity, can infer the necessity of episcopal, and the invalidity of presbyterian ordination, must either have a strong faith, or a predominant fancy. If they cannot be cleared, it is vain to argue from them: but if they can, they will serve us as much as they will them.’ But to return.

BEING Bishop of Rome, he was a con­stant, laborious preacher of the word, and dispenser of gospel ordinances to that church. For this is the most just and true idea of a faithful Bishop or Pastor in primitive times. The name Bishop was not then looked upon so much a ti­tle of honor, as implying in it great watch­fulness, labor and pains: and this, not in "inspecting and governing inferior clergymen," but in "feeding the flock of Christ" with the word and sacraments. Nor is there a fact more unquestionably [Page 73] clear, from the whole strain of primitive an­tiquity, than that it was the stated, known, perpetual employment of all that were Bishops, to exercise themselves chiefly in this work. And this true scripture no­tion of the work of a Bishop, was so ge­nerally prevalent, even after the distinc­tion between Bishop and Presbyter took place, that the fourth council of Car­thage came into such a decree as that, "the Bishop shall wholly occupy himself in reading, and praying, and preach­ing the word." But the reader that has a mind to see this matter indisputably cleared up, has it done ready to his hand by that wonder of learning, the great Jameson, in his "Nazianzeni Querela" and his "Cyprianus Isotimus".

It is common in modern authors to read of this Clement as banished from his church, and at last dying a mar­tyr for the cause of Christ: though these things, to say the least, are mat­ters of great uncertainty. None of the fathers of the three first centuries, that I can find, make mention of him as an exile, or martyr. And what is pretty extraordinary, Eusebius, who is common­ly very particular in these cases, is whol­ly silent upon this head. If we may de­pend [Page 74] on the credit of Cotelerius, Ruffin, who lived in latter end of the fourth cen­tury, is the first that speaks of him as ho­nored with martyrdom. After him in­deed Simeon Metaphrastes has exhibited to the world a most particular and for­mal account of his "banishment to Cher­son to dig in the marble quarries and la­bor in the mines; and afterwards of his being carried and thrown into the bottom of the sea." St. Ephraem also, Bishop of Cher­son, relates several very extraordinary mira­cles, that followed upon his being then put to death: but these are authors too much given to the romantic strain to place any dependance on; especially in matters so distant from their own times, about which the first fathers are wholly silent. Nor is it much to the honor of the learned, and otherwise valuable, Dr. Cave, that he takes so much notice, with seeming faith, of these and such like plainly fabu­lous relations: though I could wish, he he had not, upon this account, been quite so severely censured by my Lord Barring­ton, when he says of him, "that he has little that is not common and obvious, be­sides some idle and legendary stories, with which he abounds.

[Page 75]BUT whatever was the manner of his death, Eusebius places it in the third of Trajan, that is, in the year of our Lord one hundred, after he had been Bishop of Rome nine years: which, whether it be the true account, I leave to others to determine.

THE writings that go under the name of this Clement are many, and may be distinguish'd into GENUINE, DOUBTFUL, and SUPPOSITITIOUS.

GENUINE.

IN this rank is placed that excellent epistle to the Corinthians, concerning which the great Du-pin has dropped that remark, "next to the holy scripture, it is, in my opinion, one of the most eminent re­cords of antiquity." It was certainly so accounted by the primitive fathers; who scarce mention it without some epithet of honor. It is called by Irenaeus (as Dr. Cave translates the phrase) "the most excellent and absolute writing;" by Eu­sebius "the truly great and admirable epistle:" and what the same author adds, may further assure us of its high va­lue [Page 76] in ancient times."; this epistle we have known to have been publicly read in many churches, both of old, and among ourselves also." Nor is it unwor­thy observation, that the only copy of this epistle, known in the world, was found written in the same volume with the sa­cred books of the new-testament: to which happy circumstance we may ascribe it, that we are favored with it, after it had been bewailed as lost for many ages.

THE manner of its discovery and pub­lication was thus.—When Cyrill, Pa­triarch of Constantinople, returned from his Alexandrian seat in Egypt, he brought with him a large collection of books; among which was an ancient copy of the old and new-testament, wrote by the hand of Thecla, a noble Egyptian virgin, about the time of the first nicene coun­cil. This he sent as a present to King Charles the first, by Sir Thomas Roe, his Majesty's then Embassador at the Otto­man court, upon his return into England. At the end of this copy was added this epistle of Clement, wrote by the same hand; though something broken and de­faced: [Page 77] which, when the learned Patrick Young, his Majesty's library-keeper, had discovered, he was commanded by the King, to make it public; which he ac­cordingly did at Oxford, in the year 1633, with a latin translation, and learn­ed notes.

THE occasion of Clement's writing this epistle, we may learn from Irenaeus, who says, "In the days of Clement, the church of Rome wrote a very pathetical letter [they are said to have wrote it, though it was penned by Clement, be­cause it was wrote and sent in their name] to restore them to peace." Eusebius ex­hibits the like testimony, when he tells us, "that Clement wrote this epistle from Rome to Corinth, when sedition was raised among the Corinthians." He adds a few words after, "that there was, at that time, a sedition among the Co­rinthians, Hegesippus is a witness. Nor can any one that reads this epistle be at a loss as to the truth of this. It is plain, through the whole of it, there was a shame­ful disturbance in the church; and this chief­ly against its Presbyters: some of the peo­ple being vainly conceited of their spi­ritual [Page 78] gifts, and therefore rising up against their guides and teachers. Now, to heal this difference, and restore peace and good order, this epistle was principally design­ed; and to this end it is admirably well adapted: being wrote in a plain and un­affected stile; yet with great strength and perspicuity, and evidently breathing the true spirit and genius of the apostolic age.

THE epistle is wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Co­rinth: upon which a noted author per­tinently remarks, "Had he (Clement) known himself to be the infallible judge of controversies, to whose sentence the whole christian world was bound to stand, invested with a supreme, unaccountable power, from which there lay no appeal, we might have expected to hear him ar­gue at another rate." And as there is no mention in this epistle of any single per­son, as the head and Governor of the Co­rinthian church, I cannot forbear adding another remark, which seems full as na­tural; namely, That if there had been, at that time, at the head of this church, an ecclesiastical officer, in any measure, resembling one of our modern Bishops, [Page 79] it is altogether unaccountable, how both Clement and the church of Rome should treat him with such neglect, as to be to­tally silent about him. It would certain­ly look strange, and be resented ill, if one of our present Bishops should be so shamefully overlooked; his church com­plained of, rebuked, exhorted, and direct­ed to a proper method of peace: and all, without referring the matter to the Bi­shop, or indeed taking the least notice of him.—But of this we may hear more afterwards.

THE exact time, when this epistle was wrote, is not easy to be stated; as we may be fully satisfied from the disagree­ment of the most learned writers on this head. Mr. Young's thought is, that it was wrote about two years before his death, in the time that he supposes him to be under banishment. Dr. Cave fixes the period a few years sooner, a little af­ter the Dioclesian persecution. Vende­linus places it in the year 95, when he apprehends this persecution was at its heighth. Cotelerius agrees with him as to the year, but rather thinks the perse­cution was drawing to an end. But the [Page 80] conjecture of Grotius, Dodwell, Arch-Bishop Wake, and some others, makes it to have been wrote much sooner; be­tween the latter end of Nero's reign, and the destruction of Jerusalem, that is, between the years 64 and 70; which they very much ground on that passage in the epistle, where they suppose the Jewish priest­hood and Levitical ministrations are spo­ken of as yet continuing.—But as it would be a going too far out of my way to con­sider the particular reasons, on which these conjectures are built, I have barely referred to them, without pretending to say which are most probable: but leaving it to the reader to examine the matter, and determine as he sees fit:

THE only colour of an objection against the genuiness of this epistle, is taken from the "fable of the phaenix," which Cle­ment particularly relates, and then uses to represent the credibility of the doctrine of the resurrection. But it is not wor­thy of much notice. This was a story, however ridiculous, generally believed in that day, by the learned as well as un­learned, both Jews and Gentiles. And as the account of that "bird's reviving out [Page 81] of the ashes of the body consumed by fire," was capable of being improved as an illustration of the doctrine of the re­surrection, where is the great absurdity of its being applied to this purpose? And if Clement had himself really believed this story, being too far carried away with the prevailing opinion, what greater in­firmity would it argue, than the best and most valuable men always have been, and now are, subject to. *

GROTIUS's thoughts concerning this epistle, in his letter to Bignorius, are worth transcribing here. "I have (says he) read it over and over again, with the utmost care and diligence, and cannot think any other, than that it is the same epistle which Photius read: in whose day, since it was in being, it is not wonderful, it has been preserved to our's, among the sacred writings. Neither see I any reason, ei­ther why the epistle which Photius read, [Page 82] should not be the same which Jerom had, and before him Clement of Alexan­dria, and Irenaeus, yet nearer to the time of Clement of Rome: or why we should ascribe it to any other, than Clement of Rome himself; since this has been hand­ed down to us, with so great and univer­sal consent." To which I would only add, there is no one ancient piece, we have greater reason, both from its internal cha­racter, and external evidence, to depend upon as genuine. It is perhaps the most frequently quoted, by the more primi­tive Fathers, of any uninspired book; between all which quotations, and the present copy of this epistle, there is a won­derful agreement. And it carries in it none of those marks of impostor that are to be met with, in some other pieces, and these too, palmed upon even this ve­ry Clement: but every thing is delivered both as to matter, and manner, as might be expected from one that lived in the apostolic age, and was a worthy faithful laborer in the vineyard of Christ.

DOUBTFUL.

IN this class I place the "second epis­tle to the Corinthians," ascribed to this [Page 83] Clement. It is unquestionably an an­cient piece; and as it contains a pious exhortation to an holy life, without the mixture of any thing, that I at present remember, unbecoming the character of Clement, or dissonant from the age in which he lived, I see no reason absolutely to condemn it as supposititious.

AS the known ecclesiastical historian speaks of the first epistle as the only un­doubted one, and declares concerning the second, what appears, even to this day, to be fact, that it was "neither used, nor alledged, by the ancient writers;" if we may not, with Jerom and Photius, plain­ly reject it, we may, at least, put it up on the foot of uncertain authority.— But I need not say any more, there being extant only a fragment of this epistle; in which we meet with nothing that bears relation to the present controversy.

SPURIOUS.

THE pieces of this sort, ascribed to Clement, as their author, or the penman of others, are the "apostolical constitu­tions," the "apostolical canons," the [Page 84] "recognitions," the "Clementines" with the "prefixt epistle of Clement to James," and the "epitome of the acts of Peter."

AS to the constitutions; Mr. Whiston, the latest patron of them, has given them the most sacred character; pre­tending, that they are the work of even the whole body of the Apostles, and pen­ned by Clement as their amanuensis: than which, perhaps, there never was an opinion attended with more, or greater absurdities. It is obvious to all, in any measure, versed in the ancient wri­tings, that there is a total silence of all primitive antiquity about these constitu­tions. And however Mr. Whiston's authorities out of the fathers have swel­led even into a volume, yet that they are only a vast heap of misapplications is so evident, that no one, so far as I can learn, has ever thought it worth while to be at the pains to take them out of that strangly false light, in which he has placed them: nor is there any need of it, there being enough in the books them­selves to make it clearly evident, that no one of the apostles had any hand in writ­ing them; yea, that they never were in [Page 85] being, at least as we now have them, un­til the church of Christ was gone far in­to corruption and degeneracy. A few of those many things, which are open to every one's observation, upon the bare reading of them, and that are sufficient indications of this, I shall here insert.

THE manner in which they speak of Bishops is very extraordinary. They represent them as "bearing the character of God among men;" as "set over all men, Priests, Kings, Princes, fathers, sons, masters, and all that are subject to them." They command them to "judge with like authority as God himself." They call the Bishop, "the minister of the word, the keeper of knowledge, the me­diator between God and his people in re­ligious worship, the master of piety, next unto God, the christian's father, his Prince, Governor, King, Potentate;" and declare, that he is to be "honor'd next to God as an earthly God." They speak of Bishops, as those that are to be "venerated and honoured with all kind of honor;" as those who have "received from God the power of life and death, in judging sinners, and condemning them to eter­nal [Page 86] flames, and absolving those who are converted." They exhort the people to "reverence their Bishops as Kings, and to honor them as their Lord."

THIS is a taste of the spirit, and stile, in which Bishops are here spoken of; between which, and the stile and spirit of the truly apostolical writings, upon the same subject, there cannot be a greater contrariety. Let a man read, over and over again, the genuine writings of the apostles, and he shall ever find what they say concerning Bishops, to be delivered in plain simple language, per­fectly suited to the spiritual nature of that kingdom of Christ, in which they are of­ficers: whereas, these "constitutions" so strangely differ from the apostolic genius, that, if the writings of the most corrupt ages be looked into, we shall not be able to find in them any expressions, more unboundedly aggrandising Bishops, and claiming for them higher degrees of ho­nor and reverence.

AND if we turn to the epistle of Cle­ment, the pretended amanuensis of the Apostles, we shall find as great a disso­nancy [Page 87] between that, and these constitu­tions: which is truly wonderful, if he had such an intimate acquaintance with them, as he must have had, if he was the penman of them. Nor can it, in any ra­tional way, be accounted for, that, in wri­ting to the Corinthians, he should whol­ly pass by this most valuable and canoni­cal part of sacred scripture, (as it must certainly be, if, as is said, it was compo­sed by the whole body of Apostles) which yet he does; and this, when it was far better adapted to answer the design of his "epistle," than all the other books of the new-testament put together. For here, the boundaries, not only between Bi­shops and Presbyters, but between Pres­byters and Laics, are most punctually fixed; their duty to them prescribed; their obedience secured; and, in a word, the whole controversy among the Corin­thians, the occasion of Clement's writing to them, intirely settled. And yet, he takes not the least notice of these "con­stitutions," though, from the mouth of the Apostles, he had penned them; while▪ at the same time, he makes great use of the books both of the old and new-testa­ment, to fetch in arguments to his pur­pose. But to proceed.

[Page 88]IN these "constitutions," we have forms of prayer prescribed for a great va­riety of occasions: particularly for both sacraments, "baptism and the Lord's supper;" for the "ordination of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Readers, Singers," and so on. But that these were, any of them, ever used in the primitive church, there are no footsteps in antiquity: nor is there the least reference made to them, by any truly ancient Father, upon any occasion: which is altogether unaccoun­table, if, as is pretended, they were com­posed, even by the whole body of Apos­tles; and this, purposely for the use of the christian church.

WE here read of the use of "oyl in baptism;" nor is it allowed to be valid without a prayer for the efficacy of it on the baptised person: and he is repre­sented, without this prayer, as "de­scending into the water to no better pur­pose than a meer Jew;" and as "washing off the defilements of his body, but not of his soul."

WE have here prescribed an "office for the dead;" in which supplication is [Page 89] made for the deceased, that God would "pardon his sins, both involuntary and voluntary, and receive his soul to be with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

WE are here commanded to attend "prayer at church," not only daily, but no less than "six times a day;" the particular seasons for which, toge­ther with the trifling reasons on which they are grounded, are all particularly specified.

PARTICULAR care is here taken about the "form and situation of churches;" an appointment made, that they shall be "oblong and facing the east." Mag­nificence in churches is also commanded, the "Bishops throne" adjusted, the place where he is to stand appointed, namely, "the altar;" where he must appear clothed with a "shining splendid vest­ment;" and before he begins prayer, he is ordered, in the sight of all the people, "to make upon his forehead the sign of the cross." The Deacons are command­ed to wait on each side of the altar, with a "fan in their hands made of thin membranes, or the feathers of a peacock, [Page 90] or of fine cloth, to drive away the small animals from the sacramental cups." A very minute account is also exhibited of "places to sit in" in churches, and the "junior ordered to be turned of his place," if he does not yield it to a "more honorable stranger;" together with other like instances of ceremony and good manners.

WE are here directed to "observe days in honor to deceased saints;" to accom­pany "their funerals with singing," and to "assemble in the dormitories of the martyrs, and there to celebrate the holy eucharist."

PARTICULAR mention is here made of "Sub-deacons, Readers, Singers, Con­fessors, Porters, Ministers, Virgins, Ex­ercists," as BEARING OFFICE in the church. We read also of "Energumens, Cate­chumens," together with a great num­ber of "fasts and feasts," and a deal more such trumpery, which was abso­solutely unknown in the apostolic age; but visible enough in the church, in after days, when she had become super­stitious and corrupt. And this I should [Page 91] now particularly and largely have shewn, but that I must have taken considerable pains, in my own apprehension, to little purpose; not doubting, but the bare nar­rative of the above articles will be thought by most, a full justification of those, who discard all pretence to these books, as apostolically composed.

THIS opinion then being thrown aside, it is not easy to conceive of these "con­stitutions" in their present form, as any other, than the work of some very bold and impudent impostor; since he personates the Apostles with all freedom; speaking in the name, sometimes of one, sometimes of another, and sometimes of them all; with the greatest solemnity and formali­ty commanding this thing, and prohibit­ing another. Instances of this are so fre­quently to be met with, that it is needless to adduce any. And it demonstrably argues, that the author was a vile cheat, and ought accordingly to be so thought of.

AS to the time in which these books may be supposed to come abroad in the world, I know of none (those few excep­ted who plead for them as penned by [Page 92] Clement) who pretend to fix the period higher than the latter end of the second, or the beginning of the third century. * But whether those, who thus fix the time, are in the right; or others, who bring it down to the fourth or fifth century, I shall not dispute. Probably, they were not complete, as we now have them, at once; but have been, from time to time, corrected, altered, augmented, according to the various customs of different ages and countries.

MR. Whiston pretends the same of the "canons" that he does of the constitu­tions; that they were wrote by Clement, as the work of the whole apostolic body: but there does not appear any reason, why the same judgment should not be passed [Page 93] upon them, that we have given of the con­stitutions, in point of their being aposto­lically composed. As for myself, nothing more was needful to convince me of this, after I had once read them: so many of them being either trifling in themselves, or inconsistent with the truly apostolical writings, or containing such things as were not known in the church until ages after the apostles. I shall not think it beyond my design, to present here to the reader's view a few of them.

CAN. II. "If any Bishop or Presbyter, besides what our Lord has appointed for sacrifice, shall offer upon the altar other things; as honey, or milk, or cyder in­stead of wine, or things made by the confectioner, or birds, or animals, or pulse: let him be deposed. Excepting ears of corn, or grapes, it is not lawful to offer any thing upon the altar, save only oyl for the holy lamp, and incense of thyme in divine oblation." Those who are in the least acquainted with the writings of the apostolic age, and the af­ter corrupt ages of the church, can be at no loss to determine, in which of these ages, it is most likely, this canon should [Page 94] be formed. And the curious reader, that will be at the pains to run over the learn­ed Dodwell's "book of incense," cannot well help being satisfied, particularly as to the article of offering incense, that it was absolutely unknown in the church, for some ages after the death of the Apostles.

CAN. V. "If any Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, shall celebrate with the Jews, the holy day of easter before the vernal aequinox, let him be deposed." The controversy between the eastern and wes­tern churches, about the time of keeping easter, that happened in the second cen­tury, long after the death of the Apostles, might, by this canon, have been settled: and yet, in the whole management of this dispute, (which was prodigiously fierce) it was never once appealed to, nor the least hint given, by either party, as if any such canon was in being: which is certain­ly a very strange thing, if, before this dis­pute, this cannon had been made, and committed to writing by direction from the Apostles: especially considering, the chief managers of this dispute were the Pastors of the several churches, the most [Page 95] learned and famous among them; who must have known of this canon, if it had been in being; and cannot be sup­posed not to have made use of it, since it was an apostolical one, and must at once have ended the controversy.

CAN. XVII. "Forbids any one's being made a Clergyman, who hath made him­self an eunuch; and commands every Clergyman, who hath so made himself, to be deposed: and, if he be a Laic, to be separated for three years:" which looks too much like the production of after ages, when this practice became so common, as to need some restraints to be laid upon it, to be admitted for apostolical.

CAN. XIX. "Of those who were sin­gle persons, when they were made Cler­gymen, we command, that only Readers and Singers may take wives." A person can scarce read this canon, without turn­ing his thoughts to a scripture passage, which founds as if, by special foreknow­ledge, it had been purposely inserted, to confront the authority of these and such like decrees. Says one of the Apostles of our Lord, "Now the spirit speaketh [Page 96] expressly, that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith,—FORBID­ING TO MARRY."

CAN. XXVII. "Subjects all Bishops, of every province, to one that is first a­mong them, or the Metropolitan." But as nothing is more clearly evident, than that Metropolitans were not known, in the church, until ages after the Apostles; to these times this canon ought to be referred.

I SHALL only add two or three more ca­nons, which seem to be of trifling con­sideration, and not to merit a formal decree of the whole body of Apostles.

CAN. LXIX. "If any Clergyman hath laughed at one that is dumb, or blind, or lame in his feet, let him be separated: so also let the Layman."

CAN. LXX. "If any one hath a devil, he may not be made a Clergyman: nor may he pray with the faithful."

CAN. LXXI. "He that is deaf, dumb, or blind, let him not be made a Bishop."

[Page 97]HAVING thus offered what may be thought sufficient to evince the absurdi­ty of that opinion, which makes these canons the composure of the Apostles, I shall not be so much concerned to inquire into other things of less importance. Who the author of these canons was, is a matter of the greatest uncertainty. But whether he was an impostor, that design­ed to impose upon the world, by putting them forth under the name of the Apos­tles: or whether they are only the de­crees of ancient councils collected toge­ther in this form, by some person or per­sons of honest intention; and stiled apos­tolical, not as if they had been made by the Apostles, but as containing things, in their apprehension, consonant to the rules delivered by the Apostles; or as made up of usages and traditions supposed, to be handed down from them: I say, whether of these opinions are the truest, I shall not at present debate. Nor is it a matter agreed on, when these canons first made their appearance in the world. Mon­sieur D'aille does not allow them any be­ing, until towards the fifth century: in opposition whereto, Bishop Beveridge has ransacked all antiquity to confirm the [Page 98] opinion, that they ought to be placed in the third century. But instead of examining the arguments of these au­thors to know which are in the right, I shall rather observe concerning both the apostolical constitutions, and canons, as a conclusion of what I shall offer about them,

THAT however those learned writers, who have given the world their thoughts about these books, may differ in matters of smaller importance; as the time, man­ner, and occasion of their being wrote; yet, with great unanimity, they reject them as the work of inspired Apostles. And indeed, Mr. Whiston (depending on the credit of Dr. Smallbroke) is the first person, either ancient or modern, so far as we are informed by ecclesiastical his­tory, that ever had this opinion of them: ‘Even Bovius, and Turrianus, (to use the language of that author) who first recommended the constitutions to the learned world, how vainly soever they spent their time in writing forced and unnatural apologies for them, were not so fond of novelty, as to sup­pose they were truly apostolical, and [Page 99] the product of divine inspiration. Much less did they ever dream of so high a degree of inspiration, as renders them (according to Mr. Whiston) more sacred than the authentic gospels them­selves. All that they pretended to as­sert was, that Clemens Romanus had collected some apostolical traditions, which he formed into the eight books of constitutions, then retrieved and published by them. They, therefore, agreably to their hypothesis, weak and precarious as it was, labored to establish the antiquity of the consti­tutions, as a body of ecclesiastical dis­cipline; but expressly disclaimed all pretensions to divine authority, or to their being a sacred rule of life and manners.’ He goes on in a man­ner that I shall think worth trans­cribing: ‘Indeed their principal de­sign was to oppose those of the re­formation by them. And that it was so, both those warm patrons of the con­stitutions very frankly acknowledge. Bovius, who translated them first into latin, and commented upon them, de­dicated his work to the Pope's legates that presided in the council of Trent: [Page 100] In the epistle dedicatory to whom, he acquaints us, that, upon a recital of some passages of the clementine con­stitutions, at a meeting of the fathers of the council of Trent, those pas­sages were thought so very serviceable to what was there transacting in that sy­nod, as to give the first hint to the publica­tion of the whole body of the constituti­ons. After which, Bovius asserts, that there is scarce any thing that is opposed by the Heretics, that is, Protestants, as crept into the church by error and super­stition, but may be defended by the authority of these constitutions, and shewn to be of primitive antiquity. Turrianus, likewise, who made these constitutions a considerable part of his studies, assures us, that they were thought very beneficial to the church, that is, the church of Rome, by the censors of books in the council of Trent; and that their most grave and weighty judgment of them was sealed, and laid up at Rome, in the public records of the inquisition. Again, he affirms, that nothing of antiquity could be published more proper for that age, and better adapted to the confutation [Page 101] of those innovators, the Protestants.’ He adds, ‘That these books were pro­videntially published in that age, when there was the greatest occasion for them, as witnesses against those of the reformation: (at whom he rails very plentifully) and that it seemed, nothing more was either wanting, or could be expected for their convicti­on. That these books were sent by God to triumph over these Protes­tants, and to shew the world how just­ly they were condemned in the coun­cil of Trent.’

DR. Smallbroke adds, the reason that he transcribed these passages from Bovius and Turrianus was, ‘That the reader might be rightly informed of the avow­ed design of publishing the clementine constitutions, even the confutation of the reformed religion,’ And I have thus transcribed the passages from him, because he stiles himself "Canon-Resi­dentiary of Hereford, Treasurer of the church of Landaff, and Chaplain to his Grace, the Lord Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury."

[Page 102]THE next piece, that presents itself under the name of Clement, is the "re­cognitions," as in the translation of Ruf­fin. But it is so empty of every thing savoring of the simplicity of the first and pure ages of christianity, and so full of fable, and feigned conferences about fate, and the influence of the stars, and hea­venly constellations, and such like ridi­culous stuff, that it is universally placed below the time of Clement, as altogether unworthy of him.

AND the same may be said of the other writings, we have mentioned under the head of supposititious, if indeed they may be allowed to be called different ones. The "clementines" are thought, by some, to be that "other edition of the recog­nitions," Ruffin mentions in his preface to Gaudentius, prefixed to the recogni­tions he made a version of: since they so exactly agree with the character he there gives of them, differing in some things from that he translated, but the same in many. And for the "epitome of the acts of Peter," Dr. Cave calls it "a third edition of the recognitions," or rather an "abstract of both the recog­nitions [Page 103] and clementines," though keep­ing more closely to the latter. But whe­ther these are different compositions, or only one and the same piece, something varied and differently modelled, it mat­ters not; so long as we have the con­currence of the main body of the learned world in throwing them aside as evident­ly supposititious.

TESTIMONIES from CLEMENT's first epistle to the Corinthians.

The INSCRIPTION to the epistle.

"The church of God which is at Rome, [ê paroikousa Rômên] to the church of God which is at Corinth, [ê paroikousa Korinthon] elect, sanctified, by the will of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord: grace and peace from the Almighty God, by Jesus Christ, be multipled unto you."

BRETHREN,

THE sudden and unexpected dangers and calamities that have fallen upon us, have, we fear, made us the more slow in our consideration of those things [Page 104] which you inquired of us; as also of that wicked and detestable SEDITION, so unbecoming the elect of God, which a few heady and self-willed men have fo­mented to such a degree of madness, that your venerable and renowned name, so worthy of all men to be beloved, is greatly blasphemed thereby. For who that has ever been among you, has not experi­mented the firmness of your faith, and its fruitfulness in all good works? and ad­mired the temper and moderation of your religion in Christ?—For ye did all things without respect of persons, and walked according to the laws of God: being subject to those who had the rule over you, [upotassamenoi tois êgoumenois u­môn,] and giving the honor that was fit­ing to such as were the aged among you [tois par umin presbuterois.] Ye com­manded the young men [Neois] to think those things that were modest and grave. The women, ye exhorted, to do all things with an unblameable, and seemly, and pure conscience; loving their own hus­bands as was fiting."—

HE goes on, in the next section, com­mending their former christian good tem­per [Page 105] and conduct; and then proceeds to tell them of their faults, in the follow­ing words,

SECT. III.— ‘So was fulfilled that which is written, my beloved did eat and drink, he was enlarged, and waxed fat, and he kicked.’ From hence came emu­lation, and envy, and strife, and sedition; persecution and disorder, war and capti­vity. So they who were of no renown lifted up themselves against the honora­ble; those of no reputation, against those that were in respect; the foolish against the wise; the young men against the aged [oi neoi epi tous presbuterous.] There­fore righteousness and peace are depart­ed from you, because every one hath for­saken the fear of God."—

SECT. XXI.—"The Spirit of the Lord is a candle, searching out the inward parts of the belly." Let us therefore consider how near he is to us; and how that none of our thoughts, or reasonings, which we frame within our selves, are hid from him. It is therefore just, that we should not forsake our rank, by doing contrary to his will. Let us chuse to offend a [Page 106] few foolish and inconsiderate men, lifted up, and glorying in their own pride, ra­ther than God. Let us reverence our Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was giv­en for us; let us honor those who are set over us [tous prôegoumênous êmôn;] let us respect the aged that are among us [tous presbuterous êmôn;] let us instruct the younger men in the discipline and fear of the Lord. Our wives let us direct to do that which is good."—

SECT. XXXVII. "Let us therefore march on, men and brethren, with all earnestness in his holy laws. Let us consider those who fight under our earth­ly Governors: how orderly, how readily, and with what exact obedience they per­form those things that are commanded them? All are not Generals, nor Colo­nels, nor Captains, nor inferior officers; but every one, in his respective rank, does what is commanded him by the King, and those who have authority over him. They who are great cannot subsist without those that are little; nor the little with­out the great. But there must be a mix­ture in all things, and then there will be use and profit too. Let us, for exam­ple, [Page 107] take our body: the head without the feet is nothing, neither the feet without the head. And even the smallest members of our body are yet both necessary, and use­ful to the whole body. But all conspire together, and are subject to one common use, namely, the preservation of the whole body."

HAVING applied what he had thus said, in the two following sections, xxxviii and xxxix, to the encouragement of good order in the church of Corinth, he goes on.

SECT. XL. "Seeing then these things are manifest to us, it will behove us to take care, that, looking into the depths of the divine knowledge, we do all things in order, whatsoever our Lord has com­manded us to do. And, particularly, that we perform our offerings and ser­vice to God at their appointed seasons; for these he has commanded to be done, not rashly and disorderly, but at certain determinate times and hours. And there­fore he has ordained, by his supreme will and authority, both where, and by what persons, they are to be performed: that so all things being piously done unto all [Page 108] well-pleasing, they may be acceptable to him. They therefore who make their offerings at the appointed seasons are hap­py, and accepted; because that, obeying the commandments of the Lord, they are free from sin. And the same care must be had of the persons that minister unto him. * For the chief Priest [Archiereus, high Priest] has his proper services; and to the Priests their proper place is appointed; and to the Levites appertain their pro­per ministries; and the Lay-man is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to Lay-men." It follows immediately,

SECT. XLI. "Let every one of you therefore, brethren, bless God in his proper station, with a good conscience, and with all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his service that is appointed to him. The daily sacrifices are not offered every where; nor the peace-offerings, nor the sacrifices appointed for sin and trans­gressions; but only at Jerusalem: nor in any place there, but only at the altar [Page 109] before the temple; that which is of­fered, being first diligently examined by the High-priest, and the other mini­sters, we before mentioned. They there­fore who do any thing which is not agreea­ble to his will, are punished with death. Consider, brethren, that by how much the better knowledge God has vouch­safed unto us, by so much the greater danger are we exposed to." The next words are,

SECT. XLII. "The Apostles have preached to us, from our Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ, from God. Christ therefore was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ: so both were orderly sent, ac­cording to the will of God. For having received their command, and being tho­roughly assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and convinced by the word of God, with the fullness of the Holy Spirit, they went abroad pub­lishing, that "the kingdom of God was at hand." And thus preaching through countries and cities, [Kata Chôras kai poleis] they appointed the first-fruits of their conversions to be Bishops and [Page 110] Ministers * [eis episkopous kai diakonous] over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the Spirit. Nor was this any new thing; seeing that, long be­fore, it was written concerning Bishops and Deacons [peri episcopôn kai diakonôn.] For thus saith the scripture, in a cer­tain place, "I will appoint their over­seers [episkopous autôn] in righteousness, and their ministers [diakonous autôn] in faith."

AND having, in the next, the xliiid, section, spoken of the method Moses, of old, came into to settle the Jewish Priest­hood to prevent contention, he proceeds,

SECT. XLIV. "So likewise our Apos­tles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should contentions arise upon the [Page 111] account of the ministry [epi tou onomatos tês episcopês. *] And therefore having a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they ap­pointed persons, as we have before said, and then gave direction how, when they should die, other chosen and approv­ed men should succeed in their ministry. Wherefore we cannot think, that those may be justly thrown out of their mini­stry, who were either appointed by them, or afterwards chosen by other eminent men▪ with the consent of the whole church; and who have, with all lowli­ness and innocency, ministred to the flock of Christ, in peace, and without self-interest, and were for a long time commended by all. For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from their ministry, [tés episkopês] who holily and without blame fulfil the [Page 112] duties of it. Blessed are those Priests, * [makarioi oi Presbuteroi] who, having fi­nished their course before these times, have obtained a perfect and fruitful disso­lution: For they have no fear lest any one should turn them out of the place which is now appointed for them. But we see how you have put out some, who lived reputably among you, from the ministry, which by their innocence they had adorned.

SECT. XLVII. "Take the epistle of the blessed Paul, the Apostle, into your hands. What was it that he wrote to [Page 113] you, at his first preaching the gospel among you? Verily, he did, by the Spi­rit, admonish you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because that even then ye had begun to fall into parties and factions among yourselves. Neverthe­less your partiality then led you into a much less sin: forasmuch as ye placed your affections upon Apostles, men of eminent reputation in the church; and upon another, who was greatly tried, and approved of, by them. But consider, we pray you, who were they that have now led you astray, and lessened the reputation of that brotherly love that was so eminent among you? It is a shame, my beloved, yea a very great shame, and unworthy of your christian profession, to hear, that the most firm and ancient church of the Corinthi­ans should, by one or two persons, be led into a sedition against its Priests [pros tous Presbuterous.] And this report is come not only to us, but to those also that differ from us: insomuch that the name of the Lord is blasphemed through your folly; and even ye yourselves are brought into danger by it."

SECT. XLVIII. "Let us therefore, with all haste, put an end to this sediti­on; [Page 114] and let us fall down before the Lord, and beseech him with tears, that he would be favorably reconciled to us, and re­store us again to a seemly and holy course of brotherly love."—

SECT. LIV. "Who is there among you that is generous? Who that is com­passionate? Who that has charity? Let him say, if this sedition, this contention, and these schisms, be upon my account, I am ready to depart, to go away whither­soever ye please, and do whatsoever ye shall command me: only, let the flock of Christ be in peace, with the Elders that are set over it, [meta tôn kathesta­menôn Presbyterôn.] He that shall do this, shall get to himself a very great ho­nor in the Lord."

SECT. LVII. "Do ye therefore who first laid the foundation of this sedition, sub­mit yourselves to your Priests [tois Presbu­terois;] and be instructed unto repen­tance, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside all proud and arrogant boasting of your tongues. For it is better for you to be found little, and approved, in the sheepfold of [Page 115] Christ, than to seem to yourselves better than others; and be cast out of his fold."—

REMARKS and OBSERVATIONS on the foregoing testimonies.

HAVING laid before the reader's view all the passages, in Clement's epistle, that relate to the Episcopalian controver­sy, I shall now take particular notice of those among them, I have met with as used to support the opinion, which would make Bishops an order in the church distinct from, and superior to, Presbyters: which when I have done, I shall then pro­pose such observations, in favor of the parity of the order of these officers, as are evidently deducible from the whole of what Clement has said upon this point.

THE passages insisted upon to support the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, I shall consider without observing any other method, than the order in which they lie in the epistle.

THE first passage I meet with, recurred to by episcopal writers, we have in

SECT. I.—"And ye walked accord­ing to the laws of God, being subject to [Page 116] those [upotassamenoi tois êgoumenois umôn] who had the rule over you, and giving the honor that was fitting [tois par umin Presbuterois] to such as were aged among you." To which they add those parallel words, in sect. xxi. "Let us honor those that are set over us; [tous proêgoumenous êmon] let us respect [tous Presbuterous êmôn] the aged that are among us."

THESE passages, it is pleaded, afford clear evidence, that there was, in the days of Clement, a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters. Being subject, êgoumenois umôn, that is, say they, to your ecclesiastical rulers; by whom they con­clude are meant Bishops: and this, as of­ficers distinct from Presbyters; because it follows, paying due honor tois par umin Presbuterois; by whom, they sup­pose, we are to understand, not aged men, but those officers in the church, called Presbyters.

NOW, in order to show the invalidity of this plea, I have no need to go into the opinion of the learned Salmasius, and Burton, who unsterstand by these êgou­menoi, not ecclesiastical, but civil rulers; which opinion they strengthen by ob­serving, [Page 117] that this word is several times used in this epistle; but always as sig­nifying those, who were civil rulers. The places referred to by Salmasius are five; and except those under consideration, they are all, in which it is used; and it is used in them with reference to civil officers. But this notwithstanding, as the word may, with propriety, be applied to ecclesiastical rulers, and is frequently applied to them in the sacred books; and as there is no hint given, any where in Clement's epistle, as if the Corinthi­ans were blameable for their disobedience to their civil rulers; and its chief design is to teach them a sutable conduct, not towards those in the state, but in the church, that were set over them: I say considering these things, I am willing to allow, that, by these rulers, we are to understand, not those of the civil, but ecclesiastical order: but must say, at the same time, that we have abundant reason to conclude, they were Presbyters, and not Bishops; unless we take Bi­shop and Presbyter, to be only different words for the same officer. For let it be observed.

[Page 118]THERE was, at this time, a plurality of these rulers in the church of Corinth; as is plain from the word, [êgoumenois] which is of a plural signification. Now, it is certain, that there was a plurality of Presbyters in this church; and Presby­ters too, who had been "set over them," to whom they were commanded to "be in SUBJECTION." Says Clement, [upo­tagête tois Presbuterois] "Be ye subject to your Presbyters." And it is observable, the same word, here joned with Pres­byters, requiring the subjection of the Corinthian church to them, is joined also with the word, êgoumenois, bespeak­ing the same subjection. The interpre­tation is therefore smooth, natural, and consistent with the current strain of the whole epistle, while by these êgoumenois we understand the Presbyters of the church; especially, if it be further con­sidered, that Presbyter-Bishops are the highest ecclesiastical rulers any where men­tioned by Clement: nor is his epistle at all acquainted with Bishops, only as they mean officers in the church, precisely of the same rank with the Presbyters of it.

[Page 119]BESIDES, it may be worth a remark, the word êgoumenoi is one of the names used in scripture to point out Presbyters, or, in other words, those officers in the christian church, that are elsewhere, in the sacred writings, promiscuously and in­differently called either Bishops, or Presby­ters. Thus in the epistle to the Hebrews, when they are minded of their duty to their ecclesiastical guides, or rulers, it is expressed after that manner, "Remem­ber [tôn êgoumenôn umôn] them which have the rule over you, and have spoken to you the word of God." * And a few verses below, "obey [tois êgoumenois umôn] all them that have the rule over you." And the epistle concludes in that stile, "salute [pantas tous êgoume­nous umôn] them that have the rule over you." And this use of the word, in this epistle, is the rather to be regard­ed, because Eusebius and Jerom speak, both of them, of so great an affinity, in many things, both as to words and mat­ter, between this and the epistle of Cle­ment, that it was from thence thought, that Clement was, at least, the translator of [Page 120] the epistle to the Hebrews. And cri­ticks make use of it as a strong argu­ment in proof of the genuineness of the present copy of Clement's epistle, that it is found to agree so well with this obser­vation of Eusebius and Jerom.

BUT if, with the Episcopalians, we should suppose these êgoumenoi mean Bi­shops, in distinction from Presbyters; will it not follow, as an inevitable conse­quence, that there was in the church of Corinth, at the same time, a plurali­ty of Bishops? It is observable, the word is êgoumenois, not in the singular, but plu­ral number: which can never be recon­ciled with the doctrine of one "Bishop in a church, as the center of unity." The dilemma here is plain: either these êgou­menoi were not Bishops in the sense pleaded for, or there were more of these Bishops than one, in the same church, at the same time. That is to say, either this testimony from Clement must be given up, or the old sacred maxim, "one Bishop one altar." But rather than part with this, I doubt not we shall be left in quiet possession of any testimony whatever.

[Page 121]IT will perhaps be objected against what has been offered, that these rulers are distinguishued, in the passages them­selves, from Presbyters; and therefore can never mean the same officers.

IN answer whereto, I freely acknow­ledge, the Greek words, êgoumenois, and Presbuterois, are distinguished from each other; but that the word, Presbuterois, means here those officers in the church, that are called Presbyters, there is no rea­son to think. It is certain, this term is sometimes used in its common and un­appropriated sense, as signifying only aged persons. In this sense it is taken in 1. Tim. v. i. "Rebuke not [Presbu­terô] an Elder, but intreat him as a fa­ther,"—Dr. Whitby's note here is, "In the judgment of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, the Elder here signifies, not a Priest, but a grave and ancient man; such being in all ages and nations stiled fathers. And this sense, the distinction here of ages, and of sexes, seems to plead for. For so it follows, "the younger men (intreat) as brethren, the elder women as mothers," and so on. In the same sense, this word [Page 122] is to be taken in these passages of Cle­ment, and for the same reason; though much strengthened by its manner of con­nection. For let it be observed,

IN the first of these passages, Clement is commending the Corinthians for what was FORMERLY worthy in their conduct; and, among other things, mentions it to their praise, that they "had been subject to their êgoumenois," and had "paid due honor to their Pres­byterois;" where, by Presbyterois, he means, and must mean, not their Presbyters, but the AGED among them, not only because it immediately follows, "ye commanded the YOUNG men to think those things that were modest and grave;" but be­cause the êgoumenoi, they had, in their FORMER orderly state, been subject to, were the PRESBYTERS of the church: for these, as has been proved, he else­where mentions as "set over the church," and accordingly enjoins their "subjection to them;" nor are any higher church officers spoken of in his epistle; and what is more, he speaks of these, as has been said, and will hereafter be further prov­ed, as actually vested with EPISCOPACY. [Page 123] The interpretation therefore is natural, obvious, and consistent, which under­stands the word presbyteroi, in this place, not as pointing out the officers in the church, called Presbyters, who had been spoken of in the immediately foregoing words; but as signifying, in its unappro­priated sense, AGED PERSONS: whereas, to construe it otherwise, would make Clement a careless, inattentive, not to say blundering, inconsistent writer.

IN the other passage, Clement, in op­position to the PRESENT disorderly, sedi­tious behavior of some in the Corinthian church, exhorts them to a temper and conduct better befiting their character as Christians. Says he, "Let us rever­ence our Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us honor [tous pro­êgoumenous êmôn] those who are set over us; let us respect [tous Presbyterous êmôn] the aged among us; let us instruct the younger men [neous] in the fear of the Lord." The Proêgoumenoi here are the same that are spoken of in the above passage, that is, the Presbyters who had been set over the church. The word, presbyteroi, therefore must mean their [Page 124] aged people. There will, in this con­struction of the word, be order, propri­ety, and beauty, in the exhortations that are severally made: whereas, if the word is translated so as to signify the Presby­ters of the church, there will be intro­duced tautology, and a breach of order in the advices that are here given.

THE interpretation I have exhibited of these passages will more evidently ap­pear to be just; if we turn to sect. iiid, where Clement specifies the disorders he would blame in the church at Corinth. His words are these, "They who were of no renown lifted themselves up against the honorable; those of no reputation against those that were in respect; the foolish against the wise; the young men against the aged, neous epi tous Pres­byterous: therefore righteousness and peace are departed from you."—The op­position between the young men and the aged, is so plain here, that none ever pretended to dispute this sense of the word, presbyteroi, in this place. And this, being its sense here, must be its sense al­so in the other passages we have consider­ed; [Page 125] for they all relate to one and the same thing.

I SHALL only subjoin upon this head; in Cotelerius's "apostolical fathers" by L'Clerc, in all these sections, the word presbuteroi is translated AGED PERSONS. Arch-Bishop Wake also, in his "epistles of the fathers," renders, the same word, in all the above places, in the same manner: which I thus give notice of, because their thus translating the word, must have proceeded from a full conviction of the necessary propriety of this version, and not from want of a good heart to serve the episcopal cause, as far as they could with a good conscience.

THE next plea, made in favor of the distinction between Bishops and Presby­ters, is fetched from sect. xld, where Cle­ment speaks of the threefold order in the Jewish church, "High-Priest, Priests, and Levites:" which is supposed to be a plain intimation of a like threefold order in the Christian church, in the distinct officers of Bishops, Presbyters, and Dea­cons. And as this is an argument [Page 126] great stress is laid upon, I shall be parti­cular in considering it.

ONLY I must first desire the reader care­fully to look over sect. xxxvii, xl, xli, xlii, xliv, which I have set down entire, that he may be able to judge of the manner in which these words are introduced, the purpose they are brought to serve, and the special application that is made of them; which must certainly be allowed to be the best method to come at their genuine meaning. Nor can it be thought fair to fix upon a few words, in a connect­ed argumentative discourse, and plead for them as they be dis-joined from what preceeds, and follows: but their sense must be determined by the place they bear in the argument of which they are a part. Having observed this,

I AM free to own, Clement, in order to reduce the church of Corinth to a state of regularity, presents to their view the oeconomy of the Jewish church; in which proper order and decorum had been constituted, and was observed. But when he mentions the "Jewish High-Priest, Priests, and Levites," that it was his [Page 127] intention to exhibit a pattern of the Christian church, under the threefold order of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, there is no appearance of a probability to suppose: as will be evident if we con­sider what follows in one conjunct view.

I. LET us compare this with the like kind of arguing, in this epistle. In sect. xxxvii, Clement sets before the Co­rinthians the example of an army: in which every one has his proper place. "Some are only common Soldiers; some are Praefects; some Chiliarchs; some Centurions; some Chieftains of fifty; eve­ry one of whom keeps to his own station". Now, the design of this comparison is ob­vious, namely, to represent the beauty and necessity of the like regularity in the church of Corinth. And the mean­ing is intirely absolved in this general accommodation, without going so far in­to the parallel, as to suppose precisely as many distinct officers in the church, as there are in an army.

SURELY, it was not his meaning, "that the church militant must be re­gimented into order, under Patriarchs. [Page 128] Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Priests, and other officers, superior to the common chris­tian military!" There is no imaginable reason to suppose, such a thought ever en­tered into his heart.

IN Sect. XLII, he, in like manner, proposes to the consideration of the Corinthian church the good order that was observed in the Jewish church, par­ticularly in their worship. They had (as he represents) "their sacrifices both propitiatory and eucharistical:" but these were not to be offered "every where," but "at Jerusalem only;" and not in every place even at Jerusalem, but in "the temple on the altar." And his aim here is plain, to encourage, among the Co­rinthians, from this example, the like de­cent regularity; without carrying the mat­ter so far, as to make the Jewish worship an exact model for the Christian. So in the case before us: when Clement men­tions the "High-Priest, Priests, and Le­vites," with each "their proper services assigned them," though he so far accom­modates this instance, as to argue it to be reasonable, that there should be, in like manner, persons in the Christian [Page 129] church, whose proper business it might be to attend its ministrations; yet, that there ought to be exactly a threefold or­der of them, in answer to the threefold order in the Jewish church, there is no more ground to think, than that the parallel in the foregoing cases, ought to be intirely completed. It is enough that the parallel answer in the general design, he has in view, without making it, as we vulgarly speak, "run on all four." And it deserves particular notice, in the use Clement makes of this argu­ment, in the words immediately follow­ing, he regards only its general accom­modation. For thus he goes on, "Let every one of you, Brethren, in his own proper order give God thanks; living in good conscience, and keeping within the defined rule of his service." He infers nothing in particular from the example of the Jewish "High-Priest, Priests, and Le­vites" with their "appointed services;" but only, in general, takes occasion to re­commend it to every one, in his proper place, to keep the duties of his station; without so much as giving the least hint, as if there were just three stations in the church of Corinth, as there were in the [Page 130] church of the Jews; which must needs be deemed an argument of great negli­gence, if he had intended any thing like an exact parallel. To go on,

II. IT is most obviously remarkable, Clement purposely sets himself, in sect. xliid, to exhibit an account of the aposto­lic appointment of officers in the Christian church: in which he quite lays aside the Jewish constitution in a three­fold order, and mentions, instead of it, only the twofold order of Bishops and Deacons. Says he, "The Apostles have preached the gospel to us from our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ from God. For Christ was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ.—Preaching there­fore through cities and countries, they constituted their first fruits for BISHOPS and DEACONS."

IT certainly would have been natural, if Clement had intended a parallel be­tween the Jewish "High-Priest, Priests, and Levites," and Christian "Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons;" I say, it would have been obvious for him to have ap­plied [Page 131] here his discourse but a few lines above: especially, considering he was still upon the same argument, pursuing one and the same design. But is there the least hint of any such application? So far from it, that he says not a sylla­ble of a threefold, but expressly mentions a twofold order; and this, as appointed by the Apostles: which is an inconsisten­cy, upon the impleaded interpretation, not capable of being removed by any art of man.

NOR is it unworthy of a remark, that, in proving this constitution of Bishops and Deacons to be, not a novel thing, but what had long before been wrote about, Clement refers us to that passage in Isaiah, "I will appoint their Bishops in righteousness, and Deacons in faith." Whether this text is pertinently quoted, or not, is not my business to inquire: but thus much is undeniable, that, had Cle­ment perceived any resemblance between the Jewish "High-Priest and Levites," (of whom he had but just before spoken) and christian "Bishops and Deacons", he would have much sooner have turned us back to that constitution, then to this [Page 132] text; and his omitting to do this, can be ascribed to no other rational cause, but its not having entered his heart, to suppose any exact parallel between the Jewish, and Christian constitution, in point of a threefold order of officers.

III. IT may not be amiss to inquire, upon supposition Clement really intend­ed the constitution of the Jewish church, in "High-Priest, Priests, and Levites," as a pattern for the constitution of the christian church; I say, it may not be improper to inquire; whether, even up­on this supposition, he says any thing in favor of a distinction of order be­tween Bishops and Presbyters. And it is plain he does not. For Bishops, in the days of Clement, (according to the highest demand of prelatical writers) were the heads only of a few congrega­tions in particular cities, and their neigh­bouring villages: whereas, nothing is more known, than that the "High-Priest" stood related, not to a few syna­gogues in this, and the other city, and the towns bordering thereon; but to the whole Jewish church. There is therefore no analogy between Bishops, [Page 133] and the Jewish High-Priest: nor shall we be able to find one any where short of ROME. For, besides the POPE, there is no visible head to the christian church, in any proper sense, answering to the High-Priest among the Jews. One in­visible one indeed there is, "Jesus the HIGH-PRIEST of our profession;" under whom are placed, in the church, Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons. And in this sense, the parallel is strictly just, and per­fectly consonant to the whole tenor of Clement's epistle: in which Christ is ex­pressly spoken of in the stile of HIGH-PRIEST *; and under him, no other offi­cers are mentioned, as constituted in the christian church, but Bishops, who are also called Presbyters, and Deacons. But if we must have a visible head to the church, corresponding to the High-Priest in the Jewish model, there is no avoiding a submission to the PAPAL CHAIR. And, accordingly, to this purpose the Romanists constantly make use of this passage in Clement: and every one, with half an [Page 134] eye, may see, that the parallel is far more just and natural between the POPE and the High-Priest, than between the High-Priest and Bishops: since there may be hundreds of Bishops in the christian church; whereas there neither was, nor could be, but one High-Priest in the Jewish.

IT will no doubt be here said, it was the manner, in ancient times, to argue from the constitution of the Jewish church, in High-Priest, Priests, and Le­vites, to the constitution of the Chris­tian church in Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons: and, therefore, that the pa­rallel ought here to be thus run, however unnatural it may appear. In answer whereto,

I READILY acknowledge, it was an ancient custom to argue from the Jewish to the Christian constitution, as is plead­ed; but, at the same time, must observe, this method of arguing was not in use, in the days of Clement. It was plainly the invention of later times, when Episco­pacy (in some sort analagous to the mo­dern sense of the word) began to show it­self: [Page 135] nor can an instance be produced, from any writer, until long after the days of Clement, wherein it is thus used. It is not therefore fair to argue for this application of the words in Clement, from the like application of the same words, in those authors, who had no being in the world, until Clement had been dead, and turned into dust, for many years. Besides, it ought to be considered, the writers, in after times, directly speak of Bishops in the stile of High-Priests, and expressly make them, in the parallel, an­swer to the Jewish High-Priest; leaving no room for doubt in the matter, with how much weakness and aukwardness so­ever they, upon this account, become chargeable. But is this the case with Clement? Does he ever call a Bishop, High-Priest? Does he ever go about to apply the Jewish constitution, so as to make Bishops answer in the parallel to the High-Priest? So far from any thing of this tendency, that he makes mention (as we have seen) only of a twofold order of officers in the christian church, and gives not the least hint, as if he ever thought of a third that was higher.

[Page 136]IV. I SHALL add to what has been said, if Clement is interpreted in the sense I am opposing, there will be no harmony between his discourse here, and the cur­rent strain of his epistle; which, through the whole, perfectly agrees with the ac­count he gives of the twofold order of Bishops and Deacons; but not at all with a threefold one, in imitation of the Jewish hierarchy. It is common in this epistle, it must be acknowledged, to meet with the word Bishops as well as Presby­ters; to which if Deacons are added, some may think, the parallel will be made out. But it is observable, there never once oc­curs, in Clement's epistle, such a mode of speech, as Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, the almost sacred and invaria­ble way of writing, after the distinction between Bishops and Presbyters took place. And though (as was said) we read of Bishops, as well as Presbyters, yet it is so ordered, that the Bishops are ne­ver so much as once distinguished from Presbyters: nay, so far is Clement from representing any distinction of order be­tween them, that he directly considers the Presbyters of Corinth, as vested with the Episcopal office, and in the most plain [Page 137] manner reflects blame upon that church, for "casting their Presbyters out of their Episcopacy."—But of this we shall more particularly speak, under the last argu­ment, brought from Clement in defence of modern Episcopacy.

AND this is taken from those words in sect. xliv, "And the Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention about the name of Epis­copacy: therefore, being endued with perfect foreknowledge, they constituted the before-mentioned persons (namely, Bishops and Deacons;) and moreover gave direction how, if they should die, other approved men should succeed in their ministry."—Here it is urged, the Apostles are represented as knowing there would arise those, who would appear against the cause of Episcopacy; and, as it were on purpose, to guard against it, did themselves appoint Bishops in the church, and provide for a succession of others in this office, after the decease of those they appointed.

THIS plea, however often it has been urged, I shall show to be altogether inva­lid, [Page 138] by making it evident, even from Cle­ment himself, that his discourse in this passage is so far from favoring any dis­tinction of order between Bishops and Presbyters, that it is the strongest testi­mony, in his whole epistle, for their be­ing the same order of officers in the church; and such an one, that we could not have desired a stronger, if we had been present, when this was exhibited, to direct his pen.

THE testimony begins," And the Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, there would be contention about the name of Episcopacy."—But what are we to understand by this "Episcopacy?" Is it such an one, as they only are vested with, who are officers in the church superior in their order to Presbyters? The modern use, and sound, of the word, may possibly be apt to lead the less thinking reader into such an imagination: but the term Episcopacy, in the days of Clement, had quite another meaning from what it has now. With him, it intends only an oversight of the flock; such an Episco­pacy, as persons nothing more than Pres­byters might be, and actually were, [Page 139] vested with. And for the proof of this, I shall appeal to Clement himself; who, in this very section, tells us as much in the most plain language. His words are these, "For it is no small sin, if we cast those out of their Episcopacy, [Epis­kopês, the very word used above] who have offered their gifts in an holy manner: Blessed are those PRESBYTERS who have first finished their course." It seems then Presbyters might, in Clement's opini­on, be vested with Episcopacy, because he declares the Presbyters of Corinth were in fact thus vested. Nor was the con­tention, "the Apostles knew there would be about the name of Episcopacy," any other than such a contention as then ac­tually subsisted in the church of Corinth. And what was this? Not a contention, whether there was a distinction of order between Bishops and Presbyters: we have no hint of any such thing any where in the epistle; but it was a contention a­bout the ministerial order itself; a con­tention about the office of Presbyters, or (as they are likewise called) Bishops; which the people had carried to such an height, as that they had rose up against their Bi­shops or Presbyters, and turned them out of their Episcopacy.

[Page 140]THE plea goes on, the Apostles, to guard against this contention about Episcopa­cy, "constituted Bishops and Deacons, and moreover gave direction (according to others a roll or list) that, when they should die, other approved men might succeed in the ministry." And no one doubts, but the Apostles appointed Bi­shops, and provided for a succession of such officers in the church. But the question is, Who are here meant by these Bishops? Were they an order in the church distinct from, and superior to, Presbyters? Clement himself can best inform us. And this he has done so evi­dently, that we cannot well fail of know­ing his mind, if we will but attend to what he has said. Let us then examine the connection of his discourse in this paragraph.

AND he very plainly lays it down (1) That "the Apostles knew there would be contention about Episcopacy." (2) To guard against this, they did them­selves "appoint Bishops and Deacons in the church"; that is, (if we turn to sect. xlii, the place he himself has refer­ed [Page 141] to) they constituted of the "first fruits of their conversions, a number of Bishops and Deacons" for the benefit of the church, as believers should after­wards increase. (3) Besides this consti­tution of persons, they "gave direction," as deaths should happen, that "others should be constituted to succeed in their room." (4) From these premises, he in­fers it to be an unjustifiable thing to "cast those out of their Episcopacy," who have behaved well; whether they had been constituted by the Apostles themselves, or other excellent men af­terwards. And now (5) To bring his argument to a point, and to let the church of Corinth certainly know, that he aimed at them in all this discourse; and designed to condemn their unsutable conduct towards their Presbyters, he offers to their consideration the "blessed­ness of those Presbyters, who have gone off the stage," in this article in speci­al, "that they could not be removed out of the place where they were fixed, as they had removed some of their Pres­byters from their honorable ministra­tions."

[Page 142]THIS is the unquestionable connection of Clement's arguing in this paragraph. Upon which I would appeal to any person of common understanding, whether he could have any other intention, in this train of reasoning, than to offer conviction to the church of Corinth, of their faulty con­duct in "casting their Presbyters out of their office?" But if their Presbyters had been any other than those Bishops, he had spoken of as constituted, either by the Apostles themselves, or other famous men afterwards, what pertinency is there in this method of reasoning? He men­tions only Bishops and Deacons as con­stituted by the Apostles, or to be con­stituted afterwards by others, by their direction. If therefore the Presbyters of Corinth had not been in the number of those Bishops, they had not acted against any apostolical constitution, and could not fall by the force of this arguing: whereas, on the other hand, if by these Presbyters we understand the same order of officers with the Bishops here spoken of, and consider the words Bishops and Presbyters, as only different names to point out the same persons, the reasoning will not only be clear and forceable, but [Page 143] perfectly consonant to the connection of his whole discourse; which so obviously and necessarily leads to this, that I am well satisfied no art of man can elude the evidence there is for it.

BESIDES, if these Bishops were an or­der of officers superior to Presbyters, why should Clement so particularly mention the apostolic constitution of Bishops, about whom (as officers distinct from, and superior to, Presbyters) there is no hint, in the epistle, as if there was any conten­tion; and, at the same time, omit saying a word about the constitution of Presby­ters, (as he certainly does, if they are an order distinct from Bishops) against whom the church of Corinth had rose up in the most unseemly manner? This seems al­together unintelligible: especially con­sidering, it is the governing design of this whole epistle, and of this paragraph in special, to correct the conduct of the Co­rinthians towards their PRESBYTERS, and set them right in their behavior for time to come.

AND now, being let into the true meaning of Clement's Bishops, the con­troversy, [Page 144] among the learned, about that difficult word epinomin, in that part of the paragraph, where mention is made of the apostolic provision for the succession of Bishops, is quite superseded. For whe­ther we translate it with Arch-Bishop Wake, and Boyse, direction; or with Burton, Salmasius, and Bishop Pearson, command; or with Young and Dr. Ham­mond, description, list, roll, catalogue: I say, in which soever of these senses we take the word, it matters not; so long as the Bishops in Clement are precisely the same order of officers with Presbyters.

ONLY I cannot omit observing, that the construction, which supposes the Apostles to have given a list, or roll of successors, does not seem at all probable. For, as the learned Boyse argues against this interpretation, ‘Who ever heard of such a list or roll? Was it a catalogue of all their successors to the worlds end? Or a list of their successors, for one, two, or three centuries? How came this list, or roll to be lost? when the preservation of it would have been of such vast consequence, to prevent all disputes about future elections. For [Page 145] doubtless the churches would readily have concurred in the choice of such, as the Apostles, from certain foreknow­ledge, had marked down for Bishops and Deacons. So that it is certain, either this catalogue was never given by them, or those churches, to whom it was given, were guilty of inexcusa­ble negligence, in suffering so valua­ble a roll, that would have cleared up the uninterrupted line of Episcopal succession, beyond dispute, to be so ut­terly lost, that no notion, no monu­ment of it, should be heard of to this day, and no Bishop ever once appeal to it, to justifie his claim against com­petitors.’

THE evidence suppposed to be con­tained in this epistle, for the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, being thus re­moved out of the way; I am under the fairer advantage to propose a few obser­vations, which seem abundantly suffici­ent to show it to have been the mind of Clement, that Bishops and Presbyters were, in his day, one and the same or­der of officers in the Christian church. And,

[Page 146]1. I OBSERVE, when Clement sets him­self, ex professo, to give an account of the apostolical constitution of officers in the Christian church; and this, not in one or two particular places only, but throughout cities and countries, as they travelled to propagate the faith of Christ; he makes mention only of the two or­ders of Bishops and Deacons. And it is remarkable, how exactly consonant this account is, to the scripture account of the constitution of the church of Philippi; in writing to whom, the Apostle Paul takes notice of no other officers among them, save only Bishops and Deacons. And the same Apostle writing to Timo­thy about church officers, describes only the qualifications of Bishops and Dea­cons.

2. I OBSERVE what is yet more full to my purpose, those Bishops, Clement men­tions as constituted by the Apostles, or other famous men afterwards, were one and the same order of men with Presby­ters: otherwise, he passes over a whole order of ecclesiastical officers; and this, at a time when he had undertaken to ex­hibit an account of the apostolic consti­tution [Page 147] of officers, in the Christian church; which cannot but be thought an inex­cusable omission. The only officers he takes notice of, as appointed by the Apos­tles, are Bishops and Deacons. But if by the term Bishops, he does not mean the same kind of officers with those that are called Presbyters, he has certainly not said a word about any appointment of this order of officers; which is unac­countably strange, considering he makes particular mention of the lower order in the church, that of Deacons. And in­deed, unless we suppose Clement to mean precisely the same sort of officers, when he uses, sometimes the word Bishops, and sometimes the word Presbyters, we shall make him a most blundering writer. For one of the main arguments he uses, to reflect blame upon the church of Co­rinth, for rising up against their Pres­byters, is, the apostolic constitution of Bishops: but if by this term, he did not mean the same sort of officers, where would be the force of this reasoning? How would it tend to afford conviction to the Corinthians, that they had done ill in acting against their Presbyters, to be told of the apostolic appointment of one [Page 148] order of officers superior to their Presby­ters, and another inferior to them; while, at the same time, not a word is said whe­ther the order of Presbyters was ever con­stituted at all? Such a method of rea­soning is certainly very extraordinary, and much better calculated to encourage them in their sedition, than to bring them to repentance, and put a stop to it. Bi­shops therefore with Clement are the same rank of officers with Presbyters. And, as if he had it in design, that we should not mistake him, he plainly speaks of the Presbyters of Corinth, as some of those very Bishops that were constituted either by the Apostles, or others after­wards by their direction: for he supposes them placed in the episcopal office, in that he directly finds fault with the Corinthi­ans "for casting them out of their Epis­copacy."

AND upon this, it is most obvious to take notice of the perfect harmony there is, between the language of Clement and the Apostle Paul; who, when he had left Titus in Crete to ordain Elders in every city, writes to him to acquaint him with the qualifications that ought to [Page 149] be found in those, who were to be consti­tuted Bishops; evidently using the words, Presbyters and Bishops, as signifying the same order of church officers. The Evan­gelist Luke likewise speaks of the Apos­tles, as ordaining Elders in every church; which is most plainly the same account with this of Clement, who mentions them as constituting Bishops in the churches they founded: for these Bishops were no other than Elders; and if Clement had spoken of the Apostles, as appointing Elders or Presbyters in the churches they planted, it would have been perfectly the same thing with his saying, that they ap­pointed Bishops.

3. I OBSERVE, as a yet further confir­mation of what we are upon, that Pres­byter-Bishops are the highest order of ec­clesiastical officers spoken of in this epistle. They are the only persons mentioned as "set over the church of Corinth;" they are the only persons that church are ex­horted to be "in subjection to:" nor is there a word lisped of any duty owing from them to any superior order of men; no, nor the least hint given of any such order; which leads me to observe in the last place,

[Page 150]4. THE moral assurance we have, that Clement knew of no Bishop, at least, in the church of Corinth, of a superior or­der to that of Presbyter.—Let us consider the direction of the epistle: it runs in that stile, "the church of Rome to the church of Corinth," without any notice at all of their Bishop; which is so much unlike the manner of inscriptions in after times, when Bishops were distinguished from Presbyters, that, from this circum­stance only, it looks probable, there was no single Bishop at the head of that church. But the probability will be heightened in­to certainty, if we add, there is as intire silence, through the whole epistle, of the Bishop of this church: whereas, if any single person had been at their head of an order distinct from their Presbyters, and invested with a superior right of au­thoritatively managing in all ecclesiasti­cal affairs, it is not conceivable but he must, some how or other, have been plainly pointed out.

THE first, most superior, and distin­guished officer in this church, could not but have been interested in the shameful disturbance that was the occasion of this [Page 151] letter. He must have joined, either with the Presbyters, or the people, or have been an idle spectator of the present quar­rel; and, in either case, there are great difficulties to be accounted for.

IF he had been united with the Pres­byters, and made use of his Episcopal au­thority to oblige the people to peace, and their duty to their Presbyters, it is strange they are no where reprimanded for disre­garding the authority of their Bishop! nor can it well be imagined, that Clement should be so severe upon them for their in­decent carriage to their Presbyters, and yet silently pass over their disobedience to their Bishop; which must surely have deserved a rebuke, if they had opposed his autho­rity, in their usage of their Presbyters.

OR, if he had favoured the Corinthian church, in their ill treatment of their Presbyters, it is much lie is not reasoned with, that he might be convinced of his mistake: since the church are so sharply rebuked, and earnestly exhorted to re­pentance and amendment: nor is it easy to conceive of the propriety (according to the episcopal scheme) of their being [Page 152] thus blamed, and condemned, while they had the countenance of their Bishop in what they did. Upon this supposition, the first thing necessary, in order to peace, must have been to have offered conviction to the Bishop, and engaged him to desist from encouraging the church, in their se­ditious practice against their Presbyters.

OR if we might imagine it possible for a Bishop, to be so thoughtless of the peace and quiet of his church, as to be an un­concerned spectator of this faction, which had increased to such an height, as to ex­cite the compassion of the church of Rome, it is wonderful he is not admonished, at least, in a soft and gentle manner, of his neglect; and besought to interpose with his authority to heal this division! But instead of this, to complete the unaccoun­table conduct both of Clement, and the church of Rome, though the Bishop was the most sutable person to be applied to in this case, neither Presbyters, nor people are directed to refer the matter to him; nor to ask his advice: nor is his name, or any thing relating to him, or his office, so much as distantly hinted at.

[Page 153]OR if it be supposed, without any ap­pearance of proof, that the church of Corinth happened to be without a Bishop, just at the time of this sedition, and the composure of this epistle: I say, even supposing this, meerly to serve an hypo­thesis, it is a great difficulty no mention should be made of their late Bishop, nor any advice given them to come into a spee­dy choice of a new Bishop, as the most sutable remedy to heal their differences. This was thought one of the best expedi­ents to compose differences, in after times. And it is the very method, the Presbyters of Rome, when that see was vacant by the death of Fabian, mention in their letter to Cyprian, in order to the removal of their difficulties. And it was as fit a method in the days of Clement, as in the days of Cyprian; and no other reason can be as­signed of his being wholly silent about it, but that he knew of no difference between the order of Bishops, and Presbyters.

UPON the whole, if Bishops, in the days of Clement, were officers in the church any way resembling our modern Prelates, these are certainly most inexcusable omis­sions: nor are they capable of being ac­counted for to reasonable satisfaction.

[Page 154]I SHALL finish my examination of Clement, with inserting the opinion of two as learned men as ever appeared, upon the matter we have last been disputing. "They that can find any one single Bishop at Corinth, at the time, when Clement wrote this epistle to them, must have better eyes, and judgment, than the deservedly admired Grotius": so speaks the great Bishop of Worcester. Grotius's judgment (here referred to) was plainly this, he mentions it as a proof of the antiquity and genuineness of the pre­sent Copy of Clement's epistle, "That he no where takes notice of that exorbitant power of Bishops, which was first intro­duced in Alexandria, after the death of Mark, and from that example into other churches; but evidently shows, that the churches were governed by the common council of Presbyters, who, by him, and the Apostle Paul, are called Bishops."

[Page]

POLYCARP.
His character, writings, and testimonies from them, with observations and remarks.

PREVIOUS to what may be offered re­lative to this Father, I would give notice, that the order of time is a little broke in upon, by giving him a place here; for his "epistle to the Philippians" was not wrote until after the death of Ignatius, who must therefore have wrote before him. But, as there are some im­portant passages, in his "epistle," the reader should be acquainted with, before he comes to Ignatius, it was thought best to place him first. Having observed this, I go on;

[Page 156]POLYCARP had his birth in the apostolic age; and probably not a great many years on this side, the middle of the first cen­tury. Some modern authors speak of him as born in Smyrna; as being a slave in his younger years, and bought by a certain Lady named Calesto, who, toge­ther with giving him his freedom, in­structed him in the Christian religion, and afterwards made him her heir. But as these accounts, with many other of a like import, are extracted from writers great­ly remote from the age in which Poly­carp lived, and that were too much given to the romantic strain, they are not to be depended on.

IT may, upon much better authority, be esteemed a just stroke in his character, that he was one that "sat under the teaching of the Apostles," and was fa­miliarly "conversant with those that knew our Lord," and particularly "with the Apostle John." This ac­count we have from Irenaeus, which we may the rather give credit to, because he speaks not only of his having, "in his younger years, seen Polycarp;" but as [Page 157] "retaining in his mind a distinct remem­brance of having heard him relate these things."

HE likewise makes mention of him as Bishop of Smyrna, and as placed in this office by the Apostles; though Tertullian names none of the Apostles, save "John," as having an hand in his constitution. And Eusebius only says in general, "He was made Bishop by those, who saw the Lord, and ministred to him." But how­ever it might be as to this circumstance, there is no difficulty about the thing it­self. He is readily allowed to have been Bishop of Smyrna.

AND from hence a mighty argument is drawn, in favor of his having been of an order in the church, superior to that of Presbyters; especially, when, in conjunc­tion herewith, that is supposed to be true, which Arch-Bishop Usher has endea­vored to prove to be so, namely, That he was Bishop of Smyrna, when the Apostle John sent his "apocalyptical letter" to the "Angel of that church." But the foundation of the argument at once vanishes, when it is considered, that, [Page 158] in the age of Polycarp, no such thing as a distinction of order, between Bi­shops and Presbyters, was known in the church. This we have already proved from Clement of Rome, and Hermas, both Polycarp's contemporaries; and shall further confirm from Polycarp him­self, when we come to take notice of his "epistle to the Philippians." And what is particularly observable, in the case of Polycarp, he is by Irenaeus called Pres­byter, as well as Bishop. In his epistle to Florinus, that is the stile in which he speaks of him, "Polycarp, [apostolikos Pres­buteros] the apostolical Presbyter"; which is the more worthy of notice, because, with Irenaeus, the reciprocal use of the words, Bishop and Presbyter, is very common. And herein (as we shall see in the progress of this work) there is a won­derful agreement among the writers of this age, Ignatius only excepted, which we shall account for afterwards. So that if we should, even, suppose, the "An­gel of the church of Smyrna" to be Po­lycarp, a then Bishop of that church, so long as we are just to interpret the word Bishop, in the sense, in which it was un­derstood, in this age of Christianity, no­thing [Page 159] more can be made of it, than that he was an officer in that church, of the same order with the rest of the Presby­ters of it: though he might be the most eminent, known, and distinguished among them; and the most proper, upon these accounts, to receive a letter which con­cerned the whole church.

IT is commonly, in modern accounts of the life of Polycarp, mentioned as an article particularly redounding to his ho­nor, that the venerable Ignatius had such an opinion of him, as a truly apostolical man, that he pitched upon him, as the most suitable person he could commend the care of his church at Antioch to, when he was parted from them, and on his journey to Rome, to suffer mar­tyrdom. He is likewise highly esteem­ed in love, and reverenced, as being the supposed collector of the epistles of Ig­natius: which, together with one of his own, he is said to have sent, by one Crescens, to the church of Philippi.—But these things we shall have occasion to ex­amine, at large, in a more proper place; and so shall leave them at present.

[Page 160]NOTHING more is found recorded of this primitive Father, until the eastern and wes­tern churches began to controvert about the time of keeping easter; which occasion­ed his going to Rome (about the middle of the second century) in the days of Ani­cetus, to confer with him upon that mat­ter. And notwithstanding all the dis­course, these grave Fathers might have up­on this head, they could not come to an agreement; the one pleading apostolical practice for one time of observing this feast, and the other the custom of his predecessors, even up to the Apostles, for another: yet they were charitably dis­posed towards each other; which they signified, by communicating together: and Anicetus, for the reverence he had for Polycarp, gave him the eucharist in his church; after which they ami­cably parted; and, as Eusebius says, "in the universal church, they were at peace with one another."

HOWEVER this might be, I cannot help going out of my way to observe, that peace did not continue very long; for the con­troversy, far from having a final stop now put to it, strangely increased afterwards, [Page 161] until it had even overspread the whole Christian world, and filled it with un­charitableness and contention. It seems to have been at a monstrous height, to­wards the latter end of the second centu­ry, in the days of Victor, who (to rely on the authority of Sir Peter King) was so very turbulent and imperious, that he excommunicated the Asiatics, for their not complying with the church of Rome in this matter; condemning them for Heretics, and bestowing upon them a long and frightful name, because they kept their easter upon the fourteenth day after the appearance of the moon, or at full moon, on what day soever it hap­pened. Nor was this controversy settled, until the council of Nice, anno 325, by their authority, decided it; decreeing, that, throughout the whole Christian world, easter should be observed, not on the day that the Jewish passover fell, that is, at full moon; but on the Lord's day ensuing, as it was afterwards kept.

THE learned Stillingfleet improves this controversy, by deducing from it an ar­gument against the certainty of preten­ded apostolic tradition, in a manner well [Page 162] worth our inserting. ‘For my part (says he) I see not how any man, that would see reason for what he does, can adhere to the church for an unquestio­nable tradition, received from the Apos­tles; when, in the case of keeping eas­ter, whether with the Jews on the fourteenth moon, or only on the Lord's day, there was so much unreasonable heat shewed on both sides, and such confidence that, on either side, their tradition was apostolical. They had herein all the advantages imaginable, in order to the knowing the certain­ty of the thing then in question among them; as their nearness to apostolical times, being but one remove from them; yea, the persons contending, pleading personal acquaintance with some of the Apostles themselves, as Polycarp with John, and Anicetus of Rome that he had the tradition from Peter: and yet, so great were the heats, so irrecon­cileable the controversy, that they pro­ceeded to dart the thunderbolt of ex­communication in one anothers faces.’

I WILL here add, what makes this con­troversy the more strange, is, that there [Page 163] is no account in scripture of the institu­tion of any such annual feast; nor the least intimation, that it was ever ob­served by Christians in the Apostle's days. Upon which, I cannot restrain myself from transcribing the thoughts of Socrates, one of our most ancient and valuable eccle­siastical historians, upon this head. * Says he, ‘Neither the ancients, nor the mo­derns, who have studiously followed the Jews, had, in my judgment, any just or rational cause of contending so much about this festival. For they considered not with themselves, that, when the Jewish religion was changed into Christianity, those accurate obser­vances of the mosaic law, and the types of things future, ceased. And this car­ries along with it, its own demonstra­tion. For no one of Christ's laws has permitted the Christians to observe the rites of the Jews. Moreover, on the contrary, the Apostle has expressly for­bid this, and does not only reject cir­cumcision, but always advises against contending about festival days. Where­fore, in his epistle to the Galatians, his [Page 164] words are these, "Tell me, ye that de­sire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" And having spent some few words in his discourse here­of, he demonstrates, that the people of the Jews are "servants," but that those who followed Christ are "called to liberty." Moreover, it is his admo­nition, "that days, and months, and years, should in no wise be observed". Besides, in his epistle to the Colossians, he loudly affirms, that such observations "are a shadow." Wherefore he says, Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy-day, or of the new moons, or of the sab­bath days; which are a shadow of things to come.’ ‘—The Apostles there­fore, and the gospels, have no where imposed the yoke of servitude on those, who have approached the preaching of faith; but have left the feast of easter, and the other festivals, to be honored by their gratitude and benevolence, who have had benefits conferred on them on these days. Wherefore, in regard men love festivals, because thereon they have cessation from their labours, each person, in every place, according to his [Page 165] own pleasure, has, by a certain custom, celebrated the memory of the saving passion. For neither our Savior, nor his Apostles, have enjoined us by any law to observe this festival. Nor have the gospels, or the Apostles, threaten­ed us with any mulct, punishment, or curse, as the mosaic law does the Jews. Moreover, it was not the Apostle's design to make laws concerning festi­val days, but to introduce good life and piety. And it seems to me, that, as many other things, in several places, have been established by custom, so the feast of easter also had a peculiar ob­servation among all persons, from some old usage, in regard none of the Apostles (as I have said) have made any determinate decree about it. Now, that the observation of this festival had its original, among all men, in the primitive times, from custom ra­ther than law, the things themselves do demonstrate.’ And this he goes on in several pages clearly to make out. But I must now return,

POLYCARP, being at Rome, did not for­get his character as a minister of Jesus [Page 166] Christ; but set himself to defend the doc­trines of the gospel: which he did to good purpose, confirming the souls of many, and recovering some from the poisonous errors of those two arch-heretics Marci­on and Valentinus. The former of these he once accidentally met in the streets of Rome, but had no other conversation with him, than to let him know, that he esteem­ed him to be the "first-born of satan." This may possibly be thought a rough compliment; but it is a strong argu­ment of his great indignation against those, who had so abominably corrupted the faith of Christ. Irenaeus attributes this severity of language to his strict ad­herence to that apostolic rule, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and se­cond admonition, reject: knowing that he that is such is perverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

THE next thing we meet with, concern­ing Polycarp, relates to his death; which he did not suffer until he had long la­bored in the service of Christ. He is universally acknowledged to have lived to be very old, not under ninety; and some think, considerably upwards of an [Page 167] hundred years: and yet, he did not go out of the world in the ordinary way, but fell a martyr in the cause of Christ. We have extant an "epistle of the church of Smyrna", giving a particular account of his martyrdom, as to its time, occasion, manner, and circumstances. Dr. Cave calls it a piece "that challenges a singu­lar esteem and reverence, both for its sub­ject matter, and antiquity; with the rea­ding of which, he joins with Scaliger in saying, every serious and devout mind must needs be so affected, as to think he can never have enough of it." And it is very true, some parts of this epistle are well calculated to affect a serious and well-disposed mind; but then, it has such a mixture of what so evidently carries the face of meer fable, as to make it questi­onable, whether it be an exact repre­sentation of what was real fact. An in­stance of this we have in Sect. xv, where we read of "the flames disposing them­selves into the resemblance of an arch, like the sails of a ship swelled with the wind, gently encircling the body of the martyr; who stood all the while in the midst, not like roasted flesh, but gold pu­rified in the furnace; his body sending [Page 168] forth a delightful fragrancy, like frank­incense or costly spices, presenting it­self to the senses of the by-standers." Of the same nature is sect. xvi, which speaks of "his body as incapable of being con­sumed by the fire; upon which the ex­ecutioner, being commanded, thrust a launce into him: which he had no sooner done, but a pigeon came forth out of the wound; and, together therewith, such a large quantity of blood as extinguished the fire." Some other things, in the like strain, are here to be met with; which, perhaps, not many will find a faith wide enough to swallow.

IT must not indeed be concealed, Eu­sebius has thought it worth while, not only to mention this "epistle," but to give the greatest part of it a place in his "ecclesiastical history." But then, it ought to be observed, he is the first wri­ter that takes any notice of it. And if his mentioning it be used as an argu­ment to establish its authority, the total silence of antiquity, from the time of its supposed composure to his day, which was at least an hundred and fifty years, may be opposed thereto as a counter-ba­lance. [Page 169] The English reader may meet with this "epistle" in Arch-Bishop Wake's "apostolical fathers," complete, or the substance of it, in Dr. Cave's "lives of the primitive Fathers," and the "biographia ecclesiastica" of an anonimous author.

I SHALL observe nothing further of Polycarp, but that the learned are at va­riance about the particular time of his death. Bishop Pearson supposes him to have been martyred under Antoninus Pius, in the year 147: but he is ge­nerally thought to have suffered under Aurelius Verus; some think in the year 167; others in 169; others in 170; others in 175. His memory is said to be cele­brated by the Greek church, February 23; by the Latin, January 26.

His WRITINGS.

IRENAEUS, in his letter to Florinus, mentions "several epistles" which he wrote; some to the "neighbouring churches for their confirmation in the faith;" and others to certain of his "brethren for their en­couragement and admonition." But what the character of these pieces was, or to [Page 170] whom in particular they were sent, he no­where says; nor can it be known at this distance: nor is it a matter of any im­portance, since there is, at present, ex­tant nothing of Polycarp's, save only his "epistle to the church of Philippi:" Nor indeed have we this extant, com­plete in its original Greek; though the defect is, in some measure, made up by a Latin version, that is very ancient, and seems to have nothing wanting.

THIS "epistle" is cited by some of the fathers, and sometimes mentioned with epithets denoting great esteem and ho­nor. Eusebius observes its containing testimonies that are taken out of the "first epistle of Peter;" which is a good circumstance in favor of the copy we now have; since these references are here to be met with. Nor may I omit taking no­tice of the manner in which it is wrote; which is evidently such, as savors of the true primitive pureness and simplicity. A celebrated writer speaks of it in that language, ‘It seems to hold a great af­finity, both in stile and substance, with Clement's epistle to the Corinthians; often suggesting the same rules, and [Page 171] making use of the same words and phrases.—It is indeed a pious and tru­ly Christian epistle, furnished with short, and useful precepts, and rules of life, and penned with the modesty and simplicity of the apostolic times; va­lued by the ancients next to the wri­tings of the holy canon; and St. Jerom tells us "that, even in his day, it was read in Asiae conventu, in the public assemblies of the Asian church.’ I on­ly add, it was probably wrote a few years after the entrance of the second century; not far from the time of Ignatius's death.

TESTIMONIES from POLYCARP'S epis­tle to the Corinthians.

The INSCRIPTION to the epistle.

"POLYCARP, and the PRESBYTERS that are with him, [Polukarpos, kai oi sun autô Presbuteroi] to the church of God that is at Philippi, [tê paroikousê Philippois] mercy unto you, and peace, from God Almighty, and the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, be multiplied."

[Page 172]SECT. V. "Knowing therefore that God is not mocked, we ought to walk worthy both of his command, and of his glory. Also the Deacons [Diakonoi] must be blameless before him, as the ministers of God in Christ, and not of men.—In like manner, the younger men must be unblamable in all things: above all, taking care of their purity, and to re­strain themselves from all evil. For it is good to be cut off from the lusts that are in the world; because every such lust "warreth against the spirit." And "neither fornicators, nor esseminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God:" nor they who do such things as are foolish and unreasonable. Wherefore ye must needs abstain from all these things; be­ing subject to the Priests and Deacons [upotassamenous tois Presbuterois kai diako­nois] as unto God, and Christ. The vir­gins admonish to walk in a spotless and pure conscience." It immediately fol­lows,

SECT. VI. "And let the Elders [Pres­buteroi] be compassionate and merciful towards all; turning them from their [Page 173] errors; seeking out those that are weak; not forgetting the widows, the fatherless, and the poor; but always providing what is good both in the sight of God and man: abstaining from all wrath, re­spect of persons, and unrighteous judg­ment; and especially being free from all covetousness. Not easy to believe any thing against any; not severe in judg­ment; knowing that we are all debtors in point of law".—

SECT. XI. "I am greatly afflicted for Valens, who was once a Presbyter [qui factus est aliquando Presbyter apud vos] among you, that he should so little un­derstand the place that was given to him in the church. Wherefore I admonish you, that ye abstain from covetousness; and that ye be chaste, and true of speech. "Keep yourselves from all evil." For he that in these things cannot govern him­self, how shall he prescribe them to ano­ther?"

THERE are two or three passages in this epistle relative to Ignatius, which I shall insert here in Arch-Bishop Wake's translation; desiring the reader to take [Page 174] particular notice of those words in them that are printed in capitals, for a reason he will be at no loss to know, when he sees what is hereafter said upon Ignatius's writings.

SECT. IX. "Wherefore I exhort all you, that ye obey the word of righteousness, and exercise all patience; which YE HAVE SEEN SET FORTH BEFORE YOUR EYES, not only in the blessed IGNATIUS, and Zozimus, and Rufus; but in others among yourselves; and in Paul himself, and the rest of the Apostles: being con­fident of this, that ALL THESE HAVE NOT RUN IN VAIN, but in faith and righteousness, and ARE GONE TO THE PLACE THAT WAS DUE TO THEM FROM THE LORD, with whom also THEY SUF­FERED."

SECT. XIII. "Ye wrote to me, both ye and also Ignatius, that if any one went from hence into Syria, he should bring your letters with him, which also I will take care of, as soon as I shall have a conveni­ent opportunity, either try my self, or him whom I shall send upon your ac­count. The epistles of Ignatius, which [Page 175] he wrote unto us, together with what others OF HIS, * have come to our hands, we have sent to you, according to your order; which are subjoined to this epis­tle: by which ye may be greatly profit­ed; for they treat of faith and patience, and of all things that pertain to edifica­tion in the Lord Jesus."

SECT. XIV. "What you certainly know of IGNATIUS, and THOSE THAT ARE WITH HlM, signify unto us."

OBSERVATIONS and REMARKS on the foregoing testimonies.

UPON a review of the above passages, nothing is more evident than that Poly­carp speaks only of two orders of officers in the church at Philippi; in which he [Page 176] remarkably harmonises with Clement of Rome: only, whereas Clement promis­cuously makes use of the names, Bishop and Presbyter to signify the highest, or first, of these orders, Polycarp confines himself to the term Presbyter, not so much as once naming the word Bishop, any where in his epistle. Nor is there a less agreement between Polycarp, and the Apos­tle Paul upon this head: only, whereas the Apostle Paul, in writing to this church at Philippi, speaks of its officers in the stile of "Bishops and Deacons;" Poly­carp alters the denomination, mentioning the first of these orders, under the name of "Presbyters." And as they both in­tend one and the same order of officers, the change of stile, in which they speak of them, is a signal illustration of the Presbyterian gloss upon the Apostle's words; as well as a good argument, that, in the language of these times, the terms Bishop and Presbyter meant precisely the same order of ecclesiastical officers.

NOR does Polycarp barely mention Pres­byters as the highest of the two orders [Page 177] he takes notice of, in the church at Phi­lippi; but he likewise speaks of these Presbyters, as having devolved on them the "inspection and rule" of the church. He therefore exhorts the Philippians "to be subject to their Presbyters;" and the Presbyters he exhorts, "to abstain from respect of persons and unrighteous judg­ment; not hastily believing a report against any man; not being rigid in judg­ment:" which plainly supposes them, in his opinion, to have been vested with the power of ecclesiastical discipline: and this, without any person of a superior or­der at their head. For it happens here, as in the epistle of Clement, there is a total silence about the Bishop of this church. Neither his name, or authority, are once mentioned: nor is there, through the whole epistle, so much as a glance, lead­ing our thoughts to any person, related to this church, of superior authority to the Presbyters of it.

THE reply sometimes made to this is, perhaps the Bishop was dead. But what intimation is there, the epistle, or elsewhere, that he was ever alive? It [Page 178] ought first to be proved, and not taken for granted, that he once had existence; before it will, in reason, account for the silence there is about him, to say he was dead. Nor is it conceivable, if this had really been the case, but Polycarp would have offered the Philippians matter of comfort under so heavy a loss: at least, he might have wished them another Bi­shop, or recommended it to them, to take care to get his place filled up.

IT may be worth while just to observe here, how frequently, according to the episco­pal scheme, the primitive sees were vacant by the death of their Bishops. When Clement wrote to the Corinthians, one plea is, their Bishop was dead, in order to satisfy for the silence there is about him. When we come to Philippi, the same answer is made; the Bishop is dead. And he was doubtless dead too in the days of the Apostle Paul: for he is as silent about him as Polycarp. The words of the ex­cellent Mr. Jameson deserve a place here. Says he ‘Philippi is no less fatal to the Episcopals, than its neighbouring plains were to the Pompeians: for they are [Page 179] stung and confounded with the very first words of Paul to that church: and among their other wild shifts, they answer, that the Bishop was often ab­sent. But there was a good number of years between the writing of Paul, and that of Polycarp, to the Philippians; and yet, we see the Bishop is never come home. Why tarry the wheels of his Lordship's chariot? Hath he not sped at court, that, after so long absence, there is no news of his re­turn? nor are we like ever to hear any more of him, for now (say they) he is dead.’

THERE being, in the body of this epis­tle, nothing but what makes much against the cause of modern Episcopacy, great stress is laid upon these words in the "inscription" to it, "Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him." But not­withstanding all that can be made of these words, it will be impossible to find in them any marks of a superiority of or­der between Polycarp, and these Presby­ters.

[Page 180]IT is true, Polycarp is first mentioned, and then the other Presbyters of Smyr­na: but what is this to prove his epis­copal jurisdiction, his being placed at the head of these Presbyters, as an officer of distinct and superior rank? Certainly, no such thing can be collected, by any genu­ine deduction from this mode of diction. It rather plainly imports a parity of order be­tween the persons directing the epistle; for they are evidently associated as a body, without any sign of distinction at all, un­less a meer primacy may be so called: whereas, if Polycarp had been the episco­pal head of the Presbyters of Smyrna, the inscription (as the learned Salmatius ob­serves) had more properly run, "Poly­carp the Bishop, and the Presbyters of Smyrna:"—or rather, the epistle had been sent in his own name, without any mention of the Presbyters. And there is the more reason for this observation, if we may suppose the truth of what this same author adds; namely, "There can­not be produced a single instance, after the distinction between Bishops and Pres­byters took place, of any epistle wrote by any Bishop, who, in the inscription, made [Page 181] himself a co-partner with Presbyters." This is evidently the case here; the most natural meaning of the inscription being obviously this, "Polycarp and the rest of the Presbyters of that college." Poly­carp plainly here joins himself with the other Presbyters: they are all represented as so many co-partners in sending the epistle: nor is there any distinction in­timated between them; only, Polycarp is particularly named, and first mention­ed: which may easily, and satisfactorily, be accounted for, without going into the supposition of his being of an order in the church superior to that of Pres­byters.

ONE great argument (exactly similar to this, from this inscription) the Romanists make use of to prove "Peter's primacy," or superiority over the rest of the Apos­tles, is taken from his name's being first placed in the catalogues, and narrations, we have of him and them, both in scrip­ture, and antiquity: to which the great Dr. Barrow (allowing the fact at least to be so constant as not to seem casual) answers, ‘That position of names does [Page 182] not argue difference of degree, or supe­riority in power; any small advantage of age, standing, merit, or wealth, serv­ing to ground such precedence; as common experience doth shew.’ Now this observation will help us to account for the particular, and first, mention of Polycarp, in the inscription under debate.

HE was probably the first in age among the Presbyters of Smyrna; being, at least, between forty and fifty years old, when he wrote this "epistle to the Philippians." Or however this might be, he was doubt­less the first in standing among them, that is, he was before any of them placed in the ministerial office; was the senior Pas­tor of this church; and perhaps the very first Pastor, the Smyrnaeans ever had fix­ed among them: to be sure, no mention is made in antiquity of any one before him; but he is always placed at the head of the succession. Now seniority of or­dination, especially when seniority of age is added thereto, is always found to be an occasion of precedence: and it is so natural for it to be so, that it is ordi­narily [Page 183] granted without so much as laying in any claim to it. And among Pastors of precisely the same order, these take place; and their names, when put into writing, are always first mentioned: and sometimes these only are mentioned, while others of more late standing are entire­ly left out.

BESIDES, Polycarp was one of distin­guished personal worth; first among these Presbyters, as being, it may be, of superior endowments, both intellectual and moral: and as he was, by this means, in a more eminent manner qualified for the pastoral office, his more eminent qualifications were a good ground of precedence. He might, from a just sense of his own su­perior merit, be disposed to assume the first place; and, by this means, custom might give him possession of it: or, his more shining abilities might, being ob­served, procure from others a voluntary giving him the pre-eminence. "For to those, who indisputably excell in good qualities, honest and meek persons easily will yield precedence; especially on occa­sions of public concernment, wherein it is [Page 184] expedient the best qualified persons should be first seen." And if, upon the account of his personal worth in special, the church of Smyrna had expressed a distinguishing regard for Polycarp, it is nothing strange: nor if the Presbyters of this church had honored him as their father; had allow­ed him a primacy of order or dignity; waiting for him to lead in all public mat­ters, and name himself first in all epistles, as the first, or most distinguished person of their body, is it any more than is now commonly practised.

MOREOVER, it may be worth our no­tice, Polycarp was one that had acquain­tance with the Apostles of our Lord; and, what is more, was placed in the pastoral office at Smyrna, by at least one of them: which are advantages that greatly distin­guished him. And if, in virtue hereof, being, distinguishly honored and reveren­ced, he had assigned him the first place in the college of Presbyters, belonging to this church, it is no more than might naturally be expected. Upon the whole,

[Page 185]THERE is no reason to think, Poly­carp's being first named, in this inscrip­tion, was owing to any other cause, than some or all of those we have mentioned. To be sure, it could not be because of his episcopal authority and pre-eminence, un­less the church of Smyrna was far differ­ent in its constitution from the church at Philippi: and this is not in the least probable, since there are no traces in this epistle of any superiority of order between Bishops and Presbyters.

THERE is but one objection, what I have offered is liable to, that I know of: and this is, that Polycarp is spoken of, in an­tiquity, as Bishop of Smyrna; which be­ing considered at the same time that we read this inscription, it will naturally lead us to construe his particularly naming himself; and this, before the Presbyters, as signifying his being of an order supe­rior to them.

BUT as the whole weight of this ob­jection (if there be any at all in it) de­pends intirely upon the true import of the word Bishop, in the age of Polycarp, [Page 186] there is no reason to be moved by it: since we shall see in these papers (which are through the whole of them an ans­wer to it) full evidence, that this word, in this age, was certainly synonimous with the word Presbyter, and used to signify nothing more than precisely the same order of church officers.

[Page]

IGNATIUS.
His character, writings, and testimonies from them, with observations and remarks.

THE name, epithet, or whatever else any may please to call it, given this Father, in all his epistles, is THEO­PHOROS; which, as the learned say, may be written differently accented: either THEOPHÓROS, meaning, a "divine per­son," one who "carried God in his breast;" or THEÓPHOROS signifying a per­son "carried by God." The generality of those, who entertain a favorable opi­nion of Ignatius's "epistles," think he was ordinarily spoken of, in the age in which he lived, in the stile of THEOPHO­ROS; [Page 188] and that this name was applied to him, in the first of the above senses, on account of his great piety, his "soul's being full of God." But both these points may, with good reason, be called in ques­tion. It is undoubted fact, that he is never mentioned by any of the truly pri­mitive Fathers in the stile of THEO­PHOROS. And what may be worth no­tice, those, among the later ones, who give him this name, do, at the same time, speak of him as the "child" our Savi­or "took up into his arms," and "sat before his disciples" as a pattern of hu­mility. And this is the special reason they assign of the application of this name. But, as the greatest admirers of Ignatius esteem this a fabulous story, falling in with Chrysostom, who says of this Father, that he never saw our Lord, nor enjoyed any converse with him," the name THEOPHOROS, founded on it, ought not to be ascribed to him. And, probably, it was not originally inserted in the "inscriptions" to his "epistles;" unless we should suppose them spurious, and not wrote until the fable itself, that is the foundation of this name, in this sense, began to obtain a currency.

[Page 189]IT is said, in support of the other rea­son of the application of this name, that it seems to have been the very one, Igna­tius himself is represented to have given, in the extant account we have of his "martyrdom." For being asked, "Who was THEOPHOROS?" His reply was, "He who has Christ in his breast." From whence it is supposed, that he was com­monly known by this name, and for this reason. But, as "the acts of the mar­tyrdom of Ignatius" are no where quo­ted, mentioned, or so much as referred to, in any manner whatever, by any Father, until we have got into those times that were greatly remote from his day, they must be acknowledged to be, at least, of dubious authority, and not to be depend­ed on in point of argument.—But it would take up too much room, to lit­tle purpose, to enlarge here.

WHETHER Ignatius was called Theo­phoros or not; or whatever was the rea­son of giving him this name, we are whol­ly at a loss to know, where he was born; how educated; when, and by what means, converted to the Christi­an faith. And, in truth, the ancient [Page 190] records are surprizingly silent about him; seldom mentioning so much as his name, until we come into the fourth cen­tury. He is highly celebrated by mo­dern writers; and were we to judge, from the honorary manner, in which they speak of him, we must suppose, that he was not only the most pious and holy man, but the most faithful, and signally accom­plished gospel-minister, that ever lived. This, possibly, may be his just character; but none can say that it is upon any other foot, than that of meer conjecture.

HE is commonly spoken of as Bishop of Antioch; but it ought to be remem­bered, that Origin, a writer in the third century, is the first Father that mentions him under this character. He is follow­ed by the succeeding Fathers, in the se­veral ages in which they respectively flou­rished. And when they speak of him in the stile of Bishop, they doubtless took into the meaning of the word, the whole that was understood by it in their day. But this will, by no means, let us into the true idea of this term, as used in the days of Ignatius. It is readily conced­ed, he was Bishop of Antioch; but utter­ly [Page 191] denied, that he was Bishop of this church in the sense, in which this word was used, either in the age of Origen, or in those ages that followed after. He might as properly be called the Pastor, the first, or most eminent Presbyter, or Elder, of that church, as the Bishop of it; for nothing more was meant by the word Bishop, in the age in which Igna­tius flourished.

IT may properly be observed here, the different account the Fathers give of the order, or place, of his succession in the church of Antioch, makes a difficulty not unlike that of Clement's succession in the church of Rome. The difficulty is, where to place Ignatius in the line of succession; some of the Fathers putting Euodius be­fore him, and others placing Ignatius next after some Apostle. The Episcopalians are much puzzled to solve this matter, and go into very different schemes, which it is not my business, at present, to ex­amine.

THE precise time of his taking upon him the charge of the Antiochian church cannot be ascertained; nor is it particu­larly [Page 192] known, how he executed this trust: though it may, in general, be charitably thought, that he approved himself a faith­ful Minister of Christ; as he couragi­ously chose to die rather than disown his Master and Lord. There is no room to doubt his having laid down his life for the sake of the religion of Jesus; but as to the manner and circumstances of his death, as related in the "acts of his mar­tyrdom," it may be justly questioned, whether full credit is due to them. In special, it is difficult to think that he should be sent from Antioch to suffer at Rome. The most able writers are at a loss to account for this; and some look upon it as plainly an incredible story. The great Jameson has this opinion of it. Says he, ‘Why should Trajan be at the pains to send him guarded thi­ther? Certainly not for an entertain­ment to the people, as the pretended "acts of Ignatius" affirm. They had store of Christians of all sorts at Rome, with the spectacle of whose sufferings they might daily be cloyed. Neither, as some answer, because he was a famous Christian Bishop, at whose death the Roman Christians might be terrified; [Page 193] seeing the Emperor might conclude, from Ignatius's great resolution and boldness, which himself had perceived, that he would much animate them. But the perpetual practice of these times frees us from further debate herein. I can never find, that the Ro­mans brought Christians from Asia, or such remote places, to be executed at Rome; but to the nearest seats of jus­tice; as is clear in Polycarp, and other most famous Bishops, or Pastors.’ He goes on, quoting a passage from Dr. Stil­lingfleet, in these words, ‘And truly the story of Ignatius, as much as it is de­fended with his epistles, doth not seem to be any of the most probable. For wherefore should Ignatius, of all others, be brought to Rome to suffer? when the Pro-Consuls, and the Praesides Provin­ciarum, did every where, in the time of persecution, execute their power in punishing of Christians at their own tribunals, without sending them so long a journey to Rome to be martyr­ed there.’ —But however it might be as to this, and other circumstances, the fact itself, that he died a martyr, is not disputed.

[Page 194]THE year of his martyrdom is various­ly fixed. Some place it in the year 107; others in 110; and others still in 116. It would take up too much room, and to no great purpose, to examine the reasons which have induced critical writers thus to differ in setling the period of Ignatius's death; upon which account I shall say nothing more about it.

His WRITINGS.

CONCERNING these, it will be pro­per I should be more particular, than would have been necessary, had they not been the occasion of so much dispute in the learned world.

No less than fifteen "Epistles" go un­der the name of Ignatius; and they have commonly been divided into three classes. The first contains the three epistles that are extant only in latin, and wrote, one of them to the "Virgin Mary," the other two to "St. John." The second compre­hends the five Greek epistles, which are not mentioned either by Eusebius, or Jerom. The first, to "Mary Cassaboli­ta;" the second, to the inhabitants of [Page 195] Tarsus;" the third "to the Antiochians;" the fourth, "to Hero," Deacon of the church at Antioch;" the fifth, "to the Philippians." A few Roman-catholic writers give credit to these epistles, as wrote by Ignatius; but they are herein universally opposed by Episcopalian pro­testants, as well as others, who look up­on them as evidently supposititious. The third class comprises the seven epistles supposed to be taken notice of by Euse­bius; which are the following ones. The first, "to the Ephesians;" the second, "to the Magnesians;" the third, "to the Trallians;" the fourth, "to the Ro­mans;" the fifth, "to the Philadel­phians;" the sixth, "to the Smyrnae­ans;" the seventh "to Polycarp." N. B. Arch-Bishop Usher, * and some others [Page 196] after him, reject this last; supposing the six former to be the only truly genuine ones.

THESE seven epistles, it may be observ­ed, are again considered in two views. The first exhibits them in the editions that were published before the days of the celebrated Usher and Vossius; and thus considered, they are stiled the "larger epistles," and are now almost universally given up as incapable of a defence, on account of the CORRUP­TIONS that have some how or other un­happily got mixed with them: though it ought always to be kept in remem­brance, that the former advocates for Prelacy, who had no other editions but these, strenuously pleaded for them as the genuine valuable remains of the truly primitive Ignatius, and appealed to them as such, in the cause of Episcopacy, per­haps with as much frequency, and zeal, as any of their Episcopal brethren have done since.

[Page 197]THE other view we have of these epis­tles is, as they are set forth by Arch-Bi­shop Usher, from two latin copies he met with in England, one in the library of Caius college, the other in the library of Bishop Montague; and by the learned Vossius, from a Greek manuscript copy he found in the Florentine library. Con­sidered in this view, they are called the "shorter epistles," and represented as both genuine and uncorrupted. They are accordingly the only ones now re­paired to, in proof of the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters in order and pow­er. —May it not be pertinently queried here. Do not Episcopalians evidently con­demn themselves, while they zealously adhere to these, and reject the former edi­tions of the "Ignatian epistles?" They would not be wrought upon, by any me­thods of reasoning, to give up "epistles" they now acknowledge to be basely in­terlarded with corruption, until they had got them, from other manuscripts, in a state they could better defend. Does it not look, as though they imagined their cause stood in absolute need of Ignatius, and were willing to part with him in the former editions, only because they have [Page 198] others to substitute in their room, that have not so glaring an appearance of a base mixture.? One can scarce help thinking, if other editions should be set forth, from still other manuscripts, more defensible than these they now have, they would as readily quit these, as they have done the former ones.

BUT however pure and uncorrupt these "shorter epistles," published from the more lately discovered manuscripts, are supposed to be, there are some, and of the first character too for learning, who have openly declared it to be their opinion, that they are SPURIOUS; and a still grea­ter number are persuaded they have been corrupted, if they are not spurious, to a degree that unfits them to be appealed to, as exhibiting the real sense of the true Ignatius.

THE strange silence of primitive antiqui­ty concerning "epistles," under the name of Ignatius, is mentioned by some, in­timately acquainted with the Fathers, as a sufficient reason to suspect that he ne­ver wrote any. There is no dispute about the fact itself namely, that none [Page 199] of the Fathers, whose works are still re­maining, in whole, or in part, give no­tice of "epistles" wrote by IGNATIUS, either a less or greater number, until we come into the fourth century, three only ex­cepted; of whom we shall particularly speak, in some proper place, afterwards. But then the plea is, this is a negative ar­gument, and proves nothing. It is ac­knowledged, negative evidence, considered in itself nakedly, is of no great weight. But still, this kind of evidence may be so attended with circumstances as to yield conviction, not much short of that which is grounded on positive proof. Should a pretended writing be so circumstanced, in regard of its supposed author, subject-matter, occasion, and manner of penning, as that there would be as much reason to expect, it should be taken notice of by those, who must be thought to have been acquainted with it, as other writings of the same age; and they are commemo­rated, while this is silently passed over with neglect, not by here and there a Fa­ther, but the whole body of writers for two hundred years:—these are circum­stances of no small importance, and add strength to a negative testimony, rendering [Page 200] it almost equal in force to that which is positive. Now, this is the case re­specting these "Ignatian epistles." For it ought to be remembered, and consi­dered,

IGNATIUS lived in the first age of Christianity, was personally known to, at least, some of the Apostles, and many of those who had been familiarly conversant with them. And he was constituted, if we may believe the Episcopalians, by one of the Apostles, at least, Bishop of the church of Antioch, a noted city in itself, and remarkable on account of its being the place, where believers were first distinguished by the name of CHRISTI­ANS. These are circumstances, leaving it indisputable, that Ignatius was no ob­scure person, but as likely to be known as any in that day. Besides all this, he was a glorious martyr for the religion of Jesus; and, if he really wrote these epis­tles, the circumstances of his martyr­dom were truly extraordinary. For he was condemned at Antioch, to die at Rome. And, in order to the execution of this sentence, was conveyed, by a band of soldiers, as a prisoner of death for the [Page 201] sake of Christ, through all the places, in which his name was named, that lay in the way between the greatly di­stant cities from each other, Antioch and Rome. This is a circumstance that would naturally spread his fame, and occasion his being held in veneration by all the Christian churches, as he passed along. Had he been before a person of no figure, this alone would have given him an exalted reputation: nor is it sup­poseable, that any of the Fathers, of the same age, should be more extensively known, or more frequently spoken of with honor. These are the circumstan­ces under which we are to conceive of the author of these "epistles."

AND as extraordinary ones attend the "epistles" themselves; for they were wrote (if wrote by him) in the character of one that was a prisoner, in bonds, for the name of Christ, and actually on his journey to be devoured by wild beasts: nor were they wrote to private friends, upon meer private concerns; but to no less than six as famous churches as were then in the world; and, if we may be­lieve the Episcopalians, upon matters of [Page 202] the most essential importance. These, surely, are considerations that will not suffer us to think, that these "epistles" were unknown, or not esteemed worthy of particular notice. Epistles wrote, and sent, to a number of such noted chur­ches, by so good and great a Bishop, up­on the most weighty points, at so solemn a time as that of his dying for the cause of Christ, must have occasioned much talk among Christians. They would have put a distinguishing value upon such epistles; yea, they would have esteemed them the most celebrated monuments of all unin­spired antiquity. How unaccountable then is it, that so little notice should be taken of them, for the full space of two hundred years after the supposed date of their composure! And what makes the matter still more strange is, that nothing more frequently occurs, than the menti­on of other writings of the same age with these. There is scarce an author, about the time in which Ignatius flourished, but his works are particularly named, or quoted. And why should Ignatius, the most celebrated of them all, be shame­fully treated with silence and neglect? And this is the more to be wondered at, [Page 203] as his writings were, in some cases, the most pertinent that could have been referred to; far more so than other wri­tings that are particularly mentioned, and remembered with honor.

BUT the force of this negative argu­ment will appear in a yet stronger point of light, if, by way of specimen, we par­ticularly consider one or two of the an­cient writers, who take no notice of these "epistles."

THE first shall be Irenaeus. We have extant of his a large volume, entitled, "the confutation of that which is false­ly called knowledge;" the main design of which is, to explain and refute the erronious notions of Simon, Menander, Valentinus, Marcion, Cerinthus, Cer­don," and as many other heretics as had appeared in his day, and for an hundred years before. In such a work as this, of so great length, and such variety of mat­ter and argument, it might well be ex­pected, some mention would have been made of so celebrated a writer, and mar­tyr, as Ignatius, who both wrote and died in this very age: especially, if it be [Page 204] considered, that his "epistles" are peculiarly pertinent to the great design of Irenaeus's argument, more so by far than any other ancient writing, we know any thing of, then extant in the world. For some (perhaps the most) of those very errors he opposes, were both noted and rejected by Ignatius. I need not be at the pains to produce instances of this for the sake of those, who are acquainted with these wri­tings; and for others, if they will only compare the "Ignatian epistles", with the first of "Irenaeus's five books", they may, with their own eyes, see a number of them. What therefore more natural than to look for references to "these epis­tles", in the works of Irenaeus? And how can it be accounted for, that he should take no notice of them, but that he knew of no such epistles? Had he con­fined himself to reason, or scripture, in confutation of these heretics, having no recourse to former writers, it would be some apology for his silence: but, far from this, one of his chief arguments is taken from "the succession of doctrine in the Christian church;" in order to confirm which, he recurs to the WRIT­INGS, as well as SAYINGS, of those who [Page 205] were older than the heretics he was re­futing. He makes a very particular and honorable mention of CLEMENT, and his "epistle to the Corinthians," and opposes even the whole of it against the heresies he had under consideration. * And yet, not a word is said, either here, or else­where, in his whole book, in commemo­ration of "Ignatius's epistles;" nor is there one word quoted from him to the purpose of the grand argument he has in prosecution.

THE answer to this is, That, in the place where Irenaeus mentions "Cle­ment," he had, to prevent being tedious, expressly limited himself to "the succession of doctrine in the church at Rome," of which Clement had been Bishop; and as, in the name of that church, he had wrote an "epistle to the Corinthians," wherein the doctrine of that church, and its op­position to the doctrine of these heretics, might be easily discerned, there was good reason, why he should distinguish Cle­ment; a pertinency in appealing to him, while there would have been none in [Page 206] appealing to Ignatius. But, it is observa­ble, in this very place, where he had con­fined his argument to the church of Rome, he takes occasion to commemorate "Po­lycarp's epistle to the Philippians." * And why might he not, with as much propri­ety, have taken some notice of the "epis­tles of Ignatius?" To this also it is re­plied, Irenaeus introduces the mention he makes of Polycarp, by saying, he had been at Rome, where he opposed these heretics, and recovered many from the errors wherewith they had been infected: upon which account it was to his purpose to name Polycarp, while there was no rea­son, at this time, to mention Ignatius. But, it deserves consideration, over and above mentioning Polycarp's being at Rome, and confuting the Heretics there, which was the only point directly to his argument, he takes occasion to celebrate his "epistle to the Philippians". There is little, or nothing, in this epistle to the design he was upon, and accordingly he makes no use of it, or any sentence in it, to oppose the heretics: yet, this primitive Father having an epistle extant, [Page 207] he could not forbear making a record of it. And it might have been as pro­per, and pertinent, even in this very place, to have done the like by the "epistles of Ignatius. For it is particularly worthy of notice, Ignatius had been at Rome as well as Polycarp; and, what is more, died there a glorious martyr in the cause of Christ: Nor should it be forgot, that "these epistles," as Episcopalians tell us, were collected by Polycarp, at least, some of them, and annexed by him to his "own epistle" as part of one and the same volume. Irenaeus, therefore, having men­tioned "Polycarp's epistle", would, it may reasonably and naturally be supposed, have mentioned the others also under the same cover, if he had known of them; and the rather, because they were the work of so eminent a primitive Father, and of all the writings, then extant, the best adapted to confound the heretics he was arguing against.

BUT should it be allowed, that, in this particular place, while his argument was under a special limitation, it was more proper to take notice of the "epistles of Clement and Polycarp", than of "Ignatius"; [Page 208] yea, that there was good reason for men­tioning the former, and none at all for the latter; yet, what is this to account for the silence there every where else ap­pears concerning these epistles? Because it was more proper in one place to men­tion Clement and Polycarp, than Igna­tius, will it therefore follow there was a propriety in making no mention of him at all? If this was a proper place to speak of Clement, and Polycarp, might he not, in some other place, have done the like honor to Ignatius? And his si­lence with respect to this most noted Fa­ther, is the more strange, as he has found some suitable place to remember, not only Clement, and Polycarp, but Her­mas, Ignatius's contemporary, and Pa­pias, and Justin, not a great way posterior to him. Surely, no one, who esteems "Ig­natius's epistles to be genuine, will say, that Irenaeus had more reason, or could with greater propriety, record the wri­tings of these Fathers, than those of the more famed and memorable Ignatius. Besides all which, it may be worth minding, that nothing is more common with Irenaeus, than to have recourse to the sayings, both ORAL and WRITTEN, of those Elders [Page 209] who preceeded him. "As a certain El­der says," "as was said by the Presby­ters," "as I heard from such a Senior," "as was delivered by those who were disciples of the Apostles," are phrases very familiar with him. He often, in this manner, introduces the words of the ancients. And yet, in so many referen­ces, he never makes use of so much as a single sentence from Ignatius, to his grand purpose, that of refuting the he­retics; though, in most of his epistles, there was that which was well adapted to such a design. It certainly looks, as if he knew nothing of "these epistles": if he had, he must needs have dropped, at least, some hint about them, somewhere or other, in so large a work.

I SHALL next mention Clement of Alexandria; a person of vast learning, second to none in the age in which he lived, for his acquaintance with all sorts of writers. Those works of his that are still in being are crouded with an immense variety of quotations from philosophers, poets, historians, and all kinds of wri­ters, whether Pagan or Christian. He particularly mentions the "epistle of [Page 210] Barnabas," the "epistle of Clement of Rome," the "pastor of Hermas," all writers in the age in which Ignatius liv­ed. And if the "Ignatian epistles" had been extant in his day, one of his pro­digious learning must have had know­ledge of it; and if he had, it is scarce credible he should have passed them over in silence. He often takes occasion to speak of the heretics that corrupted the Christian faith; and there being so much in Ignatius upon this head, it is really strange, he should never once comme­morate so famous a writer, and martyr. It is quite natural to think, he had ne­ver seen, or heard of "epistles" under the name of Ignatius.

AND the same may be said of Tertul­lian, and other writers, * between the days [Page 211] of Ignatius and Eusebius, who take no notice of "these epistles"; as might be particularly illustrated with reference to them, but that enough has been alrea­dy said to let the reader see, that this ne­gative evidence is so circumstanced as to give just occasion to suspect, whether Ignatius ever wrote the "epistles" that are ascribed to him.

[Page 212]IT will be but fair, before I proceed, to take notice of the supposed evidence there is, within the three first centuries, that Ignatius wrote these "epistles." And this I shall do, by impartially lay­ing before the reader the whole of it, in the very words of the original authors, without concealing any one circumstance, within my knowledge, that will add weight to it; and, at the same time, I shall offer, under each testimony, what may be said to weaken the strength of the argument herefrom deduced.

POLYCARP is the first witness brought to testify, that Ignatius wrote the "epis­tles" that are supposed to be his. The testimony to this purpose we have in the Polycarpian "epistle to the Philippians." The 13th and 14th sections, in which it is contained, run thus,

BOTH you, and Ignatius, wrote to me, that, should any one go into Syria, he might carry your letters, if either I, or the messenger I [Page 213] should send for you, should have a fa­vorable opportuni­ty. The epistles of Ignatius, which he sent to US, and AS MANY OTHER AS WE HAD BY US, we have sent to you, according to your desire: which are added to this epis­tle, by which you may be greatly pro­fited. For they treat of faith, pa­tience, and what­ever pertains to edi­fication in the Lord.

AND signify to me what ye cer­tainly [Page 214] know about Ignatius, and those that are with him.

SCRIPSISTIS mi­hi, et vos, et Igna­tius, ut si quis va­dit ad Syriam, de­ferat literas meas quas fecero ad vos, si habuerimus tem­pus [Page 213] opportunum, sive ego, seu lega­tus quem misero pro vobis. Episto­las sane Ignatii, quae transmissae sunt vo­bis [fortasse nobis *] ab eo, et ALIAS QUANTASCUMQUE, apud nos habui­mus, transmissimus vobis, secundum quod mandastis: quae sunt subjectae huic epistolae; ex quibus magnus vo­bis erit profectus. Continent enim fi­dem, patientiam, et omnem edificatio­nem ad Dominum nostrum pertinen­tem.

ET de ipso Igna­tio, et de his qui [Page 214] cum eo sunt, quod certius agnoveritis significate.

*
Arch-Bishop Usher's note here is, Ita locum hunc citant Eusebius, Nicephorus, et Graecus actorum Igna­tii scriptor anonymus; quam legitimam esse lecti­onem, agnoscit etiam Baronius." In the translation of Arch-Bishop Wake, we read US, instead of YOU.

IT is thought a strong confirmation of this testimony from Polycarp, that Eusebius, when speaking of the "Igna­tian epistles," as commemorated by him, quotes from him this passage in the ori­ginal Greek, which exhibits the very idea that is conveyed by the above ancient version.

UPON this "Polycarpian testimony" it may be observed, that the whole para­graph, from whence it is taken, is sus­pected to have been an after addition, de­signed to give credit to the "Ignatian epistles". And two things are offered in support of such a suspicion.

THE first is, its apparent abrupt­ness, and want of relation to the fore­going discourse. There is no connection between this, and what went before: nor had Polycarp dropped any hint, that would lead one to expect this notice of "Ignatius epistles": and what is said, with reference to them, is so inserted, as [Page 215] to its manner, that no one, when he had read the foregoing words, could begin upon these without naturally making a pause, as meeting with what he had no reason given him to look for. Some, of great intimacy with the ancient wri­tings, have, from this consideration on­ly, been inclined to suspect, that the pas­sage was unfairly crouded into the epis­tle. —But I only mention this as a cir­cumstance, that may give weight to what may be further offered of greater im­portance.

The other ground of suspicion there­fore is, an apparent inconsistency, or contradiction, between what is affirmed in one of these passages, and another in the body of the epistle. The ninth sec­tion contains these words, "Wherefore I exhort all of you to obey the word of righteousness, and exercise all patience, which ye have seen set before your eyes, not only in the blessed IGNATIUS, and Zozimus, and Rufus, but in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the Apostles: being * confident [Page 216] in this, that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness; and ARE GONE TO THE PLACE DUE TO THEM FROM THE LORD, for whom they also suffered".—Ignatius is so evi­dently here spoken of, as having fi­nished his sufferings, and gone to the Lord, that there can be no reasonable room for doubt in the case. THESE ALL [HI OMNES] that is, IGNATIUS, Zo­simus, Rufus, and others, HAVE NOT RUN IN VAIN, but are GONE TO THE PLACE DUE TO THEM FROM THE LORD. No one that reads these words can be at a loss to determine, that Ignatius, in the thoughts of Polycarp, was really dead, and actually gone to the place of future rewards. And yet, this very Ignatius is here directly supposed to be alive, and not come to his last sufferings. "Sig­nify to me what ye know about IGNA­TIUS, and THOSE THAT ARE WITH HIM." Is not this a manner of speak­ing altogether absurd, unless it had been presumed, that Ignatius was yet alive? The most plain signification of the words is, that this was the real truth. Can it now be imagined, that Polycarp, after he had spoken of Ignatius as actually [Page 217] dead, and recommended his sufferings and death as an example to others, should, in the same short epistle, speak of him as alive, and desire to know about him; and this, from the very persons to whom he had recommended his death as an example? This would be very strange; and it would be dishonorary to so famous a Father to suppose, he should be thus inconsistent with himself: but it is no uncommon thing for knavish persons to do that, which, through want of cauti­on, serves to discover their fraud.

BUT we shall be able to perceive more fully the force of what has been offer­ed, if we attend a while to what has been said to weaken its strength.

IT is pleaded, Polycarp does not, in the objected words, insinuate that Igna­tius was now alive, as is pretended, in con­tradiction to what he had said of him as dead, in sect. ix. But, the Philippians, being likely to know considerable about Ignatius, both while hs was alive, and while he was suffering martyrdom, he writes to them, as it was proper and natural for to him to do, to communicate [Page 218] to him what they knew, both about him, and those that were his companions. This doth not seem satisfactory. The question is not, what the Philippians might know about Ignatius, nor whether it was proper for Polycarp to desire them to tell him what they knew about him? but whether the manner of writing, here used, is not such as evidently supposes Ignatius had not yet come to his last suf­ferings, contrary to what he had before expressly declared? The words, "signi­fy to me what ye certainly know about Ignatius, and those THAT ARE WITH HIM," obviously suppose the person wrote about to be alive. And it is observable, he is represented as having his companions about him. "Ignatius, and those that are with him;" ARE, in the present tense. And if Polycarp had not known that he was dead, the mode of diction is easy and natural; but uncouth, I may say unin­telligible, if compared with the firm per­suasion he had before expressed, that he had finished his course, and obtained the crown of martyrdom.

OTHERS endeavor to remove the difficulty another way. They argue, [Page 219] Polycarp, when he wrote this epistle, con­cluded in his own mind, that Ignatius, by this time, had gone through his suffer­ings; for which reason, he pertinently writes as in sect. ix: yet, having receiv­ed no certain account of his death, and not being fully satisfied, whether he had suffered, or not; or, if he had, how he had been treated by his persecutors, and how he had behaved in his last encoun­ter with the beasts, desires the Philippi­ans, who were much nearer to Rome than he was, and might therefore very proba­bly have heard much later from thence then he had, to send him an account of what they knew relative to these matters. And in all this, what, they say, is there, not that locks like a contradiction, but that is not very natural, and particularly most becoming the love and friendship of the blessed Polycarp towards him, concerning whom he so diligently enquired? It is obvious, at first sight, that this plea di­rectly contradicts the foregoing one; and yet, it is as far from unfolding the difficulty. For, from the whole strain of sect. ix, it appears with a meridian lustre, that Polycarp was fully persuaded that Ignatius was dead, and gone to reap [Page 220] the fruit of his fidelity to his Lord. He was in no doubt as to the truth of this fact, nor needed any information about it. He speaks of it as a matter that was well known both to himself, and to the Philippians: nor can words more clearly and strongly signify this, than those he has used to the purpose. "THESE ALL," therefore IGNATIUS among the rest, and as truly as Paul, and the other Apostles, "have not run in vain, but ARE with the Lord in the place due to them." And yet, according to the plea here made, it is supposed that Polycarp, in the objected words, speaks of it as a matter of uncer­tainty, whether Ignatius had come to his encounter with the beasts; which is no way reconcileable with the clear persua­sion of his being dead, he had before ex­pressed in sect. ix.

IT is further said, in favor of the ge­numeness of this passage, that no one who designed to serve a turn by corrupt­ing this epistle would have been, either so negligent as not carefully to read it over, or having done this, would have been so foolish as to have subjoined a request to the Philippians in direct [Page 221] contradiction to what the true Polycarp had told them before; and which, by conse­quence, must discover the fraud, and frustrate the design in view. This, it is possible, may seem an argument of weight to those unacquainted with antiquity; but it will not appear in the same light to such as are versed in this kind of stu­dy; as they have often met with like in­stances of folly. Whether the persons guilty of such fraudulent dealing were commonly weak; or whether they ima­gined those they designed to impose up­on were of this character; or whether, though artful and cunning, they were left in Providence (as is often the case at present in regard of all kinds of cheats) to do that, through carelessness and in­attention, which serves to discover their fraud, I shall not pretend to say: but it is a fact notoriously known, that WHOLE PIECES, as well as INTERPOLATED SEN­TENCES were, in those days, obtruded upon the world, full as ridiculous as this supposed corruption can be represented to be. Signal instances of this nature are to be met with in the "apostolical constitutions and canons," which are uni­versally allowed to have been fraudulently [Page 222] dealt with, even by those who have not an opinion of them as spurious. The interpolations, and additions, made in these writings, do so grossly break in upon the order of time, the declared mind of the Apostles in the inspired books, and are so often chargeable with contradict­ing other parts of the same writings, that one could scarce believe it possible a person of common sense should be guilty of such ridiculous weakness, but that there is no arguing against stubborn fact. The reader that is inclined to see this supposed addition to "Polycarp's epis­tle" fully matched for the weakness, and folly, it is said to contain, may meet with it done to his mind, in what has been offered, under the head of "Clement's writings," in the preceeding pages. To the like purpose he may consult Dr. Smallbroke's "Clementine constitutions confuted, in answer to Mr. Whiston."

BUT if we drop the supposition of an "interpolation," and even allow this "Polycarpian testimony," to be unsus­pectedly genuine, it will not, at once, as too many have imagined, decide the controversy relative to the "Ignatian [Page 223] epistles. " For it does not prove what it is brought for; but leaves the greatest part of " these epistles" destitute of all real evidence in their support. At most, two only of these epistles are certainly taken notice of. No more are couched under those words of Polycarp, "the epistles of Ignatius which he sent to us:" nor do the greatest patrons of "Ignatius's writings" pretend, that any other are here referred to, than his "epistle to the Smyr­naeans," and a particular one to "Poly­carp himself." And as to the words that immediately follow, "and as many other epistles as we had by us;" though they are interpreted, by episcopal writers, to mean " the other epistles of IGNATI­US," there is not the least need, unless to serve a turn, to look upon them as re­ferring at all to any of the "Ignatian epistles." They are generally wrote, without any limitation to Ignatius. Arch-Bishop Wake indeed has been plea­sed, no less than three times * to insert the words OF HIS, without giving the reader any notice that they were words of his own putting in; by means whereof the meer [Page 224] English reader, and all who have seen on­ly his translation, are unavoidably led to imagine, that the words, in "Polycarp's epistle," are absolutely confined to Igna­tius; when, in truth, they are generally expressed, having nothing to answer the Arch-Bishop's limiting words OF HIS. In the "old version" of Polycarp, the words run thus, "Epistolas sané Ignatii, quae transmissae sunt vobis [pro nobis] ab eo, et ALIAS QUANTASCUMQUE apud nos habuimus, transmissimus vobis, secundum quod mandastis." The original Greek, as quoted by Eusebius, perfectly agrees herewith. What is translated in the old copy, " ET ALIAS QUANTASCUMQUE," is in the Greek, KAI ALLAS OSAS. It is acknowledged, in the first part of this passage, "Epistles of Ignatius" are di­rectly mentioned; that is, the Episcopa­lians themselves being judges, * two of the epistles said to be his, "one to Poly­carp;" the "other to the church of Smyr­na:" but, in the latter part of it, the [Page 225] words are general, and so far from be­ing limited to Ignatius, that they may, with propriety, be interpreted of ANY EPISTLES WHATEVER, Polycarp, or the church of Smyrna, might have had by them, of other famous primitive Fa­thers. And there are some considerati­ons that fairly lead to such a general construction of the words. For it is plain, these epistles were sent, by Poly­carp and his church, to the church at Philippi, at their desire which had been signified to them. "We have sent the epistles as you desired." And it is quite easy and natural to conceive of their send­ing, upon the desire of the Philippians, the "epistles" Ignatius had wrote to THEM. But how should they come by his other epistles, those which he wrote to the "Magnesians," to the "Phila­delphians," to the "Ephesians," to the "Romans," and to the "Trallians?" And why should the church at Philippi send to them for these epistles? If Ig­natius had really wrote to these churches, and the Philippians had a mind to see his epistles to them, it would have been na­tural for them to have sent to those chur­ches for a copy of their respective letters; [Page 226] and in every respect as natural as was their sending to Polycarp, and his church, for the letters he wrote to them. It there­fore looks as if the "epistles", here spoken of, as sent to the Philippians, were those "epistles of Ignatius" which he had wrote to Polycarp, and the Smyrnaeans; and "such other epistles", of other famous persons, as they had by them, that might be of more special value. There is no­thing in this construction of the words that appears strained, or unnatural; nor is there the least need of any other inter­pretation. And should this prove to be the true construction, only TWO of the "SEVEN Ignatian epistles" are here men­tioned. The remaining five must be taken care of by others. Yea, should we allow of the Episcopalian interpretation, the matter would not be a great deal mended. In this case, it is true, it might be argued, that Ignatius wrote more than two epistles; but what other epistles, to whom, or how many, would, after all, remain an utter uncertainty. The words specify nothing. "And as many other epistles as we had by us:"—No­thing is here said by which it can be [Page 227] determined, how many epistles were in­tended, nor whether any of the present collection were of their number.

BUT, if we should suppose all that is pleaded for this testimony, from Poly­carp, to be really true, the controversy about these "epistles," in point of de­pendence on them, as containing the sense of Ignatius, will remain still un­determined. For if it be allowed, that Polycarp sent a collection of "seven Ig­natian epistles" to the church at Philip­pi; it will not follow from hence, that the present collection of the like number of epistles, under the name of Igna­natius, is the same incorrupt, unadulte­rated collection with that of Polycarp's. It is granted, it was not the same before the days of Usher, and Vossius. And, since the appearance of those learned antiqua­ries, the case may possibly be the same; and it must evidently be so, if the collecti­on of these "epistles," in their supposed best edition, contain such things as argue a date posterior to the age in which Igna­tius lived, and that are altogether unworthy of that primitive Father, and martyr: [Page 228] and that they contain such things as these, we shall have occasion, in its pro­per place, particularly to evince.

IN the mean time, let us go on to Ire­naeus, the next writer, within the second century, cited in favor of the "epistles of Ignatius". His words are these, "as one from among us SAID, being adjudg­ed to the beasts that he might be a mar­tyr for God; I am the corn of Christ, and am ground with the teeth of beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God". * These words are found in the epistle to the Romans, under the name of Igna­tius, sect. iv. And it is thought a weighty circumstance attending this tes­timony, that Eusebius has quoted it, and after this manner; "and Irenaeus knew of his [Ignatius's] martyrdom, and makes mention of his epistles in these words, "as one among us SAID, [eipe] being ad­judged to the beasts for the testimony of [Page 229] God,I am the what of God, and am ground with the teeth of beasts, that I may be found pure bread." *

IN answer to this testimony of Irenaeus, it is allowed, that Ignatius is the person here referred to, and that the cited words are to be seen in one of the extant epis­tles under his name.

BUT this notwithstanding, it does not appear sufficiently evident, that Irenaeus either knew of this "epistle," or took this sentence out of it. It is certain, he makes no mention of the "epistle," nei­ther does he anywhere say, that he trans­cribed these words from it. And it is observable, the words are not introduced, "as one from among us WROTE;" but "as one from among us SAID." A great deal of pains has been taken to prove, that the phrase," as was said," is not on­ly proper, but frequently used, even by Irenaeus himself, to introduce citations from known written books. And no one ever questioned its being a phrase, [Page 230] both proper, and commonly used, by all kinds of authors, by which to bring in the written words of others. But the question is, whether it is not as proper a mode of speech, and as commonly used, to introduce the vocal as the written say­ings of others? And since the point in debate is, whether Ignatius wrote these epistles, how can it be thought a satis­factory proof, that he did, to bring a quotation from Irenaeus, introduced af­ter that manner," as one of us SAID?" which phrase, to say the least, is as well capable of being interpreted to refer to a VOCAL, as a WRITTEN, saying? It is replied to this, the words here quoted are found in one of the written "epistles" ascribed to Ignatius, which is a circum­stance that ought, in all reason, to de­termine the matter, that Irenaeus took them from this "epistle." I answer, the total silence of Irenaeus about any epistles of Ignatius, when he had the fairest, the most frequent, and most urgent occasions, to have mentioned them, is a circumstance full as strong to induce a belief, that he knew nothing of them. But this is not all. Nothing more common with Irenaeus, than to [Page 231] have recourse to the VOCAL sayings of those that were ancienter than himself; and a great number of them are intro­duced, in the very same manner with these words of Ignatius, "as such an one said." And as Irenaeus was acquainted with Po­lycarp, Ignatius's contemporary, and a vast number of other ancients; why might he not have received this saying from them, as what had been uttered by Igna­tius, in the day of his martyrdom? nor is this meer conjecture only. For these very words are mentioned by Jerom, as delivered by Ignatius in his last suffer­ings. His words are these: * "Now, when he had been condemned to the beasts, and in the heat of his suffering had heard the roaring of the lions, he said, I am the corn of Christ, I am ground with the teeth of beasts, that I may be found pure bread. And "the acts of Ignatius's martyrdom," both the Greek and Latin acts, exhibit the same account with Jerom; and so do Simeon the Metaphrast, and the Roman breviary. Episcopalians will not deny, that [Page 232] these words were uttered by Ignatius, in the time of his suffering. What diffi­culty can there then be in supposing, that Irenaeus should make mention of them, as a known, memorable SAYING of his? And why should not this be rather sup­posed, than that he should take them from that "epistle" which is attributed to him as its author? Especially, as there are such notorious circumstances, all conspiring to encourage the thought, that he never saw it.

BUT if we should allow this testimony its utmost force, no more can be collect­ed from it, than that there was extant in the days of Irenaeus one SEVENTH PART of those epistles that now go under the name of Ignatius. For it is only the "epistle to the Romans," one of the se­ven that are attributed to him, that is here referred to. And every one, at the first view, must be sensible, how weak a testimony this is; and that if it be al­lowed, or disallowed, it will neither much hurt, or benefit, the general credit of these "epistles." And what may be thought worthy of notice, this "epistle to the Romans," the only one, upon the [Page 233] largest supposition, here referred to, is the only one, among all the "Ignatian epis­tles," that is silent about the cause of Episcopacy. Nothing, as I remember, is said here upon this head; not so much as the name Bishop mentioned, unless once very transiently. So that this is the only "epistle," among the "seven," that is insignificant to the controversy we are upon. And if it be received as quoted by Irenaeus, it will do the Presbyterians no disservice; neither, if it be rejected as unknown to him, will it do the Episco­palians any harm. It is perfectly a mat­ter of no importance, as to the present dispute, what becomes of it, or is said about it.

AFTER Irenaeus, Origen, who flourish­ed in the third century, is recurred to. In his "prologue to the commentaries on canticles," he says, "We remember one to have said, Ignatius by name, con­cerning Christ, but my love is crucified: nor do I judge him worthy of reproof for this." * These words occur in the [Page 234] "Ignatian epistle to the Romans," section vii. This same Origen, in his "sixth homily on Luke," speaks thus, "I have found it elegantly wrote in the epistle of a certain martyr, Ignatius I mean, Bishop of Antioch, the second after Peter, who fought with beasts in the persecution at Rome, the virginity of Mary was kept secret from the prince of this world. * These words we have in the "Ignatian epistle to the Ephe­sians," sect. xix.

TO these testimonies from Origen, it must be said, that they lie under the un­happiness of being as exceptionable, as well as those we have already considered. As to the first of them, it is taken from a piece that is thought, by many of the most learned writers, not to be Origen's, (who was a Presbyter of the Greek church) but the work of some Latin author: or, should it be supposed to be his, we have it only in the translation of Ruffin, who has taken such a shameful liberty in all his translations of Origen, to add, alter, [Page 235] and diminish, that there is no knowing what is his own, and what Origen's: and this is so generally acknowledged, and lamented, by the learned, that a word need not be said in proof of it. It is, I suppose, for this, or the foregoing rea­son, or both, that those celebrated anti­quaries, Usher, and Vossius, do neither of them make use of this Origenical testimony, in the evidence they ex­hibit in favor of the "epistles of Ignati­us"; as may be seen in their "prefaces" to their editions of these "epistles," in Le' Clerc's edition of Cotelerius's "apostoli­cal Fathers." They were certainly well acquainted with it; and if they had thought it of any significancy, they would have insisted on it.—As for the other testimony, taken from the "homily on Luke," this also is suspected to be the work, not of Origen, but of some Latin writer: or otherwise, it is extant only in Latin; and if it was translated from the Greek by Jerom, as is pretended, there is no knowing what is Origen's. Du-pin says, "the versions of Jerom are not more exact than Ruffin's: and Ruf­fin complains of the liberty Jerom took in his translations, as Jerom complains of [Page 236] Ruffin." And, surely, no great credit ought to be given to meer translations, which are known to have been done with an unbounded licence: and as this is the case here, these testimonies, brought to view, in evidence that Ignatius wrote "epistles," are of little weight, and will be esteemed so by impartial judges.

IT would be an omission if I did not add, it is a shrewd circumstance, in fa­vor of Origen's having never made men­tion of the "Ignatian epistles," that Eusebius takes not the least notice of it. No one was a greater admirer, and rea­der, of Origen's works than Eusebius; nor was there an ancient Father more thoroughly versed in them. It cannot therefore be accounted for, if Origin had, in the above specified places, commemo­rated Ignatius, that he should be totally silent about it. It is much more natu­ral to think, they are not the words of Origen, but of some interpolator, or false interpreter.

WE have now considered the whole evidence, in proof that Ignatius wrote such "epistles" as go under his name, [Page 237] until we come into the fourth century. And, I doubt not, that has been offered, which, to every unbiassed mind, will appear sufficient to induce a suspicion, lest the venerable Ignatius should have been personated by some bold impostor. Most certainly, the evidence, in support of his being the real author of these "epistles," falls vastly short of what might reasonably have been expected. There are, in all, but three writers, for the full space of two hundred years, that are produced as witnesses, and the evidence they give is so clogged with difficulties, as to occasion great doubt and hesi­tation. And, in truth, considering the character of Ignatius, his nearness to the Apostles, the extraordinary circumstan­ces of his death, the uncommon occa­sion of his writing these "epistles" (if they are truly his): considering, I say, these things, I may venture to appeal to the common sense of mankind, whether it is not astonishing, that such epistles, of such a man, should be passed over in such silence for two hundred years toge­ther; no one writer making mention of them, unless in such a manner, and un­der such marks of suspicion, as to leave [Page 238] the mind in a state of uncertainty, to say the least? I will not affirm, notwith­standing all that has been offered, that Ignatius wrote none of the "epistles" he is said to have wrote, though, to me, it appears highly improbable that he ever did.

I SHOULD now have gone on to show, that the "Ignatian epistles" are, if not spurious, yet so intermixed with corrup­tion, as to be unfit to be recurred to in the present controversy. But previous to this, I shall take notice of a difficulty that is urged, upon the supposition Igna­tius is not allowed to have wrote these "epistles" that are ascribed to him, and said to be his.

IT is this, that Eusebius certainly thought, "these epistles" were wrote by Ignatius himself. And as he was a per­son well capable of judging in this mat­ter, much better than we who live at so great a distance from the times of Igna­tius, it is said to be a very bold thing now to plead, that "these epistles" are spurious.

[Page 239]TO this the reply is, Eusebius was un­doubtedly a person of great learning, some think, the most learned among all the christian Greek Fathers. And we are ex­ceedingly beholden to him for many va­luable fragments of the works of many valuable primitive authors, which have long since perished by the injury of time; as also for a great variety of know­ledge, relative to the Christian history, we must otherwise have been destitute of. But this notwithstanding, we are not obliged to call him Master, and, at all adventures, to take every thing for truth just as he has delivered it. For, after all his learning, and whatever good qua­lities he might be possessed of, he was a man "subject to like infirmities" with others; and there are too many instan­ces, in his writings, of carelessness, want of due attention, and a more thorough examination, not to say any thing worse. And he is, on all sides, frequently charg­ed with slips and mistakes, and some that are very gross. The great Scaliger says of him, "No one has contributed more to the Christian history, and no one is guilty of more mistakes." Of the same mind was the learned Du-pin, though he [Page 240] expresses himself in softer terms. For, having said what he judged proper in com­mendation of his "ecclesiastical history," he adds, "it must nevertheless be ac­knowledged, it is not altogether so perfect as were to be wished: for it is not written smoothly, neither is it always exact." And in his note here, he reckons up, at least, half a score of faults, which, says he, "are contrary both to the truth of history, and chronology." Nor do any of the noted antiquaries, either Protestant or Romish, Episcopal or Presbyterian, think themselves obliged sacredly to ad­here to him; but do all, in their turns, take liberty to differ from him, and, as they imagine, upon just grounds.

BUT what is more particularly perti­nent to what we are upon, Eusebius too credulously suffered himself to be some­times betrayed into the belief of that, which, if he had examined with more care, caution, and suspicion, he would readily have rejected. There are instances of this to be met with in his valuable histo­ry. One I shall here mention, as being full to the point under consideration. In the last chapter but one of the first book [Page 241] of this history, we have a most formal ac­count of "Agbarus's letter, King of Edes­sa, to our Savior Jesus Christ, sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananias his foot­man;" and our "Savior's letter to King Agbarus in answer to it." And, in the following chapter, both these letters are inserted at large, Eusebius having trans­lated them out of the Syriac language, in which they were wrote, as he found the copies of them in the archieves of Edes­sa. And these epistles, which he thus published to the world, he as verily be­lieved were wrote, one of them by our Savior, and the other by King Agbarus, as he did, that the epistles he mentions under the name of Ignatius were wrote by him. What regard now do the learn­ed world pay to Eusebius's judgment, with respect to these letters? Do they hold themselves bound to receive them as "the epistles of Jesus Christ, and King Agba­rus," because Eusebius was too hastily led into this opinion of them? No; but, notwithstanding the learning, the judg­ment, the integrity of Eusebius, and his nearness to the primitive times, they are so free with him as to think, he was credulous in esteeming "these letters" [Page 242] genuine; and that he did it without suf­ficient caution and enquiry. Even Arch-Bishop Wake has very plainly signified this to have been his opinion. Says he, * ‘Natalis Alexander delivers this con­clusion; the "epistle of Agbarus" to our Savior, and "his answer" to it, are supposititious, and apocryphal: and, at large, answers all that is usually urged in favor of them. And Du­pin, after him, yet more solidly con­vinces of such manifest errors, as may serve to satisfy all considering persons, that Eusebius and Ephraaem were too easy of belief in this particular; and did not sufficiently examine into it, when they delivered that as a certain truth, which, from several circum­stances, appears to have been evidently otherwise.’ Now, from this instance, produced from Eusebius, the arguing is both natural and forcible. If he might be mistaken in his opinion about "these letters," he might also be mistaken in his opinion about the "Ignatian epistles." If he was too credulously betrayed into a belief of the genuineness of "these [Page 243] letters," which are most palpably spurious, he might also too credulously come into the belief of the genuineness of the "epis­tles of Ignatius." If, with respect to "these letters," he was too inattentive, not sufficiently suspicious, too thought­less of being imposed upon by religious fraud, this might also have been the case with respect to the "epistles" in dispute. Nor if the learned world do, without any difficulty, reject "these letters" as spuri­ous, in contradiction to the judgment of Eusebius, ought it to be objected as a difficulty in the way of rejecting "Ig­natius's epistles," that herein Eusebius's judgment is opposed: nor can this be urged as a difficulty without evident par­tiality. For, in the instance we have mentioned, no difficulty is pretended; but the whole body of writers, both Ro­mish and Protestant (a few only excepted) reject "these letters" as a fraudulent im­position upon the world, without making any compliment to the great Eusebius for their opposition to him in this matter.

BUT, besides what has been offered, Eusebius has, in the case before us, re­presented the evidence upon which he [Page 244] received these "epistles;" which, if de­ficient, we have plainly no reason to be moved by his judgment: and that it really is so we before proved, when the testimonies of Polycarp and Irenaeus were considered, the two only ones he has men­tioned in support of the credit of "these epistles." It may, perhaps, be thought strange, that Eusebius should judge, from the testimonies of Polycarp and Irenaeus, that Ignatius wrote "these epistles," if what they say, be, as we have already endeavored to evince, insufficient for the purpose. But, why might not Eusebius make more of these testimonies than they really contained, and argue too much from them, as others have done since? And that he has so done (whether "these epistles" are true or false) is too evident to be called in question; as appears from what has been before offered upon this head. For, let it be observed, he intro­duces Irenaeus speaking upon the matter after this manner, "and Irenaeus remem­bered his EPISTLES, writing thus, be­cause I am the wheat of God."—These words are to be found no where in the writings of Ignatius, but in the "epistle to the Romans:" nor does Irenaeus any­where [Page 245] where else mention any writing of Igna­tius, or refer to any passage in his suppo­sed works. So that the utmost that can be collected, in point of argument, from these words is, that "the epistle to the Romans" was commemorated by Ire­naeus. But the conclusion, which Euse­bius draws, respects the "epistles in ge­neral;" which is certainly an instance of inattention to the just import of the words he argues from. He goes on, "and Polycarp maketh mention hereof, in his epistle to the Philippians, writing thus,—the epistle of Ignatius which he sent to us, and as many other epistles."—It is far from being evident, as has been abun­dantly proved already, that Polycarp here mentions any more than TWO EPISTLES of Ignatius; and yet, the words are brought in evidence of the EPISTLES WITHOUT LIMITATION; which is ano­ther instance of a cursory consideration only of this passage. Had he been suf­ficiently cautious, he might have seen rea­son to suspect, whether this testimony was at all Polycarp's.—The true state of the case seems to have been this;—There were extant, in the days of Eusebius, "epistles under the name of Ignatius to [Page 246] several famous churches;" and, meet­ing with a passage in Polycarp's letter, that made mention of "epistles of Ig­natius," and another in Irenaeus, citing words that are to be found in ONE of "these epistles," he hastily concluded, without more ado, that Ignatius wrote ALL THE EPISTLES he had seen under his name: whereas, if he had thoroughly examined the matter, he would have found these testimonies too weak to support the conclusion he makes from them; as they most certainly are, whatever is the truth as touching "these epistles."

I SHALL only add, that Eusebius seems not to have been without some biass up­on his mind, in favor of the "Ignatian epistles." For it is a plain case, the si­lence of the ancients, respecting particu­lar writings, is, with him, an argument much weakening the credit of them. The "second epistle of Clement" he esteems, if not supposititious, at least "less fa­mous, and less worthy of notice," be­cause "no testimonies are alleged for it by the Elders." And the "dialogues of Peter and Apion" he looks upon as plainly spurious, for this, among other [Page 247] reasons, "that none of the Elders have mentioned it." But, in the present in­stance, though, as we have seen, there is a most surprizing silence in primitive an­tiquity about any writings of Ignatius, yet he takes no notice at all of it; but receives the "epistles" extant in his day, under the name of "this Father," with­out the least hesitation, and by the lump too. And if Mr. Whiston's reasoning may be thought valid, a good account may be given of this matter. According to him, the "epistles of Ignatius," ex­tant in the days of Eusebius, were the LARGER ONES, that is, these epistles as we have them in the editions before those of Usher and Vossius. As to the SHOR­TER EPISTLES," that is, those we have in the editions of these learned antiqua­ries, he speaks of them as the LARGER EPISTLES arbitrarily mangled and cur­tailed. And his arguments, upon this head, appear to me, I freely confess, to be exceeding weighty: nor do I think, they ever have been, or can be, fully an­swered. And should this be the truth, there is no great difficulty in supposing, that Eusebius might be inclined to think as well of them as might be. For, as he [Page 248] and Whiston were nearly of the same sentiments, relative to an important point of Christian doctrine, it was but natural for him to be well affected to "these epistles," which are well known to look with a favorable eye on this distinguish­ing tenet of their's. So that, upon the whole, it is but reasonable we should be left fairly to judge of the evidence in fa­vor, or dis-favor, of "these epistles," without being at all swayed by the judgment of Eusebius: nor ought it to be looked upon as an objection of any weight against our rejecting them, that that learned au­thor thought them genuine; provided we have good reason so to do.

I WILL not take upon me to say, that Ignatius did not write "epistles" that were seen by Eusebius; but thus much I will venture to say, that it is highly pro­bable, most unprejudiced persons, in con­sequence of what has been offered, will be strongly inclined to question, whether they were so certainly HIS, as to leave no reasonable room for doubt in the case.— But I must now go on,

[Page 249]TO offer what may be thought neces­sary to show, that "these epistles," if not spurious, have yet been corrupted to a de­degree that unfits them to be appealed to, as exhibiting the real mind of Ignatius; especially with respect to Episcopacy, the point now under debate.

WHAT I here propose to consider, meerly as interlarded corruption, is made use of by Daille, La'roque, and other learned writers, to prove, from the IN­TERNAL CONTENTS of "these epistles" themselves, that they were not wrote by Ignatius, but by some later hand. And it must be acknowledged, the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE in proof, that Ignatius did not write "these epistles," if considered in connection with this INTERNAL EVI­DENCE, will give great additional force to the argument, and leave scarce any room for doubt in the case.—But I chuse to give the Episcopalians all the advantage they can desire; and shall therefore here argue upon the supposition, that Igna­tius really wrote "epistles" that were extant in the days of Eusebius: but, even upon this supposition, we claim to be excused from placing any manner of [Page 250] dependance upon what they say, especi­ally upon the head of Episcopacy; and for this very good reason, because we af­firm, and shall prove, that they are so mingled with corruption, as not to con­vey the mind of the truly venerable Ig­natius.

SOME, perhaps, may think it owing to prejudice, when it is so much as insi­nuated, as if there were any corrupt mix­tures in such eminently valuable "epis­tles" as those of Ignatius. But it ought to be known, and remembered, that Ig­natius has been impudently and frau­dulently dealt with, no less than EIGHT of the fifteen epistles, that bear his name, being FORGERIES, and owned to be so: besides which, it is true likewise, and ac­knowledged as the truth, even by Bishop Pearson himself, the great advocate for Ignatius, that the other "seven epis­tles," in all the editions of them, before Usher and Vossius, were so CORRUPTED by some knavish interpolator or other, as that they ought not to be depended on as exhibiting the real mind of the true Ignatius. It is not argued from hence, that the Usherian and Vossian editions [Page 251] must needs be corrupted also; but thus much is obviously, and certainly dedu­cible herefrom, that they MAY be so; that to suppose such a thing is no indica­tion of prejudice against them, as it is no more than has been actually done, with respect to these very "epistles," in for­mer editions.

MUCH might easily be offered in sup­port of the affirmation, that the "epistles of Ignatius," in their latest, best, and most purged editions, are too much mix­ed with interpolated corruption to be de­pended on, as letting us into his true and real sentiments. I might particularly consider the "inscriptions" to these epis­tles; all which carry with them this shrewd mark of time, LATER than the days of Ignatius, their speaking of him in the stile of THEOPHOROS, an epithet never applied to him, until ages after his death.—I might take notice of the sto­ry of Ignatius's being "carried in bonds, from Syria to Rome, to be thrown to wild beasts," on the truth of which his epis­tles intirely depend; and yet, the story is in itself a very strange and unaccoun­table one, and so esteemed by many of [Page 252] the most learned writers.—I might insist upon what is said of the "word's pro­ceeding from Sigê," a term of art in the Valentinian theology, not known to be used as such, until after the departure of Ignatius out of our world.—In a word, I might bring to view a great number of passages, which it would be a dishonor to Ignatius to ascribe to him, they are either so weak, or absurd, or ridiculous, or in­consistent with what he has elsewhere said, and sometimes in the same epistle.— But it would be too great, as well as need­less, a tryal of the reader's patience to consider so many articles. I shall there­fore pass them over, and wholly confine myself to what, more especially, relates to the present controversy, the things that are said concerning the OFFICERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. And I the rather chuse to enlarge upon this head, as it is enlarged upon in ALL the "Ignatian epistles" (the epistle to the Romans on­ly excepted,) and in a MANNER evidently shewing, if these "epistles" are not spu­rious, that they have been tampered with, and basely corrupted by some over-heat­ed zealot for ecclesiastical dignity, and power, so as to be unfitted to hand to us [Page 253] the true sentiments of the real Ignatius. And here it may be offered as follows.

CONSIDERING the circumstances of Ignatius, when he is said to have wrote these epistles;—his being a prisoner of death, and on his journey to Rome to suffer martyrdom, it is not at all proba­ble, he should have his heart so set on exalting the Clergy, as, in all his epistles, to write, as if the main thing suitable to be told the churches, was, that they had "worthy and God-becoming Bishops and Presbyters, whom they ought to honor, and obey, even as Jesus Christ honored and obeyed the Father." There is evi­dently more, much more, said, in these epistles, upon the rights of the Clergy, and the subjection that was due to them, than upon any other subject, though of fundamental importance.—Does not this appear strange? It would certainly do so in any epistles wrote, at present, un­der like circumstances. And what makes the matter still more extraordinary, the same words and phrases, upon the same beloved subject, not only come over in every epistle, save one; but in most of them, they are needlessly repeated; and, [Page 254] in some of them, their repetition over and over again is quite fulsome. To this it is said by Episcopalians,

THAT heresies now began to be broa­ched, and to infect the minds of many; and therefore, as the most proper expe­dient that could, at that time, be thought on, to preserve the churches pure, Ig­natius exhorts them, and with pressing earnestness, to an adherence to the Cler­gy, union with, and subjection to, their Bishops and Presbyters. And his so zealously, and frequently, insisting upon this head, is made even a sign of his soul's flaming with love to the churches; disco­vered in ardent desires that they might flourish in peace, truth, and holiness, af­ter he had been devoured by wild beasts. In answer whereto,

I WOULD not go about to detract, in the least, from the piety of Ignatius, his concern for the purity of the churches, and desire to preserve them from heresy: but, at the same time, cannot but think it very wonderful, if "subjection to church-governors" an implicit adher­ence to the "Bishop and his Clergy," [Page 255] such a notable expedient, so sure and ef­fectual an one, to guard against heresy, that none of the Fathers contemporary with Ignatius should be so happy as to hit upon it. It was as good an expedi­ent to cure divisions, as to secure from heresy; and yet, Clement of Rome makes no mention at all of it to the church of Corinth, when he wrote to them as rent with strife and scism. And it is observa­ble, Polycarp, who wrote just after Igna­tius, and with his "epistles" in keeping (as is pretended), among other things, cautions the church at Philippi against the ERRORS that then prevailed among many. But how does he press the ex­hortation? Why, not a word does he lisp about their adhering to their Bishop, with the rest of the Clergy, the great ar­gument here said to be used by Ignatius: but he bespeaks them in these words, "These things, my brethren, I took not the liberty of myself to write unto you.—For neither I, nor any other such as I am, come up to the wis­dom of the blessed and renowned Paul, who, being himself in person with those that then lived, did, with exactness and soundness, teach the word of truth; and [Page 256] being gone from you wrote an epistle to you, into which if you look, you will be able to edify yourselves in the faith that hath been delivered to you, which is the mother of us all."—And a little onwards, "Wherefore, leaving the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word that was delivered to us from the beginning." If Ignatius had been as particular, and full, in recommending an adherence to the SCRIPTURE, an obe­dience to the APOSTOLIC WRITINGS, as he is in urging an adherence to the CLER­GY, and SUBJECTION TO THEM, it might, possibly, have been as good a guard against "infection by heresy." He does, indeed, sometimes exhorts those he writes to, "to study to be confirmed in the doctrine of our Lord, and his Apostles;" but where he ONCE advises to this, I will venture to say, he TEN TIMES presses a regard to the CLERGY; and this he does in very unguarded language, without ever making the supposition, that they also might be corrupted with error; and, in this case, cautioning the churches against being led aside by their governors: which is making much more of the Clergy, than the Apostles ever made of themselves.— [Page 257] But I shall not enlarge here, having men­tioned what has been offered as a small circumstance only, in comparison with what I have yet to say. To go on there­fore,

IT is of more weighty consideration, that the officers of the christian church are commonly spoken of, in "these epistles," in language not at all consonant to the age in which the true Ignatius lived, nor indeed in the least worthy of so fa­mous and primitive a Father and martyr. What other thought can reasonably be entertained of those passages, in which Bishops are represented as "presiding in the place of God:" in which they are compared to "God the Father, to Jesus Christ the Son of the Father:" in which the churches are taught it to be their duty "to receive them as the Lord, to reverence them as Jesus Christ;" yea▪ "to follow them as Christ does the Fa­ther:" in which they are commanded "so to obey and subject themselves to the Bishop as to do nothing without him, however reasonable it might appear to them:" in which they are exhorted to be "so one with the Bishop, as Christ is [Page 258] one with the Father;" and "so to do nothing without him, as Christ did no­thing without the Father:" in which so great account is made of obedience and subjection to the Bishop, that they that "do any thing without him" are esteem­ed "doing the devil a service;" and those that remain with him" are, upon this ac­count only, thought worthy of the cha­racter of "belonging to Christ;" and are represented as "walking not as men, but according to Christ:" yea, in which obedience to the officers of the church is so highly estimated by the writer, or in­terpolator, of "these epistles," that he even "pawns his soul for those that obey the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons; and desires his portion in God may be with such."

THESE, and like expressions, to be met with in "these epistles," are not easily to be accounted for, upon the supposition that they have not been interlaced with corruption. In their literal and most obvious sense, they are unworthy of any pious writer; much more of so venera­ble a Father, and illustrious a martyr, as Ignatius: nor can it be disowned, that, [Page 259] in this sense, they exalt the Clergy be­yond all reasonable bounds, claiming for them the most absolutely blind obedi­ence: and should we qualify their sense, to the utmost extent they are capable of, they carry the dignity and power of Bi­shops and Presbyters, and the subjection due to them, not only far above their deserts, but so as to discover the TRUE SPIRIT of AFTER-TIMES, and not that in which Ignatius is known to have lived.

IT may, with the exactest truth, be affir­med, that none of the writers, in the days of Ignatius, or near the age in which he flourished, do bear the least likeness to him in his mode of speaking, relative to the officers of the church. These unite, as one, in language becoming the simpli­city of the gospel, and the purity and hu­mility of those primitive times: where­as, the general strain of "Ignatus's epis­tles" is evidently adapted, I may say, pur­posely contrived, to aggrandise the Clergy, and bespeak for them the highest rever­ence, honor, and submission. How can this be accounted for, without the sup­position of some medling interpolator? [Page 260] Why, otherwise, should there be such a signal difference between his manner of writing, and that of all the ancients in his day, and for a long time after his life had come to a period here on earth?

THE difference of stile, in different writers, will not, as is pleaded here, ac­count for this. The stile of Hermas wide­ly differs fromt hat of Clement, as Cle­ment's does. from that of Polycarp, and Polycarp's from that of Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; and yet, they all lead us to think much the same thing about the Clergy; and this, with all desirable clear­ness and certainty, though they severally express themselves in a manner peculiar each one to himself. And why might not Ignatius have wrote in his own stile, and yet have concurred with his contem­poraries, in a like account of the officers of the church? It ought, most certainly, to be ascribed, not to meer difference in stile, but to some other cause, that he so strangely differs from them. And what cause can this be, but the interlading hand of some zealot for clerical power and honor?

[Page 261]HIS being a SYRIAN may, possibly, account for his sometimes barbarous Greek, as well as high-sounding com­pounded words, * peculiar to himself; but it will, by no means, account for his sentimes concerning the Clergy, as differing from those of all his contem­poraries. For not only the mode of language in "these epistles," but the idea conveyed by it, is quite different from that which is contained in the "other writings" in, and near, the same age. Bring down the high strains used in "these epistles," and put them into plain simple language, still keeping to their true spirit, and genuine intendment; and they will carry the power of the Clergy, and the reverence and honor due to them, far [Page 262] beyond what it is carried, either in the scripture, or the writings of all contem­porary Fathers united together: nor can a person read the "epistles of Ignatius," and not have excited in his mind a much more exalted idea, both of Bishops and Presbyters, than by reading all the other writers, within the two first centuries. Any common reader, by going over the collection of testimonies brought to view, in this volume, may, with his own eyes, see this to be the truth of fact.

LET the dispute about the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters be as it may, no­thing is more evident, than that the lan­guage relative to the Clergy, bespeaking for them reverence and subjection, was quite different after the second century, from what it was before. And as the language, in the "Ignatian epistles," up­on this head, is so unlike that of the age in which he lived, and agrees so well with that, which was, in fact, used afterwards, it is a sure mark of unfair dealing some­how or other. Either Ignatius was not the writer of "these epistles," or they have been basely and fraudulently corrupted, since his death. No one, unbiassed in his [Page 263] mind, can, I should think, be at any lose to determine thus.—To proceed,

IT is most of all worthy of considera­tion, that the words, BISHOP and PRES­BYTER, are, in the Ignation epistles, AP­PROPRIATED terms; not used PROMIS­CUOUSLY, but in a DISTINCTIVE sense. Bishops are never here called Presbyters; nor, on the other hand, are Presbyters ever called Bishops. The mode of diction is this; "Being subject to your Bishop, and the Presbytery."—"Obeying your Bishop, and the Presbytery, with an in­tire affection."—"Seeing I have been judg­ed worthy to see you by Damas, your Bi­shop; and by your worthy Presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius".—"In whom I rejoice, for that he is subject unto his Bi­shop, as the grace of God; and to the Presbyter, as to the law of Jesus Christ."— "He that does any thing without the Bi­shop, and Presbyters is not pure in his conscience."—"Being subject to your Bishop, as to the command of God; and so likewise to the Presbytery."—"I cried, whilst I was among you, I spake with a loud voice, attend to the Bishop, and to the Presbytery."—"See that ye all fol­low [Page 264] your Bishop, as Jesus Christ the Fa­ther; andt he Presbytery as the Apos­tles." —"I salute your very worthy Bishops, and your venerable Presbytery."—You observe the terms Bishop and Presbyter, are used, in these passages, in the APPRO­PRIATED sense; and they are used in the same sense throughout the epistles. Nor can an instance be given to the con­trary. The APPROPRIATION of these terms is not accidental, but designed; and it runs through all the copies of these epistles, the Usherian and Vossian, as well as those that were extant before them: is, in no case, at no time, upon no occa­sion, departed from.

WHAT agreement, now, is there be­tween the supposed Ignatius, and his con­temporaries, upon this head? Do they use the words, Bishop and Presbyter, as he does, in an appropriated fixed sense? It cannot, with any face of truth, be af­firmed, that they do. Far from this, they differ as much from him, in their use of these terms, as they do from any of the writers of the third, or fourth centuries. There is indeed no writer, either before [Page 265] Ignatius, or at the time when he wrote, or even afterwards for more than an hun­dred years, that uses these words as he does, in a sense so certainly, and invaria­bly, fixed and appropriated. The re­der is desired to compare the pretended Ignatius's mode of diction, upon this point, with that which is held out to view, in the present volume, from all the writers until towards the close of the second cen­tury; and he may then, from ocular in­spection, be convinced, that he greatly differs fromt hem all; and eminently in this respect, that he invariably uses the words, Bishop and Presbyter, in the AP­PROPRIATED sense; while they use them promiscuously, sometimes calling Bishops, Presbyters; and sometimes Presbyters, Bishops: meaning by both terms one and the same order of officers in the church. He will evidently see, in "Hermas's pas­tor," that the word, Bishops, is explained to signify, "those that preside in the church;" and that those who preside in the church are "the Presbyters of it." He will at once perceive, in "Clement's epistle to the Corinthians," that the same officers who are called "Presbyters," are directly spoken of as "cast out of their [Page 266] Episcopacy." When he turns to Poly­carp, the supposed collector of the "Ig­natian epistles," and the next and near­est writer to him, so far will he be from finding an analogy between "his epis­tle," and the "epistles of Ignatius," that he no where speaks of the Bishop of Philippi, or of any other church: nor does he so much as mention the word, Bishop; which is really unaccountable, if it be re­membered, conformably to the sentiments of Episcopalians, that Ignatius had very lately, and under the most extraordinary circumstances too, wrote "his epistles," and that Polycarp was particularly ac­quainted with them; yea, that he had wrote "one epistle to Polycarp" himself, and another to "his church at Smyrna," in one of which he "pawns his soul for them that were obedient to the Bi­shop, and the other Clergy;" and, in the other, makes the Bishop so necessary, that "no administration could be valid with­out him, but whatever he should approve would be pleasing to God." And he will be no more able to find in Justin Martyr, or Irenaeus, an APPROPRIATED use of the terms, Bishop and Presbyter, than in either of the foregoing writers. [Page 267] Irenaeus, it is true, frequently uses these terms, but in the PROMISCUOUS sense; as no one can be at a loss to perceive, who will be at the trouble of reading over the testimonies, in this work, produced out of his writings: nor are the words, Bi­shop and Presbyter, used as APPROPRI­ATED ones, until towards the close of the second century; and, even then, the AP­PROPRIATION was not steadily fixed. Clement of Alexandria, who chiefly flou­rished in the latter end of the second cen­tury, and the beginning of the third, is the first writer who uses the mode of speech, so common, and invariable, with Ignatius, "Bishops, Presbyters, and Dea­cons; and yet, so long after the days of Ignatius, the distinct APPROPRIATION of these names was not certainly fixed. We must go into the third century, I may rather say, beyond it, before the appropriation, after the manner of Ig­natius, is constant, sacred, and invari­able.

UPON which, the enquiry is highly per­tinent, how should Ignatius constantly, and forever, use the words, Bishop and Presbyter, not in the sense in which they [Page 268] were used, in the age in which he wrote; but in the sense, in which they were u­sed, in other ages, long after his death? This certainly looks suspicious, and ought, in all reason, to put us upon our guard, lest we should take some jugling impostor for the worthy, and primitive Ignatius. Words, we know, often vary in their sig­nification; and sometimes, when used in this or that particular sense, are as sure a mark of such a particular age, as the spe­cial mode or fashion of garments. And this is plainly the case here. Before the days of Ignatius, about the time of his living, and dying, and for many years after, the words, Bishop and Presbyter, were not APPROPRIATED names, and as such applied to different persons; but were INDIFFERENTLY used to point out either Bishops, or Presbyters: whereas, towards the going out of this age, or rather the coming on of the next, they began to loose their PROMISCUOUS use, and to become APPROPRIATED terms, conveying the idea of different persons, who were commonly known, and distin­guished, by the application of these now different names: though, it ought to be remembered, this appropriation was not [Page 269] so SACRED and INVIOLABLE, as in the "epistles of Ignatius", till we have got much farther from the age in which he lived. And we are herefrom presented with a criterion, by which we may de­termine, with all desirable certainty, ei­ther that Ignatius did not write the "epistles" that go under his name, or that they have been safely, and fraudu­lently, corrupted by some bigot for cleri­cal honor and power; insomuch, that there is no knowing the real sentiments of the true Ignatius.

I HAVE now, with conscious care and impartiality, endeavoured to exhibit the true state of the "epistles" called "Ig­natian;" leaving it with the reader to judge for himself, how far they may, with certainty, be depended on; more especial­ly in the present debate. Possibly, he may be disposed to question, whether Ignatius was at all the writer of the "epistles" that are ascribed to him: or, should he be inclined to think he was, it is scarce supposable, but he should be clearly satisfied, that some fraudulent hand has made him write in a manner quite [Page 270] dissonant from the times in which he liv­ed; and to such a degree, as to unfit his "epistles" to be repaired to, with confi­dence, in the debate concerning episco­pacy.

TESTIMONIES from IGNATIUS

The EPISTLE to the EPHESIANS.

SECT. I—"I received therefore in the name of God your whole multitude in Onesimus; who by inexpressable love is our's, but according to the flesh is your Bishop: whom I beseech you, by Jesus Christ, to love; and that you would all strive to be like unto him. And blessed be God, who has granted unto you, who are so worthy of him, to enjoy such an excellent Bishop."

SECT. II. "For what concerns my fellow-servant Burrhus, and your most blessed Deacon in things pertaining to God; I intreat you that he may tarry lon­ger, both for your's, and your Bishop's honor.—It is therefore fitting, that you should by all means glorify Jesus Christ, who hath glorified you: that, by a [Page 271] uniform obedience, "ye may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment; and may all speak the same things concerning every thing:" and that, being subject to your Bishop, and the Presbytery, ye may be wholly and thoroughly sanctified."

SECT. III.—"But forasmuch as cha­rity suffers me not to be silent towards you, I have first taken upon me to exhort you, that ye would all run together ac­cording to the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseperable life, is sent by the will of the Father; as the Bishops, appointed unto the utmost ends of the earth, are by the will of Jesus Christ." It immediately follows,

SECT. IV. "Wherefore it will become you to run together according to the will of your Bishop, as also ye do. For your famous Presbytery, worthy of God, is fit­ted as exactly to the Bishop, as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your con­cord, and agreeing charity, Jesus Christ is sung; and every single person among you makes up the chorus: that so being all [Page 272] consonant in love, and taking up the song of God, ye may, in a perfect unity, with one voice, sing to the Father by Jesus Christ; to the end that he may both hear you, and perceive by your works, that ye are indeed the members of his Son. Wherefore it is profitable for you to live in an unblemishable unity, that so ye may always have a fellowship with God." The next words are,

SECT. V. "For if I, in this little time, have had such a familiarity with your Bi­shop, I mean not a carnal, but spiritual acquaintance with him; how much more must I think you happy, who are so joined to him, as the church is to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father; that so all things may agree in the same unity. Let no man deceive himself; if a man be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two be of such force, as we are told; how much more powerful shall that of the Bishop, and the whole church be? He therefore that does not come together into the same place with it, is proud and has already condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud." Let [Page 273] us take heed therefore, that we do not set ourselves against the Bishop, that we may be subject to God."

SECT. VI. "The more any one sees his Bishop silent, the more let him revere him. For whomsoever the Master of the house sends to be over his own houshold, we ought in like manner to receive him, as we would do him that sent him. It is therefore evident, that we ought to look upon the Bishop, even as we would do upon the Lord himself."—

SECT. XIII. "Let it be your care there­fore to come more fully together, to the praise and glory of God. For when ye meet fully together in the same place, the powers of the devil are destroy­ed, and his mischief is dissolved, by the unity of your faith."—

SECT. XX. "But if Jesus Christ shall give me grace through your prayers, and it be his will, I purpose in a second epistle, which I will suddenly write un­to you, to manifest to you more fully the dispensation of which I have begun to speak, unto the new man, which is Jesus [Page 274] Christ; both in his faith, and charity; in his suffering, and in his resurrection: especially if the Lord shall make known to me, that ye all by name come together in common in one faith, and in one Je­sus Christ; who was of the race of Da­vid according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God; obeying your Bi­shop and the Presbytery with an entire affection; breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immor­tality; our antidote that we should not die, but live forever in Christ Jesus."

The EPISTLE to the MAGNESIANS.

SECT. II. "Seeing then, I have been judged worthy to see you, by Damas your most excellent Bishop; and by your worthy Presbyters Bassus, and Apolloni­us; and by my fellow-servant Sotio, the Deacon, in whom I rejoice; forasmuch as he is subject unto his Bishop as to the grace of God, and to the Presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ; I deter­mined to write unto you."

SECT. III. "Wherefore it will be­come you also not to use your Bishop too familiarly upon the account of his youth; [Page 275] but to yield all reverence to him accord­ing to the power of God the Father: as also I perceive, that your holy Presbyters do; not considering his age, which in­deed to appearance is young; but as be­comes those who are prudent in God, sub­mitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Bishop of us all. It will therefore become you, with all sincerity, to obey your Bishop; in honor of him whose pleasure it is that ye should do so. Be­cause he that does not do so, deceives not the Bishop whom he sees, but affronts him that is invisible. For whatsoever of this kind is done, it reflects not upon man, but upon God, who knows the se­crets of our hearts."

SECT. IV. "It is therefore fitting, that we should not only be called Chris­tians, but be so: As some call indeed their Governor * Bishop; but yet do all things without him. But I can never think that such as these have a good con­science, seeing they are not gathered together throughly according to God's commandment."

[Page 276]SECT. VI. "Forasmuch therefore as I have, in the persons beforementioned, seen all of you in faith and charity; I exhort you that ye study to do all things in di­vine concord; your Bishop presiding in the place of God; your Presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles; and your Deacons most dear to me, being intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before all ages, and appeared in the end to us. Where­fore taking the same holy course, see that ye all reverence one another: and let no one look upon his neighbor after the flesh; but do ye all mutually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let there be no­thing that may be able to make a divi­sion among you; but be ye united to your Bishop, and those who preside over you, to be your pattern and direction in the way to immortality." The next words are,

SECT. VII. "As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to him; neither by himself, nor yet by his Apostles; so neither do ye any thing without your Bishop and Presby­ters: neither endeavour to let any thing [Page 277] appear rational to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, have one common prayer; one supplica­tion; one mind; one hope, in charity, and in joy undefiled. There is one Lord Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is bet­ter. Wherefore come ye all together as unto one temple of God; as to one al­tar; as to one Jesus Christ; who pro­ceeded from one Father, and exists in one, and is returned to one."

SECT. XIII. "Study therefore to be confirmed in the doctrine of our Lord, and of his Apostles; that so whatsoever ye do may prosper:—together with your most worthy Bishop, and the well wrought spiritual crown of your Presbytery, and your Deacons which are according to God. Be subject to your Bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Fa­ther according to the flesh; and the Apos­tles both to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Holy Ghost; that so ye may be united both in body and spirit."

SECT. XV. "The Ephesians from Smyrna salute you, from which place I write to you—together with Polycarp the Bishop of the Smyrnaeans."

[Page 278]

The EPPSTLE to the TRALLIANS.

SECT. I. "I have heard of your blame­less and constant disposition through pa­tience, which not only appears in your outward conversation, but is naturally rooted and grounded in you: in like man­ner as Polybius your Bishop has declared unto me, who came to me to Smyrna,— and so rejoiced with me in my bonds for Jesus Christ, that in effect I found your whole church in him."—

SECT. II. "For whereas ye are sub­ject to your Bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the man­ner of men, but according to Jesus Christ; who died for us, that so believing in his death, ye might escape death. It is there­fore necessary, that as ye do, so without your Bishop, you should do, nothing: also be ye subject to your Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom if we walk, we shall be found in him. The Deacons also, as being the ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, must by all means please all. For they are not the ministers of meat and drink, [Page 279] but of the church of God. Wherefore they must avoid all offences, as they do fire."

SECT. III. "In like manner, let all re­verence the Deacons as Jesus Christ; and the Bishop as the Father; and the Pres­byters as the sanhedrim of God, and col­lege of the Apostles. Without these there is no church. Concerning all which I am persuaded, that ye think af­ter the same manner: for I have received, and even now have with me, the pat­tern of your love in your Bishop: whose very look is instructive; and whose mildness is powerful: whom I am per­suaded, the very Atheists themselves can­not but reverence".—

SECT, VII. "Wherefore guard your­selves against such persons. And that you will do, if you are not puffed up; but continue inseperable from Jesus Christ our God, and from your Bishop, and from the command of the Apostles. He that is within the altar is pure: but he that is without, that is, that does any thing without the Bishop, and Presbyters, [Page 280] and Deacons, is not pure in his con­science".

SECT. XII. "I salute you from Smyr­na, — My bonds, that I carry about with me for the sake of Christ,— exhort you, that you continue in concord a­mong yourselves, and in prayer with one another. For it becomes every one of you, especially the Presbyters, to refresh the Bishop, to the honor of the Father of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles."—

SECT. XIII.—"Fare ye well in Jesus Christ; being subject to your Bishop, as to the command of God, and so likewise to the Presbytery. Love every one his brother with an unfeigned heart. My soul be your expiation, not only now, but when I shall have attained to God: for I am yet under danger.—

The EPISTLE to the ROMANS.

SECT. II.—"Wherefore ye cannot do me a greater kindness, than to suffer me to be sacrificed to God, now that the al­tar is already prepared: that when ye shall be gathered together in love, ye may give [Page 281] thanks to the Father, through Christ Jesus; that he has vouchsafed to bring a Bishop of Syria unto you, being called from the east to the west."—

SECT. IX. "Remember in your pray­ers the church of Syria, which now en­joys God for its shepherd instead of me: Let Jesus Christ only oversee it, and your charity."—

The EPISTLE to the PHILADELPHIANS.

The INSCRIPTION.

"IGNATIUS, who is also called Theo­phorus, to the church of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia in Asia; which has obtained mercy, being fixed in the concord of God, and rejoicing evermore in the passi­on of our Lord, and being fulfilled in all mercy through his resurrection: which also I salute in the blood of Christ Jesus, which is our eternal and undefiled joy; especially if they are at unity with the Bi­shop, and Presbyters who are with him, and the Deacons appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ; whom he has settled according to his own will in all firmness by his holy Spirit:"

[Page 282]SECT. I. "Which Bishop I know ob­tained that ministry among you, not of himself, neither by men, nor out of vain glory; but by the love of God the Fa­ther, and our Lord Jesus Christ: whose moderation I admire; who by his si­lence is able to do more, than others with all their vain talk. For he is fitted to the commands, as the harp to its strings."—

SECT. II. "Wherefore as becomes the children both of the light and of truth; flee divisions and false doctrines: but where your shepherd is, there do ye, as sheep follow after. For there are many wolves, who seem worthy of belief, that with a false pleasure lead captive those that run in the course of God: but in your concord they shall find no place."

SECT. III. "Abstain therefore from those evil herbs which Jesus Christ does not dress; because such are not the plan­tation of the Father. Not that I have found any divisions among you, but ra­ther all manner of purity. For as many as are of God, and of Jesus, are also with their Bishop. And as many as shall with repentance return into the [Page 283] unity of the church, even these shall also be the servants of God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Be not deceived, brethren: if any one follows him that makes a schism in the church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks after any other opini­on, he agrees not with the passion of Christ."

SECT. IV. "Wherefore, let it be your endeavor to partake all of the same eucharist. For there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ; and one cup, in the unity of his blood; one altar; as also there is one Bishop, toge­ther with his Presbytery, and the Dea­cons my fellow servants: that so what­soever ye do, ye may do it according to the will of God."

SECT. VI —"Flee therefore the wick­ed arts and snares of the prince of this world;—but come all togetherinto the same place, with an undivided heart."—

SECT. VII.—"I cried whilst I was among you, I spake with a loud voice; attend to the Bishop, and to the Presby­tery, [Page 284] and to the Deacons. Now some supposed, that I spake this as foreseeing the divisions that should come among you. But he is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I knew nothing from any man. But the spirit spake, saying on this wise; Do nothing without the Bishop: keep your bodies as the temples of God: love unity: flee divisions: be ye followers of Christ, as he was of the Father."

SECT. VIII. "I did therefore as be­came me, as a man composed to unity. For where there is division and wrath, God dwelleth not. But the Lord for­gives all that repent, if they return to the unity of God, and the council of the Bishop."—

SECT. X. "Now as concerning the church of Antioch which is in Syria;— it will become you, as the church of God, to ordain some Deacon to go to them thither as the ambassador of God; that he may rejoice with them when they meet together, and glorify God's name. Bles­sed be that man in Jesus Christ, who shall be found worthy of such a ministry; [Page 285] and ye yourselves also shall be glorified. Now if ye be willing, it is not impossible for you to do this for the sake of God: as also the other neighbouring churches have sent them, some Bishops, some Priests, and Deacons."

The EPISTLE to the SMYRNAEANS.

SECT. VIII. "See that ye all follow your Bishop, as Jesus Christ, the Father; and the Presbytery as the Apostles. And reverence the Deacons, as the command of God. Let no man do any thing of what belongs to the church separately from the Bishop. Let that eucharist be looked upon as well established, which is either offered by the Bishop, or by him to whom the Bishop has given his consent. Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catho­lic church. It is not lawful without the Bishop, either to baptise, or to cele­brate the holy communion: but what­soever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God; that so whatever is done, may be sure and well done.'—

[Page 286]SECT. IX. "For what remains, it is ve­ry reasonable that we should repent, whilst there is yet time to return to God. It is a good thing to have a due regard both to God and the Bishop: he that honors the Bishop, shall be honored of God: but he that does any thing with­out his knowledge, ministers unto the devil."

SECT. XI.—"It will be fitting, and for the honor of God, that your church appoint some worthy delegate, who, be­ing come as far as Syria, may rejoice to­gether with them that are in peace.— Wherefore I should think it a worthy action to send some one from you, with an epistle, to congratulate with them their peace in God."

SECT. XII.—"I salute your very worthy Bishop, and your venerable Pres­bytery, and your Deacons my fellow-ser­vants; and all of you in general, and every one in particular, in the name of Jesus Christ."—

[Page 287]

The EPISTLE to POLYCARP.

The INSCRIPTION.

"IGNATIUS, who is also called Theo­phorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the church, which is at Smyrna; their overseer, but ra­ther himself overlooked by God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: all happiness."

SECT. I.—"Maintain thy place with all care both of flesh and spirit: make it thy endeavor to preserve unity, than which nothing is better.—Speak to every one as God shall enable thee."—

SECT. IV. "Let not the widows be neglected: be thou, after God, their guardian. Let nothing be done, with­out thy knowledge and consent: neither do thou any thing but according to the will of God; as also thou dost with all constancy. Let your assemblies be more full: inquire into all by name *: over­look not the men nor maid-servants; neither let them be puffed up, but rather let them be more subject to the glory of God, that they may obtain from him a better liberty."—

[Page 288]SECT. V. "If any man can remain in a virgin state, to the honor of the flesh of Christ, let him remain without boast­ing; but if he boast he is undone. And if he desire to be more taken notice of than the Bishop, he is corrupted. But it becomes all such as are married, whe­ther men or women, to come together with the consent of the Bishop, that so their marriage may be according to god­liness, and not in lust. Let all things be done to the honor of God."

SECT. VI. "Hearken unto the Bi­shop, that God may also hearken unto you. My soul be security for them that submit to their Bishop, with their Presby­ters and Deacons. And may my portion be together with their's in God."—

SECT. VII. "It will be very fit, O most worthy Polycarp, to call a select council, and chuse some one whom ye particularly love, and who is patient of labor; that he may be the messenger of God: and that going into Syria, he may glorify your incessant love, to the praise of Christ."—

[Page 289]SECT. VIII. But forasmuch as I have not been able to write to all the chur­ches —do you write to the churches that are near you, as being instructed in the will of God, that they also do in like manner. Let those that are able send messengers, and let the rest send their let­ters by those who shall be sent by you; that you may be glorified to all eternity, of which you are worthy."—

OBSERVATIONS and REMARKS upon the TESTIMONIES from IGNATIUS.

THOUGH I have enlarged, in the fore­going pages, upon the reasons we have to think, that the "seven epistles" of Ig­natius are either SPURIOUS, or so INTER­LARDED WITH AFTER ADDITIONS as not to be depended on; yet, I can truly say, I was not moved to this from an appre­hension, that "these epistles," unless ta­ken out of the way, would be ruinous, or indeed at all hurtful, to the cause in the defence of which I am engaged. Epis­copalians, I know, ever repair to them as their main strength; and are ready to think, and say, that we are disposed to speak injuriously of them, upon any [Page 290] pretences, however slighty, because they speak so clearly and fully against us. But they are herein greatly mistaken. It is owing to the force of truth, and not to prejudice, or fear lest our cause should suffer, if tried by them, that we represent them as under very strong marks of sus­picion. And to induce a belief of this, and, at the same time, to do justice to our side of the dispute, I shall, in what fol­lows, suppose these "epistles" to be GE­NUINE, as truly so as the writings of Clement, or any other primitive Father; and, in this view of them, endeavor to shew, that they furnish much more evidence in favor of us, than of the Epis­copalians; and that they may be justly brought as witnesses in defence of our cause, rather than their's.

IN order to set this matter in a fair point of light, let it be remembered, the Bishops pleaded for by our antagonists are DIOCESAN ones; and the POWERS they make ESSENTIAL to the episcopal office, and exclude Presbyters from, are those of GOVERNMENT, ORDINATION, and CONFIRMATION. Let us now review the "Ignatian testimonies," and see whether [Page 291] they speak of SUCH BISHOPS, or THESE POWERS that are said to be ESSENTIAL to their office, and characteristical of it.

I SHALL begin with saying, that, upon the strictest examination of all that is said in the "epistles of Ignatius," nothing can be found that will lead one into the idea of a DIOCESAN Bishop. It is as evident as it well can be, from the whole tenor of "these epistles," that the Ignatian Bishop was the pastoral head of a SINGLE CONGREGATION, who usually met toge­ther in one place, and united in an atten­dance on the institutions of Christianity. So much is to be met with upon this point, and in language so full and ex­press, that no reasonable room is left for hesitation or doubt.

IGNATIUS "inscribes" all these epis­tles to SINGLE societies of Christians, in this and the other particular place. "To the church in Ephesus," in "Magnesia," in "Philadelphia," and so on. And he applies severally to these churches, as one would speak to a single congregation of Christians, whose custom it was frequent­ly to assemble in one place, and join as [Page 292] one in worshipping God through Jesus Christ. And not only so, but the directi­ons and exhortations he gives, both to these churches, and their Bishops, are such as make it morally certain, that he writes to single congregations of Christians, and not a number of them constituting one church. Instances to this purpose might easily be produced out of each of "these epistles." But, as such an enu­meration would be both needless, and te­dious, I shall select only a few striking specimens that must be convincing to prejudice itself.

HE says to the church at Ephesus, "If the prayer of one or two has such efficacy, how much more that of the Bishop, and the WHOLE CHURCH! HE that cometh not to the SAME PLACE * is [Page 293] puffed up with pride.—Endeavor to meet frequently to praise and glorify God. For when you are often together in the SAME PLACE, the strength of satan is broken.—Since EVERY ONE OF YOU BY NAME, with common consent meet to­gether in one faith, and one Jesus Christ, breaking ONE LOAF, which is the medi­cine of immortality."—This is proper language, if applied to a single society of [Page 294] worshipping Christians; but not easily understood, if considered as directed to a diocesan church; or, in other words, a church constituted of a number of con­gregations, more or less, incapable of meeting together in one place, and of having personal communion there in the public offices of religion. It is in­deed, in this way of application, quite unintelligible, unless we recur to that figurative mode of speech, which was made necessary in AFTER AGES, when the church began to appear with the evi­dent marks of antichrist.

HE writes to the church in Magnesia in these words, "When you meet toge­ther, let there be one prayer, one depre­cation, * one mind.—There is one Je­sus Christ, than whom nothing is more [Page 295] excellent. ALL therefore run together as to ONE TEMPLE of God, as to one AL­TAR, as to one Jesus Christ." Is this speaking to a diocess, or a particular con­gregation of Christians? If common sense may be the judge, there can be no dispute. The case is too plain to admit of it.

HE thus bespeaks the church in Phila­delphia, "It becomes you, as a church of God to chuse a Deacon to go thither [to Antioch] on a divine embassy, that he [Page 296] may rejoice with them, being ASSEM­BLED TOGETHER."—Let me ask here, was it a diocess, or a single congre­gation, who, as a Christian church, were to make choice of a messenger to go to Antioch? And was it the church of Christians at Antioch, or a whole dio­cess, that this messenger was to rejoice with, when they had assembled together? No reasonable answer can be given to these questions, but the right one; which is, that a single congregation of Christi­ans only is addressed to. It follows in the next words, "Happy in Christ Jesus is he who shall be thought worthy of such a ministry: if ye be willing, ye may do this for the sake of God; as the other NEIGHBOURING CHURCHES have sent, some Bishops, some Presbyters, and some [Page 297] Deacons." Is the mode of diction, here used, episcopalian, or congregational? Is it the practice of diocesses, or single con­gregations of Christians, to chuse mes­sengers, and send them to other churches? When NEIGHBOURING churches, with each their own Bishop, their own Presbyters, and Deacons, are here spoken of, can it with propriety, or consistency, be sup­posed, that these neighbouring chur­ches were diocesses? Is it not infinitely more natural and reasonable, to under­stand by them single congregations?

HE gives the following exhortations in his epistle to Polycarp, Bishop of the church at Smyrna, "Let not the wi­dows be neglected, be THOU after God their guardian.—Let your assemblies be more frequent.—Enquire after ALL by name. Do not proudly overlook the MEN-SER­VANTS, and the MAID-SERVANTS." These instructions are highly pertinent, if Po­lycarp's church was only a congregation of Christians at Smyrna; and he might, if he was faithful and diligent, have com­plied with them, to his own honor, and the spiritual good of the people who were his special charge. But if his church had [Page 298] been of the diocesan kind, what he is ex­horted to is highly absurd, because abso­lutely impossible to be put in practice. Besides, what diocesan Bishop ever ima­gined it was his duty to inquire after ALL within his diocess by NAME, not over­looking even SERVANTS? most certainly no one among this kind of Bishops ever performed, or endeavored to perform, this [Page 299] service: whereas congregational Bishops esteem this their duty, and many of them are faithful in the practice of it, and their churches herefrom receive great benefit.

IN these epistles, he speaks of "one altar," or communion-table, of "one eucharist;" of "breaking one loaf;" of [Page 300] his being "deprived of the bread of God who comes not to the "one altar." These phrases are all readily understood, upon the supposition, that Ignatius is writing to single congregations; but otherwise there is no sense in what he says, unless we make him speak figuratively, when there is no need of it. A single congrega­tion of Christians, such an one as he is all along writing to, may come to "one altar," or communion-table; they may all "break" of the same sacramental "loaf:" whereas, it is impossible, a Bishop with his whole diocess should literally do these things. They cannot be supposed [Page 301] to do them, without calling in the help of a strong and bold figure. *—But I may not enlarge. It would be an affront to the reader's understanding, should I say any thing more upon a point so obviously evident.

IT will perhaps be pleaded, it is a cir­cumstancial matter only, whether a [Page 302] Bishop's church be great or small. His es­sential powers are the same, whether it consists of a single congregation only, or a number, more or less. This, as I ap­prehend, is a fundamental mistake upon this head. Diocesan, and parochial, or congregational, episcopacy essentially dif­fer, and are, in the nature of the thing, subversive of each other. Scores, or hundreds, of parochial Bishops must be deprived of the proper powers of their of­fice, to make way for one such diocesan, as the English Bishop is known to be. The plain truth is, diocesan episcopacy is an invention of man, wholly a political constitution; and, I believe, essentially wrong: as it is impossible a diocesan Bi­shop should do the duty of the Bishop's office, as described in the new testament, or even in the "epistles of Ignatius;" and the placing Bishops at the head of large diocesses, instead of tending to serve the interest of Christ's spiritual kingdom, has been greatly hurtful to it, in all ages from the first rise of antichrist to this day. But however this be, which does not fall so directly within our present design, thus much is certain, that the IGNATIAN Bishop was not a DIOCESAN one, and [Page 303] that, if his Bishop is to be the pattern, or exemplar, there is not a Bishop in all En­gland conformed to it. The Bishops, or Pastors, of parochial, or congregational, churches do much more nearly resemble the Bishop held out to view in "his epis­tles." —But to go on,

IGNATIUS is not only silent about dio­cesan Bishops, but the powers of GOVERN­MENT, ORDINATION, and CONFIRMA­TION, as appropriated to Bishops of any kind, as an order distinct from Presbyters.

TO begin with GOVERNMENT. And here it ought to be observed, there was, in each of the churches Ignatius wrote to, a PRESBYTERY, or, in other words, a number of Presbyters, more or less, con­stituting a council, senate, college, or whatever other name any may please to give it, of which the Bishop was the first, or chief, having some degree of superiority beyond the rest. But that the govern­ment of the church, or of the Presbyters of it, was SOLELY in his hands; or that his precedency was such, as imported his being of another and higher ORDER than [Page 304] that of Presbyters, he has no where given us to understand, in any of his epis­tles. Far from this, the general strain of them all is, to lead us into the thought, that all church-affairs were to be direct­ed, and governed, not by the SOLE POW­ER OF THE BISHOP▪ but by the authority and voice of the PRESBYTERY joined to his. This is so obvious, that no one can easily read his epistles without perceiving it to be the truth of fact. The evidence is too glaring not to be seen at once.

IT is acknowledged, Ignatius speaks of Bishops, in these epistles, in a high strain of language, such as calls for great can­dor to free it from, at least, some degree of profanity. But the same may be said, with as real truth, in regard of the man­ner in which he speaks of Presbyters. Does he call Bishops "the figure of the Father?" He goes on to call Presbyters, "the council of God, and conjunction of the Apostles." Does he speak of the Bi­shop as "the grace of God?" He, in the same place, speaks of the Presbytery as "law of Christ." Does he represent the Bishop as "presiding in the place of God?" [Page 305] At the same time, he puts the Presbyters "in the room of the apostolic senate."

IT is acknowledged likewise, he fre­quently exhorts the churches to "obey their Bishops," to be in "subjection to them." But he enjoins it on them, in like manner, to be "subject to their Pres­byters." And the language in which he exhorts them to obedience and subjection to their Presbyters, as well as Bishops, is not only very strong and pressing, but so often repeated as to be really disgust­ful. "Attend to the Bishop and Pres­bytery;" follow the Bishop, and the Pres­byters;" "obey the Bishop, and Presbyters;" be "subject to the Bishop, and Presby­tery," are injunctions, in these epistles, so frequent as to be, at once, both needless, and troublesome.

SHOULD it be said here, he gives the church of Smyrna to understand, "it is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptise, or make a love-feast;" and ac­cordingly exhorts, "let none do any of those things which belong to the church without the Bishop." Should it be added, [Page 306] he tells the church of Tralles, "it is necessary they should act nothing with­out the Bishop." The answer is ready at hand; he as expressly tells the same church of Tralles, and in the same epis­tle, "he that does any thing without the Bishop, and Presbyters, is not of a pure conscience." And in his epistle to the Magnesians, the exhortation is, "Nei­ther do ye any thing without the Bishop and Presbyters." And again, "I exhort you to do all things in the concord of God." What is that? The explanation follows in the next words, "the Bishop presiding in the place of God, and the Presbyters in the place of the apostolic senate."—"Let nothing divide you, but be united to the Bishop, and those that preside among you." It should seem, from these passages, and many more that might easily be mentioned, if there was need of it, as plainly evident as words can well make it, that the Ignatian churches were governed, not by the Bishop only, but by a common college, company, or senate, of which he was the first in su­periority. If nothing was to be done without the Bishop; neither was any [Page 307] thing to be done without the Presbyters. The voice of the Presbytery was necessa­ry, as truly as the voice of the Bishop. UNION was plainly the great thing Igna­tius had at heart, and would promote in the management of all church-affairs, not only between the church, and the Bishop; but between the Bishop, and the Presbyters; such an union as that no­thing should be transacted without the Presbyters, any more than without the Bishop. His aim was, that there should be the united authority and consent of both Bishops and Presbyters, in the con­duct of every church-affair.

IT will, probably, be still pleaded, Ig­natius is so careful, in all his epistles, to distinguish Bishops from Presbyters, that we do not once find him calling Presby­ters, Bishops; or Bishops, Presbyters. Far from this, he has always appropriated these names to different persons; from whence it may be fairly and justly col­lected, that Bishops were a distinct set of officers in the government of the church from Presbyters, of an higher order [Page 308] and vested with superior powers, such as might not be exercised by Presbyters.

IT is granted, the names, Bishop and Presbyter, are carefully used, in the Igna­tian epistles, to specify different persons; but, at the same time, utterly denied, that this appropriation of these names imports such a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, as is contended for; that is, a distinction that supposes an higher and superior order of officers in the church to that of Presbyters. That it imports some degree of precedency, or superiority, is readily allowed; but why should it be thought, unless to serve the episcopal cause, that this superiority was a superi­ority in such spiritual powers as might not be exercised by Presbyters? Ignati­us, as we shall see presently, has said no such thing; nor has he, in any of his epistles, appropriated any one of the powers proper to the ministerial office to Bishops, in distinction from Presbyters. Episcopalians, if any men in the world, should be sensible of the insufficiency of the argument, which would prove a dis­tinction of ORDERS in the church, or of [Page 309] ESSENTIAL POWERS in its officers, from the appropriation of different names to different persons, even though it was an appropriation that carried with it a very considerable degree of precedency and superiority. There are, in the church of England, a great variety of officers, with appropriated names, who greatly differ in the degree of their superiotity and inferiority; while yet, their essential pow­ers, as officers in the kingdom of Christ, are precisely the same. The names, Arch-Bishop and Bishop, are appropriated ones, invariably pointing out different eccle­siastical officers, the one superior in dig­nity and power to the other; and yet, Arch-Bishops are the same order in the church with Bishops, and they have no higher essential powers. To say that they have would make FOUR ORDERS in the church of Christ, instead of THREE; which would be a flat contradiction to the avowed doctrine of the church of England itself. Deans, Arch-Deacons, Prebends. Rectors, and Curates, are all of them officers in the English church, distinguished from each other by the ap­plication of these names, and severally [Page 310] placed above each other in certain degrees of superiority; and yet, they are all vested with exactly the same essential powers. In regard of their ORDER, they are the same officers in the church. In special, Rector and Curate are appropria­ted names, and stand to signify different officers in the church, the one superior in dignity and power to the other; while yet, they both sustain the same rank, and are perfectly equal in the intrinsic institu­ted powers of their office. The Curate is commissioned to preach, baptise, and administer the Lord's supper, as truly as the Rector; and may, as well as he, per­form any other part of duty that belongs to this order of officers in the church. But this notwithstanding, the Rector is placed in as high a degree of superiority above the Curate, as the Ignatian Bishop is above a Presbyter. The Rector may, in the plenitude of his own power, do any thing, within the limits of his office, in his own parish; the Curate can do no­thing but by his permission. He can neither read prayers, preach, baptise, or perform any other public religious ser­vice, but in consequence of his consent­ing [Page 311] allowance. He is in truth the ser­vant of the Rector, and in perfect subjec­tion to him; yea, liable, unless quite sub­servient to his pleasure, to be dismissed from service in this cure. Wherein, now, in what instance, was the Ignatian Bi­shop more of a superior to his Presbyters? What greater power had he over them? I may rather say, how does it appear, that he either had, or ever exercised, so high a degree of power? The Rector may act, in his own parish, without the advice of his Curate; or, should he con­descend to ask it, he may act in direct op­position to it. It was not thus with the Ignatian-Bishop. He, with the Pres­byters of the church, made one common council, or senate; and it was, not accor­ding to his own sovereignty, but in agree­ment with the united voice of this council, that he acted. All the affairs of the church were managed in this way.—The Rec­tor may, of his own meer arbitrary will, discharge the Curate from any fur­ther service in his parish. Ignatius's Bi­shop had no such power. Most certainly it is no where said that he had, either in his "epistles," or elsewhere. Let me [Page 312] ask now, why should it be thought, that the Ignatian Bishop's superiority above a Presbyter must import a superiority of ORDER, or ESSENTIAL POWERS, any more than a Rector's superiority above his Curate should import the same thing? If a Rector's office is ESSENTIALLY the same with his Curate's, notwithstanding his superiority in power, why must it be otherwise in the case of Ignatius's Bishop? The plain truth is, all the pre-eminence and superiority that Ignatius ascribes to his Bishop may as easily, and as justly, be accounted for, without the supposition of his being of an ORDER distinct from, and superior to, Presbyters, as the Rector's superiority above his Curate. If, notwith­standing the subjection of his Curate to him, they are both of the same order in the church, and partake of the same es­sential powers; why may not the same be said, with equal truth and justice, of the Ignatian Bishop and his Presbyters? Especially, if it be remembered, and duly considered, that no one ministerial pow­er is mentioned by Ignatius, in any of his epistles, but what might be as well exer­cised by Presbyters as Bishops. And this leads to

[Page 313]THE next power of Bishops, said to be distinguishing, and essential; which is that of ORDINATION. And who could think, considering the vast labor that has been expended in support of the credit of Ignatius's epistles, and the perpetual use Episcopalians make of them, in defence of their cause, but that he had expressed himself, upon this head, so clearly, posi­tively, and fully, as to leave no further room for dispute, at least, whether it was a FACT, in his day, that Bishops, and they only, communicated holy orders? Especially, as the validity of gospel-ad­ministrations is made to depend upon this method of communication. And yet, we are as much at a loss for evidence in favor of this article, essentially connected with the very being of Christianity itself, as if Ignatius had never wrote any one of his epistles. He can no more be brought as a witness to testify in behalf of EPISCOPAL-ORDINATION, either in point of FACT, or RIGHT, than any of his predecessors, contemporaries, or suc­cessors within the two first centuries. By only reading Arch-Bishop Wake's "trans­lation of his epistles," one would not [Page 314] suspect he had so much as transiently said any thing that looks like ORDINA­TION; but this he may have done in his "epistle to the Magnesians," wherein he tells them, "It becomes you not to use your Bishop too familiarly upon the ac­count of his youth, but to yield all re­verence to him, according to the power of God the Father: as also I perceive your holy Presbyters do; not considering his age, which indeed to appearance is young."—These last words are in the original, tên phainomenên neoterikên taxin; which some have translated, his appearing youthful ordination. * If this is a version that gives the true meaning of Ignatius, he has once, in seven epistles, mentioned ORDINATION; but without saying, how it was performed, or by whom; whether by a Bishop of some other church, or by [Page 315] the Presbyters of this at Magnesia. The short of the matter is, he is totally silent, in all his epistles, upon this most impor­tant and essential power of the Bishop; never once saying, or so much as insinu­ating, that it was his PECULIAR RIGHT to confer holy orders, or that they were, in FACT, ever conferred by Bishops, in distinction from Presbyters.

IT will, perhaps, be pleaded here, Ig­natius has expressly said, "it is not law­ful without the Bishop to baptise, or make a love feast;" and again, "it is necessary nothing should be done with­out the Bishop." If so, then surely there ought to be no ordination without him. This is the obvious and evident implica­tion of his words.

THE answer is plain and easy. Should this reasoning be allowed to be just and valid, it will not follow from it, that the power of ordination was appropriated to Bishops, any more than the administration of baptism, or making a love-feast. The most that can be made of it is, that no church-affair should be managed without [Page 316] the consent, the presence, or permis­sion of the Bishop; but with his allow­ance, for aught that appears to the con­trary, Presbyters might ORDAIN, as well as baptise, or administer the Lord's sup­per. And it is, with me, past all doubt, that the affair of ORDINATION, as truly as other religious offices, were managed, not by the BISHOP ALONE, but by the PRES­BYTERY, of which he was primus inter pares. For Ignatius is as express in say­ing, "nothing ought to be done with­out the PRESBYTERS," as that "nothing ought to be done without the BISHOP."

THE last peculiar power of Bishops is that which relates to CONFIRMATION. But it unluckily happens, that the "Ig­natian epistles" are, if possible, more silent about this, than the foregoing ar­ticle. They neither mention the name, or the thing intended by the name. And as they appear to be utter strangers to any such custom in the church of Christ, as that of confirmation, it would be in vain to look to them for evidence, that it belonged to Bishops, to them only, to them in distinction from Presbyters, [Page 317] to perform this extraordinary piece of service.

UPON the whole, notwithstanding Bishops are so often mentioned by name by Ignatius; notwithstanding the high strain of language in which he speaks of them; notwithstanding all the claims he makes for them, and of obedience and subjection to them;—he is so far from being a competent witness to the GRAND FACTS we are upon, that he either says nothing relative to them, or that which is really destructive of them. It is as evi­dent as words can well make it, that the Bishops he speaks of, in his epistles, were of the PAROCHIAL, not the DIOCESAN kind: from whence it follows, that the Rector, Pastor, or Bishop of a SINGLE CONGREGATION of Christians, such an one as the churches in New-England, and the Protestant Dissenters at home, have at their head, is much more like to the IG­NATIAN Bishop, than any DIOCESAN in Great Britain. From the whole tenor of what he offers upon the head of government it also most obviously appears, as we have seen, that it was, and ought to be, manag­ed, [Page 318] not by the Bishop as SOLE MONARCH in the church, but by a common senate, or college, of which he was nothing more than primus inter pares, being vest­ed with no higher ESSENTIAL POWERS than the other members of the Presby­tery. And as to ORDINATION, and CON­FIRMATION, the appropriated right of Bi­shops, he says not a word. Could we, in consistency with a due regard to truth, say, that the "epistles of Ignatius" were unsuspectedly genuine and incorrupt, we should be as strenuous in supporting their authority, as the Episcopalians; and for this reason in special, because they are, in many respects, a real and great service to our cause; and, in every respect, much more serviceable to us, than to them in the dispute betwixt us.

[Page]

PAPIAS, QUADRATUS, ARISTIDES, AGRIP­PA, HEGESIPPUS.

PAPIAS, Bishop of Hierapolis, a city in Asia, is said by Irenaeus to have been "an hearer of John, and compani­on of Polycarp." He unquestionably meant by John, the writer of the gospel, and the three epistles under this name. Dr. Cave places him at the year 110; but he is said by others, equally learned, to have flourished about the years 115 and 116. He has sometimes been mentioned as a martyr; but, as neither Eusebius or Jerom say any thing of this, it may be considered as a fact not to be depend­ed on. The time, as well as manner, of his death is uncertain. Irenaeus and Eu­sebius both speak of him as having wrote "five books" entitled "the explication of our Lord's discourses;" but nothing remains of them except a few fragments [Page 320] preserved by antient writers. Eusebius describes him, in one place, as "an elo­quent man, and expert in the scripture;"* though, in another, he says of him, he had but "small abilities," which, as he adds, "appears from his books." And so far as we may judge from those parts of them that have been handed down to us, this seems to be the truth; as like­wise that he was too apt to give heed to any pious tales that were reported to him. Eusebius writes of him, that he has "told strange things, pretending to have received them by tradition from the Elders." He speaks of it also § as a doc­trine of his, that "Christ shall corporally reign here on earth for the space of a thousand years, after the resurrection of the dead; occasioning divers ecclesiasti­cal persons, who regarded his antiquity, to fall into this error;" particularly nam­ing "Irenaeus."

[Page 321]DU-PIN, as I imagine, has very justly characterised Papias in the following words;— ‘He was a good man, but very credulous, and of mean parts, who delighted much in hearing and telling stories and miracles.’ He adds, ‘since he was exceedingly inquisitive, and in­clined to believe any thing that was told him, it is not to be admired that he hath divulged diverse errors, and extravagant notions, as the judgments of the Apostles, and hath given us fa­bulous narratives for real histories: which shews, that nothing is so dan­gerous in matters of religion, as light­ly to believe, and too greedily to em­brace, all that hath the appearance of piety, without considering in the first place how true it is.’

No mention is made, in the preserved "fragments" of Papias's writings, of Bi­shops; nor any thing said tending to illus­trate the FACT we are upon, unless it should be thought the following passa­ges, cited by Eusebius in the 39th chapter of his 3d book, may be improved to this purpose.

[Page 322] ‘I shall not think it grievous to set down in writing, with my interpreta­tions, the things which I have learned of the Elders or Presbyters, [para tôn Presbuterôn] and remember as yet very well, being fully certified of their truth — If I met any where with one who had conversed with the Elders, [Presbute­rois] I enquired after the sayings of the Elders; [Presbuterôn] what Andrew, what Peter, what Philip, what Tho­mas, or James had said; what John, or Matthew, or any other disciples of the Lord were wont to say; and what Aris­ton, or John the Presbyter [o Presbute­ros] said: for I am of the mind, I could not profit so much by reading of books, as by attending to those who spake viva voce.’

EUSEBIUS observes, in this same book and chapter, " that he mentions two Johns, the former of whom he ranks with Peter, James, Matthew, and the rest of the Apostles, "evidently pointing out the Evangelist;" and another John, whom he does not place with the Apostles, but joins with Ariston, expressly calling him Elder, ton Presbuteron."—This Papias, as [Page 323] Eusebius further speaks, declares that "he received the sayings of the Apostles from those who conversed with them;" and that he was "a hearer of Ariston, and John the Presbyter, tou Presbuterou."— He adds, in the same writing, "he [this Papias] delivers many other narratives of the beforementioned Ariston concerning the words of our Lord, and traditions of John the Presbyter [Presbuterou.] To which we shall subjoin a tradition, which he has concerning Mark, who wrote in the gospel, in these words; "and this, the Presbyter or Elder, [Presbuteros] mean­ing John, said.—

QUADRATUS. Much is said of this Father by writers greatly distant from the age in which he lived. He is par­ticularly spoken of, in the martyrology of the Greeks, as "a man of great learn­ing and knowledge; and represented, af­ter having grievously suffered by the vio­lence of persecutors, as one that received the crown of martyrdom." But the most authentic account we have of him is that which is given us by Eusebius. He ranks him among "the famous men in the reign of Trajan, who died in 117." [Page 324] He speaks of him as having been "fa­vored, together with the daughters of Philip, with the gift of prophecy." He places him among those, who were "in the first succession of the Apostles." * And, writing concerning Dionysius of Corinth, he introduces this Father, say­ing, "he remembered Quadratus, who, after the martyrdom of Publius, was constituted Bishop of Athens." It is disputed, whether the Bishop, here point­ed out by this Denys was the person we are treating of, or another of the same name. The Doctors, Grabe and Cave, are fully of the opinion, that it was our Quadratus. Valesius and Du-pin are as clearly of the contrary mind; and for reasons, as it appears to me, that cannot easily be set aside. §

HE is no where mentioned as having wrote any thing, but "an apology for the Christian faith." Eusebius's account of it is this; —"When Trajan had [Page 325] reigned twenty years wanting six months, Elius Adrianus succeeded him in the empire, to whom Quadratus dedicated an apology which he had wrote in defence of the faith, as certain malevolent men had endeavored to vex and molest the Christians. This book is yet extant among diverse of the brethren, and a copy of it remaineth with us; in which there are conspicuous marks of the un­derstanding, and true apostolic doctrine of the man." This work has long since been lost. Only one small fragment of it is preserved, in which there is nothing observable, unless it be that he speaks of those who "had been healed, and raised from the dead, as living not only while our Savior had his abode on earth, but a long time after his ascention; yea, a num­ber of them to his day."

ARISTIDES flourished about the same time. He is celebrated by Eusebius, * as "a faithful man, and one that labored for the furtherance of religion." He adds, "he published an "apology" (as Qua­dratus did before) for the "Christian faith," [Page 326] with a "dedicatory epistle" to Adrian the Emperor; which book of his is kept by many, even to this day." And it was in being in the days of Jerom; for he writes both of this "apology," and its author, in these words; "Aristides was an eloquent Athenian Philosopher, who, when he changed his religion, did not alter his profession. He presented unto the Em­peror Adrian, at the time when Qua­dratus did, a volume in the form of an "apology," wherein he produced the proofs of our religion; which, being still extant, shews the learned how excellent a writer he was." He says again, "that this work was full of philosophical notions, and that it was afterwards imitated by Justin." It has long been buried in ob­livion. Dr. Grabe has not been able, in his "spicilegium patrum," to gratify the curious with so much as the smal­lest fragment of it.

AGRIPPA, sirnamed Castor, was con­temporary with the above Fathers. His abilities, as a learned man, and his zeal in defending the truly apostolic doctrine, are said to have appeared in a book he wrote against the "heresy of Basilides," [Page 327] which he fully confuted, after having de­tected his fraud. The best account of him is handed to us by Eusebius, who, speaking of those who had contended for the apostolic ecclesiastical doctrine, makes mention * of "Agrippa Castor's strong and noble confutation of Basilides, in which he disclosed his fraudulent and deceitful arts." This Basilides, as he goes on to relate from Agrippa, "had written 24 books on the Gospels, and that he for­ged several Prophets, who were never in the world, to whom he attributed extraordinary names, as Barsabas and Barcoph, on purpose to amuse the minds of his auditors. He affirmed also, that this heretic taught his followers, "that it was a thing indifferent to eat sacrifices that were offered to idols; that it was lawful to renounce the faith in a time of persecution; and that, in imitation of Pythagoras, he imposed silence on his dis­ciples for the space of five years." There are no remains of so much as a single fragment of Agrippa's confutation of this wild and erroneous writer.

[Page 328]HEGESIPPUS. He is thought to have been a convert from the Jewish to the Christian religion. Eusebius ranks him among the first who lived, and flourished, after the death of the Apostles. He speaks of himself, * as having been in Rome a number of years, Du-pin says, from 165 to 180. He is the first Father that composed an entire body of ecclesiastical history. This he is said to have done, dividing it into "five books," stiled "commentaries" by Eusebius and Je­rom; wherein he relates the principal occurrences in the church, from the death of Christ to his own time. This work was penned, according to Eusebius, "in a simple stile;" and, as Jerom speaks, "in imitation of the manner of those whose lives he wrote." There are no remains of it, but some fragments preserved by Eusebius in his ecclesiastical history, and one more by Photius from Stephen Gobar.

SOME have greatly lamented the loss of the writings of this Father; imagining, had they been preserved, we should have been fully certified of the true state of [Page 329] the church, in those days, particularly as to its officers and government. But they might, possibly, have been disappointed. His account of James, the just, recorded by Eusebius, * in his own words, evi­dently carries with it the air of a fabulous romantic story. And some of the men­tioned circumstances, relative both to his life and death, are far from exhibiting the real truth. If we may judge from this narrative, the world has not suffered much by the loss of his works.

BESIDES the five books beforemen­tioned, five more are attributed to him; containing "an history of the wars of the Jews," and of the "taking the city of Jerusalem," which have been often printed, and, among other places, at Co­len, with the notes of Galterius. But there are few writers, who think it worth while so much as to mention these works, they are so evidently of the spurious kind. Du-pin says, "It is certain, they do not belong to Hegesippus; and has given such reasons, in support of this assertion, as must be allowed to be sufficient, if not more than so, by all capable judges in matters of this nature.

[Page 330]THE two following extracts from the "fragments" of the writings of Hege­sippus, are the only passages that relate to the point we are upon. They are taken from the ivth book, and 22d chap­ter, of Eusebius's ecclesiastical history.

‘THE church of Corinth remained pure in its doctrine to the time of P [...]i­mus, Bishop in Corinth: with whom I familiarly conversed many days, while sailing to Rome, and was much com­forted with their right doctrine. Be­ing come to Rome, I abode there until the succession of Anicetus, or, more literally, until I made the succession * [Page 331] as far as Anicetus; whose Deacon was Eleutherius: Soter succeeded him, and after him Eleutherius. In all the succession, and in every one of the ci­ties, it is no otherwise than the law, Pro­phets, and the Lord himself preached.’

‘WHEN James the just had been martyred for the same doctrine which our Lord preached, Simon, the son of Cleophas, was constituted Bishop with universal preference, because he was the Lord's near kinsman. Wherefore they called that church a pure virgin, because it was not defiled with cor­rupt doctrine. But Thebuli, because he was not made Bishop, endeavored to corrupt the church; being one of the seven heretics among the people, whereof was Simon, of whom the Simonians.’

IT may be proper to remark, upon these passages, that nothing is contained in them that, either directly or implicitly, affirms the FACT contended for by Episcopalians. They will not pretend, that the powers of ORDINATION, CON­FIRMATION, or GOVERNMENT, are here appropriated to Bishops, or said to have [Page 332] been exercised by them, in distinction from Presbyters, either by custom, or di­vine right. Mention is made, it is true, of Bishops. They are mentioned also in the new-testament-books: nor was it ever denied, that there were Bishops in the church, even from the beginning. The dispute is, what is their rank, or or­der, in the church? What the special powers they are vested with? Not a word is said by Hegesippus, in the above passages, from whence this can be col­lected; unless an argument should be fetch­ed from the SUCCESSION in the church of Rome, of which he here speaks. But to argue from hence would be to little purpose; as there might be a SUCCES­SION OF BISHOPS without supposing them to have been an order in the church dis­tinct from, and superior to, Presbyters.— We shall have occasion largely to consi­der the "argument from succession," when we come to Irenaeus, who says more upon this head, than all the other Fathers of the two first centuries put together.—

[Page]

JUSTIN MARTYR.
His character, writings, and testimonies from them, with observations and remarks.

JUSTIN the Philosopher, afterwards the Martyr, was born in Flavia Nea­polis, a city of Samaria in Palestine, an­ciently called Sichem, and in our Savior's day Sichar. He accordingly speaks of himself as a Samaritan, in his "diologue with Trypho." Neither, says he, "did I fear to offend my own countrymen, the Samaritans, when I offered my apology to Caesar." His father, whose name was Priscus, son of Bacchius, took early care to have him well educated; and, being of an inquisitive studious turn, he soon made himself master of the philosophy of that day, in all its various institutions; of which his writings give abundant [Page 334] proof. He is called one of the most lear­ned of the more early writers of the eastern church.

IN his younger years, probably before his conversion to Christianity, he travelled abroad for his further proficiency in knowledge. He went particularly to Egypt, "the staple-place," as Dr. Cave calls it, of all the mysterious and recondite parts of learning, and therefore com­monly visited by those, who would make a figure in the world, as Adepths in Philoso­phy. He was certainly at Alexandria; for there it was, as he himself informs us, that he received an account of the "se­venty's translation" of the Hebrew-bible, and was carried to the "cells" in which it was said they performed that celebrated work; which, probably, his curiosity, together with the reports he might have had of these matters, by being among the Jews, had induced him particularly to enquire after.

HE went through his philosophical studies under several masters. The first was a "Stoic;" the second, a "Peripa­tetic;" the third a "Pythagorean;" [Page 335] and the last a "Platonist," whose senti­ments he preferred, and indeed was so well pleased with that he ordered his con­duct by them, until he became a convert to the Christian faith, which he ever af­ter esteemed "the only certain and use­ful philosophy."

THE precise time of his conversion can­not be ascertained. Dr. Cave, and Til­lemont place it at the year 132 or 133. But whenever he was converted, the ho­liness of the lives of Christians, and the firmness, resolution, and undaunted cou­rage, with which they faced, and encounter­ed, death in the most hideous forms, had a very powerful influence in effecting this anchge of his religion: so we are informed by himself, in the account he gives of it to the Roman Emperor, in one of his apo­logies. Says he, * ‘For my own part, being yet detained under the "Plato­nic institutions," when I heard the Christians traduced and reproached, and yet saw them fearlessly rushing upon death, and venturing upon all those things that are accounted most [Page 336] dreadful and amazing to human na­ture, I concluded with myself, it was impossible that those men should wal­low in vice, and be carried away with the love of lust and pleasure. For what man, that is a slave to pleasure and intemperance, can chearfully bid death welcome, which he knows must put a period to all his pleasures and delights; and would not rather by all means endeavor to prolong his life as much as is possible, and to delude his adversaries, and conceal himself from the notice of the Magistrate, rather than voluntarily betray and offer him­self to present execution?’ —His rea­soning here is certainly just: nor is it strange, that such extraordinary strength of mind in Christians to bear up under the greatest dangers, and undergo the most cruel sufferings and deaths, should give him favorable thoughts of the reli­gion they professed, and the truth of which they so chearfully sealed with their blood. Marvellous effects have been pro­duced in the hearts of those, who have been spectators of the horrid cruelties which have been exercised towards the disciples of Christ, and the amazing [Page 337] patience, meekness, fortitude, and sub­mission, with which they endured them.

HAVING professed himself a Christian, he is said to have led an eminently vir­tuous and holy life. It is certain, he stood up nobly in the Christian cause; and it ought always to be remembered to his honor, that, in a time of hot persecution, when a man's only owning himself to be a Christian was sufficient to expose him to death, he should be able to put on re­solution enough to become an advocate for Christians, a public pleader of their cause; as he appears to have been by his two "apologies" in their behalf.

HE was at Rome, in the reign of "Antonine the pious," when the per­secution began to break forth; and he then wrote an excellent "apology" in their defence, and preferred it (as ap­pears from the inscription) to "Antoninus Pius the Emperor, and to his two sons Verus and Lucius, to the senate, and by them to the whole people of Rome." This he did about the year 150, says Du­pin. Tillemont and Dr. Grabe think it was not presented before this year. [Page 338] Dr. Cave fixes the time at 140. Pagi and Basnage at 139; whose opinion, says Dr. Lardener, "appears to me the truest, for the reasons alledged by those learn­ed men."

THIS ‘apology (says Du-pin) is com­monly called the second, but is really the first; whereas the other common­ly so called is actually the second; nay, if we may give credit to the testimony of Eusebius, was not presented to the Emperor, and senate, until the time of Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher, and successor of Antoninus Pius.’ In this the most learned writers are now generally agreed.

WHAT Justin had principally in view, in this "apology" was, ‘to represent the injustice of the proceedings against the Christians; for that, without any enquiry into the true merits of their case, they were adjudged to death as the most impious, and flagitious of all men; only their being called by the name of Christians, being accounted sufficient for their condemnation.—He justifies them against the calumnies [Page 339] that had been wickedly cast upon them; offering what was abundantly suffi­cient to clear up their innocency. He particularly shews, that they were not Atheists, as they had been characterised; because, though they worshipped not the gods of the heathen, yet they knew the true God, and performed that ser­vice which was agreable to him▪ also, that they looked not for an earthly kingdom (as was suspected of them, and for which cause the Romans were fearful of their rebellion), but one that was divine and heavenly, on which account they were willing to run the hazard, and suffer the loss, of this present life, which they never could do, were they possessed with de­sires of reigning in this world. He likewise wipes off those blasphemies wherewith the Christians were load­ed for their worshipping a "crucified man," by such as were altogether ig­norant of the mystery of the cross of Christ; shewing that the religion of such as worshipped the gods was but a vain and sordid superstition. He, moreover, largely discourses of Christ, unfolds many things relative to his [Page 340] suffering on the cross, and by convinc­ing arguments proves the truth of the Christian faith; not forgetting to re­present the harmless lives of Christians, their exact observance of chastity, pa­tience, peaceableness, gentleness, and love, even to their very enemies. In fine, he lays before them the manner of Christians in their celebration of the sacred rites of baptism and the Lord's supper, and their other observances; which he chose to do, because of the base slanders that had been raised, and scattered abroad, concerning them; as if horrible and abominable things were practised by them in their secret meetings upon such occasions.’ The "apology" is wrote with a freedom and boldness, becoming a serious, zealous, and powerful advocate in pleading the cause of truth and righteousness. And it had its desired success. For the Emperor, moved by this apology, as well as by other notices he had received, gave order that the Christians henceforward should be treated in a regular and more gentle way; as appears from his "epistle to the commonality of Asia," preserved by Eusebius, in the ivth book, and 13th [Page 341] chapter of his ecclesiastical history, by Justin himself in his second apology, and from them, by other writers. The En­glish reader may meet with it, in a lan­guage he understands, in Dr. Cave's lives of the Fathers.

THE "second apology," some few sentences of which are lost, does not com­prehend such variety of matter: it is a complaint or remonstrance directed to the Emperor, representing the injuries that were unjustly offered to the Christians; and making answer to the things object­ed against them. In this "apology," he describes the snares that were laid for him by a certain Cynic Philosopher, named "Crescens," through whose procurement he expected to suffer death. "I expect, (says he) by some of those who falsely call themselves Philosophers, to be be­trayed, or brought to the stake or tree; it may be by this Crescens, a lover of popular applause, and of insolent arrogance; a man unworthy to be called a Philosopher, be­cause he publicly witnesses the things which he knoweth not, as if the Chris­tians were atheistical and impious; and all to be in favor with, and please, the multitudes whom he hath deceived."

[Page 342]IT was not long before it happened according to what he had suggested. For we are told, by Tatian, a disciple of Jus­tin, that this same "Crescens" procured his death, which he suffered, says Du­pin, in the sixth year of the reign of Mar­cus Antoninus, the Philosopher; that is, in the year of Christ 160. Dr. Cave says, in 164. Tillemont, in 167 or 168. Fabricus supposes he was born in 89, and suffered martyrdom in the 74th year of his age, A. D. 163. Dr. Grabe is of the same opinion as to the time, both of his birth, and death.

HIS name is often mentioned with ho­nor by the ancient Christian writers. Ta­tian calls him "an admirable man." Methodius says, "he was not far re­moved from the Apostles in time, or virtue". Eusebius mentions him as one that was "famous, not long after the Apostles, an embracer of the true philo­sophy, and well studied and exercised in the doctrine of the Gentiles." Photius says, "he was well acquainted with the Christian philosophy, and especially with the heathen; rich in the knowledge of history, and other parts of learning. [Page 343] But he took little care to set off the native beauty of philosophy with the ornaments of rhetoric. For which reason, his dis­courses, though weighty and learned, want those allurements which are apt to attract the vulgar." He adds, "He shewed himself a Philosopher not only in words, but in his actions, and his habit. *

His WRITINGS.

THE writings ascribed to Justin are numerous. But, as his "first apology," of which we have already taken notice, is the only work of his we shall have oc­casion to transcribe from, I shall barely [Page 344] insert a catalogue of what he has wrote, least I should take up more room about that which is not directly to our purpose, than can be well spared.

HIS works may be distinguished into those that are still extant, and held to be genuine; those that are lost, and some of them of doubtful authority; and those that are supposititious, but mostly yet remaining. We shall distinctly enu­merate them under these classes.

GENUINE and EXTANT.

"PARANAESIS," or an exhortation to the Gentiles. "Elenchus," an oration to the Greeks. "Two apologies" in behalf of Christians. A book concern­ing the "Monarchy of God." A "di­alogue with Trypho," the Jew. An "epistle to Diognetus."

LOST and IN PART DOUBTFUL.

A "DISCOURE against all heresies, and against Marcion." "Two books against the Gentiles." A "commentary on the [Page 345] hexameron." A book called "psaltes." Another concerning "the soul," a sco­listical discourse. A "commentary on the apocalypse." An "epistle ad papam." A "discourse on the resurrection."

SUPPOSITITIOUS.

A BOOK "de monarchia." An "ex­position of the true faith concerning the trinity." A "confutation of certain aris­totelian opinions." "Questions pro­pounded by the Christians to the Gen­tiles, and their answers to them, with a confutation of them." "Certain ques­tions propounded by the Greeks to the Christians, with the answers of the Chris­tians." "The answers to one hundred and forty-six questions ad orthodoxos." "Summary solutions of doubts respect­ing religion."

PERTINENTLY just is the remark of Hanmer, having spoken of these supposi­titious works of Justin; "Upon how frail a foundation are those unsound doctrines of the Papists built (for the proof of which these spurious writings are often alledged) namely, the lawful [Page 346] use of the cross, the Virgin Mary with­out sin, keeping and worshipping of re­liques, the use of Crism, ceremonies of the mass, and that confirmation is a sa­crament?"

I SHALL only add concerning this Fa­ther, that, though he appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and very conversant with the sacred writings, yet his reasoning sometimes will not bear being closely examined; nor are his in­terpretations of the scripture always such, as would be admired in this age of the world. He does not seem to have been studious of art in setting off his discour­ses. His manner is more like a rigid Philosopher, than an eloquent orator. He is often dry, and sometimes obscure. Nor would it do him wrong, should it be said, that he was not without defect as to his religious sentiments. His notion of the "millenium" was too gross and carnal. His conceit, "that some of the sinning angels had too free communication with women; begetting Daemons, and intro­ducing by this means, all kind of wick­edness among men," is quite extravagant. He may be thought to have lessened the [Page 347] glorious efficacy of the cross of Christ by declaring, "that they that lived accord­ing to the principles of natural reason, as Socrates, Heraclitus, and others, might be called Christians." He seems indeed to suppose, they were "saved by having lived up to the law of nature." This no meer man ever yet did; for which rea­son, whoever are saved, must be saved upon the foot of grace through Christ: and in this way, why should it be thought incredible, that some among the heathen may have been saved; though they knew not the plan upon which they ob­tained mercy?

I HAVE not mentioned these imper­fections of this venerable Father to dis­cover his nakedness, but to make it ma­nifest, that the inspired writings only are exempt from error and defect, and that those of the most eminent men, how­ever ancient, are to be read with caution, examined by the only touch-stone of re­ligious truth, the perfect and unerring word of God, and approved of so far only as they are found to agree herewith. By this rule we must "try the spirits whether they be of God," "holding fast" that only which we have "proved to be good."

[Page 348]

TESTIMONIES from JUSTIN.

APOL. I. p. 95.—"We bring him that is persuaded, and agrees with us in his sentiments, to THE PLACE where the brethren, so called, ARE ASSEMBLED for common prayers both for themselves, the baptised [illuminated, tôu photisthentos] person, and all others every where; which prayers we perform with an intense mind, that we may be counted worthy, and may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Prayers being ended, we mutually salute one another with a kiss. Bread, and a cup of water and wine, are then brought to the PRESIDENT OF THE BRETHREN [tô proestôti tôn adelphôn:] and he, receiv­ing them, offers [sends up] praise and glory to the Father of all things, through the name of the Son, and the holy Spirit: and he is long in giving thanks, for that we are thought worthy of these blessings. When he has ended prayer, and giving of thanks, the whole people present sig­nify their approbation, by saying, amen. Amen, in the Hebrew language means, "let the thing be, or come to pass." The President having given thanks [euchariste­santos tou proestôtos,] and the whole peo­ple [Page 349] having expressed their approbation, those that are called among us Deacons [Diakonoi] distribute to every one of those that are present, that they may partake of the bread, and wine and water, for which thanks has been given; and to those that are not present, they carry. This ali­ment is called among us the EUCHARIST, which no one may lawfully partake of, but he that believes those things to be true, which have been taught by us, and has been washed in the laver that is for the remission of sins, and regeneration; and so lives as Christ has delivered."

APOL. ib. p. 97. "And upon Sunday, all those who live in cities and country-towns or villages belonging to them, meet together, * and the writings of the [Page 350] Apostles and Prophets are read, as the time will allow. And the Lector being silent, the PRESIDENT [o Proestôs] ad­monishes, and exhorts to an imitation of those things that are comely. We then all in common rise up, and pour out prayers. And, as we have related, prayers being ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the PRESIDENT [o Proestôs,] as above, gives thanks ac­cording to his ability; and the people [Page 351] signify their approbation, saying, amen. Distribution and communication is then made to every one that has joined in giv­ing thanks; and to those that are absent it is sent by the DEACONS. And those that are wealthy, and willing, contribute ac­cording to their pleasure. What is col­lected, is deposited in the hands of the the President [para tô Proestôti,] and he [Page 352] helps the orphans, and widows, those that are in want by reason of sickness, or any other cause; those that are in bonds, and that come strangers from abroad. He is [Page 353] the kind guardian of all that are in want. We ALL ASSEMBLE on Sunday, because God, dispelling the darkness, and inform­ing the first matter, created the world; and also because, upon that day, Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead. For the day before Saturday he was crucified, and the day after it, which is Sunday, he appeared to his Apostles and disciples, and taught them those things, which we have now related to you, and ye yourselves may see."—

OBSERVATIONS.

ONE can scarce read the foregoing passages, and not take notice of the un­adulterated manner in which gospel-ordi­nances are represented to have been [...] ministered in that day. Nothing is said of those ceremonies and superstitious ad­ditions, which, in after times, were brought in, and observed, to the dishonor of God, the disturbance of the church, and de­spoiling the ordinances themselves of their native purity and simplicity, in which they appeared with a glory infinitely superior to that, which men have vainly endea­vored, by mixtures of their own invention, to put upon them. These, in truth, have deformed, not adorned them.—But to come nearer to the point in hand.

[Page 354]IT will obviously be perceived, by a cursory reading only, that no evidence can be collected, from these testimonies, in favor of the FACT pleaded for by Epis­copalians. Not so much as the word, Bishop, is to be found in them.—Not a syllable is lisped, importing a threefold order of officers in the church, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons.—No insinua­tion is given, not so much as indirectly or implicitly, that Bishops were officers superior in their order to Presbyters.— In short, so far is ORDINATION, or CON­FIRMATION, from being appropriated to Bishops as their exclusive right, that not the least hint is suggested about the one, or the other. And this is the more worthy of notice, as a very particular ac­count is exhibited of the observation of the Lord's day, of the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, and of their being administered by the PRESI­DENTS OF THE BRETHREN. Surely, Justin would not have omitted to speak of so important a matter as the office and distinguishing powers of Bishops, if he had thought of them as some Episcopa­lians do at this day. He had as fair an opportunity to mention these things, as [Page 355] the other; yea, if Bishops, in his day, had been those essentially necessary offi­cers in the church, that they are made to be in this, he might with as much, nay, with much more, reason have brought them into view. He certainly did not know of such Bishops as are now con­tended for. Had there been any of this kind, in his day, it was altogether inex­cusable in him, while pleading the cause of Christians, to let it suffer, by saying nothing of that, which is now thought to en­ter into the very being of Christianity itself.

IT may be pertinently added to what has been said, that the PRAESES, PRAE­POSITUS, or, in English, PRESIDENT of the brethren, was nothing more than the Pastor of a SINGLE flock, or congregation. For he is described as "leading in the pray­ers of a whole church, preaching to them, administring the Lord's supper, and send­ing the consecrated elements to those who could not be present at the time of ad­ministration." And it is remarkable, not a word is said of his being placed over Presbyters as their ruler and Governor. Instead of this, he is called the PRESI­DENT OF THE BRETHREN. And Presi­dents and Deacons are the TWO ORDERS [Page 356] in the church he particularly specifies; meaning by Presidents, those officers that were, in this age, promiscuously called either Bishops, or Presbyters: or, at most he could intend nothing more than Prime-Presbyters, distinguishing them as such by the application of this name to them. Most certainly, he could not mean Bi­shops in the impleaded sense; for then there would be only Bishops and Deacons in the church: neither could he mean Presbyters in distinction from Bishops; for, in this view, there would be no Bi­shops. The plain truth is, Justin knew of but TWO INSTITUTED ORDERS of church-officers, the first of which he calls PRESIDENTS, meaning hereby those officers that were then called both Bi­shops and Presbyters; the other, DEA­CONS. And herein he agrees, not only with the apostolical writers, but with all his predecessors to the day in which he lived, who mention only TWO ORDERS of officers in the church; the first of which they promiscuously call either Bi­shops or Presbyters, sometimes the for­mer, and sometimes the latter.

[Page]

MELITO, TATIAN, ATHENA­GORAS, HERMIAS, THEO­PHILUS, APOLLINARIUS, DI­ONYSIUS of Corinth, PYNI­TUS, PHILIP, MODESTUS, MUSANUS, BARDESANES, The EPISTLE of the Churches of VIENNE and LYONS.

THE above named Fathers were all writers. I have, with Du-pin, placed them after Justin, and before Ire­naeus, and in the same order; which, perhaps, is as exact as any they could be put in. There was no real need of bring­ing these writers to view; as the works of most of them are lost, and those of the other have nothing that falls in with our present design: but it was thought best not to pass them over, without saying what might be proper to give the reader a just idea both of them, and of their writings.

[Page 358]MELITO. He was Bishop of Sardis, in Asia, and some suppose him to have been the "Angel of the church" there, to whom one of the epistles in the "apo­calypse" is directed; but without the least probability of truth. He flourished, ac­cording to Dr. Cave, about the year 170. Du-pin brings him down a few years lower. Eusebius introduces Polycrates speaking of him in that stile, "Melito the Eunuch." It is generally said, he is thus spoken of on account of his extra­ordinary chaste and self-denying life in celibacy, for religion's sake. But no good reason has yet been given, so far as I have seen, why the literal meaning of the word should be departed from. Jerom tells us, from one of Terrullian's works, "that he was esteemed a Prophet by many of the people," that is, a man inspired by the Holy Ghost. He also informs us, from the same writer, that his "genius was eloquent and oratorical." He himself, as Eusebius writes in a quotation from him, tells us, "that he had travelled into the east, and had compiled in order the books of the old testament, as they were then and there received:" upon which, he [...] "we have wrote six books of [Page 359] commentaries." The catalogue he has here exhibited contains the same books, with those we now acknowledge as ca­nonical; only Esther and Nehemiah are not inserted, for what reason I know not, unless they were not esteemed, in that day, as equal in authority with the other books. Dr. Lardner says, "This is the first catalogue of the books of the old testament, recorded by any Christian writer."

THIS Father is exceeded by few, if any, in his day, as to the number of books which he wrote. Eusebius has given us the following catalogue of them." * "Two books concerning easter." One concerning "the rule of right living, and of the Prophets." Another "of the church." Another "of the Lord's day." Also one book "concerning the nature of man." Another of "his formation." Another "of the obedience of the senses to faith." Moreover, a book "of the soul, and body, and mind." Another "of baptism." Another "of the truth, faith, and the generation of Jesus Christ." One [Page 360] also "concerning prophesy." Another "of hospitality." A book entitled, "of the key." Another, "of the devil." Another "of the revelation of John." Another "of the incorporeal God," or, as others translate the original words, "of God incarnate." * Finally, his "little book to Antoninus;" undoubted­ly meaning the "apology" he addressed to him, in behalf of the suffering Chris­tians. The date of this apology, in Eu­sebius's "chronicle," with which the "Alexandrian" agrees, is 170. But Til­lemont places it in 175; Basnage in 177, which latter date Dr. Lardner thinks comes nearest the truth.

How long this celebrated Father lived, and in what manner he died, cannot be said at this day. Thus much only we [Page 361] find, that Polycrates, in his "epistle to the church of Rome," speaks of him, as "buried in Sardis, waiting for a visita­tion from Heaven, when our Lord shall raise him from the dead." *

TATIAN. He was born in Assyria, where he was instructed in the theology of the Grecians. The time of his con­version to the Christian faith is uncertain; but it was effected, at least in part, by reading the sacred books, and by consider­ing the corruptions and absurdities of Paganism. Of these things, he has in­formed us himself in his "discourse against the Gentiles," the only one, among the many he wrote, that is still remaining. He is supposed to have published it be­fore he left the catholic opinions; Dr. Lardner thinks, between 165 and 173. He appears, from this performance, to have been a diligent student in prophane learning. It is indeed filled with it; though the matters he treats of are not [Page 362] methodised in the nicest manner. Eu­sebius calls this work "an elaborate one;" and says, "it is the most elegant and use­ful of all his writings." He was Justin's disciple, and lived in communion with the church during his life; but afterwards he embraced a variety of very absurd no­tions, and became the founder of a new sect, called "Encratites," or "Continents." He condemned the use of wine, and diverse sorts of flesh, denied the lawfulness of marriage, the salvation of Adam, and, what is much worse, the reality of Christ's sufferings: besides all which, he main­tained the doctrine of Valentinus's "in­visible aeons," and asserted, with Marcion, that there are "two Gods." Eusebius speaks * of his having "patched toge­ther, a kind of harmony and collection of the gospels, which he called "dia tessaron, of the four;" which, says he, "is still in the hands of some." Theo­doret, a writer in the fifth century, speak­ing of this same book, says, as I find him quoted by Dr. Lardner, he, mean­ing Tatian, ‘composed a gospel, which is called "dia tessaron, of the four," [Page 363] leaving out the genealogies, and every thing that shews the Lord to have been the seed of David according to the flesh; which has been used, not only by those of his sect, but also by them who followed the apostolical doctrine, not perceiving the fraud of the com­position, but simply using it as a com­pendious book. I have met with more then two hundred of these books, which were in esteem in our churches; all which I took away and laid aside in a parcel, and placed in their room the gospels of the four Evangelists.’ It was a report, in Eusebius's day, that this Tatian had the "assurance to alter the words of the Apostle [meaning without doubt the Apostle Paul,] pretending to mend the composition, or order of his stile." Dr. Mills seems to think, this "altering the words of the Apostle" was nothing more than some interlineary or marginal explanations; and that the "correcting the Apostle's stile" was on­ly disposing his words, in the margin, in a more natural order, without doing, or intending to do, any prejudice to the ori­ginal text. This is as candid an account as can be given of this matter; but it [Page 364] does not well agree with the character of Tatian, whose defection Eusebius * ascribes to his being "so puffed up with a pre­sumptuous self-estimation, as to imagine he surpassed all others." Besides, having mentioned Severus, and his followers, called Severiani, and said, "they revile the Apostle Paul, reject his epistles, deny the acts of the Apostles;" he adds, "their first author was Tatianus." How he died, is not known. Du-pin says, it was about the time that Irenaeus wrote his volume against heresies; which, perhaps, is not far distant from the exact truth. Nothing is to be met with in this writer relative to the subject we are upon: or if there was, its credit would be much wea­kened, as, instead of "holding fast the truth," he had "turned aside to fables."

ATHENAGORAS. Two pieces of his are extant, "an apology for the Christi­ans," and a "discourse on the resurrecti­on." In the former of these, he speaks of himself as an "Athenian," and a "Philosopher." And this is the most we certainly know of him, except what [Page 365] may be collected from his writings. Eu­sebius and Jerom say nothing of him, or of any work of his; nor is he mentioned by any of the ancients, until we have got down to Epiphanius, who has quoted a passage from him. There is indeed some account of him by Philip Sidetes (a writer in the fifth century) in a fragment of his "Christian history," published by Dodwel. But the learned in these matters do not give much credit to it. Says Dr. Lardner, "this history of Philip has no great character given it by Socrates, or Photius, who had read it."

THE "apology" is inscribed to "Mar­cus Aurelius Antoninus, and Lucius Au­relius Commodus." Critical writers differ in their judgments as to one of the per­sons, to whom this apology is addressed, and accordingly put a different date to it. Some think it was addressed to Marcus Antoninus, and his adopted brother and colleague in the empire, Lucius Verus, who died in 169, before which time this apology must have been wrote. Others think it was inscribed to Marcus Anto­ninus, and his son Commodus. Those of this latter opinion place it about the [Page 366] year 177 or 178. In this apology he wipes off the aspersions that had been ma­liciously thrown on Christians; affirm­ing, and describing, their holiness in all manner of conversation.—He asserts that the devils were ruined through love to women.—He admits free-will in its utmost latitude.—He commends virgi­nity, but condemns second marriages, calling them "honest adultery."—He treats of the resurrection, and the last judg­ment.

HIS discourse of the "resurrection" was probably wrote after the apology; and what strengthens the probability is, that, having towards the conclusion of the apology fallen upon the affair of the re­surrection, he postpones a more full dis­course upon it to some other time. He endeavors to prove, in this work, that a resurrection from the dead, far from being impossible, is extremely credible. His ar­guments are taken rather from reason than the scriptures.

THE genuineness of neither of these pieces are called in question, though the author of them had so little notice taken [Page 367] of him in primitive antiquity. Dr. Lard­ner says, "He is a polite writer, and wrote in attic Greek; but he has rendered his stile less agreeable by frequent parentheses."

HERMIAS. He is called "a Christian Philosopher," and wrote a piece, entitled, "Irrisio," an imperfect copy of which is still remaining. It contains a series of satyrical reflections on the wild opinions, and extravagant notions, of the philo­sophycal Gentiles. Neither this work, or its author, are mentioned by any of the primitive Fathers; nor can it be deter­mined when he wrote it. However, says Du-pin "It is not to be doubted but that he is ancient, and that he lived before the pagan religion was extirpated." He adds, "This little book was printed by itself, in Greek and Latin, at Basil, anno domi­ni, 1553."

THEOPHILUS. He was born of hea­then parents, and was himself an heathen in religion, until his conversion to Chris­tianity. When this was effected, or by what special means, we know not; but, having professed himself a Christian, he so adorned his character, in this view of [Page 368] it, as to be thought worthy of the Epis­copate at Antioch, in which he succeeded Eros, in the 8th of Marcus Antoninus, or 168th of our Lord.

HE did not confine himself to the work of preaching to the people of his particular charge, but endeavored by writ­ing also to serve the common cause of Christianity. He wrote, as the account is in Eusebius, * "three books to Auto­lycus, containing the elements of reli­gion;" another "against the heresy of Hermogenes;" another "against Mar­cion." There are also, says he, "other books of his concerning the rudiments of religion." Jerom, in his book of illustrious men, besides mentioning the above writ­ings, says, "I have read some commen­taries upon the gospel, and proverbs of Solomon, which go under his name; but they do not appear to me to answer the stile and elegance of the beforementioned writings." There are still extant, "short commentaries or allegories upon the four gospels, in four books," with the name of Theophilus to them. Some have thought they were his; but without good reason. [Page 369] It is generally conceded, that they are the work of a much later writer. If these were the "commentaries" Jerom saw, he observed their difference in stile and elogance from the other works of Theophilus; for which reason, it may be supposed, he was not the author of them; especially, as they were unknown to Eusebius. The only writings of Theo­philus still remaining, and accounted ge­nuine, are his "three books to Antoly­cus." They are supposed, by learned men, to have been wrote not long before his death, that is, in the beginning of the reign of Commodus, about 181.

THE first of these books may not im­properly be called a discourse between him and Autolycus, in answer to the de­sire of that heathen Philosopher, in which he treats of the nature of God, and what we call his attributes or perfections. The second book is wrote with a more im­mediate design to convince Autolycus of the falshood of heathenism, and the truth of Christianity. And here he mentions the opinions of the heathen concerning their gods, representing their absurdity, and pointing out the contradictions there were among their Philosophers and Poets [Page 370] upon this head. He enlarges upon the creation of the world; the history of Moses, which he shews to be the oldest and truest of any in the world, and that they had extracted many things from the holy scriptures. In the third book, after having proved the writings of the hea­then to be contrary to good sense, and good manners, he vindicates the Christians, by setting their character in a fair and amiable light. At the end of these books, he has added an historical chronology from the beginning of the world. Du-pin says, * ‘It is apparent from this little epitome, how well this author was acquainted with prophane history. These books are filled with a great variety of cu­rious disquisitions relative to the Poets and Philosophers; though there are but few things that relate immediately to the doctrines of the Christian re­ligion: not that he was ignorant of them, for it appears, from several pas­sages, that he was very skilful in these matters; but, as he composed these books chiefly to convince a pagan, he insists, in proof of our religion, rather upon arguments from without, than [Page 371] by expounding its doctrines.’ He adds, "The stile of these books is elegant, and the turn of thought agreeable. Whoever reads them, cannot doubt but that the author was a very elegant man."

APOLLINARIUS or APOLLINARIS.

HE is said to have been Bishop of Hie­rapolis, a city in Phrygia. He flourished in the reign of Marcus Antoninus, and wrote several books, the titles only of which remain at this day. Eusebius's ac­count of him is this." * "Though ma­ny volumes were wrote by Apollina­rius; yet these only came to our hands. "An oration to the beforenamed Em­peror" [Marcus Antoninus]. "Five books against the Gentiles." "Two books of the truth." "Two books against the Jews." And such books as he after­wards wrote against the "Phrygian he­resy." Jerom, in "catalogo," omits the books against the Jews. Neither are they found, says Du-pin, in the "version of Ruffinus, nor even in some Greek manu­scripts of Eusebius." Photius, having read his "books against the Gentiles," as also those "concerning piety and truth," [Page 372] which were extant in his day, says of him, * "that he was much to be esteem­ed both for his doctrine and stile."

DIONYSIUS of Corinth. He was Bishop of the church in this city, and flourished, according to Dr. Cave▪ about the year 170: herewith agrees Eusebius, who says, in his "cronicon," the 11th of Marcus Antoninus, which is 171 of Christ. The last mentioned author, speaking of him in his "ecclesiastical history," says, "he not only made the people of his own charge partakers of his divine labors, but the Christians in other countries also, by the "catholic epistles" which he wrote and sent to many churches." He then particularly mentions these epistles, and in the following order. The first, to the "Lacedemonians;" containing an insti­tution of the right faith, and an exhorta­tion to peace and unity. The second, to the "Athenians;" tending to excite their faith, and stir them up to a life of con­formity to the rule of the gospel. The third, to the "Nicomedians;" wherein he opposes the heresy of Marcion, com­paring it with the standard of faith. The fourth, to "the church of Gortyna, and [Page 373] all those of Crete;" in which he great­ly commends Philip their Bishop, for that the church, committed to his charge, was so beautified with virtue and generosity. The fifth, to the "church at Amastris, with the churches throughout Pontus;" in which he explains diverse passages of scripture, laying down several pre­cepts concerning marriage and virginity. The sixth, to the "Gnossians:" in which he adviseth Pinytus their Bishop, not to impose on the Christians the grievous burden of vowed chastity as a matter of necessity. The seventh, to the "Ro­mans," directed to Soter their Bishop; in which they are commended for their Christian love and charity. An "eighth epistle" is here mentioned as extant in that day, which was wrote, and sent, to "Chry­sophora, a most faithful sister." Of these epistles there are now no remains, except a few fragments in Eusebius. Jerom, in his book of illustrious men, after an enumeration of these epistles, says, the author of them was "a man of great eloquence, and industry; and flou­rished under Marcus Antoninus and Com­modus." When, and how, he died is uncertain. He has been numbered among [Page 374] the Martyrs; but without authority from the records of the more ancient Fathers.

Dr. GRABE has been able to gather only two small fragments, from all anti­quity, of the writings of this Dionysius; in one of which, speaking to the church of Rome, he calls "Soter their blessed Bishop." This I mention, not as though I thought it of any importance in the present dispute; but because I was not willing to omit noticing so much as the name, Bishop, in any writing, or frag­ment of a writing.

PINYTUS. We are informed by Dionysius of Corinth, * "that he was Bishop of the Gnossii at Crete, and that he wrote an answer to the epistle which he sent to this church." This answer, says Eusebius, "represents, as it were, a lively portraiture of Pinytus, his diligence in watching over the flock, which he had been entrusted with by God, his great knowledge in divinity, and his uncommon eloquence."

[Page 375]PHILLIPPUS. MODESTUS. These both, says Eusebius * "left monuments in writing to posterity of their aposto­lic tradition, and sound faith." They parti­cularly write against Marcion. Diony­sius of Corinth, in his epistle to the church at Gortyna, "commends Philip their Bishop on account of the evidence this church had given of their virtuous gene­rosity." Eusebius ranks Modestus with Irenaeus, "as having, of all others, had the chiefest hand in detecting and exposing the errors of Marcion."

MUSANUS. He is spoken of by Eu­sebius § as having wrote an excellent book, entitled, "unto the brethren lately fallen into the heresy of the Encratites," which had then lately sprung up, and molested the churches with a strange kind of false and pernicious doctrine; the author of which is said to have been Tatianus.

BARDESANES. He lived about the same time with the beforenamed Fathers, was a Mesopotamian by birth, a very eloquent man, and skilful in logic. He published, in the Syrian tongue, "dia­logues, [Page 376] together with other books against Marcion, and other grand heretics." These were translated by certain learned men (a great number of which were his disciples) into the Greek language. His "dialogue," in special, entitled, "of des­tiny,' was translated, and dedicated to Antoninus the Emperor. Eusebius says, * "it was of great force." He adds, "He wrote many other books, occasi­oned by the persecution raised in those times. He was tutored by Valentinus; but afterwards reprehending and condemn­ing his fabulous dreams, he became more sound in the faith; though he was not alto­gether clear of the filth of the former heresy."

The EPISTLE of the churches of VI­ENNE and LYONS. Nothing is to be met with in this epistle, upon the subject of these papers, unless it be that Pothi­nus is spoken of as "Bishop of Lyons;" for which reason I should have passed it over in silence, but that it is so valuable a piece of antiquity. It contains a nar­rative of the grievous sufferings, and cruel deaths, of a great number of Christians, particularly in the cities of [Page 377] Vienne and Lyons. The facts are here related, not in a romantic strain, but with such simplicity of language as to render them at once credible, and greatly affecting. Dr. Lardner says of this epis­tle, "It is the finest thing of the kind in all antiquity." It is wrote in the spirit, and after the manner, of the apostolic age. The time of the persecution, which occasioned this letter, is disput­ed. But Eusebius * has with great pre­cision placed it in the seventeenth year of Marcus Antoninus, the 177th of our Lord. And in this date the most learn­ed do acquiesce.

IT appears from this epistle, a very great part of which is preserved in Eu­sebius's "ecclesiastical history," that vast numbers of Christians were called, in this persecution, to suffer the loss of all, yea, even their very lives, and in the most formidable shapes, for the sake of their religion. It is astonishing, that any of the human race should so far put off hu­manity, as to be able to inflict those torments which the poor Martyrs now endured;—banished from their houses-forbid [Page 378] to shew so much as their heads— vilified, mocked, and insulted—beaten with stripes—hurried from place to place—plundered, stoned, imprisoned, there treated with outrage and fury, and then carried forth to execution in all the cruciating ways that malice could invent: nor was this all: for, as the words are in this epistle, ‘After the bodies of the blessed saints had been, in every way, spitefully and scornfully treated, and suffered to be six days unburied, they were burned to ashes; and the ashes they gathered, and scattered in the river Rhodanus, so that not a jot of them should any longer remain on the earth. This they did, that they might over­come God, and hinder the reviving of the saints; lest, as they said, there should be any further hope of the resurrection, whereof (say they) the Christians being fully persuaded, bring among us a new and strange religion; contemning pu­nishment, and hastening themselves cheerfully to death. Now, say they, let us see, whether they can arise, and whether their God can deliver them out of our hands.’

[Page]

IRENAEUS.
His character, writings, testimonies from them, and remarks.

THE persons from whom Irenaeus descended are now unknown; and so is the particular place where he was born. He might probably be a Greek, and of the country of Asia. It is the con­jecture of some, that he was a native of Smyrna, or of some not far distant town, from his early acquaintance with the ve­nerable Polycarp. He was certainly, in his younger years, an attendant on the in­structions of this apostolical Father, whose doctrine was so deeply impressed on his mind, that he firmly retained, even to old age, the remembrance of it. Thus much he has told us himself, in his [Page 380] epistle to Florinus, quoted by Eusebius. * Says he, ‘I well remember the place where Polycarp set when he taught; his going out, and coming in; his man­ner and course of life; the figure and proportion of his body; the sermons which he preached to the multitude; the relations he gave of his converse with the Apostle John, and others who saw the Lord: how he remembered their sayings, and what he heard from their mouths, touching the Lord, of his power and doctrine; reciting precepts, and all things consonant to holy scrip­ture, out of their mouths (I say) who had seen with their eyes the word of life in the flesh. These things, at that time, I diligently marked, and painted, not in paper, but in my heart; which continually, through the grace of God, I ponder and meditate.’ —This mani­fests his antiquity; which further appears from that frequent mode of diction, in his book against heresies, "as I heard from a certain Presbyter, who heard from those who saw the Apostles." Eusebius takes particular notice of this. Says he, "Irenaeus has mentioned the sayings of [Page 381] a certain apostolical Presbyter without telling his name, and puts down his ex­positions of the scriptures." Who this Pres­byter was cannot be ascertained. It might be Papias, whom he had seen, and heard, and has sometimes pointed out by name. It might be Pothinus, his predecessor, or some other ancient Father. He may from hence be justly stiled a man, if not of apostolical times, yet near to them; as having conversed with those who had seen the Apostles, and were successors to them. When he took upon him the profession of Christianity is not known; though it is probable, he way indoctrinated in its principles from his earliest days, and not made a convert to them from the ido­latries and superstitions of Paganism.

THE time of his going to France can­not exactly be fixed; nor is the special oc­casion that led them there now known. But he soon became famous in that part of the world, and did much service for the interest of Christ, particularly in the church at Lyons. Pothinus, the Bishop, or Praeses of this church, in the persecu­tion under Antoninus Verus, which now greatly raged in France, was brought [Page 382] before the civil tribunal for his adherence to the cause of Christ, and, after a most barbarous beating, was thrown into pri­son almost breathless, and in about two days died there in the 90th year of his age. Irenaeus was thought the most pro­per person to succeed the aged Martyr, and was accordingly chosen by the church of Lyons their Bishop in his room, or, in other words, their Prime-Presbyter.

THE state of their religious affairs was now unhappily difficult, not only on ac­count of that heavy persecution which was scarcely blown over, but also through the busy endeavors of some cunning deceivers to corrupt the pure doctrine of Christ embraced among them. The Valentinian heretics had by this time spread themselves as far as France, and bewitched, among others, a number of eminent women, with their wild and extravagant opinions. One Marcus was particularly a deceiver and abuser of the weaker sex. Upon this occasion, Irenaeus, as became a pious faithful Minister of Christ, diligently labored to put a stop to the further spread­ing of this contagion, and to recover those who had been infected. And having, [Page 383] under the favor of Heaven, secured his own charge, he was greatly serviceable to other churches, as occasions therefor were offered in Providence. The church at Rome, being in danger of being led aside by two of her Presbyters, Florinus and Blastus, he wrote to both these perverters of the truth, with great propriety and strength; as we have the account from Eusebius. *

THE Asian churches likewise were much troubled with the prophecies and delusians of Montanus, Alcibiades, and Theodotus: upon which the Gallican churches, either of their own accord, from christian love and sympathy, or at the request of their Asian brethren, sent Irenaeus to them with their letters, that he might comfort them under their trial, confirm them in the truth, and assist them in the confutation of these heretics, who had rose up among them.

IN his time also, the controversy about the circumstances of keeping easter was unhappily revived by Victor, Bishop of [Page 384] Rome, a furious hot headed bigot, and increased to an heighth that was like to bring confusion to the churches. Ire­naeus, not unaffected with the unchris­tian heats and animosities that were now too prevalent, thought it his duty to en­deavour to promote love and peace be­tween the contending parties, notwith­standing their difference in sentiment upon this point. He accordingly wrote, in the name of the brethren in France, with great pertinence, to Victor of Rome. A large fragment of this letter Eusebius has preserved, * in which Ire­naeus says, ‘Though he himself solemni­sed the feast of easter on the Lord's day, according to his [Victor's] manner, yet he could not approve of the bitter zeal he discovered against others for the observation of a custom after the man­ner they had received from their an­cestors.’ He tells him, ‘that differ­ent customs had been used in churches, not only in the celebration of the feast of easter, but also of fasts, and in diverse other matters of practice.’ And, in fine, he reminds him, ‘That his predecessors did not contend with the [Page 385] Asiatics in this matter; and that Po­lycarp, being at Rome, and having conferred with Anicetus, upon this affair, they determined that mutual communion ought not to be broken for a matter of so small importance; and that they communicated with each other.’ He wrote, as Eusebius assures us, many reconciling letters to other Bishops, upon this same head. And, it is probable, they were followed with some good effect. For though the Asia­tics did not lay aside their custom, it does not appear that the union betwixt them and the Romanists was broken; but a more calm and tranquil state of things took place. Thus this good man, in agreement with the purport of his name, discovered himself to be of a peace­able, and peace-making temper. And he has, from that time to this, been cha­racterised as one happily disposed to pro­mote candor, love, and peace among brethren; though he could clothe himself with zeal, and appear strenuous and re­solute, when the purity of gospel truth was in danger of being corrupted by the cunning arts of those, who lay in wait to deceive.

[Page 386]HE flourished * under Antoninus Verus, the whole of Commodus, and part of the reign of Severus; all along approving himself a faithful laborious servant of God, and one that was emi­nently useful to the church of Christ, not only by his public preaching and private conversation, but by the writings he left as monuments to posterity of his concern for the doctrines of Christianity, that they might be preserved pure, in oppo­sition to the base mixtures with which they had been polluted by evil men, in his day. His name is mentioned with great honor in the ancient writings. The Martyrs of Lyons, in their letter to Eleutheriu [...], Bishop of Rome, speak of him as worthy of notice "not so much for his being a Presbyter, as for his piety and zeal for the gospel of Jesus Christ." Tertullian calls him "omnium doctrinarum curi­osissimum exploratorem," that is, "a most curious searcher into all doctrines." Theodoret says, he was "an apostolical man, admirable, and the light of the western church." Epiphanius also is high in his encomium of him. His words are, "Old Irenaeus, every way [Page 387] adorned by the holy Ghost, brought into the field by the Lord as a valiant and ex­pert soldier, and champion, and anointed with heavenly gifts and graces, according to the true faith and knowledge, contend­ed against all the arguments of sottish heretics, and most exactly confuted them."

HIS WRITINGS.

HE was the author of diverse books, upon various subjects and occasions. But (one only excepted, of which we shall presently take notice) they are so far lost, through the injury of time, and neglect of succeeding ages, that there are no other remains of them, than such fragments as may be met with in ancient writers, who had seen them, and thought fit to make quotations from them. They are these following ones.

(1.) A book entitled, "concerning knowledge." It is a "concise work," says Eusebius, but extremely necessary."

(2.) A declaration of the "apostolic preaching," to a certain brother, named Marcianus.

[Page 388](3.) A book of "various tracts, or disquisitions."

(4.) An epistle to Blastus "concerning schism."

(5.) An epistle to Florinus "concern­ing Monarchy," or that "God is not the author of evil;" in which he addresses to him in words we shall have occasion by and by to consider.

(6.) A book entitled, "ogdoas," because it was wrote, says Du-pin, against the "Oc­tonary of the "aeons of the Valentinians." It was dedicated to Florinus, who, in ad­dition to his former error of making God "the author of evil," now embraced those of Valentinus. Jerom calls it, "com­mentarium egregium," that is, "an excel­lent commentary." In the close of it, we have a most solemn obtestation, which both Eusebius and Jerom thought worthy of special notice. It is in these words, * "I adjure thee, whosoever thou art that copiest this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious coming, when he shall judge the quick and the dead, [Page 389] that thou compare what thou hast writ­ten, and correct it carefully by the ex­emplar from whence it is transcribed: and also that thou writest out this adju­ration, and insert it in the copy so taken." Dr. Cave very justly remarks upon this, in the following words, "Well had it been with the ancient writers of the church, had their books been treated with this care and reverence: more of them had been conveyed down to us; at least, those few that are, had arrived more sound and unpolluted."

(7) Diverse "epistles to Victor," and many other "Pastors of churches", about the controversy relative to the keeping easter.

VOLATERAN speaks of an "ecclesiasti­cal history" which he composed, and that Eusebius had borrowed from it. And Sixtus Senensis says, he wrote "a com­mentary upon the apocalypse." But these two last are scarce worth mention­ing; as neither Eusebius, in his history; nor Jerom, in his "catalogues;" nor Honorius Augustudonensis, in his "lu­minaries of the church"; nor Trithemius, [Page 390] in his book of "writers," make any mention of them.

THE only work of Irenaeus, that has been handed down to us, is his volume, containing "five books" against the he­resies of the Gnostics and Valentineans, entitled, "a refutation and subversion of science falsely so called." This too, it should seem, was almost lost, at least to the wes­tern churches. For Erasmus, who pub­lished it in 1516, says * "He might well call it HIS, having brought it to light, after it had been covered with dust, and was mouldy and moth-eaten."

IT has been a question, whether he wrote these books in Greek or Latin. Erasmus was inclined rather to think, they they were originally wrote in Latin. But most learned men are of another opinion. According to Baronius, "all consent in this, that he wrote in Greek." Says Cor­natius, "the latin copy of Irenaeus is a most faulty traslation, and may better be restored out of Ephiphanius; [that is, so far as he made quotations from Irenaeus] than afford any help in translating of [Page 391] Epiphanius: so that it is strange, Eras­mus, who was of a piercing judgment in matters of this nature, should think Ire­naeus wrote in latin." To the like pur­pose speaks the great Scaliger,* "I admire, says he, that, from such a feverish La­tin interpreter, as he is whom we now have, Erasmus should imagine, that it is the true Irenaeus, and that he imitates the Greeks. That latin interpreter was weak, and either omitted, or depraved, many things which he understood not. The fragments that are extant in Epi­phanius, as also in Eusebius, do suffici­ently prove, both that the man was a Gre­cian, and that he wrote in Greek: nor is it to be doubted of."—Du-pin, Dr. Cave, Dr. Lardner, and in short, the whole body of modern writers speak of it, as beyond all doubt that Irenaeus wrote in Greek; and their unanimous opinion also is, that the copy we now have is a rude, barbarous, faulty, and ill-favored transla­tion. It is not therefore easy to say, what his distinguishing stile and manner was in these books. Probably it was, as Dr. Cave says, "simple, unaffected, vulgar, and ordinary, embossed, it is like, and [Page 392] he confesses as much, with the natural language of the country where he lived▪ nor had he studied the art of rhetoric, the ornaments of speech, or had any skill in the elaborate methods and artifices of persuasion, as he modesty apologies for himself." *

THE contents of this volume are briefly and summarily contained in the following abstract.

IN the first book, having largely de­scribed the heretical tenets of the Valen­tinians, he opposes to them the faith of all the churches in the world, which he comprehends, in a creed, truly catholic and excellent. He then goes on to [Page 393] shew, that all christians agree in this faith; and that the most learned can add no­thing to it, or make any changes in it, nor the most simple and ignorant dimin­ish any part of it. He then largely ex­plains the absurd notions of Valentinus and his disciples; and, returning to the original of the heretics, and beginning with Simon Magus, he gives an account successively of all the heresies that ap­peared since the time of that sorcerer, to the time wherein he wrote. This first book is extremely dry, tedious, and ob­scure; presenting us with scarce any thing but the wild conceits, and extra­vagantly absurd notions of the primitive heretics. In the second book, he makes use of the principles of these heretics to oppose their errors; shewing that they contradict [Page 394] themselves, and that their notions were idle, ridiculous whimsies. In the third book, he confutes them by the authority of the sacred writings, and tradition from those who had seen and conversed with the Apostles. In the fourth book, he con­tinues to prove, that there is but one God; particularly, he shews against Marcion, that the same God is exhibited in the old and new testament. He answers the objections of the heretics, especially those they fetch from scripture. He then gives the reasons why a spiritual man, that is to say, a Christian condemns Pagans, Jews, heretics and scismatics; and, finally, rejects the opinion of those who affirmed, that men were naturally good or evil, and proves the liberty of mankind. In the last book, he treats of the fall of man, of the redemption by Jesus Christ, of the resurrection of the dead, of the last judgment, of anti-christ, and of the state of souls after death.— These, in general, are the subjects en­larged on in these books.

POSSIBLY, there may have been an excess in the commendations of this Fa­ther, on account of this work of his. Dr. [Page 395] Cave says, there are evidently to be seen here the marks of "natural acumen and subtilty of parts," as well as "mastery of philosophy and human literature.* Han­mer represents him to have had "a clear head," and to have made use of "weigh­ty arguments;" which, being "sharpen­ed with holy zeal," are fitted "to pierce deeply into the very hearts of the enemies of the truth, to their shameful prostration, and utter overthrow." Du-pin speaks of him as a "profound scholar in all sorts of knowledge, sacred and prophane"; especially, as having an "exquisite know­ledge of the holy scriptures." It is readily acknowledged, as Erasmus and the centuriators observe, that he had read the books of the ancient philosophers, Thales, Aniximander, Anaxagoras, De­mocritus, Empedocles, Plato, Aristotle, &c. as also of the poets, tragic, comic, and lyric: for he endeavors to make it evident, that the heresies which he opposes were taken from these prophane authors, the names only being changed. It is un­doubtedly true likewise, that he had been much conversant with the sacred writings. [Page 396] But it may be justly questioned, whether his judgment was equal to his reading. The learned Photius says of him, * "That he had in some of his books, "sophisti­cated the truth of ecclesiastical doctrines by spurious reasonings." This is a real fact, and known to be so, by all who are ac­quainted with his writings. His manner of arguing is sometimes weak, not to say trifling. I am sure, it would be thought to be so in any one, who, at this day, should reason as he has done. However, he appears, after all, to have been a pious, learned, valuable man, whose memory ought to be-blessed for his laborious services in the cause of truth. Many things are to be met with in his writings well worth our special notice; though he sometimes makes it appear, that he had his fail­ings and imperfections. Candor itself will not pretend, that he has not, in some instances, deviated from that unerring rule, the word of truth. He, with other writers, both before and after him, have built some hay and stubble upon the foundation they held, which will not en­dure the trial of the fire.

[Page 397]THE learned are not agreed as to the exact time, when Irenaeus wrote his "five books against heresies." Dodwel sup­poses it to have been in 176 or 177. Mas­suet in 172. Tillemont, later still, towards the end of the pontificate of Eleutherius. Dr. Lardner says, "As to the time of his writing these "five books," it is the opi­nion of diverse learned men, that they were not wrote, and published all toge­ther, but rather at some distance of time." And, though he does not attempt to settle precisely the year, in which this work was compleated, he places Irenaeus in the year 178; though he is inclined to think, his "books against heresies" were not published quite so soon.

"HIS death, says Du-pin, was no less glorious than his life. For, after having governed the flock, which Jesus Christ had committed to his charge for 24 years, he fell a Martyr at Lyons, in the perse­cution of the Emperor Severus, which was more cruel in France than in any other part of the world, anno Christi 202, or 203." He has often been spoken of as a Martyr by other learned men. But, from the silence of Tertullian, Eusebius, [Page 398] and other ancient Fathers concerning this matter, it is very justly argued by Dr. Cave, Basnage, Dr. Lardner, and others, that there is no good reason to say he died a Martyr. The most critical in­quirers into matters of this nature place his death, some in 190, and others in 191, or 192. Baronius * extends the time to the 11th of Severus, or 205th of Christ.

TESTIMONIES from IRENAEUS.

LIB. I. cap. 3. Having declared that faith, he had before described, was that which was universally taught, and re­ceived with one heart and mind, he adds the following words, "And of those who preside in the churches [ex iis qui praesunt ecclesiis] he that would prevail, or excell, in his discourse, will not say otherwise."

LIB. iii. Cap. 2.—Speaking of Mar­cion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, and other heretics, he says, "When we chal­lenge them to that apostolic tradition, which is preserved in the churches through the successions of the Presbyters; they [Page 399] oppose the tradition, pretending, that, being more wise than not only the Presbyters, but the Apostles also, they have found out the truth."—

LIB. ib. cap. 3. "Therefore the apos­tolic tradition, made manifest all over the world, is present in every church, for all that would see the truth: and we can enumerate those, who were constituted * Bishops by the Apostles in the chur­ches, and their successors even to us, who taught no such thing, nor had any know­ledge of what these men have run distract­ed about. For if the Apostles had known any hidden mysteries, which they taught those that were perfect privately, and apart from the rest, they would more e­specially have delivered them to those to whom they committed the churches them­selves; for they would, that they should be perfect and unblamable in all things whom they left their successors, deliver­ing to them their own place of mastership, [Page 400] or (as others translate the word) of being teachers. But because it would be tedious, in such a volume as this, to enu­merate [omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones] the successions in all the churches, shewing to you the tradition, and declared faith, of the greatest, and most ancient, and noted church, founded at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, which she received from the Apostles, and is come to us through the successions of the Bishops, [per successi­ones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos] we confound all who conclude otherwise than they ought, by what means soever they do so; whether it be from a wicked endeavour to please themselves, or from vain-glory, or blindness, or an unsound opinion. To this church, * because of its more potent principality, it is necessary all other churches should agree; that is, the faithful everywhere; in which agreement, that tradition which is from the Apostles is preserved always by those who are scattered everywhere. The Apostles therefore, founding and instructing that church, delivered to Li­nus [Page 401] * the oversight of administring in it. Paul makes mention of this Linus in his epistles to Timothy. Anacletus succeed­ed him. And after him, in the third place, Clemens obtained the episcopate from the Apostles; who both saw the Apostles, and conferred with them.— To this Clement succeeded Euaristus; and to Euaristus, Alexander; and Sixtus, the sixth from the Apostles, was consti­tuted; and after him Telesphorus, who was also a glorious Martyr; and then Hy­ginus; after him, Pius; after whom, Anicletus; then Eleutherius had the epis­copate, in the twelfth place from the Apostles. By this ordination and suc­cession, that tradition in the church, and publication of the truth, which is from the Apostles, hath come even to us. And this is a full demonstration, that it is the one, and the same life-giving faith, that, from the Apostles, untill now, hath been delivered, and preserved in the church in Corinth. Polycarp also, who was not [Page 402] only instructed by the Apostles, and con­versant with many of those who saw our Lord, but likewise by the Apostles * constituted Bishop in Asia, in the church of Smyrna, whom also we saw in the first of our age.—These things he taught, having learned them from the Apostles; which he also delivered to the church, and they only are true. All the churches in Asia testifie to these things, and they who succeeded Polycarp even to this day."—

LIB. ib. cap. 14. For he [Paul] appli­ed himself to the Bishops and Presbyters convened at Miletus, who were of Ephe­sus, and the other neighbouring cities, because he was going in haste to Jerusa­lem to keep Pentecost, testifying many things to them, and telling them what would happen at Jerusalem.

LIB. iv. cap. 43.—Wherefore we ought to obey those Presbyters in the church, [Page 403] who have succession, as we have shewn, from the Apostles; who, with the suc­cession of the Episcopate, received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. As for the rest who depart from the principal suc­cession, they are to be suspected as he­retics, in what place soever they are collect­ed.—

LIB. ib. cap. 44.—And truly they * who are thought by many to be Presbyters, serve their own pleasures, and not having the fear of God in their hearts, reproach the other [Presbyters,] and are lifted up with pride of the principal session, and do wickedness in secret.—We ought there­fore to withdraw from all such, and adhere, as we have said, to those who keep [Page 404] the Apostles doctrine, and together with the order of Presbyters, * do shew forth sound speech and an inoffensive conversa­tion.—Such Presbyters [tales Presbyteros] the church nourishes—concerning whom the Prophet says, "I will give you Princes in peace, and Bishops in righteousness."

LIB. ib. cap. 45. Where therefore one shall find such, Paul teaching says, "God hath put in the church first Apostles, se­condly Prophets, thirdly Teachers. Where therefore the gifts of God are put, there we ought to learn the truth, with whom is that succession of the church which is from the Apostles."—A little further we can have the following words, "As I heard from a certain Presbyter, [a quodam Presbytero] who heard from those who saw the Apostles, and who learned from these."—

LIB. ib. cap. 47. The Presbyters [Presbyteri] demonstrated that they were extreme foolish, who, from what hap­pened [Page 405] to those who were disobedient to God, attempted to introduce another Father."

LIB. ib. cap. 49. "As a certain Pres­byter said, [sicut et Presbyter dicebat) they who throw it in our teeth, that the peo­ple, going forth by the command of God, took vessels, and vestments, of all sorts from the Egyptians."—

Lib. ib. cap. 52. Mention is transient­ly made of "a senior disciple of the Apos­tles" [senior Apostolorum discipulus.] And in the same chapter the "Presbyters of the church" are spoken of as "those with whom is the apostolic doctrine;" "apud eos qui in ecclesia sunt Presbyteri, apud quos est apostolica doctrina."

LIB. ib. cap. 63. "True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient state of the church all over the world, and the character of the body of Christ, according to the successions * of Bishops, to whom they delivered the church in every place; which doctrine hath reached [Page 406] us, preserved in its most full delivery, without any fiction of scriptures, or ad­ing to, or taking from them."—

LIB. v. cap. 5.—"And God planted paradise in Eden eastward, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And from thence, being disobedient, he was cast out into this world. * Wherefore the Presbyters, who are the disciples of the Apostles, say, that those who are transla­ted, are translated from thence".

LIB. ib. cap. 20. For all those are far later than the Bishops, to whom the Apos­tles delivered the churches; and this we have carefully made manifest in the third book.—They therefore who have the truth published by the church, charge the holy Presbyters with unskilfulness, not considering how far a weak religious per­son is from being a blasphemer, and impudent sophister".

LIB. ib. cap. 36.—"The Presby­ters, the disciples of the Apostles say, [Page 407] [dicunt Presbyteri, apostolorum discipuli] this is according to the order and dispo­sition of those who are saved"—.

THESE are all the passages, I have been able to find in Irenaeus's five books against heresies, that relate to the subject we are upon. But two very considerable FRAG­MENTS of his other "writings" have been preserved by Eusebius, which I may not omit, upon this occasion, to bring to view.

THE first is a quotation from an "epis­tle of his to Florinus," in which he says, * "This doctrine, O Florinus, that I may boldly speak the truth, is not sound: this doctrine disagreeth with the church, and bringeth such as listen to it into ex­treme impiety: this doctrine, not even the heretics which are out of the church, ever dared to publish: this doctrine, such as were Presbyters before us [oi pro êmôn Presbuteroi,] and disciples of the Apostles, ne­ver delivered unto thee." And having men­tioned Polycarp, and said some things of him, he goes on, "I am able to testify before God, that if that holy and apostical [Page 408] Presbyter [apostolicos Presbuteros] had heard any such thing, he would at once have reclaimed, and stopped his ears, and after his manner pronounced, "Good God! into what times hast thou reserved me! Yea, he would instantly have shunned the place where he had heard such speeches."

THE second, which is eminently per­tinent to the point in debate, is contain­ed in his "epistle to Victor" of Rome, which was extant in the days of Euse­bius, though it has long since been lost. The words are these, * "And the Pres­byters [oi Presbuteroi] before Soter, who were over the church which thou governest [oi prostantes tês ecclesias ês nun aphêgê] I mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Huginus, with Telesphorus and Sixtus; they did by no means observe it [he is speaking of the day of keeping easter;] neither did they allow those who were with them to observe it.—And those Presbyters that were before you [oi pro sou Presbuteroi,] though they did not observe it themselves, yet they sent the eucharist to those of other churches who did observe it. And when blessed Polycarp, in the days of Anicetus, came to Rome, and there was a small controversy between them upon [Page 409] other things, they soon saluted each other with a kiss, and there was no great con­tention between them upon this head. Anicetus was unable to persuade Poly­carp not to retain that which he had always observed with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the Apostles, with whom he had been conversant: nei­ther did Polycarp much persuade Anicetus to observe it, since he told him that he ought to retain the custom of the Presby­ters to whom he succeeded [tôn pro auton Presbuterôn.]

OBSERVATIONS and REMARKS upon the testimonies from IRENAEUS.

NOTHING is more obviously evident, so far as we regard the above passages, than that Irenaeus cannot be called in as a WITNESS, either to the CLAIM or EX­ERCISE of those powers, which Episco­palians pretend are essential to the office of Bishops. For he no where says, that it is the RIGHT of Bishops, in distinction from Presbyters, to CONFER HOLY ORDERS; or that they were the persons, who did in FACT confer them, either in the age in which he lived, or any other: neither does [Page 410] he affirm, directly or indirectly, that it was any part of the work of Bishops, much less their appropriate discriminate work, to GOVERN PRESBYTERS, or that they ever did so. And, instead of declaring, that Bishops are officers in the church DISTINCT from, and SUPERIOR to, Pres­byters, he speaks of them, as clearly and fully as he could have done, in language necessarily leading us to look upon them as sustaining the SAME OFFICE only in the church. No writer, since the apos­tolic times, has more exactly, or frequent­ly, copied after the inspired penmen, in the promiscuous use of the words Bishops and Presbyters. He uses these words indifferently, and frequently, to point out the same officers in the church. And unless when he uses the word, Bishops, he means the same church officers, as when he uses the word, Presbyters, there is nei­ther coherence, consistency, or the least force of argument, in most of the passa­ges, in which these words are mention­ed. As this is an important point in the present debate, I shall enlarge in its illustration, and take occasion for it by answering what is pleaded, from Irenaeus, in favor of Episcopacy.

[Page 411]THE grand plea is, that he is pirticular in giving us the line of succession; that he does it in single persons; and that these persons are frequently and expressly called Bishops: evidently importing a distinction of place, order, or office, be­tween them and Presbyters.

THE answer is easy, and, as I imagine, strongly conclusive. It is allowed, reck­oning the succession by single persons in­timates some difference betwixt the nam­ed persons, and others of the same church, as the ground, or reason, of their being singled out.But what conceivable need is there, unless to serve a turn, to suppose, that the difference must be so great as to import an imparity of or­der, or office? Are there no instan­ces, in which it is certain, particular persons have been distinguished from their brethren of the same order, to answer the like end? Bishop Stillingfleet has told us of some admirably well adapted to the purpose. Says he, * ‘At Athens, after they grew weary of their ten years Archontes, the people chose nine every [Page 412] year to govern the affairs of the com­mon-wealth. These nine enjoyed a parity of power among themselves, and therefore had a place where they consulted together about the matters of state, which was called Statêgion, as Demosthenes, Plutarch, and others tell us: now although they enjoyed this equality of power, yet one of them had greater dignity than the rest, and therefore was called Archôn by way of excellency, and his name only was set in the public records of that year, and therefore was called Archôn epônu­mos; and the year was reckoned from him, as Pausanias and Julius Pollux inform us. Here we see now the suc­cession clear in one single person, and yet no superiority of power in him over his colleagues. The like may be ob­served of the Ephori and bidiaei at Sparta. The number of the ephori was always five from their first institution by Ly­curgus, and not nine, as the Greek etymologist imagines. These likewise enjoyed a parity of power; but among these, to give name to the year, they made choice of one who was called Epônumos here too, as the Archôn at [Page 413] Athens; and him they called Prestôta tôn ephorôn, as Plutarch tells: where we have the very name Proestôs attributed to him that had only this primacy of order, without any superiority of power, which is used by Justin Martyr of the President of assemblies among Christians. Now from hence we may evidently see, that meer succession of some single persons named above the rest, in the successions of apostolical churches, cannot enforce any superio­rity of power in the persons so named, above others supposed to be joint go­vernors of the churches with them.’ There was, we see, among the Archon­tes at Athens, and the Ephori at Sparta, a senior in office, a chair-man, or presi­dent; and he was, for this reason, singled out, from his brethren of the same office-power, to give denomination to the year. The like may be said in the case before us. Among the Presbyters in each church, who all sustained the same office, and were vested with the same essential pow­ers, there might be a praeses, Modera­tor, or prime-Presbyter; * and he might, [Page 414] on this account, be selected to have his name mentioned in the succession: or his name might be inserted, merely as being the senior-Presbyter, or because he was best known, and most celebrated for his learning, piety, and strict attachment to the apostolic doctrine. This difference of character, without the supposition of any difference in point of office, or pow­er, will fully account for a succession as reckoned in a line of single persons; and it is sufficient, could nothing else be said, to render their arguing invalid, who, merely from hence, would conclude, that these particularly distinguished and named persons were of a superior, and distinct order, in the churches, from the Presby­ters belonging to them.

BUT, to give strength to this argu­ment, it is further said, single persons are [Page 415] not only named in the succession, but they are frequently and expressly called Bishops. Very true; but then it is as true, that Irenaeas has taken all proper care, as though he had it in design, to guard against any ones mistaking his "succession of Bishops," for the suc­cession of a "superior order" in the church to that of Presbyters. This is particularly worthy of notice. I shall accordingly endeavor to set it in the clear­est and strongest point of light. And I know of no way in which I can better do this, than by placing a few of the forego­ing passages, upon the head of succession, in two opposite columns. It will then appear, at first sight, to every intelligent unprejudiced reader, that Irenaeus means, and, unless he is made to speak nonsense, must mean by the "succession of Bishops," one and the same thing with the "suc­cession of Presbyters," and vice-versa.

Lib. iii. cap. 3.

THE apostolic tra­dition is present in every church. We can enumerate those who were constituted BI­SHOPS [Page 416] by the Apos­tles in the churches, and their SUCCES­SORS even to us, who taught no such thing.—By shewing the tradition and de­clared faith of the greatest and most an­cient church of Rome which she received from the Apostles, and is come to us through the SUC­CESSIONS OF THE BISHOPS, we con­found.—

Lib. iv. cap. 53.

TRUE knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles according to the SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS, to whom they delivered the church in every place, which doctrine hath reached us preserved in its most full de­livery.—

[Page 417]Lib. v. cap. 20.

THESE are far la­ter than the BISHOPS TO WHOM THE APOS­TLES DELIVERED THE CHURCHES: and this we have carefully made ma­nifest in the third book.

Lib. iii. cap. 3.

—The Apostles, founding and in­structing that church [the church of Rome] delivered to Linus, the EPISCOPATE— [Page 418] Anacletus SUCCEED­ED him. After him, Clemens obtained the EPISCOPATE from the Apostles— To Clement SUCCED­ED Euaristus; to him, Alexander; then Sixtus; and after him Telespho­rus; then Hugy­nus; after him Pius; then Anicetus: and when Soter had suc­ceeded Anicetus, then Eleutherius had the EPISCOPATE in the twelfth place.By this SUCCESSION, that tradition in the church, and publi­cation of the truth, which is from the Apostles, is come to us.

Lib. iii. cap. 2.

WHEN we chal­lenge them [the he­retics] to that apo­stolical tradition, which is preserved [Page 416] in the churches through the SUC­CESSION OF THE PRESBYTERS, they oppose the tradition, pretending that they are wiser than not only the PRESBY­TERS, but the Apos­tles also.

Lib. iv. cap. 43.

OBEY THOSE PRES­BYTERS in the church, who have SUCCESSION, as we have shewn, from the Apostles; who, with the SUCCESSION OF THE EPISCOPATE, received the gift of truth, according to [Page 417] the good pleasure of the Father.—

Lib. iv. cap. 44.

—WE ought therefore to adhere to THOSE PRES­BYTERS WHO KEEP THE APOSTLES DOC­TRINE, and, toge­ther with the ORDER OF THE PRESBYTE­RATE, do shew forth sound speech.—Such PRESBYTERS the church nourishes; and of such the Pro­phet says, "I will give them PRINCES in peace, and BISHOPS in righteousness.

Epistle to Victor.

THOSE PRESBY­TERS [that is, in the church of Rome] before Soter, who GOVERNED THE CHURCH which thou [Page 418] [that is, Victor] NOW GOVERNEST, I mean, Anicetus, Pius, Hu­gynus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus, they did not observe it [that is, the day on which he observed Esther]— And those PRESBY­TERS WHO PRECEED­ED YOU, though they did not observe it themselves, yet sent the Eucharist to those [Presbyters] of other churches who did observe it. And when blessed Po­lycarp, in the days of Anicetus, came to Rome,—he did not much persuade Ani­cetus to observe it, as he [that is, Anice­tus] declared that the custom of the PRES­BYTERS WHO WERE HIS PREDECESSORS should be retained.

[Page 419]IF it would not be construed an affront to the reader's understanding, I would observe, with reference to the above in­sertions, that Irenaeus has not only pro­miscuously used the names, Bishops, and Presbyters, but has done it in a manner that renders it really impossible, he should mean by Bishops, if he had any meaning at all, an order of officers in the church superior to, and distinct from, Presbyters; or, by Presbyters, any order but that of Bishops. Does he, in one place, when speaking of the succession in the church of Rome, particularly name Linus, Ana­cletus, Clemens, &c. as being Bishops, as having obtained the Episcopate there? In another, while speaking of the same succession, and in the same single persons, he as expressly calls them Presbyters; yea, he gives no higher a stile to the pre­decessors of Victor, the then Bishop of Rome, than that of Presbyters; and he applies the same name to those who pre­ceeded Eleutherius, another Bishop of this same church. Does he affirm, "that the apostolic doctrine was handed down through the succession of Bishops?" He as peremptorily declares, "that it was preserved in the church, through the suc­cession of Presbyters." Does he make [Page 420] mention of Bishops "as constituted in the churches by the Apostles?" He ex­presses the same sentiment, when he says, "the Presbyters in the church have suc­cession from the Apostles:" nor can we mistake his meaning, if we only consider, that, in the immediately following words, he calls this very succession, "the suc­cession of the Episcopate;" and, in ano­ther place, makes the remark, "such Pres­byters the church nourisheth;" and intro­duces the Prophet saying, "I will give you Princes in peace, and Bishops in righteousness." In vain must it be to look for a succession of Bishops, in Irenaeus's writings, distinct from Presbyters, and vested with superior powers, when he attributes not only "the succession," but "the succession in Episcopacy," to Pres­byters; indifferently calling the single persons he reckons in the succession, Bi­shops and Presbyters. It would spoil his reasoning, render it inconsistent, weak, confused, and fallacious, to suppose he should mean by Bishops a different order of officers in the church from Presbyters, when he so often uses these names pro­miscuously, and indifferently derives the succession from the Apostles in a line of Bishops, or Presbyters, meaning, by both words, the same officers.

[Page 421]IT may be pertinently observed yet fur­ther, the succession Irenaeus has in view, is not a succession of POWER, but of DOC­TRINE. This will be obvious, at first sight, by looking over the foregoing quo­tations from him. His dispute is with the heretics of that day; and the use he makes of the argument from succession is, to prove that they had departed from that DOCTRINE, which had been handed down, in the churches, even from the Apostles to that time. This is his grand point, and he keeps to it; never menti­oning the succession, but in order to shew, how, and from what original source, the DOCTRINE of Christ had come down, and been preserved in its purity to his day. To seek therefore for a succession of POWER, in Irenaeus, is to seek for the living among the dead. He no where reasons from the succes­sion in the churches, in favor of any peculi­arity of power in Bishops beyond Presbyters, but confines his argument SOLELY to the head of DOCTRINE. So that, it is impos­sible to make any valid use of what he has said upon succession, to prove a succession of power; much less a superioriry of power, appropriated to Bishops in distinc­tion from Presbyters. It must be previ­ously [Page 422] laid down as a postulatum, or else sufficiently made evident, that the apos­tolic doctrine could not have been hand­ed down pure and incorrupt, but in a line of such Bishops as were of an order in the church superior to Presbyters; or any argument from Irenaeus's succession will be essentially lame and defective. It will not be allowed, before it has been va­lidly proved, that Bishops, in the appro­priated sense, could be the only convey­ers of apostolic truth. It is possible, at least we may be permitted to think it is so, until we are convinced of the contrary, that this truth might as well be handed down by Bishops that are of one and the same order with Presbyters.

IT may add weight to what has been said upon these testimonies, if it be sub­joined, that the Gallican churches, who sent Irenaeus to Rome with an epistle to Eleutherius, Bishop of the church there, had no idea of that superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, which is now so much talk­ed of. For, in this letter, while speaking in commendation of him, they give him no higher a title than that of PRESBY­TER. [Page 423] * Blondel has been very large and learned, the most so of any writer I have seen, in proving, that this letter was sent nine years after the death of Pothi­nus, who was soon succeeded by Irenaeus, Bishop of the church of Lyons; that is, their Praeses, or Prime-Presbyter. It cannot therefore be supposed, with any shadow of reason, that the churches, in whose name this letter was wrote, imagin­ed that Presbyters were an order distinct from, and inferior to, that of Bishops. They would not, in this case, have spoken of him, and in the recommendatory part of their letter, as their Presbyter. This would have been rather a debasement, than recommendation of him. Bishop Stillingfleet has argued here with great cogency. Says he, ‘Irenaeus is sent by the church of Lyons on a message to the Bishop of Rome, when, notwith­standing his being Bishop▪ they call him Presbyter of that church. What could any one imagine, but that the Bishop was nothing but the senior Pres­byter, or one that had a primacy of or­der among, but no divine right to a [Page 424] power of jurisdiction over, his fellow Presbyters?’ And this reasoning will "appear still more forcible, if it be added, that, in this very letter, he is mention­ed by the other Presbyters, as their "bro­ther and colleague." So the words are in Eusebius, who has quoted them. * "Fa­ther Eleutherius! we wish you health in all things, and always in God. We have requested Irenaeus, our brother and colleague, [ton adelphon êmôn, kai koinônon] to deliver you these letters."—They could not, with any manner of propriety, have thus spoken of him, if he had been a Bishop, meaning hereby an officer of a superior order in the church to that of Presbyters.

ONLY one plea more, that I know of, is fetched from Irenaeus in favor of the episcopal cause. It is his using that mode of speech, "Bishops and Presbyters;" which; say the prelatists, evidently imports a distinction of officers, and gives the superiority to Bishops.

IT is acknowledged, this mode of dic­tion is once used by Irenaeus. But how [Page 425] does he use it? Not as his own, but the language rather of the Apostle Paul. The passage, in which the words are to be found, runs thus: "He [Paul] applied himself to the Bishops and Presbyters con­vened at Miletus, who were of Ephesus, and the neighbouring towns, because he was going to Jerusalem."—These words, "Bishops and Presbyters," which Ire­naeus has alluded to, or rather quoted from Acts xx, are used synonimously by the Apostle Paul. And of this there is no room for dispute. For, it is expres­ly declared, that, from Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders [Pres­buterous] of the church. And in v. 28, in his exhortation to these very Elders, he as expressly calls them [Episcopous] Bishops. I would now ask, is it not quite easy and natural to suppose, that Irenaeus uses the phrase, "Bishops and Presbyters," in allusion to the 17th and 28th verse of the just mentioned xxth of Acts, in the former of which Paul uses the word, "Presbyters;" and in the latter, the word, "Bishops?" And as Paul most certainly used them synonimically; is it not reasonable to think, that Irenaeus used them in the like sense? Especially, [Page 426] as, in every other passage through­out his writings, instead of connecting Bishops and Presbyters, so as that it might seem as if he intended to make a distinc­tion between them, he has used the words invariably in the synonimous sense, in­differently and promiscuously meaning by Bishops, Presbyters; and by Presbyters, Bishops. This is so plain a case, that it might be thought impertinent to say any thing more upon it.

IT may, upon the whole, be said with real truth, not only that Irenaeus is a full and positive witness against the epis­copal cause, but a positive and full one in favor of our's. He says not a word in evidence of those POWERS that are made ESSENTIAL to the EPISCOPATE; but as much as we could desire, in proof of the SAMENESS of the ORDER, or OF­FICE, of Bishops and Presbyters.

[Page]

VICTOR, POLYCRATES, THEO­PHILUS, BACHYLLUS, HE­RACLITUS, MAXIMUS, AP­PION, CANDIDUS, SEXTUS, JUDAS, ARABIANUS, SERA­PION, RHODON, PANTAENUS.

I HAVE followed Du-pin in placing these writers between Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria. They all flou­rished about the same time, or, in other words, towards the latter end of the se­cond century. A few fragments of some of their works have been preserved; but, for the greater part, they are totally lost. Victor wrote some pieces about the "time of keeping easter." Theophilus of Cae­saria, with some other Bishops, joined in writing "an epistle," as a council, with orders to have it published, with reference to the "day on which easter should be [Page 428] observed." Bachyllus of Corinth wrote an "epistle," in the name of the Bishop of Achaia, upon the same subject. He­raclitus wrote "commentaries upon the Apostle Paul;" Maximus, on "the origi­nal of evil," and on "the creation of mat­ter;" Appion, and Candidus, "commen­taries on the hexameron;" Sextus, a "dis­course on the resurrection;" Judas, a treatise on "Daniel's weeks;" Pantaenus, master of the school at Alexandria, and a famous preacher of the gospel," com­mentaries on the bible;" but these are all buried in the ruins of time. Of the works of Arabianus, and several other writers, about this time, whose names are not mentioned by Eusebius, there were no signs, or traces, even so far back as his day. Rhodon, once a disciple of Tatian, wrote many books. Two only are men­tioned by Eusebius, one against "the he­resy of Marcion;" the other, on "the hex­ameron," or "the six days work." He has given us a quotation, of some length, from the first of these books; but there is nothing in it relative to the point we are upon.

[Page 429]SERAPION. ‘It is very probable, (says Eusebius,) * that many of his epistles" are in the hands of others; but those only have come to our know­ledge, which he wrote unto one "Dom­nus," who renounced the faith in time of persecution, and fell to Jewish [...]; and to "Ponticus, and Caricus," ecclesiastical persons; and "epistles" also to other men, and likewise a book concerning the gospel called after Peter," which he wrote to confute the falshood specified therein.’ A frag­ment of this book has been preserved by Eusebius; but there is nothing in it to our present purpose. In his "epistle to Caricus and Ponticus," the design of which was to confute the Phrygian he­resy, he has these words, as quoted by Eu­sebius, ‘And that ye may know also, that the operation of this deceitful doctrine, called the "new prophesy," is condemned as execrable of all the churches in Christendom, I have sent unto you the learned writings of Clau­dius Apollinaris, that holy Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia.’ Eusebius adds, [Page 430] ‘In this "epistle," of Serapion, there are subscriptions of many Bishops, of whom one subscribeth thus, "I, Au­relius Cyrenius Martyr, wish you health." Another thus; Aelius Pub­lius Julius, Bishop of Debeltum, a city of Thracia, as sure as the Lord liveth in heaven, when as holy Zotas, of An­chia, would have cast out the devil which spake in Priscilla, the dissembling hy­pocrites would not permit it." And many other Bishops gave the same cen­sure, and subscribed with their own hands to the said epistle.’

POLYCRATES. In his "epistle to Victor, and the church of Rome," he says, with reference to the day on which easter ought to be observed, as his words are re­corded by Eusebius, * ‘Philip, one of the twelve Apostles;—again, John, who lay on our Lord's breast;—more­over, Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna;— Thraceas, an Eumenian, and a Bishop;— what shall I speak of Sagaris, both a Bishop and Martyr? Also of blessed Papirius, and Melito an Eunuch, who was guided in all that he did by the [Page 431] Holy Ghost?—All these celebrated the feast of easter, according to the gospel, on the fourteenth moon, not varying, but steadily observing the rule of faith. To be short, and I, Polycrates, the meanest of you all, do retain the tra­dition of my fore fathers, which also I have imitated. There were seven Bi­shops before me, and I am the eighth, who have always celebrated the feast of easter on that day in which the people removed the leven from among them. I therefore, my brethren, who have now lived threescore and five years in the Lord, have conferred with the brethren throughout the world, and have read, and again read, the holy scriptures, will not be at all moved at those things which are made to terri­fy us.—I could mention the Bishops who were present, whom you requested me to assemble, whom also I have as­sembled together, whose names, if I should write, would grow unto a great number: they have visited me, a sim­ple soul, and a man of small account, and have consented unto this epistle. They also know, that I bear not these [Page 432] grey hairs in vain, but have always had my conversation in Christ Jesus.’

I NEED only observe, with reference to these testimonies, that, though they men­tion Bishops, they say nothing of their POWERS as an ORDER in the church DIS­TINCT FROM, and SUPERIOR TO, Presby­ters. And as to Polycrates, it cannot be validly argued, that his ESSENTIAL pow­ers, as an officer in the kingdom of Christ, were such as could not be justly exercised by Presbyters, because he was now Bi­shop of Ephesus, and there had been "seven before him." For both he, and his predecessors might have been precisely the same ecclesiastical officers in point of ORDER, however they might, in some re­spects, differ in regard of DEGREE. This point has been largely spoken to, in an­swer to the testimonies from Irenaeus, upon the head of succession in single per­sons; to which the reader is referred for satisfaction, if he needs it.

[Page]

CLEMENT of Alexandria.
His character, writings, testimonies from them, with observations and remarks.

TITUS FLAVIUS CLEMENS, or CLE­MENT of ALEXANDRIA, the name by which he is more commonly distin­guished, was probably of heathenish ex­tract; and some say, a native of Athens. Epiphanius tells us, "he was called by some Clement of Alexandria; by others Clement of Athens;" and sup­poses from hence, "that Athens was the place of his birth; Alexandria, of his after residence, and constant employment." It is altogether uncertain, when he first professed himself a Christian, and by what means he was induced to do so. He flou­rished, says Dr. Lardener, in the reign of Severus, and his son Antoninus Cara­cella, that is, between 192 and 217. Du-pin [Page 434] says, he reached the time of Helioga­bulus, and did not die before the year 220.

HE had early a strong thirst after know­ledge, and by diligent study, under the advantage of valuable natural endow­ments, especially a most tenacious me­mory, and the best means of indoctrina­tion the world was favoured with in that day, he acquired the reputation of having attained to an extraordinary height in all sorts of learning. He was a student un­der several masters. As he himself tells us, in his first book of stromes, he had "two in Greece, the one a Caelo-Syrian, the other an Egyptian; two more in the east, one an Assyrian, the other of Pales­tine: and that at last he found one in Egypt, who was far more excellent than all the rest." This was Pantaenus, of whom he speaks with great respect, and in his institutions expressly calls "his mas­ter." The names of the first four are not mentioned. Baronius thinks the Assy­rian was Bardesanes, and he of Palestine Theophilus of Caesaria. Valesius, with greater probability, supposes Tatian to have been the Assyrian, and Theodotus the Hebrew, under whose name there is a "fragment" of the "institutions" at the end of the works of Clement.

[Page 435]BUT though he studied under these se­veral masters, he did not implicitly swallow their dictates, but chose, as it was fit he should do, to judge for himself. He ac­cordingly says, in the first book of his stromata, "I espoused not this, or that philosophy, neither the stoic, nor the pla­tonic, nor the epicurean, nor that of Aris­totle; but whatever any of these sects had said that was right and just, all that, being selected, I call philosophy." This not­withstanding, as Dr. Cave observes, "he came nearest to the stoics, as appears from his discoursing by way of paradoxes, and his affected novelty of words, two things peculiar to the men of that way. And I doubt not but he was peculiarly disposed towards this sect by the instruc­tions of his master Pantaenus, so great and professed an admirer of the stoical philosophy." This Pantaenus was mas­ter of the school or academy at Alexan­dria, for the instruction of catechumens, that is, new converts from heathenism, or the children of believers grown up to a capacity of indoctrination, especially such of them as were intended for the service of the church of Christ. The language and liberal arts, it is said, were taught here, as well as the grounds and [Page 436] principles of the Christian religion. Han­mer says, "Pantaenus read in Alexandria divinity and philosophy, from whence it is thought the orders of instituting uni­versities first began in Christendom." Clement, it is probable, taught in this ca­techetical school with Pantaenus, and sup­plied his place while gone to preach the gospel in India. It is certain, he suc­ceeded him upon his death, in this office; and he continued in it a long time, to the end of his life; ever conducting with ho­nour to himself, and great advantage to those who attended on his instructions. Some of the most eminent men, in that age, were educated under his care; such as Origen, Alexander, afterwards Bishop of Jerusalem, and many others. Not a great way from the beginning of Severus's reign, he sustained the office of a Presby­ter in the church of Alexandria, besides this of a catechist there; for in this cha­racter Eusebius speaks of him in the year 195. And being a man of great piety, as well as learning, and eminently zealous to promote the honor of God, and the advancement of religion, he did much service by his preaching, not only in Alexandria, but in Jerusalem, and An­tioch, to which places he occasionally [Page 437] went, confirming many in the faith, and recovering others who had been seduced by false teachers. Eusebius * brings in Alexander, at that time Bishop of Jeru­salem, thus speaking of him, in his epis­tle to the church at Antioch, "This let­ter I send you by Clement, the blessed Pres­byter, a man virtuous and approved, whom ye both know, and shall more fully know; who, coming hither by the good providence of God, hath established, and increased, the church of the Lord."

HE was greatly useful by his pen, as well as catechetical instructions, and pub­lic preaching. His writings are nume­rous; though most of them are lost. A few only have reached the present day.

HIS lost writings, as we have the ac­count of them, from Eusebius, Jerom, and others, are these.

LOST WRITINGS.

A TRACT concerning "easter." A discourse concerning "fasting." Ano­ther, of "slander." An "exhortation to patience," designed for the use of such as [Page 438] were newly baptised. An "ecclesiastical canon," or a discourse "against jewdais­ing." A discourse "of the resurrection." Another, "of continence." Another, "of marriage." These three he himself mentions in his stromata; and particu­larly speaks of the last, in his paedago­gus, lib. iii. cap. 8. where he gives a sum­mary of the contents of it. Trithemius * says, he wrote "many epistles." Euse­bius informs us, that he "promised a commentary upon Genesis." Whether he ever wrote it, is not now known. Be­sides all these, Eusebius often mentions, and sometimes quotes, a volume, called "hypotyposes," or "eight books of in­stitutions." In this work, according to Photius, "he goes over the main body of the scriptures in a brief commentary, or exposition; not omitting some books that were generally rejected as apocryphal." This learned critic observes further, in common with others, that, in this per­formance, there are "some things very er­ronious and fabulous. Du-pin supposes this work must needs have been composed by St. Clement before he was thoroughly instructed in the Christian religion, and had quitted the opinions of Plato; or [Page 439] while he was half a Platonist, and half a Christian. Dr. Cave rather falls in with the opinion of Photius, which was, ‘that probably these things were inserted by another hand; as Ruffinus ex­pressly assures us, that heresies had cor­rupted Clement his writings. Certain­ly, says he, had these books been infected with these prophane and poisonous dog­mata in Eusebius's time, he would have given us, at least, some obscure intimations of it. And considerable it is, that these things are not countenanced by his other books; nay, many of them are plainly contradicted by them.’

SPURIOUS.

Dr. Cave mentions the following pieces as attributed to this Clement, but calls them supposititious. "Short com­mentaries on the first canonical epistle of Peter, the epistle of Jude, and the three epistles of John the Apostle."

EXTANT GENUINE WRITINGS.

THE remaining, and commonly re­ceived, works of Clement, besides a small tract, more lately published, entitled, [Page 440] "what rich man shall be saved?" are these three. His "exhortation to the Gentiles," in one book. His "paeda­gogue," or school-master, in three books. His "stromes," in eight books; so called, because they contain a collection of mat­ter, so put together as to make a variety not unlike that in Turkey-worked-carpets. The word, strômaties, says Erasmus, is taken from pictured carpets, or tapestry." It is used here, says Du-pin, "for that mixture we see in tapestry, and imports as much as miscellaneous commentaries, or discourses." Clement himself gives us this idea of his work of stromes. "These books, says he, are stored with varieties, as their name imports. We pass on continually from one thing to another." He also calls them, "a variegated con­texture of discourses;" which he com­pares "to a meadow, a tract of land, or a garden, wherein one may find all sorts of herbs, flowers, and fruits, of which we may gather as we please." And such, in truth, are these books called, stromata. They are as a mixed composition, and contain as great a variety of all sorts of learning as could well be put together.

IN his "exhortation to the Gentiles," he strongly represents, and largely exposes, [Page 441] the folly, and impiety, of the Pagan-idola­try; and then, with great cogency, urges to the profession of Christianity, and the worship of the one only living and true God.

IN his "paedagogue," he tutors and in­structs the newly initiated converts to Christianity; prescribing many wisely adapted rules to promote their increase in grace, until they attain to the "fullness of the stature of men in Christ."

IN his "stromata," he administers "strong meat" to them who are of "full age," and have "their senses exer­cised to discern both good and evil;" en­deavouring to lead this kind of persons into a more close and intimate acquaint­ance with the mysteries of religion. He tells us himself, that he purposely wrote these books, so as that these mysteries might not be clearly discovered to those who were not as yet initiated; while others, who were, might understand them to their advantage. "Our design, (says he) was, (as Du-pin translates him) to conceal, and, if I may so say, to embroil things, that so none but the intelligent, and those who will take pains to inform themselves, may be able to comprehend [Page 442] them." In agreement with this account, it is the truth of fact, that he often writes in a manner so obscure, as not to be easily understood. He observes frequently no order in these books. They are rather a collection of incoherent varieties, than an exact methodical composure.

PERHAPS, no one of the Fathers has been more highly celebrated than this Clement, either by ancient, or more mo­dern writers. Alexander, Bishop of Je­rusalem, and contemporary with him, in his "epistle to Origen," calls him the "sacred Clement;" and says, "he was "his master, and had been profitable to him." Eusebius, in his cronicle, makes mention of him as "an excellent master of the Christian philosophy," and one "eminent for his writings." He elsewhere more than once calls him "the admira­ble Clement." Jerom, in his catalogue of illustrious men, says of his works, "they are full of erudition, borrowed from the treasures of the divine scripture, and secu­lar literature:" and, in his epistle to Mag­nus, declares it as his opinion, that "Cle­ment was the most learned of all men." And, having mentioned the chief of his works, adds, "what is there in them un­learned? [Page 443] What, not taken out of the very depths of philosophy?" He is honored, by more modern writers, with the titles of a "most excellent, most learned, most eloquent man;" one who "exceeded all others in incredible knowledge." The learned Daille says of him, ‘What can you name more mixed, and fuller of variety than his stromata, as he calls them, and his other works? which are throughout interlaced with historical allusions, opinions, sentences, and pro­verbs, out of all sorts of writers, both sacred and prophane; heightened here with rich lightsome colors, then shaded with darkness, in such sort as that it is a vain thing for an ignorant person to hope ever to reach his meaning.’ The greatest encomium of him we meet with in Gentianus Heroetius, * who, among others, translated his works into Latin; but this is too long to be inserted here.

THE highest strains in which Clement has been commended, are not, as I imagine, too great, as they respect his learning. This, as Dr. Lardner's expression is, was "prodi­gious." And it is really wonderful, as the invention of the art of printing is much be­low [Page 444] his day, and it was therefore in his power to read only manuscript copies of the works of others, how he could find ways to come at the sight of such a multitude of them, as he seems to have been perfect­ly acquainted with. There was scarce a pagan philosopher, poet, or historian, however near or distant from the age in which he lived, but he made himself master of their works. And the same may be said of all Christian writers, whether they were orthodox or heretical; whe­ther they flourished in the apostolic, or succeeding age, or about the time in which he lived. Considering his constant employment as a catechetical instructor, and his attending together herewith, for some years, the work of a Presbyter of the church at Alexandria, it is amazing to think, after he had procured such an im­mense variety of manuscripts, how he could find time to read them; much more, how he could write such a number of books, in which he could make so easy and ready a use of them! He must have been a miracle of diligence, not loosing one inch of his time. But though I am astonished at his learning, I cannot think he was eminently great in regard of judg­ment. It will not be disowned, by any [Page 445] who have read his works, that his reason­ing too often will not bear examination; which cannot easily be accounted for, if he had been as judicious as he was learned. And if I should add, that his religious sen­timents, in some points, were not agreea­ble to truth, it would not be disputed.— But his abundant labors, in the cause of God, while living, and the usefulness of his writings, in many respects, since his death, are more than enough to weigh down the mistakes that may have dropped from his pen.

TESTIMONIES from CLEMENT of Alex­andria.

PAEDOG. lib. i. p, 120. edit. pott. We have here the following incidental pas­sage, "If we, who have rule [proegou­menoi tôn ekklesiôn] over the churches are Shepherds, or Pastors [poimenes] after the image of the good Shepherd."—

Ib. lib. iii. p. 291. In proof the impiety of women's wearing foreign hair, a­mong other arguments, he uses this, "On whom or what [tini] will the Presbyter [Presbuteros] impose his hand? To whom, or what, will he give his blessing? not [Page 446] to the woman, who is adorned, but to strange locks of hair, and through them to another's head."

Ib. lib. ib. p. 309. Having mentioned a variety of scripture precepts, well adapt­ed to discountenance iniquity, he goes on, and says, "Very many other commands, appertaining to select persons, are written in the sacred books, some to Presbyters [Presbuterois;] some to Bishops [Episkopois;] some to Deacons [Diakonois;] and some to widows."

STROM. lib, iii. p. 546. In discoursing upon the doctrine of continence and mar­riage, he occasionally brings in these words, "Again, says he, [the Apostle Paul] those are to be appointed Bishops [Episkopous dei kathistasthai,] who, from ruling their own house, are exercised to the knowledge of ruling the whole church."

IB. lib. ib. p. 552. Having cited that apostolic direction, 1. Tim. v. 14, 15, "I will that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none oc­casion to the adversary to speak reproach­fully," he adds, "but he must be the husband of one wife only, whether he be [Page 447] a Presbyter [Presbyteros,] or Deacon [Dia­konos] or Layman, if he would use matri­mony without reprehension."

IN. lib. ib. p. 561. Having mentioned a number of passages, in one or another of Paul's epistles, in vindication of marriage, he goes on, "What can they say to these things, who inveigh against marriage?" and adds this consideration further, "since he [this same Apostle] enjoins, that the Bishop [Episkopos] to be set over the church [tês ekklêsias aphêgeisthai] be one who rules his own house well."

IB. lib. vi. p. 793. "He therefore who has moderated his affections in the first place, and by carefully exercising himself to subdue his passions, hath obtained the mastery of them, and hath grown up to the bene­ficence of Gnostic perfection, advances indeed from thence to an equal rank with the Angels. And now being full of light, and shining like the sun in acts of goodness, he hastens, by a righteous know­ledge, through the love of God, to the holy mansion, in like manner as the Apos­tles: not that they became Apostles from any excelling peculiarity of their nature since Judas was chosen with them, but [Page 448] such became Apostles, being chosen by him who foresees even the ends. He there­fore who was not elected together with them, Matthias, when he had shewed him­self worthy to be an Apostle, was put in the place of Judas. It is now therefore al­lowable for those also who have exercised themselves in the divine commandments, and have perfectly and gnostically lived ac­cording to the gospel, to be ascribed into the number of the Apostles. This man is in reality a Presbyter [Presbyteros,] and a true Deacon [Diakonos] of the purpose of God, if he does, and teaches, the things of the Lord: not ordained of men, nor because a Presbyter [Presbyteros] there­fore esteemed a righteous man; but be­cause a righteous man, therefore now reck­oned in the Presbytery [en Presbyterio kat a­legomenos:] and though here upon earth he hath not been honored with the chief seat [prótokathedria,] yet he shall set down among the four and twenty thrones, judg­ing the people, as John says in the Reve­lation. For the scheme of salvation is, in reality, ONE, reaching from the begin­ing of the world down to us, though supposed to be different in its bestowment, according to different generations and times. For it is fit and congruous, that [Page 449] there should be one immutable bestow­ment of salvation, by one God, through one Lord, in diverse manners profitable: on account whereof the middle-partition is taken away, which divided the Greek from the Jew, that they might be a pecu­liar people, and so both come into unity of faith: and from both there is one elec­tion; and of the chosen, some, he says, are more chosen. These are the twenty-four, who are Judges and Rulers, from among the Jews and Greeks equally, the grace being doubled, who, for their perfect knowledge, have been plucked, like a gar­land of sweet flowers, from the church it­self, and honored with most distinguish­ed glory. Now in the church here, the progressions [prokopai, processions, advancements,] of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, [episkopôn, Presbyterôn, Dia­konôn] I take to be imitations of the evan­gelical glory, and of that dispensation, which, the scriptures tell us, they look for, who, following the steps of the Apos­tles, have lived according to the gospel in the perfection of righteousness. These men, the Apostle writes, being taken up into the clouds, shall first minister as Deacons [Diakonêsein,] then be admitted to a rank in the Presbytery [tô Presbyteriô] [Page 450] according to the progression in glory, (for one glory differeth from another) un­til they grow up to a perfect man."

IN. lib. vii. p. 830. "Of that service of God about which men are conversant, one is [beltiôtike] that which makes them better; the other [upêretikê] that which is ministerial. Medicine make the body [beltiôtikên] better; philosophy the soul: but the service which is due to parents from their children, and to Rulers from those who are subject to them, is [upêre­tikê] ministerial.In like manner, in the church, the Presbyters [oi Presbyteroi] main­tain [tên beltiôtikên [...]ikona] the form of that kind which makes men better; and the Deacons, [tên beltiôtikên, oi diakonoi] that which is ministerial. 'In BOTH THESE MINISTRIES, the ANGELS, serve God in the dispensation of earthly things."—

IN lib. "quis dives salvandus sit"? p. 959. "Hear a fable, and yet not a fable, but a true story, reported of John the Apos­tle, delivered to us, and kept in memory. After the death of the tyrant, when he (John) had returned to Ephesus, out of the isle of Patmos, being desired, he went to the neighbouring nations, where he [Page 451] appointed Bishops [episkopois katastêsôn,] where he set in order whole cities, and where he chose by lot, unto the ecclesi­astical function, of those who had been pointed out by the spirit as by name. When he was come to a certain city, not far distant, the name of which some men­tion, and, among other things, had refreshed the brethren; beholding a young man of a portly body, a gracious countenance, and fervent mind, he looked upon the Bishop who was set over all [epi pasi tô kathestôti episkopô,] and said, I commit this young man to thy custody, with the deep­est intention of mind, in presence of the church, and Christ bearing me witness. When he had received the charge, and promised the performance of all things re­lative to it, John again urged, and made protestation of the same thing. He af­terwards returned to Ephesus. And the Presbyter [o de Presbuteros] taking the young man, brought him to his own house, nourished, comforted, and cherished him; and at length baptised him."—As this ro­mance* (for so I take the whole story to be) [Page 452] goes on, the young man proved very dis­solute. Upon which the Bishop is re­presented as sending for the Apostle John, who, when he was come, said to him, "O Bishop! restore to us the charge, which I, and thy Savior, committed to thee, the church over which thou art set bearing witness.—Then the old man [o Presbytês] groaning deeply, and with tears in his eyes, said, he is dead;" that is, to God," as it is afterwards explained.

REMARKS and OBSERVATIONS on the foregoing TESTIMONIES.

IT is obvious, upon the slightest view of the above offered testimonies, that Cle­ment, no more than the writers before him, can, with the least shadow of rea­son, be produced as witnessing to the FACTS that are the grand subject under consideration. He says not a word, from whence it can be so much as collected by remote consequence, that he thought Bi­shops had an EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to con­fer [Page 453] HOLY ORDERS; nor has he any where hinted, that it was ever the PRAC­TICE, in his day, or at any other time, for Bishops, as a DISTINCT ORDER of gospel officers, to perform the work of ORDINA­TION. The same may be said of their ex­clusive right to GOVERN THE CHURCH. It is observable, in paedag. p. 120, though a PRESBYTER of the church of Alexan­dria, he includes himself in the number of those proêgoumenoi, or chief leaders, who are esteemed Shepherds. "We, says he, who have rule in the churches, tôn ekkle­siôn proêgoumenoi." And as to CONFIR­MATION, he no where mentions it, unless "the imposition of the hand," paedog. p. 291, may be supposed to refer to this cus­tom. If this should be the truth, it is the first hint we have, in all primititive an­tiquity, of such a practice in the church. But then, it deserves particular notice, this testimony can be of no service to the episcopal claim; for, not the Bishop, but the PRESBYTER, is represented as "lay­ing on his hand." It could not therefore be, according to Clement, the appropriate work of a Bishop, a peculium of his of­fice as such.

IT is acknowledged, Clement once uses that mode of diction, "Bishops, Presbyters, [Page 454] Deacons;" and once more thus varied, "Presbyters, Bishops, Deacons:" and he is the first writer, Ignatius only excepted, if he is supposed to be the writer of the epistles ascribed to him, that ever used this manner of speaking. But his thus writing is an insufficient ground on which to represent him as a witness, that Bishops were, in his day, an order of officers in the church distinct from, and superior to, that of Presbyters. The term, Bishop, may properly be used as a distinguishing name, though it should import no essen­tial superiority of office between him and a Presbyter. Arch-Bishop is an appella­tion that distinguishes the person to whom it is applied from one that is a Bishop only, and is ever used to this purpose; and yet, Arch-Bishop and Bishop are one and the same order of officers in the church, Epis­copalians themselves being judges. So the name, Rector, points out a difference be­tween the persons called by this name, and those that are called Curates; and yet, they both partake of the same essen­tial powers of preaching, baptising, and administring the Lord's supper. It might, about this time, begin to be a custom, not to have a Praeses, or Head-Presbyter in the church, but to distinguish him by [Page 455] appropriating to him the name of Bishop. And this might be the only reason of Clement's speaking in that mode, "Bi­shops, Presbyters, Deacons." Most cer­tainly, it could not be, because he thought there were three distinct orders in the church, and that Bishops were, as Christ's officers, vested with essential powers su­perior to Presbyters, as Presbyters are with powers essentially superior to Deacons; and for the following considerations.

I. IN paedag. lib. iii. p. 309, his enu­meration runs thus, "Presbyters, Bishops, Deacons;" which cannot easily be ac­counted for, if he had supposed Bishops to have been an order in the church superi­or to that of Presbyters, as Presbyters are to that of Deacons. He no where, in speaking of Presbyters and Deacons, places Dea­cons before Presbyters; but, as Presbyters are a superior order of officers, he always mentions them first. And there is no imaginable reason to think, but he would have done the same by Bishops, if, in his apprehension, they had been officers in the church superior in their order to Pres­byters. It is worthy of observation, Ignati­us does not give us the enumeration in this form; but places Bishops before Presbyters. [Page 456] And it is questionable, whether an instance can be produced, after Bishops were look­ed upon as officers in the church of a su­perior order to Presbyters, from any wri­ter, who favored this opinion, wherein he places Presbyters before Bishops in an enumeration of church officers. But this I barely mention as not unworthy of notice.

II. IT is a consideration of more weight that in his book "quis dives salvandus sit?" the church officer he speaks of under the name of BISHOP, he likewise calls PRES­BYTER. His words are, "He [the Apos­tle John] looked upon the BISHOP, who had been set over the whole church, and said, I commit this young man to thy care." It follows a few lines after, "and the PRESBYTER, [o Presbyter] taking the young Man, brought him home."— It is not in any degree probable, if, by the word, Bishop, Clement meant an officer in the church of a superior order to that of Presbyters, he would have indifferently used the terms, Bishop and Presbyter, to point him out. Had the word, Bishop, been with him the known certainly AP­PROPRIATED term to distinguish the first or highest of three orders of officers in the [Page 457] church, there would be an impropriety, not to say absurdity, in his calling that of­ficer a PRESBYTER, who was a Bishop: nor ought it to be supposed, that he would have been guilty of so gross a reflection on the Bishop of a church.

IT is said, in answer, this Bishop, who is pointed out by the term Presbyter [Pres­byteros,] in the above cited place, is after­wards, in this very story, spoken of in that stile, o Presbytês, "the old man." Upon which the plea is, that he might be called Presbyteros, not on account of his being a Presbyter, but an elderly person. It is confessed the word, Presbyteros, is some­times to be understood as meaning nothing more than an aged man; but this mean­ing can be given to it, only when the con­nection of the discourse, where it is used, makes it necessary: otherwise, it is, with all the Fathers, an appropriated term, and not used by any of them, either before, or after, Clement, but to denote an officer in the church of Christ. And, what may be worthy of special notice, it is never used by Clement, relative to an officer of the church, to signify meerly, or only, his being "a man in years." Why then should he be thought to use it in this sense, in the [Page 458] passage under consideration? And, had he intended to convey the idea of nothing more than "an old man," why did he not use the word Presbytês? He might, with equal ease, and more propriety, have used this word, in both passages that have been brought to view; and his not doing it, plain­ly indicates, that he intended, in the first of them, to lead us into the thought, that, by Presbyteros, he meant the same officer in the church, he had just before called Bishop, Episkopos; and in the second, to signify that he was an "elderly person." And there might be a special propriety in his speaking of him, in this second passage, as an "elderly person;" as this would aggravate his fault in not taking better care of "the young man that had been deposited with him as his charge."

IT will add weight to what has been offered, in defence of Clement's promis­cuously using the words, Bishop and Presbyter, in that part of his story re­lating to the Apostle John, we have been considering, if we compare his use of the words here, with the use of them in strom. lib, iii. p. 556, and strom. ib. p. 552. In the former of these pages he says, "those ought to be appointed BISHOPS, who, from [Page 459] ruling their own house, have been exer­cised to rule the whole church." In the latter of them, his words are these, "He must be the husband of one wife only, whether he be a PRESBYTER, or Dea­con, or Laic, if he would use marriage without blame." Let it now be observed, these directions, respecting a "BISHOP'S ruling his own house," and a "PRESBY­TER'S having but one wife," are both ta­ken, or rather cited, from the Apostle Paul's first epistle to Timothy, iiid ch. 2d and 4th v. where the words are these, "A Bishop must be the husband of one wife,"'- and "one that ruleth well his own house." Now, that very officer in the church, which the Apostle Paul calls a BISHOP, is called by Clement, in one of the above passages, a BISHOP; and, in the other, a PRES­BYTER. He must certainly mean, by PRESBYTER, precisely the same officer, both he himself, and the Apostle Paul, meant by BISHOP: or there would be no pertinency in his application of these texts. This, I should think, must be sufficient to put it beyond all reasonable dispute, that the word, Presbyteros, in Clement's story of the Apostle John, is used in its APPROPRIATED sense, to signify an officer in the church; and, as this officer, who [Page 460] is called a PRESBYTER, is also called a BISHOP, tho words must be considered as promiscuously used to mean one and the same ecclesiastical officer: so the words are used, in the places we have compared with this; and no better reason can be given for their not being so used here, than that of serving an hypothesis.

3. IT is of still more important con­sideration, that Clement, in strom. vii. p. 830, evidently appears to have had no knowledge of more than TWO ORDERS of officers in the Christian church, that of Presbyters, and that of Deacons. For, when he is purposely speaking of the sa­cred ecclesiastical functions, he particu­larly mentions these TWO, and NO MORE. One, he considers as superior, calling it beltiôtikê, because intended and adapted to "make men better:" the other he repre­sents as inferior, calling it upêretikê, be­cause designed for a lower kind of mini­stry. The superior office he appropriates to PRESBYTERS; the inferior one to DEACONS: not giving the least hint of any other, or higher office in the christian church. Can this be accounted for, if he knew of any ORDER in the church higher than that, in which Presbyters are [Page 461] placed? Surely, if Bishops were officers in the church of a superior and higher order than Presbyters, he would not have passed over this order of men in total silence, while he is particular in taking notice of the TWO LOWER ORDERS, that of Presbyters, and that of Deacons. It is observable, he thought it proper, even in the very passage we are upon, to ascend to heaven in comtemplation, that he might bring in the Angels of God as employed in the TWO KINDS of ministry he had been treating of; and yet, though Bishops were, in his opinion, (as Episcopalians would have us believe) the most exalted order of church-officers Christ had upon earth, he says not a word about them, or any service they had to do; while, at the same time, he takes particular notice both of Pres­byters and Deacons, so much below Bi­shops as not (comparatively) to deserve being mentioned at all. This is truly astonishing! And Clement must be voted inexcusable, unless we suppose, (what I take to be the certain truth) that with him, Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same order of men in the church, and might properly be spoken of under the name, either of Bishop, or Presbyter. And in this view of the matter, there is a con­sistency, [Page 462] propriety, and cogency, in this discourse of Clement: otherwise, it is, to say the least, strange and altogether un­accountable.

IV. IN the last place, it is further evi­dent, from what Clement has said, in strom. vi. p. 793, that he had no notion of more than TWO ORDERS of officers in the church of Christ; or, in other words, of Bishops as the first and most superior of THREE ORDERS. I have purposely given the reader the whole 13th section of this 6th book, that he might be able to take a complete view of what he has offered upon this head. And if he is pleased to attend to what is contained in this section, he will find, that neither Apos­tles, Presbyters Deacons, or Laymen, are esteemed, by Clement, excellent here, or interested in felicity hereafter, but in pro­portion to their christian knowledge, wis­dom, and goodness; that is, their being more or less perfect gnostics. In illust­ration of this, he says, ‘he is in reality a PRESBYTER in the church, and he is a true DEACON, who does, and teaches, the things of the Lord:—not account­ed a righteous man, because a Presby­ter; but because a righteous man there­fore [Page 463] chosen into the Presbytery: and though he be not honored with the FIRST SEAT * on earth, yet shall here­after sit down on the twenty-four thrones, judging the people.’ It is at first sight obvious, that Clement here makes mention of TWO ORDERS only in the church, that of PRESBYTERS, and that of DEACONS. And it is equally evident, that the first seat, he speaks of, relates to the PRESBYTERY, and is the place of one, who is a constituent member, in common with the other Presbyters, of this senate, or ecclesiastical body. But, what does he mean by this first seat? One, not biassed in his mind, would easily and naturally [Page 464] be led to understand, by it, the seat of the Head-Presbyter, or Praeses of the Presby­tery. It cannot reasonably be thought, that Clement meant by it a seat that was proper, not to a constituent member of the Presbyterate, but to an officer in the church of another order, distinct from, and superior to, that of Presbyters. This would be to make him speak very impro­perly. For the first seat in a Presbytery obviously and certainly imports a parity of essential powers in the persons that con­stitute this body; though one of them may, in some respects, for prudential▪ rea­sons, have the precedency, or superiority, so as to be seated in the first chair.

[Page 465]THIS will appear in a yet fuller light, if we examine what Clement has offered, in this same section, upon the progressi­ons in the church here, and in glory here­after. "Says he, ‘These progressions in the church here, of Bishops, Pres­byters, Deacons, I take to be imitations of the angelical glory, and of that dis­pensation, which the scriptures tell us, they look for, who, following the steps of the Apostles, have lived, according to the gospel, in the perfection of righ­teousness: these men, being taken up into the clouds, shall first minister as Deacons, then be admitted to a rank in the Presbytery according to the pro­cession of glory, (for one glory differ­eth from another) until they grow up to a perfect man.’

THIS passage, I am sensible, Episcopa­lians bring as the strongest testimony, from Clement, in favor of a threefold order in the church, under the specified names of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. But such a construction of the words will not at all consist, either with the passage it­self, or what he has elsewhere said upon this same subject. For, let it be observed,

[Page 466]HE speaks of these "progressions, as "imitations of the angelic glory." Upon which Sir Peter King, in his "enquiry into the constitution of the primitive church," p. 100, makes the following re­mark, in support of the opinion, that only two ecclesiastical orders, viz. Bishops and Deacons, or Presbyters and Deacons, are noticed by Clement, namely, that "these orders are here resembled by the angelic orders. Now, the scripture mentions but two orders, viz. Arch-Angels and Angels; the Arch-Angels presiding over the An­gels, and the Angels obeying, and attend­ing on the Arch-Angels. According to this resemblance, therefore, there must be but two ecclesiastical orders in the church, which are Bishops or Presbyters presiding and governing, with the Deacons attend­ing and obeying." This passage has often been quoted from Sir Peter, as carrying conviction with it. But it does not ap­pear to me, that Clement here intended to suggest, that there were no more than two orders of Angels, or that he at all made this thought the ground of the "imita­tion of the angelical glory," he speaks of. You will then ask, what does he ground it upon? This may be readily known by comparing his words here, with what he [Page 467] says in strom. vii. p. 830: where, having treated of the sacred functions in TWO ORDERS only; the one superior, which he appropriates to Presbyters; the other in­ferior, which he makes proper to Deacons, he then adds, that by BOTH THESE MI­NISTRIES the ANGELS serve God in the dispensation of the affairs of this earth." Having, in this place, spoken of the An­gels, as employed in TWO KINDS of mi­nistry, the one analogous to that of Pres­byters, the other to that of Deacons, it should seem obvious and natural, when he speaks, in the passage under considera­tion, of the "progressions in the church, as imitations of the angelical glory," to un­derstand by these progressions, the passing from the lower ministry in the church, that of Deacons, to the highest which is a rank among Presbyters. And let it be remembered here, it is the glory of the An­gels in Heaven to serve God in ministring to our earth; and their progression in glo­ry, so far as it respects their ministry in the TWO KINDS particularly mentioned by Clement, will be higher or lower accord­ing to the higher or lower nature of the TWO MINISTRIES in which they serve God in the dispensation of the things of this earth. And, in this view, the "pro­gressions [Page 468] in the church" are "imitations of the evangelical glory." And thus it is ex­plained even by Clement himself. For, says he, those, who ‘treading in the steps of the Apostles, have lived in evangelical perfec­tion of righteousness, being taken up into the clouds, shall first minister as DEACONS, then be admitted to a rank in the PRESBY­TERY, according to the procession in glory.’ Observe, their first advance­ment is their ministring as DEACONS; their next and highest procession is their being admitted into the PRESBYTERATE: though it should be noticed here, there is a pro­gression in degree even in the Presbyterate. For Clement, in this very section, has told us of a FIRST SEAT in the Presby­tery; which, if filled with a Praeses, or Head-Presbyter, under the name of Bi­shop, will exactly answer the progressions of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons here spo­ken of: nor can they be answered any other way, in consistency with Clement's discourse upon this subject, wherever he treats upon it. He speaks in this section, and very particularly in strom. vii. p. 830, of the two different orders of church-of­ficers, that of Presbyters, and that of Dea­cons, and mentions no more. Bishops therefore, with him, could not be officers [Page 469] in the church of an order superior to that of Presbyters; though they might be of­ficers having a precedency, a superiority, in degree: as the Praeses of a Presbyte­ry, though of the same order, is yet in degree above the rest. And Clement has most obviously led us to conceive of Bi­shops in this light, that is, as nothing more than the first, the chief, the highest, in degree among the members that consti­tute what he calls the Presbytery. And, as he no where mentions any higher ecclesiastical senate, or body of men, or any higher order of officers in the Chris­tian church, we are unavoidably constrain­ed to understand, by his Bishop, the Prae­ses, Chairman, or he that occupies the first seat in the Presbytery.

I SHALL only add, the works of Cle­ment we have extracted from are the last extant, within the second century: nor did he write these, until nearly the end of it. Dodwell says, between the beginning of the year 193, and the end of the year 195. Du-pin places this Clement the first among the Fathers of the third cen­tury. And yet, he cannot be brought as a WITNESS, in favor of the GRAND FACTS pleaded for by Episcopalians. Yea, in [Page 470] the times after him, when there was a distinction in fact between Bishops and Presbyters, it is no easy matter to point out precisely wherein it consisted. It is with me, past all doubt, that the idea of a Bishop, as distinguished from a Presby­ter, continually varied as corruption in­creased, until, by degrees, there was pla­ced over the church an UNIVERSAL BI­SHOP, under the name of THE POPE OF ROME.—But I must not go beyond the times to which this work is confined.

CONCLUSION.

I HAVE now, at the expence of con­siderable time and pains, brought to view, and considered, according to the plan laid down at first, all that is said, by all the genuine writers, until towards the going out of the second century, (so far as their writings, either in whole, or in part, have reached us) relative to Episcopacy. And, upon a review of what has been offered, I cannot but express my surprise at the assurance, with which some prelatical authors affirm it to be a FACT, UNIVER­SALLY witnessed to, even from the EAR­LIEST AGES, that Bishops were officers in the church of an ORDER distinct from, [Page 471] and superior to, Presbyters, in whom were lodged the exclusive powers of GOVERN­MENT, and ORDINATION. Says one of these writers, * "The Christian church, in the ages next succeeding the Apostles, asserts with one universal consent, the uni­versal derivation of a superior order of ec­clesiastic officers from the Apostles to pre­side over the church." And again, "If any credit may be given, either to those writers that lived in the apostolic age, or those who immediately succeeded them, it is evident, that Episcopacy is nothing else but only the apostolical superiority derived from the hands of the Apostles, in a continued succession from generation to generation." Says another of these writers, "The standing maxim of the episcopal scheme [namely, that ordaining power is appropriated to Bishops, as an order in the church superior to Presbyters] has the earliest records of the church to support it; and there was scarce any ar­ticle of faith more firmly believed." And again, § "We have the same evidence, that Episcopacy (that is, Bishops as [Page 472] distinct from, and superior to, Presbyters) was the government of the primitive church, in the purest ages of Christi­anity, that we have for the CANON OF SCRIPTURE." Another author still has these words, * "The Apostles leaving the power of ORDAINING PRESBYTERS in the hands of FIXED BISHOPS, being a matter of fact passed many years ago, the only me­thod by which we can come to the know­ledge of it is, the testimony of writers, who lived in the apostolical and following ages." And this testimony he puts upon the fame foot with that we have for the sacred scriptures.

CAN it be supposed, that these writers had acquainted themselves with the records of the ages that next succeeded the Apos­tles? Had this been the case, it should seem impossible, however biassed in their minds, that they could have delivered their sen­timents in language so replete with posi­tive assurance. Surely, they would not have put the testimonies in favor of Epis­copacy, upon a par with the testimonies in proof of the authority of the sacred books of scripture. This must have been the effect, not only of deeply root­ed prejudice, but of an hearsay-know­ledge [Page 473] only of the most ancient and truly primitive writings. It cannot easily be accounted for in any other way.

AS the reader has had laid before him a full view of what is said, upon the doc­trine of Episcopacy, from the first hun­dred and ninety years, so far as it can be collected from the extant writings of the Fathers within this period, or the re­maining fragments of their writings, he may, from ocular inspection, make a sa­tisfactory judgment in relation to this Episcopacy. Only, he should keep in mind the GRAND POINT in question, which is, what is the truth of FACT, in the records of the ages next to the Apostles, with respect to the ORDER, and OFFICE-POWER, of Bishops? For the dispute is not about the NAME of Episcopacy, but the THING intended by it. Prelatists say, the FACT universally handed down is, that Bishops are an ORDER of officers in the church distinct from, and superior to, Presbyters; and that the powers of GO­VERNMENT, ORDINATION, and CONFIR­MATION, are appropriated to them: in­somuch, that Presbyters no more exerci­sed these powers, than Deacons baptised, or administred the Lord's supper. Let the reader have this constantly in his view, as it may reasonably be expected he should, [Page 474] while he considers the testimonies that have been produced; and I may venture to say, with the highest assurance, that he will be in no danger of calling in ques­tion the authority of the new-testament-books, for want of testimonies in their behalf, though he should utterly reject EPISCOPACY, in the impleaded sense, as having no support, either in point of RIGHT, or PRACTICE, from any thing he may have met with in the writers within the two first ages of the Christian church. He is accordingly appealed to, and let him be judge; taking care to act his part, in this character, upon a fair, im­partial, and thorough examination of the evidence that has been held out to his view.

FINIS.

The Reader is desired to correct the following Errata.

PAGE 5, line 22, read substitute; p. 9, l. 9, r. from; p. 34, l. 9, r. says; p. 38, l. 1, marg. r. omni; p. 42, las [...] l. r. Episcopi; p. 68, last l. r. makes; p. 82, l. 18, r. imposture; p. 90, l. 19, r. Exorcists; p. 92, last l. marg. r. interpolators; p. 126, l. 14, af. plead r. from; p. 144, r. EPINOMEEN; p. 217, l. 24, r. he; p. 228, l. 1, marg. r. propter; p. 234, l. 14, af. being dele as; p. 245, l. 14, r. epistles; p. 256, l. 17, r. exhort; p. 334, r. adepts; p. 335, l. 17, r. change; p. 345, l. 2, r. scholastical; p. 369, l. 5. r. elegance; l. 11, r. Autolycus; p. 381, l. 21, r. him; p. 383, l. 13, r. delusi­ons; p, 390, l. 24, r. Epiphanius; p. 392, l. 6, r. modestly; p. 3 [...]9, l. 4, marg. r. ecclesiis, and in last l. r. Magisterii; p. 403, l. 4, marg. 1. confessionis tumore; p. 407, last l. r. apos­tolical; p. 418, l. 8, r. easter; p. 433, last l. r. Caracalla, p. 439, l. 6, r. heretics; p. 440, l. 9, r. stromateus.

[Page]

GENERAL CONTENTS.

  • AFter the Title-Page, follows the Preface, consisting of P. 10
  • INTRODUCTION, of 14
  • The ancient Writers are introduced at 15
  • 1 BARNABAS, the first. Shewed not to be the scrip­ture Barnabas, from 15
    • In his epistle no mention of Bishops or Presbyters. 25
  • 2 DIONYSIUS, the Areopagite: the writings, called his, proved not genuine. 27, &c.
  • 3 HERMAS, and his writings; his pastor, with the judgment of the ancients and moderns; it makes Bishops and Presbyters one and the same order of church officers. 36, &c.
  • 4 CLEMENT of Rome's character and writings, with testimonies of them, from 65
    • His epistle to the Corinthians genuine. 75, &c.
    • The occasion of his writing it. 77
    • The time of his writing it. 79
    • Clement's doubtful writing. 82
    • Pieces spurious ascribed to him. 82
    • The constitutions, called apostolic, spurious. 84, &c.
    • Canons, called apostolical, not genuine. 92, &c.
    • The recognitions allowed spurious. 102
    • Passages from Clement's first epistle admitted; and proofs from him, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same. 103 &c.
  • 5 POLYCARP, his character, and his writings, with testimonies from them, &c. 155
    • He not a Bishop superior to Presbyters; nor owning such an one. 157
    • His death. 169
    • Epistles mentioned as his, not extant. 170
    • His epistle to the church at Philippi. ib.
    • The inscription of it. 171
    • Passages from it. 172, &c.
    • Remarks on those passages. 175, &c.
    • No Bishop distinct from Presbyter in him. 176
  • 6 IGNATIUS's character, writings, &c. 187
    • He a Bishop, or Pastor, or Presbyter. 191
    • The manner and circumstances of his death. 19 [...]
    • His writings, epistolical. 194
    • The editions of them. 196
    • His epistles, their being his questioned. 198, &c.
    • Writers taking no notice of them. 203, &c.
    • Writers supposed to refer to them considered. 214, &c.
    • His epistle to Romans not serving the Episcopalians. 233
    • Ignatian epistles, if not spurious, yet corrupt. 249
    • [Page]Fraudulent and impudent treatment of Ignatius. 250
    • True sentiments of Ignatius not given us under his name. 253
    • Testimonies from Ignatius. 270
    • Remarks on those testimonies. His Bishops not diocesan. 289
    • Of the peculiar episcopal powers, government, ordination, and confirmation, neither of which are said by Ignatius to belong to Bishops in distinction from Presbyters. 303, &c.
    • His Bishops, upon the whole, parochial, and what he says about them not so favorable to the episcopal, as Presbyters cause 317
  • 7 PAPIAS: book said to be wrote by him. 319
    • His character. 320, &c.
    • No Bishop besides an Elder in him. 321
  • 8 QUADRATUS; his character, and only writ­ing. 323, 324
  • 9 ARISTIDES; his character, and apology. 325
  • 10 AGRIPPA, sirnamed Castor, his character. 326
    • He wrote one book; no remains of it. 326, 327
  • 11 HEGESIPPUS, supposed a convert from Judaism. 328
    • His history: only fragments of it remain. ib.
    • The history of the Jewish wars not his. 329
    • Extracts from a fragment of his. 330
    • Nothing in him in proof of the fact in dispute. 331, &c.
  • 12 JUSTIN MARTYR. 333
    • Learned: an adept in philosophy. 334
    • His conversion. 335
    • His apologies for christians. 337
    • Crescens, the cynic, his enemy, procuring his death. 341
    • Justin's character. 342
    • His writings. 343, &c.
    • His habit. ib.
    • His genuine works, and lost. 344
    • Works, supposititious. 345
    • From him no evidence for Episcopalians. 354
    • A collection of Fathers named. 357
  • 13 MELITO, of Sardis, an Eunuch, his genius. works, &c. 358
  • 14 TATIAN. 361
  • 15 ATHENAGORAS. 364
  • 16 HERMIAS. 367
  • 17 THEOPHILUS. ib.
  • [Page]18 APOLLINARIUS, or Apollinaris. 371
  • 19 DIONYSIUS of Corinth. 372
  • 20 PINYTUS. 374
  • 21 PHILIPPUS and Modestus. 375
  • 22
  • 23 MUSANUS. ib.
  • 24 BARDESANES. ib.
  • 25 EPISTLE of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. 376
    • N. B. From Melito to this epistle, there is nothing in the authors mentioned relative to the Episcopalian controversy.
  • 26 IRENAEUS, his character, writings, &c. 379
    • His acquaintance with Polycarp, and the say­ings of those who conversed with the Apostles. 380, 381
    • Chosen Bishop, or prime Presbyter. 382
    • His writing to two perverting Presbyters. 383
    • Easter controversy revived. ib.
    • Irenaeus answering to his name. 385
    • His praises. 386, 395
    • His writings. 387
    • His creed. 392
    • His book against heresies, when wrote,—his death. 397
    • Testimonies from him. 398
    • Observations on those testimonies. 409
    • No proof of Episcopal claims to be found in him, but the contrary. 411, &c.
  • 27 ELEVEN Fathers mentioning nothing of the point in dispute. 427
  • 28 SERAPION, a fragment from him. 429
  • 29 POLYCRATES, a fragment of his. 430
    • Remarks upon these fragments. ib.
  • 30 CLEMENT of Alexandria, his character, &c. 433
    • His lost writings. 437
    • Spurious writings. 439
    • Extant genuine writings. A general abstract of them. 441
    • He is mentioned with honor both by the ancients and mo­derns. 442—Testimonies from Clement. 445
    • Remarks upon these testimonies, in which it is shewn, that he knew of no distinction between the order of Bishops and Presbyters. 453,—Conclusion. 470

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.