Hl* *>W+F1L VV w.* ; C J Given by t-^l^^M //^18 7 / Icove &*& p tf,®J> f Shelf ^ -Mr- jf J ^7j A COMPLEAT VIEW OF EPISCOPACY, As exhibited from the Fathers of the Christi- an Church, until the Clofe of the Second Century : CONTAINING An Impartial Account of them, of their "Writings, and of what they fay concerning Bishops and Pres- byters j WITH OBSERVATIONS, AND REMARKS, Tending to {hew, that they efteemed thefe one and the same Order of Ecclefiaftical Officers* in answer To thofe, who have reprefented it as a certain fact, universally handed down, even from the Apoftles Days, that governing and ordaining Authority was ex- ercifed by fuch Bifhops only, as were of an order supe- rior to Prcibyters. By Charles Chauncy,D. D. Paftor of the Firft Church of Christ in Boston. " I hope myReader will fee what weak Proofs are brought for ■ thisDiitinction andSuperiority of Order [i. e. betweenBifhops ■" and Preibyters]* No Scripture, no primitive general 'Coun- *' cil, no general Confent of primitive Doctors and Fathers, no, " not one primitive Father of Note, fpeaking particularly, and " home, to our purpofe." Bifhop Croft's Naked Truth, P. 47* BOSTON: Printed by Daniel Kneeland, m Queen-Street, for Thomas Leverett, in Corn-hill. m,dcc,lxxi. S..** 111. PREFACE rHE materials for the following work were collected more than twenty years ago, and would then have been put to- gether for public ufe, had it not been thought unfeafonable ; as the Colonies were not, at that time % difpofed to attend to the ; epifcopal* difpute : nor would this have been their in- clination at prefent, had it not been excited hi them, more ejpecially by the clergy of the church of England, who, not being fat isfled with having tranfmitted petitions to their fuperiors at home, begging their influence in favor of the fettlenunt of an Epifcopate in ^America, deputifed one of their number t$ write " an appeal to the Public? citing objebl- trs to their impartial tribunal for tryal of the weight of their objections, if any they held to offer, againft the reafonablenefs cf their re- fueft* This conduct of theirs has conjlrained fXis- tJbifi IV PREFACE. thofe of a different perfuafon to /peak in their own behalf ; and the rather, as it was y in a formal manner, given out, that, " if nothing was faid againfl an American Epifcopate, it would be taken for granted, all parties acqui- efcedi and were J at is fed" IN confequence of this extraordinary chal- lenge, that has been faid, which, I believe, the epfcopalians will not find themjelves eafily able io anfwer. But there is Jlill room for fuch & work as that profeffcs to be, which is emitted herewith : and it was judged by many to be feafonable at this day ; more efpecially, as it has been openly and repeatedly declared, * that it is a fact certainly and univerfally handed down by the Chriflian Fathers, even from the ear Heft days, that governing and ordain- ing authority was exercifed only by Bishops of an order, in the church, distinct from, and superior tq Presbyters.' HO W far the above affirmation is agreea- ble to truth, or whether it will at all confijl with it, every man of common widerftanding, who will be at the pains to read thefubfequent pages, will be able, from what he may fee with 'ibis own eyes, to judge. Thofe, mofl certainly, may PREFACE. v may be thought well qualified to form a judg^ merit in this matter, who are men of capacity : and learning, though they have had neither oppor- t unity, nor leifure, to acquaint them/elves with the writings of the ant lent Fathers. It was principally for the fake of per Jons in each of thefe kinds, whether epifcopalians, or Chriftians of any other denomination, that the prefeni work was engaged in, and made public. And for this reafon it was thought proper to be more particular, than would otherwife have been ne- cejjary, in giving an account, not only of thefe Fathers, but of their writings ; diftinguijhing between thofe that have been falfely attribu- ted to them, and thofe that ??iay he efteemed truly genuine ; as alfo between thofe that are pure, and thofe that have been adulterated with corrupt mixtures. In the doing of this, which has enlarged the work, and increafed my labour, 1 pretend to be little more than a collector -, though, infiead of tranfcribing from others, I have ufed my own words, unlejs when I give notice to the contrary : and this Ichofe to do, that I might be more concife, and have it in my power to convey only that to others, which I Relieve contains the exacl truth. THE pajfages from the Fathers, called fipojioliial, that is, the Fathers who may be fuppofed vl V R E F A C E. Juppofed to have converfed with one, or more s of the apoflles, I have given in the verfion of \Arcb-Biflwp Wake ■; not fo much to fave my- jelfthe trouble of ,a tranjl at ion, as to prevent alifufpicion of too high, pr too low, a turn t& any modes of zxprefjion, in order to favor my ownfenfe of the fatl in difpute. I flwuld have been glad, could I have done the like in regara 1 of what is offered from the other Fathers. I am my felf accountable for the tranflation of the extracts from them ; in which I have not f§ much fiudied elegance, as ,an exacl reprefenta- iion of their real meaning. I can truly fay, I have, to the befl of my capacity., given the whole that is contained in the writings of ihe Fathers, within the time fpecifed. Sure I am, I have willingly omitted no paffage, or word, that may be found in any of their works ; but have been as free to infert thofe, epifcopa- Hans would defire might have a place here, as others they might wijh had been kept out of fght. It is pojjible, after all, there may be omijjions, or mi flakes, through inattention, for- ge tfu In efs, or fome Gther caufe more or I fs faul- ty 5 though I am not confcious of any, and be- lieve there are none that are material. If any fuch there flmild be, I ftould efleem it a favor to fee them cor reeled. As to thofe of f ma 11 importance, the learned and judicious, jhould they obfervc PREFACE. vii $bferve any fuch, will candidly overlook and excufe them. HAD there been a fufficiency of Greek types in town, and dexterity to ufe them, more of the language in which many pajfages were wrote would have been printed : but this de- fe5l may be thought pardonable, as I have all along inferted fuch original words, though in Englifh letters, as may be thought to be of importance in the prefent debate. I could eafly have crowded the margin with references to the books, and particular pages in them, I have had occafon to confult ; but this, tofave room, and a vainjhew of learning, I have omitted : at the fame time, taking care to name my au- thors, and particular places in their writings in all injlances that have an argumentative connection with any confiderable part of the grand fubjeSl in difpute. IT is hoped, the following work will not be altogether ufelefs. Much indeed has been al- ready, and repeatedly, publijhed relative to the Fathers, and their writings ; and nothing more frequently to be met with than quotations from them, infupport of the epifcopal caufe, by thofe who have appeared in its defence. But no me, within the compafs of my knowledge, has cqlleftei v»i PREFACE, collected together y dnd brought to view, ALL that they have f aid e xpreffive of their fentiments upon this head. This, if I mijiake not, was a work much needed, and may be improved to good purpofe. The truth of the fact in debate may herefrom be brought to a clear and full de^ termination. IF any fhould complain of it as a faulty that I have confined my f elf within too narrow limits, not going beyond the clofeofthe fecond century 5— I would briefly fay, when we have pajfed thefe bounds we have got into times y in which there was very vifebly a departure from the purity andfimplicity of the gcjpel. The man of sin now began to make his appearance, * though it was * A Gentleman of learning beyond the Atlantic, to whom I had mentioned my confinement of the prefent view of Epifcopacy within the two firft centuries, exprefTes himfel'f upon it in thefe words, " The third and following centu- ries are defervedly to be rejected with a kind of pious in- dignation in an enquiry of this nature. For when Conftan- tine had deformed and corrupted chriftianity ; and from being " all glorious within," had drefled up the church of Chrift in robes of external pomp, and made it all gaudy without, and decked and adorned it like the kingdoms of this world ; no wonder that its native modefty foon be- came tainted ; that it yielded to the folicitations, and had criminal converfation with the princes of the earth ; and by degrees funk into that mother of harlots, which it at prefent fhews itfelf to be, in almoft every part of the world, where it is pretended to be eftablifhed by theii5-power, and enriched with their wealth." M. < PREFACE is Tew in a gradual way that he attained to that exaltation in dignity and power, as to be " above all that is called god" Befides, if there are no witnejfesfor the firft two hundred years, or inefficient ones only* to certify the truth of the fatl in quejiion, the great argument in favor of eplfccpacy, fetched from the universal CONSENT OF ALL AGES FROM THE BEGIN- NING of Christianity, muft inevitably lofe its force. And this is acknowledged ly the cele- brated BiJhopHoadly, who has wrote, as Ijudge, in the mojlmafterlyway, upon thisfde ofthecontro- verjy, of any who have handled it. Says he, *f- " We do not argue meerly from the tejlimony of "fo late writers as thefe [Jerom and St. Au- "fin] that epifcopacy is of apoftolical in- "fitution. We grant it doth not follow y St. " Jerom thought fo, therefore it is fo. ^ But " writers of all ages in the church witnefi* " that this was the government in their days> " that it was inftituted by the apojlles, and and therefore fallible, writers, either ancient or modern ; yea, it is our firm perfuafion, that all that is delivered for " the truth as it is hi Je- fus" by the fathers of whatever age, ftation, country, or character, ought to be judged of by this facred and unerring rule : and if what they fay does not agree here- with, there is, fo far, no light nor truth in them. In t fir INTRODUG T I D N. In order to reconcile the appeal that is (o often made to the Fathers with that honor which is due to the fcrip.tures,theepif- copalian-plea is, that they confider thefe fathers, not as judges, but .ivitnefles only in their caufe. But what are they brought to witnefs ? Is it, ,that epifcopacy is an inftitution of Jefus ChriA ? If this is witnefled to in the facrcd books, of which we, having thefe in our hands, are as good judges as they, it is fufficient. There is no need of any foreign teftimony. If it is nor, no other teflimony can fupply this defeft. Are thefe fathers cited as witneffes to what was the practice in their day ? This is now generally the pretence, They may, fay the epifcopalians, be properly appealed to, in order* to know the truth of fact in the ages in which they lived. And if, from tfteir unanimous tefHmony, even from the firft days of chriftianity, it appears, that go- verning and ORDAINING AUTHORITY was exercifed by Bishops only, in diftinc- tion from Prefbyters, and as an order in the the church above them, it would argue great arrogance, if not obftinate perverienefs, to difputc the divine original of epifcopacy. But we muft be excufed, however perverfe we may be accounted, if we cannot bring our INTRODUCTION, v our felves to think, that the pra£Hce of the church, fince the apoftles days, however univerfal, will juftify our receiving that as an inftitution of Chrift, and an eflentially important one, which he himfelf hath not clearly and evidently made fo, either in bis own perfon, or by thofe infpired writers, whom he commiffioned and inftru£ted to declare his will : nor can we believe, the great author of chriftianity would have put the profeflbrs of it to the difficult, 1 may fay, as to moft of them, the impoffible tafk of colledting any thing eflential to their fal- vation from the voluminous records of an- tiquity. We are rather perfuaded, he has ordered every article that is necefTary, either in point of faith or pradtice, to be fo fairly and legibly wrote by the facred penmen, as thatthereftiouldbenoneedof having recourfe to the ancient Fathers as witnesses, any more than judges, toafcertainhis mind. To fuppofe the contrary, would, in reality of conftru&ion, fubftitue tradition the rule of eflential truth, in the room of the scrip- tures, which were " given by infpiration of God ;" or, at leaft, make the former fo much a part of this rule, as that the latter, withoutit, would not befufficiently compleat. Such difhonor ought not to be caft on the n INTRODUCTION. the one only ftandard of the real mind of Chrift. Not that we fliould be under any fear- ful apprehenfion, was the epifcopal-difpute to be decided solely by what can be prov- ed to be fact, refpedting the pradtice of the church before the coming on of thofe ages, in which it is known that fuperftition and corruption had unhappily got mixed with moft, if not all the appointments of Jefus Chrift. It has indeed been long given out, and of late with more pofitive af- furance than common, that within the two firft centuries, thofe purefl. and truly primi- tive ones, and all along through them, as well as in after ages, universal consent is juftly pleadable in favor of epifcopacy. The defign of the enfuing work is to put it in the power of ail intelligent readers, whe- ther learned or unlearned, to judge for them- felves in this matter ; and that they might be able to do it upon juftand folid grounds, not here and there adetached testimony, from this and the other feletled father, is brought to view, but the whole, until towards the clofe of the fecond century* they have all faid relative to the affair of Bifhops. If the confent of the church, through this long and INTRODUCTION, vii and important period, without which it is impoffible it fhould 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 difpute about epifcopacy,fo far as it depends upon universal consent, may be fairly and fully determined by every one for himfelf, by what is herewith offered to his perufal. The method, according to which I pro- pofe to proceed, is this eafy and plain one. The fathers will be diftin&ly mentioned one by one, their characters given, their writ- ings fpecified, and what they fay relative to episcopacy faithfully fet down, with f'uch obfervations and remarks as may be thought needful. And they will feverally be brought to view in the order in which they are commonly placed, by the learned in fubjeffs of this nature ; or, in other words, according to the time, in which it is fuppofed they wrote. * C Only, * It may be proper to give notice to the reader, that, in fpeci- fying the date of the refpeclive writings, from which J have extracted, I have only referred in general to the opinion of ■ others, verfed in this kind of learning. It would have re- quired a volume of itfelf, to have fixed the moft probable date of each writing, and to have afligned the reafons, why this date, rather, than arty other was pitched upon ; which would have been a needlefs labour to rae, and of no Lenefit to the reader, in the prefen: cafe. viii INTRODUCTION, Only, before I proceed, T would make the following reafonable lequert. It is, that every one would keep critically in view, as he goes along, the specified fact in dif- pute. And that he may be able to do this without miftake, I fhall, in a few words, diftincrly point it out. The Bifhop, in whofe defence an appeal is made to antiquity, is not related, by his office, to a fingle congregation of chriftians only, with one or more Prefbyters belong- ing to it j but his charge is sdiocess, con- fiding of a number of congregations, great- er or lefs, with their refpecrivc Prefbyters. The inquiry therefore is, whether it be an u n i- VERSALLY ATTESTED FACT, that epifco- pacy, in this fenfe, took place in, and through, the two firft ages ? A Bifhop, at the head of a number of congregations, greater or lefs, is an officer in the church of Chrift quite different from the paftor of a fingle congregation ; though he fhould be called Bifhop, as being the Head-Presbyter, or vefted with the character of primus inter pares. It ihould be particularly noted, which of thefe kinds of epifcopacy has the voice of the fpecified antiquity in its favor. It is willingly left with every man of com- mon INTRODUCTION, 1$ mon underftanding,afterhehasgone over the following teftimonies, to fay, whether he thinks,thatBifhops,aftertheDiocESANxMODE, were known in the firft ages of the church ? The Bifhop, for whom the fathers are called in as witnesses, is an officer in the church of an order superior to that of Prefbyters, and as diftinct from it as the or- der of Prefbyters is fe* that of Deacons -, jm the pretence being this, that Prefbyters were thought to have, in primitive times, no more right to meddle with the peculiar work of Bifhops, than Deacons have to concern themfelves with the peculiar work of Pref- byters. The queftion therefore is, Whe- ther it will appear, from the following evi- dence, to be at all a fact, much lefs an universally known, and certainly atteft- ed one, that there were BiChops, in this fcnfe, in any church, in any pait of the chriftian world, within the two firft cen- turies ? The Bifhop, in whofe favor the ancient Fathers are faid univerfally to fpeak, is one to whom the exclusive right of go- vernment has been committed by the appointment of Jefus Chrift, or his apoftles as x INTRODUC T I O N, as commiffioned by him. Says the famous Bifhop Hoadly, treating of the government of the church, as belonging to Biftiops only, in the above appropriated fenfe, * " And " here— -I think I may fay, that we have as " univerfal and as unanimous a teftimonv iC of all writers, and hiftorians from the €i apoftles days, as could reafonably be ex- *i peeled ordefired : every one, who fpeaks *f of the government of the church, in any " place, witne.ffing, that epifcopacy was the " fettled form ; and every one, who hath " occafion to fpeak of the original of it, to fpeak the truth, I pay no regard to the idle legendary ftories, invented by monks, and other ecclefiaftics, in the Roman church, after the vifiblc rife of anti-chrift, to impofe upon the people to ferve their own bafe and wick- ed defignsi Leaving therefore thefe extraordiiia- ries, as not worthy of notice, I go on to fpeak of his works. Tertullian leems to have been of the opinion, that he was the authbr of the epiftle to the Hebrews ; for he plainly quotes it as his : but it is, Svith Jerom, a matter of doubt, whether it ought BARNABAS. iV pught to be afcribed to him, or Luke, or Clement, or Paul'/ It does not appear, that Barnabas yytbte any thing more th^n an epiftle that is ftill extant, at leaft m part, both in greek and latin. The la- tin is thought to be a very ancient yet- fion from the greek ; though, when, in what country, or by what hand, it was tfanflated, none, fo far as lean, learn, pre- tend fo much as to conjecture. Neither' the greek or latin copies are perfect. The beginning is wsntijjg in the greek, aftdf the^end in the Latiri. * Or. CaVe, who was apt to entertain as high an opi- nion of ancient writings as they deferve, defcribes the epiftle of Barnabas iri the following words. " The frame and con-' m texture of it is intricate and obicure, " made up of uncouth Allegories, forced " and improbable interpretations of fcrirj- " ture ; though the main defign of it 1$ " to fliew, that the chriftian religion \m * fuperfeded feJf ■ * • Dr. Lardener fays of this epiftle,- "It is entire in the la-' tin verlion." Cotelerius declare^; the contrary. Hjs words are thefe, " Vetus antem interpretatio eft imper- fecta et mtJtila," turn paflRta, turn precipue ad finenl, ubl pofteriora capita refecantur. ;i The.exad truth is, neither the greek or old latin copies are complete ; but as the latin contains what was wanting in the greek, and the . greek, what was wanting in the latin, between them bo# the epiftle js made entire. jJLj // &f. J^jr #<$- *-~ n° c ■ fir. J. i8 BARNABAS, " fuperfeded the rites and ceremonies of (i the Mofaic law. The latter part of it " contains an ufeful and excellent ex- 4i hortation, managed under the notion tf< of two ways ; the one of light, the c \ other of daiknefs ; the one under the ** guidance of the angels of God, the **. other under the conduct of the angels *\ oi fatan, the prince of the iniquity «,cf the age/ 5 '.The chief difficulty, relative to this # cpiftle,. is to know, whether the fcrip- ture-Barnabas was its author, or Tome, other perfon, really of thisname,or by ar- bitrary affumption. . Some of the ancient Fathers feern to have been of the mind, tha* the Barna- bas, who was Paul's companion, was the writer of it. Clement of Alexan- dria quotas it in that form, " fays the apoftle Barnabas." Origin, in his anf- wer to Celfus,. gives this epillle the title of catholic, " the catholic epiftle of Bar- nabas $' which it is fuppofed he would not have done, had he notefteem- ed its author to have been tlie Barnabas, wnoie -\ x-V.iV. \ -3 , , v s~\v. Ak . \ v. ; lf\ .. v . ,»- » * BARNABAS. 19 whofe memory is celebrated in the infpired writings. Others, among the fathers, to fay the leaft, were in doubt, whether this epiftle was wrote by Barnabas, who, with Paul, was " feparated to the work, whereunto the Holy Ghoft had called them." Eufebius and jerom both reck- on it among the " apocryphal books ;" and doubtlefs for the fame reafon. What this is,, we may learn from the epiftle of the latter of thefe fathers to Lseta, in which he fays, " Thofe books are apo- cryphal that do not belong to the authors whofe name, they bear." The moderns differ likewife in their judgment, Pearfon, Cave, Du-pin, Wake, and others, fuppofe the fcripture-Barna- bas to have been the writer of this epi- ftle. Cotelerius rather thinks it was fome other perfon * of this name, or that appeared under it v + Others are of opinion * *' — magis inclino ut cenfeam, non effe apoftoli." And again, «* Certe vix credi poteft, quod adeo eximi- us apoftolus--ea fcripferit quae in opufculo prefenti con- tinentur ; coaCtas dico allegbjias, enarrationes fcriptura- rum minus verifimiles, fabulas de animalibus, aliaque."— f It may feem Grange to many, that writers, in the firft ages go BARNABA S ? opinion, it is Utterly unworthy of io ex- cellent a man as the Barnabas celebrated in the infpired books. Bafnage and Jones have largely offered their objections againfl this epiftle as the genuine work of Barnabas, the companion of Paul. And they appear to me, 1 truly confefs, to be unanfwerable. It would carry irie too far out of my way to give fo much as an abftraft of thefe objections, I (hall content myfelf with only tranfcribing a few paffages in this epiftle, as tranflated by Arch-Bifhop Wake $ leaving it with every judicious reader to fay, whether he can think it at, all probable, that fuch a man as the fcripture-Barnabas is known to have been, could have been the author oi ages of chriftfanity, mould appear, not under their own, but the names of thofe who were in high reputation in their day. But the facl is inconteftibly true* Says the learned Dr. Cave, " If itfhall be inquired, why a man, after much pains, mould chufe to publilh his labors rather under another man's name than his own ; there needs no Ptber anfwer, than that this has been an old trade, which fome men have taken up,either becaufe it was their humour to lay their own children at other men's doors, or to decline the cenfure which the notions they published were like- ly, to expofe them to, or principally to conciliate the grenter efteem and value for them, by thrufting them forth under the name of thofe for whom the world have a juft Tegard and veneration." Lives of the fathers, p, 7$i vol. I ft. BARNABAS, at of them ; a convert to the faith in the days of Chrift ; one perfonally acquaint- ed with the apoftles ; a fellow-Jaborer with them, by the exprefs appointment of heaven, in fpreading the name and reli- gion of Chrift ; and, in a word, one that is chara&erifed by an infpired pen as " a good man, full of the Holy Ghoft, and of faith." A6ts xi. 24, The paflages, I would bring to view, are thefe that follow. Sect. V.~- « And when he chofe his apoftles, which were afterwards to pub- lifh his gofpel, he took men that had been very great sinners; that thereby h$ might plainly fhew, " he came not to call the righteous, hut finners to repentance." This pafTage> in the Arch-Bifhop's tranflation, may not appear very {taking- ly exceptionable ; but it really is fo, both in the original greek,, and old latin verfi- on. What he tranflates, " men that had been very great finners," is in the greek, uper pafan amartian anomoterous *, juftly tranflated by Cotelerius, " omni |>eccato iniquiores," The old lattin ver~ iipn / 22 BARNABAS. fion has it, " fuper omne peccaturci, pec-* catores f in literal englifh, " finners be- yond all fin." It is readily allowed, the mode of diftion is hyperbolical. But the thought intended to be conveyed could be nothing fhort of this, that the apoftles of oiir Lord had been " the worft of men, the vilefl of all Tinners." Is this the truth of fa£t ? Will any thing, in the new-tefta- ment-books,juftify this account of them ? It is a falfe flanderous report, * highly injurious to them : nor is the reafon af- figned for our Lord's chufing fuch wick- ed men any other than an abufe of tne facred text mentioned in its fupport. No fuch reafon was ever given by our Lord, or any of his infpired apoftles. Sect. IX. — " Understand therefore, children, thefe things more fully, that Abraham, who was the firft that brought in circumcifion, looking forward in the fpirit to Jefus, circumciled; having receiv- ed * Cotelerlus, in his note upon this pafTage, cites the follow- ing words, from Origen's firft book againft Celfus, to- wards the end, ■ extat fane in Bafnab* Catholica epi- ftola fcriptum. Inde fortaffe Celfus occaiionem arri- puit,.ut.apoftolos infames et nequiifimos diceret. Jefum adapoftolicam functionem elegiiTe homines omni miqul* tare neqiiiflinaofcr" BARNABAS. 23 ed the myftery of three letters. For the fcripture fays, "Abraham circumcifed THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN mea of his houfe." But what therefore was the rnyftery that was made known to him ? Mark, firft the eighteen ; and next the three hundred. For the numeral letters of ten and eight are I.H ; and thefe denote Jesus. And becaufe the gross was that by which wc were to find grace, therefore he adds, three hundred, the note of which is T [the figure of his crofsj. Wherefore, by two letters, he fignified 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 truft that ye are worthy of it." Sect. X. «* But why did Mofes fay, " Ye fhall not eat of the fwine, neither the eagle,nor the hawk, nor the crow, nor any fi(h that has not a fcale upon him V* I anfwer, that, in the fpi ritual fen fe, he comprehended three doclrines that were to be gathered from thence. Befides which he fays to them in the book of Deuteronomy, " and I will give my fta- E tutes 24 BARNAB A S. tufes unto this people,'* Wherefore, it is not the command of God that they fhould not eat thefe things ■, but Mofesin the fpirit fpake to them. Now, " the fow hr forbad them to eat"; meaning thus much, thou {halt not join thyfelf to iuch perfons as are like unto fwine.---" Nei- ther fiialt thou eat of the hare." To what end ? To fignify this to us, thou fnaltnot be an adulterer, nor liken thy- felf to fuch perfons. For the hare eve- ry year multiplies the places of its concep- tion ; and as many years as it lives, fo many it has. " Neither fhalt thou eat of the hysna y that is, again, be not an adulterer, nor a corrupter of others, nei- ther be like unto fuch. And wherefore fo ? Becaufe that creature every year changes its kind, and is fometimes male, and fometimes female. For which caufe alfo he juftly hated the weefel ; to the end they fhould not be like fuch perfons, who with their mouths commit wicked- nefs, by rcafon of their uncleannefs ; nor join themfelves with thofe impure wo- men, who with their mouths commit wickednefs ; becaufe that animal con- ceives with its mouth." Mofes therefore fpeaking as concerning meats, delivered indeed' BARNABAS. it -3 indeed three great precepts to them in the Spiritual fignification of thofe commands. But they,acco; ding to the defires of theflefh, understood him as i( he had only meant it of meats. And therefore David took aright the knowledge of his threefold command, faying in like manner; \* blefled is the man that hath not walked in the court- fel of the ungodly y as the fifhes before mentioned in the bottom of the deep in darknefs : " nor ftood in the way of finners ;" as they who feem to fear the Lord, but yet fin as the fow. " And hath not fat in the feat of the fcorners ;" as thofe birds who fit and watch that they may devour. Here you have the law concerning meat perfectly fet forth, and according to the true knowledge of it. These paffages are only a very fmall part of thofe, in which the features are placed, in this epiftle, in a moftludicrous point ot light. It is, as I imagine, be- yond the power of man to reconcile fuch trifling, uncouth, romantic explications of the holy word of God, with the excel- lent character it has given us of the apof- tolic-Barnabas. I shall onlv add, no mention is made, in this epiiik, of Bifnops, or Prefhyters ; nor 26 BARNABAS. nor the lead hint given, from whence it may be colle&ed, what was this writer's opinion about either of them. Both the greek and latin copies are abfolutely fuent with reference to every thing con- troverted between the epifcopalians and preibyterians ; for which reafon I have laid lefs of this primitive writer, than might otherwife have been proper. I fhall obferye the fame rule, refpefling tjiofe other fathers, whofe writings have not reached us, or contain nothing in them to the purpofe of the argument we are upon. DIONYSIUS DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA. THIS Dionyfius is ftiled the areopa- gite, partly to diftinguifh him from feyeral- others of the fame name ; but principally becaufeheis thus pointed out by theinfpired writer of the book of the a&s. The areopagite-fenate, fo denomina- ted from the famous afeopagus, a court- houfe, built upon a hill in Athens, was the moft fecred and venerable tribunal in Greece. All the greater and more capi- tal caufes were brought before it ; efpe- cially matters of religion, blafphemy a- gainft the gods, and contempt of the ho- ly myfteries. Dionyfius is fuppofed to have been one of the judges, when Paul was arraigned before this fenate, as " a fetter forth of ftrange gods'* for € f preach- ing Jefus and anaftafis," or the refurrec- tion. - It is faid, and upon juft grounds, that he was converted by this apoftle, while, in the midft of mars-hall, he made the addrefs to the men of Athens, recor- ded 2$ DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA, ded in the 17th Chapter of the Atts. For though we are told, that " fome mock- ed" at this preaching ; it is alfo affirmed, that " certain men believed, among the which was Dionyfius the areopagite." Acts xvii. 32, 34. Nothing more is recorded, in the fa- cred books, concerning this truly primi- tive father. Eufebius fays, " he was the firft Biihop of Athens ; and intro- duces Dionyfius of Corinth mentioning the fame thing. * No further notice is taken of him, until we come to ages re- mote from that in which he lived -, on which account no great regard is to be paid to the commendations that are there bellowed on him, in thehigheft ftrains of hyperbolical language. Numerous are the writings faid to be left by this Dionyfius ; for which rea- fon only I have given him, among the other fathers, a place in this work. Some there are who ftrenuoufly plead for thefe writings as genuine ; though it is uni- verfally thought by proteftants, and by fome of fame even in the roman commu- nion, that they are falfcly attributed to him. * H. E. Lib. 3. cap. 4. lib. 4. cap. 22. DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA 2 9 him.- None have wrote more largely, or with greater learning, in proof of their being fpurious, than Monfieur D'aille ; who has faid enough to convince all, that are capable of conviction, that this is their true character. The learned Du- pin not only entertained this opinion of them, but has faid that which is abun- dantly fufficient to lead others into the fame judgment about them. I (hall here tranfcribe one of the many arguments, he has ufed to evidence their being fuppofi- titious ; and I have fele&ed this for a rea- fon that will obvioufly be fuggefted to the reader,when he fees what may be offered re- lative to the writings of another father,held in great reputation, at leaft among fome. His argument is this ; " The manner c< of the firft appearing of thefe books * ought to be fufpe&ed. For it is cer- " tain, that, being unknown to all anti- " quity, they were firft quoted by thefeve- " rian heretics, in a conference holden be- tween them, and the orthodox Bifhops at Conftantinople, in the palace of the emperor Juflinian, 532 years after the nativity of Jefus Chrift. Thefi- ". Governors of the churches," is the proper transla- tion, it is equally proper in both ; for the original words no otherwife differ, than as a iubftantive differs from a verb. _ It is left with the reader to judge, whether the Arch-Bilhop has approved hioifelf fo fair and impartial a translator, as might juftly have been expe&ed. t Et deinde qui prxfides funt miriifteriorum, qui et inope? if viduas protexerunt, 48 H E R M A S. Observations and Remarks upon the foreaping teftimonies. 1 From thefe paiTages in Hermas, which are all I can find to the purpolc of the prefent controvei fy, the reader may, in fome meaiure, perceive the obfcuiity, with which his writings are perplexed. It appears that he has, here and there, drop- ed a few words that bear relation to the point we are upon ; but what he has faid is generally fo blended with vifionary or parabolical matter, that it is not eafy, by any rational connection in his difcourfc, to determine his meaning -, and if we would underfland him, we muft ordina- rily confine ourfelves to the words bare- ly as they lie; unlefs, by comparing them with others of the like import, in other parts of his writing, we may be helped infixing their true fenfe. But dark as he is, there are fome plain intimations, that the world, in his day, were not acquainted withBifhops, as offi- cers fuperior in their order to Prefbyters; yea, that the churches were fo far from being modelled after the prefent epifcopal form, that the management of their reli- gious H E R M A S. 49 gious affairs was in the hands, not of SINGLE PERSONS, but a PLURALITY ; and this, of equal rank. It is a com- mon phrafe in thcfe writings, " qui prsefunt ecclefioe," that is, " who are fet over the church." And left it lhould be pretended, the word, church, is ufed to fignify the church-catholic, in which fenfe it might be true, that it had a plurality fet over it, though parti- cular churches had only afingle Bifhop at their head : I fay,to take away all ground for fuch a pretence, we have fuch an ob- fervable paffage as that, * " And thou (Hermas) {halt read in this city with the elders who are fet over the church." A more exprefs teftimony could not well be given to this fact, that the church of Rome, at lead, was, in this age, go- verned, not by any Jingle pqftor -but z plu- rality, which plurality were Prejbyters, or if you pleafe Bifhops; meaning hereby the same order of officers in the church. For it is remarkable, the word, Bifhops, (Epifcopi) is explained by Hermas him- ielf to fignify, " Prsefides ecclefiarum f. f that is to fay, he defcribes Bifhops by their * Vif. II. Serb. IV. f Sim. IX. Sett. XXVII, 5 o H E R M A S. their being " thofc who are fet ov.er the church ;" and thofe who are t( fet over the church" he expreffly calls * (" Se- niores") Elders, or Pr.efbyters ; io that, as it happily falls out, Bifhops and Prefby- ters, according to Hermas's own explana- tion of himfelf, are one and the fame offi- cers in the church, ipoken of promif- cuouily, as in the new-teftament-writings, under the names of Biflapps or Pref- byters, But that this matter may be fet in a yet ftronger point of light, I (hall bring to view, and confider, what is brought from Herman in favor of the diflindi- on, he is fuppofed, by epifcopalian writers, to make between Bifhops and Prefby- ters. And, The firft paffage to this purpofe, we have in Vif. II. Sett. IV, in which it is faid, %i Thou fhalt write two books, and fend one to Clement, and one to Grapte. And Clement fhall fend it to the foreign cities ; for to him it is permitted." In thefe words, fome are fo iharp-fighted as to * Vif. II. Sea, IV. H E R M A S. 51 to perceive plain evidence of epifcopal iuperiority. For, fay they, Clement was now Bifhop of Rome, and the care of " fending 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 buiinefs moft properly belonged. The anfwer is eafy. That Clement was now Bifhop of Rome, meaning here- by the fingle head, or governor of this church, is fo far from being probable, that the diredt contrary hereto is moft evidently fignified by Hermas's " paftor," in the latter part of this very paragraph ; where he fpeaks of the church of Rome as under the government, not of any fin- gle perfon. And thou " fhalt read in this city with the Elders who are fet over the church :" which words, I am perfuaded, can never be made to confift with Clement's being now the epifcopal head of this church. He might, at this time, be related to the church of Rome, as one of their Bifhops, or Elders ; and he might alfo be the moft accomplished and dirtinguifhed among them ; the moft known, 5 z H E R M A S. known, valued, and refpe&ed : to whom, upon thefe accounts, it might be given in charge,ratherthantoanyoftheotherElders or Bifhops, to fend this book, or epiftle ; but not becaufe it fo belonged to him of right, and in virtue ©f 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 fending letters to the churches was the work of Bifhops, as a peculiar badge of their office. The moft capable, or moft univerfally known officer, in any church, might ordinarily be pitched upon to do this ; and nothing more can be ar- gued from it, than that he was thought the beft qualified perfon for fuch a work. Moft certainly, it is too trifling a matter on which to found a diftinftion of order between the officers of a church. The next paffage recurred to we have, in Vif. III. Seel:. V. in which are thefe words; " The fquare and the white ftones are the Apoftles, andBifhops, andDoctors, and Minifters, who, through the mercy of God, have come in, and exercifed epifco- pacy, and taught, and miniftred." Co- telerius's note here is, " Hie habes. In Englifli H E R M A S. 53 Englifh thus, " You have here the dif- t'mdi orders of the hierarchy, in apoftles, in Bifhops exercifmg epifcopacy, in Doc- tors or Prefbyters teaching, and in. Dea- cons wpi$ring.'' And the common plea of prelatical writers, from this paf- fage, is, that the three officers of the church, Bi/hops, Prefbyters ; and Deacons, are here direftly mentioned ; and the diftin&ion of their offices plainly infi- nuated by diftinft work affigned thern ; the Bifhops being defcribed by their " ex- ercifing epifcopacy," the Dodtors or Pref- byters by their " teaching," and the Dea- cons by their " miniftring." This turn given to the words, may, to thofe who have not read the " paftor of Hernias," carry the appearance of plau- fibility; but, when fairly and impartial- ly examined, they will be found to make nothing againft the affirmation, that Bi- fhops and Prefbyters are one and the fame order of officers in the church of Chrift. Two things are here pleaded. The firft is, that direct mention is here made of three forts of officers in the church, viz. BtjBops, Dolors or '"Prefby- ters 54 H E R M A 1 ters, and Minifters or Deacons? But if the word, Doctors, is here ufed exegeti- cally 5 not fpecifyingdiftinft officers from Bifhops, but meaning only a difference in the work of one and the fame officers, there is plainly no force in the argument from this enumeration. And that this is really the truth of the matter, I fhall now make evident, beyond all reafonable difpute, even from Hermas himfelf. In order whereto* Let us turn toSimil.IX. Seel. XXVIt where we have thefe words, " As con- cerning the tenth mountain, in which were trees that covered the cattle, they are fuch as have believed, certain Bifhops, that is, perfons fet over the churches,— and then fuch as are fet over the fervices, who have protected the poor and widows/* In thispaflage two orthreethingsare very obfervable. (i) That the word, Bifhops, is particularly explained, and its fenfe, as ufed in the writings of Hermas, punc- tually afcertained : which I thus notice, prefuming it will be acknowledged rea- fonable to ftand to that fenfe of a word, in an author, which he himfelf has given of it. (2) It is plain, the words, " Epif- copi," and "Praefides ecclefiarum," do, in Hermas, ti E R M A S. 55 Hermas, fignify precifely one and thfe fame thing. That is to fay, •« Bifhops," and " fuch as are fet over the church/* do intend one and the fame order of church-officers. For the explanati- on, given byHermas, of the word «* Bi- fhops," is* their being perfons that arc " fet over the church." (3) Here are evi- dently two, and only two orders of church-officers fpecified j namely* Bifoops and Deacojis : Bifhops, under that ftile, u Prsefides ecclefiarum," perfons M fet over the church j" and Deacons, chara&erifed by the phrafe* " Prsefides minifteriorum," fuch as were " fet over thefervices $" that is* that had the care of " the poor, and the widows," as follows in the next words ; which perfectly co- incide with the original reafon of the in- ftitution of the Deacon's office, and de- fcribe its proper woik. Th£se things confidered, I fear not to fay, that there is good reafon, why, when Hermas fpeaks of " Bifhops, and Doc- tors, and Minifters," we fhould under- ftand the words, " Doftors," exegetically, or explicative of the word, " Bifhops ;" not intending a diftinft order of officers, I but 56 H E R M A S. but rather pointing our thoughts to dif- ferent work of the lame officers. And, in truth, unlefs we interpret the word after this, or fome fuch fenle, we fhall fet Her- nias at odds with himfelf. For he has moft punctually ascertained the meaning cf the word, " Biihops," making it to fig- nify precifely the fame thing with lt prae- fides ecclefiarum," perfons " fet over the church." Now the phrafe, " Prsefides ec* clefiarum," is perfectly the fame with, M qui praefunt ecclefiae $* which, in Vif. II. Seel. IV, is, in the moft exprefs man- ner, applied to Presbyters ovElders. "Thou fhalt read [cum Senioribus, qui praefunt ccclefise] with the Elders,' or Presbyters, that are fet over the church." So that, by the moft eafy and natural deduction, Bifhops and Prefbyters, according toHer- mas, are the same order of officers in the church : Nor can Hermas be ever made confiftent with himfelf, unlefs,wheii he fpeaks of " Biihops and Doctors," we take him to ufe the word, " Doctors," as exegetical of the word, " Biihops," or a fynonimous expletive ; meaning only the fame order of perfons by both thefe terms. And, this interpretation will appear more eafy, if it be confidercd, that the words, " Bifhopz" H E R M A S. 57 # Bifhops ,, and " Dolors," are common- ly ufed in the writings of all antiquity, as fynonimous terms. Nor is the term, " Dolor," ever appropriated to Prefbyters in diftinclion from Bifnops. Far from this, even after the diftincHon between Biihops obtained in the church, the word, €S Doctors", is commonly applied to Bi- fhops : nor was it ever an appropriated term to point out Prefbyters in diftinclion from Biihops. Moreover, it ought to be confiJered, Hermas never makes the like enumerati- on, " Apoftles, and Biihops, and Doc- tors, and Minifters ;" but feveral times makes another, by which this ought, in all reafon, to be explained. In Simil. IV. Seel, XV. it is faid, " the forty ftones are the Apoftles andDoclors of the preaching of the fon of God, Again, in Sim. ib. Seel. XVI. Thefe fame <{ forty ftones" are explained to mean, " the Apoftles and Doclors of the preaching of the name of the Son of God." Yet again Sim. ib. Sea. XXV. We read of fuch as * \g* lieved the Apoftles and certain Doctors, who fincerely preached the word." In all thefe places, mention is made only of 5< ApTjftks" 58 H E R M A S. " Apoftles" and " Doctors." But, If Dolors did not mean the fame thing with Bifhops, it is very extraordinary, and no episcopalian can account for it, that Bi- fhops mould always be omitted in thefe enumerations,and "Doctors" always men- tioned. And truly, by this frequent coupling of Apoftles and Dolors, it is quite natural to think, that Dodtors were, in the opinion of Hermas, the next offi- cers in the church to Apoftles, and by no means ari order inferior to Bifhops. It may be properly added, as Hermas had been fpeaking of " four-cornered ftones," it is highly probable, if not cer- tain, that he mentions the four names, '* apoftles, Bifhops, Doctors, and Mini- sters," only to make out fomething that might look like an analogy. Inotherpla- ces, where he had not to do with " fquare ftones," he gives us no fuch enumera- tion. For myfelf, I am fully perfuaded, we fhould not have had it here, had it not been for this trifling circumftance. But if any (hould infift upon the neceffi- ty of a ftricl and proper analogy, and that it was Hermas's defign to exhibit one, the confequence would be as fatal tP H E R M A S. 59 to the caufe of epifcopacy, as to that of prefbyterianifm. For, upon this fuppofiti- on, there muft be four orders in the church, not three, anfwering to the 4< four corners" of thefe " fquare-ftones ;" and the " Apoftles," here mentioned, muft be officers as difthiEl from the " Bi- fhops," as the M Bifhops" are from the <* Doctors :" but howconfiftent this will be with the pretence, that Bifhops are veil- ed with the apoftolic office, as their pro- per and only fucceffors,I muft leave thofe to determine, whofe concern it is to do fo. The other branch of the plea is, that Hermas not only mentions " Bifhops, and Doctors or Prefbyters, and Minifters or Deacons ;" but plainly infinuates a dif- tincHon of order between them, by dif- tinct works affigned them : for, he re- prefents the Bifhops, as " cxercifing epif- copacy ," the Doctors, as H teaching £' and the minifters, as <'miniftring/' And it is confeffed, if, in the age of Hermas, the work of (i exercifmg epif- copacy," and the work of " preaching," were feparated from each other, as they too commonly are now a days, the argu- ment 60 H E R M A S. merit would carry with it fome force. It is in fa£t true, at prefent, that thofe H exercifr epifcopacy," who feldom or never exercife themfelves in t€ preaching/' And, indeed, it rarely happens, that the perfons vefted with the epifcopal office concern themfelves much with this other bufinefs. But it was not thus from the beginning. Preaching was not then looked upon as the diftinguiimng mark of officers infeiior to Bifhops : but, for many ages, the work of *f exercifing epif- copacy/' and the work of " preaching," were both united in one and the fame of- ficer of the church ; and " laboring in the word and doftrine" was the moft known, and diftinguifhing chara&er of all that were Bifhops : infomnch, that a fingle inftance cannot be produced (I fpeak it with great pofitivenefs) of a per- fon " exercifing epifcopacy," that did not, at the fame time, make it his chief bufinefs to " preach ;" until we come in-- to thofe ages, in which the grofleft cor- ruptions were prevalent among all orders and degrees of men in the church. So that, it is no argument, that the " Doc- tors" in Hermas were diftinft officers from Bifhops, becaufe they are fpoken of H E R M A S. 6t as " preaching," and the Bifhops as M ex- ercifing epifcopacy." For thele are both parts of one and the fame office ; and were always joined together, until, by corruption, they were feparated. A Bi- fhop that was not a " Do&or," or " teach- er," was not known in the world in pri- mitive times. It is therefore impoffible, the '< Doctors", in this paflage, could be diftinft officers from the " Bifhops," for this reafon ; as it had no exiftence until hundreds of years after its being penned. It is far more reafonableto fuppoie,the fame order of officers are here called both " Bi- fhops" and " Doctors," as pointing us to both parts of their office, •' exercifing epifcopacy" and " preaching," or " teach- ing." The only remaining places in Hermas, in which epifcopacy is fought for, are Vif. III. Seft. IX. ft I fay unto you who are fet over the church, and love \\\zjirjt featsr Mand. XII. Sett. VII. " The earthly fpirit exalteth itfelf, and will have the/r// chairr Simil. VI. taffl VII. " They are fuch— as had fome envy and ilrife among themfelves for principality and dignity.*' The plea here is, though Hermas 6i HERMAN Hermas blames all contention about " precedence ;" yet he plainly fuppofes, at the fame time, z firft or chief feat; fome fuperior place in the church, proper to perfons of a fuperior rank or order ; fuch as Biihops in that, and fucceeding ages. To which I would fay* it is very plain, from thefe paffages in Hermas, that there was an afluming ambitious fpirit then prevailing among thofe, who were " fet over the church," which " earthly fpirit/' as he terms it, he cautions againft, as what ought not to be encouraged. But that he fuppofes, when he warns againft *' pride, envy, and a love of the firft feats," there were any officers in the church of a rank or order fuperior to that of Pref- byters, there is no juft ground to think. When Hermas dehorts from fj loving the iirft feats, defiring the firft chair, con- tending for principality and dignity C he undoubtedly intends, by all thefe phfafes, one and the fame thing : that is to fay, he had it in view to diicountenance that proud, ambitious fpirit, which reigned in fome ; unreafonably pufhing them on to afpire after fuperiority and prece- dence. It does not appear to have been his U E R M A S. 63 his aim to Insinuate a fuperiority of or- der between Bifhops and Prefbyters ; but to check the growing vanity of thofe, who, being of one and the fame rank, yet fought for pre-eminence, and ftrove to get exalted above their brethren. The temper of the perfons Hermas here finds fault with, feems to have been much the fame with that* which the Apoftles dif- covered when they contended, " who among them fhouki be greateft :" or, ra- ther, like that of Diotrephes, of whom it is faid, " that he loved to have the pre- heminence ;" or ( as the word Philopro- teuein fignifies) " loved to hold the firfl place." But, as it is no argument, that there was among the Apoftles any Jnperi- ority of order, becaufe they affected ibme to be greateft ; or, that there was a like fuperior office in the church, to which a chief feat was appropriated, becaufe Dio- trephes was of an afpiring haughty fpirit : fo neither is it any argument of the fame thing, that Hermas blames the fame fpi- rit, and warns againft it. Nor if, in the days of Hermas, there had been a known jirjl feat, or chief chair, appropriated tofome fpecialperion, would K it 64 HERMAN it at once follow from hence, that there was a superiority of order between Bifhops and Prefbyters. Hermas, to be fure, neither plainly mentions, or tacitly iuggefts, fuch a thing; nor makes any ap- plication of thefe feats to this purpofe. And as a chief feat > or firjt chair ; is com- monly affigned to the moderators of all ecclefiaftical confiftories, whether greater or lefs, who yet have no primacy of POWER, rlO SUPERIORITY OF OFFICE, but meerly for the fake of decency and order, this might be the cafe here: though I am rather inclined to think, that no- thing more is intended by thefe phrafes, thart an indication of that pride and va- nity, which too much prevailed, even in thofe early days, among the officers of the chriftian church ; which Hermas there- fore endeavours, by proper confiderations, to reft rain and curb. CLEMENT CLEMENT of Rome. flis charaBer, writings, and telitmonies from them, with obfervations and remarks* THE account we have in the " Re- cognitions" falfely afcribed to this Clement,ofhis noble birth and parentage ; his being fent by his father Fauftinus to be a ftudent at Athens \ the manner and circumltances of his converfion j his in- f]:ru£Uon under Barnabas ; hi? baptifm by the Apoftle Peter, together with the various adventures of ibme of his neareft relatives I fhall pafs over in filence : not Ipoking upon that fuppofititious piece of authority fufficient to encourage a, belief of thefe things. Nor is it abfolutely certain, that this i$ that Clement, of whom we read in the fourth 66 CLEMENT of Rome. fourth chapter to thePhilippians j though, as we know of no one under this name, to whom this text may be fo well applied, the conjecture in which the generality of learned writers are agreed, feems no ways improbable, that he is the perfon there intended: efpecially, confidering the an- cient fathers do either expreflly call him the fcripture-Clement, or fo defcribe him as naturally to point our thoughts to this father, rather than any other of the fams name. Irenseus fpeaks of him as one that « had (een the Apoftles, converfed with them, and attended on their preach- ing." Origin, Eufebius, and Jerom do all of them diredUy take notice of him, as the Clement " fpoken of in fcripture/' And if this was he, the honorable men- tion an infpired pen makes of him, as iC an Apoftle's fellow-laborer in the gofpel, and one whofe name was in the book of life," is a very recommending cir- cumftance, and cannot well fail of giv- ing us a favorable opinion of any ge- nuine writing, we may meet with under his name. But however this be, he was a perfon anciently had in great veneration. Scarce any CLEMENT of Rome. 6j any of the firft fathers are more frequent- ly mentioned in antiquity, or their names remembered in higher expreflions of re- fpedt and honor. Clement of Alexan- dria fpcaks of him in the ftile of " an Apoftle" ; Origin (or Ruffin his tranfla- tor) calls him I 1 the faithful Clement"; the author of " the queftions and anfwers" afcribed to Juftin Martyr, f« the Hefted Clement;" Jerom, "an apoftolical man." He is faid to have been Bifhop of Rome: though It muft be obferved here, we fhail be much miftaken, if, from his being fpoken of in the ftile of Bifhop, we fliould imagine him like one of our Englifh diocelans. It is indeed probable enough, the ancients^ that call him Bifhop, after the epifcopal power and grandeur had arofe to fome height, might, by this ap- pellation, mean fuch a kind ot ecclefiaftic as the Bifhop was in their day. But this is no argument that he was io, either in reality, or in the efteem of the more pri- mitive fathers. We {hall afterwards fee it to be the truth, that, until towards the clofe of the fecond century, Bifhops and Prefbyters were only different names for one and the fame order of officers in the chriftian 68 CLEMENT of Rome, chriftian church, and promifcuoufly ufed Juftin the fame manner, as in the Apoftles days : upon which account, when Cle- ment is fpoken of as Bifhop of Rome, it amounts: to no more than if he had been called the Paflor, or one of the Pref-> byters of that church. Agreably Ire- naeus, in mentioning the perfons that fucceeded in theroman church, fometimes does it under the name of Bifhops, and fometimes under the names of Pref- byters ; evidently ufing thefe names pro- rnifcuoufly, as fignifying one and the iame order of church officers. This will. be fully (hewn in its proper place. But though he was Bifhop, or Paftor, of the church of Rome, yet the particular time of his entering upon this charge is matter of great difficulty ; as is alfo the exa£t place he bears in the order of fuc- ceflion : the ancient fathers being fo ftrangely divided in thejr accounts upon this head. Tertullian derives the fuc- cetfion from Peter ; and makes Clement his immediate fuccefibr. The author of the " apoftplicai conftitutions" places at the head of the fucceffion the Apoftle Paul, as well as Peter; and make Linus to CLEMENT of R OME. tofucceed Paul, and Clement Peter -, but not until after the death of Linus. Irenaeus and Eufebius, befides Linus, name Anacletus before Clement ; giving the order thus, Linus, Anacletus, Clement. And, after the days of Eufebius, ftill grea- ter confufion is to be feen in the cata- logues of this fucceffion. In fome Ana- cletus is expunged, and Cletus placed in his room ; while others retain both Cle- tus and Anacletus. And the order in which thefe are placed, is much varied. In fome the line is feen running thus, Li- nus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus. In others, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anacle- tus. And again in others, Linus, Cle- tus, Anacletus, Clement. And agrea- bly the later Greeks (as Bifhop Pearfon obferves from Cotelerius) do call Cle- ment, fometimes the fecond, and fome- times the third Biihop of Rome* In fuch confufion is the line, in one of the greatefl and moft celebrated chur- ches in primitive antiquity : upon which the learned Stillingfleet pleafantly obferves, ** The fucceffion here is as muddy as Tyber itfelf." Nor would the. remark Dr. Cave makes upon the writers of the Romifh 7o CLEMENT of Rom£, Romifh church, be lefs pertinent, if we fhould apply it to thofe of the Englifh : " They are (fays he) involved in an in- extricable labyrinth about the firft four Bifhops of this (the Roman) lee ; fcarce two of them, of any note, bringing in the fame account/* And after all that has been, or can be faid, perhaps, there is no way of accommodating this matter, but by fuppofing Linus, Cletus, and Cle- ment to be Bifhops of Rome, not fuc-» ceffively, but at the fame time : which, though it breaks in upon the unity of the Epifcopate, gives no juft occafion for terror, fince the old maxim, " one Bi- fhop one altar," does not appear to be facred and inviolable, either from reafon, fcripture,or antiquity. I cannot help digrefling fo far here, as to infert a few words from the judici- ous Dr. Calamy. " If (fays he) fuch con- H fufion reigns here, (in the fucceflioii u at Rome) where one would apprehend " the matter to be cleareft, how weak is " it to place our whole dependance on M thefe fort of tables ? How poor afoun- f< dation do thofe Gentlemen chufe to *' build upon, who lay their main ftref3 M on CLEMENT of Roml 71 st on their derivation from the Roman " table, in proof of their minifterial au^- " thority ? Were it not a thoufarid times " more candid, and ingenuous, to confefs f* we are in the dark, and left at uncertain* " ty, than to make pompous boafts, the " ground of which examined, vanifh from u under us ? Thefe fort of pretences to *'* apoftolical right, and apoftolical tradi* " tion, backed with the tables of fuc- u ce(fion,in the feveral churches, make, " I coniefs, a mighty noife,and may dazzle " the eyes of the weak, and pals for a " juftification with thofe tnat have the " civil authority on their fide, which " may feem to give them validity : but " they difappear, whenever they are'exa- " mined in cold blood, and viewed na-» " ked as they are themfelves. When M we make the beft of them we can, " Eufebius is the main author that we " have to depend on for the credit of " thefe tables. And his account of the " fucceflion, in the feveral churches, is *' made up moftly of conjectures at three " hundred years diftance from apofto- " lical times, vouched by uncertain au- ** thors. And where he has left vacan- ** cies, Nicephorus Calliftus, and Simeoa h '■■« thp 72 CLEMENT of Rome* " the Metaph raft, and other fuch hiftori- " cal tinkers,- as Bifhop Stillingfleet plea- 4< fantly calls them, have taken effectual * c care to fill them up.— He that from u the blind, broken, and uncertain ta- * c bles of fucceffion, that are tranimitted * c to us in the records of antiquity, can * c infer theneceffity of epifcopal, and the " invalidity of ptefbyterian ordination, " muft either have a ftrong faith, or a f - predominant fancy. If they cannot " be cleared, it is vain to argue from eC them : but if they can, they will ferve 4C us as much as they will them," But to return. Being Bifhop of Rome, he was a con-* ftant, laborious preacher of the word, and difpenfer of gofpel ordinances to that church. For this is the moft juft and true idea of a faithful Bifliop or Paftor in primitive times. The name Bifhop was not then looked upon fo much a ti- tle of honor,as implying in it great watch- fulnefs, labor and pains : and this, not in " infpe£Hng and governing inferior clergymen/' but in " feeding the flock of Chrift" with the word and facraments. Nor is there a fa& more unqueftionably clear, CLEMENT of Rome. 73 clear,from the whole ftrain of primitive an- tiquity,than that it was the ftated, known, perpetual employment of all that were Bifhops, to exercife themfelves chiefly in this work. And this true fcripture no- tion of the work of a Bifhop, was fo ge- nerally prevalent, even after the diftinc- tion between Bifhop and Preibyter took place, that the fourth council of Car- thage came into fuch a decree as that^ tf the Bifhop fhall wholly occupy himfelf in reading,and praying,and preach- ing the word." But the reader that has a mind to fee this matter indifputably cleared up, has it done ready to his hand by that wonder of learning, the great Jamefon,in his " Nazianzeni Querela" and his " Cyprianus Ifotimus". It is common in modern authors to read of this Clement as banifhed from his church, and at laft dying a mar- tyr for the caufe of Chrift : though thefe things, to fay the lead", are mat- ters of great uncertainty. None of the fathers of the three firft centuries,that I can find, make mention of him as an exile, or martyr. And what is pretty extraordinary, Eufebius, who is common- ly very particular in thefe cafes, is whol- ly filent upon this head. If we may de- pend 74 CLEMENT of Rom£. dfnd on the credit of Cotelerius, Ruffin, who lived in latter end of the fourth cen- tury, is the firfi: that fpeaks of him as ho- nored with martyrdom. After him in- deed Simeon Metaphrases has exhibited to the world a moft particular and for- mal account of his '* banifhment to Cher- fan to dig in the marble quarries and la- bor in the mines ; and afterwards of his being carried and thrown into the bottom ofthefea."St.Ephrsemalfo,Bifhop of Cher- fan, relates feveral very extraordinary mira- cles, that followed upon his being then put todeath : but thefe are authors too much given to the romantic ftrain to place any dependance on •> efpecially in matters fo diitant from their own times, about which the firft fathers are wholly filent. Nor iS it much to the honor of the learned, and otherwife valuable, Dr. Cave, that he takes fo much notice, with feeming faith, of thefe and fuch like plainly fabu- lous relations : though I could wifli, he he had not, upon this account, been quite fo feverely cenfured by my Lord Barring- ton, when he fays of him, u that he has little that is not common and obvious, be- fides fome idle and legendary ftories, with which he abounds. But CLEMENT of Rome 75 But whatever was the manner of his death, Eufebius places it m the third of Trajan, that is, in the year of our Lord one hundred, after he had been Bifhop 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 diftinguifh'd into genuine, doubtful, and supposititious, Genuine. In this rank is placed that excellent epiftle to the Corinthians, concerning which the great Du-pin has dropped that remark," next to the holy fcripture,it is,in my opinion, one of the moft eminent re- cords of antiquity." It was certainly f^; accounted by the primitive fathers ; who fcarce mention it without fome epithet of honor. It is called by Irenaeus (as Dr. Cave tranflates the phrafe) " the moft excellent and abfolute writing ;" by Eu- febius " the truly great and admirable epiftle :" and what the fame author adds, Riay further affure us of its high va- lue 76 CLEMENT of Rome, luc in ancient times." ; this epiftle we have known to have been publicly read in many churches, both of old, and among ourfelves alfo." Nor is it unwor- thy obfervation, that the only copy of this epiftle, known in the world, was found written in the lame volume with the fa- cred books of the new-teftament : to which happy circumftance we may afcribe it, that we are favored with it, after it had been bewailed as loft for many ages. The manner of its difcovery and pub- lication was thus. When Cyrill, Pa- triarch of Conftantinople, returned from his Alexandrian feat in Egypt, he brought with him a large colle£tion of books $ among which was an ancient copy of the old and new-teftament, wrote by the hand of Thecla, a noble Egyptian virgin, about the time of the firft nicene coun- cil. This he fent as a prefent to King Charles the firft, by Sir Thomas Roe, his Majefty's then Embaffador at the Otto- man court, upon his return into England. At the end of this copy was added this epiftle of Clement, wrote by the fame hand ; though fomething broken and de- faced 5 CLEMENT of Rome. 77 faced: which, when the learned Patrick Young, his Majefty's library-keeper, had difcovered, he was commanded by the King, to make it public ; which he ac- cordingly did at Oxford, in the year 1633, with a latin tranflation, and learn- ed notes. The occafion of Clement's writing this epiftle, we may learn from Irenasus, v/ho fays, " In the days of Clement, the church of Rome wrote a very pathetical letter [they are faid to have wrote it, though it was penned by Clement, be- caufe it was wrote and fent in their name] to reftore them to peace." Eufebius ex- hibits the like teftimony, when he tells us, " that Clement wrote this epiftle from Rome to Corinth, when fedition was raifed among the Corinthians/' He adds a few words after, " that there was, at that time, a fedition among the Co- rinthians, Hegefippus is a witnefs. Nor can any one that reads this epiftle be at a lofs as to the truth of this. It is plain, through the whole of it, there was a fhame- fuldifturbanceinthechurch;andthischief- ly againft its Prefbyters : fome of the peo- ple being vainly conceited of their fpi- ritual 7§ CLEMENT of Rome, ritual gifts, and therefore rifing up againft their guides and teachers. Now, to heal this difference, and reftore peace and good order, this epiflle was principally defign- ed ; and to this end it is admirably well adapted : being wrote in a plain and un- affecled ftile ; yet with great ftrength and perfpicuity, and evidently breathing the true fpirit and genius of the apoftolk age. The epiftle is wrote in the nafrie of the church of Rome to the church of Co- rinth : upon which a noted author per- tinently remarks, " Had he (Clement) known himfelf to be the infallible judge of controverfies, to whofe fentence the whole chriftian world was bound to ftand, inverted with a fupreme, unaccountable power, from which there lay no appeal* we might have expe&ed to hear him ar- gue at another rate." And as there is no mention in this epiftle of any fingle per- fon, as the head and Governor of the Co- rinthian church, I cannot forbear adding another remark, which feems full as na- tural ; namely, That if there had been, at that time, at the head of this church, an ecclefiaftical officer, in any meafure, refembling one of our modern Bifhops, CLEMENT of Rome, 79 it is altogether unaccountable, how both Clement and the church of Rome fhould treat him with fuch negle£t, as to be to- tally filent about him. It would certain- ly look ftrange, and be refented ill, if one of our prefent Bifhops fhould be fo fhamefully overlooked ; his church com- plained of, rebuked, exhorted, and dire£t- ed to a proper method of peace : and all, without referring the matter to the Bi- fhop, or indeed taking the leaf! notice of him.— But of this we may hear more afterwards. The exa<9t time, when this epiftle was wrote, is not eafy to be ftated ; as we may be fully fatisfied from the difagree- ment of the moft 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 fuppofes him to be under banifhment* Dr. Cave fixes the period a few years fooner, a little af- ter the Dioclefian perfecution. Vende- linus places it in the year 95, when he apprehends this perfecution was at its heighth. Cotelerius agrees with him as to the year, but rather thinks the perfe- cution was drawing to an end. But the M. conje&ur? So CLEMENT of RoSib; Conjecture of Grotius, Dodwell, Arch- Bifhop Wake, and fome others, makes it to have been wrote much fooner ; be- tween the latter end of Nero's reign, and the deftruclionof Jerufalenl, that is, between the years 64 and 70 -, which they very ihuchground on that paflageih the epiftle, where they fuppole the Jewifh prieft- hood and Levitical miniftrations arefpo- ken of as yet continuing.— But as it would be a going too far out of my way to con- lider the particular reafons, on which thefc conjectures are built, I have barely referred to them, without pretending to fay which are moil probable : but leaving it to the reader to examine the matter, and determine as he fees fito The only colour of an objection againfl; the genuinefs of this epi(tle,is taken froni the " fable of the phasnix," which Cle- ment particularly relates, and then ufes to reprefent the credibility of the doctrine cf the refunection. But it is hot wor- thy of much notice. This was a ftory, however ridiculous, generally believed in that day, by the learned as well as un- learned, both Jews and Gentiles. And as the account of that " bird's reviving out of CLEMENT of Rome, 8* qf the afhes of the body con.fumed by fire," was capable of being improved as an illuftration of the doctrine of the re- furreftion, where is the great abfurdity of its being applied to this purpofe ? And if Clement" had himfelf really believed this ftory, being too far carried away with the prevailing opinion, what greater in- firmity would it argue, than the belt and moft valuable men always have been, and now are, fubjedt to, * ^ Grotius's thoughts concerning this epiftle, in his letter toBign©rius,are worth tranferibing here. V I have (fays he) read it over and over again, with the utmofl care and diligence, and cannot think any Qther,than that it is the fame epiftle which Photius read : in whofe day, fince it was in being, it is not wonderful, it has teen preferved to our's, among the facred writings. Neither fee I any reafon, ei- ther why the epiftle which Photius read, fliould f The learned reader, that is curious,, may be gratified by reading what is fajdj upon the " fhble of the phaenix," to filence the objections againft this epiftle of Clement, on account of his making ufe of it, in the notes in the body of the epiftle, and in the prefixed judgment of . fome of the greateft antiquaries, as they may be feen iiz- Le Clere's edition of Cotelerius's " apoftolical Fathers/ i 82 CLEMENT of Rome, /hould not be the fame which Jerom had, and before him Clement of Alexan- dria, and Irenaeus, yet nearer to the time of Clement of Rome : or why we fhould afcribe it to any other, than Clement of Rome himfelf ; fince this has been hand- ed down to us, with fo great and unlver- ial confent." To which! would only add, there is no one ancient piece, we have greater reafon, both from its internal cha- rafter, and external evidence, to depend upon as genuine. It is perhaps the moft frequently quoted, by the more primi- tive Fathers, of any uninfpired book •, between all which quotations, and the prefent copy of this epiftle, there is a won- derful agreement. And it carries in it none of thole marks of impoftor that are to be met with, in fome other pieces ; and thefe too, palmed upon even this ve- ry Clement : but every thing is delivered both as to matter, and manner, as rpight be expefted from one that lived in the apoftolic age, and was a worthy faithful- laborer in the vineyard of Chrifl. Doubtful. In this clafs I place the " fecond epif- tle to the Corinthians," afcribed to this Clementi CLEMENT of Rome. 83 Clement. It is unqueftionably an an- cient piece ; and as it contains a pious exhortation to an holy life, without the mixture of any thing, that I at prefent remember, unbecoming the character of Clement, or diftbnant from the age in which he lived, I fee no reafon abfolutely to condemn it as fuppofititious. As the known ecclefiaftical hiftorian fpeaks of the firft epiftle as the only un- doubted one, and declares concerning the fecond, what appears, even to this day, to be tact, that it was " neither ufed, nor alledged, by the ancient writers ; h if we may not, with Jerom and Photius, plain- ly reject it, we may, at leaft, put it up on the foot of uncertain authority. — But I need not fay any more, there being extant only a fragment of this epiftle ; in which we meet with nothing that bears relation to the prefent controverfy. Spurious. The pieces of this fort, afcribed t*' Clement, as their author, or the penman of others, are the « apoftolical conftitu- lions," the " apoftolical canons," the 11 recognitions/' 84 CLEMENT of Rome. f* recognitions," the "Clementines" with the" prefixt epiftle of Clement to James," r ; nd the " epitQme of the afts of Peter." As to the ponftitutioris ; Mr. Whifton, the lateft patron of them, has given them the moft facred character ; pre- tending, that they are the work of even the whole body of the Apoftles, and pen- ned by Clement as their amanuenfis : than which, perhaps, there never was an opinion attended with more, or greater gbfurdities. It is obvious to all, in any meafure, verled iri the ancient wri- tings, that there is a total filence of all primitive antiquity about t{iefe constitu- tions. And however Mr. Whifton's authorities out of the fathers have fwel- led even into a vojume, yet that they are only a vaft heap of mifapplications is fo evident, that no one, io far as I can learn, has ever thought it w r orth while to be at the pains to take them out' of that ftrangly falfe light, in which he has placed them : nor is there any need of ir, there being enough in the books them- felves to make it clearly evident, that no one of the apoftles had any hand in writ- ing them 3 yea, that they n.ever were in being. CLEMfeNT of Rome. 85 being, at leaft as we now have them, un- til tlie church of Ciirift was gone far in- to corruption and degeneracy. A few of thole many things, which are open to every one's observation, upon the bare reading of them, and that are fufficient indications of this, t fhall here infert. The manner in which they fpeak of Bifhops is very extraordinary. They represent them as " bearing the character of God among men ;" as " fet over all men, Prielts, Kings, princes, fathers, fons, mailers, and all that are fubjeft to them." They command them to " judge with like authority as God himfelf." They call the Bifhop, " the minifter of the word, the keeper of knowledge, the me- diator between God and his people in re- ligious worfhip, the mafter of piety, next linto God, the chriftian'i father, his Prince, Governor, King, Potentate;" and declare, that he is to be " honor'd next to God as an earthly God." They fpeak of Bifhops/as thofe that are to be "venerated and honoured with all kind of honor ;" as thofe who have " received from God the power of life and death, in judging finners, and condemning them to eter- nal 86 CLEMENT of Rome. nal flames, and abfolving thofe who are converted." They exhort the people to " reverence their Bifhops as Kings, and to honor them as their Lord." This is a tafte of the fpirif, and ftile, in which Bifhops are here fpoken of; between which, and the ftile and fpirit of the truly apoftolical writings, upon the fame fubje^ there cannot be a greater contrariety. Let a man read, over and over again, the genuine writings of the apoftles, and he fhall ever find what they fay concerning Bifhops, to be delivered in plain fimple language, per- fectly fuitedto thefpiritual nature of that kingdom of Chrift, in which they are of- ficers : whereas, thefe " conftitutions" fo ftrangely differ from the apoftolic genius, that, if the writings of the moft corrupt ages be looked into, we fhall not be able to find in them any expreffions, more unboundedly aggrandifing Bifhops, and claiming for them higher degrees of ho- nor and reverence. And if we turn to the epiftle of Cle- ment, the pretended amanuenfis of the Apoftles, we fhall find as great a diflb- nancy CLEMENT of Rome. 87 nancy between that, and thefe conftitu- tions : which is truly wonderful, if he had fuch an intimate acquaintance with them, as he muft have had, if he was the' penman of them. Nor can it, in any ra- tional way, be accounted for, that, in wri- ting to the Corinthians, he fhould whol- ly pafs by this moft valuable and canoni- cal part of facred fcripture, (as it muft certainly be, if, as is faid, it was compo- fed by the whole body of Apoflles) which yet he does ; and this, when it was far better adapted toanfwer the d'efign of his " epiftle," than all the other books of the new-teftament put together. For here, the boundaries, not only between Bi- fhops and Prefbyters, but between Pref- byters and Laics, are moft punctually fixed ; their duty to them prefcribed, their obedience fecured ; and, in a word, the whole controverfy among the Corin- thians, the occafion of Clement's writing to them, intirely fettled. And yet, he takes not the leaft notice of thefe " con- ftitutions," though, from the' mouth of the Apoftles, he had penned them; while, at the fame time, he makes great ufe of the books both of the old and new-tefta- tnent, to fetch in arguments to his pur- fofe, But to proceed, N In '88 CLEMENT of Rome, In thejfe " conftitutions," we have forms of prayer prefcribed for a great va- riety of occasions : particularly for both facraments, " baptifm and the Lord's fupper ;" for the " ordination of Bifhops, Prefbyters, Deacons, Readers, Singers," and fo on* But that thefe were, any of them, ever ufed in the primitive church, there are no footfteps in antiquity : nor is there the leaft reference made to them, by any truly ancient Father, upon any occafion i which is altogether unaccoun- table, if, as is pretended, they were com- pofed, even by the whole body of Apof- tles ; and this, purpofely for the ufe of the chriftian churcn, Wfc here read of the ufe of u oyl in baptifm " nor is it allowed to be valid without a prayer for the efficacy of it on the baptifed perfon : and he is repre- sented, without this prayer, as " de- scending into the water to no better pur- pofe than a meer Jew {* and as " warning off the defilements of his body, but not of his foul." We have here prefcribed an " office for the dead ;" in which fupplication is made CLEMENT of Rome. 89 Siade for the deceafed, that God would "pardon his fins, both involuntary and voluntary, and receive his foul to be with Abraham, Ifaac^ and Jacob/' We are here commanded to attend " prayer at church," not only daily, but no iefs than " fix times a day j M the particular feafbns for which, toge^ ther with the trifling reafons on which they are grounded, are all particularly fpecified* Particular care is here taken about the " form and fituation of churches ;" an appointment made, that they (hall be M oblong and facing the eaft." Mag- nificence in churches is alfo commanded, the ment :" and before he begins prayer, he is ordered, in the fight of all the people, " to make upon his forehead the fign of the crofs." The Deacons are command- ed to wait on each fide of the altar, with a " fan in their hands made of thin membranes, or the feathers of a peacock, 1 9 o CLEMENT of Rome. or of fine cloth, to drive away the fmall animals from the facramental cups." A very minute account is alio exhibited of " places to fit in" in churches, and the "junior ordered to be turned of his place," if he does not yield it to a " more honorable ftranger f together with other like inftances of ceremony and good manners. We are here directed to " obferve days in honor to deceafed faints ;" to accom- pany " their funerals with finging," and to " affemble in the dormitories of the martyrs, and there to celebrate the holy eucharift." Particular mention is here made of " Sub-deacons, Readers, Singers, Con- feflbrs, Porters, Minifters, Virgins, Ex- ercifts,"as bearing office inthechurch. We read alfo of " Energumens, Cate- chumens," together with a great num- ber of " fafts and feafts," and a deal more fuch trumpery, which was abfo- folutely unknown in the apoftolic age ; but vifible enough in the church, in after days, when fhe had become f uper- ftitious and corrupt. And this I fhould now; CLEMENT of Rome.. 91 now particularly and largely have fhewn, but that I muft have taken confiderable pains, in my own apprehenfion, to little purpofe j not doubting, but the bare nar- rative of the above articles will be thought by moft, a full juftification of thofe, who difcard all pretence to thefe books, as apoftolically compofed. This opinion then being thrown afide, it is not eafy to conceive of thefe " con*, ftitutions" in their prefent form, as any other, than the work of fome very bold and impudent impoftor ; fince he perfonates the Apoftles with all freedom -, fpeakingiti the name, fometimes of one, fometimes of another, and fometimes of them all : with the greateft folemnity and formali- ty commanding this thing, and prohibit- ing another. Inftances of this are fo fre- quently to be met with, that it is needlefs to adduce any. And it demonftrably argues, that the author was a vile cheat, and ought accordingly to be fo thought of. As to the time in which thefe books may be fuppofed to come abroad in the world, I know of none (thofe few excep- ted who plead for them as penned by Clement) 9 z CLEMENT of Rome, Clement) who pretend to fix the period higher than the latter end of the fecond,or the beginning of the third century. * But whether thofe, who thus fix the time, are in the right ; or others, who bring it down to the fourth or fifth century, I fhali not difpute. Probably, they were not complete, as we now have them, at once ; but have been, from time to time, correifited, altered, augmented, according fo the various cuftoms of different ages $nd countries. Mr. Whifton pretends the fame of the " canons 5 ' that he does of the conftitu- tions ; that they were wrote by Clement, as the work of the whole apoftolic body ; but there does not appear any reafon, why the fame judgment fliould not be paffed up©n * Bifliop Beveridge has expended no fmall labor to give date to thefe " conftitutions,'' about the clofe of the fe- cond, or the beginning of the thirdcentury : but to no va- luable purpofe. For, fhould it be even allowed, that they were then in being, it is abfolutely certain, they are not now, as they muft have been then. And, unlefs fome way could be pointed out (which has never yet been done) to diftinguifh the original contents, from the multiplicity of corruptions that have crept into them, they can be of no real fervice ; a$ there is no knowing what is genuine, and what the work of fenfdds and knavifli iktekpolaoris. , CLEMENT of Rome. 93 upon them,that wehave given of the con-* ftitutions, in point of their being apofto- lically compofed. As for rnyfelf, nothing more was needful to convince me of this, after I had once read them : fo many of them being either trifling in themfelves, or inconnftent with the truly apoftolicai writings, or containing fuch things as were not known in the church until ages after the apoftles. I fliall not think it beyond my defign, to prefent here to the reader's view a few of them. Can, II. " If any Bifliop or Prefbyter, befides what our Lord has appointed for facrifice, fhall offer upon the altar other things ; as honey, or milk, or cyder in- ftead of wine, or things made by the confedioner, or birds, or animals, or pulfe : let him be depofed. Excepting ears of corn, or grapes, it is not lawful to offer any thing upon the altar, fave only oyl for the holy lamp, and incenfe of thyme in divine oblation." Thofe who are in the leaft acquainted with the writings of the apoftolic age, and the af- ter corrupt ages of the church, can be at no lofs to determine, in which of thefe ages, it is moft likely, this canon fliould be 94 CLEMENT of Rome. be formed. And the curious reader, that will be at the pains to run over the learn- ed DodwelFs " book of incenfe," cannot well help being fatisfied, particularly as to the article of offering incenfe, that it was abfolutely unknown in the church, for fome ages after the death of the Apoftles. Can. V. " If any Bifhop, Prefbyter, or Deacon, fliall celebrate with the Jews, the holy day of eafter before the vernal aequinox, let him be depofed." The controverfy between theeaftern and wef- tern churches, about the time of keeping eafter, that happened in the fecond cen- tury, long after the death of the Apoftles, might, by this canon, have been fettled : and yet, in the whole management of this difpute, (which was prodigioufly fierce) it was never once appealed to, nor the leaft hint given, by either party, as if any fuch canon was in being : which is certain- ly a very ftrange thing, if, before this dif- pute, this cannon had been made, and committed to writing by direction from the Apoftles : efpecially confidering, the chief 'managers of this difpute were the Paftors of the feverai churches, the moit learned CLEMENT of Rome. 55 jearned and famous among them ; who ttiuft have known of this canon, if it had been in being ; and cannot be fup- pofed not to have made ufe of it, fince it was an apoftolical one, and muft at once have ended the controverfy. Can. XVII. " Forbids any one's being riiade a Clergyman, who hath made him- felf an euriuch ; and commands every Clergyman, who hath fo made hiriifelf, to be depofed : 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 becariie fo common, as to need fome reftraints to be laid upon it, to be admitted for apoftolical. Can. XIX. " Of thofe who were fin- gle perfons, when they were made Cler- gymenj we command^ that only Readers and Singers may take wives. " A perfoti can fcarce read this canon, without turn- ing his thoughts to a fcripture paflage, which founds as if, by fpecial foreknow- ledge, it had been purpofely inferted, to confront the authority of thefe and fuch like decrees. Says one of the Apoftles of our Lord* " Now the '-fpirit fpeaketh Q exprefllyj 96 CLEMENT of Rome. expreflly, that in the latter times, fomc fhall depart from the faith,— forbid- ING TO MAURY." Can. XXVll. ci Subjefts allBifhops, of every province, to one that is firft a- mong them* or the Metropolitan." But as nothing is more clearly evident, than that Metropolitans were not known, in the church, until ages after the Apoftlesj to thefe times this canon ought to be referred. I si* all only add two or three rrioreca-* lions, which feem to be of trifling con- fideration, and not to merit a formal decree of the whole body of Apoftles. Can. L&IX. " If any Clergyman hath laughed at one that is dumb, or blind, or lame in his feet, let him be feparated : fo &lfo 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." Cai*. LXXI. " Me that is deaf, dumfc, §r blind, let him not be made a Bifhop." Haying CLEMENT of Rome, 97 Having thus offered what may be thought iufficient to evince the ahfurdi- ,ty of that opinion, which makes thcfe canons the compofure of the Apcfties, I. (hall not be fo much concerned to inquire into other things of lefs importance. Who the author of thefe canons was, is a matter of the greateU uncertainty. But whether he was an. irnpoftor, that defign- ed to impofe upon, the world, by putting then} forth under the narne of the Apof- ties ? or whether they are only the de- crees of ancient councils collected toge- ther in this form, by fome perfon or per- sons of honeft intention $ and filled apof- tolical, not as if they had been made by the Apoftles, but as containing things, in their ^pprehenfion, confonant to the rules delivered by the Apoftles; or as made Up of ufagesand traditions fqppofed, tops handed down from them : J fay, whether of thefe opinions are the trued, I flaall not at prefent debate. Nor is it a matter agreed on, when thefe canons firft made their appearance in the world. Man- fieur D'aille does not allow them 3ny be- ing, until towards the fifth century ; in oppoiition whereto, Bifhop Beveridge has ranfac^ed all antiquity to confirm the opinion. 9 8 CLEMENT of Rome, opinion, that they ought to be placed in the third century. But inftead of examining the arguments of thefe au- thors to know which are in the right, I rhall rather obferve concerning both the apoftolical cohftitutions, and canons, as a conclufion of what I (hall offer about them, That however thofe learned writers, who have given the world their thoughts about thefe books, may differ in matters 6f fmaller importance ; as the time, man- ner, and occafion of their being wrote i tet, with great unanimity, they rejett them as the work of infpired Apoftles. And indeed, Mr. Whifton (depending on the credit of Dr. Smallbroke) is the firft perfon, either ancient or modern, fo far as we are informed by eccleflaftical hif- tory, that ever had this opinion^of them 5 *' Evert Bovius, and Turrianus, (to ufe 4t the language of that author) who u firft recommended the conftitutions to " the learned world, how vainly foever " they fpent their time in writing forced *' and unnatural apologies for them, u were not fo fond of novelty, as to fup- u pofc they were tr^ly apoftolical, and tf the ELEMENT of Rome. || '* the product of divine infpiration. *f Much lefs did they ever dream of fa '? high a degree of infpiration, as renders V them (accqrdingto Mr. Whifton) more *f facred than the authentic gofpels them- •/ felves. All that they pretended to af-* " fert was, that Clemens Romanus had " collected fome apoftolical traditions, " which he formed into the eight books •' of conftitutions, then retrieved and " published by them. They, therefore, " agreably to their hypothefis, weak and precarious as it was, labored to eftablifh the antiquity of the confti- tutions, as a body of ecclefiaftical dif- cipline ; bijt expreflly difclaimed all pretenfiqns tQ divine authority, or to their being a facred rule of life and i manners." He goes on in a man- ner that I fliall think worth trans- cribing ; ft Indeed their principal de- u fign was to oppofe thofe of the re- ?' formation by thern. And that it was io, ft both thofe warm patrons of the con- ** ftitutions very frankly acknowledge, K Bovius, who tranflated them firft into f latin, and commented upon them, de- f* dicated his work to the Pope's legates f 1 ;hat prefided in the council of Trent ; " In n €( I op CLEMENT of Rome, 41 In the epiftle dedicatory to whom, he « c acquaints us, that, upon a recital of " fome paflag es of the Clementine con- « flitutiqns, at a meeting of the fathers " of the council of Trent, thofe paf- .« fages were thought fo very ferviceable £ to what was there tranfaQing in tfcatfy- H nod,as togive thefirft hint to the publica- ft tion of the whole body of the conftituti- w ons. After which, Boyius aflerts, that " there is fcarce any thing that is oppofedby <* theHeretics,thatis, Proteftants, as r crept # into the church by error and fuper- * ( ftition, but may be defended by the " authority of thefe constitutions, and " fhewn to be of primitive antiquity. <• Turrianus, likewife, who made thefe '< conftitutions a considerable part of his " ftudies, affures us, that they were " thought very beneficial to the church, " that is, the church of Rome, by the " cenfors of books in the council of " Trent -, and that their mofl grave and " weighty judgment of them was fealed, " and laid up at Rome, in the public " records of the inquifition. Again, he u affirms,that nothing of antiquity could " be publifhed more proper for that age, " and better adapted to the confutation m of CLEMENT of RoMt, itfi " of thofe innovators, the Proteftants." He adds, "That thefe books were pro- ? videntially publifhed in that age, when P there was the greateft occafion for jf* them, as witneffes againft thofe of f? the reformation : (at whom he rails " very plentifully) and that it feemed, 4t nothing mere was either wanting, or " could be expe&ed for their convicti- " on. That thefe books were fent by " God to triumph over thefe Protef- " tants, and to fhew the world how juft- " ly they?, were condemned in the coun- * cil of Trent," Dr. Smallbroke adds, the reafon that he tranfcribed thefe paffages from Bovius and Turrianus was, " That the reader " might be rightly informed of theavow- u cd defign of publifhing the Clementine u conftitutions, even the confutation of " the reformed religion," And I have thus tranfcribed the paffages from him, becaufe he ftiles himfelf " Canon-Refi- dentiary of Hereford* Treafurer of the clrurch of Landaff, and Chaplain to his Grace, the Lord Arch-Bifhop of Can- terbury*" Tm id* CLEMENT of Rome; The next piece, that prefects itfelf under the name of Clement, is the " re- cognitions," as in the tranfla'tion of Ruf- iin. But it is fo empty of every thing favoring of the fimplicity of the firft ana pure ages of chriftianity, and fo full of fable, and feigned conferences about fate, and the influence of the ftars, and hea- venly conftellations, and fu'ch like ridi- culous ftoff, that it is univerfally placed below the time of Clement, as altogether unworthy of him„- And the fame may be /aid of the other writings, we have mentioned under the head of fuppofititious, if indeed they may be allowed to be called different ones, The " Clementines'* are thought, by fome, to be that " other edition of the recog- nitions," Ruffift mentions in his preface' to Gaudentius, prefixed to the recogni- tions he made a verfion of : fince they fo exactly agree with the character he there gives of them, differing in fome things from that he tranflated, but the fame in many. And for the " epitome of the a<5ts of Peter," Dr. Cave calls it " a third edition of the recognitions ," oc rather an » abftraft pf both the recog- nitions CLEMENT of Rome. 103 nitions and Clementines/' though keep- ing more clofely to the latter. But whe- ther thefe are different compofitions, or only one and the fame piece, fomething varied and differently modelled, it mat- ters not ; fo long as we have the con- currence of the main body of the learned world in throwing them afide as evident- ly fuppofititious. Testimonies from Clement's firft epiftle to the Corinthians. The inscription to the epiftle. " The church of God which is at Rome, \e paroikoufa Romen] to the church of God which is at Corinth, \$ paroikoufa Korintkori] elefr, fan&ified, by the will ©fGod, through JefusChrift our Lord : grace and peace from theAlmightyGod, by Jefus Chrift, be multipled unto you." Brethren, THE fudden and unexpefled dangers and calamities that have fallen upon us, have, we fear, made us the more flow in our confideration of thofe things P which 104 CLEMENT of Rome. which you inquired of us ; as alfo of that wicked and deteftable sedition, fo unbecoming the elect of God, which a few heady and felf-willed men have fo- mented to iuch a degree of madnefs, that your venerable and renowned name, fo worthy of all men to be beloved, is greatly blafphemed thereby. For who that has ever been among you, has not experi- mented the firmnefs of your faith, and its fruitfulnefs in all good works ? and ad- mired the temper and moderation of your religion in Chrift ? For ye did all things without refpect of perfons, and walked according to the laws of God : being fubje£t to thofe who had the rule over you, [upotaffamenoi tois egoumenois #- moni\ and giving the honor that was fit- ing to fuch as were the aged among you [tois par umin prejhuterois.'] Ye com- manded the young men [Neois] to think thofe things that were modeft and grave. The women, ye exhorted, to do all things with an unblameable, and feemly, and pure confcience ; loving their own huf- bands as was firing." — He goes on, in the next fecYion, com* mending their former chriftian good tern-* per CLEMENT of Rome. 105 per and condud ; and then proceeds to tell them o; their faults, in the follow- ing words, Sect. III.— "So was fulfilled that which is written, " my beloved did eat and drink, he was enlarged, and waxed far, and he kicked." From hence came emu- lation, and envy, and ftrife, and fedition ; perfecution and diforder, war and capti- vity. So they who were of no renown lifted up themfelves againft the honora- ble ; thofe of no reputation, againft thofe that were in refpeft ; the foolifh againft the wife ; the young men againft the aged [pi neoi epi tous prejbut erous.] There- fore righteoufnefs and peace are depart- ed from you, becaufe every one hath for- faken the fear of God.'*— Sect. XXI. — " The Spirit of the Lord is a candle, fearching out the inward parts of the belly." Let us therefore conllder how near he is to us ; and how that none of our thoughts, or reafonings, which we frame within our felves, are hid from him. It is therefore juft, that we fliould not forfake our rank, by doing contrary to his will. Let us chufe to offend a few io6 CLEMENT of Rome, few foolifh and inconfiderate men, lifted up, and glorying in their own pride, ra- ther than God. Let us reverence our Lord Jefus Chrift, whofe blood was giv- en for us ; let us honor thofe who are fet over us [tons proegoumwous emon ;] let us refpeft the aged that are among us [tous pre/but erous emon;] let us inftrudt the younger men in the difcipline 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 earneftnefs in his holy laws. Let us confider thofe who fight under our earth- ly Governors : how orderly, how readily, and with what exa£l obedience they per- form thofe things that are commanded them ? All are not Generals, nor Colo- nels, nor Captains, nor inferior officers $ but every one, in his refpedtive rank, does what is commanded him by the King, and thofe who have authority over him. They who are great cannot fublift without thofe that are little -, nor the little with- out the great. But there muft be a mix- ture in all things, and then there will be ufe and profit too. Let us, for exam- ple, CLEMENT of Rome. 107 pic, take our. body : the head without the feet is nothing, neither the feet without the head. And even the fmalleft members of our body are yet both neceffary, and ufe- ful to the whole body. But all confpire together, and are fubjeft to one common ufe, namely, the prefer vation of the whole body." Having applied what he had thus faid, in the two following fe&ions, xxxviii and xxxix, to the encouragement of good order in the church of Corinth, he goes on, Sect. XL. " Seeing then thefe things are manifeft to us, it will behove us to take care, that, looking into the depths of the divine knowledge, we do all things in order, whatfoever our Lord has com- manded us to do. And, particularly, that we perform our offerings and fer- vice to God at their appointed feafons 5 for thefe he has commanded to be done, not rafhly and diforderly, but at certain determinate times and hours. And there- fore he has ordained, by his fupreme will and authority, both where, and by what perfons, they are to be performed : that fy all things being pioufly done unto all well- to8 CLEMENT of Rome. well-pleafing, they may be acceptable to him. They therefore who make their offerings at the appointed feafons are hap- py, and accepted ; becaufe that, obeying the commandments of the Lord, they are free from fin. And t Joe fame care muft be had of the perfons that mmijler unto him. * For the chief Prieft [Archiereus, high Prieft'] has his proper iervices -, and to the Priefts their proper place is appointed j and to the Levites appertain their pro* per miniftries ; and the Lay-man is confined witfrin the bounds of what is commanded to Lay-men," It follows immediately, Sect. XLI. " Let every one of you therefore, brethren, blefs God in his proper ftation, with a good confeience, and with all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his fervice that is appointed to him. The daily facrifices are not offered every where ; nor the peace-offerings, nor the facrifices appointed for fin and tranf- greflions ; but only at Jerufalem : nor in any place there, but only at the altar before The Arch-Btftnp has printed the above fen ten ce in italic, to lei us know, I fuppofe, that it is not in the original. For it is not to be found there. CLEMENT of Rome. 109 before the temple ; that which is of- fered, being firft diligently examined by the High-prieft, and the other mini- fters, we before mentioned. They there- fore who do any thing which is not agreea- ble to his will, are punifhed with death. Confider, brethren, that by how much the better knowledge God has vouch- fafed unto us, by fo much the greater danger are we expofed to." The next words are, Sect. XLII. " The Apoftles have preached to us, from our Lord Jefus Chrift ; Jefus Chrift, from God. Chrift therefore was fent by God, the Apoftles by Chrift : fo both were orderly fent, ac- cording to the will of God. For having received their command, and being tho- roughly aflured by the refurre&ion of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and convinced by the word of God, with the fullnefs of the Holy Spirit, they went abroad pub- lilhing, that " the kingdom of God was at hand." And thus preaching through countries and cities, [Kata Chdras kai poleis] they appointed the firft-fruits of their converfions to be Bifhops and Minifters no CLEMENT of Rome. Minifters * [eis epijkopouskai diakonous] over luch as (hould afterwards believe, having firft proved them by theSpirit. Nor was this any new thing > feeing that, long be- fore, it was written concerning Bifhops and Deacons [peri epifcopon kai diakonon.] For thus faith the fcripture, in a cer- tain place, " I will appoint their over- feers [epijkopous auton] in righteoufnefs, and their minifters [diakonous auton] in faith/' And having, in the next, the xliiid, fedtion, fpoken of the method Mofes, of old, came into to fettle the Jewifli Prieft- hood to prevent contention, he proceeds, Sect. XLIV. " So likewife our Apof- tles knew by our Lord Jefus Chrift, that there fhould contentions arife upon the account * Is it fo vlfible to the meer Englifn reader, by this tran- flation, thatClement is here fpeaking of the apoftolic con- ftitution of the two orders in the church, Bishops and Deacons, as it is to thofe who are acquainted with the original words ? Can even candor itfelf fuppofe, that the word Diakonous, could, in this place, have been tranflated, not Dr. a cons, but by the general word Mi- nisters, unlefs upon defign ? Efpecially, when thofe officers are here intended to be pointed out, which both Clement, and the fcriptures, lignify by the word, Di a ko n oi , De a c o n s, in its appropriated knfe, CLEMENT of Rome, it* account of the miniftiy [epi tou onomafot tes epifcoph.*] And therefore having a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they ap- pointed perfons, as we have before faid, and then gave direction -f how, when, they fhould die, other chofen and approv- ed men fhould fucceed in their miniftry. Wherefore we cannot think, that thole may be juftly thrown out of their mini- ftry, who were either appointed by them, or afterwards chofen by other eminent rneny with the confent of the whole church ; and who have, with all lowli- nefs and innocency, miniftred to the Sock of Chrift, in peace; and without felf-intefeft, and were for a long time commended by all. For it would be no fmall fin in us, fhould we call off thofe from their miniftry, X [/$ epitopes'] who holily and without blame fulfil the Q^ duties * " About the name of bifkopric," as the Arch-Bifhop ren- ders it in the margin. f The Arch-Biftop has It in the margin, " left a lift of other chofen and approved men, who ihould fucceed them in the miniftry." -J Ifthe word^pifcopes, inftead of minJftry,had been tranfla- tedhere epiicopacy,orepifcopate,it would have been more agreeable to its ju.ft import, particuhily in this place, an J not have looked like sl defign to impofe on the En - ftlHh reader. 112 CLEMENT of Rome. duties of it, feleffed are thofe Priefts, * \jnakarioi oi Prefbuteroi'] who, having fi- niihed their courfe before thefe times, have obtained a perfeft and fruitful diffo- lution : For they have no fear left any one (hould turn thern out of the place which is now appointed for them. But we fee how you have put out fome, who lived reputably among you, from the miniftry, which by their innocence they had adorned. Sect. XLVII. " Take the epiftle of the blefled Paul, the Apoftle, into your hands. What was it that he wrote to you, * It is not eafift to conceive, why the Arch-Bi&op fhould here translate Presbuteroi, by the word Priests, unlefs he had it in view to keep the Englifti reader from feeing, in fo ftriking a light as otherwife he would, that Preibyters, in the account of Clement, were pre- cifely the Line order of officers with Bifhops ; as they are, in the preceding line, directly faid to be M caft out of their episcopacy." The flipping in here the word Priests, inftead of Preibyters, obfeures the light, in which this certain truth fo clearly mines in this place. It may be added, the word Priest is nowhere ufed by- Clement, or by any of the writers of the new-teftament, to fignify that officer, in the chriftian church, who is point- ed out by the word Presbyter : nor was it ever fo ufed, until the manof sin had grown to a very confi- dcrable height. Its ufe, as having the fame meaning with Prefbyter, though common in the public fervices of the Englifh church, took its rife from the church of Ro M E and its public offices j which refktts no great honor on iu CLEMENT io Rome, iij you, at his firft preaching the gofpel among you ? Verily, he did, by the Spi- rit, admonifh. you .concerninghimfel^and Cephas, and Apollos, becaufe that even then ye had begun to fall into parties and factions among yourfelves. Neverthe- less your partiality then led you into a much lefs fin : forafmuch as ye placed your affections upon Apoflles, men of eminent reputation in the church ^ and upon another, who was greatly tried, and approved of. by them. But confider,we pray you, who were they that have now led yon aftray, and leflened the reputation of that, brotherly love that was fo eminent among you ? Jt is a fhame, my beloved, yea a very great fhame, and unworthy of your christian profeflion, to hear, that tbemoft firm and ancient church of the Corinthi- ans fhould, by one or two perfons, be led into a fedition againft its Priefls [pros tous Prejbuterous.] And this report is come not only to qs, but to thofe ajfo that differ from us ; infomuch that the name of tjie Lord is blafpherned through your folly -> gnd even ye yourfelves are brought into danger by it." Sect. XLVIII. « Let us therefore, with all hafte, put an end to this fediti- on s ? i 4 CLEMENT of Rome. and becaft out of his fold/'— Remarks and Observations qv\ the foregoing teftimonies. HAVING laid before the readers yiew all the paffages, in Clement's epiftle, that relate to the Epifcopalian controver- fy, I fhall now take particular notice of thofe among them, I have met with as ufed to fupport the opinion, which would make Bifhops qin order in the church diftinct from, and fuperior to,Prefbyters ; which when I have done, I fhall then pro- pofe fuch obfervations, in favor of the parity of the order of thefe officers, a$ are evidently deducible from the whole pf what Clement has faid upon this point. , The paffages infifted upon to fupport the fuperiority of Bifhops to Prefbyters, I (hall connder without obierving any other method, than the order in which they lie in the epiftle. Th£ firft paffage I meet with, recurred to by epilcopal writers, we have in Sect. I.—- " And ye walked accord- ing to the laws of God, being fubjeft to thofe i n6 CLEMENT of Rome, thofe [ufotajfamenoi tois egoumenois amon ] who had the rule over you, and giving the honor that was fitting [tots far umin Prejbuterois] to fuch as were aged among you." To which they add thofe parallel words, in fett. xxi. " Let us honor thofe that are fet over us ; \tous froegoumenous emon\ let us refpedt [tousPreJbuterous mon\ the aged that are among us." These paflages, it is pleaded, afford clear evidence, that there was, in the days of Clement, a diftin£tion between Bifhops and Prefbyters. Being fubjeft, egoumenois union, that is, fay they, to your ccclefiaftical rulers ; by whom they con-p elude are meant Bifhops : and this, as of^ iicers diftinft from Prefbyters ; becaufe it follows, paying due honor tots far umin Prejbuterois ; by whom, they fup- pofe, we are to understand, not aged men, but thofe officers in the church, called Prefbyters. Now, in order to fhow the invalidity of this plea, I have no need to go into the opinion of the learned Salmafius, and Burton, who unfterftand by thefe egou- menoiy not ecclefiaftical, but civil rulers ; which opinion they ftrengthen by ob- ferving, GLfiMENT of Rome, jiy ferving, that this word is feveral times ufcd in this epiftle ; but always as fig- nifying thofe, who were civil ruler*. The places referred to by Salmafius are five; and except thofe under confideration, they are all, in which it is ufed ; and it is ufed in them with reference to civil officers. But this notwithftanding, as the word may, with propriety, be applied to ecclefiaftical rulers, and is frequently applied to them in the facred books; and as there is no hint given, any where in Clement's epiftle, as if the Corinthi- ans were blameable for their difobedience to their civil rulers ; and its chief defign is to teach them a futable conduct, not towards thofe in the ftate, but in the church, that were fet over them : I fay confidering thefe things, I am willing to allow, that, by thefe rulers, we are to underftand, not thofe of the civil, but ecclefiaftical order : but muft fay, at the fame time, that we have abundant reafon to conclude, they were Prefbyters, and not Bifhops -, unlefs we take Bi- fhop and Prefbyter, to be only different words for the fame officer. For let it be obferved, There n8 CLEMENT of Rome, There was, at this time, a plurality of thefe rulers in the church of Corinth ; as is plain from the word, [egoumeneisjwhkh is of a plural fignification. Now, it is certain, that there was a plurality of Prefbyters in this church ; and Prefby- ters too, who had been " let over them," to whom they were commanded to " be in subjection. " Says Clement, \upo- tagete tots Prejluterols] u Be ye fubje£t to your Prefbyters/' And it is obfervable,- the fame word, here joned with Pref- byters, requiring the fubje£tion of the Corinthian church to them, is joined alfo with the word, egoumenois, befpeak- ing the fame fubjeclion. The interpre- tation is therefore fmooth, natural, and confident with the current ftrain of the whole epiftle, while by thefe egcumenois we underftand the Prefbyters of the church > efpec'ia.ily, if it be further con- sidered, that Preibyter-Bifhops £re the higheft ecclefiaftical rulers any where rrrenr tioned by Clement : nor is his epiftle at all acquainted with Bifhops, orily as tJxey mean officers in the church, precifely *>f the feme rank vvith the Prefbyters of it, Besides CLEMENT of Rome. 119 Besides, it may be worth a remark, the word egoumenn is one of the name 3 ufed in fcripture to point out Prelbyters, or, in other words, thofe officers in the chriftian church, that are elfewhere, in the facred writings, promifcuoufly and in* differently called either Bifhops,or Prefby* ters. Thus in the epiftle to the Hebrews, when they are minded of their duty to their ecclefiaftical guides, or rulers, it is exprefled after that manner, " Remem* ber [ton egoumenon umbn\ them which have the rule over you, and have fpoken to you the word of God." * And a few verfes below, " obey [tots egoumenois umori] all them that have the rule over you." And the epiftle Concludes in that ftile, «' falute [pantas tous egoume* nous umon] them that have the ruir over you." And this ufe of the word, in this epiftle, is the rather to be regard- ed, becaufe Eufebius and Jerom fpeak, both of them, of fo great an affinity, in many things, both as to words and mat* ter, between this and the epiftle of Cle- ment, that it was from thence thought, that Clement was, at leaft,the translator of the R H6 CLEMENT of Rome, the epiflle to the Hebrews. And cri- ticks make life of it as a ftrong argu- ment in proof of the genuineness of the prefent copy of Clements epiftle, that it is found to agree fo well with this obfer* vation of Eufebius and Jerom. But if, with the Epifcopalians, we fhould fuppofe thefe egonmenoi mean Bi-* fhops, in diftinction from Prefbyters ; will it not follow, as an inevitable confe- quence, that there was in the church of Corinth, at the fame time, a plurali- ty of Bifhops ? It is obfervable, the word is egoumenoisi not in the Angular, but plu- ral number: which can never be recon- ciled with the do&rine of one u Bifhop in a church, as the center of unity." The dilemma here is plain : either thefe egou* menoi were not Bifhops in the fenfe pleaded for, or there were more of thefe Bifhops than one, in the fame church, at the fame time. That is to fay, either this teftimony from Clement muft be given up, or the old facred maxim, " one Bifhop one altar." But rather than part with this, I doubt not we fhall be left in in this place. And this, being us fenfe here, muft be its fenfe al- fo in the other paflages wc have confider- ed ; CLEMENT of Rome. 125 cd j for they all relate to one and the fame thing. I shall only fubjoin upon this head -, in Cotelerius's " apoftolical fathers" by L'Clerc, in all thefe feclions, the word prejbuteroi is tranflated aged persons. Arch-Bifhop Wake alfo, in his " epiftles of the fathers," renders, the fame word, in all the above places,, in the fame manner : which I thus give notice of, becaufe their thus tranflating the word, muft have proceeded from a full conviftion of the neceflary propriety of this verfion, and not from want of a good heart to ferve the epifcopal caufe, as far as they could with a good confcience. The next plea, made in favor of the diftin&ion between Bifhops and Prefby- ters, is fetched from kc\. xld, where Cle- ment fpeaks of the threefold order in the Jewifh church, " High-Prieft, Priefts, and Levites :" which is fuppofed to be a plain intimktion of a like threefold order in the Chriftian church, in the diftinft officers of Bifhops, Prefbyters, and Dea- cons, And as this is an argument great iz6 CLEMENT of Rome. great ftrefs is laid upon, I fhall be parti- cular in confidering it. Only I muft firft defire the reader care* fully to look over fedh xxxvii, xl> xli, xlii, xliv, which I have fet down entire, that he may be able to judge of the manner in which thele words are introduced, the purpofe they are brought to ferve, and the fpecial application that is made of them ; which muft certainly be allowed to be the beft method to come at their genuine meaning. Nor can it be thought fair to fix upon a few words, in a connect- ed argumentative difcourfe, and plead for them as they be dif-joined from what preceeds, and follows i but their fenfe muft be determined by the place they bear in the argument of which they are a part* Having obferved this, I am free to own, Clement, in order to reduce the church of Corinth to a ftate of regularity, prefents to their view the ceconomy of the Jewifti church > in which proper order and decorum had been conftituted, and was obferved. But when he mentions the " Jewifli High-Prieft f Priefts, and Levites," that it was his intention CLEMENT of Rome. 127 intention to exhibit a pattern of the Chriftian church, under the threefold order of Bifhops, Prefbyters, and Deacons, there is no appearance of a probability to fuppofe : as will be evident if \ye con- fider what follows in one conjunct view. 1 i I. Let lis compare this with the like kind of arguing, in this epiftle. la feet, xxxvii, Clement fets before the Co- rinthians the example of an army : in which every one has his proper place. "Some are only common Soldiers ; fome are Prasfects ; fome Chiliarchs ; fome Centurions; fome Chieftains of fifty; eve- ry one of whom keeps to his own ftation". Now, the defign of this comparifonis ob- vious, namely, to reprefent the beauty and neceffity of the like regularity in the church of Corinth. And the mean- ing is intirely abfolved in this general accommodation, without going fo far in- to the parallel, as to fuppofe preeifely as many diftinct officers in the church, as there arc in an army. Surely, it was not his meaning, " that the church militant muft be re- gimented into order, u$der Patriarchs, S Arch~ 123 CLEMENT of Rome. Arch-Bifhops, Bifhops, Priefts, and other officers, fu peri or to the common ehrif- tian military !" There is no imaginable reafon to fuppofe, fuch a thought ever en-* tered into his heart. In Se<5L XLII, he, in like manner, propofes to the confideration of the Corinthian church the good order that was oblerved in the jewifh church, par- ticularly in their worfhip. They had (as he represents) " their facrirkes both propitiatory andeuchariftical :" butthefe were not to be offered " every where?" but € * at Jerufalem only $ and not in every place even at Jerufalem, but in " the temple on the altar." And his aim here is plain, to encourage, among the Co- rinthians, from this example, thejike de- cent regularity ; without carrying the mat- ter fo far, as to make the Jewifh worfhip an exacl: model for the Chriftian. So in the cafe before us : when Clement men- tions the (• High-Prieft, Priefts, and Le- vites," with each " their proper fervices affigned them," though he fo far accom- modates this inftance, as to argue it to be reafonable, that there fliould be, in like manner, perfons in the Chriftian church* CLEMENT of Rome. 129^ church, whofe proper bufinefs it might be to attend irs miniftraticns ; yet, that there- ought to be exactly a threefold or- der of them, in anfwer to the threefold order in the Jewifh church, there is no more giound to think, than that the parallel in the foregoing cafes, ought to be intirely completed. It is enough that the parallel anfwer in the general defign, he has in view, without making it, as we vulgarly fpeak, " run on all four/' And it deferves particular notice, in the ufe Clement makes of this argu- ment, in the words immediately follow- ing, he regards only its general accomr niodation. 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 fervice." He infers nothing in particular from the example of the Jewifh "High-Prieft, Priefts, and Le- vites'* with their" appointed fervices ;" but only, in general, takes occafion to re-, commend it to every one, in his proper place, to keep the duties of his ftation / without fo much as giving the lead hint, as if there were juft three ftations in the church of Corinth, 35 there were in the church f*o CLEMENT of Rome. church of the Jews ; which muft needs be deemed an argument of great negli- gence, if he had intended any thing like an exaft parallel. To go on, II. It is moft obvioufly remarkable, Clement pnrpofely fets himielf, in fe&. xliid, to exhibit an account of the apofto- lie appointment of officers in the Chriftian church : in which he quite lays afide the Jewifli constitution in a three- fold order, and mentions, inftead of it, only the twofold order of Bifhops and Deacons. Says he, " The Apoftles Jjave preached the gofpel to us from our Lord Jefus Chrift, and Jefus Chrift from God. For Chrift was lent by God, and the Apoftles by Chrift.— Preaching there-* fore through cities and countries, they Conftituted their firft fruits for Bishops and Deacons/ 1 It certainly would have been natural, if Clement had intended a parallel be- tween the Jewifli " High-Prieft, Priefts, and Levites," and Chriftian " Bifhops, Prefbyters, and Deacons ;" 1 fay, it would Jiave been obvious for him to have ap- 1 plied CLEMENT of Rome. i 3 * plied here his difcourfe but a few lines above : cfpecially, confidering he was ftill upon the fame argument, purfuing one and the fame defign. But is there the leaft hint of any fuch application ? So far from it, that he fays not a fylla- ble of a threefold, but expreffly mentions a twofold order ; and this, as appointed by the Apoftles : which is an inconfiften- cy, 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 conftitution of Bifhops and Deacons to be, not a novel thing, but what had long before been wrote about, Clement refers us to that paflage in Ifaiah, " I will appoint their Bifhops in righteoufnefs, and Deacons in faith." Whether this text is pertinently quoted, or not, is not my bufinefs to inquire: but thus much is undeniable, that, had Cle- ment perceived any refemblance between the Jewifh " High-Prieft and Levites," (of whom he had but juft before fpoken) and chriftian "Bifhops and Deacons", he would have much fooner have turned us back to that conftitution, then to this text; 132 CLEMENT of Rome. text ; and his omitting to do this, can be afcribed to no other rational caufe, but its not having entered his heart, to fuppofe any exatt parallel between the Jewifli, and Chriftian conftitution, in point of a threefold order of officers. III. It may not be amifs to inquire, upon fuppofition Clement really intend- ed the conftitution of the Jewifli church, in u High-Prieft, Priefts, and Levites," as a pattern for the conftitution of the chriftian church ; I fay, it may not be improper to inquire, whether, even up- on this fuppofition, he fays any thing in favor of a diftinftion of order be- tween Bifliops and Prelbyters. And it is plain he does not. For Bifliops, in the days of Clement, (according to the higheft demand of prelatical writers) were the heads only of a few congrega-* tions in particular cities, and their neigh- bouring villages : whereas, nothing is more known, than that the " High- Prieft" flood related, not to a few fyna- gogues in this, and the other city, and the towns bordering thereon ; but to the whole Jewifli church. There is therefore no analogy between Bifliops, and CLEMENT of Home. 133 and the Jewifh High-Prieft : nor fhall we be able to find one any where fhort of Rome. For, befides the Pope, there is no vifible head to the chriftian church, in any proper fenie, anfwering to the High-Prieft among the Jews. One in- vifible one indeed there is, " Jefus the High-Priest of our profeffion £\ under whom are placed, in the church, Bifhops or Prefbyters, and Deacons. And in this fenfe, the paralleL is ftrietly juft, and per* fedtly confonant to the whole tenor of Clement's epiftle : in which Chrift is ex- preflly fpoken of in the ftile of High- Priest * ) and under him, no other offi- cers are mentioned, as conftrtuted in the chriftian church, but Bifhops, who arc alfo called Prefbyters, and Deacons-. But if we muft have a vifible head to the church, correfponding to the High-Prieft in the Jewifh model, there is no avoiding a fubmiflion to the Papal chair. And, accordingly, to this purpole theRomarrifts conftantly make ufe of this paffage in Clement : and every one, with half an eye, * In feci, xxx vi, we have thefe words, " This is the way, beloved, in which we may find our Savior, Jefus Chritf, TON ARCHIEREA TOW PROSFHORON EMOM," tCi^t is, the " High-Priest of our offerings." 134 CLEMENT qf Rome* eye, may fee, that the parallel is far more juft and natural between the Pope and the High-Prieft, than between the High-Prieft and Bifhops : fince there may be hundreds of Bifhops in the chriftian church ; whereas there neither was, nor could be, but one High-Prieft in the Jewifh. It will no doubt be here faid, it was the manner, in ancient times, to argue from the conftitution of the Jewifh church, in High-Prieft, Priefts, and Le- vites, to the conftitution of the Chrif* tian church in Bifhops, Prefbyters, and Deacons : and, therefore, that the pa* rallel ought hereto be thus run, however unnatural it may appear. In anfwer whereto, I readily acknowledge, it was an ancient cuftom to argue from the Jewifh to the Chriftian conftitution, as is plead- ed ; but, at the fame time, muft obferve, this method of arguing was not in ufe, in the days of Clement. It was plainly the invention of later times, when Epifco- pacy (in fome fort analagous to the mo* dern fenfeof the word) began to (how it- fdf ; CLEMENT of %m%> tJJ felf : nor dn an inftance be produced* from any writer, until long after the days of Clement, wherein it is thus died. It is not therefore fair to argue for this application of the words in Clement, front the like application of the fame words^ in thofe authors, who had no being in the world, until Clement had been dead, and turned into duft, for many years* Befides, it ought to be cortfidered, the writers, in after times, directly fpeak of Bifhops irt the ffile of High-Priefte, and exprefsly make them, ill the parallel, an* fwer to the Jewifh High-Prieft ; leaving tlo room for doubt in the matter, with how much weaknefs and aukwardnefs fo~ ever they, upon this account, becoma chargeable. But is this the cafe with Clement ? Does he ever call a Bifhop* High-Prieft ? Does he ever go about to apply the jewifh conftitutioh, (o &s t& make Bifhops anfwer in the parallel to the High-Prieft ? So far from any thing of this tendency* that he makes mention (as we have feen) only of a twofold order of officers in the chriftian church i and gives hot the lead hint, as if he ever thought v£ a third that was higher. T # i 136 CLExMENT of Rome. IV. I shall add to what has been faid, if Clement is interpreted in the fenfe I am oppofing, there will be no harmony between his difcourfe here, and the cur- rent (train of his epiitle ; which, through the whole, perfectly agrees with the ac- count he gives of the twofold order of Bifliops and Deacons ; but not at all with a threefold one, in imitation of the Jewifh hierarchy. It is common in this epiftle, it mult be acknowledged, to meet with the word Bifliops as well as Prefby- ters ; to which if Deacons are added, fomc may think, the parallel will be made out. But it is obfervable, there never once oc- curs, in Clement's epiftle, fuch a mode of fpeech, as Bifhops, Prefbyters, and Deacons, the almoft facred and invaria- ble way of writing, after the diftinftion between Bifliops and Prefbyters took place. And though (as was faid) we read of Bifliops, as well as Prefbyters, yet it is io ordered, that the Bifliops are ne- ver fo much as once diftinguifhed from Prefbyters : nay, fo far is Clement from representing any distinction of order be- tween them, that he dire&ly confiders the Prefbyters of Corinth, as vefted with the Epifcopal office, and in the molt plain manner CLEMENT of Rome. 37 manner reflefts blame upon that church, for " carting their Prelbyters out or their Epifcopacy."— -But of this we lhall more particularly fpeak, under the laft argu- ment, brought from Clement in defence of modern Epiicopacy. And this is taken from thofe words in feet, xliv, €t And the Apoftles knew by our Lord Jefus Chrift, that there would be contention about the name of Epii- copacy : therefore, being endued with perfect foreknowledge, they conftituted the before-mentioned perfons (namely, Bifhops and Deacons ;) and moreover gave direction how, if they fhould die, other approved men fhould lucceed in their miniflry."— — Here it is urged, the Apoftles are reprefented as knowing there would arife thofe, who would appear againft the caufe of Epiicopacy ; and, as it were on purpofe, to guard againft it, did themfelves appoint Bifhops in the church, and provide tor a fucceffion of others in this office, after the deceafe of thofe they appointed. This plea, however often it has been urged, I lhall Ihow to be altogether iava- * 3 $ CLEMENT of Rome. lid, by making it evident, even from Cje r jnent fcimfeif, that his difcourfe in this parage is fo far ffotp favoring any dif- tindtion of order between Biihops and Prefbyters, that it is the ftrongeft tefti- roony, in his whole epiftle, for their be- ing the fame order of officers in the church; and fuch an one, that we could not have defired a ftronger, if wehac} been prefent, when this was exhibited, to direct his pen. Ttie teflimony begins, " And the Apoftles knew by our Lord Jefus Chpjfc. there would be contention about the name of Epifcopacy."— -But what are we to underftand by this <( Epifcopacy ? M Is it fuch an one, as they only are veiled with, who are officers in the church iuperior iri their order to Prefbyters ? The modern uie, and found, of the word, may poffibly be apt to lead the Jefs thinking reader Into fuch an imagination : but the term Epifcopacy, in the days of Clement, had quite another meaning from what it has now. With him, it intends only an pverught of the flock ; fuch an Epifco- pacy, as perfons nothing more than Pref- byters might be, and aftuajly were, veftecl ELEMENT of Rome. 139 vefted with. And for the proof of this, J (hall appeal to Clement himfelf ; who, in this very fe&ion, tells us as much in the moft plain language. His words are thefe, J< For it is no fmall fin, if we caft thofe out of their Epifcopacy, [Epif- kopes, the very word ufed above] who have offered their gifts in an holy manner ; Blefled are thofe Presbyters who have firft finished their cQurfe." It feems then Prefbyters might, in Clement's opini- on, be vefted with Epifcopacy, becaufe he declares the Prefbyters of Corinth were in fael thqs vefted. Nor was the con- tention, " the Apoftles knew there would be about the name of Epifcopacy, " any other than fuch a contention as then ac- tually fubfifted in the church of Corinth. And what was this ? Not a contention, whether there was a diftin&ion of order between Bifhops and Prefbyters : we have no hint of any fuch thing any where in the epiftle ; but it was a contention a- bout the minifterial order itfelf \ a con- tention about the office of Prefbyters, or (as they are likewife called) Bifhops ; which the people had carried to fuch an height, as that they had rofe up againft their Bi- fhops or Prefbyters, and turned them out pf their Epifcopacy. The 140 CLEMENT of Rome. The plea goes on, the Apoftles,to guard againft this contention about Epilcopa- cy, " conftituted Bifhops and Deacons, and moreover gave direction (according to others a roll or lilt) that, when they fhould die, other approved men might fucceed in the miniftry." And no one doubts, but the Apoftles appointed Bi- fhops, and provided for a fucceflion of fuch officers in the church. But the queftion is, Who are here meant by thefe Bifhops ? Were they an order in the church diftin<5t from, and fuperior to, Prcfbyters ? Clement himfelf can beft inform us. And this he has done fo evi- dently, that we cannot well fail of know- ing his mind, if we will but attend to what he has faid. Let us then examine the connection of his difcourie in this paragraph. And he very plainly lays it down (1) That " the Apoftles knew there would be contention about Epifcopacy." (2) To guard againft this, they did them- felves " appoint Bifhops and Deacons in the church" ; that is, (if we turn to feet, xlii, the place he himfelf has refer- ed CLEMENT of Rome. 141 ed to) they conftituted of the " firft fruits of their converfions, a number of Bifhops and Deacons" for the benefit of the church, as believers fhould after- wards increafe. (3) Befides this confti- tution of perfons, they " gave direftion," as deaths fhould happen, that " others fhould be conftituted to fucceed in their room." (4) From thefe premifes, he in- fers it to be an unjuftifiable thing to " caft thofe out of their Epifcopacy," who have behaved well ; whether they had been conftituted by the Apoftles themfelves, or other excellent men af- terwards. 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 difcourfe, and defigned to condemn their unfutable conduct towards their ' Prefbyters, he offers to their confideration the " blefled- nefs of thofe Prefbyters, who have gone off the ftage," in this article in fpeci- al, " that they could not be removed out of the place where they were fixed, as they had removed fome of their Pref- byters from their honorable miniftra- tions." This 143 CLEMENT of Rome; This is the unqueftionable connexion fcf Clement's arguing in this paragraph. Upon which I would appeal to any perfon of common underftanding, whether he could have any other intention, in this train of reafoning, than to offer conviction to the church of Corinth, of their faulty con- duct in " carting their Prefbyters out of their office ?" But if their Prefbyters had been any other than thofc Bifhops 1 , he had fpoken of as conftituted, either by the Apoftles themfelves, of other famous men afterwards* what pertinency is there in this method of reafoning ? He men- tions only Bifhops and Deacons as con- ftituted by the Apoftles, or to be con- ftituted afterwards by others, by their dire&ion. If therefore the Prefbyters of Corinth had not been in the number of thofe Bifhops* they had not adted againft any apoftolical conftitution, and could not fall by the force of this arguing : whereas, on the other hand, if by thefe Preyfbters we underftand the fame order of officers with the Bifhops here fpokeri of, and confider the words Bifhops and Prefbyters, as only different names to point out the Tame perfons, the reafoning will not only be clear and forceable, but perfectly CLEMENT of Rome. 143 perfectly confonant to the connexion of his whole difcourfe ; which fo obvioufly and necefTarily leads to this, that I arn well jatisfied no art of man can elude thp evidence there is for it. Besides, if thefe Bifhops were an or? der of officers fuperior to Prefbyters, why fhould Clement fo particularly mention the apoftolic conftitution of Bifhops, about whom (as officers diftinft from, and fuperior to, Prefbyters) there is no hint, in the epiftle, as if there was any conten- tion ; and, at the fame time, omit faying a word about the conftitution of Prefby- ters, (as he certainly does, if they are an order diftinct from Bifhops) againft whom the church of Corinth had rofe up in the mod unfeemly manner ? This feems al- together unintelligible : efpecially con- fidering, it is the governing defign of this whole epiftle, and of this paragraph in fpecial, to correit the conduct of the Co- rinthians towards their Presbyters, and fet them right in their behavior for time to come. And now, being let into the true meaning of Clement's Bifhops, the con- V troverfy i 4 4 CLEMENT of Rome; trcverfy, among the learned, about that difficult word epinomin, in that part of the paragraph, where mention is made of the apoftolic provifion for the fucceflion of Bifllops, is quite fuperfeded. For whe- ther wc translate it with Arch-Bifhop Wake, and Boyfes, direction ; or with Burton, Salmafius, and Bifliop Pearfon, command; or with Young and Dr. Ham- mond, description, lift, roll, catalogue : I fay, in which foever of thefe fenfes we take the word, it matters not ; fo long as the Bifhops in Clement are precilely the fame order of officers with Prefbyters. Only I cannot omit obferving, that the conftruftion, which fuppofes the Apoftles to have given a lift, or roll of fucceflbrs, does not feem at all probable. For, as the learned Boyfe argues againft this interpretation, " Who ever heard of " fuch a lift or roll? Wash a catalogue of 46 all their fucceflbrs to the worlds end ? 41 Or a lift of their fucceflbrs, for one, 44 two, or three centuries ? How came u this lift, or roll to be loft ? when the 44 prefervation of it would have been of €< fuch vaft confequence, to prevent all £? difputes about future ele&ions. For " doubtleft CLEMENT of Rome, i 45 6t doubtlcfs the churches would readily ff have concurred in the choice of fuch, u astheApoftles, from certain foreknow- " ledge, h^d marked down for Bifhops " and Deacons. So that it is certain, ft either this catalogue was never given " by them, or thofe churches, to whom ?! it was given, were guilty of inexcqfa- ?' ble negligence, in Tuffering fo yalua- " ble a roll, that would have cleared up " the uninterrupted line of EpifcopaJ ff fucceffion, beyond difpute, to be fa ut- " terly loft, that no notion, no mqnu- " ment of it, fhould be heard of to this " day, and no Biftjop ever once appeal " to it, to juftifie his claim againfl com^ " petitors. ,, The evidence fupppofed to he con- tained in this epiftle, for th$ fuperiority of Biftiops to Prefbyters, being thus re- moved out of the way ; I am under the fairer advantage to propofe a few pbfer- vations, which feem abundantly fuffici- ent to fhow it to have been the mind of Clement, that Biftiops and Prelbyters were, in his day, one and the fame or- der of officers in the Chriftian chinch. And, I. I OBSERTC; 146 CLEMENT of Rom£. 1. I observe, when Clement fetshim- felf, ex profeflb, to give an account of the apoilolical conftitution of officers in the Chriftian church ; and this, not in one or two particular places only, but throughout cities and countries, as they travelled to propagate the faith of Chrift ; he makes mention only of the two or- ders of Bifhops and Deacons. And it is remarkable, how exactly confonant this account is, to the fcripture account of the conftitution of the chinch of Philippi ; in writing to whom, the Apoiile Paul takes notice of no other officers among them, lave only Bifhops and Deacons. And the fame Apoftle writing to Timo- thy about church officers, defcribes only the qualifications of Bifhops and Dea- cons. 2. I observe what is yet more full to my purpofe, thofe Bifhops, Clement men- tions as conftituted by the Apoftles, or qther famous men afterwards, were one and the fame order of men with Prefby- ters : otherwife, he paries over a whole order of ecclefiaftical officers ; and this, zx. a time when he had undertaken to ex- hibit an account of the apoftolic coufti- tution CLEMENT of Rome H7 Union of officers, in theChriftian church j which cannot but be thought an inex- cufable omiffion. The only officers he takes notice of,as appointed by the Apof» ties, are Biihops and Deacons. But if by the term Biihops, he does not mean the fame kind of officers with thofe that are tailed Prefbyters, he has certainly not faid a word about any appointment of this order of officers j which is unac- countably ftrange, confidering he makes paiticular mention of the lower order in the church, that of Deacons. And in-* deed, unlefs we fuppofe Clement to mean precifely the fame fort of officers, when he ufes, fometimes the word Bifhops, and iometirnes the word Prefbyters, we (hall make him a moft blundering writer. For one of the main arguments he ufes, to reflect blame upon the church of Co- rinth, for riling up againft their Pref- byters, is, the apoftohc confutation of Bifhops : but if by this term, he did not mean the fame fort of officers, where would be the force of this reafoning r" How would it tend to afford conviction to the Corinthians, that they had done ill in a&ing againft their Prefbyters, to be told of the apoftolic appointment of one order i 4 8 CLEMENT of Rome order of officers fuperior to their Prefby- ters, and another inferior to them; while, at the fame time, not a word is faid whe- ther the order of Prefbyters was ever con- flicted at all ? Such a method of rea- foning is certainly yery extraordinary, and much better calculated to encourage them in their fedition, than to bring them to repentance, and put a flop to it. JJi- fhops thereifore with Clement are the fame rank of officers with Prefbyters. And, as if he had it in defign, that we fhould not miftake him, he plainly fpeaks of the Prefbyters of Corinth, as iome of thofe very Bifhops that were conftituted either by the Apoftles, or others after- wards by their direction : for he fuppofes them placed in the epifcopal office, in that he dire&ly finds fault with the Corinthi- ans " for calling them out of {heir Epif» copacy." And upon this, it is nioft obvious to take notice of the perfeft harmony there is, between the language of Clement and the Apoftle 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 be CLEMENT of Rome. 149 be found in thofe, who were to be confti- tuted BifHops ; evidently ufing the words, PrefbyterS and Bifhops, as fignifying the fame order of church officers. The Evan- gelift Luke likewife fpeaks of the Apof- tles, as ordaining Elders in every church ; which is mod plainly the fame account with this of Clement, who mentions them as conftituting Bifhops in the churches they founded : for thcfe Bifhops were no other than Elders ; and if Clement had fpoken of the Apoftles, as appointing Elders or Prefbyters in the churches they planted, it would have been perfectly the fame thing with his faying, that they ap- pointed Bifhops. 3. I observe, as a yet further confir- mation of what we are upon, that Pref- byter-Bifhops are the higheft order of ec- clefiaftical officers fpoken ofinthisepiftle. They are the only perfons mentioned as " fet over the church of Corinth j" they ire the only perfons that church are ex- horted to be " in fubjeclion to :" nor is there a word lifpe 1 of any duty owing from them to any fuperior order of men > no, nor the leaft hint given of any fuch order ; which leads me to obferve in the laft place, 4. The 150 CLEMENT of RomL 4. The moral aflurance we have, that Clement knew of no Bifliop, at leaft, in the church of Corinth, of a fuperior or- der to that of Prefbyter.— -Let us confider the dire&ion of the epiflle : it runs in that ftile, " the church of Rome to the church of Corinth," without any notice at all of their Bifliop f which is fo much unlike the manner of inferiptions in after times, when Bifhops were diftinguifhed from Prefbytere, that, from this circurn- fiance only, it looks probable, there was nofingleBifliop at the head of that church. But the probability will be heightened in- to certainty, if we add, there is as intire filence, through the whole epiftle, of the Bifliop of this church : whereas, if any fingle perfon had been at their head of an order diftinft from their Prefbyters, and invefted with a fuperior right of au- thoritatively managing in all ecclefiafti- cal affairs, it is not conceivable but he muft, fome how or other, have been plainly pointed out. The firft, mofl fuperior, and diftin* guiflied officer in this church, could not but have been intcrefted in the fliameful difturbance that was the occafion of this letter. CLEMENT of Rome, ut letter. He muft have joined, either with the Prefbyters, or the people, or have been an idle fpe&ator of the prefent quar- rel ; and, in either cafe, there are great difficulties to be accounted for. ; If he had been united with the JPref- byters, and made ufe of" his Epifcopal au- thority to oblige the people to peace, and their duty to their Prefbyters, it is ft range they are no where reprimanded for difre- garding the authority of their Bifhop ! nor can it well be imagined* that Clement fliould be fo fevere upon them for their in- decent carriage to their Prefbyters, and yet filently pafsover their difobedience to their Bifhop ; which muft furely have deferveci a rebuke, if they had oppofed his author rity, in their ufage of their Prefbyters. Or, if he had favoured the Corinthian, dfurch, in their ill treatment of theif Prefbyters, it is much he is not reafoned with, that he might be convinced of his jmiftake : fince the church are fo fharply rebuked, and earneftly exhorted to re 1 - pentance and amendment : nor is it feafy to conceive of the propriety (according to the epifcopal fcheme) of their being X thus 152 CLEMENT of Rome, thus blamed, and condemned, while they had the countenance of their Bifhop in what they did. Upon this fuppofition, the firft thing neceflary, in order to peace, muft have been to have offered conviction to the Bifhop, and engaged him to defifl from encouraging the church, in their fe- ditious practice againft their Prefbyters. Or if we might imagine it poffible for a Bifhop, to be fo thoughtlefs of the peace and quiet of his church, as to be an un- concerned fpeclator of this faction, which had increafed to fuch an height, as to ex- cite the companion of the church of Rome, it is wonderful he is not admoniHied, at lead, in a foft and gentle manner, of his negle£f ; and befought to interpofe with his authority to heal this divilion ! But inftead of this, to complete th| unaccoun- table conduct both of Clement, and the church of Rome, though the Bifhop was the moft futable perfon to be applied to in this cafe, neither Prefbyters, nor people are directed to refer the matter to him ; nor to afk his advice : nor is his name, or any thing relating to him, or his office, fo much as diftantly hinted at. Oil CLEMENT of Rome. 153 Or if it be fuppofed, without any ap- pearance of proof, that the church of Corinth happened to be without a Bifhop, j°uft at the time of this fedilion, and the compofure of this epiflle : I fay, even fuppofing this, meerly to ferve an hypo- thecs, it is a great difficulty no mention ihould be made of their late Bifhop, nor any advice given them to come into a fpee- dy choice of a new Bifhop, as the mod finable remedy to heal their differences. This was thought one of the beft expedi- ents to compofe differences, in after times. And it is the very method, the Prefbyters of Rome, when that fee was vacant by the death of Fabian, mention in their letter toCyprian, 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 L and no other reafon can be af- figned of his being wholly filent about it, but that he knew of no difference between, the order of Bifhops, and Prefbyters. Upon the whole, if Bifhops, in the days of Clement, were officers in the church any way refembling our modern Prelates, thefe are certainly molt inexcufable omif- fions : nor are they capable of being ac- counted for toreafonable fatjsfa&iqn. I 154 CLEMENT of Rome. I shall finifh my examination ot Clement, with inferring the opinion of two as learned men as ever appeared, upon the matter we have laft been difputing. " They that can find any one fingle Bifnop at Corinth, at the time, when Clement wrote this epiftle to them, muft have better eyes, and judgment, than the defervedly admired Grotius" jj io fpeaks the great Bilhop of Worcefter. Grotius's Judgment (here referred to) was plainly this, he mentions it as a proof of the antiquity and genuinenefs of the pre- sent Copy of Clement's epiftle, " That he no where takes notice of that exorbitant power of Bifliops, which was firft intro- duced in Alexandria, after the death of Mark, and from that example into other churches ; but evidently (hows, that the churches were governed by the common council of Prefbyters, who, by him, and the Apoftle Paul, are called Bifliops." PQLYCARP. ""? T- POLYCARP. |#} character, writings, and teftimo?iie$ from them, with obfer vat ions and remarks* PREVIOUS to what may be offered re- lative 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 " epiflle to the Philippians" was not wrote until after the death of Ignatius, who muft therefore have wrote before him. But, as there are fome im- portant paflages, in his " epiftle," the reader (liquid be acquainted with, before he comes to Ignatius, it was thought beft to place him firft. Having obferved this, I go on j Polycar? 156 P O L Y G A R P. Pol yc arp had his Lirth in the apoftolic age; and probably not a great many years on this fide, the middle of the firft cen- tury. Some modern authors fpeak of him as born in Smyrna; as being a flave jn his younger years, and bought by a pertain Lady named Calefto, who, toge- ther with giving him his freedom, in- ftrqfted him in tbeChriftian religion, and afterwards made him her heir. But as thefe accounts, with many other cf a like import, are extracted from writers great- ly remote from the age in which Poly- carp lived, and that were too much given to the romantic ftrain, they are not to be depended on. It may, upon much better authority, beefteemed a jnft ftroke in his character, that he was one that " fat under the teaching of the Apoftles," and was- fa- miliarly if converfant with thofe that knew our Lord," and particularly " with the Apoftle John." This ac- count we have from Irenaeus, which we may the rather give credit to, becaufe he fpeaks not only of his having, " in his younger years, ken J?olycarp ;" but as f' retaining P O L Y C A R P. 157 h retaining in his mind a diftincl remem* brance of having heard him relate thefa things. " He likewife makes mention of him 33 Bifhop of Smyrna, and as placed in this office by theApoftles ; though Tertulliaii names none of theApoftles, lave " John*" as having, an hand in his conftitutiort* And Eufebius only (ays in general, " Hi was made Bifhop by thofe, who faw tha Lord, and miniftred to him." But how- ever it might be as to this circumftaftcei there is no difficulty about the thing it- felf. He is readily allowed to halve been Bilhop of Smyrna. And from hence a mighty argument 5§ drawn, in favor of his having been of art order in the church, fuperior to that of Prefbyters; efpecially, when* hi conjunct tion herewith, that is fuppofed to be true, which Arch-Bifhop Ufher has endea- vored to prove to be fo, namety, That he was Bifhop of Smyrna, when the Apoftle John fent his " apocalyptical letter" to the " Angel of that church." But the foundation of the argument at once vanifhes, when it is confidered,thati in i 5 8 P O L Y C A R P. in the age of Polycarp, no fuch thing as a diftinftibn of order, between Bi- fliops and Prefbyters, was known in the church. This we have already proved from Clement of Rome, and Hermas, both Polycarp's contemporaries ; and fhall further confirm from Polycarp him- felf, when we come to take notice of his " epiftle to the Philippians." And what is particularly obfervable, in the cafe of Polycarp, he is by Irenaeus called Pref- byter, as wdl a$ Bifhop. In his epiftle to Florinus, that is the ftile in which he fpeaks of him, "Polycarp, [apoftolik'Gs Pref- buteros] the apoftolical Prefbyter" ; which is the more worthy of notice, becaufe, with Irenaeus, the reciprocal ufe of the words* Bifhop and Prefbyter, is very common. And herein (as we fhail fee fri the progrefs of this work) there is a won- derful agreement among the writers of this age, Ignatius only excepted, which we fhall account for afterwards. So that if we fhouldj even, fuppofe, the " An- gel of the church of Smyrna' to be Po- lycarp, a then Bifhop of that church, fx> long as we are juft to interpret the word Bifhop, in the fenfe, in which it was un- derftaod, in this age of Chriftianity, no- thing P O L Y C A R P. 1 S9 thing more can be made of it, than that he was an officer in that church, of the fame order with the reft of the Prefby- ters of it : though he might be the moll eminent, known, and diftinguifhed among them ; and the molt proper, upon thefe accounts, to receive a letter which con- cerned the whole church. It is commonly, in modern accounts of the life of Polycarp, mentioned as an article particularly redounding to his ho- nor, that the venerable Ignatius had fucli an opinion of him, as a truly apoftolical man, that he pitched upon him, as the moft fuitable perfon he could commend the care of his church at Antioch to, when he was parted from them, and on his journey to Rome, to fufFer mar- tyrdom. He is likewife highly efteem- ed in love, and reverenced, as being the fuppofed colleftor of the epiftles of Ig- natius : which, together with one of his own, he is faid to have fent, by one Crefcens, to the church of Philippi. — But thefe things we (hall have occafion to ex- amine, at large, in a more proper place ; and fo lhall leave them at prefent. Y Nothing 160 P O L Y C A R R Nothing more is found recorded of this primitivel/ather, until the eaftern and wef- tern churches began to controvert about the time of keeping eafter; which occafion- ed his going to Rome (about the middle of thefecond century) in the days of Ani- cetus, to confer with him upon that mat- ter. And notwithstanding all the dif- courfc, thefe grave Fathers might have up- on this head, they could not come to art agreement ; the one pleading apoftolical practice for one time of obferving this feaft, and the other the cuftom of his predeceflors, even up to the Apoftles, for another : yet they were charitably dif- pofed towards each other ; which they fignified, by communicating together : and Anicetus, for the reverence he had for Polycarp, gave him the eucharift in his church ; after which they ami- cably parted ; and, as Eufebius fays, " in the univerfal church, they were at peace with one another." However this might be,I cannot help going out of my way to obferve, that peace did not continue very long ; for the con- troverfy, far from having a final flop now put to it, flrangely increafed afterwards, until P O L Y C A R P. 161 until it had even ©verfpread the whole Chriftian world, and filled it with un- charitablenefs and contention. It feems to have been at a monftrous height, to- wards the latter end of the fecond centu- ry, in the days of Victor, who (to rely on the authority of Sir Peter King) was fo very turbulent and imperious, that he excommunicated the Afiatics, for their not complying with the church of Rome in this matter ; condemning them for Heretics, and beftowing upon them a long and frightful name, becaufe they kept their eafter upon the fourteenth day after the appearance of the moon, or at full moon, on what day foever it hap- pened. Nor was this controverfy fettled, until the council of Nice, anno 325, by their authority, decided it ; decreeing, that, throughout the whole Chriftian world, eafter fhould be obferved, not on the day that the Jewifh paflbver fell, that is, at full moon ; but on the Lord's day enfuing, as it was afterwards kept. The learned Stillingfleet improves this controverfy, by deducing from it an ar- gument againft the certainty of preten- ded apoftolic tradition, in a maiyier well worth f( 162 P O L Y C A R P. worth our inferting. " For my part " (lays he) I fee not how any man, that " would fee reafon for what he does, can " adhere to the church for an unqueftio- " liable tradition, received from theApof- " ties ; when, in the cafe of keeping eaf- *' ter, whether with the Jews on the " fourteenth moon, or only on the Lord's il day, there was io much unreafonable " heat fhewed on both fides, and fuch '*■ confidence that, on either fide, their tradition was apoftolical. They had herein all the advantages imaginable, in order to the knowing the certain- ty of the thing then in queftion among them ; as their nearnefs to apoftolical times,being but one remove from them ; yea, the perfons contending, pleading perfonal acquaintance with fome of the Apoftles themfelves, as Polycarp with John, and Anicetus of Rome that he had the tradition from Peter : and yet, fo gieat were the heats, foirrecon- cileable the controverfy, that they pro- ceeded to dart the thunderbolt of ex- communication in one anothers faces." I will here add, what makes this con- troverfy the more ftrange, is, that there 1$ P O L Y G A R P. 163 is no account in fcripture of the inftitu- tion of any fuch annual feaft ; nor the leaft intimation, that it was ever ob- ferved by Chriftians in the Apoftle'sdays. Upon which, I cannot reftrain myfelffrom tranfcribing the thoughts of Socrates, one of our moft ancient and valuable eccle- fiaftical hiftorians, upon this head. * Says he, " Neither the ancients, nor the mo- " derns, who have fludioufly followed " the Jews, had, in my judgment, any " juft or rational caufe of contending fo " much about this feftival. For they but then, it has fuch a mixture of what fo evidently carries the face of meer fable, as to make it quefli- onable, whether it be an exa£t repre- fentation of what was real fa£t. An in* fiance of this we have in Sect, xv, where we read of " the flames difpofing them- fclves into the refemblance of an arch, like the fails of a fliip fwelled with the wind, gently encircling the body of the martyr ; who flood all the while in the midft, not like roafted flefh, but gold pu- rified in the furnace ; his body fending Z forth i68 P O L Y C A R P. forth a delightful fragrancy, like frank- incenfc or coftly fpices, prefenting it- felf to the fenfes of the by-ftanders." Of the fame nature is fe£h xvi, which fpeaks of " his body as incapable of being con- fnmed by the fire ; upon which the ex- ecutioner, being commanded, thruft a Taunce into Mm : which he had no fooner done, but a prgeon came forth out of the wound ; and, together therewith, fuch a large quantity of blood as ? extinguished the fire." Some other things, in the like ftiain, are here to be met with ; which, perhaps, not many will find a faith wide- enough to fwallow^ It mud not indeed be concealed, Eu- febius has thought it worth while, not only to mention this " epiffle," but to give the greateft part of it a place in his m ecclefiaftical hiftory." But then, it ought to be obferved, he is the firft wri- ter that takes any notice of it. And if his mentioning it be ufed as an argu- ment to cftablifh its authority, the total filence of antiquity, from the time of its fuppofed compofure to his day, which was at leaft an hundred and fifty years, may be oppofed thereto as a counter-ba- lance. P O L Y C A R P, 169 lance. The Englifh reader may meet with this " epiftle" in Arch-Bifhop Wake's * apoftolical fathers," complete, or the fubftanceof it, in Dr. Cave's " lives of the primitive Fathers," and the " biographia ecclefiaftica" of an anonimous author, I shall obferve nothing further of Polycarp, but that the learned are at va- riance about the particular time of his death. Bifliop Pearfon fuppofes him to have been martyred under Antoninus Pius, in the year 147 : but he is ge- nerally thought to have fuffered under Aurelius Verus ; fome think in the year j 67; others in 169; others in 170; others in 175. His memory is faid to be cele- brated by the Greek church, February 23 1 by the Latin, January 26. H\$ Writings* IREN&US, in his letter to Florinus; mentions "feveralepiftles" whichhe wrote; fome to the " neighbouring churches for their confirmation in the faith;" and others to certain of his " brethren for their en- couragement and admonition." But what the character of thefe pieces was, or to whom 170 P O L Y C A R P. whcm in particular they were fent, he no- where lays ; nor can it be known at this diftance : nor is it a matter of any im- portance, fince there is, at prefent, ex- tant nothing of Polycarp's, lave only his " epiftle to the church of Philippi :" Nor indeed have we this extant, com- plete in its original Greek ; though the dzfett is, in fome meafure, made up by a Latin verfion, that is very ancient, and feems to have nothing wanting. This '* epiftle" is cited by fome of the fathers, and fometimes mentioned with epithets denoting great efteem and ho- nor. Eufebius obferves its containing teftimonies that are taken out of the " firft epiftle of Peterf* which is a good circumftance in favor of the copy we now have -, fince thefe references are here to be met with. Nor may I omit taking no- tice of the manner in which it is wrote ; which is evidently fuch, as favors of the true primitive purcnefs and fimplicity. A celebrated writer ipeaks of it in that language, " It feems to hold a great af- " finity, both in ftile and fubftance, with je£t£e fited. For they huic epiftolae ; ex treat of faith, pa- quibus magnus vo-* tience, and what- bis erit profeftus. ever pertains to edi- Continent enim fi- fication in the Lord, dem, patientiam, et omnem edificatio- nem ad Dominum noftrum pertinen- tern. And fignify to Et de ipfo Igna- me what ye cer- tio, et de his qui tainly cum * Arch-Bifhop Ufher's note here is, Ita locum hunc citant Eufebius, Nicephorus, et Graecus aftorum Igna- tii fcriptor anonymus ; quam legitimam effe ledti- - onem, agnofcit etiam*Baronius." In the tranflation * of Arch-Bilhop Wake, we read us, inftead of you. tdf IGNATIUS. tainly know about cum eo font, quod Ignatius, and thofe certius agnoveritis that are with him. fienificate. o It is thought a ftrong confirmation of this teftimony from Polycarp, that pufebius, when fpeaking of the " Igna- tian epiltles," as commemorated by him, quotes from him this paffage in the ori- ginal Greek, which exhibits the very idea that is conveyed by the above ancient verfion. Upon this " Polycarpian teftimony" it may be obferved, that the whole para- graph, from whence it is taken, is fuf- pected to have been an after addition, de- figned to give credit to the " Ignatian epiftles". And two things are offered in fupport of fuch a fufpicion, The firft is, its apparent abrupt- nefs, and want of relation to the fore- going difcourfe. There is no connexion between this, and what went before : nor had Polycarp dropped any hint, that would lead one to expert this notice of " Ignatius epiftles" ; and what is laid, with reference to thern* is (o inferred, as to f G N A T I U S 215 ib Its manner, that no one, when he had read the foregoing words, coul 1 begin Upon thefe without naturally making a paufe, as meeting withr what he had no reafon gh v en hint to took for. Some, erf great intimacy with the ancierjt wri- tings, have, from this confitleratiorr on- ly, been inclined to fufpefr, that the paf- fage was unfairly crbuded into thfe epif- tie.— But I only mention this as a cir- cumftance, that may give weight to what may be further offered of greater irn^ portance. The other ground of fufpicion there- fore is, an apparent incdnfiftency, or contradiction, between what is affirmed in one of thefe paflages, and another in the body of the epiftle. The ninth fee- tion contains thefe words, " Whereforef I exhort all of you to obey the word of righteoufriefs, and exercife all patience, which ye have feen fet before your eyes, not only in the blefled Ignatius, and Zozimus, andRufus, but in others among yourfehxs, and in Paul himfelf, arrd the? reft of the Apoftles : being* confident F f irr * Confidences quia hi omnQs non in vaeuuh^conciifreriiTTV fed in fide et juftitia j et ad debitum fibi locum a-Do*f miab, cui et compaiii funt, abierunt, 3i6 IGNATIUS. in this, that all thele have not run in vain, but in faith and righteoufnefs ; and ARK CONE TO THE PLACE DUE TO THEM FROM THE LoRD, for whom they alfo fu tiered".— Ignatius is fo evi- dently here fpoken of, as having fi- nifhed his fufferings, and gone to the Lord, that there can be no reafonable room for doubt in the cafe. These all, [hi omnes] that is, Ignatius, Zo- zimus, Rufus, and others, have not- run in vain, but are gone to the PLACE DUE TO THEM FROM THE LORD. No one that reads thefe words can be at a lofs 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 fuppofed to be alive, and not come to his laft iiifFerings. " Sig- nify, to me what ye know about Igna- tius, and those that are with' him." Is not this a manner of fpeak- ing altogether abfurd, unlefs it had been prefumed, that Ignatius was yet alive t The mod plain fignification of the words is, that this was the real truth. Can it now be imagined, that Polycarp, after he had fpoken of Ignatius as actually 3 i dead, IGNATIUS. 217 dead, and recommended his fufferings and death as an example to others, (hould, in the fame fhort epiftle, fpeak of him as alive, and defire to know about him ; and this, from the very perfons to whom he had recommended his death as an example ? This would be veryftrange; and it would be diftionorary to fo famous a Father to fuppofe, he fhould be thus inconfiftent with himfelf : but it is np uncommon thing for knavifh perfons to do that, which, through want of cauti- on, ferves to difcover their fraud. But we (hall be able to perceive more fully the force of what has been offer- ed, if we attend a while to what has been faid to weaken its ftrength. It is pleaded, Polycarp does not, in the objefted words, infmuate that Igna- tius was now alive, as is pretended, in con- tradiction tp what he had , faid of him as dead, in fe6l. ix. But, the Philippians, being likely to know confiderable about Ignatius, both while hs was alive, and while he was fuffering martyrdom, he writes to them, as it was proper and natural for to him to do, to communicate to 21 8 IGNATIUS. jto him what they knew, both about hira ? and tjiofe that were fyis companions. This doth not feem fatisfafrory. The queftion is not, what the Philippians might know about Ignatius, nor whether it was proper for Poly.carp to defi.re them to tell him what they knew about him ? ]but whether the manner of writing, here ufed, is not fuch as evidently fuppofes; Ignatius had not yet come to his laft fuf- ferings, contrary to wh3t h,e had before expreflly declared ? The words, « figni- fy to m.e what ye certainly know about Ignatius, and thofe that are with iiim," obvioufly fuppofe the perfpn wrote about to be alive. And it is obfervablc, he is reprefented as having his companions about him. " Ignatius, and thorp that are with him ;" are, in the prefent tenfe. And if Pplycarp had not knpwn that he was dead, the mode of diftion is eafy and riaturaj ; but uncouth, I may fay unin- telligible, if compared with the firm per- iuafion he had before expreded, that he had finifhed his courfe, and obtained the crown of martyrdom. Others endeavor to remove the difficulty another way. They argue, Polycarp, I G N A T I U S. ti 9 Polycarp, when he wrote this epiftle, con- cluded in his own mind, that Ignatius, by this time,had gone through his fuffer- $ngs ; for which r.eafon, he pertinently writes as in feci, ix : yet, having receiv- ed no certain account of bis death, and not being fully fatisfied, whether he had fuffered, or not ; or, if he had, how he ihad be.en treated by his psrfecutors, and Jiow he had behaved in. his laft encoun- ter with the beads, defires the Philippi- .ans, who were much nearer toRome than he was, and might therefore very proba- bly have heard much later from thence then he had, to fend him an account of what they knew relative to thefe matters* And in all this, what, they fay, is there, not.thatlookslike^CQntradi6lion, but that is not very natural, and particularly moft becoming the love and friendfhip of the bleffed Polycarp towards him, concerning ivhom he fo diligently enquired ?, It is pbvious, at firft fight, that this plea di- rectly contr^di&s the foregoing one ; and yet, it is as far from unfolding the difficulty. For, from the \yhole ftrain of feft. ix, it appears with a meridian luftre, that Polycarp vtqs fully perfuaded that Ignatius was dpacj, arid gone to reap the 220 I G N A T I U S. 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 fpeaks of it as a matter that was well known both to himfelf, and to the Philippians : nor can words more clearly and ftrongly fignify this, than thofe he has ufed to the purpofe. M These all/' therefore Ignatius among the reft, and as truly as Paul, and the other Apoftles, "have-not run in vain, but a*e with the Lord in the place due to them/' And yet, according to the plea here made, it is fuppofed that Polycarp, in the objected words, fpeaks of it as a matter of uncer- tainty, whether Ignatius had come to his encounter with the beafts ; which is no way reconcileable with the clear perfua- fioh of his being dead, he had before ex- preffed in feft. ix. gnfms It is further faid, in favor of the g^- mririenefs of this paffage, that no one whodefigned to ferve a turn by corrupt- ing this epifHe would have been, .cither fo negligent as not carefully to read it? over, or haying done this, 7 would have been'fo foolifh as to have Subjoined a recjiieft to the Philippians in direcT: dl * contradiction I G N A T I U.S. 22t contradiction to what the truePolycarp had told them before ; and which, by confe- quence, muft difcover the fraud, and fruftrate the defign in view. This, it is poflible, may Teem an argument of weight to thofe unacquainted with antiquity ; but it will not appear in the fame light to fuch as are verfed in this kind of ftu- dy ; as they have often met with like in- ftances of folly. Whether the perfons guilty of fuch fraudulent dealing ^were commonly weak ; or whether they ima- gined thofe they defigned to impofe up- on were of this character ; or whether, though artful and cunning, they were left in- Providence (as is often the cafe at prefent in regard of all kinds of cheats) to do that, through careleffnefs and in- attention, which ferves to difcover their fraud, I lhall not pretend to fay ; but it is a fact notorioufly known, that whole pieces, as well as interpolated sen- tences were, in thofe days, obtruded upon the world, full as ridiculous as this fuppofed corruption can be reprefented to be. Signal inftances of this nature are to be met with in the ff apoftolical conftitutions and canons," which are uni- veifally allowedto. have been fraudulently dealt 222 I G N A T I U gj iy dealt with, even by thofe who have* not an opinion of tbem as fpurions. The interpolations, and additions, made' in thefe writings, do fo groffly break m ; upon the order of time, the declared mind of the Apoftles in the infpired books, antl' are fo often chargeable with contradict- ing other parts of the fame writings, that one cowld fcarce believe it poffibk a perfon of common fenfe fhould be guilty of fuch ridiculous weaknefs, but that there is no arguing againft ftubboriv fadt. ■ The reader that is inclined to fee this fuppofed addition to*' < PolycarpYeptf- 1 tie" fully matched for the weaknefs, and* folly, it isfaid to contain, may meet witb : it done to his mind, in what has been' offered/ under tbe head of " element's^ writings/' in the preceeding pages. To the Like purpofe he may confult Dr, Smallbroke's ff Clementine Cortftitutions €onfuted,in anfwer to Mr. Whifton." But if we drop 1 the fuppofrtion of an' " interpolation," and even allow thi^ " Polycarpian teftimony," to be uftfuf- pecTedly genuine, it will not, at once, ast too many have imagined, decide the* controversy relative to the " Ignatia-a epiflles-,"' IGNATIUS. 22% epiftles." For it does not prove what it is brought for ; but leaves the greateft part of" tkeie epiftles" deftitute of all real evidence in their fupport. At moft,two only of thefe epiftles are certainly taken notice of. No more are couched under thore words of Polycarp, " the epiftles of Ignatius which he fent to us :" nor do the greateft patrons of " Ignatius's writings" pretend, that any other are here referred to, than his ".epiftle to the Smyr- naeans," and a particular one to " Poly- carp himfelf." And as to the words that immediately follow, " and as many other epiftles as we had by us ;" thdugh they are interpreted, by epifcopal writers, to mean " the other epiftles of Ignati- us," there is not the lead need, unlefs to ferve a turn, to look upon them as re- ferring at all to any of the « Ignatiaa epiftles." They are generally wrote, without any limitation to Ignatius, Arch-Bifhop Wake indeed has been plea- fed, no lefs than three times * to infert the words of h is, without giving the reader a#y notice that they were words of his owa putting in ; by means whereof the meer G g Englifti * Apoft. Fathers, p. 32, 31, and in his tranilatioa of .the epiftle, p. 59. 324 IGNATIUS. Englifh reader, and all who have feen on- ly his tranflation, are unavoidably led to imagine, that the words, in " Polycarp'3 epiftle," are abfolutely confined to Igna- tius ; when, in truth, they are generally* expreffed, having nothing to anivver the Arch-Biihop's limiting words of his.- In rhe •"' old verfion" of Polycarp, the w6rtfs tim thus, " Epiftolas lane Tgnatii, *]U3e tranfmiflae funt vobis [pro nobis] ab eo, et alias quantascumque apud nos habuimus/tranfmifiimus vobis, feenndum quod mandafHs." The original Greek, as quoted by Eufehius, perfectly agrees herewith. What is translated in the old COpy, " ET ALIAS QUANTASCUMQUE," is in the Greek, kai allas o-sas. It is acknowledged, in the firft part of this paffage, f c Epiftles of Ignatius" are di- rectly mentioned ; that is, the Epifcopa- lians themfelves being judges, * two of the epiftles faid to be his, " one to Poly- carp i n the "other to the church of Smyr- na :" but, in the latter part of it, the words * " -Epiftolas fane Ignatii/' Arch-Eifhop Wake tranffetes •1 the epiftles of Ignatius ;" and in the margin has ' tliefc 'words, " that is, to himfelf, and to the church of Smyrna". Cotelerius's note upon the fame words is this^ " deiignantur dux Ignatii epiftolas : una ad Polycar- pum j altera ad Polycarpi feu Smymemfem ecciefiam. ?' IGNATIUS- 225 words are general, and fo far from be- ing limited to Ignatius, that they may, with propriety, be interpreted of. ant* epistles whatever, Polycarp, or the church of Smyrna, might have had by them, of other famous primitive Fa- thers. And there are forne confiderati.-? ons that fairly lead to iuch a general conftru£lion of the words. For it is plain, thefe epiftles were fent, by Poly- carp and his church, to the church at Philippi, at their defire which had beea fignhied to them. " We have fent the epiftles as you defired." And it is quite eafy and natural to conceive of their fend- ing, upon the defire of the Philippians, the " epiftles" Ignatius had wrote to them. But how fhould they come by his other epiftles, thoife which he wrote to the " Magnefians," to the " Phila- delphians," to the " Ephefians," to the " Romans," and to the " Trallians ?"" And why (hould the church at Philippi fend to them for thefe epiftles ? If Ig- natius had really wrote to thefe churches, and the Philippians had a mind to fee his epiftles to them, it would have been na- tural fpr jthem to have fent to thofe churw caes for a copy of their refpe&ive letters ; and 226 IGNATIUS. and in every refpeft as natural as was their fending toPolycarp, and his church, for the letters he wrote to them. It there- fore looks as if the " epiftles", here fpoken of, as fent to the Philippians, were thofe "epiftles of Ignatius" which he had wrote to Polycarp, and the Smyrnaeans ; and " fuch other epiftles", of other famous perfons, as they had by them, that might be of more fpecial value. There is no- thing in this conftru&ion of the words that appears ftrained, or unnatural -, nor is there the leaft need of any other inter- pretation. And fhould this prove to be the true conftruftion, only two of the *' SEVEN Ignatian epiftles" are here men- tioned. The remaining five muft be taken care of by others. Yea, fhould we allow of the Epifcopalian interpretation, the matter would not be a great deal mended. In this cafe, it is true, it might be argued, that Ignatius wrote more than two epiftles ; but what other epiftles, to whom, or how many, would, after all, remain an utter uncertainty. The words fpccify nothing. " And as many other epiftles as we had by us :"--- No- thing is here faid by which it can be determined, i IGNATIUS. 227 determined, how many epiftles were in- tended, nor whether any of the prefent colle&ion were of their number. But, if we fhould fuppofe all that is pleaded for this teftimony, from Poly- carp, to be really true, the controverfy about thefe " epiftles," in point of de- pendence on them, as containing the fenfe of Ignatius, will remain ftill un- determined. For if it be allowed, that Polycarp fent a colle&ion of " feven Ig- natian epiftles" to the church at Philip- pi ; it will not follow from hence, that the prefent colle&ion of the like number of epiftles, under the name of Igna- natius,, is the fame incorrupt, unadulte- rated colleftion with that of Polycarp's. It is granted, it was not the fame before the days of Ufher, and Voflius. And, fince the appearance of thofe learned antiqua- ries, the cafe may poflibly be the fame ; and it muft evidently be fo, if the collefti- on of thefe " epiftles," in their fuppofed beft edition, contain fuch things as argue 3 date pofterior to the age in which Igna- tius lived,and that are altogether unworthy of that primitive Father, and martyr : and zzS I G N A T I U S. and that they contain fueh things as thefe, we fhall have occafion, in its pro- per place, particularly to evince. In the mean time, let us go on to Ire- naeus, the next writer, within the fecond century, cited in favor of the " epiftles of Ignatius". His words are thefe, " as one from among us said, being adjudg- ed to the hearts that he might be a mar- tyr for God ; / am the corn of Chrift, and, am ground with the teeth of bcajls> that I may be found the pure bread of God". * Thefe words are found in the epiftle to the Romans, under the name of Igna- tius, fe&. iv. And it is thought a weighty circumftance attending this tes- timony, that Eufebius has quoted it, and after this manner ; " and Irenaeus knew of his [Ignatius's] martyrdom, and makes mention of his epiftles in thefe .words,: " as one among us said, [eipe] being ad- judged to the beafts for the teftimony o£ God, * Quemadmodum quidam de noftris dixit, prompter inaJtyrium in Deum adjudicates ad beftias ; '?quoni;::n frumentnm fum Chrifti, et per dentcs beftiariim'mo!or,T ut mundus panis Dei hivcniar." Adverf. Hccet. Lib.. v. Oap/^xxviii. I 6 N A t I U S. 229 God, I am the wheat of God, and am ground with the teeth of beafts, that I may be found pure bread" \ In anfwertothis teftimony of Irenaeus, it is allowed, that Ignatius is the perfori here referred to, and that the cited words are to be feen in one of the extant epif- ties under his name. But this notwithftanding, it does not appear fufficiently evident, that Irenseus either knew of this " epiftle," or took this fentence out of it. It is certain, he makes no mention of the " epiftle," nei- ther does he anywhere fay, that he trans- cribed thefe words from it. And it is obfervable, the words are not introduced, " as one from among us wrote y but " as one from among us said." A great deal of pains has been taken to prove, that the phrafe, " as was faid," is not on- ly proper, but frequently ufed, even by Irenaeus himfelf, to introduce citations from known written books. And no one ever queftioned its being a phrafe, both P H. E. Lib. iii. Cap. xxxvi, where the Greek of E»fe- f . bius well agrees with the Latin of Irenseus, 23° I G N A T I U S' both proper, and commonly ufed, by all kinds of authors, by which to bring in the written words of others. But the queftion is, whether it is not as proper a mode of fpeech, and as commonly ufed, to introduce the vocal as the written fay- ings of others ? And fince the point in debate is, whether Ignatius wrote thefe epiftles, how can it be thought a fatis- faftory proof, that he did, to bring a quotation from Irenaeus, introduced af- ter that manner, " as one of us said ?" which phrafe, to fay the leaft, is as well capable of being interpreted to refer to a vocal, as a written, faying ? It is replied to this, the words here quoted are found in one of the written "epiftles" afcribed to Ignatius, which is a circum- ftance that oug-ht, in all reafon, to de- termine the matter, that Irenasus took them from this " epiftle." I anfwer, the total filence of Irenaeus about any epiftles of Ignatius, when he had the faireft, the moft frequenr, and moft urgent occafions, to have mentioned them, is a circumftance full as ftrong to induce a belief, that he knew nothing of them. But this is not all. Nothing njore common with Irenaeus, than to have IGNATIUS 231 have recourfe to the vocal fayings of thofe that were ancienter than himfelf ; and a great number oi them are intro- duced, in the very fame manner with thefe words of Ignatius, " asiuch an onefaid." And as Irenacus was acquainted with Po- lycarp, Ignatins's contemporary, and a vaft number of other ancients; why might he not have received this faying from them, as what had been uttered by Igna- tius, in the day of his martyrdom ? nor is this meer conjecture only. For thefe very words are mentioned by Jerom, as delivered by Ignatius in his laft fuffer- ings. His words are thefe:*'* Now, when he had been condemned to the beads, and in the heat of his fuffering had heard the roaring of the lions, he faid, I am the torn ofCbriJl, lam ground with the teeth of bea/is, that I may be found pure bread* And u the aits of Ignatius's martyrdom," both the Greek and Latin acts, exhibit the fame account with Jerorn ; and fo do Simeon the Metaphralf, and the Roman breviary. Epifcopalians will not deny,that H h thefe u Cum jam damnatus eflet ad beftias, et ardore patien- di, rugientcs audiret leones, ait : frumentum Chrifti funs, dentibus bcftiarum molor, ut panis munduii in- veniar," Vid. lib. de viris illuft. Cap. i6 % 2 3 2 IGNATIUS. thefe words were uttered by Ignatius, in the time of his fuffering. What diffi- culty can there then be in fuppofing, that Irenaeus fhould make mention of them, as a known, memorable saying of his ? And why mould not this be rather fup- pofed, than that he mould take them from that "epiftle" which is attributed to him as its author ?Efpecially, as there are fuch notorious circumftances, all confpiring to encourage the thought, that he never law it. But if we fhould allow this teftimony its utmoft force, no more can be collect- ed from it, than that there was extant in the days of Irenaeus one seventh part ©f thofe epiftles that now go under the name of Ignatius. For it is only the •* epiftle to the Romans," one of the fe- ven that are attributed to him, that is here referred to. And every one, at the iirft view, muft be fenfible, how weak a teftimony this is ; and that if it be al- lowed, or difallowed, it will neither much hurt, or benefit, the general credit of thefe " epiftles." And what may be thought worthy of notice, this " epiftle to the Romans," the only one, upon the largeft: IGNATIUS. 223 largeft fuppofition,here referred to, is the only one, among all the " Ignatian epif- tles/' that is filent about the caufe of Epifcopacy. Nothing, as I remember, is laid here upon this head ; not fo much as the name Bifhop mentioned, unlefs once very tranfiently. So that this is the only " epiftle," among the " feven," that is infignificant to the controverfy we are upon. And if it be received as quoted by Irenaeus, it will do the Prefbyterians no differvice ; neither, if it be reje&ed as unknown to him, will it do the Epifco- palians any harm. It is perfectly a mat- ter of no importance, as to the prefent difpute, what becomes of it, or is faid about it. After Irenaeus, Origen, who flourifh- ed in the third century, is recurred to. In his " prologue to the commentaries on canticles," he fays, " We remember one to have faid, Ignatius by name, con- cerning Chrift, but my love is crucified-, nor do I judge him worthy of reproof for this." * Thefe words occur in the Ignatian * " Meminimus aliquem dixifle, nomine Ignatium, de Chrifto, " meus autem amor crucitixijs eft" ; nee reprehen- di eum pro hoc dignumjmiico," 234 IGNATIUS. " Ignatian epiftle to the Romans," feclion vii. This fameOrigen,in his "fixthjhomily on Lake," fpeaks thus, " I have found it elegantly wrote in the epiftle of a certain martyr, Ignatius I mean, Bifhop of Antioch, the fecond after Peter, who fought with beafts in the perfecution at Rome, the virginity of Mary Hsxqs kept Jeer et from the prince of this world. * Thefe words we have in the "Ignatian epiftle to theEphe- fians," left, xix. To thefe teftimonies from Origen, it muft be faid, that they lie under the un- happinefs of being as exceptionable, as well as thofe we have already confidered. As to the firft of them, it is taken from a piece that is thought, by many of the moll learned writers, not to be Origen's, (who wasaPrefbyter of the Greek church) but the work of fome Latin author : or, fhould it be fuppofed to be his, we have it only in the tranilation of Ruffin, who has taken fuch a lhameful liberty in all his tranflations of Origen, to add, alter, and 1 • " E!eganter in cujusdam martyris epiftola fcriptum reperi, lgnatium dico, Epifcopum Antiochiae, poll Petrum fecundum, qui in perfecutione Rcmae pugnavit ad heftias, " principem faxuli hujus latuit Virginitas Maris." IGNATIUS. 235 and diminifh, that there is no knowing what is his own, and what Origen's : and this is fo generally acknowledged, and lamented, by the learned, that a word need not be faid in proof of it. It is, I fuppofe, for this, or the foregoing rea- fon, or both, that thofe celebrated anti- quaries, Ufher, and Voflius, do neither of them make ufe of this Origenical teftimony, in the evidence they ex- hibit in favor of the "epiftlesof Ignati- us" ,• as may be feen in their " prefaces" to their editions of thefe " epiftles," in Le' Clerc's edition of Cotelerius's " apofloli- cal Fathers." They were certainly well acquainted with it ; and if they had thought it of any fignificancy, they would have infifled on it. As for the other teftimony, taken from the " homily on Luke," this alfo is fufpeded to be the work, not of Origen, but of fome Latin writer : or otherwife, it is extant only in Latin ; and if it was tranflated from the Greek by. Jerom, as is pretended, there is no knowing what is Origen's. Du-pin fays, " the verfions of Jerom are not more exaft than Ruffin's : and Ruf- fin complains of the liberty Jerom took in his tranflations,as Jerom complains of Ruffin" 236 IGNATIUS, Ruffim" And, furely, no great credit ought to be given to meer tranflations, which are known to have been done with an unbounded licence : and as this is the cafe here, thefe testimonies, brought to view, in evidence that Ignatius wrote " epiftles," are of little weight, and will be efteemed fo by impartial judges. It would be an omiffion if I did not add, it is a fhrewd circumftance, in fa- vor of Origen's having never made men- tion of the " Ignatian epiftles," that Eufebius takes not the leaft notice of it. No one was a greater admirer, and rea- der, of Origen's works than Eufebius ; nor was there an ancient Father more thoroughly verfed in them. ' It cannot therefore be accounted for, if Origin had, in the above fpecified places, commemo- rated Ignatius, that he fliould be totally filent about it. It is much more natu- ral to think, they are not the words of Origen, but of fome interpolator, or falfe interpreter. We have now confidered the whole evidence, in proof that Ignatius wrote fuch " epiftles" as go under his name, until IGNATIUS. 237 until we come into the fourth century. And, I doubt not, that has been offered, which, to every unbiaffed mind, will appear fufficient to induce a lufpicion, left the venerable Ignatius fhould have been perfonated by fome bold impoftor. IVIoft certainly, the evidence, in fupport of his being the real author of thefe "epiftles,'* falls vaflly fhort of what might reafonably have been expected. There are, in all, but three writers, for the full (pace of two hundred years, that are produced as witneffes, and the evidence they give is fo clogged with difficulties, as to occafion great doubt and hefi- tation. And, in truth, confidering the character of Ignatius, his nearnefs to the Apoftles, the extraordinary circumftan- ces of his death, the uncommon occa- fion of his writing thefe " epiftles" (if they are truly his) : confidering, I fay, thefe things, I may venture to appeal to the common fenfe of mankind, whether it is not aftonifhing, that fuch epiftles, of fuch a man, fhould be paffed over in fuch fllence for two hundred years toge- ther j no one writer making mention of them, unlefs in fuch a manner, and un- der fuch marks of lufpicion, as to leave the * 3 8 IGNATIUS. the mind in a ftate of uncertainty, to fay the leaft ? I will not affirm, notwith- ftanding all that has been offered, that Ignatius wrote none of the " epiftles" he is faid to have wrote, though, to me, it appears highly improbable that he ever did. I should now have gone on to fhow, that the " Ignatian epiftles" are, if not fpniious, yet fo intermixed with corrup- tion, as to be unfit to be recurred to in the prefent controverfy. But previous to this, I (hall take notice of a difficulty that is urged, upon the fuppofition Igna- tius is not allowed to have wrote thefe " epiftles'' that are afcribed to him, and faid to be his. It is this, that Eufebius certainly thought, " thefe epiftles" were wrote by Ignatius himfelf. And as he was a per- ion well capable of judging in this mat- ter, much better than we who live at fo great a diftance from the times of Igna- tius, it is faid to be a very bold thing now to plead, that " thefe epiftles" are fpurious. To IGNATIUS. 339 To this the reply is, Eufebius was un- doubtedly a perfon of great learning, fome think, the moil learned among all the chriftian Greek Fathers. And we are ex- ceedingly beholden to him for many va- luable fragments of the works of many valuable primitive Authors, which have long fince periflhed by the injury of time ; as alfo for a great variety of know- ledge, relative to the Chriftian hiftory, we'rnuft other wife have been deftitute of. But this notwithftanding, we are not obliged to call him Mq/ler, and, at all adventures, to take every thing for truth juft as he has delivered it. For, after all his learning, and whatever good qua- lities he might be poffeffed of, he was a man " fubjedl to like infirmities" with others ; and there are too many inftan- ces, in his writings, of carelefihefs, want of due attention, and a more thorough examination, not to fay any thing worfe. And he is, on all fides, frequently charg- ed with flips and miftakes, and fome that are very grofs. The great Scaliger fays of him, " No one has contributed more to the Chriftian hiftory, and no one is guilty of more miftakes." Of the fame Blind was the learned Du-pin, though he I i exprelfes 240 I G N A T I U S. exprefies himfelf in fofter terms.. For, having faid what he judged proper in com- mendation of his " ecclefiaftical hiftory," he adds, " it muft neverthelefs be ac- knowledged, it is not altogether lo perfeft as were to be wiflaed :for it is not written fmoothly, neither is it always exaft." And in his note here, he reckons up, at leaft, half a fcore of faults, which, fays he, " are contrary both to the truth of hiftory, and chronology." Nor do any of the noted antiquaries, either Protectant .or Romifh, Epifcopal or Prefbyterian, think themfelves obliged facredly to ad- here to him ; but do all, in their turns, take liberty to differ from him, and, as £hey imagine, upon juft grounds. But what is more particularly perti- nent to what we are upon, Eufebius too creduloufly fuffered himfelf to be fome- times betrayed into the belief of that, which, if he had examined with more care, caution, and fufpicion, he would readily have rejefted. There are inftances of this to be met with in his valuable hifto- ly. One I fhall here mention, as being full to the point under confideration. In the laft chapter but one of the firft book of IGNATIUS. 241 of this Jhiftory, we have a moft formal ac- count of " Agbarus's letter,King of Edef- fa, to our Savior Jefus Chrift, fent to him at Jerufalem by Ananias his foot- man ;" and our " Savior's letter to King Agbarus in anfwer to it." And, in the following chapter, both thefe letters are inferted at large, Eufebius having trans- lated them out of the Syriac language, in which they were wrote, as he found the copies of them in the archieves of Edef- fa. And thefe epiftles, which he thus publifhed to the world, he as verily be- lieved were wrote, one of them by our Savior, and the other by King Agbarus, as he did, that the epiftles he mentions under the name of Ignatius were wrote by him. What regard nowdo the learn- ed world pay to Eufebius's judgment, with refpedt to thefe letters ? Do they hold fhemfelves bound to receive them as "the epiftles of Jefus Chrift, and King Agba- rus," becaufe Eufebius was too haftily led into this opinion of them ? No; but, notwithftanding the learning, the judg- ment, the integrity of Eufebius, and his liearnefs to the primitive times, they are fo free with him as to think, he was credulous in efteeming «« thefe letters" genuine $ 242 IGNATIUS. genuine ; and that he did it without fuf- ficient caution and enquiry. Even Arch- Bifhop Wake has very plainly fignified this to have been his opinion. Says he, * m NataKs Alexander delivers this con- " clufion ; the " epiftle of Agbarus'' to " our Savior, and " his anfwer" to it, are " fuppofititious, and apocryphal : and, m at large, anfwers all that is ufually * ui'ged in favor of them. And Du- " pin, after him, yet more folidly con- *' vinces of fuch manifeft errors, as may c< ferve to fatisfy all confidering perfons, " that Enfebius and Ephrasem were too " eafy of belief in this particular ; and #< did not fufficiently examine into it, " when they delivered that as a certain and as many other epiftles"— -\t is far from being evident, as has been abun- dantly 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 ano- ther inftance of a curfory confideratioa only of this paffage. Had he been fuf- ficiently cautious, he might have feen rea- fon to fufped, whether this teftimony was at all Polycarp's. — The true ftate of the cafe feems to have beea this 4 — There were extant, in the days of Eufebius, fl epiftles under the name of Ignatius to feveral 246 IGNATIUS. feveral famous churches $" and, meet-, ing with a paflage in Polycarp's letter, that made mention of " epiftles of Ig- natius," and another in Irenaeus, citing words that are to be found in one of V thefe epiftles," he haftily concluded, without more ado, that Ignatius wrote all the epistles he had feen under his name : whereas, if he had thoroughly- examined the matter,he would have found thefe teftimonies too weak to fupport the conclufion he makes from them ; as they moft certainly are, whatever is the truth as touching " theie epiftles." . I shall only add, that Eufebius feems not to have been without fome biafs up- on his mind, in favor of the " Ignatiaa epiftles. " For it is a plain cafe, the fi- lence of the ancients, refpeding particu- lar writings, is, with him, an argument much weakening the credit of them. The VL fecond epiftle of Clement" he efteems, if not fuppofititious, at leaft " kfs fa- mous, and kfs worthy of notice," be- caufe " no teftimonies are alleged for it by the Elders." And the " dialogues of Peter and Apion" he looks upon as plainly fpurious, for this, among other reaionsj IGNATIUS. 247 reafons, " that nr>ne of the Elders pave mentioned it." Bur* in the prefent in- ftance, though, as we have kcn 9 there is a moft furpnzmg fiience in primitive an- tiquity about any writings of Ignatius, yet he takes no notice at all of it ; but receives the " epiftles" extant in his day, under the name of " this Father," with- out the leaft hefitation, and by the lump too. And if Mr. Whifton's reafoning may be thought valid, a good account may be given of this matter. According to him, the " epiftles of Ignatius," ex- tant in the days of Eufebius, were the larger ones, that is, thefe epiftles as we have them in the editions before thofs of Uftier and Voffius. As to the shor- ter epistles," that is, thofe we have in the editions of thefe learned antiqua- ries, he fpeaks of them as the larger epistles arbitrarily mangled and cur- tailed. And his arguments, upon this head, appear to me, I freely confefs, to be exceeding weighty : nor do I think, they ever have been, or can be, fully an- swered. And fhould this* be the truth, there isno great difficulty infuppofing,thar Eufebius might be inclined to think as well of them as might be. For, as he K k and 248 IGNATIUS. and Whifton were nearly of the fame fentiments, relative to animportant point of Chriftran doctrine, it was but natural for him to be well affefted to " thefe epiftles," which are well known to look with a favorable eye on this diftinguifli- ing tenet of their's. So that, upon the whole, it is but reafonable we fhonld be left fairly to judge of the evidence in fa- vor, or dif- favor, of " thefe epiftles, 9 ' withoutbeingatalifwayed by the judgment of Eufebius : nor ought it to be looked upon as an objection of any weight againft our rejecting them, that that learned au- thor thought them genuine -, provided we have good reafon lo to do. I will not take upon me to fay, that Ignatius did not write " epiftles" that were feen by Eufebius ; but thus much I will venture to fay, that it is highly pro- bable, moft unprejudiced perfons, in con- fequence of what has been offered, will be ftrongly inclined to queftion, whether they were fo certainly his, as to leave no reafonable room for doubt in the cafe.— - But I mull now go on, IGNATIU S -49 To offer what may be thought necef- fary to fhow, that " thefe epiftles," if not fpurious, have yet been corrupted to a de- degree that unfits them to be appealed to, as exhibiting the real mind of Ignatius ; efpecially with refpetl to Epifcopacy, the point now under debate. What I here propofe to confider, meerly as interlarded corruption, is made ufe of by Daille, La'roque, and other learned writers, to prove, from the in- ternal contents of " thefe epiftles" themielves, that they were not wrote by Ignatius, but by fome later hand. And it muft be acknowledged, the external evidence in proof, that Ignatius did not write " thefe epiftles," if confidered in connexion with this internal evi- dence, will give great additional force to the argument, and leave fcarce any room for doubt in the cafe.— ^But I chufe to give the Epifcopalians all the advantage they can defire j and fhall therefore here argue upon the fuppofition, that Igna- tius really wrote " epiftles" that were extant in the days of Eufebius : but, even upon this fuppofition, we claim to be excufed from placing any manner of dependant 2$o I G N A T I U S. dependance upon what they/fay, efpeci- ally upon the head of EpHcopacy , and for this very good reafon, becaule we af- firm, and fhall prove, that they are fo mingled with corruption, as not to con- vey the mind of the truly venerable Ig- natius. Some, perhaps, may think it owing to prejudice, when it is fo much as infi- nuated, as if there were any corrupt mix- tures in fuch eminently valuable " epif- tles" as thoie of Ignatius. But it ought to be known, and rem em be red, that Ig- natius has been impudently and frau- dulently dealt with, no iefs than eight of the fifteen epiftles, that bear his name, being forgeries, and owned to be fo ; beiides which, it is true likewife, and ac- knowledged as the trath» even by Biihop Pearfon himfelf, the great advocate for Ignatius, that the other ?' kven epif- tles," in all the editions of them, befoie Uftier and Voilius, were fo corrupted by fonie knavifh 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* t the Uftierian and Voffian editions muft IGNATIUS. 25! muft needs be corrupted alfo ; but thus much is obvioufly, and certainly dedu- cible herefrom, that they may be fo ; that to fuppofe fuch a thing is no indica- tion of prejudice againft them, as it is no more than has been a&ually done, with refpedl to thefe very " epiftles," in for- mer editions. Much might eafily be offered in fup- port of the affirmation, that the " epiftles of Ignatius/' in their lateft, beft, and moft purged editions, are too much mix- ed with interpolated corruption to be de- pended on, as letting us into his true and real /entiments. I might particularly confider the " infcriptions" to thefe epif- tles ; all which carry with them this fhrewd mark of time, later than the days of Ignatius, their fpeaking of him in the ftile of Theophoros, an epithet never applied to him, until ages after his death.—- 1 might take notice of the fto- ry of Ignatius's being " carried in bonds, from Syria to Rome, to be thrown to wild beafts," on the truth of which his epif- tles intirely depend -, and yet, the ftory is in itfelf a very ftrange and unaccoun- table one, and fo efteemed by many of the 2 5 s IGNATIUS. the mod learned writers.-— I might infift upon what is faid of the ik word's pro- ceeding from Sige" a term of art in the Valentuiian theology, not known to be ufed as fuch, until after the departure of Ignatius out of our world.— -In a word, I might bring to view a great number of paffages, which it would be a difhonor to Ignatius to afcribe to him, they are either fo weak, or abfurd, or ridiculous, or in- confiftent with what he has elfewhere faid, and fometimes in the fame epiftle. — But it would be too great, as well as need- iefs, a tryal of the reader's patience to confider fo many articles. I (hall there- fore pafs them over, and wholly confine myfelf to what, more efpecially, relates to the prefent controverfy, the things that are faid concerning the officers of the Christian church. And I the rather chufe to enlarge upon this head, as it is enlarged upon in all the " Ignatian epifties" (the epiftle to the Romans on- ly excepted,) and in a manner evidently ihewing, if thefe * epifties" are not fpu- rious, that they have been tampered with, and bafely corrupted by fome over-heat- ed zealot for ecclefiaftical dignity, and power, fo as to be unfitted to hand to us the IGNATIUS. 253 the true fentiments of the real Ignatius. And here it may be offered as follows. Considering the circumftances of Ignatius, when he is faid to have wrote thefe epiftles ^ — his being a prifoner of death, and on his journey to Rome to fuffer martyrdom, it is not at all proba- ble, 'he fhould have his heart fo fet on exalting the Clergy, as, in all his epiftles, to write, as if the main thing fuitable to be told the churches, was, that they had " worthy and God-becoming Bifhops and Prefbyters, whom they ought to honor, and obey, even as Jefus Chrift honored and obeyed the Father/' There is evi- dently more, much more, faid, in thefe epiftles, upon the rights of the Clergy, and the fubje&ion that was due to them, than upon any other fubjedl, though of fundamental importance. Does not this appear ftrange ? It would certainly do fo in any epiftles wrote,at prefent, un- der like circumftances. And what makes the matter ftill more extraordinary, the fame words and phrafes, upon the fame beloved fubject, not only come over in every epiftle, fave one ; but in moft of them, they are needleflly repeated j and, in 254 IGNATIUS. in fome of them, their repetition over and over again is quite fulfome. To this it is faid by Episcopalians, That herefies now began to be broa- ched, and to infe6l the minds of many ; and therefore, as the moft proper expe- dient that could, at that timo| be thought on, to preferve the churches pure, Ig- natius exhorts* them, and with preffing earneftnefs, to an adherence to the Cler- gy, union with, and fubjection to, their Bifhops and Prefbyters. And his fo zealoufly, and frequently, infilling upon this head, is made even a fign of his foul's flaming with love to the churches 5 difco- vered in ardent defires that they might flourifh in peace, truth, and holinefs, af- ter he had been devoured by wild beafts. In anfwer whereto, # I would not go about to detra6f, m the leaf!:, from the piety of Ignatius, his concern for the purity of the churches, and defire to preferve them from herefy : but, at the fame time, cannot but think it very wonderful, if " fubjeftion to church-governors" an implicit adher- ence to the « Bifhop and his Clergy/* was IGNATIUS. 255 iuch a notable expedient, fo fare and ef- fectual an one, to guard agaiaft herefy, that none of the Fathers Contemporary with Ignatius fhuuld be fo happy as to hit upon it. It was as good an expedi- ent to cure divifions, as to fecure from, herefy ; 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 ftrife and fcifm. And it is obferva- ble, Polycarp, who wrote juft after Igna- tius, and with his " epiftles" in keeping (as is pretended), among other things, cautions the church at Philippi againft the errors that then prevailed among many. But how does he prefs the ex- hortation ? Why, not a word does he lifp about their adhering to their Bifoop, with the reft of the Clergy, the great ar- gument here faid to be ufed by Ignatius : but he befpeaka them in thefe words, " Thefe things, my brethren, I took not the liberty of myfelf to write unto you. For neither I, nor any other fuch as I am, come up to the wif- dom of the blefled and renowned Paul, who, being himfelf in perfon with thofe that then lived, did, with exactnefs and foundnefs, teach the word of truth ; and L 1 being 256 IGNATIUS, being gone from you wrote an epiftle t© you, into which if you look, you will be able to edify yourfelves 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 falfe 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 obe- dience to the apostolic writings, as he is in urging an adherence to the Cler- gy, and subjection to them, it might, poflibly, have been as good a guard againft " infedion byherefy." Hedoes^ indeed, fometimes exhorts thofe he writes to, " to ftudy to be confirmed in the doctrine of our Lord, and his Apoftles " but where he once advifes to this, I will venture to fay, he ten times preffes a regard to the Clergy ; and this he does in very unguarded language, -without ever making the fuppofition,that they alfo might becorrupted with error; and, in this cafe, cautioning the churches againft being ledafide by their governors : which is making much more of the Clergy, than the Apoftles ever made of themielves.-*- But IGNATIUS. 257 But I fhall not enlarge here, having men- tioned what has been offered as a fmall circumftance only, in companion with what I have yet to fay. To go on there- fore, It is of more weighty consideration, that the officers of the chriftian church are commonly fpoken of,in "thefeepiftles," in language not at all confonant to the age in which the true Ignatius lived, nor indeed in the leaft worthy of fo fa- mous and primitive a Father and martyr. What other thought can reafonably be entertained of thofe paffages, in which Bifhops are reprefented as " prefiding in the place of God :" In which they are compared to " God the Father, to Jefus Chrift 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 Jefus Chrift ;" yea, •« to follow them as Chrift does the Fa- ther :" in which they are commanded " fo to obey and fubjedt themfelves to the Bifhop as to do nothing without him, however reafonable it might appear to them :" in which they are exhorted to be *' fo one with the Bifhop, as Chrift is one 258 IGNATIUS. ore with the Father " and " fo to do nothing without him, as (Thrift did no- thing without the Father :" in which fo great account is made of obedience and fubjeclion to the Bifhop, that they that * c do any thing without him" are efteem- ed " doing the devil a fervice ;" and ihofe that remain with him" are, upon this ac- count only, thought worthy of the cha- racter of " belonging to Chrift •" and are reprefented as " walking not as men, but according to Chrift :" yea, in which obedience to the officers of the church is fo highly estimated by the writer, or in- terpolator, of " thefe epiftles," that he even " pawns his foul for thofe that obey the Bifhop, Prefbyters, and Deacons - 3 and defires his portion in God may be with fuch." These, and like expreffions, to be met with in M thefe epiftles," are not eafijy to be accounted fof% upon the iuppofition fhut they have not beet] interlaced with corruption. In their literal and moft obvious fenfe, they are unworthy of any pious writer ; much more of fo venera- ble a Father, and illuftrious a martyr, as Ignatius : nor can it be difowned, that, in IGNATIUS. 259 in this fenfe, they exalt the Clergy be- yond all reafonable bounds, claiming for them the moft abfplutely blind obedi- ence : and fbould we qualify their fenfe, to the utmoft extent they are capable of, they carry the dignity and power of Bi- fhops and Prefbyters, and the iubje&ion due to them, not only far above their deferts, but fo as to difcover the true spirit of after-times, and not that in which Ignatius is known to have lived. It may, with the exa&eft truth, be affir- med, that none of the writers, in the days of Ignatius, or near the age in which he flourifhed, do bear the leaft likenefs' to him in his mode of fpeaking, relative to the officers of the church. Thefe unite, as one, in language becoming the fimpli- city of the gofpel, and the purity and hu- mility of thofe primitive times : where- as, the general ftrain of "Ignatius's epif- tles" is evidently adapted, I may fay, pur- pofely contrived, to aggrandife the Clergy, and befpeak for them the higheft rever- ence, honor, and fubmiffion. How can this be accounted for, without the fup- pofuion of fome medling interpolator ? Why, 2 6o IGNATIUS. Why, otherwife, fhould there be fuch a fignal difference between his manner of writing, and that of all. the ancients in his day, and for a long time after [lis life had come to a period here on earth i The difference of ftile, in different writers, will not, as is pleaded here, ac- count for this. The ftile of Hermas wide- ly differs from that of Clement, as Cle- ment's does from that of Polycarp, and Polycarp's from that of Juftin iMartyr, and Irenseus ; and yet, they all lead us to think much the lame thing about the Clergy ; and this, with all defirable clear- nefs and certainty, though they feverally exprefs themfelves in a manner peculiar each one to himielf. And why might not Ignatius have wrote in his own ftile, and yet have concurred with his contem- poraries, in a like account of the officers of the church ? It ought, moft certainly, to be afcribed, not to meer difference in ftile, but to fome other caufe, that he fo ftrangely differs from them. And what caufe can this be, but the interlarding hand of fome zealot for clerical power and honor ? IGNATIUS. 261 His being a Syrian may, poffibly, account for his fomctimes barbarous Greek, as well as high-founding com- pounded words, * peculiar to himfelf ; but it will, by no means, account for his fentiments concerning the Clergy, as differing from thofe of all his contem- poraries. For not only the mode of language in " thefe epiftles," but the idea conveyed by it, is quite different from that which is contained in the " other writings'' in,, and near, the fame age. Bring down the high (trains ufed in " thefe epiftles," and put them into plain fimple language, ftill keeping to their true fpirit, and genuine intendment ; and they will carry the power of the Clergy, and the reverence and honor due to them, far beyond * No writer was ever more pleafed with Compounding words to make them look big with meaning, than, Ignatius. Thofe he could join with Phoros in the end, and A x i o s in the beginning, are particularly ob- fervable in his " epiftles." He fpeaks of one, or another of the churches he writes to, as Th eo pho ro I, Naophoroi, Agiophoroi, Christophoroi, Pneumatophoroi, &c. The words alfo, a: 10- THEOS, AXIOMAKARISTOS, A X I O N O M ASTOS, AX- IOGApeetos, axiothaum astos, &c. are favo- rite compounds of his making. Arch-Bifhop Wake fel- dom tranflates thefe, and fuch like words, f© as that the original Greek could from thence be fo much as guef- fed' at. 262 IGNATIUS. beyond what it is carried, either in the fcripture, or the writings of all contem- porary Fathers united together : nor can a perfon read the " epiftles of Ignatius/' and not have excited in his mind a much more exalted idea, both of Bifhops and Prefbyters, than by reading all the other writers, within the two firft centuries. Any common reader, by going over the collection of teftimonies brought to view, in this volume, may, with his own eyes, fee this to be the truth of faft. Let the difpute about the fuperiority of Bifhops to Prelbyters be as it may, no- thing is more evident, than that the lan- guage relative to the Clergy, befpeaking for them reverence and fubjection, was quite different after the fecond century, from what it was before. And as the language, in the " Ignatian epiftles," up- on this head, is fo unlike that of the age in which he lived, and agrees fo well with that, which was, in fact, ufed afterwards, it is a lure mark of unfair dealing fome- how or other. Either Ignatius was not the writer of" thefe epiftles," or they have been bafely and fraudulently corrupted, fince his death. No one, unbiased in his mind, IGNATIUS. 263 mine], can, I fhould think, be at any lofs to determine thus.-— To proceed, It is moft of all worthy of con {itera- tion, that the words. Bishop and Pres- byter, are, in the Ignatian epiftles, ap- propriated terms ; not ufed promis- cuously, but in a distinctive fenfe. Bifhops are never here called Prefbyters 5 nor, on the other hand, are Prefbyters ever called Bifhops. The mode of di&ion is this ; " Being fubject to your Bifhop, and the Prefbytery." — " Obeying your Bifhop, and the Prefbytery, with an in- tire affe&ion."— "Seeing I have been judg- ed worthy to fee you by Damas, your Bi- fhop ; and by your worthy Prefbyters, Bafiusand Apollonius".— " In whom I rejoice, for that he is fubjedt unto his Bi- fhop, as to the grace of God ; and to the Prefbytery, as to the law of JefusChrifl."-- "He that does any thing without the Bi- fhop, and Prefbyters is not pure in his confeience."— " Being fubjedt to your Bifhop, as to the command of God ; and fo likewife to the Prefbytery."— " I ciicd, whilft I was among you, I lpake with a loud voice, attend to the Bifhop, and to the Prefbytery."™" See thai ye all fol- M m low 264 IGNATIUS. low your Bifhop, as Jefus Chrift the Fa- ther ; and the Prefbytery as the Apof- ties." — *' I falute your very worthy Bifhop, and your venerable Prefbytery/ 3 — You obferve, the terms Bifhop and Prefbyter, arc ufed, in thefe paffages, in the appro- priated fenfe ; and they are ufed in the fame fenfe throughout the epiftles* Nor can an inftance be given to the con- trary. The appropriation of thefe terms is not accidental, but defigned; and it runs through all the copies of thefe epiflles, the Ufherian and Vcffian, as well as thofe that were extant before them : and it is fo facred and inviolable, that it is, in no cafe, at no time, upon no occa- fion, departed from. What agreement, now, is there be* tween the fuppofed Ignatius, and his con- temporaries, upon this head ? Do they tife the words, Bifhop and Prefbyter, as he does, in an appropriated fixed fenfe ? It cannot, with any face of truth, be af- firmed, that they do. Far from this, they differ as much from him, in their ufe of \ thefe terms, as they do from any of the writers of the third, or fourth centuries. There is indeed no writer, either before Ignatius, l IGNATIUS. z6$ Ignatius, or at the time when he wrote, or even afterwards for more than an hun- dred years, that ufes thefe words as he does, in a fenfe fo certainly, and invaria- bly, fixed and appropriated. The rea- der is defired to compare the pretended Ignatius's mode ofdiftion, upon this point, with that which is held out to tfiew, in the prefent volume, from all the writers until towards the clofe of the fecond cen- tury ; and he may then, from ocular in- fpe&ion, be convinced, that he greatly differs from them all; and eminently in this refpecl, that he invariably ufes the words, Bifhop and Prefbyter, in the ap- propriated fenfe ; while they ufe them promifcuoufly, fometimes calling Bifhops, Prefbyters ; and fometimes Prefbyters, Bifhops : meaning by both terms one and the fame order of officers in the church. He will evidently fee, in " Hermas's paf- tor," that the word, Bifhops, is explained to fignify, " thofe that prefide in the church ;" and that thofe who prefide in the church are " the Prefbyters of it." He will at once perceive, in " Clement's epiftle to the Corinthians," that the fame officers who are called " Prefbyters," are diredly fpoken of as u caft out of their Epifcopacy/; z66 I G N A T I U S. Epifcopacy." When he turns to Poly- carp, the fuppofed collector of the " Ig- natian epiftles," and the nexi 'and near- eft writer to him, fo far will he be from finding an analogy between " hs epif- tle," and the " epiftles of Ignatius/' that he no where fpeaks of the Bifhop ofPjiilippi, or ofanyothei church :nordoes he fo much as mention the word, Bifhop ; which is really unaccountable, if it be re- membered, conformably to the fentiments of Epiicopalians, that Ignatius had very lately, and under the rnoft extraordinary circumftances too, wrote " his epiftles," and that Polycarp was particularly ac- quainted with them -, yea, ,thar he had wrote " one epiftle to PolyearpP himfelf, and another to " his church at Smyrna," in one of which he " pawns his foul for them that were obedient to the Bi- fhop, and the other Clergy 5" and, in the other, makes the Bifhop fo neceifary, that u no administration could be valid with- out him, but whatever he fhould approve would be pleafing to God." And he will be no more able to find in Juftin Martyr, or Irenaeus, an appropriated life of the terms, Bifhop and Prefbyter, iaan in either of the foregoing writers, Irenasus* IGNATIUS. 267 Irenaeus, it is true, frequently ufes thefe terms, but in the promiscuous fenfe ; as no one can be at a lofs to perceive, who will be at the trouble of reading over the teftimonies, in this work, produced out of his writings : nor are the wbrds, Bi- fhop and Prefbyter, ufed as appropri- ated ones, until towards the clofe of the fecond century ; and, even then, the ap- propriation was not fteadily fixed. Clement of Alexandria, who chiefly flou- rifhed in the latter end of the fecond cen- tury, and the beginning of the third, is the firft writer who ufes the mode of fpeech, fo common, and invariable, with Ignatius, " Biftiops, Prefbyters, and Dea- cons ; and yet, fo long after the days of Ignatius, the diftincl appropriation of thele names was not certainly fixed. We muft go into the third century, I may rather fay, beyond it, before the appropriation, after the manner of Ig* nanus, is conftant, facred, and invalid able. Upon which, the enquiry is highly per- tinent, how fhould Ignatius conftantly, ani forever, ufe the words, Bifhop and Prelbyter not in the fenfe in which they were ^o8 IGNATIUS. were ufed, in the age in which he wrote ; but in thefenie, in which they were u- fed, in other ages, long after his death ? This certainly looks fufpicious,and ought, in all reafon, to put us upon our guard, left we fhould take fome jugling impoftor for the worthy, and primitive Ignatius. Words, we know, often vary in their fig- nification ; and fometimes, when ufed in this or that particular fenfe, are as fure a mark of fuch a particular age, as the fpe- cial mode or fafhion of garments. And this is plainly the cafe here. Before the days of Ignatius, about the time of his living, and dying, and for many years after, the words, Bifhop and Prefbyter, were not appropriated names, and as fuch applied to different perfons ,* but were indifferently ufed to point out either Bifhops, or Prefbyters : whereas, towards the going out of this age, or rather tha coming on of the next, they began to loofe their promiscuous ufe, and to become appropriated terms, conveying the idea of different perfons, who were commonly known, and diftin- guifhed, by the application of thefe now different names : though, it ought to be remembered, this appropriation was not fo IGNATIUS, 26 ^ fo sacred and inviolable, as in the " epiftles of Ignatius", till we have got much farther from the age in which he Jived. And we are herefrom prefented with a criterion, by which we may de- termine, with all defirable certainty, ei- ther that Ignatius did not write the " epiftles" that go under his name, or that they have been bafely, and fraudu- lently, corrupted by fome bigot for cleri- cal honor and power ; infomuch, that there is no knowing the real fentiments of the true Ignatius. I have now, with confcious care and impartiality, endeavoured to exhibit the true ftate of the " epiftles" called '< Ig- natian $" leaving it with the reader to judge forhimfelf, how far they may, with certainty, be depended on -, more especial- ly in the prefent debate. Poffibly, he may be difpofed to queftibn, whether Ignatius was at all the writer of the €( epiftles" that are afcribed to him : or, fhould he be inclined to think he was, it is fcarce fuppofable, but he fhould be clearly fatisfied, that fome fraudulent hand has made him write in a manner quite diffonaut * 7 o I G N A T I. U S. diflbnant from the times in which he liv- ed ; and to fuch a degree, as to unfit his " epiftles" to be repaired to, with confi- dence, in the debate concerning epifco- pacy. Testimonies from Ignatius The Epistle to the Ephesians. Sect. I~" I received therefore in the name of God your whole multitude in Onefimus ; who by inexpreffable love 18 our's, but according to the flefh is your Bifhop : whom I befeech you, by Jeius Chrift, to love -, and that you would all ftrive to be like unto him. And bleffed be God, who has granted unto you, who are fo worthy of him, to enjoy fuch an excellent Bifhop." Sect. II. " For what concerns my fellow-fervant Burrhus, and your moft blefled Deacon in things pertaining to God> I intreat you that he may tarry lon- ger, both for your's, and your Bifhop's honor.— It is therefore fitting,- that you fhould by all means glorify Jefus Chrift, who hath glorified you : that, by a uniform t G N A T t It S. 27! Uniform obedience, " ye may be perfectly joined together in the fame mind, and in - the fame judgment ; and may all fpeak the fame things concerning every thing :'* and that, being fubjeft to your Bifhop, and the Prelbytery, ye may be wliollyand thoroughly fanetified." Sect. III. — ** But forafriiuch as cha- rity Fuffers me not to be filent towards you, I have firft taken upon me to exhort you, that ye would all run together ac- cording to the will of God. For even Jefus Chrift, our infeperable life, is fent by the will of the Father ; as the Bifhops, appointed unto the utmoft ends of the earth, are by the will of Jefus ChrinV* It immediately follows, Sect. IV. u Wherefore it wiU become* you to run together according to the wilt of your Bifhop, as alfo ye do. For your famous Prefbytery, worthy of God, is fit- ted asexa&ly to the Bifhop, as the firing^ are to the harp. Therefore in your con- cord, and agreeing charity, Jefus Chrift h fung ; and every fingle perfon among you makes up the chorus : that fo being all N n confonanS 722 IGNATIUS. confonanfin love, and taking up the iong of God, ye may, in a perfect unity, wit'h one voice, fing to the Father by Jefus Chriir ; 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 unblemiihable unity, that foye may always have a fellow {hip with God/' The next words are, Sect. V. Sect, VIL "Wherefore guard your- felves againft fuch perfons. And that you will do, if you are not puffed up ; but continue infeperable from Jefus Chrift our God, and from your Bifhop, and from the command of the Apoftles. He that is within the altar is pure : but he that is without, that is, that does any tiling without the Biftiop, and Prefbyters* O o m<& 2 8o IGNATIU S. and Deacons, is not pure in his con- fcience". Sect. XII. " 1 falnte you from Smyr- na. My bonds, that • I carry about with me for the fake of Ghrift, — exhort 3/ou, that you continue in concord a- mong yourfelves, and in prayer with one another. For it becomes every one of you, efpecially the Prefbyters, to refrefh ihe Bifhop, to the honor of the Father of Jefus Chrift, and of the Apoftles."— Sect. XIII.-— " Fare ye well in Jefus Chrift ; being fubject to your Bifhop, as to the command of God, and fo likewife to the Prefbytery. Love every one his brother with an unfeigned heart. My foul fae your expiation, not only now, but when I (hall have attained to God : for I am yet under danger.— The epistle to the Romans. Sect. II.— " Wherefore ye cannot do me a greater kindnefs, than to fuffer me to be facrificed to God, now that the al- tar is already prepared : that when ye fhall foe gathered together in love, ye may give shanks IGNATIUS. 281 thanks to the Father, through Chrift Jefus ; that he has vouchfafed to bring a Bifhop of Syria unto you, being called from the eaft to the weft."— - Sect, IX. " Remember in your pray* ers the church of Syria, which now en- joys God for its fhepherd inftead of me : Let Jefus Chrift only overfee it, and your charity."— The epistle to the Philadelphians, The INSCRIPTION. " Ignatius, who is alfo called Theo- phorus, to the church of God the Father, and our Lord Jefus Chrift, which is at Philadelphia in Afia ; which has obtainedf mercy, being fixed in the concord of God, and rejoicing evermore in the pafll- on of our Lord, and being fulfilled in all mercy through his rej^rrection : which alfo I falute in the blood of Chrift Jefus, which is our eternal and undefiled joy ; efpecially if they are at unity with the Bi~ fhop, and Prefbyters who are with him, and the Deacons appointed according to the mind of Jefus Chrift; whom he ha? fettled according to his own will in all firinnefs by his holy Spirit :" Sect^ £8s IGNATIUS.' Sect. I. " Whicb-Bifhop I know ob- tained that, miniftry among yon, not of bimfelf, neither by men, nor out of vain glory ; but by the love of God the Fa- ther, and our Lord Jefus Chrift : whofe moderation I admire ; who by his fi- lence is able to do more, than others with #11 their vain talk. For he is fitted to the commands, as theharptoits firings." — » Sect. II. " Wherefore as becomes the children both of the light and of truth ; flee divifions and falfe doflrines : but where your fhepherd is, there do ye, as ijieep follow after. For there are many wolves, who feem worthy of belief, that with a falfe pleafure lead captive thofe that run in the courfe of God : but in your concord they {hall find no place." Sect. III. " Abftain therefore from thofe evil herbs which Jefus Chrift does notdrefs ; becaufe fuch are not the plan- tation of the Father. Not that I have found any divifions among you, but ra- ther all manner of purity. For as many ap are of God, and of Jefus, are alfo with their Bifhop. And as many as thai! with, repentance return into the unity IGNATIUS. 283 unity of the church, even thefe (hall alfo be the fervants of God, that they may live according to Jefus Chrift. Be not deceived, brethren : if any one follows him that makes a fchifm in the church, he lhall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks after any other opini- on, he agrees not with the paflion of Chrift/' Sect. IV. M Wherefore, let it be your endeavor to partake all of the lame eucharift. For there is but one flefli of our Lord Jefus Chrift ; and one cup, in the unity of his blood ; one altar ; as alfo there is one Biftiop, toge- ther with his Prefbytery, and the Dea- cons my fellow fervants : that fo what- foever ye do, ye may da it according to the will of God." Sect. VI — ** Flee therefore the wick- ed arts and fnares of the prince of this world ;— but come all together into the Tame place, with an undivided heart." — Sect. VII. — " I cried whilft I Was among you, I fpake with a loud voice ; s attend to the Bifhop, and to the Prefby- tery, 8 8 4 IGNATIUS. tery, and to the Deacons. Now fome fuppofed, that I fpake this'as forefeeing the divifions that fhould come among you. But he is my witnefs, for whofe fake I am in bonds, that I knew nothing from any man. But the fpirit fpake, faying on this wife ; Do nothing without the Bifliop : keep your bodies as the temples of God : love unity : flee divifions : be ye followers of Chrift, as he was of the Father;' Sect. VIII. " I did therefore as be- came me, as a man compofed to unity. For where there is divifion and wrath, God dwelleth not. But the Lord for- gives all that repent, if they return to the unity of God, and the council of the Bifhop." — Sect. X. " Now as concerning the church of Antioch which is in Syria ;— - it will become you, as the church of God, to ordain fome Deacon to go to them thither as the ambaflador of God ; that he may rejoice with them when they meet together, and glorify God's name. Blef- fed be that man in Jefus Chrift, who lhall be found worthy of fuch a miniftry ; and IGNATIUS. 285 2nd -ye yourfelves alfo fhall be glorified. Now if ye be willing, it is not impoflible for you to do this for the fake of God : as alfo the other neighbouring churches have fent them, fome Bifhops, fomc Priefts, and Deacons." The epistle to the Smyrnjeans. Sect. VIII. " See that ye all follow your Bifhop, as Jefus Chrift, the Father % and the Prefbytery as the Apoftles. And reverence the Deacons, as the command of God. Let no man do any thing of what belongs 'to the church feparately from the Bifhop. Let that eucharift be looked upon as well eftablifhed, which is cither offered by the Bifhop, or by him to whom the Bifhop has given his confent. Wherefoever the Bifhop fhall appear, there let the people alfo be : as where Jefus Chrift is, there is the catho- lic church. It is not lawful without the Bifhop, either to baptife, or to cele- brate the holy communion : but what- foever he fhall approve of,' that is alfo pleafing to God ; that fo whatever is done, may be fure and well done/—* SXGTm s86 IGNATIUS, Sect. IX. " For what remains, it is ve- ry reafbnable that we fhotild repent, whilft there is yet time to return to God . It is a good thing to have a due regard both to God and the Bifliop : he that honors the Bifhop, fhall be honored of God : but he that does any thing with- out his knowledge, minifters unto the devil." Sect. XI. — " It will be fitting, and for the honor of God, that your church appoint fome worthy delegate, who, be- ing come as far as Syria, may rejoice to- gether with them that are in peace. — Wherefore I fliould think it a worthy aftion to fend fome one from you, with an epiftle, to congratulate with them their peace in God." Sect. XII. " I falute your very worthy Bifhop, and your venerable Prel- bytery, and your Deacons my fellow-fer- vants ; and all of you in general, and every one in particular, in the name of Jefus Chrift,"— IGNATIUS. 287 The epistle to Polycarp. The INSCRIPTION. cc Ignatius, who is alfo called Theo- phorus, toPolycarp, Bifhop of the chur which is at Smyrna •, their overfeer, but ra- ther himfeU overlooked byGod the Father, and the Lord Jefus Chrift: all happinefs.* 4 Sect. I.-—" Maintain thy place with all care both of fldh and fpirit : make i,t thy endeavor to preferve unity, than which nothing is better. ---Speak to every ope as God fhall enable thee."— Sect. IV". " Let not the widows be neglefkd : be thou, affer God, their guardian. Let nothing be done, with-? out thy knowledge and confent : neither do thou any thing but according to the will of God ; as alio thou doft with all conitancy. Let your ailemblies be more full: inquire into all byname*: over- look not the men nor maid-fervants $ neither let them be puffed up, but rather let them be more fubjecl to the glory of God, that they may obtain from him a better liberty." — P p Sect. f u Ex onom atospantas ZEETEI," Inquire af-er, •r feek out, all by name, a88 IGNATIUS. Sect. V. " If any man can remain in a virgin ftate, to the honor of the flefh of Chrift, let him remain without boait- ing ; but if he boaft he is undone. And if he defire to be more taken notice of than the Bifhop, he is corrupted. But it becomes all iuch as are married, whe- ther men or women, to come together with the confent of the Bifhop, that fo their marriage may be according to god- linefs, and not in luft. Let all things be done to the honor of God." Sect. VI. " Hearken unto the Bi- fhop, that God may alio hearken unto you. My foul be fecurity for them that fubmit to their Bifhop, with their Prefby- ters and Deacons. And may my portion be together with their's in God."— Sect. VII. " It will be very fit, O moft worthy Polycarp, to call a feledl council, and chufe fome one whom yc particularly love, and who is patient of labor ; that he may be the mefTenger of God : and that going into Syria, he may glorify your inceffant love, to the praife of Gboft.>^ Sect. IGNATIUS- 289 Sect. VIII, But forafmuch as I have riot been able to write to all the chur- ches-— do you write ,td the churches that are near you, as being inftrufted in the will of God, that they alfo do in like manner. Let thofe that are able fend meflengers, and let the reft fend their let- ters by thofe who fhall be fent by you 5 that you may be glorified to all eternity, of which you are worthy."— Observations and Remarks upon the testimonies from Ignatius* THOUGH I haveenlarged,in the fore- going pages, upon the reafons we have to think, that the " feven epiftles" of Ig- natius are either spurious, or fo inter- larded WITH AFTER ADDITIONS as nO£ to be depended on ; yet, I can truly fay, I was not moved to this from an appre- henfion, that " thefe epiftles," unlefs ta- ken out of the way, would be ruinous, or indeed at all hurtful, to the caufe in the defence of which I am engaged. Epif- copalians, I know, ever repair to them as their main ftrength ; and are ready to think, and fay, that we are difpofed to fpeak injuriously of them, upon any pretences! 490 IGNATIUS. pretences, however flighty, becacfe they fyeak fo clearly and fully againft us. But they are herein greatly mdtaken. It is owing to the force oftiuth, and not to prejudice, or fear kit our cauie fhould furTer, if tried by them, that we reprefent them as under very ftrong marks of luf- picion. And to induce a belief of this, and, at the fame time, to do juftiee td our fide of the difpure, I fhall, in what fol- lows, fuppoie thefe '< epillles" to be ge- nuine, as truly fo as the writings of Clement, or any other primitive Father $ and, in this view of them, endeavor, fo fhew, that they furnifh much more evidence in favor of us, than or the Epif^ copalians ; and that they may be juftly brought as witnefles in defence of our cauie, rather than their's. In order to fet this matter in a fair point of light, let it be remembered, the Bilhops pleaded for by our antagoniits are diocesan ones; and the powers vhey make essential to the epifcopal 6ffiCe, arid exclude Prefbyters from, arc thofeof government, ordination, and confirmation. Let us now review the * Jgnauan tcftimorries," and fee whether they IGNATIUS. 291 they fpeak of such Bishops, or these powers that are laid to be essential to their office, and charafteriftical of it. I shall begin with faying, that, upon the ftridieft examination of all that is faid in the " epiftles of Ignatius," nothing can be found that will lead one into the idea of a diocesan Bifhop. It is as evident ss it well can be, from the whole tenor of " thefe epiftles," that the Ignatian Bifhop was the paftoral head of a single congregation, who ufually met toge- ther in one place, and united in an atten- dance on the inftitutions of Chriftianity. 80 much is to be met with upon this point, and in language fo full and ex- prefs, that no reafonable room is left for hefitation or doubt. Ignatius * infcribes" all thefe epif- tles to single focieties of Chriftians, in this and the other particular place. "T6 the church in Ephefus," in u Magnefia," in " Philadelphia," and fo on. And he applies ieverally to thefe churches, as one would fpeak to a fingle congregation of Chriftians, whofe cuftom it was frequent- ly to affemble in one place, and join as one 2 9 s IGNATIUS. one in worfhipping God through Jefus Chrift. And noi only fo, but the directi- ons and exhortations he gives, both to thefe churches, and their Bifhops, arefuch as make it morally certain, that he writes to fingle congregations of Chriftians, and not a number of them constituting one church. Inftanecs to this purpofc might eafily be produced out of each of " thefe epiftles." But, as fuch an enu- meration would be both needlefs, and te- dious, I fhall felefr only a few ftriking fpecimens that mull be convincing to prejudice itfelf. He fays to the church at Ephefus, " If the prayer of one or two has fuch efficacy, how much more that of the Bifhop, and the whole church ! He that cometh not to the same place * is puffed * The phrafe epi to auto, may be undcrftood as rer ferring either to time, place, or design, and is accordingly tranflated, by the beft critics, in all tl^efe fen- fes. Jt's propriety as meaning place or time, ra- ther then design ; and design rather than either of the former, can be determined onlyj by the import of the fentence in which it is found, and the part it bears as connected with the difcourfe. In this view of the phrafe, it cannot be better tranflated here, than in the words of Arch -Bifhop Wake, to the same place, He was as clofe a friend to the church of IGNATIUS. 293 puffed up with pride. Endeavor to meet frequently to praifeand glorify God. For when you are often together in the same place, the ftrength of fatan is broken.— -Since every one of you by name, with common confent meet to- gether in one faith, and one Jefus Chrift, breaking' one loaf, which is the medi- cine of immortality/' This is proper language, if applied to a fingle fociety of worfhipping of England as any man in his day, and would not have given this turn to the words, could he have pitched upon any other, more favorable to the caufe of Epifcopacy. The plain truth is, whether the phrafe is tranllated here, or in the other places where it is ufed in " Ignatius's epiftles," to the same place, or with one mind, or design, the argument, in fupport of the caufe we are defending, is equally ftrong. For it lies in this, that the Chriftians, conftituting the Ephefian, and other churches, wrote to by Ignatius, are evidently fpo- ken of as single congregations, which might, and ordinarily did, meet together for the worftiip of God: and if fo, it muft be in the same place, and more certainly than with one mind. It is true, if thefe churches were previously known to confift of a number of congregations, more or lefs, each having a Biftiop at_ their head, as their unking principle, they might be faid to come together with one heart, up- on one design, though the congregations, of which they confifted, afiembled for worfhip in fifty differ- ent p l a c e s . But it ought not to be taken for granted, but firft fully proved, that they werechurches of this kind. Until this is done, it ought to be fuppofed, that the v were single congregations j efpecially, as this is the natural and moii obvious meaning of all the fen- tences, in which the phrafe is ufed, and of the whole ciifcourfe with which it is connected. £ 9 4 IGNATIUS. worfhipping Chiiftians ; but not eafiJy underftood, if confidered as directed to a diocefan church ; or, in other words, a church constituted of a number of con- gregations, more or lefs, incapable of meeting together in one place, and of having perfonal communion there in the public offices of religion. It is in- deed, in this way of application, quite unintelligible, unlefs we recur to that figurative mode of fpeech, which was made neceffary in after ages, when the church began to appear with the evi- dent marks of antichrift. He writes to the church in Magnefia in thefe words, " When you meet toge- ther, let there be one prayer, one depre- cation, * one mind.-— There is one Je- ius Chrift, than whom nothing is more cx-cellent. It has been urged, that the mia PROSkuc'see, znd mia deffsis, to v\h!ch the*' Magneton church" is here exhorted, is no proof, that it did not confift of a number of congregations , v. ho, in i> i f f e kfnt pla- ces, ottered up their prayers to God. It is acknow- ledged, was it a previously indifputed fact, th=t this church did confift of a number of congregati- ons, " the one prayer," and " one fupplication," here fpoken of, ought to be uncterftood in a fen'e that wouM cowpoi tie nature of iuch a church. And it is net IGNATIUS/ 295 excellent, all therefore run together as tO ONE TEMPLE of Gbd 5 as t6 Olle AL- TAR, as to one Jefus Chrift." Is this fpeaking to a diocefs, or a particular con- gregation ofChriftiaris ? If common fenfe may be the judge, there can be no difpine. The cafe is too plain to admit of it. He thus befpeaks the church in Phila- delphia, " It becomes you, as a church, of God to chafe a Deacon to go thither [to Antioch] on a divine embaffy, that he riot denied, but tint a fenfe might be invented, in WKich there might be " one priyer," and " one fuppli cation," though the church, that joins in it, fbould affemble in an hundred difFereit places. But what is all this to the purpose ? It i> nothing more than firft fuppofing, with- out provjm*, that this " Mag^efian church" was of the l> 1 o c r s A n kind, a complex body, made one by the union of its feveral parts with a Biihop at its head, and the 1 putting a fenfe on thefe words, as grounded on this fuppofition. Such reafoning, if uled by others, would be called a meer begging the queftion. Every . one kno "'5, that the church of England, though a com- plex body, made up of a confiderable number of dio- clsses, in each of which there are many worlhip- ping afTemblies of Chriftians, does, and muft, join m " one prayer," and in " one fuppli cat ion", becav.fe they are oblige-] to ufe precifely thy fame words in their pub- lic addrt ties to Heaven. And was it as certain, that: the churches Ignatius writes to confifted of a number of worfnipping afiemblies, more or Iefs, who, in their pray- ers, ufed the fame words, no argument could be deduced from th'jir " one prayer," and *' one fupplication," {n evidence S96 IGNATIUS. ma'y rejoice with them, being assem- bled together." Let me afk here, was it a diocefs, or a fingle congre- gation, who, as a Chriftian church, were to make choice of a meffenger to go to Antioch ? And was it the church of Chriftians at Antioch, or a whole dio- cefs, that this meflfenger was to rejoice with, when they had 1 aflembled together ? No reaibnable anfwer can be given to thefe queffions, but the right one; which is, that a (ingle congregation of Chrifti- ans only is addreffed to. It follows in the next words, " Happy in Chrift Jefus is he who fliai-1 bethought worthy of fuch a miniftry : if ye be willing,- ye may dt> this for the fake ' of God ; as the other neighbouring ghurches have fent, &me Biihops, fome Prclbyters, and fome Deacons/' evidence of their being fingle focietles of Chriftians. But the point in queftion is, whether thefe churches were DIOCESAN, Or SINGLE CONGREGATIONS; and it is a good argument, in proof of the latter, that they are called upon to meet together, that they may unite as one in prayer and fupplication to God. They might, in fome contrived fenfe, be faid to do this, if they met in different alfemblies ; but it ought to be clear- ly and fully proved, that they thus met, before this fenfe can reasonably be put upon the words. They are moil naturally, eafily, and obvioufly applicable to one affembly of Chriftians, uniting in prayer to Almighty God : nor mould this fenfe be departed from, \mlds evident neceifity fliould call for itt IGNATIUS, 297 Deacons." Is the mode of di£Uon, here ufed, epifcopalian, or congregational ? Is it the pra&ice of dioceffes, or fingle con- gregations of Chriftians, to chufe mef- fengers,and fend them to other churches ? When neighbouring churches,with each their ownBiihop, their own Prefbyters, and Deacons, are here fpoken of, can it with propriety, or confiftency, be fup- pofed, that thefe neighbouring chur- ches were dioceffes ? Is it not infinitely more natural and reafonable, to under- stand by them fingle congregations ? He gives the following exhortations m his epiftle to Polycarp, Bifhop of the church at Smyrna, " Let not the wi- dows be neglected, be thou afterGod their guardian.™ Let your affemblies be more frequent.— -Enquire after all by name. Do not proudly overlook the men-ser- vANTS,andtheMAiD-SERVANTS." Thefe infttu6tions are highly pertinent, if Po- lycarp's church was only a congregation of Chriftians at Smyrna 5 and he might, if he was faithful and diligent, have com- plied with them, to his own honor, and the fpiritual good of the people who were his fpccial charge. But if his church had beei* 298 IGNATIUS. been of the diqcefan kind, what he is ex- horted to is highly abfurd, becaufe abfo- lutely impoffible to be put \n pra&ice. -j- Jkfides, what diocefan Bifhop ever ima- gined it was hi$duty to 'require after all within, his diocefs by nam?;, not over- looking even servants ? nioft certainly no one among this kind of Bifliops ever performed, or endeavored to perform, this fervice : •f To evade the force of the argument here, it has I cen faid, by the author of " an original draught of the primiuve church," p. 79, 80, that " the advice to Polycarp w d s ** only to do what the primitive Bi(hops always did, " that i$,to keep the names of every member of \\i6 church f* enrolledin, what the ancients called, the M a tkicui a *' [lilt or regiiicr] of their church. lie is advifed to ** "inquire out by name," that is, to get fuch a regifterof *' their name«:, that upon occafipn of any object ot cha- " ritv propofed to him, or of any complaint, or ap pli- tr cation, made to him about any within his cure or iu- < ( rifdiction,-rrhe might, by me^m> of this general m a- *' tkicula, as the other {.iiihops did, more directly 99 know, how the cafeftood with them : and which was, •• more than all this* the names thus enrolled in this " i acred record were perfqaaUy entitled theu to all 9 \ the public iutercedions, and fpiritual pjemngs obtain- *' ed by the eucharillical prayers., oblation , and facra- «' merits of me whole churc'.i. — And thefe were furficient iC rcafons for that apofiolical i/ather [Ignatius] to mind *' a Kilhop of the church to be careful of keeping fuch a 4< ntcellary MATR1CUXA as this, and an effectual way ff for St. Polycarp to take care of the meaneft anc$ il pooreft members of his diocefs. But as to the matter " of one lingle congregation being then under his care, ' a/»d that he mv.ft *< perfoaally know them all by name, * IGNATIUS. 299 fervice : whereas congregational Bifhop* efteem this their duty, and many of thern are faithful in the pra&ice of it, and their churches herefrom receive great benefit. In thefe epiftles, he fpeaks of « one altar," or communion-table > of " one eucharift j" of " breaking one Joaf 1 of his «' name/' as one neighbour knows another, I think they " no more imply it, than that Auguftus Cafar had but " one town to command, and could know every fubject « he had, when (for many political reafons) he cauled f them all to be enrolled, and required the date of his <• empire to be brought in to him." Nothing more need be faid to all this than juft to obferve, that the ad- vice here riven to Polvcarp is interpreted, not comfor- mably to the age in which he lived, but to after ages, whenBimops were at the head of churches known to be diocetfes confifting of numerous affemblies of worflup- pine Chriftians. It is no wonder, if methods were now contrived for Bifhops to do thofe duties of their office by others, which they could not perform in their own persons. But it was not thus in the times of Igna- tius. Bifhops were then « in labors more abundant, both public and private, in which they personally exerted themfelves, and not by thofe who were depu- ties under them. This did not become a cuftom, un- til the love of eafe, grandeur, and power, had got mucti the better of a zealous concern to promote the true in- ter** of the religion of Jefus. There is therefore no ima- ginable eood reafon to think, but that the advice here Kiven to Polvcarp was, personally to acquaint nim- felf with his whole church, even the meaneft members or it, that he might " be able to hit his ^ conduct, upon r i own knowledge, to their fpccial circumftances. **« 3 oo I G N A T I U S, his being " deprived of the bread of God who comes not to the " one altar." Thefe phrafes are all readily underftood, upon the fuppofition, that Ignatius is writing to Tingle congregations ; but otherwife there, is no fenfe in what he fays, unlefs wc make him fpeak figuratively, whea there is no need of it. A fingle congrega- tion of Chriftians, fuch an one as he is all along writing to, may come to " one altar," or communion-table ; they may all " break" of the fame fecramental " loaf :" whereas,it isimpoffible, aBifhpp with his whole diocefs fhould literally do thefe things. They cannot be fuppofed to is evidently that meaning of the words which naturally offers at firft fight : nor can any other be put upon them, unlefs we needlefly, I may rather fay unreafona- bly, repair to times greatly diftant from thofe, in which Ignatius and Polycarp fuftained the office of Bi- fhops, and take our idea of the advice here given, not from their times, but thofe after-ones, when there was a vifible and fignal difference, not only in the external circumftances, but the known employment, of thofe who were then Bifhops. There is no hint given, within the two firft centuries, of the M a t r ic u L a , this author fpeaks of ; or of a Bifhops ading in his cure, as Auguftus Caefar did, with refped: to an enrollment of the people under his command. We muft come down to thofe ages, in which Bifhops more nearly refembled Emperors, than they did in the days of Ignatius, before we fhall find the leaft reafon to in- terpret his advice to Polycarp, in a (enh different jfroin that we have taken it in. IGNATIUS. 301 to do them, without calling in the help of aflrong and bold figure. *— But I may not enlarge. It would be an affront to the reaader's underftanding, fhould I fay any thing more upon a point fo obvioufly evident. It will perhaps be pleaded, it is a cir- euraftancial matter only, whether a Bifhop's * When Chriftian churches, in procefs of time, cosfifted of numerous aflemblies, who had each their " altar," their " eucharift," their facramental " loaf," the invention of man contrived a ftnfe, in which thefe *■* altars,'* '• eucharifts," and V loaves," though numerous, might be called one; not indeed in the same, but different respects. But this metaphy fical dex- terity did not come into ufe, until long after the age of Ignatius : for which reafon, it is delufive, to fay no- thing worfe, to apply thefe different respect* to his " one altar," ** one eucharift," and t( one loaf ;" making them many, and yet one, in respects that were never fo much as thought of in his day. I have never yet feen, within the two firft centuries, nor until the art of man was evidently employed to vindi- cate corruption in the church of God, fo much as a An- gle inftance of the mode of fpeaking here applied to the truly primitive Ignatius. Let fuch an inftance be pro- duced, if any are able to do it. Until then, it will be to no purpofe to tell us, that, in ancient times, there was only " one altar," and •* one facramental loaf," in a Chriftian church in one respect, though in ano- ther there were fome hundreds. It was not the man- ner, in truly primitive times, to multiply altars in one sense, and make them all but one in another. We may not look for this, until the church was far gonft in anuchriftiarjr corruption. 3 o2 IGNATIUS. Bifhop's church be great or fmall. His ef- fential powers are the fame, whether it confifts of a (ingle congregation only, of a number, more or lefs* This, as I ap- prehend, is a fundamental miftake upon this head. Diocefan, and parochial, or congregational, epifcopacy effentially dif- fer, and are, in the nature of the thing, fubverfive of each other. Scores, or hundreds, of parochial Bifhops rftuft be deprived of the proper powers of their of- fice, to make way for ofte fuch diocefan, as the Englifh Bifhop is known to be. The plain truth is, diocefan epifcopacy is- an invention of man, wholly a political conftitution > and, I believe, effentially wrong : as it is impoflible a diocefan Bi- fhop fhould do the duty of the Bifhop's office, as defcribed in the new teftament, or even in the " epiftles of Ignatius ;"and the placing Bifhops at the head of large dioceffes, inftead of tending to ferve the intereft of (Thrift's fpiritual kingdom, has been greatly hurtful to it, in all ages from the firft rife of antichrift to this day. But however this be, which does not fall fo dire&Iy within our prefent defign, thus much is certain, that the Ignatian Bifhop was not a diocesan one ; and that. IGNATIUS. 3°3 ihat, if his Bifhop is to be the pattern, or exemplar, there is not a Bifhop in all En- gland conformed to it. The Bifhops, or faftors, of parochial, or congregational, churches do much more nearly refemblc the Bifhop held out to view in " his epif- ties." But to go on, Ignatius is not only filerit about dio- cefanBifhops, but the powers of govern- ment, ORDINATION, 2nd CONF1RMA-* tion, a,s appropriated to Bifhops of any kind, as an order diftincl from Prefbyters; To begin with government. Ancf here it ought to be obferved, there was, in each of the churches Ignatius wrote to, a Presbytery, or, in other words* a number of Prefbyters, more of lefs, con- ftituting a council, fenate, college, or whatever other name any may pleafe to givp it, of which the Bifhop was the firft, err chief, having fome degree of fuperiority beyond the reft. But that the govern- ment of the church, or of the Prefbyters or it, was solely in his hands ; or that his precedency was fuch, as imported his bsing of another and higher order than R r t&afc 3 c 4 IGNATIUS. that of Prefbyters, he has no where given us to underftand, in any ofhisepif- tles. Far from this, the general ftrain of them all is, to lead us into the thought, that all church-affairs were to be direct- ed, and governed, not by the sole pow- i:r of the Bishop, but by the authority and voice of the Ppesbytery joined to his. This is io obvious, that no one can eafily read his epiftles without perceiving it to be the truth of fac>. The evidence is too glaring not to be feen at once. It is acknowledged, Ignatius fpeaks of Bifhops, in thefe epiftles, in a high ftrain of language, fuch as calls for great can- dor to free it from, at leaft, fome degree of profanity. But the fame may be faid, with as real truth, in regard of the man- ner in which he fpeaks of Prefbyters. Does he- call Bifhops " the figure of the Father ?" He goes on to call Prefbyters, " the council of God, and conjunction of the Apofiles." Does he fpeak of the Bi- fhop as n the grace of God r" He, in the fame place, fpeaks of tfcfc Prefbytery as 44 law of Chrift." Does he reprefent the Bifhop as "prefiding in the place of God ?'" At IGNATIUS. 305 At the fame time, he puts the Prefoyters " in the room of the apoftolic fenate." It is acknowledged likewife, he fre- quently exhorts the churches to " obey their Bifhops," to be in " fubje&ion to them." But he enjoins it on them, in like manner, to be "fubjett to their Pref- byters." And the language in which he exhorts them to obedience and fubjettion to their Prefbyters, as well as Bifhops, is not only very ftrong and preffing, but fo often repeated as to be really difguft- ful. *< Attend to the Bifhop and Pref- bytery £ follow the Bifhop, and the Pref- byters " "obey theBifhop,and Prefbyters f be " fubjeft to the Bifhop, and Prefby- tery," are injundtions, in thefe epiftles, fo frequent as to be, at once, both needlefs, and troublefome. # Should it be faid here, he gives the church of Smyrna to understand, " it is not lawful without the Bifhop either to baptife, or make a love-feaft ;" and ac- cordingly exhorts, " let none do any of thofe things which belong to the church without the Bifhop/ 9 Should it be added, he 3 G 6 IGNATIUS, he tells the church of Tralles, « it 1$ neceflary they fhould acl nothing with- out the Bifhop/' The anfwer is ready at hand ; he as expreiUy tells the fame church of Tralles, and in the fame epii- tie, " he that does any thing without the Bifhop, and Preibyters, is not of a pure confcience." And in his epiftle to the Magnefians, the exhortation is, " Nei- ther do ye any thing without the Bifhop and Prefbyters.'' And again, " I exhort you to do all things in the concord of Gcd." What is that ? The explanation follows in the next words, Cf the Bifhop prefiding in the place of Gcd, and the Prefbyters in the place of the apoftolic fenate." Ci Let nothing divide you, but be united to the Biihop, and thofe that prefide among you." It fhould feem, from thcle paffages, and many more that rnight eafily be mentioned, it there was need of it, as plainly evident as words car* well make it, that the Ignatian churches were governed, not by the Bifhop only, but by a common college, company, or fenate, of which he was the firft in fu- periority. If nothing was to be done y/ithout the Bifhop $ neither was any thing IGNATIUS. 307 thing to be done without the Prefbyters. The voice of the Prefbytery was neceffa- ry, as truly as the voice of the Bifhop. Union was plainly the great thing Igna- tius had at heart, and would promote in the management of all church-affairs, not only between the church, and the Bifhop ; but between the Bifhop, and the Prefbyters ; fuch an union as that no- thing fhould be tranfacted without the Prefbyters, any more than without the Bifhop. His aim was, that there fhould be the united authority and confent of both Bifhops and Prefbyters, in the cqu- jduft of every church-affair. It will, probably, be flill pleaded, Ig- natius is fo careful, in ali his epiftles, to diftinguifh Bifhops from Prefbyters, that we do not once find him calling Prefby- ters, Bifhops ; or Bifhops, Prefbyters. Far from this, he has always appropriated thefe names to different perfons ; from whence it may be fairly and juftly col- lefted, that Bifhops were a diftinft fet of officers in the government of the ftyurch from Prefbyters, Qf an higher order and 3 o8 IGNATIUS. and vefted with fuperior powers, fuch as might not be exercifed by Prefbyters. It is granted, the names, Bifhop and Presbyter, are carefully ufed, in the Igna- tian epiftles, to fpecify different perfons ; but, at the fame time,utterly denied, that this appropriation of thefe names imports fuch a diftinction between Bifhops and Prefbyters, as is contended for ; that is, a diftin&ion that fuppofes an higher and fuperior order of officers in the church to that of Presbyters. That it imports forne degree of precedency, or fuperiority, is readily allowed ; but why fhould it be thought, unlefs to ferve the epifcopal caufe, that this fuperiority was a fuperi- ority in fuch fpiritual powers as might not be exercifed by Presbyters ? Ignati- us, as we (hall fee prefently, has faid no fuch thing ; nor has be, in any of his epiftles, appropriated any one of the powers proper to the minifterial office to Bifhops, in diftindtion from Presbyters. Epifcopalians, if any men in the world, fhould be fenfible of the infufficiency of the argument, which would prove a dif- tin&ion of orders in the church, or of ESSENTIAL I G NAT I U S* 309 essential powers in its officers, from the appropriation of different names to different perfons, even though it was an appropriation that carried with it a very confiderable degree of precedency and fuperiority. There are, in the church of England, a great variety of officers, with appropriated names, who greatly differ in the degree of their fuperiotity and inferiority; while yet, their effential pow- eis, as officers in the kingdom of Chrift, are ,preci(ely the fame. The names, Arch- Bifhop and Bifhop, are appropriated ones, invariably pointing out different eccle- fiaftical officers, the one fuperior in dig- nity and power to the other ; and yet, Arch-Biihops are the fame order in the church with Bifhops, and they have no higher effential powers. To fay that they have would make four orders in the church of Chrift, inftead of three ; which would be a flat contradiction to the avowed doftrine of the church of England itfelf. Deans, Arch-Deacons, Prebends. Redtors, and Curates, are all of them officers in the Englifh chtfrch, diftinguifhed from each other by the ap- plication of thefe names, and feverally placed 3 io I G'N A T I U S.- placed above each other in certain degrees of fuperiority ; and yet, they are all vefted with exactly the fame effential powers. In regard of their order, they are the fame officers in the church. In fpecial, Re&or and Curate are appropria- ted names, and ftand to fignify different officers in the church, the one fuperior in dignity and power to the other ; while yet, they both fuftain the fame rank, and are perfedtly equalin the intrinfic inftitu- ted powers of their office. The Cuiate is cpmmiffioned to preach, baptife, and adminifter the Lord's fupper, as truly as the Reftor 3 and may, as well as he, per- form any other part of duty that belongs to this order of officers in the church. But this notwithstanding, the Re&or is placed in as high a degree of fuperiority above the Curate, as the Ignatian Bifhop is above a Preitbyter. The Retf or may,- in the plenitude of his own power, do any thing, within the limits of his office, in his own partfh ; the Curate can do no- thing but by his permiffion. lie can neither read prayers, preach, baptife, or perform any other public religious fer- *ice, but in confequence of his confent- i-ng IGNATIUS; 31,1 in ? allowance. He is in truth the kr~ vant of the Re£lor, and in ; perfect iubjec- tion to him; yea, liable, unless c^uite iub- fervient to his pleafure, to.be difmiiied' from fervice in this cure. Wherein, now, in what inftance, was the Ignatian Bi- fhop more ofafuperior to ' his Prefbyfrers ? What greater power had he over them ? i may rather fay, how does it appear, that he either had, or ever exercifed, fo high a degree of power ? The Rector may act, in his own pariah, without the advice of his Curate y or, fhould he con- defcend to afk it, he may act in direct op- pofition to it. It was. not thtis with the Ignatian-Bifhop. He, with the Pref- byters of the church/ made one common councillor fenate ;and it was, not accor- ding to his own fovereignty,'but in agree- ment with the united voice of this council, that headed. All the affairs of the .church; were managed in this way.— The Rec- tor : may, of his own mter arbitrary will, difchargs the Curate from any fur- ther fervice in his parifh, Jgnatius's Bi- fhop had no fuch power. Moft certainly it is no where faid that he had, either in V spittles/' or t dfewhere. Let me S f afk ; 3 i2 IGNATIUS, afk now, why fhould it be thought, that the lgnatian Bifhop's fuperiority above a Prefbyter muft import a Superiority of order, or essential powers, any more than a Rector's Superiority above his Curate fhould import the fame thing ? If a llecloi's office h essentially the fame with his Curate's, notwithftanding his fuperiority in power, why muft it be otherwife in the cafe of Ignatius's Bifhop ? The plain truth is, all the pre-eminence and fuperiority that Ignatius afcribes to his Bifhop may as eafily, and as juftly, be accounted for, without the fuppofition of his being of an order diftinft from, and fuperior to, Prefbyters, as the Rector's fuperiority above his Curate. If, notwith- standing the fubjection of his Curate to him, they are both of the fame order in the church, and partake of the fame ef- fential powers ; why may not the lame foe faid, with equal truth and juftice, of the lgnatian Bifhop and his Prefbyters ? Efpecially, if it be remembered, and duly confidered, that no one minifterial pow- er is mentioned by Ignatius, in any of his epiftles, but what might be as well exer- eifed by Prefbyters as Bifhops. And this- leads to The IGNATIUS. 313 The next power of Bifhops, faid to be diftinguifhing, and effential ; which i& that of ordination. And who. could think, confidering the vaft labor that has been expended in fupport of the credit of Ignatius's epiftles, and the perpetual ufe Epifcopaltans make of them, in defence of their caufe, but that he had exprefled bimfelf, upon this head, io clearly, pofi- tively, and fully, as to leave no further room for difpute, at lead, whether it was a fact, in his day, that Bifhops, and they only, communicated holy orders ? Efpecially, as the validity of gofpel-ad- miniftrations is made to depend upon this method of communication. And yet, weareas much at a lofs for evidence in favor of this article, effentially connefted with the yeiy being of Chriftianity itfelf, as if Ignatius had never wrote any one of his epiftles. He can no more be brought as a witnefs to teftify in behalf of EPiscoPAL-ORDTNTiTioN, either in point of fact, or right, than any of his predeceffbrs, contemporaries, or fuc- ceffors within the two firtt centuries. By only reading Arch-Bifhop Wake's "trans- lation of his epiftles," one would not fufpeft 3«4 IGNATIUS. fufpeft he had fo much as tranfiently faid any thing that looks like ordina- tion ; but this he may have done in his "epiftle to the Magnefians," wherein he tells them, f* It becomes you not to ufe your BUhop too familiarly upon the ac- count of his youth, but to yield all re- verence to him, according to the power of God the Father : as alio I perceive your holy Prefbyters'do j not confidering his age, which indeed to • appearance is j^toiff/'-p-'-T/hefe laft words are in the original, ten phainomenen neoteriken tax in ; which iorne have tranflated, his appearing jfjuthful ordination. * If this is a' verfion that gives the true meaning of Ignatius, he has once, in (cv^n epifties, mentioned ordination ; but without faying, how it was performed, or by whom ; whether by a Eifliop of fome other church, or by the Thus I find them tranflated by Cotelerius, in Le 'Geres edition of his " apoftolical Fathers." His words are, " appirentem puerilem ordinationem." In Arch-Bi- ihop Ulnar's publication of the " Ignatian epifties,;* from the latin copies he found in England, the verfion is, " apparentemjuniorena ordinem ;" which is thought to refer to his being '* veiled with holy orders while apparent- ly a young man.'" \ w ill not qppofe this interpretation of the words, being willing Episcopalians ihould make tne xticfl of what can be fuppofed to be faid by Ignatius, IGNATIUS. 315 the Prefbyters of this at Magnefia. The (hort of the matter is, he is totally filent, in all his epiftles, upon this moft impor- tant and effential power of the Bifhop ; never once faying, or fo much as insinu- ating, that it was his peculiar right to confer holy orders, or that they were> in fact, ever conferred by Bifhops, ia diftinition from Prefbyters, It will, perhaps, be pleaded here, Xg- natius has expreflly faid, « it is not law- ful without the Biftiop to baptife, or make a love feaft ;" and again, " it is neceflary nothing fhould be done with- out the Bithop." If fo, then furely there ought to be no ordination without him, This is the obvious and evident implies tion of his words. The anfwer is plain and e^fy. Should this reafoning be allowed to be juft and valid, it will not follow from it, that the power of .ordination was appropriated tp Bifhops, any more than the administration of baptifm, or nuking a love-feaft, The moft that can ba made of it is, that no church-affair fhould be managed without the 3 i6 I G N A T I U S. the confent, the prefence, or permif- fion of the Bifhop ; but with his allow- ance, for aught that appears to the con- trary, Prefbyters might ordain, as well as baptife, or adminifter the Lord's fup- per. And it is, with me, paft all doubt, that the affair of ordination, as truly as other religious offices, were managed, not by the Bishop alone, but by the Pres- bytery, of which he was primus inter pares. For Ignatius is as exprefs in fay- ing, " nothing ought to be done with- out the Presbyters," as that " nothing pught to be done without the Bishop." The laft peculiar power of Bifhops is that which relates to confirmation. But it unluckily happens, that the " Ig- natian epiftles" are, if poffible, more filent about this, than the foregoing, ar- ticle. They neither mention the name, or the thing intended by the name. And as they appear to be utter ftrangers to any fuch cuftom in the church of Chrift, as that of confirmation, it would be in vain to look to them for evidence, that it belonged to Bifhops, to them only, to them in diftinciion from Prefbyters, to IGNATIUS. 317 to perform this extraordinary piece of fervice. Upon the whole, notwithftanding Biihops are fo often mentioned by name by Ignatius ; notwithstanding the high ftrain of language in which he fpeaks of them; notwithstanding all the claims he makes for them, and of obedience and fubje&ion to them ;--- he is fo far from being a competent witnefs to the grand facts we are upon, that he either fays nothing relative to them, or that which is really deftru&ive of them. It is as evi- dent as words can well make it, that the Bifhops he fpeaks of, in his epiftles, were of the parochial, not the diocesan kind : from whence it follows, that the Redtor, Paftor, or Bifhop of a single congregation of Chriftians, fuch an onejas the churches in New-England, and the Proteftant Diffenters at home, have at their head, is much more like to the Ig- natian Bifhop, than any diocesan in Great Britain. From the whole tenor of what he offers upon the head of government it alfo moft obvioufly appears, as we have &en,that it was, and ought to be, manag- ed, 3 i& IGNATIUS. ed, not by the Bifhop as sotE Monarch in the church, but by a common fenate, or college, of which he was nothing more than primus inter pares, being veil- ed with no higher essential ppwers' than the other members of the Prefby- tery. And as to ordination, and con- firmation, the appropriated right of Bi- fhops, he fays not a word. Could we, in confiftency with a due regard to truth, fay, that the " epiftles of Ignatius" were unfufpedtedly genuine and incorrupt,' we fhould be as ilrenuous in fupporting their authority, as the Epifcopalians i and for this reafoft in fpecial, becaufe they are, in many refpe&s, a real and great fervice to our caufe; and, in every refpeft, much more ferviceabletous, than to them in the difpute betwixt us. PAPIAS. PAPIAS, QUADRATUS, ARISTIDES, AGRIP- PA, HEGESIPPUS. PAPIAS, Bilhop of Hierapolis, a city in Afia, is faid by Irenaeus to have been " an hearer of John, and compani- on of Polycarp." He unqueftionably meant by John, the writer of the gofpel, and the three epiftles under this name. Dr. Cave places him at the year 1 10 * but he is faid by others, equally learned, to have flourilhed about the years 115 and 116. He has fometimes been mentioned as a martyr ; but, as neither Eufebiu* or Jerom fay any thing of this, it may be confidered as a fa£t not to be depend- ed on. The time, as well as manner, of his death is uncertain. Irenseus and Eu~ febius both fpeak of him as having wrote 4t five books" entitled " the explication of our Lord's difcourfes ;" but nothing remains of them except a few fragments T t prcfervcdt 320 P A P I A S. preferred by antlent writers, Eufebius defcribes him, in one place, as ".an elo- quent man, and expert in thefcripture ;"* though, in another, -f he fays of him, he had, but " fmall abilities," which, as he acids, " appears from his books." And fofaras we may judge from thofe parts of them that have been handed down to us, this feems to bz the truth ; as like- wife that, he was too apt to give heed to any pious tales that were reported to him. Eufebius writes of him, J that he has " told ftrange things, pretending to have received them by tradition from the Elders." He fpeaks of it alfo § as a doc- trine of his, that " Chriftfhall corporally reign here on earth for the fpace of a thoufand years, after the refurre&ion of the dead ; occafioning divers ecclefiafli- cal perfons, who regarded his antiquity, to fall into this error ;" particularly nam- ing " Irenasus." Du-pin, * H. E. Lib. 3. Cap. 35;. Valefius, in his note here, -reprefents this encomium to have been an interpolation, as it is wanting in theverfion of Ruffinus, and in three Greek manufcripts he ufed ; and becaufe it contradicts what he afterwards fays of him. Dr. Grabe labors, in his " fpicilegium patrum," to take off the force of this arguing of Valefius. But fo far as I am capable of judg- ing, if this is not an interpolation, Eufebius is inatten- tively inconfiftent with himfelf. t H. E. Lib. 3, Cap. 39. J H. E, Ibid. § Ibid, P A P I A S, 321 Du-pin, as I imagine, has very ju.ftly chara&erifed Papias in the following words s— " He was a good man, but " very credulous, and of mean parts, who " delighted much in hearing and telling " ftorics and miracles." He adds," fince V he was exceedingly inquifitive, and in- *' clined to believe any thing that was " told jhim, it is not to be admired that *' he hath divulged diverfe errors, and u extravagant notions, as the judgments " of the Apoftles, and hath given us fa- s< bulous narratives for real hiftories : " which fhews, that nothing is fo dan- " gerous in matters of religion, as light- " ly to believe, and too greedily to em- " brace, all that hath the appearance of " piety, without confidering in the firft *' place how true it is." No mention is made, in the preferved " fragments" of Papias's writings, of Bi- fhops; nor anything faid tending to illus- trate the fact we are upon, unlefs it fhould be thought the following para- ges, cited by Eiifebius in the 39th chapter of his 3d book, may be improved to this purpofe. 322 P A P I A S. " I (hall not think it grievous to fet " down in writing, with my interpreta- *' tions, the things which I have learned " of the Elders or Prefbyteis, [para ton ** Prejbuferori] and remember as yet very •' well,being fully certified of their truth — M If I met any where with one who had * converfed with the Elders, [Pre/Bute- 90 rot's] I enquired after the layings of the " Elders ; [Prejhuteron] what Andrew, *' what Peter, what Philip, what Tho- ** mas, or James had faid ; what John, or " Matthew, or any other difciples of the •1 Lord were wont to fay; and what Arif- •' ton, or John the Prefbyter [o Prefbutt- " ros] faid : for I am of the mind, I could " not profit fo much by reading of books, 49 as by attending to thofe who fpakc «• viva voce." Eusebius obferves, in this fame book and chapter, " that he mentions two Johns, the former of whom he ranks with Peter, James, Matthew, and the reft of the Apoftles, "evidently pointing out theEvangelift;" and another John, whom hedoes not place with theApoftles,but joins with Arifton,expreffly calling him Elder, tm Prejhuteron" This Papias, as Eufebius P A P I A S, 3*3 Eufebius further fpeaks, declares that " he received the fayings of the Apoftles from thole who converfed with them ;" and that he was »■• a hearer of Arifton, and John the Prefbyter, tou Prefbuterou" He adds, in the fame writing, " he [this Papias] delivers many other narratives of the beforementioned Arifton concerning the words of our Lord, and traditions of John the Prefbyter [Pre/buterou.] To which we fhall fubjoin a tradition, which he has concerning Mark, who wrote in the gofpel, in thefe words ; H and this, the Prefbyter or Elder, [Prejbutsros] mean- ing John, faid. — QUADR ATUS. Much is faid of this Father by writers greatly diftant from the age in which he lived. He is par- ticularly fpoken of, in the martyrology of the Greeks, as " a man of great learn- ing and knowledge ; and reprefented, af- ter having grievoufly fufFered by the vio» lence of perfecutors, as one that received the crown of martyrdom." But the moft authentic account we have of him is that which is given us by Eufebius. He ranks him among " the famous men in the reign o^ Trajan, who died in 117." He 324 QUADRATUS. He fpeaks of him as having been " fa- vored, together with the daughters of Philip, with the gift of prophecy.*' He places him among thofe, who were " in the firft fucceffion of the Apoftles." * And, writing concerning Dionyfius of Corinth, he introduces this Father, fay- ing* ■+ "he remembered Quadratus, who, after the martyrdom of Publius, was conftituted Bifliop of Athens." It is difputed, whether the Bifliop, here point- ed out by this Denyswas the perfon we are treating of, or another of the fame name. The Dofrors, Grabe and Cave* are fully of the opinion, that it was our Quadratus. J Valefius and Du-pin are as clearly of the contrary mind ; and for reafons, as it appears to me, that cannot eafily be fet afide. § He is no where mentioned as having wrote any thing, but " an apology for the Chriftian faith." Eufebius's account of it is this ; || — " When Trajan had reigned * H. E. Lib. 3. Cap. 37, f Ibid. Lib. 4. Cap. 23. J " Spicilegium patrum," part ii. p. 125. Lives of the Fathers, vol. i, p. 133. § Vid. Valerius's notes upon the words of Dionyfius of Co ■ rinth ; and Du-pin's note (a) in his life of Quadratus. || H. E. Lib. iv, Chajv 3* • U AD RATUS. 32$ reigned twenty years wanting fix months, Elius Adrianus fucceeded 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 xnoleft the Chriftians. This book is yet extant among diverfe of the brethren, and a copy of it remaineth with us ; in which there are confpicuous marks of the un- derftanding, and true apoftolic doftrine of the man." This work has long fince been loft. Only one fmall fragment of it is preferved, in which there is nothing obfervable, unlefs it be that he fpeaks of thofe who " had been healed, and raifed from the dead, as living not only while bur Savior had his abode on earth, but a long time after his afcention 3 yea, anum- ber of them to his day." ARISTIDES flourifhed about the fame time. He is celebrated byEufebius, * as "a faithful man, and one that labored for the furtherance of religion." He adds, " he publifhcd an " apology" (as Qua- drat us did beforb) for the "Chriftian faith," with * H. E. ibid, ■ 3 a6 A R I S T I D E S. with a " dedicatory epiftle" 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 thefe words; " Ariftides was an eloquent Athenian Philof9pher, who, when he changed his religion, did not alter his profeflion. • He prefented unto the Em* peror Adrian, at the time when Qua- dratus did, a volume in the form of an " apology," wherein he produced the proofs of our religion ; which, being fHll extant, fhews the learned how excellent a writer he was." He fays again, " that this work was full of philofophical notions, and that it was afterwards imitated by Juftin." It has long been buried in ob- livion. Dr. Grabe has not been able, in his " fpicilegium patrum," to gratify the curious with fo much as the fmal- left fragment of it. AGRIPPA, firnamed Caftor, was con- temporary with the above Fathers. His abilities, as a learned man, and his zeal in defending the truly apoftolic dodrine, are faid to have appeared in a book he wrote againft the " herefy of Bafilides/' which A G R I P P A. 327 which he fully confuted, after having de- tected his fraud. The b'eft account of him is handed to us by Eufebius, who, (peaking of thoft who had. contended foe the apoifolic ecclefiaffica'l doflrine, makes mention * of u A-grippa Caftor's ftrong and noble confutation of Bafilides, in which he difclofed his fraudulent and deceitful arts." This Ba'filidesy as he goes on to relate from Agrippa, " had written 24 books on the Gofpels, and that he for- ged feveral Prophets, who were never in the world, to whom he attributed extraordinary names, as Barfabas and. Barcoph, on purpofe to amufe the minds of his auditors. He affirmed alfo, that this heretic taught his followers, " that it was a thing indifferent to eat facrifices that were offered to idols £ that it was lawful to renounce the faith in a time of perfecution ; and that, in imitation of Pythagoras, heimpofed filenee on his dif~ ciples for the fpace of five years." There are no remains of fo much as a fingle fragment of Agrippa's confutation of this wild and erroneous writer. V v HEGESIFPV3, * R E. Lib- iy. Cap. 7, ' 22$ H E G E S 1 P P U S. HEGESIPPUS. He is thought to havtf Been a convert from the Jewifh to the Chriftiart* religion. Eufebius ranks him' among the firft who lived, and fiourifhed, after the death of the Apoftles. He /peaks ofhimfelf, * a*s having been in Rome a number of years, Du-pin fays, from 165 to 180. He is the.fiift Father that compofed an entire body of ecclefiafticai jliiftory. This fie is faid to have done, dividing it' into " five books," ftiled *"*' commentaries" by Eufebius and Je- rorn ; wherein he relates the principal occurrences in the church, from the death of (Thrift to his own time. This work was penned, according to Eufebius, " in a fimple ftile ;"and, as Jerom fpeaks, " ill imitation of the manner of thofe whofe lives lie wrote." There are no remains of it, but fomc fragments preferved by Eufebius in his ecclefiafticai hiftory, and one more by Photiusfrom Stephen Gobar. Some have greatly lamented the lofs of the writings of this Father \ imagining, had they been preferved, we fhould have been fully certified of the true ftate of the f Eufeb. H. E. Lib. Iv. Cap. 22. KEGESIPPUS. 329 the church, in thofe days, particularly as to its officers and government. But they might, poflibly, have been difap pointed". His account of James, the jull, recorded by Eufebius, * ,in his own words, evi- dently carries with it the air of a fabulous romantic ftory. And fome of the men- tioned circumftances, relative both to his life and death, are far from exhibiting the real truth. if we feiay judge from this narrative, the world has not fuffered much by the lofs of his worjis. Besides the five boo1 > KONTON EPI TO AUTO S U N E LK US IS G I N ET AJL ;" the very words quoted, by our remarker, in correction of p. 17 of the " enquiry." And the Englifh tranlla- tion of thefe words, in this 43d p. of the " enquiry,"' is the fame Wftfc fh er himfelf his giveh of them* JUSTIN MARTYR. 35 t fignify their approbation, faying, amen. Distribution and communication is then made to every one that has joined in giv- ing thanks ; and to thofe that are abfent iris fentby theDEACONs. Andthofethat are wealthy, and willing, contribute ac- cording to their pleafure. What is col- lected, is depofned in the hands of th£ the Prefidcnt [para to Proejioti,] and he Z z helps them, only inftead of " cities and countries/' the (i en* quiry" has it, " in city and country," But who does not at once fee, that, conformably to the fentiment of Juftin, it is perfectly indifferent, whether his words are tranflated " cities and countries/' or '* city and country r" The word agros may properly be taken 'to fignify that part of a country which Is adjacent to fome city, whofe towns or villages belong to it. The " enquiry" might understand the word in this fenfe ; fuppoimg that Juftin's meaning waso that all the Chriftians, whether they lived in a city, or fome village in the country near to it, and a territo- ry of it, aiiembled together every Sunday. And in this fenfe of .the word, agros, it is precifely the fame thing, whether the tranflation be, " in cities and coun- tries," or " in the city and country." And the fame may be faid, fhould we fuppofe, with our remarker, that the thought Juftin intended to communicate, was, tkat all the Christians in the Roman empire, or elfeuhere, / throughout the world, " in citiesor countries,- aifembled together on Sunday ; for he mult mean, not in on! BODY, but in DISTINCT CONGREGATIONS. And if they thus aflembled, it muft be epi to auto, " in the fame place," that is, not the whole complex body, but each part of which that body did confiit. This, without doubt, was the meaning of Juftin, and of the 35 s JUSTIN MARTYR. helps the orphans, and widows, thofe that are in want by reafon of ficknefs, or any other caufe ; thofe that are in bonds, and that come ftrangers from abroad. He is the author of the "inquiry/' in the words he has quoted from him. And, in this view of them, they are a clear and ftrong proof of what they were introduced to make evident ;°which was, that, in Juftin's day, according to his account, theBifhop's charge whs a hngle congregation of thrift ians, who ufually atiembkd together on Sunday, 69 met in the fame place, for the .performance of thofe religious fervlces he particularly relates. And they are as exprefs and full to the purpofe, as could be deiired ; especially if it be remembered; that thefe religious af- femblies are directly fpoken of by Juftin, as having each cf riiem' their Prafes, Bilhop, Paft or, Prime- Preibyter, or whatever other name any may pleafe to give him ; who, when the Chriftians were thus- together in their feveral places of worfhip^ preached to them, adminiftered the facraments, and did whatever elfe was proper to his office, atfuch times. This is certainly Juftin's reprefen- tation of the matter, unlefs " all the Chriftians, throughout cities and countries," met together every Sunday, in one general body; which our re- marker juftly fays is " too much" to be his meaning : nor could it pollibly be the truth of fact. And it is moft obvioufly remarkable, not a word is faid, or diftantly hinted, as if there was any officer in the Chriftiari church fuperlor to thefe Prelidents, or that any of them acted under him, as placed at their head ; which muft be deemed an unpardonable omiifion in Juftin, if there had been> in his day > fuch an ecclefiaftical officer : efpecially if it be considered, that he was now writing to the " Em- peror, the fenate, and the whole body of the Roman peo- ple," on purpofe to give them a fair and impartial ac- count of the nature, derign, and tendency of the meeting together of Chriftians, with thofe who had the fuperm* tendency of their religious atf airs. * JUSTIN MARTYR. 353 the kind guardian of all that are in want. We all assemble on Sunday, becaufe God, difpelling the darkneis, and inform- ing the firft matter, created the world ; and alfo becaufe, upon that day, Jefus Chrift ourSavior rofe from the dead. For the day before Saturday he was crucified, and the day after it, which is Sunday, he appeared to his Apoftles and difciples, and taught them thofe things, which we have-now related to you, and ye yourfelves may fee." Observations. ONE can fcarce read the foregoing paffages, and not take notice of the un- adulterated manner in which gofpel-ordi- nances are reprefented to have been ad- miniftered in that day. Nothing is faid of thofe ceremonies and fuperftitious ad- ditions, which, in after times,were brought in, and obferved, to the difhonor of God, the difturbance of the church, and de- fpoiling the ordinances themfelves of their native purity and fimplicity, in which they appeared with a glory infinitely fuperior to that, which* men have vainly endea- vored, by mixtures of their own invention* to put upon them. Thefe, in truth, have deformed, not adorned them.— But to come nearer to the point in hand, Ir 3 54 JUSTIN MARTYR. It will ohvioufly be perceived, by a cuifory reading only, that no evidence can be collected, from thefe teftimonies, in favor of the fact pleaded for by Epif- copalians. Not fp much as the word, Bilhop, is to be found in them.— Not a Syllable is lifped, importing a threefold order of officers in the church, Bifhops, Preibyters, and Deacons. No infinua- tion is given, not io much as indirectly or implicitly, that Bifhops were officers fuperior in their order to Freibyters. — In (?#"> rt> to far is ordination, or con* Firmation, from being appropriated to Bifhops ?,s their excluiive rights that not the Jeaft hint is luggelled afjout the one, or the other. A net this is the more worthy of notice, as a very particular ac- count is exhibited of the obfervation cf the Lord's day, cf the ad mini lira tion of baptifrn and the Lord's fupper, and of their being adminiftered by the Presi- dents o? the brethren. Surely, Juftm would not have omitted to fpeak of fo important a matter as the office and diftinguiihing powers of*Bifhops, if he had thought of them as fomc Epifcopa- lians do at this day. He had as fair an opportunity to mention thefe things, as the JUSTIN MARTYR. 355 the other ; yea, if Bifhops, in his day, had been thofe effentially necefTary offi- cers in the church, that they are made to he in this, he might with as much, nay, with much more, reafon have brought them into view. He certainly did not know of fuch Bifhops as are now con- tended for. Had there been any of this kind, in his day, it was altogether inex- cufable in him, while pleading the caufc of Chriftians, to let it fufFer, by faying nothing of that,which is now thought toen- ter into the very being of Chriftianity itfelf. It may be pertinently added to what has been faid, that the Prases, Pro- positus, or, in Englifh, President of the brethren, was nothing more than the Paftor of a single flock, or congregation. For he is defcribed as " leading in the pray- ers of a whole church, preaching to them, adminiftring the Lord's fupper,and fend- ing theconfecrated elements to thofe who could not be prefent at the time of ad- miniftration." And it is remarkable, not a word is faid of his being placed over Prefbyters as" their ruler and Governor* Inftead of this, he is called the Presi- dent OF THE BRETHREN. And Prefi- dents and Deacons are the two orders ill 356 JUSTIN MARTYR. in the church he particularly fpecifies ; meaning by Prefidents, thofe officers that were, in this age, promifcuoufly called either Bifhops, or Prefbyters : or, at mod he could intend nothing more than Prime- Prejbytersy diftinguifhingthem as fuch by the application of this name to them. Moft certainly, he could not mean Bi- fhops in the impleaded fenfe ; for then there would be only Bifhops and Deacons in the church : neither could he mean Prefbyters in diftin&ion from Bifhops ; for, in this view, there would be no Bi- fhops. The plain truth is, Juftin knew of but TWO INSTITUTED ORDERS of church-officers, the firft of which he calls Presidents, meaning hereby thofe officers that were then called both Bi- fhops and Prefbyters ; the other, Dea- cons. And herein he agrees, not only with the apoftolical writers, but with all his predeceflors to the day in which he lived, who mention only two orders of officers in the church ; the firft of which they promifcuoufly call either Bi- fhops or Prefbyters, fometimes the for- mer, and fometimes the latter. MELITO, MELITO, TATIAN, ATHENA- GORAS, HERMIAS, THEO- PHILUS,APOLLINARIUS,DI- ONYSIUS of Corinth, PYNI- TUS, 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 Juftin, and before Ire- naeus, and in the fame order ; which, perhaps, is as exa£l as any they could be put in. There was no real need of bring- ing thefe writers to view ; as the works of moft of them are loft, and thofe of the other have nothing that falls in with our prefent defign : but it was thought beft not to pafs them over, without faying what might be proper to give the reader a juft idea both of them, and of their writings. MELITO, 358 M E L I T O. MELITO. He was Bifhop of Sardis, in Afia, and fome fuppofe him to have been the " Angel of the church" there, to whom one of the epiftles in the " apo- calypfe" is directed ; but without theleaft probability of truth. He ftourifhed, ac- cording to Dr. Cave, about the year 170. Du-pin brings him down a few years lower. Eufebius introduces Polycrates fpeaking of him in that ftile, " Melito the Eunuch." It is generally faid, he is thus fpoken of on account of his extra- ordinary chafte and felf-denying life in celibacy, for religion's fake. But no good reafon has yet been given, fo far as I have ieen, why the literal meaning of the word fhould be departed from. Jerom tells us, from one of Tertullian's works, " that he was efteemed a Prophet by many of the people," that is, a man infpired by the Holy Ghoft. r He alfo informs us, from the fame writer, that his u genius was eloquent and oratorical." He himfelf, as Eufebius writes in a quotation from him, tells us, M that he had travelled into the eaft, and had compiled in order the books of the old teftament, as they were then and there received :" upon which, he adds.. " we have wrote fix boots of r commentareis." M E L X T O. 350 commentaries." The catalogue he has here' exhibited contains the fame books, with thofe we now acknowledge as ca- nonical ; oniy Efther and Nehemiah are not inferted, for what reafon I know not* unlefs they were not efteerried, in that day, as equal in authority with the other books. Dr. Lardner fays, " This is the; firft catalogue of the books of the < old teftament, recorded by any Chriftiari writer/' This Father is exceeded by few, if any^ in his day, as to the number of books which he wrote. Eufebius has given us the following catalogue of them." * a Two books concerning eafter/' One concerning " the rule of right living, and of the Prophets." Another " of the church." Another "of the Lord's day/' Alfo one book deceive, H« 386 I R E N M U S. He flourifhed * under Antoninus Vcrus, the whole of Commodus, and part of the reign of Severus ; all along approving himfelf a faithful laborious fervant of God, and one that was emi- nently ufeiiil to the church of Chrift, not only by his public preaching and private converiation, but by the writings he left as monuments to pofterity of his concern tor the dodrines of Chriftianity, that they might be preferred pure, in oppo- sition to the bafemi.'tures with which they had been polluted by t. ; l men, in his day- His name is mentioned vw h great honor in the ancient writings. The *£zttyti of Lyons, in their letter to Eleutherius, Bifhop of Rome, fpeak of him as worthy oi notice "not fo much for his being a Preibyter, as for his piety and zeal for the gofpel of Jefus Chrift/' Tcitullian calls him u omnium doftrinarum curi- ofiflimum exploratorem," that is, " a moft curious fearcher into all doctrines.'* Theodoret fays, he was " an apoftolical man, admirable, and the light of the weil^rn church." Epiphanius alfo is high in his encomium of him. His words are, * 4 Old Irenseus, every way adorned * Saros, ?.d an, iSo* I R E N M U S. 387 adorned by the Holy Ghoft, brought into the field by the Lord as a valiant and ex- pert foldier, and champion, and anointed with heavenly gifts and graces, according to the true faith and knowledge, contend- ed againft all the arguments of fottifh heretics, and moftexa&ly confuted them," His writings. HE was the author of diverfe books, upon various fubjefts and occafions. But (one only excepted, of which we fliall prefently take notice) they are fo far loft, through the injury of time, and neglect of fucceeding ages, that there are no other remains of them, than fuch fragments as may be met with in ancient writers, who had {Qen them, and thought fit to make quotations from them. They are thefe following ones. (1.) A book entitled, " concerning knowledge." It is a " concife work," fays Eufebius, but extremely necefrary."* (2.) A declaration of the " apoftplic preaching/' to a certain brother, named Marcianus. (3) 388 I R E N ^E U S. (3.) A book of " various trafts, or difquifmons." (4.) An epiftle to Blaftus " concerning fchifm." (5.) An epiftle to Florinus " concern- ing Monarchy," or that " God is not the author of evil 5" in which he addreftes to him in words we fhall have occafion by and by to confider. (6.) A book entitled, "bgdoas," becaufe it was wrote, fays Du-pin, againft the "Oc- tonaiyofthe "aeons of the Valentinians." It was dedicated to Florinus, who, in ad- dition to his former error of making God " the author of evil," now embraced thofe of Valentinus. Jerom calls it, "com- menurium egrcgium," that is, "an excel- lent commentary." In the clofe of it, we have amoft folemn obteftation, which both Eufebius and Jerom thought worthy of fpecial notice. It is in thefc words, * * ; I adjure thee, whofoever thou art that copieft this book, by our Lord Jefus Chrift, and by his glorious coming, when be fhall judge the quick and the dead, that J Eufeb, H, E, Lib. v. cajp. 20, I R E N M U S. 389 that thou compare what thou haft writ- ten, and correct it carefully by the ex- emplar from whence it is tranferibed : and alfo that thou writeft out this adju- ration, and infertit in the copy fo taken." Dr. Cave very juftly remarks upon this, in the following words, /< Well had it been with the ancient writers of the church, had th~ir books been treated with this care and reverence : more of them had been conveyed down to us -, at leaft, thofe few that are, had arrived more found and unpolluted.*' (7) Diverfe " epiftles to Vi&or," and many other " Paftors of churches", about the controverfy relative to the keeping cafter. Vol ater an fpeaks of an " ecclefiafti- cal hiftory" which he compofed, and that Eufebius had borrowed from it. And Sixtus Senenfis fays, he wrote " a com- mentary upon the apocalypfe." But thefe two laft are fcarce worth mention- ing ; as neither Eufebius, in his hiftory ; nor Jerom, in his " catalogues ;" nor Honorius Auguftudonenfis, in his " lu- minaries of the church" 5 nor Trithemius, in 39° I R E N M U S. in his book of " writers,'* make any. mention of them* The only work oflrenseus, that has been handed down to us, is his volume, containing " five books" againft the he- refies of the Gnoftics and Vaientiheans, entitled, " a refutation and fubyerfion of fcience falfely fo called /' This too, it fhould feem, was almoft loft, at lead to the wef- tern churches* For Erafmus, who pub- lished it in 1 516, fays * " He might well call it his, having brought it to light, after it had been covered with dull, and was mouldy and moth-eaten." It has been a queftlon, whether he wrote thefe books in Greek or Latin. Erafmus was inclined rather to think, they were originally wrote in Latin. But moft learned men are of another opinion. According toBaronius, -{-"all confent in this, that he wrote in Greek. " Says Cor- natius, X " tne latin copy of Irenseus i* a moft faulty tranflation, and may better be reftored out of Epiphanius ; [that is, fo far as he made quotations from IrenseusJ than afford any help in tranflating o£ Epiphanius : * Prsf. in Iren. fAd. an, 13d. % In praf. ad. Epiph- I R E N M tT ■ S. 391 Epiphanius : fo that it is fl range, Eraf- mus, who was of a piercing judgment in matters of this nature, fhould think Ire- naeus wrote in latin." To the like pur- pofe fpeaks thegreatScaliger,*" 1 admire, fays he, that, from inch a feverifh La- tin interpreter, as he is whom we now have, Erafmusjthould 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 underftood not.' The fragments that are extant in Epi- phanius, as alfo in Eufebius, do fuffici- ently prove, both that the man was a Gre«» cian, and that he wrote in Greek : nor is it to be doubted of."— Du-pin,Dr. Cave, Dr. Lardner, and in fhort, the whole body of modern writers fpeak of it, as beyond all doubt that Irenaeus wrote in Greek ; and their unanimous opinion alfo is, that the copy we now have is a rude, barbarous, faulty, and ill-favored tranfla- tion. It is not therefore eafy to fay, what his diftinguifhing ftileand manner was in thefe books. Probably it was, as Dr. Cave fays, " fimple, unaffe&ed, vulgar, and ordinary, embofled, it is like, and Eee hs . * In eptf, ad Thomfonum, num. 230, 392 I R E N M U S. he confefles as much, with the natural language of the country where he lived ; nor had he ft tidied the art of rhetoric, the ornaments of fpeech, or had any fkill in fhe elaborate methods and artifices of perfuafion, as he modefty apologies for fymfelf." * The contents of this volume are briefly and fumi'iiarily contained in the following abAraSk. In the firft book, having largely de- fcribed the heretical tenets of the Valen- tinians, he oppofes to them the faith of all the churches in the world, which he comprehends, in a creed, truly catholic and excellent, -f He then goes on to fhew, * Praef. ad. L&. prim. •f This creed being fo unlike thofe we met with in after ages,, containing, not metaphyseal" niceties, but fuch gofpef doctrines only, as are nearly and clolely connected witk falvation, I mail think it worth while to infert it here. r * It is, (as Irensus's words are) to believe in one omni- potent God, who made heaven, and the earth, and the feas> and all things that are in them ; and in one Jefus Chrift, the Son of God, incarnate for our falvation ; and in the Holy Ghoft, who, by the Prophets, preached the mym.- ries of the difpenfation and coming of Chrift, his birth of a virgin, his pafnon, refurreCtion from the dead, aifump- ticn in his flefh into heaven, and his coming from heaven \i the glory of the Father to rcftore [recapitulate, or gather I R E N M U S. 393 ihevv, that all chriftians agree in this faith; and that the moft learned can add no- thing to it, or make any changes in it, nor the moft fimple and ignorant dimin- ifh any part of it. He then largely ex- plains the abfurd notions of Valentinus and his difciples ; and, returning to the original of the heretics, and beginning with Simon Magus, he gives an account fucceflively of all the herefies that ap- peared fince the time of that fercerer, to the time wherein he wrote. This firft book is extremely dry, tedious, and ob- fcure j prefenting us with fcarce any thing but the wild conceits, and extra- vagantly abfurd notions of the primitive heretics. In the fecond book, he makes ufc of the principles of thefe heretics to oppofe their errors ; fhewing that they contradict themfelves gather into one] all things, and to raife the flefli [thebodics] of all mankind, that unto Jefus our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the good pleafure of the Father, every knee fhould bow, both of things in heaven, and in the earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue •fhould confefs to him, and that he mould pafs a righteous fentence upon all, and fend fpiritual wickednelfes, the angels that fell and become apoftate, and alfo ungodly, unrighteous, lawlefs, and blafphemous men into eternal fire; but that, for the righteous and holy, and fuch as did keep his commandments, and abode in his love, fome from the beginning, and fome by repentance, he might, grati- fying them \yith life, beft^vv on them incorrupt ibilUy, and etenv.il glory." 394 I R E N M U S. themfelves,and that their notions were idle, ridiculous whimfies. In the third book, he confutes them by the authority of the facred writings, and tradition from thofe who had f^n and converfed with the Apoftles. In the fourth book, he con- tinues to prove, that there is but one God; particularly, he (hews againft Mareion, that the fame God is exhibited in the old and new teftament. He anfwers the obieffions of the heretics, efpecially thofe they fetch from fcripture. He then gives the reafons why a fpiritual man, that is to fay, a Chiiflian condemns Pagans, Jews, heretics and fciimatics ; and, finally, rejects the opinion of thofe who affirmed, that men were naturally good or evil, and proves the liberty of mankind. In the laft book, he treats of the fall of man, of the redemption by Jefus Chrift, of the refurredlion of the dead, of the laft judgment, of anti-chrift, and of the fiate of fouls after death.— Thefe, in general, are the fubjed:s en- larged on in thele books. Possibly, there may have been an excefs in the commendations of this Fa- ther, on account of this work of his. Dr. Cave I R E N M U S. 395 Cave fays, there are evidently to be feen here the mar^s of M natural acumen and fubtilty of parts," as well as " maftery of pfriloiophy and human literature.* Han- mer reprefents him to have had " a ckar head," and to have made ufe of " weigh- ty arguments ; H which, being " fharpen- ed with holy zeal," are fitted " to pierce deeply into the very hearts of the enemies of the truth, to their fhameful proftration, and utter overthrow." -f Du-pinfpeaks of him as a "profound fcholar in all forts of knowledge, facred and prophane" ; cfpecially, as having an "exquifite know- ledge of the holy fcriptures." J It is readily acknowledged, as Erafmus and the centuriators obferve, that he had read the books of the ancient philofophers, Thales, Aniximander, Anaxagoras, De- rnocritus, Empedocles, Plato, Ariftotle, &c. as a^fo of the poets, tragic, comic, and lyric : for he endeavors to make it evident, that theherefies which he oppofes were taken from thefe prophane authors, the names only being changed. It is un- doubtedly true likewife, that he had been much converfant with the facred writings. But * Lives of the Fathers, vol. i, p. 119. f View of anti- quity, p. 62. J Ecdef. hift. p, 60, 396 I R E N M U S. But it may bejuftly queftioned, whether his judgment was equal to his reading. The learned Photius fays of him, * "That he had in fome of his books, "fophifti- cated the truth of ecclefi^ftical do^rines by fpurious reafonings." This is a real fact, and known to be fo, by all who are ac- quainted with his writings. His manner of arguing is fometimes weak, not to fay trifling. I am fure, it would be thought to be fo in any one, who, at this day,ihould reafon ashehasdone. Ho wever,he appears, after all, to have been a pious, learned, valuable man, whole memory ought to be bleffed for his laborious fervices in the caufe of truth. Many things are to be met with in his writings well worth our fpecial notice ; though he fometimes makes it appear, that he had his fail- ings and imperfe£tions. Candor itfelf will not pretend, that he has not, in fome inftances, deviated from that unerring rule, the word of truth. He, with other writers, both before arid after him, have built fome hay and ftubble upon the foundation they held, which will not en- dure the trial of the fire. The * Cod. 120, 1 R E N M U S. 397 The learned are not agreed as to the exaft time, when Irenaeus wrote his " five books againft herefies." Dodwel fup- pofes it to have been in 176 or 177. Maf- fuetini72. Tillemont, later ftill, towards the end of the pontificate of Eleutherius. Dr. Lardner fays, " As tothe time of his writing thefe " five books," it is the opi- nion of diverfe learned men, that they were not wrote, and publifhed all toge- ther, but rather at fome diftance of time." And, though he does not attempt to fettle precifely the year, in which this work was compleated, he places Irenasus in the year 178 ; though he is inclined to think, his " books againft herefies" were not publifhed quite fo foon. " His death, fays Du-pin, was no lefs glorious than his life. For, after having governed the flock, which Jefus Chrift had committed to his charge for 24 years, he fell a Martyr at Lyons, in the perfe- ction of the Emperor Severus, which was more cruel in France than in any other part of the world, anno Chrifti 202, or 203.** He has often been fpoken of as a Martyr by other learned men. But, from thefilence of Tertullian, Eufebius, and 398 I R E N JE U S. and other ancient Fathers concerning this matter, it is very juftly argued by Dr. Cave, Bafnage, Dr. Lardner, and others, that there is no good reafon to fay he died a Martyr. The moft critical in- quirers into matters of this nature place his death, fome in 190, and others in 191, or 192,. Baronius * extends the time to the nth of Sever us, or 205 th of Chrift. Testimonies from Iren^eus. Lib. I. cap. 3. Having declared that faith, he had before defcribed, was that which was univerfally taught, and re- ceived with one heart and mind, he adds the following words, " And of thofe who prefidein the churches [ex iisqui prasfunt ecclefiis] he that would prevail, or excell, in his difcourfe, will not fay otherwife." Lib. iii. Cap, 2.-— Speaking of Mar- cion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, and other heretics, he fays, " When -f we chal- lenge them to that apoftolic tradition, which is preferved in the churches through the fucceffions of the Prefbyters ; they oppoie * Ad. An. 205. trCum autem adeamiterumtraditionem^qux eft abapoftolis, ~quse per fuccefliones Preibyterorum in ecclefiis cuiloditur, [ provocamus eos j adverfan'.ur tradition! dicentes, fe non folum 1 R E N M U S. 399 oppofe the tradition, pretending, that, being more wife than not only the Preibyters, but the Apoftles alio, they have found out the truth."— Lib. ib. cap. 3. " Therefore the apof- folic tradition, made manifeft all over the world, is prefent in every church, for ail that would fee the truth : and we can enumerate thofe, who were constituted * Bifhops by the Apoftles ill the chur- ches, and their fuccefibrs even to us, who taught no fuch thing, nor had any know- ledge of what thefe men have run diftract- ed about. For if theApoftles had known any hidden myfteries, which they taught thofe that were perfect privately, and apart from the reft, they would more e- fpecially have delivered them to thofe to whom they committed the churches them- felves; for they would, that they fhould be perfefr and unblamable in all things-^ whom they left their fucceifors, deliver- ing to them their own place of mafterfhip, F f f or, folum Prelbyteris, fed etiam apoftolis eriftentes fapiento- res, finceram invsnilTe veritatem. — ' * " Et habcmus annumerare eos qui ab apoftolis inftituti funt Epifcopi in ecclefiiis, et fuccdfores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt."— f ** Quos et fuccdfores relinquebant, fuum ip forum locum Magefterii. tradentes."-— 4G0 I R E N tE U S. or (as others tranflate the word) of being teachers. But becaufe it would be tedious, in fufch a volume as this, to enu- merate [omnium ecclefiarum enumerare fucceffiones] the fuccefiions in all the churches, (lie wing toyou the tradition, and declared faith, of the greateft, and mod ancient, and noted church, founded at Rome by the two glorious Apoftles, Peter and Paul, which (he received from the Apoftles, and is come to us through the fuccefiions of the Bifhops, [per fucceffi- ones Epifcoporum pervenientem ufque ad nos] we. confound all who conclude otherwife than they ought, by what means foever they do fo ; whether it be from a wicked endeavour to pleafe themfelves, cr from vain-glory, or blindnefs, or an vmfound opinion. To this church, * becaufe of its more potent principality, it is neceffary all other churches fhould agree -, that is, the faithful everywhere ; in which agreement, that tradition which is from the Apoftles is preferved always by thofe who are fcattered everywhere. The Apoftles therefore, founding and inftru&ing that church, delivered to Li- nus * " Ad hanc enim ecclefiam, propter potentiorem prinpi* jpaliutem, neocfle eft omnem convenire eccleliam,'' I R E N M U S. 4 oi nus * the overfight of adminiftring in it. Paul makes mention of this Linus in his cpiftles to Timothy. Anacletus fucceed- cd him. And after him, -f in the third place, Clemens obtained the epifccpate from the Apoftles ; who both faw the Apoftles, and conferred with them. To this Clement fucceeded Euariftus -, and to Euariftus, Alexander ; and Sixtus, the fixth from the Apoftles, was confti- tuted ; and after him Telefphorus, who was alfo a gloriousMartyr ; and then Hy-» ginus ; after him, Pius ; after whom, Anicletus -, thenEleutherius had the epif- copate, J in the twelfth place from the 'Apoftles. By this ordination and fuc- ceffion, that tradition in the church, and publication of the truth, which is from the Apoftles, hath come even to us. And this is a full demonstration, that it is the one, and the fame life-giving faith, that* from the Apoftles, untill now, hath been delivered, and preferved in the church in Corinth. Polycarp alfo, who was not only * "LinoEpifcopatum admin ift rand ae ecclefiae tradiderunt."— f "Poft eum,in tertioloco > abApoftolis,E,pifcopatamfortitiir Clemens."--- J '* Nunc duodecimo loco, Epifcopatum. ab Apoftolis habet; Eleutherius. Hac ordinatione, et fuccelfione, ea quae eft ab Apoftolis in eccbiia traditio, et veritatis piv;cQ^ niatio, pervenit ufque ad aos."— 4 c2 I R E N JE U S. only inftructed by the Apoftles, and con- yerfant with many of thole who faw our Lord, but likewife by the Apoftles * conformed Bifliop in Afia, in the church of Smyrna, whom alfo we faw in the firft of our age. Thefe things he taught* having learned them from the Apoftles ; which he alfo delivered to the church, and they only are true. All the churches ;n Afia tefhfie to thefe things, and they who fucceeded Polycarp even to this day."— Lib. ib. cap. 14. For he [Paul] appli- ed himfelf lo-f the Bifhops andPrefbyters convened at Miletus, who were of Ephe- ius, and the other neighbouring cities, becauie he was going in hafte to Jerufa- iem to keep Pentecoft, teftifying many things to them, and telling them what would happen at Jerufalem. Lib. iv. cap. 43--- Wherefore we ought $ to obey thofe Preibyters in the church, who * " Sed etiain nb Apoftolis in Afia, in ea quse eft Smyrnis ecclefia conftitutus Epifcopus."— f — " In raileto enim convocatis Epifcopis et Prefbyteris, ■' qui erant ab Ephefo, ct a reliquis proximis civitatibus."-- J t( Quapropter eis qui in ecclefia funt Preibyteris obaudirc pportet, his qui fucceifonem habent ab Apoftolis, fcut I R E N M U S. 403 who have fucceffion, as we have fhewn, from the Apoftles ; who, with the fuc- ceffion of the Epifcopate, received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleafure of the Father. As for the reft who depart from the principal fuc- ceffion, they are to be fufpefted as he- retics, in what place foever they are collect- ed.-—- Lib. ib. cap. 44. — And truly they * who are thought by many to be Prefbyters, ferve their own pleafures, and not having the fear of God in their hearts, reproach the other [Prefbyters,] and are lifted up with pride of the principal feffion, and do wickednefs in fecret. — We ought there- fore to withdraw from all fuch, and adhere, as we have faid, to thofe who keep the oftendimus ; qui, cum Epifcopatus fuccefTione, charifma veritatis certain, fecundum placitum patris, acceperunt. Reliquos vero qui abfiftunt a principali fucceffione, et quocunque loco colliguntur, fufpe&os habere, vel quail hereticos." * " Qui vero crediti quidem funt a multis efle Prefbyteri, ferviunt autem fuis voluptatibus, et non praeponunt timo- rem Dei in cordibus, fed contumeliis agunt reliquos, e$ principalis confeffionis tqmere elati flint, et in abfcoafis agunt mala."-— 4 o 4 i R E N m u s. the Apoftles doftrine, and together with the order of Prefbyters, * do {hew forth found fpeech and an inoffenfive converfa- tion.— Such Prefbyters [tales Prefbyteros] the church nourifhes— concerning whom theProphet fays,*f "I will giveyouPrinces in peace, and BiLhops in righteoufncfs." , Lib. ib. cap. 45. Where therefore one fhall find fuch, Paul teaching fays, " God hath put in the church firft Apoftles, fe- condly Prophet, thirdly Teachers. Where therefore the gifts of God are put, there we ought to learn the truth, with whom J is that fucceffion of the church which is from the Apoftles."-— A little further we can have the following words, " As I heard from a certain Prefbyter, [a quodam Prefbytero] who heard from thole who faw the Apoftles, and who learned from thefc."— Lib. ib. cap. 47. The Prefbyters [Prefbyteri] demonftrated that they were extreme foolifh, who, from what hap- pened * " Et cum Prefbyterii ordine fermonem fanumr-r t " Et dabo principes tuos in pace, et Epifcopos titps in juftitia." t ".Apud quos eft ea quseft abApoftolis ecclefoe fiiccefTio," I R E N M U S. 405 pened to, thofe who were difobedient to God, attempted to introduce another Father." Lib. ib. cap. 49. " As a certain Pref- byter faid, [ficut etPrefbyter dicebat] they who throw it in our teeth, that the peo- ple, going forth by the command of God, took veffels, and veftments, of all forts from the Egyptians."-- - Lib. ib. cap. 52. Mention is tranfient- ly made of " a ienior difciple of the Apof- tles" [ienior Apoftolorum difcipulus.J And in the fame chapter the " Prefbyters of the church" are fpoken of as " thofe with whom is the apoftolic dodtrine ;" " apud eos qui in ecclefia funtPrefbytcri, apud quos eftapoftolicadoftrina." Lib. ib. cap. 63. " True knowledgeis the do&rine of the Apoftles, and the ancient ftate of the church all over the world, and the chara&er of the body of Chrift, according to the fucceffions * of Bifhops, to whom they delivered the church in every place; which do&rine hath reached us * " Secundum fucce (Hones Epifcoporum, quibus illi e2m qu# in uaoquoque loco eft ecckfiam tradiderunt."— 406 I R E N JE U S. 4 us, preferved in its moft full delivery, without any fiction of fcriptures, or ^cl- ing to, or taking from them."--- Lib. v. cap. 5.—-" And God planted paiadife in Eden eaftward, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And from thence, being difobedient, he was caft out into this world. * Wherefore the Prefbyters, who are the dilciples of the Apoftles, fay, that thofe who are tranfla- ted, are tranflated from thence". Lib. ib. cap. 20. For all thofe «f- are far later than the Bifhops, to whom the Apof- tles delivered the churches ; and this we have carefully made manifeft in the third book. — They therefore who have the truth publifhed by the church, charge the holy Preibyters with unfkilfulnefs, J not confidering how far a weak religious per- fon is from being a blafphemer, and impudent fophifter". Lib. ib. cap. 36.- — " The Prefby- ters, the difciples of the Apoftles fay, [dicunt * " Quapropter dicunt Prefbyteri, qui funt Apoftolo* rum difcipuli."-— f M Omnes enim ii valde pofteriores funt quam Epifcopi, quibus apoftoli tradiderunt ecclefias."— J " Lnperitiam fanttcrwn Prefbyterorum arguunt." I R E N M U S* 407 [die u tit Prefbyteri, apoftolorum difcipuli] this is according to the order and difpo- fition of thofe who are faved"---. These are all the paffages, I have been able to find in Irenaeus's five books againft herefies, that relate to the fubject we are upon. But two very confiderable frag* ments of his other "writings" have been preferved by Eufebius, which I may not omit, upon this occafion, to bring to view* The firft is a quotation from an " epif- tie of his to Florinus,"in which he fays, * " This do£trine, O Florinus, that I may boldly fpeak the truth, is not found : this doctrine difagreeth with the church, and bringeth fuch as liften to it into ex- treme impiety : this dodtrine, not even the heretics which are out of the church, ever dared to publifh: this doftrine, fuch as were Prefbyters before us [pi pro emon* Pr^^^m,]anddifciplesoftheApoftles,ne- ver delivered unto thee.'' And having men- tioned Polycarp, and faid fome things of Vim, he goes on, " I am able to teftify before God, that if that holy and apoftical G g g Prefbyter * Eufeb. lib, v. cap, to, 4 o8 I R E N vE U S. Prefbyter [apoflolicos Prejbuteros'] had heard any fuch thing, he would at once have reclaimed, and (lopped his ears, and after his manner pronounced, " Good God ? into what times haft thou referred me t Yea, he would inftantly have (hunned the place where he had heard fuch fpeeches." The fecond, which is eminently per- tinent to the point in debate, is contain- ed in hb " ep-iftle to Victor" of Rome, which was extant in the days of Eufe- bius, though it has long fince been loft. The wards are thefe, * " And the Pref- by ters [ oi Pre/buteroi ] before Soter, who were over the church which thou govern eft [oi profi antes tes ecckfias es nun apbege] I mean Anicetus, and Pius, arid Huginus, with Telefphorus and Sixtus ; they did by no means obferve it [he is fpeaking of the day of keeping eafter ;] neither did they allow thofe who were with them to obferve it. And thofe Prefbyters that were before you [oi pro fou Pre/buteroi,'] though they did not obferve it themfe!ves,yet they lent theeucharift to thofe of other churches who did obferve it. And when bleffed Polycarp, in the days of Anicetus, came to Rome, and there was a fmall controverfy between them upon fcthtg 2 Eufcb H, E, Lib, v, cap. 24; I R E N Es U S. 409 other things, they foon faluted each other with a kiis, and there was no great con- tention between them upon this head. Anicetus was unable to perfuade Poly- carp not to retain that which he had always obferved with John, the difciple of our Lord, and the reft of the Apoftles, with whom he had been converfant : nei- ther did Polycarp much perfuade Anicetus to obferve it, fince he told him that he ought to retain the cuftom of the Prefby- ters to whom he fucceeded [ton pro auton Pre$buteron.\ Observations and remarks upon the testimonies from Iren^eus. NOTHING is more obvioufly evident, fo far as we regard the above paffages, than that Irenaeus cannot be called in as a witness, either to the claim or ex- ercise of thofe powers, which Epifco- palians pretend are eflential to the office of Bifhops. For he no where fays, that it is the right of Bifhops, in diftinetion fromPrefbyters,to confer holy orders; or that they were the perfons, who did in fact confer them, either in the age in which he lived, or any other : neither does he 4 io I R E N JE U S. be affirm, directly or indirectly, that it was. any part of the work of Bifhops, much lefs their appropriate discriminate work, to govern Presbyters, or that they ever did fo. And, inftead of declaring, that Bifhops are officers in the church distinct from, and superior to, Pref- byters, he fpeaks of them, as clearly and fully as he could have done, in language neceflarily leading us to look upon them as fuftaining the same office only in the church. No writer, fince the apol- tolic times, has more exactly, or frequent- ly, copied after the infpired penmen, in the promifcuous ufe of the words Bifhops and Prefbyters. He ufes thefe words indifferently, and frequently, to point put the fame officers in the church. And vmlefs when he % ules the word, Bifhops, he means the fame church officers, as when be ufes the word, Prefbyters, there is nei- ther coherence, confiftency, or the leaft force of argument, in moft of the para- ges, in which thefe words are mention- sq!. As this is an important point in the prefent debate, I (hall enlarge in its illuflration, and take occafion for it by anfwering what is pleaded* from Irenaeus, in favor of Epifcopacy. The I R E N M U S. 411 The grand plea is, that he is particular in giving us the line of fucceffion ; that he does it in fingle perfons ; and that thefe perfons are frequently and £xpreffly called Bifhops : evidently importing a diflin&ion of place, order, or office, be- tween them and Prefbyters. The anfwer is eafy, and, as I imagine, ftrongly conclusive. It is allowed, reck- oning the fucceffion by fingle perfons in- timates fome difference betwixt the nam- ed perfons, and others of the fame church, as the ground, or reafon, of their being fingled out. But what conceivable need is there, unlefs to ferve a turn, to fuppofe, that the difference muft be fo great as to import an imparity of or- der, or office ? Are there no inftan- ces, in which it is certain, particular perfons have been diftinguifhed from their brethren of the fame order, to anfwer the like end ? Biihop Stillingfleet has told us of fome admirably well adapted to the purpofe. Says he, * " At Athens, after " they grew weary of their ten years " Archontes, the people chofe nine every « year * Jren, p. 300* 4ia I R E N JE U S- * and he might, on * Tc maybe worthy of fpecial notice here, Irenaeus himfcif very plainly intimates, that, among Presbyters, or thofe who were of that order which conftituted the Presbyterate 414 I R E N M U S. on this account, be fele&ed to have his name mentioned in the fucceffion : or his name might be inferred, merely as being the fenior-Prefbyter, or becaufe he was beft known, and moft celebrated for his learning, piety, and ftri6t attachment to the apoftolic dodrine. This difference of character, without the fuppofnion of any difference in point of office, or pow- er, will fully account for a fucceflipn as reckoned in a line of fingle perfons; and it is fufficient, could nothing elfe be faid, to render their arguing invalid, who, merely from hence, would conclude, that thefe particularly diftinguifhed and named perfons were of a fuperior, and diftinft order, in the churches, from the Prefby- ters belonging to them. But, to give ftrength to this argu- ment, it is further faid, fingle perfons are not Presbyter ate, there were fome, in his day, who, " not having the fear of God in 'fheir hearts," but being " elated with the dignity of the f i rst or p R i n c i f a l session, contumelioufly treated the other Prefbyters." Vid. lib. iv. cap. 44. This first session was not, in the view of Irenaeus, the feilion of Bishops, as officers in the church of a fuperior order to that of Preibyters ; for he here confiders them all as fuftaining the same order ; though in this fame order there was a difference in degree. He here fpeaks of a principal ses- sion, that is, one that belonged to the Prime-Pres- byter, the hud or prases of the Presbytery, I R E N JE V $. 415 t!o\ only named in the fucceffion, bat rhey are frequently and exprefily called: Sifhops. Very true ; but then it is as true, that Irernsas has taken all proper care, as though he had it in defign, to ; guard again'ft any ones miffcaking his te (ucceffion of Bifliops," for the fuc- ceffion of a iC fuperior order" in the church to that of Prefhyters. This is particularly worthy of notice. I fhall accordingly endeavor to fet it in the clear- er!: and ffrongeft point of light. And I know of no way in which I can better do' this, than by placing a few of the forego- ing paffages, upon the head of fucceffion, in two oppofite columns. It will thent appear, at firft fight, to every intelligent unprejudiced reader, that Irenaeus means, a-nd, unlefs he is made to fpeak norifernfe, muftmean by the" fucceffion of Biilrops,' a one and the fame thing with the " fuc- ceffion of Prefbyters," and vice-werfa. Lib. iiio cap. y. Lib. Hi. cap. 2. The apoftolic tra- Wren we chal- drition is prefent in Isnge them [the he- every church. Wecan relics} to that apo- enumerate thofe who flolical tradition, were conitituted Bi- which is prefervect shops Hhfc btf 4 id I R E N M U S. shops by the Apof- in the churches ties in the churches, through the sue- and their succes- cession of the sors even to us, Presbyters, they who taught no fuch oppofe the tradition, thing.— -By fliewing pretending that they the tradition and de- are wifer than not dared faith of the only the Presby- greateft and mod an- ters, but the Apof- cientchurchofRome ties alfo. which fhe received from the Apoftles, and is come to us through the suc- cessions OF THE Bishops, we con- found.— Lib. 'iv. cap. 53. Lib. iv. cap. 43. True knowledge Obey thosePres- h thedoftrineof the byters in the Apoftles according church, who have to the succession succession, as we ofBishops, to whom havefhe wn,from the they delivered the Apoftles; who, with church in every place, the succession of which doftrine hath the Episcopate, reached us preferved received the gift of in its mod full de- truth, according to livery. — Lib, tl\p I 'R E N JE U S. 417 the good pleafure of the Father.— Lib. v. cap. 20. These are far la- ter than the Bishops towhom the Apos- tles DELIVERED THE CHURCHES : and this we have carefully made ma- nifeft in the third book. Lib. iii. cap. 3. — The Apoftles, founding and in- ftru&ingthat church [thechurchofRome] delivered to Linus, the Episcopate — Anacletus Lib. iv. cap. 44. We ought therefore to adhere to those Pres- byters who KEEP the Apostles doc- trine, and, toge- ther with the ORDER of thePresbyte- r ate, dofhew forth found fpeech.— Such Presbyters the church nourifhes ; and offuch the Pro- phet fays, " I will give them Princes in peace,and Bishops in righteoufneis. Epiftle to Viftor. Those Presby- ters [thatis,in the church of Rome] before Soter, who governed the church which thou [that 4 i8 I R E N M U S, Anacletus succeed- ed him. After him, Clemens obtained the Episcopate frotn theApoftles— ToClemem succe- ed Euariftus ; to him, Alexander ; then Sixtus ; and after h;m Telefpho- rus ; then Hugy- nus ; after him Pius ; then Anicetus : and when Soierhad fuCr ceeded Anicetus, then gleutherius had the Episcopate in the twelfth place. By this succession, that tradition jn the church, and publi- cation of the truth, which is frpm the Apoftje?, is come to [that is, Victor] now g ov e r n e o r ,1 mean, Anicetus, Pius, Hu- gypus, Teleiphorus, and Sixtus, they did not obferve it [that is, the day on which he obfei vedEfther]— And thole Presby- ters WHOP RECEED- ed you, though they did not obferve it themfelves, yet fent theEucharifttothofe [Presbyters] of other churches who did obferve it. And when blefled Po- ly car k p, in the days of Anicetus, came toRome,--hedid not much perfuade Ani- cetus to obferve it, as he [that is, Anice- tus] declared that the cuftomof the Pres- byters who WERE HIS PREDECESSORS fhould be retained. If I R E N M U S. 419 If it would not be conftrued an affront ip the reader's underftanding, I would pbferve, with reference to the above in- sertions, that Iren^us has not only pro- Hiifcuoufly ufed the names, Bifhops, and Prefbyters, but has done it in a manner that renders it really impoffible,he fhould mean by Bifhops, if he had any meaning at all, an order of officers in the church fuperior to, and 1 diftinft from, Prefbyters ; or, by Prefbyters, any order but that [of Bifhops. Does he, in one place, when fpeaking of the fucceffion in the church of Rome, particularly name Linus, Ana- cletus, Clemens, &c. as being Bifhops, a? having obtained the Epifcopate there ? In another, while fpeaking of the fame fucceffion, and in the fame fingle perfons, he as expreflly calls them Prefbyters % yea, he gives no higher a flile to the pre- deceffors of Victor, the then Bifliop of Rome, than that of Prefbyters ; and he applies the fame name to thofe who pro- ceeded Eleutherius, another Bifhop of this jame church. Does he affirm, " that the apoftolic doctrine was handed down through the fucceffion of Bifhops ?" He as peremptorily declares, " that it was preferved in the church, through the fuc- ceffion of Prefbyters," Does he make mention 42o I R E N JE U S. mention of Bifliops " as constituted in the churches by the Apoftles ?" He ex- prefles the fame fentiment, when he fays, « the Prefbyters in the church have fuc- ceflion from the Apoftles :" nor can we miftake his meaning, if we only confider, that, in the immediately following words, he calls this very fucceffion, " the fuc- ceflion of the Epifcopate ;" and, in ano- ther place, makes the remark, " luchPref- byters the church nouriflieth -" and intro- duces the Prophet faying, " I will give you Princes in peace, and Bifliops in righteoufnefs." In vain muftit be to look for a fucceffion of Bifliops, in Irenaeus's writings, diftincl from Prefbyters, and vefted with fuperior powers, when he attributes not only " the fucceflion," but f the fucceffion in Epifcopacy," to Pref- byters - y indifferently calling the fingle perfons he reckons in the fucceflion, Bi- fliops and Prefbyters. It would fpoil his reafoning, render itinconfiftent, weak, confufed, and fallacious, to fuppofe he fhould mean by Bifliops a different order of officers in the church from Prefbyters, when he fo often ufes thefe names pro- mifcuoufly, and indifferently derives the fucceflion from the Apoftles in a line of Bifliops, or Prefbyters, meaning, by both words, the fame officers. It I R E N M U S. 4 2i It may be pertinently obferved yet fur- ther, the fucceflion Irenaeus has in view, is not a fucceflion of power, but of doc- trine. This will be obvious, at firft fight, by looBing over the foregoing quo- tations from him. His difpute is with the heretics of that day ; and the ufe he makes of the argument from fucceflion. is, to prove that they had departed from that doctrine, which had been handed down, in the churches, even from the Apoftles to that time. This is his grand point, and he keeps to it ; never menti- oning the fucceffion, but in order to fhew, how, and from what original fource, the doctrine ofChrift had come down, and beenprefervedin its purity to his day. To feek therefore for a fucceflion of power, inIrenaeus,istofeekforthelivingamongthe dead. Henowherereafons from thefuccef- fion in the churches, in favor of any peculi- arity of power inBifhops beyondPrefbyters, but confines his argument solely to the head of doctrine. So that, it is impof- fible to make any valid ufe of what he has faid upon fucceflion, to prove a fucceflion of power ; much lefs a fuperiority of power, appropriated toBifhopsin diftinc- tion from Prefbyters, It muft be previ- ously 422 I R E N M U S. oufly laid down as a poftulatum, or el(e fufficiently made evident, that the apof- tolic do&rine could not have been hand- ed down pure and incorrupt, but in a line of fuch Bifiiops as were of an order in the church fuperror to Prefbyters ; or any argument from Irenaeus's fucceffion wilt be eflentially lame and defective. It will not be allowed, before it has been va- lidly proved, that Bifhops, in the appro- priated fenfe, could be tire only convey- ers of apoftoiic truth. It is poflible, at leaftwe may be permitted to think it is fo,- until we are convinced of the contrary, that this truth might as well be handed down by Bifliops that are of one and the fame order with Prefbyters. It may add weight to what has been faid upon thefe teftimonies, if it be fub- joined, that the Gallican churches, who lent Irenaeus to Rome with an epiftle to- Eleutherius, Bifhop of the church there, had no idea of that fuperiority of Bifhops to Prefbyters, which is now fo much talk- ed of. For, in this letter, while ipeaking in commendation of him, they give him no higher a title than that of Presby- tia I R E N jE U S; 42^ ^er. * Blondcl has been very large and learned, the moft fo of any writer I have iten, in proving, -f that this letter was ifent nine years after the death of Pothi- nus, who was foon fucceeded by Irenaeus* Bifhop of the church of Lyons ; that is, their Praefes, or Prime-Prefbyter. It cannot therefore be fuppofed; with any fhadow of reaforf, that the churches, in whole name this letter was' wrote, imagin- ed that Prefbyters were ato order diftin£i from, and inferior to, that of Bifhops. They would not, in this cafe, have fpokea of him', and iri the recommendatory pare of their letter, as their Prelbyter. Thk. would haVe been rather a debaferrient* than recommendation of hint Bifhop^ Stillingfleet has argued here with great cogency. Says he, J u Irenaeus is fent fi by the church of Lyoiis on a meflage (i to the Bifhop of Rome, when, notwith- " Handing his being Bifhop,, they call 94 him Prelbyter of that church. What 94 could any one imagine, but that the " Bifhop was nothing but the fenior Pref- " byter, or one that had a primacy of or- ** der among, but no divine right to a I i i power * Eufeb. H. E. lib. v. cap. 4. f Apol, pro fentei. Hieion, p. 23, 32, I Irsn. p. it%% 424 I R E N M U S. " power of jurifdiftion over, his felloe " Prefbyteis ?" And this reafoning will * c appear ftillmore forcible,if it be added, that, in this very letter, he is mention- ed by the other Prefbyters, as their " bro- ther and colleague." So the words are in Eufebius, who has quoted them. * " Fa- ther Eleutherius ! we wifh you health in all things, and always in God. We have requefted Irenaeus, our brother and . colleague, [ton adelphon emon, kai koinonoTi] to d eliver you thefe letters."— They could not, with any manner of propriety, have thus lpoken of him, if he had been a Bifhop, meaning hereby an officer of a fuperior order in the church to that of Pi efbyters. Only one plea more, that I know of, is fetched from Irenaeus in favor of the epifcopal caufe. It is his ufing that mode of fpeech, " Bifhops and Prefbyters ;" which, fay the prelatifts, evidently imports a diftinclion of officers, and gives the fuperiority to Bifhops. 'It is acknowledged, this mode of dic- tion is once ufed by Irenaeus, But how does * H, E, Lib. iv,- cap. jj I R E N JE U S. 425 does he ufe it ? Not as his own, but the language rather of theApoftle Paul. The paflage, in which the words are to be found, runs thus : " He [Paul] applied himfelf to the Bifhops and Preibyters con- vened at Miletus, who were of Ephefus, and the neighbouring towns, becaufe he was going to Jerufalem."— -Thefe words, C€ Bifhops and Prefbyters," which Ire- naeus has alluded to, or rather quoted from A6fs xx, are ufed fynonimoufly by the Apoftle Paul. And of this there is no room for difpute. For, it is expref- ly declared, that, from Miletus, he fent to Ephefus, and called the Elders [Pre/ huterous] of the church. And in v. 28, in his exhortation to thefe very Elders, he as expreflly calls them [ Epifcopous ] Bifhops. I would now afk, is it not quite eafy and natural to fuppofe, that Irenaeus ufes the phrafe, " Bifhops and Prefbyters," in allufion to the 17th and 28th verfe of the juft mentioned xxth of A£ls, in the former of which Paul ufes the word, « Preibyters j M and in the latter, the word, " Bifhops F" And as Paul mod certainly ufed them fynonimically ; is it not reafonableto think, that Irenaeus ufed them in the like fenfe ? Efpecially, as, 4^6 I R E N M U S, as, in every other paffege through-: out his writings, inftead of connecting Bifhops and Prefbyters, fo as that it might feem as if hp intended to make a diftinc- tion between them, he has ufedthe words invariably in the fynonimous fenfe, in- differently and promifcuoufly meaning by Bifhops, Prefbyters ; and by Prcibyters, Bifhops. This is fo plain a cafe, that it might be thought impertinent to fay any thing more upon it. It may, upon the whole, be fajd with real truth, not only that Irenaeus is a full and pofitive witnefs againft the epif- copal caufe, but a pofitive and full one in favor of our's. He fays not a word in evidence of thofe powers that are made essential to the Episcopate ; but as much as we could defne, in proof of the sameness of the order, or of- pics:, of Bifhops and Prefbyters* VICTOR* VICTOR,POLYCRATES,THEO- PHILUS, BACHYLLUS, HE- RAGLITUS, MAXIMUS, AP- PION, CANDIDUS, SEXTUS, JUDAS, ARABIANUS, SERA- PION,RHODON,PANTjENUS, T HAVE followed Du-pin in placing ■*■ thefe writers between Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria. They all flou- rifhed about the fame time, or, in other words, towards the latter end of the fe- cond century. A few fragments of fome of their works have been preferved -, but, for the greater part, they are totally loft. Vi6lor wrote fome pieces about the" time of keeping eafter." Theophilus of Qe- faria, with fome other Bifhops, joined in writing " an epiftle," as a council, with orders to have it publifhed, with reference to the " day on which eafter fhould be obferved." 428 VICTOR, and others, obferved." Bachyllus of Corinth wrote an " epiftle," in the name of the Bifhop of Achaia, upon the fame fubjeft. He- raclitus wrote " commentaries upon the Apoftle Paul ;"Maximus, on " the origi- nal of evil," and on " the creation of mat- ter ;" Appion, and Candidus, " commen- taries on thehexameron ;" Sextus, a "dif- courfe on the refurreflion £ Judas, a treatife on " Daniel's weeks ;" Pantaenus, matter of the fchool at Alexandria, and a famous preacher of the gofpel," com- mentaries on the bible :" but thefe are all buried in the ruins of time. Of the works of Arabianus, and feveral other writers, about this time, whofe names are not mentioned by Eufebius, there were no fi^ns, or traces, even fo far back as his day. Rhodon, once a difciple of Tatian, wrote many books. Two only are men- tioned by Eufebius, one againft " the he- refy of Marcion ;"the other, on * thehex- ameron," or " the fix days work." He has given us a quotation, of fome length, from the firft of thefe books • but there is nothing in it relative to the point we are upon. SERAPION. SERAPION. 429 SERAPION. " It is very probable, " (fays Eufebius,) * that many of his " epiflles" are in the hands of others ; " but thofe only have come to our know- " ledge, which he wrote unto one" Dom- " nus," who renounced the faith in time *' of perfecution, and fell to Jewifh apof- " tacyj and to " Ponticus, and Caricus," " ecclefiaftical perfons ; and " epiftles" " alfo to other men, and likewife a " book concerning the gofpel called after " Peter," which he wrote to confute the " falfhood fpecified therein." A frag- ment of this book has been preferved by Eufebius ; but there is nothing in it to our prefent purpofe. In his " epiftle to Caricus and Ponticus," the defign of which was to confute the Phrygian he- refy, he has thefe words, as quoted by Eu- febius,-^ " And that ye may know alfo, " that the operation of this deceitful " doctrine, called the " new prophefy," " is condemned as execrable of all the " churches in Chriftendom, I have fent " unto you the learned writings of Claur u dius Apollinaris, that holy Bifhop of u Hierapolis in Afia." Et^febius adds, I " In J H< E. Lib. vi. cap. 12. f H. E. Lib. v. cap. 18, 436 S E R A P I O N. '' In this •• epiftle," of Serapion, there *' are fubfcriptions of many Bifhops, of w whom one fubfcribeth thus, " I, Au- w relius Cyrenius Martyr, wifh you w health." Another thus ; iElius Pub- u lius Julius, Bifhop of Debeltum, a city " of Thracia, as fure as the Lord liveth ** in heaven, when as holy Zotas, of An- " chia, would have call out the devil which " fpake in Prifcilla, the diflembling hy- " pocntes would not permit it." And " many other Bifhops gave the famecen- " fure, and fubfcribed with their own " hands to the faid epiftle." POLYCRATES. In his " epiftle to Victor, and the church of Rome," lie fays, with reference to the day on which eafter ought to be obferved, as his words are re- corded by Eufebius, * •* Philip, one of " the twelve Apoftles ;-— again, John, 94 who lay on our Lord's breaft ;--more- " over, Polycarpus Bifhop of Smyrna j— " Thraceas, an Eumenian, and a Bifhop;— what fhall I fpeak of Sagaris, both a Bifhop and Martyr ? Alfo of bleffed Papirius, and Meiito an Eunuch, who was guided in all that he did by the - Holy * H. £. lib. v. cap. 24. « POLYCRATES. 43* «' Holy Ghoft ? — All thefe celebrated the ir feaft of eafter, according to the gofpelj *' on the fourteenth trio on, not varying* " but ileadily obferving the rule of faith*. *« To be fliort, and I> Polycrates, the fuch as Origen, Alexander, afterwards Bifhop of jerulalem, and many others. Not* great way from the beginning of Severus's reign, he fuftained the office of a Prefby- ter in the church of Alexandria, befides this of a catechift there ; for in this cha- rafter Euiebius fpeaks of him in the year i or. And being a man of great piety, as well as learning, and eminently gctflpqs to promote the honor of God, and the advancement of religion, he did much lervice by his preaching, not only m Alexandria, but in jerufalem, and An- tiocfc, to which places he cccafionally CLfiMENT of Alexandria. 437 went, confirming many in the faith, and recovering others who had been feduced oy falfe teachers. Eufebius * brings in Alexander, at that lime Bifhop of Jeru- falem, thus fpeaking of him, in his epif- tle to the church at Antioch, " This let- ter] fend you by Ciement,the bkfTedPref- byter, a man virtuous and approved, whom ye both know, and fliall more fully know ; who, coming hither by the good providence of God, hath eftabliftied, and increafed, the church of the Lord/' tlE was greatly irfeful by his pen, as ^ell as catechetical inftruttions,and pub- lic preaching. His writings are nume- rous y though moftof thetn are loft. A few only have reached the prefent day. His loft writings, as we have the ac- count of them, from Eufebius, Jerom, and others, are thefe. Lost writings. A TRACT concerning " eafter." A difcourfe concerning " fafting." Ano- ther, of «« flander." An " exhortation to patience," defigned for the ufe gf fuch as were T. £hE* lib, vi» cap, ir. 438 CLEMENT of Al were newly baptifed. An " ecclefiafticai canon/' or a difcourfe " againft jewdaif- ing." A difcourfe " of the refurre&ion/' Another, " of continence/* Another, " of marriage." Thefe three he himfelf mentions in his ftromata ° y and particu- larly fpeaks of the laft, in his paedago- gus, lib. iii. cap. 8. where he gives a lum- inary of the contents of it. Trithemius * fays, he wrote " many epiC^es." Eufe- bius informs us, -f- that he " promifed a commentary upon Genefis." Whether he ever wrote it, is not now known. Be- fides all thefe, Eufebius often mentions, and fometimes quotes, a volume, called " hypotypofes," or " eight books of in^ ftitutions." In this work, according to Photius, " He goes over the main body of the fcriptures in a brief commentary, or expofition ; not omitting fome books that were generally reje&ed as apocrypha]/' This learned" critic obferves further, in common with others, that, in this per- formance, there are "fome things very er- ronious and fabulous. Du-pin fuppofes this work muft needs have been compofed by St. Clement before he was thoroughly inftructed in the Chriilian religion, and had quitted the opinions of Plato ; or while * De Scriptoribus, f H. K. Lib. vi. cap. a 3, CLEMENT of Alexandria. 439 tvhile he was half a Platonift, and half a Chriftian. Dr. Cave rather falls in with the opinion of Photius, which was, " that " probably thefe things were inferted *< by another hand 5 as Ruffinus ex- " preflly allures us, that herefies had cor- " rupted Clement his writings. Certain- '< ly, fays he, ha i thefe books been infected ¥ with thele prophane and poifonous dog- i( mata inEufebius's time, he would have ** given us;atleaft,fomeobfcureintimation$ 44 of it. And confiderable it is, that thefe " things are not countenanced by his 44 other books ; nay, many of them are 44 plainly contradi&ed by them." Spurious^ Dr. Cave mentions th£ following pieces as attributed to this Clement, bat foils them fuppofttitious. "Short com- mentaries on the firft canonical epiftle of Peter, the epiftle of Jude, and the three epiftles of John the Apoitle." Extant genuine writings, f HfE remaining, and commonly re- ceived, works of Clement, beftdes a fmall jraft, more lately publiihed, entitled,, L 1 1 " what 440 CLEMENT of Alexandria. << what rich man fhall be faved ?" arc thefe three. His u exhortation to the Gentiles," in one book. His " peda- gogue," or fchool-mafter, in three books. His " ftromes," in eight books ; fo called, becaufe they contain a collection of mat- ter, fo put together as to make a variety net unlike that inTurkey-worked-carpets. The word, ftromaties, fays Erafmus, is taken from pictured carpets, or tapeftry." It is ufed here, fays Du-pin, " for that mixture we fee in tapeftry, and imports as much as mifcellaneous commentaries, or difcourfes." Clement himfelf gives us this idea of his work of ftromes. " Thefe "books, fays he, are ftored with varieties, as their name imports. We pafs on continually from one thing to another." He alfo calls then), " a variegated con- texture of difcourfes >" which he com- pares " to a meadow, a traft of land, or a garden, wherein one may find all forts of herbs, flowers, and fruits, of which we may gather as we pleafe." And fuch, in truth, are thefe books called, ftromata. They are as a mixed compofition, and contain as great a variety of all forts of learning as could well be put together. In his " exhortation to the Gentiles," he ftrongly reprefents, and largely expofes, the CLEMENT of Alexandria. 441 the folly, and impiety,of the Pagan-idola- try ; and then, with great cogency, urges to the profeflion of Chriftianity, and the worihip of the one only livingand true God. In his " paedagogue," he tutors and in- ftrufts the newly initiated converts to Chriftianity ; prescribing many wifely- adapted rules to promote their increafe in grace, until they attain to the " fullnefs. of the flat are of men in Chad." In his " ftromata," he adminiflers " ftrong meat'' to them who are of " full age," and have " their fenfes exer- cifed to difcern both good and evil ;" en- deavouring to lead this kind of perfons into a more clofe and intimate acquaint- ance with the myfteries of religion. He tells us himfelf, that he purpofely wrote thefe books, fo as that thefe myfteries might not be clearly difcovered to thofe who were not as yet initiated ; while others, who were, might underftand them to their advantage. " Our defign, (fays he) was, (as Du~pin translates him) to conceal, and, if I may fo fay, to embroil things, that fo none but the intelligent, and thofe who will take pains to inform themfelves, may be able to comprehend, them." 442 CLEMENT of Alexandria. them." In agreement with this account, it is the truth of facl,that he often writes in a manner fo obfcure, as not to be eafily underftood. He obferves frequently no order in thefe books. They are rather a collection of incoherent varieties, than an exadt methodical compofure. Perhaps, no one of the Fathers has teen more highly celebrated than this Clement, either by ancient, or more mo- dern writers, Alexander, Bifhop of Je- rulalem, and contemporary with him, in his ". epiftle to Qrigen," calls him the *' facred Clement ;" and fays, " he was This mailer, and had been profitable to him." Eufebius, in his cronicle, makes mention of him as " an excellent mafter of the Chriftian philofophy," and one €< eminent for his writings." He eliewhere more than once calls him U the admira- ble Clement. " Jerom, in his catalogue of illuftrious men, fays of his works, " they are full of erudition, borrowed from the treafuresofthe divine fcripture, and (ecu- hr literature :" and, in his epiftle to Mag- nus, declares it as his opinion, that "Cle- ment was the moft learned of all men/' And, having mentioned the chief of his works, adds, " what is there in them un- learned ? CLEMENT of Alexandria, 443 learned ? What, not taken out of the very depths of philofophy ?" He is honored, by more modern writers, with the titles of a " mod excellent, moft learned, moft eloquent man ;" one who " exceeded all others in incredible knowledge." The learned Daille fays of him, " What can p you name more mixed, and fuller of " variety than his ftromata, as he calls " them, and his other works ? which are €t throughout interlaced with hiftorical " allufions, opinions, fentences, and pro- f* verbs, out of all forts of writers, both " facred and prophane ; heightened here " with rich lightfome colors, then fhaded " with darknefs, in fuch fort as that it is " a vain thing for an ignorant perfon to " hope ever to reach his meaning." The greareft encomium of him we meet with in Gentianus Heroetius, * who, among others, tranflated his works into Latin j but this is too long to be inferted here. The higheft (trains in which Clement has been commended, are not, as I imagine, too great,as they refpeft his learning. This, as Dr. Lardner's exprefiion is, was " prodi- " gious." And it is really wonderful, as the invention of the art of printing is much be- low f In epif. ante oper. Clem* 444 CLEMENT of Alexandria. low his day,and it was therefcrenn his power to read only manufcript copies of the works of otheis, how he could find ways to come at the fight of fuch a multitude of them, as he ieems to have been perfect- ly acquainted with. There was fcarce a pagan philoibpher, poet, or hiftorian, however near or diflant from the age in which he lived, but he made himfelf mafter of their works. And the fame may be faid of all Chriftian writers, whether they were orthodox or heretical ; whe- ther they flouriflied in the apoftolic, or fucceeding age, or about the time in which he lived. Confidering his conftant employment as a catechetical inftrudtor, and his attending together herewith, for fome years, the work of^a Prefbyter of the church at Alexandria, *it is amazing to think, after he had procured fuch an im- menfe vaiietyof manufcripts,how hecould find time to read them ; much more, how he could write fuch a number of books, in which he could make fo eafy and ready a ufe of them ! He muft have been a miracle of diligence, not loofing one inch of his time. But though I am aflonifhed at his learning, I cannot think he was eminently great in regard of judg- ment. It will not be difowned, by any who CLEMENT of Alexandria. 445 who have read his works, that his reafon- ing too often will, not bear examination ; which cannot eafily be accounted for, if he had been as judicious as he was learned. And if I fhould add, that his religious fen- timents, in fome points, were not agreea- ble to truth, it would not be difputed.— But his abundant labors, in the caufe of God, while living, and the ufefulnefs of his writings, in many refpe&s, fince his death, are more than enough to weigh down the miftakes that may have dropped from his pen. Testimonies from Clement of Alex- andria. P^dog. lib. i. p. 120. edit. pott. We have here the following incidental paf- fage, " If we, who have rule [proegou- menoi ton ekklefion~\ over the churches are Shepherds, or Paftors [foimenes] after the image of the good Shepherd. "— lb. lib. iii. p. 291. In proof the impiety of women's wearing foreign hair, a- mong other arguments, he ufes this, " On whom or what [tint] will the Preibyter [Prejbuteros] impofe his hand ? To whom, or what, will he give his blefiing ? not to 446 CLEMENT of Alexandria, to the woman, who is adorned, but to ftrange locks of hair, and through them to another's head." lb. lib* lb. p. 309. Having mentioned a variety of fcripture precepts, well adapt- ed to difcountenance iniquity, he goes on* and fays, " Very many other commands, appertaining to feledl perfons, are written in the facred books* fome to Prefbyters [PreJbuterois{\ fome to Bifhops [Epi/kopois ;] lbme to Deacons [Diakonois ;] and fome to widows." Strom, lib. iii. p. 546. In difcourfing upon thedodtrine of continence and mar- riage, he occafionally brings in thefe words, " Again, fays he, [the Apoftle Paul] thofe are to be appointed Bifhops [Eprjfkopous dei kathiflafthai,] who, from ruling their own houie, are exercifed to theknowledgeofrulingthe whole church*/' Ib. lib. ib. p. 552. Having cited that apoftolic diredion, 1. Tim, v. 14, 15, « I will that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the houfe, give none oc- cafion to the adverfary to fpeak reproach- fully," he adds, " but he muft be the hufband of one wife onlv, whether he be CLEMENT of Alexandria. 447 a Preibyter [Pre/by teros,] or Deacon [Dw- konos] or Layman, if he would ufe matri- mony without reprehenfion." In. lib. ib. p. 561. Having mentioned a number of paffages, iri one or another of Paul's epiftles, in vindication of marriage, he goes on, " What can they fay to thefe things, who inveigh againfl: marriage P* and adds this confideration further, "fince he [this iame Apoftle] enjoins, that the Bifhop[E/>^0/w]tobe fet over the church \tes ekklejias aphegeifthai] be ofie who rules his own houfe well." Ib. lib. vi. p. 793. " He therefore who hasmoderatedhisaft'efrionsinthefirftplace, and by carefully exercifinghimfelf to fubdue his paffions, hath obtained the maftery of them, and hath grown up to the bene- ficence of Gnoftic perfection, advances? indeed from thence to an equal rank with the Angels. And now being full of light, and fhining like the fun in afts of goodnefs,hehaftens, by a righteous know- ledge, through the love of God, to the holy manfiort, in like manner as theApof- tles : not that they became Apoftles from any excelling peculiarity of their nature, fince Judas was chofen with them, buc M m m iuch 44§ CLEMENT of Alexandria. fuch became Apoftles, being chofen by him who for efees even the ends. He there- fore who was not elected together with them, Matthias, when hehadfhewed him- self worthy to bean Apoftle, was put in the place of Judas. It is now therefore al- lowable for thofe alfo who have exercifed themfelves in the divine commandments, and have perfectly and gnoftically lived ac- cording to the gofpel, to be afcribed into the number of the Apoftles. This man is in reality a Prcfbyter [Prejhyteros,'] and a true Deacon [Diakonos] of the purpofs of God, if he does, and teaches, the things of the Lord : not ordained of men, nor feecaufe a Prefbyter [P re/by teros] there- fore efteemed a righteous man ; but be- caufea righteous man, therefore now reck- oned in thePrefbytery [en Prejbyterio kata- legomenos :] and though here upon earth he hath not been honored with the chief feat [protokathedriai] yet he (hall ietdown among the four and twenty thrones, judg- ing the people, as John fays in the Reve-' lation. For the fcheme of falvation is, in reality, one, reaching from the begin - ing of the world down to us, though fuppofed to be different in its beftowment, according to different generations and times. For it is fit and congruous, that thera CLEMENT of Alexandria. 449 there fliould be one immutable beftow- ment of falvation, by one God, through one Lord, in diverfe manners profitable - on account whereof the middle-partition is taken away, which divided the Greek from the jew, that they might be a pecu- liar people, and fo both come into unity of faith : and from both there is one elec- tion ; and of the chofen, fome, he fays, are more chofen. Thefe 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 gar- land of fweet flowers, from the church it- felf, and honored with mod diftinguifh- ed glory. Now in the church here, the progreffions [prokopai, proceffions, advancements,] of Bifhops, Prefbyters, Deacons, [epijkopon, Prejhyteron, Dia- konon] I take to be imitations of the evan- gelical g»ory, and of that difpenfation, which, the fcriptures tell us, they look for, who, following the fteps of theApof- tles, have lived according to the gofpel in the perfection of righteoufnefs. Thefc men, the Apoftle writes, being taken up into the clouds, fhall firjft minifter as Deacons [Diakonefein,] then be admitted to a rank in thePrefbytery [to Prefoyterio] according 45o CLEMENT of Alexandria. according to the progreffion in glory, (for one glory difreretb from another) un- til they grow up to a perfect man," In. lib, vii. p. 830. " Of that fervice of God about which men ape converiant, one is \bcltictik/\ that which makes them better ; the other [i/peretike] that which is miniirerial. Medicine make the body \beUiCiiker{\ better ; philpfophy the foul : but the fervice which is due to parents from their children, and to Rulers from thofe who are fubjecl: to them, is [upere- tirJ] minifrerial. In like manner, in the church, the Prefoyters [czPre/byferci] main- tain \tmbdtictiken cikona] the form of that kind which makes men better; and the Deacons, [ten beltictikcn, oi ' dial:oriot\ that which is ministerial. In both these ministries, the Angfls, ierve God in. the difpenfation of earthly things."--- In lib."quis dives falvandusfit"? p. 9-9, " Hear a fable, and yet not a fable, but a true itory, reported of John the ApoP tie, delivered to us, and kept in memory. After the death of the tyrant, when he (John) had returned to Ephefus, out of the ifle of Patmos, being defired, he went to the neighbouring nations, where he appointed CLEMENT of Alexandria. 451 appointed Bifhops [epi/kopois kataJicfon y '\ where he fet in order whole cities, and where he chofe by lot, unto the ecclefi- aflical function, of thofe who had been pointed out by the fpirjt as by name. When he was come to a certain city, not far diftant, the name of which fome men- tion, and, among other things,had refrefhed the brethren ; beholding a young man of a portly body, a gracious countenance, and fervent mind, he looked upon the Bifhop who was fet over all [epi paji to katheftoti epijkopo,'] and faid, I commit this young man to thy cuftody,with the deep- eft intention of mind, in prefence of the church, and Chrift bearing me witnefs. When he had received the charge, and promifedthe performance of all things re^ lative.to it, John again urged, and made proteftation of the fame thing. He af- terwards returned to Ephefus. And the Prefbyter [ de Prefbuteros\ taking the young man,brought him to his ownhoufe, nourifhed, comforted, and cherifhedhim; aqd at length baptifed him. ,, — As this ro- mance* (for to I take the whole flory to be) goes * If Clement had either fupprefsed this ftory, or related it as a fabulous one, not worthy of credit, he would, perhaps, have difcovered more judgment. This, I am apt to think, will be the opinion of thofe, who may be at the pains to read 452 CLEMENT of Alexandria. goes on, the young man proved very dif- folute. Upon which the Bifhop is re- prefented as fending for the Apoftle John, who, when he was come, faid to him, •' O Bifhop ! reftore to us the charge, which I, and thy Savior, committed to thee, the church over which thou art fet bearing witnefs. Then the old man [o Pre/bytes] groaning deeply, and with tearsinhiseyes,faid,heis dead;" that is, to God," as it is afterwards explained. Retmarks and Observations on the foregoing testimonies. IT is obvious, upon the flighted view of the above offered teftimonies, that Cle- ment, no mors than the writers before him, can, with the leaft fhadow of rea- fon, be produced as witneffing to the facts that are the grand fubjeft under confideration. He fays not a word, from < whence it can be fo much as collected by remote confequence, that he thought Bi- fhops had an exclusive right to con- fer read it over. Eufebius, it is true, has given the whole of it a place in his " ecclefiaftical hiftory ;" and inferts it as a true report. But this is no infallible argument that it is fo. For there are, in tkis work of his, many inftances, befides this, wherein he difcovers a mind too fond of ftrange ftorits, CLEMENT of Alexandria. 453 fer holy orders ; nor has he anywhere hinted, that it was ever the prac- tice, in his day, or at any other time, for Bifhops, as a distinct order of gofpel officers,to perform the work of ordina- tion. The fame may be faid of their ex- clufive right to govern the church. It is obfervable, in paedag, p. 120, though a Presbyter of the church of Alexan- dria, he includes himfelf in the number of thofe proegoumenoiyor chief leaders, who are efteemed Shepherds. " We, fays he, who have rule in the churches, ton ekkk- Jion proegoumenoi" And as to confir- mation, he no where mentions it, unlefs u the impofition of the hand,"paedog. p. 291, may be fuppofed to refer to this cuf- tom. If this fhould be the truth, it is the firft hint we have, in all primititive an- tiquity, of fuch a practice in the church. But then, it deferves particular notice, this teftimony can be of no fervice to the cpifcopal claim; for, not the Bifhop, but the Presbyter, is reprefented as " lay- ing on his hand." It could not therefore • be, according to Clement, the appropriate work of a Bilhop, a peculium of his of- fice as fuch. It is acknowledged, Clement once ufes that mode of dittion," Bifhops, Prefbyters, Deacons ? 454 CLEMENT of Alexandria, Deacons $" and once more thus varied, u Prefbyters, Bifhops, Deacons :" and he is the fir ft writer, Ignatius only excepted, if he is fuppofed to be the writer of the epiftles afciibed to him, that ever ufed this manner of (peaking. But his thus writing is an infufficicnt ground on which to reprefent him asawitnefs, that Bifhops were, in his day, an order of officers in the church diftindi from, and fuperior to, that of Preihyte'rs. The term, Bifhop, may properly be ufed as a diftinguifhing name, though it fhould import no eflen- tial fuperiority of office between him and a Prefbyter. Arch-Bifhop is an appella- tion that diftinguifhes theperfonto whom it is applied from one that is aBifhop only, and is ever ufed to this purpofe; andyer, Arch-Bifhop and Bifliop are one and the fame order of officers in the church, Epif- eopalians themfelves being judges. So the name, Re£tor, points out a difference be- tween the peifons called by this name, and thofe that are ealled Curates •, and yet, they both partake of the fame effen- tial powers of preaching, baptifing, and adminiftring the Lord's iupper. It might, about this time, begin to be a cuftom, not to have a Praefcs, or Head-Prefbyter in the church, but to diftinguifh him by appropriating CLEMENT of Alexandria. 45g appropriating to him the name of Bifhop. And this might be the only reafon of Clement's fpeaking in that mode, " Bi- fliops, Prefbyters, Deacons." Moft cer- tainly, it could not be, becaufe he thought there were three diftia£t orders in the church* and that Bifliops were, as Chrifts officers, veiled with eflential powers fu- perior to Prefbyters, as Prefbyters are with powers effentially fuperior to Deacons * and for the following confiderations. I. In paedag. lib. iii. p. 309, his enti* meration runs thus, " Prefbyters, Bifliops, Deacons " which cannot eafily be ac- counted for, if he had fuppofed Bifliops to have been an order in the church fuperi* or to that of Prefbyters, as Prefbyters are to that of Deacons. He no where,in fpeaking of Prefbyters and Deacons, places Dea- cons before Prefbyters -, but, as Prefbyters are a fuperior order of officers, he always mentions them firft. And there is no imaginable reafon to think, but he would have done the fame by Bifliops, if, in his apprehenfion, they had been officers in the church fuperior in their order toPref* byters. It is worthy of obfervation, Ignati- us does not give us the enumeration in this form; but places Bifliops before Prefbyters. ,V. Nnn And 456 CLEMENT of Alexandria, And it is queftionable>whether an inftance can be produced, alter Bifhops were look- ed upon a3 officers in the church of a fu- perior order to Prefbyters, ftom any wri- ter, who favored this opinion, wherein he places Prefbyters before Bifhops in an enumeration of church officeis. But this I barely mention as not unworthy of notice. II. It is a confederation of more weight that in his book "quis dives falvandusfit ?" the church officer he fpeaks of under the name of Bishop, he likewife calls Pres- byter. His words are, " He [the Apof- tlejohn] looked upon the Bishop, who had been fet over the whole church, and faid, I commit this young man to thy care." It follows a few lines after, " and the Presbyter, [o Prejbyter ] taking the young Man, brought him home."-— It is not in any degree probable, if, by the word, Bifhop, Clement meant an officer in the church of a fuperior order to that of Prefbyters, he would have indifferently ufed the terms, Bifhop and Prefbyter, to point him out. Had the word, Bifhop, been with him the known certainly ap- propriated term to diftinguifh the firfl or higheft of three orders of officers in the churchy CLEMENT of Alexandria. 457 church, there would be an impropriety, not to fay abfurdity, in his calling that of- ficeraPRESBYTER, whowasaBifljop: nor ought it to be fuppofed, that he would have been guilty of fo grofs a reflection on the Bifhop of a church, It isfaid, in anfwer, this Bifhop, who is pointed out by the term Prefbyter [Pref- byteroty] in the above cited place, is after- wards, in this very ftory, fpokenof in that ftile, Pre/bytesy " the old man/' Upou which the plea is, that he might be called Pre/by 'Zeros, not on account of his being a Prefbyter, but an elderly perfon. It is confefled the word, Prefbyteros, is fome- times to be underftood as meaning nothing more than an aged man ; but this mean- ing can be given to it, only when the con- nexion of the difcourfe, where it is ufed, makes it neceffary : otherwife, it is, with all the Fathers, an appropriated term, and not ufed by any of them, either before, or after, Clement, but to denote an officer in the church of Chrift. And, what may be worthy of fpecial notice, it is never ufed by Clement, relative to an officer of the church, to fignify meer/y,or only, his being " a man in years." Why then fhould he be thought to ufe it in this, fenfe, in the paffage 458 CLEMENT of Alexandria. paffage under confideration ? And, had he intended to convey the idea of nothing more than " an old man," why did he not ufe the word Pre/bytes? He might, with equal eafe, and moie propriety, have ufed this word, in both paffages that have been "brought to view; and his not doing it, plain* ly indicates, that he intended, in the fiift of them, to lead us into the thought, that, by PrefbyterQSy hemeant the fame officer in the church, he had juft before called Bifhop, Epijkopos $ and in the fecond, to fignify that he was an " elderly perion." And there might be a fpecial propriety in his fpeaking of him, in this fecond paflage, as an (i elderly perfon j" as this would aggravate his fault in not taking better care of " the young man that had been depofited with him as his charge." It will add weight to what has been offered, in defence of Clement's promif-* cuoufly ufing the words, Bifhop and Prefbyter, in that part of his ftory re- lating to the Apoftle John, we have been eonfidering, if we compare his yfe of the words here, with the ufe of them in ftrom. lib, iii. p. 556, and ftrom. ib. p, 552. In the former of thefe pages he fays, " thofe ought to be appointed Bishops, who,from ruling CLEMENT of Alexandria. 459 ruling their own houfe, have been exer- cifed to rule the whole church." In the latter of them, his words are thefe, " He muft be the hufband of one wife only, whether he be a Presbyter, or Dea- con, or Laic, if he would ufe marriage without blame." Let it now beobferved, thefe directions, refpe&ing a " Bishop's ruling his own houfe," and a " Presby- ter's having but one wife," are both ta- ken, or rather cited, from the Apoftle Paul's firft epiftle to Timothy, iiid ch. 2d and 4th v. where the words are thefe, " A Bifhopmuft be the hufband of one wife,"'- and " one that ruleth well his own houfe.'* Now, that very officer in the church, which the Apoftle Paul calls a Bishop, is called by Clement, in one of the above paffages, a Bishop * y and, in the other, a Pres- byter. He muft certainly mean, by Presbyter, precifely the fame officer, both he himfelf, and the Apoftle Paul, meant by Bishop : or there would be no pertinency in his application of thefe texts. This, I Ihould think, muft be fufficient to put it beyond all reafonable difpute, that the word, Pre(byteros> in Clement's ftory of the Apoftle John, is ufed in its appropriated fenfe, to fignify an officer in the church j and, as this officer, who is 460 CLEMENT of Alexandria. Is called a Presbyter, is alfo called a Bishop, the words muft be confidered as promifcuoufly uied to mean one and the fame ecclefiaflical officer: fo the words are ufed, in the places we have compared with this i and no better reafon can be given for their not being fo ufed here, than that of fervi-ng an hypothefis. 3. It is of ftill rqore important con- fideration, that Clement, in ftrom. vii. p. 830, evidently appears to have had no knowledge of more than two orders of officers in the Chriftian church, that of Pre/byters, and that of Deacons. For, when he is purpofely fpeaking of the fa- cred ecclefiaftical functions, he particu- larly mentions thefe two, and no more. One, he confiders as fuperior, calling it beltiotike, becaufe intended and adapted to " make men better :" the other he repre- fcnts as inferior, calling it uperetike, be^ caufe defigned for a lower kind of mini- ftry. The fuperior office he appropriates to Presbyters ; the inferior one to E)eacons : not giving the leaft hint of any other, or higher office in the chriftian church. Can this be accounted for, if he knew of any order in the church higher than that, in which Prefbyters are placed ? CLEMENT of Alexandria. 461 placed ? Surely, if Bifhops were officers in the church of a fuperior and higher order than Prefbyters, he would not have pafled over this order of men i n total filence, while he is particular in taking notice of the two lower orders, that of Prefbyters, and that bf Deacons. It is obfervable, he thought it proper, even in the very paflage we are upon, to afcend to heavm incomtemplation,thathemightbringinthe Angels of God as employed in the two kinds of miniftryhehad been treating of ; and yet, though Bifhops were, in his opinion, (as Epifcopalians would have us believe) the moft exalted order of church- officers Chrift had upon earth, he fays not a word about them, or any fervice they had to do ; while, at the fame time* he takes particular notice both of Pref- byters and Deacons, fo much below Bi- fhops as not (comparatively) to deferve being mentioned at all. This is truly aftoniihing ! And Clement muft be voted inexcufable, unlefs we fuppofe, (what I take to be the certain truth) that with him, Bifhops and Prefbyters were one and the fame order of men in the church, and might properly be fpoken of under the name, either of Bifhop, or Prefby ter. And in this view of the matter, there is a con- fiftency 462 CLEMENT of Alexandria. fiftency, propriety, and cogency, in this difcourfe of Clement : otherwife, it is, to fay the lead, ftrange and altogether un- accountable* ! IV. In the laft place, it is further evi- dent, from what Clement has faid, in ftrom. vi. p. 793, that he had no notion of more than two orders of officers in the church of Chrift ; or, in other words, of Bifhops as the firft and moft fuperior of three orders. I have purpofely given the reader the whole 13th fe&ion 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 pleafed to attend to what is contained in this fe£Hon,he will find, that neitherApof- tles, Prefbyters Deacons, or Laymen, are efteemed, by Clement, excellent here, or interefted in felicity hereafter, but in pro- portion to their chriftian knowledge, wif- dom, and goodnefs ; that is, their being more or lefs perfect gnoftics. In illuft- ration of this, he fays, " he is in reality a " Presbyter in the church, and he is " a true Deacon, who does, and teaches, " the things of theLord :-- -not account- •* ed a righteous man, becaufe a Prefby- " ter > but becaufe a righteous man there- " fore CLEMENT df Alexandria. 463 " fore chofen into the Prefbytery : and " though he be not honored with the " first seat * on earth, yet (hall here- " after fit down on the twenty-four " thrones, judging the people." It is at iirft fight obvious, that Clement here makes mention of two orders only in the church, that of Presbyters, and that or Deacons. And it is equally evident, that the nrft feat, he fpeaks of, relates to the Presbytery, and is the place of one* who is a confiituent member, in common with the other Prefbyters, of thisfenate, o£ ecclefiafticai body. But, what does he mean by this fir ji feat ? One, not Waited in his mind, would eafily and naturally Ooo bs * A frie:id of mine, well {killed in the Greek, and who has particularly acquainted himfelf with the writings of this Clement, is clearly of the mind, that the protoka- t h e d r 1 a , he here fpeaks of, does not mean the first CHAIR, SEAT, or PLACE V\ the PRESBYTERY, but the first session in the church here on earth, as well as in heaven. He had been faying, in the imme- diately preceding words, a man's being ft truly righteous" was the reafon, in God's account, why he was " chofen i.ito the Frelbytery" ; and though he mould not be honored, here on earth, with the protokathedria, the first session, he mould hereafter fet dowa on the twenty-four thrones," the hi gkf.st _ ad- v a n c e M e n t of the Saints in glory. He is ra- ther more explicit, up£>n this head, a little onwards, in tnis fame fe:tion ; where, fpeaking of the "progressions of thofe who have lived, according to the gofpcl, in the perfection of righteoufnefs, he fays, " thefe men, being takeu 464 CLEMENT of Alexandria. be led t ) underftand, by it, the feat of the Head-Prefbyter, x>r Pixfes of the Prfrfby- tery. }t cannot reafonably be thought, that Clement meant by it a feat that was- proper, not to a conftituent member of the Prefbyterate, but to an officer in the church of another order, diftinct from, and fuperior to, that of Prefoyters. Thrs would be to make him fpeak very impro- perly. For \\\z firft feat in a Prefbytery obvioufly and certainly imports a parity oteffhitidt powers iti the perfons ih^tcon- ilitute 'this body ; though one of them may, in fome refpecls, for prudential' rea- fons, have the precedency, or fuperiority, Jo as to be feated in the jfry? chair. This taken up into the clouds, ihall first minHrer as Df.a- cossj then be admitted to a rank in the Pres- bytery ; which means the fame thing with what he had, a little before, fpoken of as " being honored with the PROTOKATHKDRI A, the FIRST Or HIGHEST SES- SION in the church, in the future ftate of glory." 1 fee not but this criticifm of my friend is juli : it certainly "falls in with tire method of reafoning, Clement has gone into, throughout this whole paragraph. However, 1 was .not willing to depart from that (enfc of the word, in which it is univerlally taken (fo far as my knowledge extends) by opifcopa! writers, hi this fenfe I have conf:dered it ; and offered that upon it which is, as I imagine, too force- able to be fet afide. The argument is much itrongerupon the interpretation of my friend. If this exhibits the truth, it is put beyond all-poffible difpute, that Clement knew of no higher order in the church than that of Presby* ters, ARNAKAS, the Hrit. Shewed not to be the fcrip- -*-* tare Barnabas, from i£ In his epiftle no mention of Bifhops or Prefbyters. z$ 2 "TMONYSIUS, the Areopagite : the writings, ^ called his, proved not genuine. 27,&c» 3 TTERMAS, and his writings ; his paftor, with the -*-■*- judgment of the ancients and moderns ; it makes Bilhops and Prefbyters one and the fame order of church officers. 36, &c. 4 /^LEMKNT of Rome's character and writings, ^ with teftimonies of them, from 6j His epiftle to the Corinthians genuine, 75, &c The occalion of his writing it. ' 77 The time of his writing it. 79- Clement's doubtful writing. 82 Pieces fpurious afcribed to him, . 82 The constitutions, called apoftolic, fpurious. 84, &c. Canons, called apoftolical, not genuine. 92, &c. The recognitions allowed fpurious. 102 Paffages from Clement's firft epiftle admitted ; and proofs from him, that Bifhops and Preibyters are the fame. 103 &c. 5 pOLYCARP, -his character, and his writings, A with teftimonies from them, &c, 1 55 He not a Bifhop fuperior to Preibyters ; nor owning . fuch an one. 157 His death. • 1 69 Epiftlcs mentioned as his, not extant. 170 His epiftle to the church at Philippic ib. The infcription of it. 171 Paffages from it. 172, &c* Remarks on thofe paifages. 1 75, &c. No Bifhop diitinct from Prefbyter in him, 176 6 TGNATlUS's character, writings, &c. 187 A He a Bifhop, or Paftor, or Prelbyter, 191 The manner and circumftances of his death. 192 His writings, epiftolical. 194 The editions of them. 19& Hh epiftles, their being his queftioned. 198, &c. Writers taking no notice of them. 203, &c. Writers fuppofed to refer to them confidered. 214, &c. His epiftle to Romans not ferving the Epifcopalians. 233 lgnatian epiftles, if not fpurious, yet corrrupt. 24^ GENERAL CONTENTS. Fraudulent and impudent treatment of Ignatius. 25c? True fent jments of Ignatius not given us under his name. 253 Teftimonies from Ignatius. 270 Remarks on thofeteftimonies. HisBifhopsnotdiocefan. 289 Of the peculiar epifcopal powers, government, ordination, andconrirmation,nekherof-\vhicharefaidby Ignatius to belong toBifhopsin diftinction from Prelbyters. 303, &c, HisBifhops,upon the whole,parochial, and what he fays about them not fo favorable to the epifcopal,asPrefby ters caufe 317 7 O API AS : book faid to be wrote by him. 319 A J His character. 320, &c, . No Bifliop betides an Elder in him. 32 1 8 .QUADRATUS ; his character, and only writ- V ing. 323, 324 9 A RISTIDES ; his character, and apology. 32$ io A GRIPPA, firnamed Caftor, his character, 326 ■**» He wrote one book ; no remains of it. 326, 327 11 UEGESIPPUS,fuppofedaconvertfromJudaifm. $28 •*• * His hiftory : only fragments of it remain, ib. The hiftory of the Jevvifh wars not his. 329 Extracts from a fragment of his, 330 Nothing in him in proof of the fact in difpute, 331, &c. 12 JUSTIN MARTYR. 333 _ J Learned : an adept in philofophy, • 334 His conversion. 33c His apologies for chriftians. 337 Crefcens, the cynic, his enemy, procuring his death. 341 Juftin's character. 342' His writings. 343, &c. His habit. ib. His genuine works, and loft. 344 Works, fuppofititious. 34c From him no evidence for Epifcopaliar^. 3^4 A collection of Fathers named. 357 J 3 TV/TELITO, of Sartfis, an Eunuch, his genius. ±xx works, &c. 358 14 'TpATIAN. 36* 15 ^THENAGORAS, 364 16 TTERMIAS. . 367 17 ^HEOPHILUS. ^ ib. *JB2 GENERAL CONTENTS. 18 A POLLiNARIUS, or Apollinaris. 371 19 "T\ ION YSIUS of Corinth. 372 20 piNYTUS. 374 21 pHILIPPUS and Modeftus. 375 22 -*• 23 A/fUSANUS. ib. 24 T3ARDESANES. ib. PISTLE of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. _ 376 'N. B. FromMelito to this epiftle,there is nothing in the authors mentioned relative to the Epifcopalian controverfy. 26 TREN^EUS, his chara&er, writings, &c. ' 379 -■■ His acquaintance with Polycarp, and the fay- ings of thofe who converfed with the Apoftles. 380,381 Chofen BHhop, or prime Prefbyter. 382 His writing to two perverting Prefbyters. 383 Eafter controverfy revived. ib, Irenaeus anfwering to. his name. 38$ His praifes. 3^6, 395 His writings. 3^7 His creed. J 39 2 His book, againft herefies, when wrote,— his death. 397 Teftimonies from him. 398 Obfervations on thofe teftimonies. 409 No proof of Epifco pal claims to be found in him, but the contrary. 4 ir > & 0, 27 "C* LEVEN Fathers mentioning nothing of the *-* point in difpute. . 427 28 CERAPION, a fragment from him. 429 29 pOLYCRATES, a fragment of his. 43° -*• Remarks upon thefe fragments. ib. 30 /ELEMENT of Alexandria, his character, &c. 433 ^ His. loft writings. 437 Spurious writings. 439 Extant genuine writings. A general abftraft of them. 441 He is mentioned with honor both by the ancients and mo- derns. 442 Teftimonies from Clement.^ 445 Remarks upon thefe teftimonies,in which it is (hewn, v that he knew of no diftinCtion between the order of Bifhops and Prefbyters. 453, Conclufion. 47a *y u» ■• * i 1