REGULATIONS 
 
 OF THK 
 
 f tbrn:ru of tlje f eberal-street Sbtieti) 
 
 IN BOSTON. 
 
 The Library is open to the use of all the Members of 
 the Federal-street Congregational Society. 
 
 ii. 
 Books are delivered from the Library at the close of 
 tin- morning service on every Sunday. Books must be 
 returned at the same time. 
 
 in. 
 Bach person may take two volumes at a time. 
 
 IV. 
 
 N.i volume can be taken from the Library, until its 
 title, together with the name ami residence of the person 
 on whose account it is taken, has been recorded in a book 
 kept lor th<- purpose. 
 
 v. 
 
 Octavo and duodecimo volumes may be kept four 
 jreekd : other bunk-, only two weeks. 
 
 Tlii- book^v.'i- placed in the Library. 
 
 & / 
 
J^fcx^e 
 
 

a 
 
EM ARKS 
 
 On certain Passages in 
 The Bifliop of Landaff's 
 
 SOCIETY-SERMON, 
 
The Validity of Presbyterian Ordination 
 asserted and maintained. 
 
 A 
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 Delivered at the 
 
 Anniversary Dudleian-Lecture, 
 
 AT 
 
 Harvard-College in Cambridge 
 NEW-ENGLAND, 
 May 12. 1762. 
 
 With an APPENDIX, 
 Giving a brief historical account of the 
 epiftlesafcribed to Ignatius ; and exhi- 
 biting fome of the many reafons, why 
 they ought not to be depended on as his 
 uncorrupted works. 
 
 By CHARLES CHAUxNCY, D. D. 
 
 One ofthePastorsof the First Church inBoston, 
 
 ■^■»» M1 S ^ ' 1 . 1-W W I M F ? P IL J f-f T ' < ', H» » . > i 
 
 BOSTON, NEW-ENGLAND : 
 
 Printed and Sold by Richard Draper, in New- 
 
 bury-Street, and Thomas Leverett in 
 
 cornhill. i762. 
 
The words I would prefix to the 
 following difcourfe, as a proper 
 motto, are thofe infpired ones of 
 
 the apoftle Paul, 
 
 » 
 
 " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, 
 " which was given thee by prophecy, 
 cc with the laying on the hands of 
 " the prefbytery. 
 
 i Tim. iv. 14. 
 
 THE honorable judge Dud ley " ef- 
 " teem'd the method of ordination, 
 " as pra&ifed in Scotland, at Gene- 
 " va, among the diflenters in England, and 
 u in the churches in this country, to be 
 " fafe, fcriptural and valid." And he firm- 
 ly believed, " that the great head of the 
 " church, by his blefled fpirit, had own'd, 
 " fanflified and blell the admhiftration of 
 " gofpel ordinances by perfons ordained \ 
 u this way ; and chat he would concinu 
 *' fo to do to the end of the world." I 
 
 A3 v 
 
 i 
 
6 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 was accordingly his intention, that the dif- 
 courie at this lecture Ihould be adapted to 
 the purpole of " explaining and maintain- 
 ing " this kind of ordination. Not that 
 he queftioned " the validity of what is 
 commonly called epifcopal ordination, as 
 performed in the church of England," or 
 had it in his heart to encourage the faying 
 any thing that would ini'inuate as tho' God 
 had not bled, and would not goon to blefs, 
 the miniftry of thofe who were thus or- 
 dained. Had none of the friends to ecclefi- 
 aftical fuperiorities, according to the prefent 
 epifcopal form, been Jefs wanting in candor 
 and charity towards thofe who differ from 
 them, we ihould never have heard of this 
 lecture. It took rife, in the honorable 
 founder's mind, from the narrow principles 
 of thofe anathamatifmg zealots, who would 
 confine falvation to their own church, by 
 confining the validity of gofpel ordinances 
 to the adrainiftratioil of them by perfons, 
 upon whom the hands of a bifhop, in their 
 fcnfe of the word, have been impoicd. And 
 he wifely ordered the preaching of it in this 
 place, that our fons, who are lent here, 
 from all parts of the land, to be trained up 
 for public fervice, might be under advan- 
 tage to hear and know the reafons, upon 
 which they may, with all good conference, 
 join in communion With thefe churches, 
 
 and 
 
Scriptural and valid, 7 
 
 and officiate aspaftors in them, fhould they, 
 when fitted for it, be called thereto in the 
 providence of God. 
 
 You are, by this time, at no lofs to know 
 the defign of the prefent difcourfe ; that it 
 is to vindicate the New-England churches 
 in their method of ordination by preibyters: 
 or, in other words, to affert and maintain 
 the fafetyand validity of what is commonly 
 called prefbyterian ordination, to the pur- 
 pofes of the gofpel miniftry. 
 
 Only, before I come to the argument 
 upon this head, it may not be amifs to men- 
 tion a few things, in which we agree with 
 our opponents. 
 
 We agree with them, it is the will of 
 Chrift there fhould be officers in his church 
 to preach the word, toadminifter the facra- 
 ments, to exercife difcipline, and to com- 
 mit thefe powers toother faithful men ; and 
 that this will of his extends to all ages, till 
 time (hall be- no more. " Lo, I am with 
 you always, even to the end of the world." 
 Whether it be his will, made known in the 
 new-teftament-revelation, or elfe-where, 
 that this work of the facred miniftry fhould 
 be divided, and differently lodged in the 
 hands of two diftinft orders oi men, the 
 
 A 4 one 
 
8 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 one fuperior, the other inferior, we fhall 
 hear afterwards. 
 
 We agree with them, that none fhould 
 take upon them the minifterial office, unlefs 
 they are qualified for it conformably to the 
 apoftolic directions in the epiflles to Timo- 
 thy and Titus ; and, if they are thus quali- 
 fied, that they have no right to officiate as 
 paftors in the church of Chrift, till they are 
 called hereto. " No man taketh this ho- 
 nor to himfelf, but he that is called of God. 
 as was Aaron." This call, in the opinion 
 of the church of England, includes not on- 
 ly an ability given by God for the work of 
 the miniflry, but the excitement of an ac- 
 tual readinefs in the perfons who have it 
 freely to devote themfelves to the gofpel 
 fervice. We go farther, and add hereto, 
 the voice of the church. And herein the_ 
 advantage lies undeniably on our fide, whe- 
 ther an appeal be made to fcripture, or pri- 
 mitive antiquity. Even after the diftintfion 
 between bifhops and prefbyters took place, 
 it was by the fuffrage of the people that 
 this or that perfon was felefled for this or 
 the other cure. In this way, Alexander 
 was chofen bifhop of Jerufalem f ; in the 
 fame way Fabianus was advanced to the 
 fee of Rome, upon the death of Antcrus *, 
 
 as 
 
 f Eufeb. Lib. 6. c. u. * Eufeb. Lib. 6. c. 28. 
 
Scriptural and valid. g 
 
 tls was alfo his fucceffor Cornelius f ; and 
 it was by the fame favor and fuffrage of the 
 people, " plebis favore, " § " populi fufFra- 
 gio," * that Cyprian was elected bifhop of 
 Carthage.* — But inftead of mifpending the 
 time to prove that which is fo weli known 
 to all, in any meafure acquainted with an- 
 tiquity, it may rather be lamented, that 
 the churches of Chrift havefo generally had 
 wrefted from them, in one way or another, 
 this invaluable privilege. The people, con- 
 ftituting the epifcopal church at home, 
 fcarce know what it is to have pallors of 
 their own chufing. And the eale is much 
 the fame with molt of the proteftant chur- 
 ches in Europe. The right of nomination 
 is almoft univerfally lodged, not with the 
 people, but with princes or patrons, either 
 clerical or fecular, in confequence whereof 
 their miniiters are not of their own chufing, 
 but fuch as others chufe for them. The 
 New-England churches, blefled be God, 
 poflefs and exercife the right of electing 
 their paltors in the mod ample manner of 
 any in the whole chriftian world. May 
 they ever " ftand fa ft in this liberty " where- 
 with he who is " head over all things," has 
 " made them free " ! And may their glory, 
 in this refpedt, be never taken from them ! 
 
 We 
 
 t Cyprian. Epif. 67. § Pontius in vita Cypriani. 
 * Cyprian. Epif. 55. 40. 
 
io Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 We agree with them, that, befides the 
 call to, their mult be an inveftiture in, the 
 miniiterial office, before perfons may, in or- 
 dinary cafes, regularly undertake to do the 
 work that is proper to it : And we are fur- 
 ther agreed, that ordination, meaning here- 
 by impofition of hands with folemn prayer, 
 is the fcripture-mode of this inveftiture. 
 By the ufe of this rite, with prayer, Paul 
 and Barnabas were feparated to the work to 
 which God had called them. So was Ti- 
 mothy ; and fo were thofe feperatedby him 
 to the like work. And this has been the 
 rite of minifterial inveftiture in ufe in the 
 church all along from the beginning to this 
 day. 
 
 Only, let it be remembered here, if, 
 by ordination, our opponents fuppofe any 
 moral gift, or fpiritual power, inherent 
 in the ordainers, is conveyed from them to 
 the perfons upon whom they lay their hands, 
 we beg leave to diflent from them in this : 
 Apprehending, and, as we judge, upon 
 good grounds, that the authority of goipel 
 minifters comes folely from Chrift ; while 
 the ordainers are nothing more than his fer- 
 vants in inflating the perfons they ordain in 
 the regular exercile of this authority. As 
 in the cafe of the mayor of a city, the kings 
 charter of incorporation grants the power; 
 
 the 
 
Scriptural and valid, ii 
 
 the burgeffes and recorder only indigitate 
 the proper recipient of it, and put him legally 
 into the execution of his office. So here, 
 Chrift, in the gofpel-charter, gives the 
 power to aft as his minifters ; it only be- 
 longs to the ordainers to point out the per- 
 fons with whom this power is intruded, 
 and regularly admit them to the exercife of 
 it. The ordainers are to be confidered, not 
 as granting this power, but as afting mi~ 
 nifterially in introducing capable perfons, 
 according to gofpel-order, into the poffef- 
 fion and ufe of it ; the power itfelf having 
 already been granted by Chrift, the alone 
 fountain of all power in the church, which 
 is properly jure divino. 
 
 It follows from hence, as we judge, very 
 obvioufly and juftly, that thofe who are r& 
 gularly veiled with the minifterial office 
 may fairly claim, and warrantably exercife, 
 all the power that belongs to it, be the 
 words of their inveftiture, or the intention 
 of their ordainers, what they will. For as 
 their office is from Chrift his inftituting will, 
 not the intention or words of their ordain- 
 ers, mult be the true and only meafure of 
 their power. 
 
 / In fine, we agree with our opponents, 
 that the inveftiture by ordination muft be 
 
 the 
 
12 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 the aft of thofe, and only thofe, who are 
 authorifed to perform it. It is not left, in 
 thefacred fcriptures, a work common to all, 
 and that may be done by any ; but is the 
 appropriate truft offome, in diftin&ionfrom 
 others. The brethren may not impofe 
 hands in confecrations to the gofpel-mini- 
 ftry. Nothing occurs in the new-teftament 
 that can be conftrued to countenance fuch 
 a practice. The builnefs belongs to thofe 
 only who are officers in the church of Chrift ; 
 tho' not to thefe indifcriminately. For dea- 
 cons, no more than mere brethren, may 
 be allowed to lay on hands in ordination. 
 The gofpel officers who may do this are 
 only thofe, who are authorifed hereto ; that 
 is to fay, they are only thofe whofe office 
 contains in it this, among other minifterial 
 powers. 
 
 But who are thefe officers ? This is 
 the grand queftion : And the true anfwer 
 to it will be decifive in the prefent difpute. 
 
 Our opponents fay, bifhops, confidered 
 as an order of men diftindt from, and fu- 
 perior to, prefbyters, are the only church- 
 officers, who are veiled with a right to 
 ordain. 
 
 We 
 
Scriptural and valid* 13 
 
 We fay, on the contrary, the fcripture 
 knows of no fuch order of officers in the 
 church ; and that gofpei-prefbyters, or fuch 
 minilters of Chrift as are allowed to have a 
 right to preach the word, and adminifler 
 the facraments, are true fcripture bilhops, 
 and cloathed with authority to do every 
 thing that is to be done in the bufinefs of 
 ordination. 
 
 And this is the point I am to make evi- 
 dent to you. In order whereto I might 
 call your attention to thofe various argu- 
 ments which have commonly been made 
 life of upon like occafions with this ; but, 
 as I am confined within too narrow limits 
 to do them proper juftice, I fhall wholly 
 pafs them over, though they carry in them, 
 as I imagine, conclusive force, that I may 
 leave room to enlarge on the following 
 considerations, namely, 
 
 That the apoftles of Chrift, in fettling 
 the churches, conftituted ( befides the order 
 of deacons ) no more than one order of 
 Handing pallors ; That thefe pallors, in 
 their day, were called fometimes bifhops, 
 fometimes prefbyters, and promifcuoully 
 pointed out by either of thefe names \ and 
 finally, that thefe bifhops or prefbyters were 
 endowed with all the ordinary powers that 
 
 were 
 
14 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 were to be exercifed in the church of Chrift, 
 particularly with that of ordination. 
 
 These premifes will, if fet in a juft 
 point of light, unavoidably juftify us in 
 concluding, that prefbyterian ordination, 
 or, as it might with equal propriety be 
 called, ordination by fcripture-bifhops, is 
 fafe and valid. 
 
 It fcarce needs to be previoufly remarked 
 here, that the apoftles, confidered as fuch, 
 were immediately fent by God, and this 
 under the infallible guidance of infpiration, 
 to preach the gofpel to Gentiles as well as 
 Jews, to gather churches in all parts of the 
 world, and to appoint the officers, both 
 for inftrudion and government, which 
 were to be perpetuated in them for their 
 edification in faith and holinefs, till the time 
 of the appearing of our Saviour to put an 
 end to the prefent gofpel-ceconomy. This 
 being taken for granted, I proceed to fay, 
 
 That the apoftles, in virtue of this 
 plenitude of power, which they received 
 immediately from Chrift, conftituted no 
 more ( beiides the order of deacons, with 
 which we have nothing to do at prefent ) 
 than one order of (land in q- officers in the 
 gefpel-church. It is not my bufincfs, in 
 
 this 
 
Scriptural and valid. 
 
 *5 
 
 this part of the difcourfe, to fay who thefe- 
 officers are : This will be done afterwards. 
 At prefent I am concerned only with the, 
 fact itfelf ; the proof of which is to be 
 fetched from the facred writings* And the 
 proof from hence is as full as could reafon- 
 ably be defired. 
 
 Neither Chrift nor his apoftles have 
 any where given inftructions, defcriptive of 
 the perfons fit for the work of the miniftry, 
 that are adapted to the fuppofition of a dif- 
 ference of order in the paftoral office. Had 
 there been fuch a difference, different qua- 
 lifications would have been requifite to the 
 fuitabk difcharge of the different trufls ari- 
 fing therefrom ; and it might juftly have 
 been expelled, that the fcriptures would 
 have diftinguifhed between the qualificati- 
 ons refpectively proper for the manage- 
 ment of each of thefe trufts.. But 
 they no where thus diftinguifh. They 
 no w r here intimate, that fuch different 
 endowments w 7 ere neceffary. Far from 
 this, they have fpecified the qualifications 
 of one order of paftors only ; as may be 
 feen at large in the epiflles to Timothy and 
 Titus. And what is llrange, they have 
 been very particular in difcribing the qua- 
 lifications of this one order, while they are 
 totally filent with refpect to the other that 
 
 is 
 
16 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 is pleaded for, tho* that other is faid to be 
 by much the mofl honorable and important 
 of the two. 
 
 In like manner, no rules are any where 
 laid down for the guidance of ordainers in 
 veiling ordinary minifters with different 
 degrees of honor and power. They are no 
 where told of the inftitutionof two diftin6l 
 orders of ftanding paftors ; they are no 
 where inftru&ed to exercife their ordaining 
 right conformably to this diftin&ion, by 
 placingfome in an higher, others in a lower 
 rank in the church. The facred writings 
 of the apoftles fay nothing to fuch a pur- 
 pofe as this. On the contrary, they prefent 
 to our view a very full and explicit directo- 
 ry for the ordination of one order only of 
 ftanding paftors. This we have in the 
 Pauline inftruftion, referring to the fettle- 
 xnent of the churches in Crete. The great 
 apoftle of the Gentiles gives it in charge to 
 Titus, whom he left in this ifland with a 
 direct view " to fet in order the things that 
 were wanting," to ordain fixed paftors in 
 the feveral churches there. But what paf- 
 tors were they ? Of a different rank, fome 
 fuperior, others inferior ? Not a word 
 leading to fuch a tho't is to be found thro'- 
 out his whole epiltle. No ; but the paftors 
 he dir^fts fhould be ordained were precifely 
 
 of 
 
Scriptural and valid. 17 
 
 of the fame rank or degree : Nor did Titus 
 ordain any other. He could not indeed 
 have done it, unlefs he had ailed counter 
 to the direction he had received from the 
 infpired Paul. 
 
 The plea here is, Titus was himfelf, at 
 this time, the fole bifhop of Crete, and as 
 fuch entrnfted with the power of ordaining 
 inferior paftors. But this is a plea that 
 can't be fupported upon juft and folid reafons ; 
 as we fhall have occaiion, by and by, to 
 make plain to you. In the mean time, we 
 go on and fay further, 
 
 That, in the churches fettled in apof- 
 tolic times, no ordinary gofpel-minifters are 
 to be found but of one order only. No o- 
 ther were in Lyftra, Iconium and Anti- 
 och. The apoftle Paul, with Barnabas, 
 conftituted fuch paftors in all the churches 
 in thefe places, but no other. Tis faid, * 
 " they ordained elders," officers of one and 
 the fame rank, " in every city." Should the 
 
 WOrUS, ^flpsTovjjravTg? £2 ccvtok; TTfiirfivTSfQi:? kcct iKK>.r,(rt(X,v 9 
 
 be rendered, not, * when they had ordain- 
 ed them elders in every city" ; but, accord- 
 ing to Dr. Hammond's f mind, " when they 
 had ordain'd them elders church by 
 church" ; meaning, that a plurality of elders 
 was conftituted in thefe churches collectively 
 
 B taken, 
 
 * Atfs, xiV. 23. f Vid. Hammond in loc. 
 
18 Ordinatiom by Presbyters 
 
 taken, not that there was this plurality 
 in each individual church : I fay, fhould 
 this be allowed to be the fenfe of the words, 
 it would notwithftanding remain the truth 
 of fadl, that one order of officers only was 
 here fpoken of; which is all I am at pre- 
 fent proving from this text. Tho' I fee not 
 but a plurality of elders might be ordained 
 " from church to church," in one church 
 after another, and fo in every church, as 
 well as a lingle one in each church. And 
 this is undoubtedly the true fenfe of the 
 place, as it beft accords with what was ac- 
 tually done in other churches. 
 
 At Ephefus, as in the place we have 
 juft been conlidering, no paftors had been 
 fettled but of equal degree. No other are 
 mentioned by the apoftle Paul, when he 
 lent from Miletus to Ephefus to call to him 
 the paftors of that church. He fpeaksof 
 them in the ftile of elders, J evidently de- 
 scribing them as officers of one and the 
 fame rank. Had there been a biihop in 
 this church, a fingle perfon of a fuperior or- 
 der, to whom thefe elders were in fubjefli- 
 on, 'tis ftrangehc did not fend for him like- 
 wife. Or if, at this time, he had been fo 
 far diftant from his cure as not to be with- 
 in call, it is equally ftrange he fhould fay 
 nothing relative to him ; efpecially, as he 
 
 was 
 
 t Ads, 20. 17. 
 
! Scriptural and valid. 19 
 
 was now to take his final leave of this 
 church, § " knowing that they fhould fee 
 his face no more." This, if ever, was a fit 
 feafon to mind them of their duty to their 
 principal paftor. And it might the rather 
 have been expefted now, as he fpeaks of it 
 as a thing known tp him, " that after his 
 departure, grievous wolves would enter in 
 among them, not fparing the flock." * 
 Who fo proper to have received inftru&ions, 
 in this cafe, as the chief fhepherd ? He tells 
 them alfo, " that of their 'own felves men 
 fhould arife, fpeaking perverfe things 
 to draw away difciples after them." J And 
 who fo fui table to be charged with the care 
 of withftanding thefe men as the bifhop ? 
 And yet, the whole care of this church, 
 now the apoftle was going from them to 
 return no more, he devolves on the elders ; 
 and this, tho' he knew they would be ex- 
 pofed to hazards, both from within them- 
 felves, and from abroad. This conduct is 
 fo unlike to the manner of after times, 
 when bifhops were advanced to fuperior dig- 
 nity and power, that it muft be fuppofed, 
 either that the church of Ephefus had no 
 fuch bifhop, or that the apoftle was ftrangc- 
 ly forgetful of him. Ignatius, a primitive 
 father, who lived in this fame century, if 
 his epillles are genuine, as they are faid to 
 
 B 2 be 
 
 H AGs xx. Vcr. 38. * Ver. 29. % Vcr. 30. 
 
20 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 be by our opponents, did not treat the bi* 
 fhop of this, or any other of the churches 
 he wrote to, with fuch negle£h He rather 
 efteemed them officers fo highly important 
 as to make obedience to them an article 
 worthy of his inculcation repeated to difguft. 
 If the apoftle Paul had been of the like fpi* 
 rit, he could not have omitted mentioning 
 the bifhop of Ephefus, if there had been one 
 in the church there, in his day. 
 
 At Philippi likewife there were no fixt 
 paftors but of one order. Very obfervable 
 to this purpofe is the infeription of the epiftle 
 to the church there. " To all the faints in 
 Chrifl Jefus which are at Philippi, with 
 the biihops and deacons." f Befides the 
 deacons, no gofpel paftors but of one order 
 are here taken notice of. And the fameii- 
 lence runs thro' the epiftle itfelf. Thefe 
 paftors/tis true, are called bifhops; but they 
 were biihops of the fame clafs with the el- 
 ders at Lyftra, Iconium, Antioch and E- 
 phefus. To be fure, they were not bifhops 
 in the fenfe of the church of England ; and 
 for this very good reafon, becaufe there 
 was a plurality of them in this church at 
 the fame time ; which flatly contradi&s 
 that eflential article in theepifcopalfcheme, 
 " one church one bifhop. " 
 
 .No 
 
 t Philip. I. i. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 21 
 
 No pains have been wanting to evade 
 this difficulty. Some, in order to it, have 
 adopted the fenfe, the counterfeit Ambrofe, 
 but the true Hilary, would put upon the 
 infcription, and read it thus, " Paul and 
 Timothy, with the bifhops and deacons, to 
 the faints at Philippic Should this con- 
 ftrudion be allowed to be juft, it would 
 not folve the difficulty. For it would frill 
 remain true, that there was a plurality of 
 bifhops in this church, unlefs it fhould be 
 faid, that thefe were the bifhops, not of the 
 church of Philippi, but of other churches 
 happening to be there at this time ; which 
 is a meer random-conjedure, arbitrarily 
 made without the lead proof. But the con- 
 ftruction itfelf is forc'd, and incapable of 
 being juftifled. Should the infcriptions 
 prefixt to the two epiftles to the Corinthians 
 be thus read and interpreted, no epifcopa^ 
 rian, however zealous, would venture to fay, 
 we fhould have the true fenfe. And why 
 any fhould pretend, that this is the fenfe of 
 the infcription in difpute, no imaginable 
 reafon can be affign'd, fetting afide that of 
 Serving an hypothecs ; as the mode of dic- 
 tion is precifely the fame in all thefe infcrip- 
 tions. Befides, as fome of the beft critics 
 have obferved, if the apoflle had intended 
 to have taken in the bifhops and deacons 
 with him in faluting this church, he would 
 
 not 
 
22 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 llOt hQ.Ve WrOte, nauAt? x.Zcl TipoSeeS uyiei*; rei$ ovcri; 
 sv QiXixxoiCf <rw i7riTKo7eoic, scat hetx-ovsis, , faV he 
 
 would not have wrote thus, but h«9a?i *** 
 
 Ti/AoQioc, x.u.1 oi <rw lfJUO'.% ZKKTKazoi xtc t oimkovoi, kyio^ rat? 
 
 c V <nv & <DiA^T«i?. This was his mode of expref- 
 fion, when the brethren were co-partners 
 with him in writing to the churches of 
 Galatia. The form of words is, * n*v\* **< 
 
 This fame form of expreffion is ufed like- 
 wife by Polycarp, who had converfed with 
 thofe who had feen our Lord, in his epiftle 
 to the Philippian church, f fl**HNr - « ** 1 y «£*» 
 *vt» TfirfivTspa to the church of God that fo- 
 journeth with the Philippians.- — But this is 
 too uncouth a fenfe to require any thing 
 more to be faid in confutation of it. 
 
 The learned Dr. Hammond, to avoid 
 the fuppofition of more bifhops than one in 
 this church, makes Philippi a metropolitan 
 city, and the bifhops of it, not the bifhops 
 of that fingle city only, but of the cities 
 under that metropolis. § In anfwer where- 
 to, Dr. Whitby afTures us, J that Philippi 
 was not, at this time, a metropolitan city, 
 but under the metropolis of ThefTalonica, 
 which was the metropolis of all Mace- 
 donia. And, as to its being a metropolitan 
 
 chureh, 
 
 * Gal. I. i. 3. f Infcription to Polycarp's epiftle, 
 § Hammond's note on Philip. I, 1. 
 % His note on Phillip. I. 1. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 23 
 
 church, the learned bifhop Stillingfleet has 
 abundantly prov'd, 11 that there are no tra- 
 ces of it within the firft fix centuries. But 
 it would be needlefs to enlarge here. The 
 irreconcileablenefs of this notion with the 
 Hate of things in apoftolic times is fo appa- 
 rent, that the bare mentioning of it is enough 
 to refute it. Dr. Maurice, tho' a ftrenuous 
 advocate for diocefan epifcopacy, in oppo- 
 fition to Mr. Clarkfon, fpeaks of this learn- 
 ed author, * as " alone " in this folution of 
 the difficulty, and declines the defence of it; 
 At the fame time, profeffing " that he could 
 never find fufficient reafon to believe thefe 
 bifhops any other than prefbyters, as the 
 generality of the fathers, and of the church 
 of England, have done." This is fairly 
 and freely faid. 
 
 I shall only add here, the apoftle is 
 as forgetful of the bifhop of this church, as 
 he was of the bifhop ofEphefus; for he 
 takes no notice of any fingle paflor fuperior 
 in rank to the other paftors. And the fame 
 filence is obfervable in Polycarp's epiftle to 
 this church a few years after. Will any 
 pretend, that non-relidency was a common 
 cuftom in thofe primitive times ? It is far 
 more likely there were no fuch fuperi- 
 or paftors, than that they fhould be thus 
 
 abfent 
 
 H Irenicum page 359 &c. 
 
 * " Defence of diocefan epifcopacy, " page 27. 
 
24 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 abfent from theircures. And yet, this muft 
 have been the cafe, or it can't eafily be ac- 
 counted for, that no mention is made of 
 them ; efpecially when inferior paftors are 
 applied to, and even the deacons are not 
 negle&ed. 
 
 There is yet further evidence, that 
 paftors of one order cmly were fettled in 
 the churches, in the firft times of the gofp'el, 
 from the apoftle Peter's firft epiftle, which 
 he directs to the chriftians * " fcattered 
 throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia; 
 Afia, and Bythirria." Had this apoftle 
 been acquainted with any diftin<5tion of 
 order between bifhops and other paftors, 
 he would undoubtedly have taken fome 
 notice of it in an epiftle infcribed to chrif- 
 tains in fo many parts of the world. But, 
 inftead of this, he mentions only fuch paf- 
 tors as were of equal rank ; and thefe, while 
 iilent about others, he is exprefs in urging 
 to the faithful difcharge of their duty as 
 officers in the church of Chrift. " The el- 
 ders," fays he, f u which are among you, 
 I exhort, feed the flock of God." 
 
 And, from that apoftolic injunction, | 
 " Is any fick among you ? Let him call for 
 the elders of the church, and let them pray 
 over them" : I fay, from this apoftolic rule, it 
 
 fhould 
 
 * i. Peter I. i. | i. ret. y. i. 2. J James v. 14. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 1 25 
 
 fhouldfeem, that the then known ordinary 
 pallors of the church were only elders. 
 Why elfe are they particularly named, and 
 chriftians inllru6led to apply to them to af- 
 flll them with their prayers ? Had there 
 been, in thofe days, another and fuperior 
 order of pallors, it cannot eafily be fuppo- 
 fed, they fhould have been wholly over- 
 looked. — But I may not enlarge. 
 
 It is fufficiently evident, I would hope, 
 from what has been offered, that the apof- 
 tles of our Lord conflituted no more than 
 one order of (landing pallors in the gofpel- 
 church. And fo the way is prepared to 
 fhow, 
 
 In the next place, that the names, bifhop 
 and prefbyter, were, in apoftblic times, 
 reciprocal terms, and accordingly ufed as 
 fuch to point out this conflituted order of 
 pallors. The texts to this purpofe are full 
 and flrong. Thus, the elders, T^^np^ 
 whom the apoillePaul called to him from 
 Ephefus, are applied to in the llile of 
 overfeers, st^xo^. Having fent for them 
 under the former name, he exhorts them 
 under the latter. So we read, §" He fent 
 toEphefus, and called the elders, ^ic^j-:^v:, 
 of the church ; and when they were come 
 to him, he faid unto them ■ — Take heed 
 
 C i 10 
 
 § Afts xx. 17, 28. 
 
26 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 to the flock over which the holy Ghoil hath 
 made you overfeers, " tMKovovt. The fame 
 perfons, who are ftiled prefbyters in one 
 part of the fame continued lentence, are in 
 the other called bifhops ; and this, while 
 fpoken of in their proper chara&er as offi- 
 cers of the church. In like manner, the a- 
 ptfftle Peter promifcuoufly ufes thefe names, 
 applying them to the fame paftors.* " The 
 elders (vptafivrtfns) that are among you, I 
 exhort — feed the flock of God, taking the 
 overfight thereof, " wf#**iw*« ; a6ting the 
 part, exer&fing the office, of bilhops in it. 
 The fame promifcuous ufe is made of thefe 
 names by the apoftle Paul, in his epiftle to 
 Titus : For, having faid fome things de- 
 fcriptive of the qualifications of thofe he 
 would have ordained elders, f *s&0vrepwu 
 he gives this as the reafon of what he had 
 offered, £ " a bifhop, mwhwt<& mud be 
 blamelefs — . " There would be no con- 
 nection, no force, in this reafoning, unlefs 
 he meant by the names elders and bifhops, 
 *p<r faryoi and miie«nt 9 precifely the fame 
 church-officers. 
 
 It may not be amifs to obferve here, 
 for the lake of thofe who are fo apt, in this 
 difpute, to recur to antiquity, that both the 
 greek and latin fathers, if we mav believe 
 
 Dr. 
 
 * i Pet. 7. i, 2, |Tit. »• 5> 6 « t Vcr ' "- 
 
Scriptural and valid. 27 
 
 Dr.Whitby, * an eprfcoparian writer, " do 
 with one confent declare, that bifhops were 
 called prefbyters, and prefbyters bifhops, 
 in apoftolic times, the names then being 
 common. So Chryfoftom, Thodoret, 
 Oecumenius and Theophyla6t, among the 
 Greeks ; and, among the Latins, Jerom, 
 Pfeud-Ambroiius, Pelagius,and Primafius. ■' 
 
 And if the names were then common, 
 and, as we have proved, promifcuoufly 
 ufed to point out the fame church-officers, 
 it is obvious, and vet juft to conclude, that 
 thefe are the officers always intended, 
 whether thev are called bifhops or pref- 
 byters. And upon the truth of this con- 
 dition, we may warrantably affirm, that 
 the bifhops, whole qualifications are de- 
 scribed in the epiftlc to Timothy, are pre- 
 cifely the fame with the elders Titus was 
 directed to ordain in Crete ; as alfo, that 
 the bifhops of the church at Philippi 
 were the fame with the elders fpoken of in 
 other churches, and, e contra, the elders in 
 other churches the fame with thefe bifhops. 
 And in this view of the fcripture-language 
 a perfect harmony runs thro' the whole 
 new-teftament upon this bead of ordinary 
 paftors. 
 
 C 2 I 
 
 * Note on Philip, i. i. 
 
28 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 I shall finifh this part of the difcourfe 
 with the following remark, worthy of 
 fpecial notice, namely, that in all the a- 
 bove fcripture-pafTages, the argument, in 
 proof that biihops and prefbyters are one 
 and the fame order of paftors, is not ground- 
 ed meerly on the promifcuous f ufe of thefe 
 names, but their being fo ufed as'to point 
 out the work, or defcr'ibe the qualifications, 
 that are proper to one and the fame office. 
 Perhaps, the argument would have been 
 valid, could we have reafoned only from 
 the reciprocal ufe of thefe names; but, as 
 we reafon not meerly from this, but from 
 the appropriation alfo of the fame work, 
 and the fame moral endowments, to the 
 fame perfons under thefe different names, 
 the arguing is unexceptionably ftrong and 
 conclulive. And to it is confeffed to be 
 by fome of the beft writers in favor of 
 epifcopacy, particularly by the late celebra- 
 ted bifhop Hoadly, who, far from calling 
 in queftion the ftrength of this way of argu- 
 ing, acknowledges it's force, * and pleads, 
 that the bifhops of the church of England 
 don't anfwer to thole that arepromifcuoully 
 called either bifhops or prefbyters in the 
 new-teframent, but to officers fuperior to 
 them: A fuggellion we (hall have opportu- 
 nity afterwards to confider. But, previous 
 
 to 
 
 * " Reafonablencf* of conformuy to the church of England. " 
 page 383, 389, &c. 
 
ScAIPTURAL AND VALID. 
 
 2 9 
 
 to this, we fha'll go on to the laft branch 
 of the prefent argument, and fay, 
 
 That thefe officers of equal rank, who 
 are promifcuoufly called either bifhops or 
 prefbyters, were endowed with all the or- 
 dinary powers proper to be exercifed in the 
 church of Chrift, with that of ordination, 
 as well as thofe of teaching, baptifmg and 
 administering the Lord's fupper. 
 
 That they were authorifed to preach 
 andadminifter the facraments,our opponents 
 do freely allow. And from hence it might 
 be cohfequentially argued, a fortiori, that 
 they were empowered alfo to ordain. For 
 thefe are minifterial a£ts more excellent and 
 important in their nature, than that of or- 
 dination. — But the limits to which I am 
 c.oiifined oblige me to pafs over this argu- 
 ment. 
 
 It is alfo allowed, and even infilled 
 oh, by epifcopal writers, that the fame 
 perfons who are authorifed to govern, are 
 in like manner, empowered to ordain. 
 Now, it were eafy to (how, from the fcrip- 
 tures, that the former of thele powers was 
 given to prefbyters; from whence it might 
 be inferred, that they were vefted with the 
 latter. Bat this argument alfo I (hall dif- 
 
 mifs, 
 
30 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 mifs, that I may have time more fully to 
 lay before you the dired proof we have, 
 that the power of ordination was lodged 
 with ordinary pallors or prefbyters. 
 
 And we prove this from fcripture-inftan- 
 ces of this kind of ordination. 
 
 If thefacred books of the new-teftament 
 prefent to our view examples of ordination 
 by prefbyters, we fhall take it for granted, 
 this will be efteemed a good reafon why 
 we fhould think, they were veiled with 
 ordaining power; and that prefbyters now 
 will a£l warrantably, while they copy after 
 the pattern that is fet them in the infpired 
 Tvritings. It only remains therefore to pro- 
 duce thefe inflances. 
 
 The firlt is that ,of the feparation of 
 Barnabas and Paul to the work to which 
 God had called them ; the account whereof 
 is recorded * in thefe words, " There weie 
 in the church that was at Antioch certain 
 prophets and teachers. — As they mini fired 
 to the Lord, and faded, the holy Ghoft 
 laid, feparate me Barnabas and Paul to the 
 work whereunto I have called them. And 
 when they had failed and prayed, and laid 
 hands on them, they lent them away/' 
 This is the moll circumftantial account 
 
 given 
 
 * A&s xiii. I, 2, 3. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 
 
 3* 
 
 given in fcripture of an ordination. The 
 perfons ordained were previoiifly called of 
 God; they were fet apart to the fpecial 
 work to which they had been called; all 
 the minifterial a&s any where mentioned, 
 in thCnew-teftament, as accompanying the 
 feparation of perfons to the fervice of the 
 church of Chrift, were performed, impofiti- 
 on of hands, fading and prayer ; and what 
 is moredire&ly toourpurpofe,theordainers 
 were" the prophets and teachers " of the 
 church at Antioch. Thefe teachers were 
 its ordinary pallors, the fame officers that 
 are elfe where promifcuoufly called bifhops 
 or prefbyters. Mofl certainly, they could 
 not be bifhops, in the fenfe of the church 
 of England, becaufe there was a plurality 
 of them in this church. What more can 
 be wanting to make this a compleat inflance 
 in our favor ? 
 
 The objections againft it only ferve as 
 fo many occafions to place it in a ftronger 
 point of light. 
 
 J Tis faid, by Turrianus, biftiop Bilfon, 
 and fome others, that this feparation of 
 Barnabas and Paul was the act, not of the 
 teachers, but of the prophets (extraordinary 
 officers) who impofed hands with them. 
 But this is only faid, not proved; nor can 
 
 it 
 
32 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 it be proved. The divine order, " feparate 
 me Barnabas and Paul," was as truly di- 
 rected to thefe teachers, as to the prophets; 
 they as certainly laid hands on thefe perfons, 
 and prayed over them, in feparating them 
 to their work ; and as much is attributed to 
 them, relative to their feparation, as to the 
 prophets. And confequently, if it can be 
 argued, from any thing that is here laid to 
 thefe prophets, or that is fpoken of as done 
 by them, that they were vefted with the 
 power of ordination ; it may, in the fame 
 way, and with equal ftrength, be argued, 
 that the teachers alfo were endowed with 
 the fame power; for there is nothing faid 
 to the prophets, but what is equally faid to 
 the teachers; nor was any thing done by 
 the former, but the fame was done by the 
 latter. 
 
 It is pleaded, by the whole body of 
 epifcopal writers, that Barnabas and Paul 
 were, before this,commiffioned minifters of 
 Chrift; and that their prcfent feparation 
 was 'only to a fpecial fervice among the 
 Gentiles. It is acknowledged; but, at the 
 fame time, denied that this makes any real 
 alteration in the cafe. For it is to be rc-- 
 membred, the thing intended by ordina- - 
 tion is not, that the ordainers fhould com— 
 million- perfons to do the .work of the rnini- . 
 
 itrv. . 
 
Scriptural and valid. 33 
 
 ftry. This is done by Chrift. It only be- 
 longs to them to declare who thefe perfons 
 are, and feparate them to the work to which 
 Chrift has commiffioned them. They don't 
 make them minifters ; but, being authorifed 
 hereto, give them an authentic character 
 as fach in the eye of the world. They 
 don't confer upon them their authority in 
 the gofpel-kingdom ; but let them into the 
 exercife of the authority proper to their of- 
 fice, with the folemnity the fcriptureefteems 
 regular and decent. And it might feem 
 good to the holy Ghoft to order, that Bar- 
 nabas and Paul, tho' before commiffioned 
 and fent by Chrift, fhould yet, at this time, 
 be feparated to their work by man, in the 
 common and ordinary w r a3 r . Neither of 
 them, from anything faid of the matter in 
 the facred books, appear to have been thus 
 feparated before now ; and as they were 
 now feparated to the w r ork to which they 
 had been called by impoiition of hands, 
 with fafting and prayer, it may with all 
 reafon be affirmed, that this feparation was 
 a true fcripture-ordination. All the out- 
 ward a^Hons common to an ordinntion 
 were performed upon this occaiion, and 
 particularly that of laying on of hands. 
 They were, in a word, feparated to the 
 fervice affigned them in the fame way that 
 Timothy was feparated to the miniftcrial 
 
 D work, 
 
34- Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 work, and afterwards feparated others to 
 it ; in the fame way Titus was directed to 
 ordain elders in the churches at Crete ; yea, 
 in the fame way they themfelves ordained 
 ciders at Lyftra, Iconium, and Antioch in 
 Piildia, and this, while upon the very fer- 
 vice they were now ieparated to. And why 
 their feparation, at this time, fliould not be 
 efteemed as proper a fcripture-ordination 
 as their's, which was effecled by the per- 
 formance of the fame outward actions, no 
 better reafon can be given, than that it will 
 not fall in with thefcheme of our opponents. 
 
 It is further objected, this feparation of 
 Barnabas and Paul was in confequence of 
 an immediate order from the holy Ghoft, 
 and therefore a precedent not pleadable but 
 in like circumftances. The anfwer is ob- 
 vious. ; Both Timothy and Titus were im- 
 mediately directed by an apoftle of Jefus 
 Chrift, fpeaking to them under the inspira- 
 tion of the holy Ghoft, to ordain paftors at 
 Ephefus and Crete ; and yet, the objeclors 
 themfelves plead thefe initances in fupport 
 of the right of bifliops, in their fenfe of the 
 word, to ordain ; and this, to the exclufion 
 of prefbyters. And if the plea is good on 
 their ildc, it is equally fo on our's. I would 
 fay further, this objection, inftead of letting 
 afidc the inftancc before us as a precedent, 
 
 makes 
 
Scriptural and valid. 
 
 35 
 
 makes it the more ftrongly valid. For it 
 cannot be fuppofed, if ordinary teachers 
 were unfuitable church-officers to perform 
 the bufinefs of ordination, that the holy 
 Ghoft would have ordered them to do it. 
 And, by his coftimitting this work to them, 
 we have an authentic precept, as well as 
 example^ for ordination by common tea- 
 chers, {landing ordinary paftors of the 
 churches. And let n1e acfd here, it is high- 
 ly probable, this direction from the holy 
 Ghoft, giving rife to this inftance of ordi- 
 nation by ordinary teachers, was intended 
 for a precedent to the Gentile churches in 
 all after times. This was the judgment of 
 the learned Dr. Lightfoot. " No better 
 reafon, fays he *, can be given of this pre- 
 fent action, than that the Lord did hereby 
 fet down a platform of ordaining minifters 
 to the church of the Gentiles in future 
 times. " 
 
 Another inftance to our purpofe we 
 have in the cafe of Timothy, who was fe- 
 parated to the gofpel-miniftry with the lay- 
 ing on of the hands of the preibytery ; as is 
 evident from' that exhortation of the apoftle 
 Paul add re fled to him, in my text, " Neg- 
 lect not the gift that is in thee, which was 
 given thee by prophecy, with the laying 
 on of the hands of the preibytery : " The 
 
 D 2 meaning 
 
 * Vol. I. page 189. 
 
36 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 meaning of which words, compared with 
 what is faid upon the matter in 2 Tim. i. 6. 
 may, I think, be fully exprelTed in the fol- 
 lowing paraphrafe, " Improve the gift of 
 the holy Ghoft, which I imparted to you 
 in an extraordinary meafure, according to 
 the prophefies which went before concern- 
 ing you, when you was feparated to the 
 work of the miniftry with the laying on of 
 the hands of the confiitory of prefbyters. " 
 
 You obferve, I do not interpret the gift 
 here faid to be in Timothy of his office as 
 a minifter, bat of the communication of 
 the holy Ghoft, in an extraordinary man- 
 ner qualifying him for it ; which appears 
 to me the moft eafy and natural fenfe. You 
 obferve likewife, I fpeak of this gift of the 
 holy Ghoft as imparted to Timothy, thro' 
 the hands of the apoftle Paul, not the hands 
 of the prefbytery. There is no certain ex- 
 ample of fuch a communication to be met 
 with in the new-teftament. Perhaps, the 
 holy Ghoft, in the days of the apoftles, was 
 never imparted thn> any hands but thofc 
 of an apoftle. But fhoukl it have been o- 
 therwiie, this was the way of communi- 
 cation in the prefent cafe. For the apoftle 
 Paul exprefsly fpeaks of this gift * as a gift 
 that was in Timothy " by the putting on of 
 his hands." Thefe prefbyters therefore did 
 1 not 
 
 * 2 Tim. i. 6. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 37 
 
 not impofe hands on Timothy with a view 
 to communicate to him this gift. It was 
 imparted wholly thro' the hands of the a- 
 poltle Paul. And yet, the presbytery as 
 certainly impofed their hands on Timothy 
 as Paul impofed his. And why ? No good 
 reafon can be afilgned for it but this, that 
 they might feparate him to the gofpel-mi- 
 niftry in the ordinary way, by ufing the 
 fcripture-rite common upon fuch an occa- 
 fion. And if it be fuppofed, that this gift 
 of the holy Ghoft Was imparted to Timothy 
 thro* the hands of Paul, about the time 
 that he was feparated to the miniftry by 
 the laying on of the hands of the conceflus 
 of prefbyters, we (hall have an eafy and 
 coniiftent fenfe of this whole affair. 
 
 Th e truth of the cafe feems plainly to 
 be this. The apoftle Paul impofed his 
 hands on Timothy to communicate to him 
 the gift of the holy Ghoil ; and either with 
 the apoftle, or, as I rather think, afterwards, 
 the council of prefbyters laid on their's, 
 feparating him, by this rite, to his work, 
 as Paul himfelf, with Barnabas, fome time 
 before, had been feparated to their's. And 
 very obfervable, it. may be proper to re- 
 mark here, is the analogy between this re- 
 paration of Timothy, and that of Paul and 
 Barnabas. They were feparated by exprefs 
 
 direction 
 
 jk«j 
 
38 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 dire&ioil from the holy Ghoft J fo was 
 Timothy, for he was pointed out by 
 prophecy, that is, by holy men propheti- 
 cally fpeaking of him by inspiration .of the 
 holy Ghoft, as a fit perfon to be employed 
 in the fervice of the gofpel. And it was 
 probably owing to this, that he was fo 
 foon feparated to this work, being, at this 
 time, a very young man, and in danger, 
 on that account, of being defpifed. They 
 were feperated aifo by the laying on of the 
 hands of the prophets and teachers, that is, 
 the ordinary paitors of the church at Ahti- 
 och ; fo was Timothy, by the laying on 
 of the hands of the company of prefbyters, 
 refiding where he now was. 
 
 But the pertinency of this inftance will 
 appear with a brighter luflre, by confider- 
 ing the objections that are made to it / as, 
 by this means, we fhall have an opportuni- 
 ty of going more critically into the exami- 
 nation of it. 
 
 It is .objected, the word prefbytery, 
 vfte0jtipov, here ufed, means the office 
 ordained to, not the confi'ftory of ordaining 
 prefbyters. This was Calvin's interpreta- 
 tion, when he wrote his inflitutions * ; 
 
 tho' 
 
 t Says he,"Quod de impofitione manuum prefbyterii dicitur, 
 rion ita accipio quafi Paulus de feniorum collegioloquatur ; 
 
 fed hoc nomine ordinationcm ipfam intelligo " . 
 
 Inftitut. lib. 4. cap. 3. fetf. 16. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 39 
 
 tho' afterwards, in his commentary upon 
 this text, having attained to greater matu- 
 rity of judgment, he fell in with the com- 
 monly received fenfe £. The other, by 
 whomfoever it is given, will exhibit a 
 down-right piece of nonfenfe, unlefs the 
 fubftantive *£effrr*#w is made the genitive 
 cafe, not to the immediately foregoing 
 word xs^wy,but to that far diftant one x<*^**or 
 and the text be accordingly read, " Neglect 
 not the gift of the prefbyteratua which 
 was given thee by the laying on of hands/' 
 But this grammatical tranfpofition is arbi- 
 trary beyond all reafonable bounds. And 
 fhould the like liberty be taken in other 
 cafes, we might make the fcripture fpeak, 
 in any ; place, juft what we pleafe. Befides, 
 the word Tps^ure ? ;oy is never ufed in this 
 fenfe in the new-tertament ; but always as 
 fi gnifying " concefTus, fenatus prefbytero- 
 rum. , . This alfo is it's meaning in the wri- 
 tings of the fathers, as may be feen in the fa- 
 mous Blondell's " apologia pro fententia 
 Hyeronimi. " f And this is its meaning 
 particularly in Ignatius's epiflles, whofe 
 authority will not be queftioned by thofe 
 we are at prefent concerned with. He often 
 ufes this word, and never in any other fenfe. 
 
 But 
 
 J " Prefbyterium.] Qui hie colle&'vum nomen cfle putant, 
 pro collegio prefbyterorum pofitura, reele feotiunt rneo 
 judicio. " In loc. 
 
 f Page 89, 90. 
 
40 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 But fhould we allow this pretended fenfe 
 of the word to be the true one, and, in con- 
 fequence hereof, that Timothy was ordain- 
 ed, not by an aifembly of prefbyters, but 
 to the degree of the prefbyterate ; inftead of 
 helping the caufeof our opponents, it would, 
 unluckily for them, very much ferve our's. 
 For Timothy, according to this interpreta- 
 tion, was, at the time, when this epiftle 
 was wrote, nothing more than a prefby.ter, 
 whatever he might be afterwards : And yet, 
 he is particularly apply'd to, in the epiftle 
 itfelf, as one intruded with the power of 
 ordination,and accordingly inftrufted to ufe 
 caution and prudence in the management 
 of this truft, " not fuddenly laying hands 
 on any man." And if Timothy, while a 
 meer prefbyter,was fpoken of, by an infpir- 
 ed apoftle, as one vefted with ordaining 
 power, it is as good a proof of the power 
 we are eftablifhing,as if he was ordained by 
 a confiftory of prefbyters. 
 
 'Tis again faid, by the prcfbytcry here 
 is intended, not an affembly of presby- 
 ters, but the college of apodles. So i peak 
 Chryfoftom, Theophilus, Theodoret, Oe- 
 cumenius, and after them fuch learned men 
 as Dr. Hammond, Mr. Drury, and fome 
 others; but, as we imagine, without any 
 fufiicient reafod to fupport this fenfe of the 
 
 word. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 41 
 
 word. It is indeed afenfe that carries with 
 it not the leaft probability of truth. The 
 apoftle Peter, 'tis true, introduces an ex- 
 hortation to Prefbyters, by taking to him- 
 felf the ftile of a fellow-prefbyter, fi*- 
 7rpt<r3vTs ? cs * • but the apoftles, in a colle&ive 
 view, are never once fpoken of, in thenew- 
 teftament, as a prefbytery ; nor is the word, 
 *peap-jT*piov, ever ufed by any ancient writer 
 ( as Mr. Boyfe obferves ) to fignify the 
 bench of apoftles. Far from this, when 
 met together in council at Jerufalem, upon 
 a fpecial occafion, with the elders; they 
 are carefully and particularly diftinguifhed 
 from them, every time they are mentioned. ij: 
 Nor can it well be imagined, if the other 
 apoftles had joined with Paul in laying their 
 hands on Timothy, either for imparting 
 the holy Ghoft, or feparating him to the 
 gofpel-miniftry, that this humble apoftle 
 would have omitted mentioning their names, 
 fince he fo exprefsly mentions his own. 
 Befides, there is not the leaft reafon to think, 
 tjiiat either all, or moft, or any confiderable 
 number of the apoftles were together at 
 this time. 'Tis far more likely, from the 
 hiftory we have in the a£ts of their travels, 
 and difperfions from each other, that Paul 
 only was now prefent, and that the pref- 
 bytery that laid their hands on Timothy 
 was not the company of apoftles, but fuch 
 
 E presbyters 
 
 * 1 Pet, v. 1. % Atfs xvth chap. 
 
42 Ordination by Presbyter* 
 
 presbyters as they had confiituted in the fe- 
 deral churches. 
 
 But fhould it be fuppofed, that the apof- 
 ties were now together, and that this pref* 
 bytery was the afTembly of apoftles, it 
 would be of no real fervice to the epifcopai 
 caufe. For 'tis plain, they acted not, in 
 their apoilolrcal character, but as presbyters. 
 Why elfe are they called a presbytery ? It 
 cannot reafonably be thought, if the holy 
 Ghoft intended to declare, in this text, that 
 Timothy was oidained by apoftolical au- 
 thority ,and not that which is veiled in pref- 
 byters, he would fo exprefsfy have fpoken 
 of the apoftles as acting in this affair as a 
 presbytery. It fhould rather feem evident 
 from hence, that the work they now did 
 was common and ordinary, and fuch as 
 might be done by thefe officers, under 
 whofe fty le they are reprefented as perform-- 
 rh'g this a&ion. 
 
 Finally, it is pleaded, that Timothy 
 was veiled with his office by the laying on 
 of the apoftle Paul's hands, while the con- 
 iifrory of presbyters, by impofing their's, 
 only gave their concurring approbation. 
 And for the proof of this we are turned ro 
 2 Tim. i. 6. where Paul, calling upon Ti- 
 mothy " to ftir up the gift that was in him," 
 
 adds, 
 
Scriptural and valid. 43 
 
 adds, " which is in thee by the putting on 
 of my hands. " 
 
 The anfwer is eafy. This fame apoftle 
 attributes as much to the hands of the prci- 
 bytery in 1 Tim. 4. 14, as he does to his 
 own hands in the place referred to in his 
 fecond ep'.ftle ; and conf -quenriy there is 
 jufr the fame reafon to fay, that the pret 
 bytery ordained Timothy, as that Paul or- 
 dained him. Befides, it cannot be reafo- 
 itably fuppofed, that an infpired apoitle 
 flionld permit a number of presbyters to 
 join with him in the faered folemnity of 
 impofing hands, if they had not a right, as 
 officers in the church of Chrift, to perform 
 this action ; and their performing it is a 
 fure argument of their right to do the thing 
 intended by it, that is, to feparate a perfon 
 to the work of the gofpei-miniitry : As 
 they that have a right to apply water in the 
 name of the Father, and the Son, and the 
 holy Gholr, have a right to baptife ; and 
 they that have a right to fet apart bread 
 and wine, and dtftribute it to the people, 
 have a right to adminilter the Lord's (upper. 
 
 But the truth of the matter is, it is far 
 from being evident, that Paul impofed 
 hands with the presbytery in Timothy's 
 ordination ; and I am ftrongly inclined to 
 
 E 2 think 
 
44 Oadination by Presbyters 
 
 think he did not. The gift the apoftle 
 fpeaks of, in his fecond epiftle to Timothy, 
 which, fays he, " is in thee by the putting 
 on of my hands," was undoubtedly the gift 
 of the holy Ghoft in miraculous powers ; 
 but whatever the gift wag, it was imparted 
 by the apoftle's own hands. Not a word 
 is faid of the presbytery, or any perfon 
 whatever, as joining with him, not fo 
 much as in a way of concurring approba- 
 tion. Whereas, in the pafTage we are now. 
 confidering, recorded in the firft epiftle, 
 the thing that was done, whatever it was, 
 was done with the laying on of the hands 
 of the presbytery. Their hands only are 
 mentioned, not a word is drop'd inilnuating 
 that Paul's hands were joined with their's., 
 It is therefore highly probable, if not cer- 
 tain, that Paul impoied hands on Timothy 
 to confer the gift of the holy Ghoft, which 
 was ufually, if not always, done by fome 
 apoftle in this way; and that the presbytery 
 afterwards laid on their hands for another 
 purpofe, that of feparating him to the work 
 of the miniftry, which alfo was ufually 
 done in this way. 
 
 Or if it fhould be ftill faid, that Paul 
 laid hands on Timothy at the fame time the 
 presbytery impofed their's, he did it prin- 
 cipally that through his hands, being an 
 cpolllc, the holy Ghoft might be imparted 
 
 to 
 
Scriptural and valid. 4.5 
 
 to him ; they, that he might, in the ordi- 
 nary method, ^be feparated to the gofpet- 
 miniftry. So that, in either of thefe ways, 
 wc have an evident inftance of ordination 
 by presbyters. In the former, they were 
 fole ordainers ; in the latter, ordainers ia 
 partnerfhip with the apoftlePaul. 
 
 I can't help faying here, if, inftead of f 
 " the laying on of the hands of the pref- 
 bytery, " it had been wrote, " the lay- 
 ing on of the hands of the epifcopate, " 
 our opponents would have triumphed in 
 having an unexceptionable inftance of 
 epifcopal ordination. But this occaiion 
 of glorving is happily taken away. And 
 it is remarkable, tho' we have examples, 
 in fcripture, of ordination by both extraor- 
 dinary and ordinary officers, by apoftles, 
 by prophets, by evangclifts, by teachers 
 or common pallors and presbyters; yet we 
 no where read of an ordination by any 
 perfon under the name of a bifhop. There 
 is a total filence throughout the new-telta- 
 ment upon this head. This obfervation, 
 to nfe the words of your worthy Divinity- 
 profeflbr, in a book of his, relative to this 
 controver.fy, wrote near 40 years ago, enti- 
 tled, " fober remarks," and which I would 
 recommend to your diligent perufal, " This 
 obfervation, fays he, * " may perhaps draw 
 
 " fome 
 
 * Page 115. 
 
46 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 cc fome weak perfons into doubts about the 
 
 " validity of epifcopal ordination. — But the 
 
 " truth of the cafe is, that bifhops and 
 
 4< presbyters are one and the fame order by 
 
 " divine inftitution ; and that they iucceed 
 
 " the apoftles, in all their ordinary 
 
 u powers, of which that of ordination is 
 
 " one; which is warrant enough for ordi- 
 
 " nation by presbyters, and the very fame 
 
 11 warrant which thofe have for it, who 
 
 M are now, by cuftom and human conftw 
 
 " tution, dignified and diftinguifhed with 
 
 '* the title of bifhops." 
 
 I have now confidered the argument 
 at firft propofed, in all its parts. And the- 
 fum of what has been faid, that we may 
 have it in one view, is this; that the apof- 
 tles of Chrift, in confequence of their com- 
 miffion from him, and as afting under the 
 infpiration of the holy Ghoft, conftituted 
 and fettled in the church, befides the order 
 of deacons, no more than one order of 
 fixed pallors; that they promifcuoufly 
 point out the paftors of this one order by 
 the names bifhop and presbyter, fometimes 
 ufing the former, fometimes the latter, and 
 meaning by either precifely thefe paftors 
 of one and the fame order ■ and finally that 
 they give us abundant reafon to believe, 
 that thefe paflors of this one order were 
 
 endowed 
 
Scriptural a$d valid. 47 
 
 endowed particularly with the power of 
 ordination, inftances whereof they have 
 left upon facred record. The conclufion 
 from which premifes, if they have been 
 clearly and fully evidenced to be true, as 
 I trull they have, is unqueftionably this, 
 that ordination by presbyters, according 
 to the ufual method in thefe churches, is 
 fafe and valid, becaufe agreeable to the holy 
 fcriptures, and warranted by them. 
 
 But notwithftanding all that has been 
 offered in proof of the point we have been 
 upon, it ought not, it is acknowledged, to 
 be received as truth, unlefs the contrary 
 evidence can fairly be fet afide. This 
 therefore makes it neceflary to confider 
 what is pleaded on the other fide of the 
 queftion. And this I fhall now do, giving 
 what is faid its full ftrength, fo far as I am 
 able. For if the counter-evidence, in it's 
 full weight, will not admit of a juft and 
 folid anfwer, we ought, in all reafon, to 
 eftecm the above proof to be defective, 
 how plaufible foever it may appear in a 
 feparate view. 
 
 Th e firft thing faid in favor of the fupe- 
 riority of bifhops to presbyters, and in vin- 
 dication of their claim to the powers of 
 ordination and government is, that they 
 
 arc 
 
48 Ordination by Presbyt&rs 
 
 are fucceffors to the apoftles, and derive 
 from them this fnperiority of order and 
 power. 
 
 The anfwer is ready. The apoftles, 
 as fuch, were extraordinary officers, and 
 had no fucceffors. They received their 
 commiffion immediately from Chrift, their 
 charge was unlimited, their province the 
 whole world. They were, by office, the 
 teachers of all nations, had power to gather 
 churches every where, to fettle them with 
 proper officers, to infpeft over them, and 
 give binding rules and orders for the good 
 government of them ; and all this, under 
 the infallible guidance of the. holy Ghoft. 
 It will not be pretended, I truft, that bi- 
 fhops, in thefe refpeds, are fucceffors to 
 the apoftles. In their proper apoftolic cha- 
 radler, they were far exalted above all bi- 
 fhops. As the great Dr. Barrow expreffes 
 it, ( to adapt his words to the prefent cafe ) 
 " It would be a difparagement to an apof- 
 " tie to take upon him the bifhoprick of 
 " Rome j as it would be to the king, to 
 " become mayor of London ; or to the bi- 
 " (hop of London, to become vicar of Pan- 
 " crals. ■* The apoftolic office, as fuch, 
 was perfonal and temporary ; not fuccei- 
 five and communicable : Neither did the 
 apoftles communicate it. Thofe parts in- 
 deed 
 
Scriptural and valid. 49. 
 
 deed of their office which were ordinary, 
 and intended for perpetual ufe, fuch as 
 feeding the church of God with the word 
 and facraments,and reflraining them within 
 the rules of good order, were communica- 
 ted from them to others. We have accor- 
 dingly feen, that they appointed {landing 
 pallors in the churches, veiling them with 
 all the powers proper for the work of the 
 miniftry, for the edifying the body ofChrifl. 
 And in a lax fenfe, thefe may be called fuc- 
 ceflbrs to the apoflles, as having derived 
 their power from them in Chrifl's name. 
 And in this loofe fenfe only may bifhops be 
 faid to be fucceffors to the apoflles. They 
 certainly do not fucceed them in their office, 
 confidered as apoflolic; but in fuch powers 
 of it only as are ordinary and communica- 
 ble. And here they are perfectly upon a 
 par with common paflors or prefbyters, 
 unlefs it can be proved, that the apoflles in 
 communicating thefe powers, made a dif- 
 ference, committing fome to a fuperior or- 
 der called bifhops, and others to an inferior 
 one defcribed by the name of prefbyters. 
 This is what we may reafonably expeft to 
 fee evidenced. The new-teflament is o- 
 pen. If it contains any fuch evidence, 
 let it be produced. We imagine it contains 
 clear evidence of the contrary, and that we 
 have given fuch evidence. Meerly the cal~ 
 
 P ling 
 
50 Ordination by Presbytfrs 
 
 ling bifhops fucceflfors to the apoftles won't 
 prove their Superiority ; tho\ by the way r 
 they are never fo called in the facred books. 
 And fhould it be allowed, that the fathers, 
 in after times, Speak of them in this ftile, 
 it can be in a loofe fenfe only ; meaning, 
 that apoftolic power had been communica- 
 ted to them, tho' what that power was, can 
 never be determined meerly by their being 
 called the apoftles fucceffors. The bible 
 only can fettle this point. 
 
 It is further faid, in defence of the' epis- 
 copal fcheme, that Timothy and Titus 
 were bifhops, the one of Ephefus, the other 
 of Crete, meaning hereby officers of a rank 
 Superior to the other paftors of the churches 
 in thofe places, with whom, as fuch, were 
 lodged the powers of ordination and juris- 
 diction. 
 
 'Tis reply'd, they are neither of them 
 called bifhops any where in the new-tefta- 
 ment. This name, 'tis true, is given them 
 in the poftfcripts to the epiftlcs that are di- 
 rected to them. But I need not fay, that 
 thefe poftfcripts are after-additions, and not 
 very ancient ones neither. This is Suffici- 
 ently known to all men of learning, who 
 accordingly lay no ftrefs upon them. 'Tisr 
 true likewifc, that they are called bifhops, 
 
 the. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 51 
 
 the one of Ephefus, the other of Crete, by 
 the fathers ; but not by the more primitive 
 ones. Dr. Whitby honeftly confefles, $ 
 that " he could not find, within the three 
 firft centuries, any intimations that they 
 bore this name. " He adds indeed, " this 
 defeat is abundantly fupplyed by the con- 
 Current fuffrage ofthe4thand 5th centuries." 
 But thefe were times too far diftant from 
 Timothy and Titus to be rely'd on forihe 
 truth of this fa£t ; efpecially, as, in thefe 
 times, they had greatly departed from the 
 fimplicity of the gofpel. And 'tis obferva- 
 ble, Eufebius, the great fource of primitive 
 eccleiiaftical hiftory, only fays, " it is re- 
 ported, " i<7Tops/r*t * dicitur, " that Timo- 
 thy was bifhop of Ephefus, and Titus 
 bifhop of Crete. " And he has himfelf 
 taught us, how far we may depend upon 
 this report, by what he tells us a little be- 
 fore, § " that he could trace no foot-fteps 
 of others going before him, only in a few 
 narratives." And the fuffrage of thefe cen- 
 turies is the lefs to be regarded, in this par- 
 ticular, becaufe it does not agree with the 
 fcripture-account of Timothy and Titus. 
 Timothy is exprefsly called" an evangelift," 
 2 Tim. iv. 6. And his work, as fuch, was in^ 
 confident with his being the bifhop of Ephe- 
 fus, or any other church. The bufinefs of 
 
 F 2 an 
 
 X Preface to the epiftle to Titus, * Lib. III. can, 4. 
 $ Lib. I. cap. ji. 
 
52 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 an evangelift, as Eufebius J juftly reprefents 
 it, was, u to lay the foundation of faith in 
 " ftrange nations,to conftitute them paftors ; 
 " and, having committed to them the cul- 
 11 tivating thofe new plantations, to pais 
 11 on to other countries and nations." And 
 this defcription of evangelifts" perfectly a- 
 grees with what the fcripture fays both of 
 Timothy and Titus. They evidently ap- 
 pear to have been itinerant miflionaries, not 
 fettled paftors. To be fnre, they fuftained 
 no fixed relation to the churches of Ephefus 
 and Crete, and confeqnently were not the 
 bifhops of therri ; for they continually went 
 about from place to place, as the fervice of 
 the churches made it neceffary, and were 
 as long, and it may be longer, in other 
 churches than thofe that are faid to be their 
 fettled charge. And would any man, as Mr. 
 Boyfb expreffes it,f " call him thefixtbifhop 
 of London that fhould only perform the 
 epifcopal functions there for a year or two, 
 but for twenty or thirty years is found to 
 perform the fame epifcopal functions in 
 moft other diocefes of England, nay in ma- 
 ny diocefes in France, Spain and Italy ?" 
 Can fuch an itinerary miniftry as this con- 
 fift with a man's fixt relation to a particu- 
 lar church, which enjoys no more of his 
 labors and care than twenty or thirty 
 churches more ? But 
 
 \ Lib. III. cap. 37. 
 
 f " Account of the ancient epifcopacy, " page 331, 
 
Scriptural- and .valid.* 53 
 
 But the flrength of the argument from 
 Timothy and Titus chiefly lies in this, that 
 they were charged with the management 
 of ordination at Ephefus and Crete. Titus 
 particularly was left in Crete with a profef- 
 fed view to his ordaining elders in the cities 
 there. The anfwer is, it will not from 
 hence follow, that they were veiled With 
 an exclulive power of ordination. I argue 
 upon the matter thus ; either elders had 
 been- fettled before this Sift the churches at 
 Ephefus and Crete, or they had not ; and 
 whether our opponents proceed upon the 
 former, or latter of thefe fuppofitions, their 
 reafoning is inconclufive. 
 
 If elders had been fettled. in thefe chur- 
 ches, the confequence is far from being jufl, 
 Timothy and Titus were particularly en- 
 trutled with the affair of ordination in thefe 
 churches, therefore the power was in them 
 exclufive of the Handing pallors. By this 
 way of arguing, they mull have been fole 
 preachers, as well as ordainers ; for they 
 are as particularly charged to do the work 
 of preaching, as that of ordaining. And 
 by this fame method of reafoning, the 
 church of Rome mud be ju (lifted in their 
 plea for Peter's fupremacy ; for there are 
 not wanting texts of fcripture, in which he 
 is particularly apply'd to, and charged with 
 
 inflru&ions 
 
5+ Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 inftru&ions and orders without mentioning 
 the other apoftles. The plain truth is, as 
 thefe svangelifts were afliftants to the a- 
 poftles, and left in thofe churches extraor- 
 dinarily qualified to fupply their place, it 
 was proper they fhould have particularly 
 committed to them the chief management 
 of ordination, and all other affairs pertain- 
 ing to the kingdom of Chrift, while they 
 continued among them. But how does 
 this prove, that, when they were gone, as 
 was foon the cafe, this fame work might 
 not be done by the Handing paftors ? Or 
 that the flanding paftors might not, or that 
 they did not, join with them in doing it, 
 while they were a&ually prefent ? Tis 
 far more probable that they did, than that 
 they did not* Timothy's ordination by 
 the confiftory of presbyters would natural- 
 ly put him upon going into the like prac- 
 tice. To be fure, fome pofitive good e\> 
 dence ought to be given, tlw he did not, 
 and that the power of ordinatiop was folely 
 and exclufively vefted in him, 
 
 The other fuppofition was that of there 
 being no fettled paftors in thefe churches, 
 when thefe inflru&ions were given to Ti- 
 mothy and Titus. And in this view of the 
 faft, I fee not but the difpute muft be at 
 once ended ; for their being directed to or- 
 dain 
 
Scriptural and valid. 55 
 
 dain pallors in churches that as yet had 
 none, can't poffibly prove, that thefe paf- 
 tors, when ordained, might not ordain o- 
 thers alfo. And perhaps this is the real 
 truth of the cafe. I am well affured, it 
 will be found, upon trial, to be an infupe- 
 rable talk to make it appear, that either of 
 thefe churches, at this time, were fettled 
 with pallors. They were, moll probably, 
 in the fame imperfect Hate with the chur- 
 ches of Ly lira, Iconium, andAntioch, be- 
 fore Barnabas and Paul, upon their return 
 to them, ordained them elders. And, it 
 may be, as Dr. Benfon well obferves, * 
 moll of the churches the apolllePaul writes 
 to were in the fame imperfe6l unfettled ftate, 
 at the time when he wrote to them. 
 
 I shall only add here, as Timothy and 
 Titus were evangelills, they had no fuccef- 
 fors ; or if they had, fixed bifhops could not 
 be their fucceflbrs. Nor will it follow, be- 
 cause thefe evangelills were left at Ephefus 
 and Crete to manage the affair of ordination, 
 thajt therefore bifhopfe, any more than pref- 
 byters, have this power. It mull firll be 
 proved, and upon the foot of good evidence, 
 that bifhops, meaning hereby officers in 
 the church fuperior to presbyters, were fix- 
 ed 
 
 * Eflay at the end of his paraphrafe and note on the epiftle 
 of Paul to Timothy, page So. 
 
56 Ordination Br Presbyters 
 
 ed in thefe places, and that the ordaining 
 power was lodged with them, to the exclu- 
 llon of presbyters \ which has never yet 
 been done, and I am fully perfuaded never 
 will. 
 
 It is pleaded yet further, that the angels 
 of the feven Allan churches, in the book 
 of the Revelation, were bifhops ; that is, 
 fuch bifhops as the prefent argument is con- 
 cerned with, or they are mentioned to no 
 purpofe. But how does it appear, that 
 thefe angels were bifhops in this fenfe ? If 
 the w T ord is here ufed collectively, meaning 
 the paftors of thefe churches, and not a 
 fingle one in each church, the argument is 
 at once fuperfeded. And it ought to be 
 thus understood. Such an expofition bed 
 agrees with the manner of fpeaking thro'- 
 out this whole book, in which like words 
 are commonly ufed in this collective fenfe. 
 Nor, unlefs the word is thus interpreted, 
 will the other pallors of thefe churches have 
 any concern in the meffages that are lent 
 to the churches, which it would be highly 
 unrcafonable to fuppofe. But, if every one 
 of thefe angels fhould be allowed to mean 
 a fingle perfon, how will it follow here- 
 from, that they were bifhops verted with 
 the fole power of ordination and govern- 
 ment in thefe churches ? The word angel 
 
 carries 
 
ScRIfTUftAL AND VALID. 
 
 57 
 
 catries In it's meaning nothing that im- 
 ports this ; nor is there any thing faid, in 
 the epiftles themfelves, from whence it can 
 be deduced. The argument therefore muft 
 be wholly grounded on this, that thefe an- 
 gels are fingled out, and particularly wrote 
 to. But this they might be, fuppofing 
 there was no greater diitinftion between 
 them and the other paftors, than between 
 Peter and the other apoftles ; between rec- 
 tors and curates ; between an aflembly of 
 equal minifters and their prsefes. In fhort, 
 it mud be proved by other evidence than 
 what is contained in the word angel, or 
 the application of this word to a fingle 
 perfon, if proved at all, that bifhops were 
 hereby intended, meaning by bifhops of- 
 ficers in thefe churches endowed with the 
 fole power of ordination and govern- 
 ment ; w r hich evidence has never yet been 
 produced. 
 
 The laft plea, and that which is trium- 
 phed In as decifive, is the fuffrage of all 
 antiquity in favor of bifhops, as an order of 
 men in the church fuperior to presbyters, 
 to whom belonged the powers of ordina- 
 tion and government. 
 
 But, before I come to this plea, it may 
 be proper juft to obferve ; that we are now 
 
 G difputing 
 
58 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 difputing againft the epifcopal fcheme, and 
 particularly that branch of it, the confining 
 ordination to bifhops, not as a mecr eccle- 
 fiaftical appointment, [a prudential expe- 
 dient ; but as an inftitution of Jefns Chrift, 
 and, an inftitution of his eflentially connec- 
 ted with the validity of gofpel-adminiftra- 
 tions. And in this view of the matter, the 
 demand, we imagine, is highly reasonable, 
 " what faith the fcripture i " It is to little 
 purpofe to tell us of the fathers, and that it 
 is uninterruptedly handed down from them 
 as a facl, that bifhops werefuperior to pref- 
 byters, and had the fole right of ordination. 
 This cannot make epifcopal-ordination nc- 
 ceflary to the validity of gofpel-ordinances. 
 It muft be conftituted neceflary, if fo at all, 
 by the revelations of God, and in fair and 
 legible characters too. We may, with all 
 reafon, expert to find both the confiitution 
 itfelf, and it's neceflity, delivered in the 
 (acred books, not by innuendoes, far-fetch'd 
 arguments, or probable conjectures ; but 
 with fo much pofitive clearnefs, and exprefs 
 affirmation, as to leave no reafonable room 
 for doubt. And there would now be no 
 need of testimonies from the fathers. It 
 would indeed be difhonorary to the focred 
 icriptures, and a grofs reflection on them as 
 not being a perfect and fuffkient rule, if we 
 might not, without traditionary helps from 
 
 the 
 
Scriptural and valid. 
 
 59 
 
 the elders, depend on them for the eflen- 
 tials of falvation. And, coniidering the 
 fentiments of our Saviour concerning the 
 traditions handed down to the Jews from 
 their elders, this kind of tradition feems to 
 be one of the lad things fuitable to be re- 
 curred to, in order to our knowing what 
 is neceflarily conne&ed with true chriftia- 
 nity. 
 
 Having remark'd this, I come to confi- 
 der the plea that is fo much gloried in, as 
 carrying with it even demonftration. And, 
 that it might lole none of it's ftrength, I 
 (hall give it you in the words of the cele- 
 brated bifhopHoadly, who has wrote, per- 
 haps, in as mafterly a way, upon this fide 
 of the controverfy, as any who have hand- 
 led it. In his book entitled, " The rea- 
 fonablenefs of conformity to the church of 
 England, " in order to prove, " that the 
 apoftles left the power of ordaining prefby- 
 ters in the hands of fix'd bifhops, " he fays,* 
 1 This being a matter of fad, part many 
 6 ages ago, the only method by which 
 ' we can come to the knowledge of it, is 
 i the teftimony of writers who liv'd in 
 6 that, and the following ages. And there 
 ' is the more reafon to rely upon their tefti- 
 ' mony in this cafe, becaufe this is a matter 
 ' ofafimple, uncompounded nature, per- 
 
 G 2 feaiy 
 
 * Page 326, 327. 
 
60 ORDINATION BY PRESBYTERS 
 
 u fe&ly within their knowledge; not (land* 
 
 ** ing in need of any curious nicencfs of 
 learning, or reafoning, but level to all 
 capacities ; a matter in which they 
 might very eafily have been contradicted, 
 had they reprefented it falfly ; and a mat?- 
 ter in which they could not in the firft 
 
 *J ages be biafs'd by Intereft. And here — - 
 I think I may fay, that we have as univerr 
 fal and as unanimous a teftimony of all 
 writers, and hiftorians from the apoftles 
 days, as could reafonably be expelled, 
 or defired : Every one who fpeaks of the 
 government of the church in any place, 
 witneffing thatepifcopacy was the fettled 
 form ; and every one who hath occaiion 
 to fpeak of the original of it, tracing it 
 
 +' up to the apoftles days, and fixing it up- 
 on their decree ; and what is very remar- 
 kable, no one contradicting this, either 
 of the friends or enemies to chriftianity, 
 
 * c either of the orthodox, or heretical, thro* 
 thole ages, in which only inch aflertions 
 concerning this matter of fad could well 
 be difprov'd." — " Were there only tefti- 
 monies to be produc'd, that this was the 
 government of the church in all ages, it 
 would be but reafonable to conclude it 
 of apoftolical inftitution ; it being fa 
 highly improbable that fo material a 
 poiac fhould be eftablifhed without their 
 
 M advice 
 
 It 
 
 <« 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 ti, 
 €6 
 
 u 
 
 ti 
 a 
 ft 
 tt 
 it 
 
 it 
 i t 
 
Scriptural and valid. 6i 
 
 M advice or decree,when we find the chur- 
 
 M ches confulting them upon every occa- 
 
 ** fion, and upon matters not of greater 
 
 " importance than this. But when wc find 
 
 " the fame perfons witnefling not only 
 
 " that the government of the church was 
 
 " epifcopal, but that it was of apoftolical 
 
 f ' inftitution, and delivered down from the 
 
 " beginning as fuch, this adds weight to 
 
 the matter, and makes it more undoubt- 
 
 " ed. So that here are two points to 
 
 " which they bear witnefs, that this was 
 
 * the government of the church in their 
 
 ** days, and that it was of apoftolical inftt- 
 
 ** tution. And in thefe there is fuch a con- 
 
 H ftancy, and unanimity, that even St. Je- 
 
 " rome himfelf ( who was born near 250 
 
 " years after the apoftles, and is the chief 
 
 " perfon in all that time whom the prefby- 
 
 ** terians cite for any purpofe of their's ) 
 
 *' traces up epifcopacy to the very apoftles* 
 
 " and makes it of their inftitution ; and in 
 
 " the very place where he moft exalts pref- 
 
 " byters, he excepts ordination as a work 
 
 * f always peculiar to bifhops." — He lays, 
 
 a little further on f, — - " The teftimony 
 
 " we fpeak of, is not concerning the apof- 
 
 " tolical inftitution of the exorbitant power 
 
 ■ ' claimed by later bifhops, or of any ex- 
 
 " ternal enfigns of worldly grandeur, or 
 K riches appropriated to them : But meerlv 
 
 * of 
 t Page 338. 
 
62 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 " of the inftitution of one perfon to ordain 
 " and govern prefbyters, within fuch or 
 " fuch a diftrift, and according to the de- 
 " fignand rules of chriftianity." — He adds, 
 f " All churches and chriftians, as far as 
 " we know, feem to have been agreed in 
 •' " this point, amidft all their other diffe- 
 " rences, as univerfally as can well be 
 " imagined. " 
 
 Had I met with this reprefentation of 
 ancient teftimony in a declamatory fecond- 
 hand writer, who knew little himfelf, and 
 only retailed, in a flourifhing manner, what 
 he had heard from this and the other party- 
 zealot, it would not have been furprifing ; 
 but it really was fo, to find a truly great 
 and defervedly renowned author bringing 
 in the ancient fathers, univerfally, unani- 
 moufly, and conftantly affirming it to be 
 fad, and this in all ages from the apoftles, 
 that " the government of the church was 
 epifcopat," and " of apoftolical inftitution ; " 
 yea, and that it was " of apoftolical infti- 
 tution too, that one perfon fhould ordain 
 and govern prefbyters within a certain dil- 
 trift." One would imagine, from this re- 
 prefentation, that, if the writings of the 
 fathers were confulted, epifcopacy, both 
 the thing, and the divine inftitution of it, 
 would fo glaringly appear to have been 
 
 acknow- 
 
 t ^gc 339. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 63 
 
 acknowledged by all the fathers, in all ages 
 from the beginning, that there would be 
 no room left for the leaft debate upon the 
 matter. 
 
 And is this the truth of faft ? We fhall 
 foon fee whether it is, or no. In order 
 
 whereto let it be obferved. 
 
 A distinction ought always to be 
 made between the two firft centuries, and 
 the fucceeding ones ; for the difference be- 
 tween the writers in thefe centuries, as 
 witnefTes in the prefent caufe, is both 
 obvioufly and certainly very great. Per- 
 haps, due attention has not been given to 
 this diftinftion by the difputants on either 
 fide of the queltion in debate. Sir Peter 
 King's " account of the primitive church," 
 is, it may be, as impartial an one as any 
 extant ; but it would, as I apprehend, have 
 been lefs faulty, and more perfect, if he 
 had kept in his eye this diftinftion thro' the 
 whole of his work. Nor have any of the 
 writers on our fide of the difpute, fo far as 
 I have had opportunity to read them, ma- 
 naged the caufe with the advantage they 
 might have done, if they had particularly 
 pointed out the difference between the two 
 firft and following centuries, and made the 
 ufe of it they might have done to their 
 purpofe. It 
 
64 OftDINATIOM BY PrESBYTEKS 
 
 It is readily acknowledged, the name 
 bifhop, towards the clofe of the fecond cen- 
 tury began to be an appropriated term ; 
 Signifying fomething more than the word 
 prefbyter. In the third century, and on- 
 wards, the appropriation was common. 
 Bifhop and prefbyter pointed out officers in 
 the church diftinft from each other ; tho' 
 to fay precifely what, and how great, this 
 diflindion was, will, I believe, be found to 
 be exceeding difficult. It was undoubtedly 
 fmall at firft. The bifhop was no more than 
 " primus inter pares," the " head-prefby ter," 
 the "praefes" of the confiftory. And it w r as 
 by gradual fteps that he attained to that 
 dignity and power with which he was af- 
 terwards veiled. Thofe ecclefiaftical fu- 
 periorities and inferiorities which have, for 
 a long time, been vifible in the chriftian 
 world, were unknown in the firft and 
 purefl ages. Nor did they at once take 
 place. It was the work of time. From 
 prime-prefbyters arofe city-bifhops ; from 
 city-bifhops, diocefan ones ; from diocefan 
 bifhops, metropolitans ; from metropolitans, 
 patriarchs ; and finally, at the top of all, 
 his holinefs the pope, claiming the cha- 
 racter of universal head of the church. 
 But to return to the diflinftion between 
 bifhops and presbyters in the centuries im- 
 mediately following the fecond. And it is 
 
 own'd, 
 
Scriptural and valid. 6c 
 
 own'd, there was a diftin&ion between 
 them ; but, at the fame time, utterly de- 
 nied, that the fathers are universal, and 
 unanimous, in affirming it for fad, that it 
 was a diftin&ion importing a fuperiority of 
 order, or that it was of apoftolical inllitu- 
 tion. The learned profeffor Jamefon, in 
 his Cyprianuslfotimus, is pofitive in decla- 
 ring, * that even " Cyprian did not be- 
 lieve the divine right of epifcopacy ; " and 
 that " he, with his colleagues, mod clearly 
 depofe, that bifhop and presbyter, are, by 
 Chrift's mftitutiop, reciprocally one and the 
 fame. " More full to our purpofe is what 
 I find related, in Calamy's defence of non- 
 conformity,:]: from the renowned Dr. Ray- 
 nolds. The account is, " Dr. Bancroft, 
 afterwards Arch-bifhop of Canterbury, 
 preaching at Paul's crofs, told his auditory, 
 that Aerius was condemned of herefy, with 
 the confent of the univerfal church, for 
 aflerting that there was no difference, by 
 divine right, between a bifhop and a pref- 
 byter ; and that the puritans were condem- 
 ned, by the church, in Aerius. The fa- 
 mous Sir Francis Knolls, being furprifed at 
 fuch do&rine, to which they were not in 
 that day, fo much ufed as we have been 
 fince, wrote to the learned Dr. Johh Rey- 
 nolds, who was univerfally reckoned the 
 wonder of his age, to defire his fenfe about 
 
 H the 
 
 * Chap. 14. J Page 87, 88, 
 
66 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 the matter. The Doctor wrote him word 
 in anfwer, that even Bellarmine the Jefuti 
 owned the weaknefs of the anfwer of Epi- 
 phanius to the argument of Aerius ; that 
 Auftin efteemed theaffertion of Aerius he- 
 retical, meerly becaufe he found it fo re? 
 prefented by Epiphanius ; and that Auftin 
 himfelf owned, that there was no difference 
 between abifhop and a presbyter by divine 
 right. He cites alfo bifhop Jewel, who ? 
 when Harding had alTerted the fame thing 
 as Dr. Bancroft, alledged againft him Chry- 
 foftom, Auftin, Jerom, and Ambrofe. He 
 mentions, from Medina, feveral other ai> 
 cient fathers ; and further adds himfelf, 
 Oecumenius, Anfelm arch-bifhop of Can- 
 terbury, another Anfelm, Gregory, and 
 Gratian. " And bifhop StiHingfleet, who 
 -appears to have been as well read in the 
 fathers as any man in his day, or ilnce, free- 
 ly fays, * " I believe, upon the ftrifteft 
 enquiry, Medina's judgment will prove 
 true, that Jerom, Auftin, Ambrofe, Sedu-; 
 Jius, Primafius, Chryfoftom, Theodoret, 
 Thcophylaft, were all of Aerius' s judgment, 
 as to the identity of both name and order 
 pf bifhops and presbyters in the primitive 
 church. " And again, a little onwards, f> 
 " I do as yet defpair of finding anyone 
 fmgle teftimony in all antiquity, which 
 doth in plain terms aflert epifcopacy, as it 
 
 was 
 
 * Iren. pa£e 276. \ Page 31. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 67 
 
 was fettled by the practice of the primitive 
 church, in the ages following the apoftles* 
 to be of unalterable divine right. " If any 
 regard is to be paid to the judgment of 
 thefe celebrated writers, who had made it 
 their bufinefs to ttudy the fathers, one 
 would think there was reafon, at leaft, to 
 fufpecl, whether the evidence in favor of 
 epifcopacy,as an apoftolical inftitution, is fo 
 univerfal and conftant as has been affirmed. 
 
 But, leaving thefe later centuries, let 
 us go back to the two firft. And we may, 
 with the more pertinency, do this, as the 
 famous bifhop, whofe plea we are conllder- 
 ing, has faid, J " We do not argue meerly 
 " from the teftimony of fo late writers as 
 " thefe (meaning Jerom and Auftin ) that 
 epifcopacy is of apoftolical inftitution. 
 We grant k doth not follow, St. Jerom 
 thought fo, therefore it is fo. But wri- 
 " ters of all ages in the church witnefs, that 
 ** this was the government in their days ; 
 6t that it was inftituted by the apoftles,and 
 " delivered down as fuch. All that we 
 " produce St. Jerom for in this cafe, is that 
 " it was in his time, and that he believed 
 " it to be apoftolical, and received it as 
 fuch: But without the teftimony cf the 
 ages before him, Ifhould not efteem thisa 
 " fuflicient argument that it was really fo." 
 
 H z And 
 
 t p *£ c 349- 
 
 c< 
 u 
 
 
68 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 An d do the fathers, in the two firft ages, 
 witnefs what they are thus peremptorily 
 faid ' to do ? I was at the pains, in my 
 younger years, to read thefe fathers, par- 
 ticularly with a view to this controverfy, 
 and am obliged to fay, upon my own 
 knowledge of the matter, that the above 
 reprefentation is really a miftake, and a very 
 great one too ; which I candidly attribute 
 to inattention, or fome undifcerned preju^ 
 dice of mind. Would the time permit, I 
 could give you the whole of what is faid, 
 relative to the plea before us, by Barnabas, 
 Hermas, Poly carp, Clement of Rome, Juftin 
 Martyr, Irenasus, and Clement of Alexan- 
 dria, all writers in the two firft centuries, 
 and fatisfy you from the very words of 
 thefe fathers themfelves, that they give no 
 fuch evidence as is here pretended. But ic 
 mull: fuifice to fay at prefent, 
 
 That, Ignatius only excepted, the fa- 
 thers, within the two firft centuries, united- 
 ly concur in fpeaking of bifhops and pref- 
 byters much in the fame language with the 
 facred fcripturcs. They never once fay, 
 either in fo many words, or in words from 
 whence it can fairly be collected, that bi- 
 fhops were an order in the church fuperior 
 to that of presbyters ; they never once fay, 
 ;hat ordination was the work of bifhops in 
 
 diilinctioa 
 
Scriptural and valid. 69 
 
 diftin&ion from presbyters ; they never 
 once fay, that epifcopacy was the govern- 
 ment m the church, or that it was inftitu- 
 ted either by Chrift himfelf, or any of his 
 apoftles ; nor do they ever fay, that it was 
 fa handed down to them from the begin* 
 ing. Far from this, unlefs it ftrangely ilipt 
 my obfervation, which I do not in the 
 leaft fufpect it did, Clement of Alexandria, 
 who flourifhed towards the clofe of the fe- 
 cond century, is the firft father ( Ignatius 
 excepted ) who ufed that mode of fpeech, 
 " bifhops, presbyters and deacons. ' And 
 the terms feem not even then to have loft 
 their promifcuous ufe ; for this fame Cle- 
 ment, fpeaking of one under the name of a 
 bifhop, calls him, in the fame fentence, 
 the presbyter.* Irenseus, 'tis true, a few 
 years before, once ufes that form of expref- 
 fion, ff bifhops and presbyters. * His 
 words are,f " Paul called together toMile- 
 tus the bifhops and presbyters of Ephefus. " 
 But, as the learned Mr. Jamefon very jultly 
 cbferves, J " for his feeming here to diftin- 
 guifh bifhops from presbyters, this fcripture 
 where they got both names, and which I- 
 renaeus then had in view, and Lis frequent 
 promifcuous ufing ofthefe names, perfuadc 
 me that he only refpectcd the 19th and 28th 
 
 verfes, 
 
 # Blondelli Apol. Seel. \i. page 36. 
 
 f Lib. III. cap. xiv. 
 
 X " Nazian. querela, " fevt. vi. page 157. 
 
70 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 verfes, and fo took bifhop and presbyter 
 (ynonimically ( as the apoftlePaul did ) for 
 one and the fame. 
 
 I made the remark, while upon the ar- 
 gument from fcripture, that no inftance 
 was to be met with there of an ordination; 
 by any perfon under the name of a bifhop. 
 I now add, neither have I been able to find 
 an inftance of ordination under the like 
 name, and meaning by it a bifhop as diftin- 
 guifhed from a prelbyter, in any writer till 
 we come to the times when it is owned, a 
 diftin&ion obtained between thefe officers 
 of the church. Epifcoparians have fome- 
 times, with an air of triumph, called for an 
 inftance of prefbyterian ordination for fome 
 hundreds of years after Chrift. If they will 
 be pleafed to favor us with only one exam- 
 ple of epifcopai ordination, in their fenfe 
 of it, within the time above-defcribed; 
 Which is a very confiderable fpace ; longer,* 
 counting from Chrift, than from the firft 
 fettlement of this country to the prefent 
 day, we will take it into coniideration, and 
 give fo notable a difcovery all the weight 
 it deferves. In the mean time, we hope to 
 be excufed, if we do not believe it to be a 
 faft, either univerfally, or unanimoufly, or 
 conftantly handed down from the days of 
 the apoftles, that fingle perfons, meaning 
 
 hereby 
 
Scriptural and valid, 71 
 
 hereby bifhops as diftinguifhed from pref- 
 byters, exercifed the ordaining power with- 
 in fuch and fuch diftri&s, or that they 
 were ever veiled with a right, by apoftoli- 
 cal inftitution, fo to do. We rather think, 
 there is no juft reafon to affirm this to be 
 fa&,upon the teftimony of any one genuine 
 writer whatever, within the limits we are 
 now fpeaking of. 
 
 The plain truth is, no more can be col- 
 lected from the writings of the fathers, till 
 toward the clofe of the fecond century, oc 
 the coming in of the third, in favor of epif- 
 copacy, than from thefcriptnres themfelves. 
 And were it proper to fettle the controver- 
 fy by an appeal to the general fuffrage of 
 thefe writers, I fhould willingly put it onj 
 that iflue ; as being fully perfuaded, that 
 the advantage would lie on our fide of the 
 queftion, as much as if it was to be deter- 
 mined by the fcriptures only. 
 
 It is readily owned, the epiftles afcribed 
 to Ignatius, a truly primitive father, do as 
 certainly, as ftrongly, and as conftantly 
 diftinguifh bifhops from presbyters, as any 
 of the writings of the third or fourth cen- 
 turies. But this we efteem of little weight 
 in the prefent caufe, as there is fo much 
 reafon to think, that thefe epiftles are not 
 
 his 
 
?a Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 bis genuine works. If he wrote thefe epif- 
 ties (whicn,by the way, is far from being a 
 point beyond difpute ) it is not in the leaft 
 probable, that they came out of his hands 
 as they now appear. The Ufferian and 
 Voflian copies, the only ones their great ad- 
 vocate, bifhop Pearfon, pretends, in his 
 "■ Vindicias Ignatianse, " to defend, carry in 
 them too many, and too notorious, evi- 
 dences of interpolation to induce a belief, 
 in any unprejudiced mind, that it is always 
 the true primitive Ignatius that is the wri- 
 ter. For my own part, I efteem it an eafy 
 thing to reduce it to an high degree of mo- 
 ral certainty, that thefe epiftles, even in 
 their pureft editions, contain fuch unquef- 
 tionable marks of a later date than the 
 times of Ignatius, that they ought never to 
 be mentioned in this, or any other contro- 
 verfy, unlefs to prove that religious cheat 
 and knavery were in practice fo far back 
 as the days of the fathers. Inftead of going 
 into the proof of what I have now faid, 
 which would put me upon trying your pa- 
 tience beyond all reafonable bounds, I fhall 
 refer you to the two celebrated French mi- 
 nifters, Daille and L'arrogue, on our fide of 
 the queftion, and the celebrated bifhops, 
 Beveredge and Pearfon on the other ; in 
 whofe writings you will find antiquity ran- 
 fack'd, and eyery thing faid upon the mat- 
 ter 
 
Scriptural and valid. 73 
 
 ter,that learning or good fenfe can fuggeft. 
 Read them carefully (they are to be found 
 in the College-library) and judge for your* 
 felves. 
 
 I trust, I may now fay, it has been 
 made fufficiently clear, from the pofuive 
 evidence that has been exhibited in the for- 
 mer part of this difcourfe, and from its not 
 being invalidated, but rather ftrcngthened, 
 by the counter-evidence we have examined 
 in the latter part, that the power of ordi- 
 nation was not depofited in the hands of 
 bifhops as diftinguifhed from presbyters ; 
 but that bifhops or prefbyters, meaning by 
 thefe terms one and the fame order of of- 
 ficers, were veiled with power to ordain 
 in the church of Chrift ; and confequently 
 that ordination by a council of prefbyters, 
 as pra&ifed by thefe churches, is valid to 
 all the ends of the gofpel-miniftry. 
 
 The inftitution of a lecture, on putpofe 
 to vindicate the New-England churches in 
 this method of ordination, may, perhaps, 
 be reprefented to their diiadvantage. Oc- 
 cafion may be taken herefrom to infinuate* 
 that the method is novel and peculiar, 
 not praftifed or approbated by the other 
 reformed proteftant churches, any mora 
 than by the church of England. 
 
 I In 
 
74- Ordinationi by Presbyters 
 
 In order to guard againft fuggcftions of" 
 this kind, it it may be proper to let you 
 know, that the proteftant churches abroad, 
 in common with our's, far from owning- 
 the jus divinum of epifcopacy, aflert a pa- 
 rity between bifh'ops and prefbyt.ers, allow- 
 ing the latter, equally with the former, to* 
 perform the work of ordination. 
 
 The churches of this denomination, in 
 Germany, fpeak fully to the point in their 
 book, entitled, " Liber concordis, " prin- 
 ted at Leipfic in the year 1580, and again 
 in 1 61 2, in which are contained " the con- 
 feffion of Augsburg, and the apology for 
 it, the Smalcaldic articles, and Luther's 
 greater and fmaller catechifms. " One of 
 the " Smalcaldic articles " has thefe words, 
 * " 'Tis manifeft from the confeffion of all, 
 our ach* Maries themfelves, that this .power 
 [in the foregoing words, the power men* 
 tioned was that of." preaching, difpenfing 
 th :• iacrament: y 'x^iUtion, and juriidi6Hon , 'J 
 (i is \c6rn i Ifb all that are fet over the 
 c] ircnc y be .called paftors, 
 
 RrespyierjS, or bifnops. Jcrom therefore 
 
 plainly 
 
 ■ 
 
 rtn % mn : um, ettam adverfa- 
 
 • rnunem p fie omnibus 
 
 till ..as i; i*dijs cpiic- porum — 
 
 . .litutos tfl" — Jure divino r.ul- 
 
 ' l et paiiorem. " — Jainefon's 
 
Scriptural and valid. 
 
 75 
 
 plainly affirms, that there is no difference 
 between bifhop and presbyter ; but mat 
 every paftor was a bilhop. — • Here Jeroru 
 teaches, that the diftindion of degrees be- 
 tween a bifnop, and a presbyter or pallor, 
 was only appointed by human authority. 
 And the matter itfelf declares no lefs ; for, 
 on bifhop and presbyter is laid the fame di> 
 ty, and the fame injunction. And only or- 
 dination, in after times, made the 
 difference between bifhop and paftor. — By 
 divine right there is no difference between 
 biihop and paftor. " Mr. Boyle mentions 
 the following words as further contained 
 in this article, J " Since bifhops and pallors 
 are not different degrees by divine right, 
 'tis manifeft, that ordination, perlor- 
 med by a paftor in his own church, is va- 
 lid. " It is remarkable, the articles 
 compofed at Smalcald, of which the fore- 
 going is one, were fubferibed by three elec- 
 tors, the prince Palatine, and the electors 
 of Saxony and Brandenburg ; by forty-five 
 dukes, marqueffes, counts, and barons ; by 
 the confuls and fenators of thirty- five cities ; 
 by Luther, Melancfon, Bucer, Fagius, and 
 many other noted divines. The number 
 of minifters, who figned thefe articles, as 
 it has been computed, was eight thoufand.f 
 
 I 2 The 
 
 X Boyse's clear account of the ancient epifcopacy, pag.282. 
 f Cal amy's "defence of moderate non- conformity, "pag 90. 
 
76 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 The other proteftant churches as plain* 
 ly a (Feit the equality of all pallors, in poinf 
 of divine right ; as appears from their 
 ■• public confeffions of faith, " which are, 
 without all doubt, a truer and more authen* 
 tic ftandard of their doctrine, than the pri- 
 vate fentiments of this or the other particu- 
 lar perfon, however noted or learned. In 
 the " confeffion of the churches of Helve- 
 tia, " it is cxprefsly faid, * one and that 
 equal power and office is given to all 
 rninifters in the church. Certainly from 
 the beginning, bifhops or prefb) ters gover- 
 ned the church with a common care. None 
 fet himfelf above another, or ufurped a 
 larger power or dominion over his fellow- 
 bifliops. — Neverthelefs, for order's fake, one 
 or other of the miniiters called the aifembly 
 together, propoied matters to be confulted 
 on in the meeting, gathered the opinions 
 of the reft, and finally took care, as much 
 as in him lay, to prevent confufion. So 
 St. Peter is faid to have done in the afls of 
 
 the 
 
 * " P at a eft autcm omnibus in ccclefia miniftris una ct 
 :equJis poteflas, five funftio. Certe ab initio, epifcopi vel 
 prelbyteri ecclefiam communi opere pubernaverunt. Nullus 
 alteri le prstutit, aut fibi ampliorcm poteftatem dominium- e 
 in co-epifeppos ufutpavit. — lnterea propter ordirem fervan- 
 c'um, unns aut certus aliquis miniftroium ceetum convocavit, 
 tt in ccetu res cor.fultnndas propefuit, fenteritias hem aliorum 
 coliegit, denique re qua oriretur confulio, pro virili cavit. 
 F.xc legitur fecHTc. in a.flis apo(lol< rum, S. Ptnus, qui tiimerj 
 idep n:c aliis fuit prsripofitus, nee poteflate m^jore csticiis 
 uizdilus-r-'*. •• Synt -^ma conftfiicsum," page 40. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 
 
 77 
 
 the apoftles, who notwithftanding was 
 
 NOT SET OVER THE REST, NOR VES- 
 TED WITH G R E A TE R power." This 
 confeflion is the more worthy of notice, as 
 it contains virtually the fenfe of moft of 
 the proteftant churches, befides thofe we 
 have already mentioned ; for it was fub- 
 fcribed, not only by the church of Helve*- 
 tia, but by the churches of Scotland, Po- 
 land, Hungary, Geneva, Neocome, Myll- 
 hufium, &c. as is exprefsly declared in 
 the preface that introduces it. 
 
 Consonant hereto is the confeflion of 
 the French church, prefented to Charles 
 the ninth. Their thirtieth article runs thus, 
 " We believe, that all true paftors, where- 
 cver they are placed, are endued with e- 
 qual power under that only head, the 
 chief and fole univerfal bifhop : And there- 
 fore no chqrqh ought to claim an empire 
 or domination over any other church. " * 
 
 The Belq;ic confeflion is much the fame. 
 Their thirty- firft article fays, — • " As con- 
 cerning the minifters of the word of God, 
 
 in 
 
 * " Credimus omnes veros paftores, ubicunque 
 locorum collocati fuerint, cadem ct crqnali inter fe poteftate 
 efTe praeditos fub unico illo capite, fummoquc ct folo univerfi 
 epifcopo Jefu Chrifto ; Ac proinde nulli eccleHae liccre fibi in 
 ajjum imperium aut dominationem vendicare. " 
 
 Syntag. confef. p«g. 84. 
 
78 Ordination by Presbyters 
 in whatever place they are, they have all 
 
 the SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY, as 
 
 being all the minifters of Chrift, that only 
 uni.erfal bifhop and head of the church. "f 
 
 To thefe may be added the Waldenfes 
 and Albigenfes, ot whom Alphonfus de 
 Caftro relates, " that they denied any dif- 
 ference between bifhop and prefbyter, and 
 herein differed nothing from Aerius \ " 
 which alfo may be learnt from Thuan, who 
 compares them with " the Englifh nor> 
 conformifts. M TheWaldenfes were in this, 
 as in the reft of their articles, followed by 
 J. Hufs, and his adherents, who alio affer- 
 ted, " there ought to be no difference be- 
 tween bifhops and prefbyters, or among 
 priefts. " Yea, fo universal hath this doc- 
 trine,of the identity of bifhop and prefbyter, 
 been, that it hath, all along, by the Ro- 
 ' manifts, been reckoned a prime doftrine of 
 Rome's oppofers. J 
 
 'Tis readily acknowledged, in mod of 
 the proteftant churches there are ecclefiafti- 
 cal officers, who bear the ftyle of bifhops, 
 fuper-intendants, infpeftors, or feniors ; as 
 
 may 
 
 f" Quantum vero attinct divini verbi miniftros.ubicunque 
 locorum fiot, eandem illi poteftatem ct authoritatem habent, 
 ut qui omnes fint Chrifti, unici illius cpifcopi univerfalis, uni- 
 cique capitis ecclefiae" — . Syntag. confef. pag. 142. 
 
 X Jamcfon's Nazian. querela, pag. 96. 
 
Scriptural and valid. jg 
 
 may be feen in Stiilingfleet's " Irenicum, " 
 where thefe churches are all mentioned by 
 name i But, as that learned author obferves, 
 "all thefe reformed churches acknowledge 
 no fuch thing as a divine right of epifco- 
 pacy, but ftifly maintain Jerom's opinion 
 of the primitive equality of gofpel-mini- 
 fters " *. Nor could they confiftently dp 
 any other ; for they haye, at bottom, no o- 
 ther than prefbyterian ordination among 
 them. " Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Melandlon, 
 Bugenhagius, " &c. and all the firft refor- 
 mers and founders of thefe churches, who 
 ordained minifters among them, were them- 
 felves presbyters, and no other. And tho', 
 in fome of thefe churches, there are mini- 
 fters which are called fuper-intendants, or 
 bifhops; yet thefe are only " primi inter 
 pares," the firft among equals ; not preten- 
 ding to any fuperiority of orde,r. Having 
 themfelvesno other orders than what either 
 presbyters gave them, as were given them 
 as presbyters, they can convey no other to 
 thofe they ordain, f 
 
 Our 
 
 * Iren. p^ge 411. 
 f " The difFenung gentleman's anfwer toWhite,"page 45-. 
 At the bottom of this page, 'tis added, " The Danifh 
 church is, at this time, governed by bifhops. But they look 
 upon epifcopacy as only an human ii (btution ; and the flift 
 pro f e(tant prelates in that kingdom were ordained by Rurgen- 
 hagius, [he ordained no lefs than P ven of the m . t one tinje 3 
 a meer prefby-.-r ; "/ho, by conftqu- cc, 01 ii <orv y no 
 ocher than a pi efbyecnan ordination to thcu luc^efTois ever 
 fmce. " 
 
80 ORDINATION BY pRESBYfERS 
 
 Our adverfaries indeed do themfelve^ 
 "when they fpeak out their mind, freely 
 tell us, that " all the tranf-marine reformed 
 churches are really presbyterian. " Dr. 
 Heylin, upon this account, thro' a large 
 folio, befpatters, with the blackeft of rail- 
 ings and calumnies, every one of the refor- 
 med churches in particular. Howel alfo 
 makes Calvin " the firft broacher of the 
 presbyterian religion." And fays, " Geneva 
 lake fwallowed up the epifcopal fee ; and 
 church lands w r ere made fecular, which was 
 the white they levelled at. This Geneva 
 bird flew thence toFrance, and hatched the 
 Huguenots, which make about a tenth part 
 of that people. It took wing alfo to Bohe- 
 mia and Germany, high and low, as the 
 Palatinate,the land of Hefle, and the confe- 
 derate provinces of the States of Holland. "f 
 
 If, to the proteftant churches that have 
 been mentioned, we add the congregational 
 diflenting brethren in England, who, at 
 the revolution, are fuppofed to have made 
 nearly two thoufand churches ; the large 
 body of presbyterian diflenters in the north 
 of Ireland ; as alfo the difTenters of other 
 denominations in Britain, the united pro- 
 vinces, and other parts of Europe, who are 
 all of one mind as to the right of presbyters 
 to ordain : — ■ I fay, if we add all thefe to- 
 gether, 
 
 \ Jamefoa's Nazian. querela, pag. 95. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 8i 
 
 gether, they will make a number vaftly 
 greater than that which conftitutes the e- 
 ptfcopal church of England, fhould we take 
 into the computation every member of this 
 church. But fhould we leave out of the 
 reckoning thofe, who live in love and har- 
 mony with diffenters, efteeming their ordi- 
 nations valid, tho' not according to the 
 eftablifhed form, and bring fuch only into 
 the account, who are fo ftrenuous for the 
 jus divinum of epifcopacy as to nullify all 
 ordinations, unlets by a bifhop, in their 
 fenfe of the word, they will fink into a 
 number too inconfiderable to be mentioned 
 in companion with the many, who differ 
 from them, in their fentiments. Not that we 
 rely upon numbers. The fcriptures only 
 can determine, what is truth in the prefent 
 debate. But flill, it is a fatisfaclion to us, 
 that our ordinations are fuch as agree with 
 the declared fentiments of almoft the whole 
 proteftant world. And our fatisfaclion is 
 the greater, as we have fo much reafon to 
 believe, that they agree with the principles 
 even of the church of England itfelf, at the 
 beginning of the reformation, and for fome 
 time afterwards. 
 
 The generality of it's pious and learned 
 divine^ in thofe days, whether of higher 
 or lower dignity, were far from infilling 
 
 K on 
 
82 OltDI NATION BY PRESBYTERS 
 
 on the divine right! of epifcopacy ; as 
 may be feen in quotations, from their 
 writings to this purpofe, by the celebrated 
 Stillingfleet. * And it is worthy of 
 of fpecial notice here, in Henry the eighth's 
 time, when things were tending to a refor- 
 mation, the arcl>bifhops, bifliops, arch- 
 deacons, and clergy of England, in their 
 book intitled, " the inftru&ion of a chri- 
 ftian man, " fubferibed with all their hands 
 and dedicated to the king an. 1537 ; and 
 king Henry himfelf, in his book ffiled, " a 
 ncceffary erudition for anyebriftian man," 
 approved by both houfes of parliament, 
 prefaced with his own epiftle, and publifhed 
 by his command, exprefsly refolve, " that 
 priefts and bifhops by God's law are one 
 and the fame, and that the power of ordi- 
 nation and excommunication belongs e- 
 qually to them both." f Herewith, it may 
 be further noted, agrees the manufcripf 
 mentioned by bifhop Stillingfleet, in which 
 archbifhop Cranmer, one of the afleflabiy, 
 called together by the fpecial command 
 of king Edward fixth, in anfwer to his 
 queftions, has thefe words, + " bifliops 
 and prieits were at one time, and were not 
 two things, but one office in the beginning 
 ofLChrift's religion.'' The bifhop of Afaph, 
 Therleby, Redman, and Cox were all of 
 
 and 
 
 * Irenicum, pag. 394, and onwards'. 
 f Calamy's " defence of moderate no^-conformity/'p^o, 91. 
 
 X Irenicum, pige 392. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 83 
 
 the fame opinion with the arch-biftiop ; 
 and the two latter exprefsly cite the opinion 
 of Jerom with approbation. Upon which 
 the learned writer, to whom we are in- 
 debted, for this account obferves, * " Thus 
 we fee by the teftimony chiefly of him, 
 who was inftrumental in our reformation, 
 that he owned not epifcopacy, as a diftinft 
 order from prefbytery, of divine right, but 
 only a prudential conftitution of the civil 
 magistrate for the better governing in the 
 church. " This fame arch-bifhopCranmer 
 was " the firft of fix and forty, who, in 
 the time of king Henry the eighth, affir- 
 med (in a book called " the bifhop's book " 
 to be ieen in " Fox's martyrology " ) that 
 K the difference of biihops and presbyters 
 was a device of the ancient fathers, and 
 not mentioned in the fcripture* " J 
 
 It is indeed beyond difpute, that the e- 
 pifcopal form of government was fettled, at 
 the reformation, upon a very different foot 
 from that of a jus divinum. How elfe can 
 it be accounted for, that not only in king 
 Henry the eighth's reign, but likewiie in 
 king Edward the fixth's, the biihops took 
 out commiffions from the crown, by which 
 they were to hold their bifhopricks only 
 during the king's pleafure, and were im- 
 
 K 2 powered 
 
 * Stillingfleetj in his Jrenicpm, page 393. 
 
 £ J, Owen's " plea for fcripture-ordination, " pa^e i|^. 
 
84 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 powered in the king's name, as his dela* 
 gates, to perform all the parts of the epis- 
 copal function ? Archbifhop Cranmer, that 
 excellent and holy martyr, let an example 
 to the reft in taking out one of them. * 
 This method of afting is certainly better 
 adjufted to a conftitution, founded on poli- 
 cy, than divine right. Nay, as far from 
 the beginning of the reformation as the 
 days of queen Elifabeth, in the articles of 
 religion agreed upon, the Englifh form of 
 church-government was only determined 
 " to be agreeable to God's word ; " which 
 f had been a very low and diminishing ex- 
 preffion, had they looked on it as abfolute- 
 ly prefcribed in fcripture,as the only necef? 
 fary form to be obferved in the church, 
 
 Th e truth is, fays Mr. Owen, this notion 
 of the jus divinum of epifcopacy, as a fu- 
 perior order, wag, fnrft promoted in the 
 church of England by arch-bifhop Laud. 
 Dr. Holland, the king's profeffor of divinity 
 in Oxon, was much offended with him, 
 for aflerting it in a difputation for his de- 
 grees. He checked him publicly, and told 
 him, " he went about to make a divifion 
 between the Englifh; and the other refor- 
 med churches. " J 
 
 ANn 
 
 * Burnet's abridg. of the hill, of the reform. Vol. II. p. 7. 
 \ Irenicum, page 393, 394. 
 % " Pica fvt fcripture-ordiBatioD, " page 115. 
 
Scriptural and valid. 85 
 
 And it was in this archbifhop's time, 
 that the point of re-ordination began to be 
 urged. Through his influence, as Mr. Prin 
 tells us, * bifhopHall re-ordained Mr. John 
 Dury, a minifter of the reformed church. 
 But the old church of England did not re- 
 quire or pra£tife re-ordination. In king 
 Edward the fixth's time, PeterMartyr, Mar- 
 tin Bucer, and P. Fagius had ecclefiaftical 
 preferments in the church of England with- 
 out re-ordination. f Mr. WilliamWhiting- 
 ham was made dean of Durham, about 
 1563 ; tho' ordained by prefbyters only. J 
 In like manner, Mr. Travers, ordained by 
 a prefbyter beyond fea, was feven years 
 lecturer at the temple, and had the bifhop 
 of London's letter for it. § And even ia 
 the reign of king James the firft, the vali- 
 dity of ordination by prefbyters was not fet 
 afide ; as appears from the cafe of the three 
 prefbyters that were confecrated bifhops for 
 Scotland at London. Before their confe- 
 cration, Dr.Andrews, bifhop of Ely, moved 
 the queftion, " whether they fhould not 
 be firll epifcopally ordained prefbyters, 
 that they might be capable of being ad- 
 mitted into the order of bifhops ? " Upon 
 which arch-bifhop Bancroft ( a moll rigid 
 affertor of epifcopacy ) anfwered, " there 
 
 was 
 
 * " Plea for fcripture-ordination, " page 117. 
 
 f Ibid page 118. J Ibid page 121. § Ibid page f22. 
 
§6 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 was no need of it, fince ordination by pref- 
 byters was valid ' The bifhop of Ely 
 yeilded ; and without repeating their or- 
 dination as prefbyters, they were confecra- 
 ted bifliops. * 
 
 How far this practice, in the epifcopal 
 church, at home, inthofedays, would be 
 countenanced at prefent, I don't pretend to 
 determine ; but thus much has been faid 
 by your highly efteemed divinity-profeflbr, 
 upon a proper occafion ; whofe words are 
 well worth tranfcribing here, ** I cannot 
 learn, whether there has been even in 
 England, to this very day, properly any 
 public and exprefs aflertion of the " di- 
 vine right " of prelacy, either by parlia- 
 ment, or convocation. I think no fuch 
 thing can be found in the thirty-nine ar- 
 ticles, or in the homilies, or in the form 
 of ordination, or in the common prayer- 
 book, &c. Unlefs it may be thought con- 
 tained in the preface to the book of ordi- 
 nation, where there is a hint that feems 
 to carry fuch an afpeft ; but, I believe, 
 will appear too flender a foundation to 
 build upon, in the prefent cafe ; efpecial- 
 ly if we remember who were the chief 
 compilers of that book ; and what rea- 
 fon we have to conclude, they were of 
 the judgment, that" priefts and bifliops 
 
 " are, 
 
 * Pierce's vindication, part I. page 167. 
 
u 
 
 Scriptural and valid, 87 
 
 are, by God's law, one and the fame " ; 
 and that the epifcopal dignity is rather 
 by cuftoin, than by divine institution." * 
 
 What has been offered will, I believe, 
 be tho't fufficent to make it evident, that 
 ordination by presbyters is no new thing 
 under the fun, a Angularity peculiar to the 
 New-England churches; flnce we have 
 feen it approved by fo many of the prote- 
 ctant reformed churches* and by the church 
 of England itfelf, at leaft in its firft protec- 
 tant and reformed ftate,and for a confidera- 
 ble time afterwards. And had there been 
 an eitablifhment, in thofe days, putting the 
 power of ordination into the hands of prel- 
 byters, it would have been, according to 
 the then general opinion, as agreeable to 
 fcripture,as that which put it into the hands 
 of bifhops. Poffibly, the latter would not 
 have been the eftablifhment, had it not 
 been for ecclefiaftical dignities and reve- 
 nues; which enter not into the jusdivinum 
 of the thing. 
 
 I sh a ll now put an end to the trial of 
 your patience, by fpeaking a few words to 
 the young gentlemen of the college, who 
 are under tuition in order to their being 
 formed for ufefulnefs, when they go out 
 into the world. 
 
 We 
 
 * " Sober remarks, " psgc n. 
 
88 Ordination by Presbyters 
 
 We have fuch a queftion as that in the 
 prophefies of the prophet Jeremiah, " Hath 
 a nation changed their gods, which yet are 
 no gods ? " And it beautifully reprefents 
 the flrength of a people's attachment to 
 the religious fentiments and practices of 
 their fore-fathers, the difficulty with which 
 they are wrought upon to depart from 
 them. Even the nations, who have been 
 taught by their anceftors, to worfhip idol- 
 gods, which, in reality, are no gods, will 
 not eafily change the objeft of their devoti- 
 on. 'Tis not, it is owned, a fufficient plea 
 in favor of any religious principles, or 
 mode of worfhip, that they are fuch as 
 were handed down to us from our fathers. 
 They may, notwithstanding, be fuperltiti- 
 ous, abfurd, and finful. And fhould this 
 be the cafe, filial reverence towards the fa- 
 ther of our fpirits fhould take place of the 
 reverence due to the fathers of our fiefh. 
 But fhould they, on the other hand, be 
 confonant to the dictates of uncorrupted 
 reafon, and the truth of revelation, 'twould 
 be ftrange, if pofterity fhould defert them ; 
 efpecially, if, inftead of adhereing to them, 
 they fhould go back to thofe their progeni- 
 tors had renounced, and were really right 
 in having fo done. This, if I millake not, 
 is a thought well worthy of the attention of 
 our fons, who are fcnt to this collegiate- 
 
 fchool, 
 
Scriptural and valid, 89 
 
 fchool to be fitted for public fervice. We 
 don't advife you to hold fa ft the religion of 
 your country, meerly becaufe it is the 
 religion of your, fathers. This would be to 
 act below your dignity as intelligent and 
 moral agents. But ftill it deferves, on this 
 account, your ferious examination. And 
 we would exhort you to the greateft care 
 and diligence in ftudying the reafons upon 
 which the religion you have been educated 
 in is grounded ; and, in this way, we doubt 
 not but you will, and upon the foot ofjuft 
 and folid conviction, be fir-mly attached to 
 it. We would particularly recommend it 
 to you thoroughly to enquire into the rea- 
 fons of that " mode of worfhip, " and 
 " form of church order, " which your pro- 
 genitors left every thing that was dear to 
 them, in their native land, that they might 
 enjoy themfelves in this place of retreat, 
 and tranfmit to their pofterity : Efpecially 
 would we recommend this to thofe among 
 you, who are defigned for the miniftry ; 
 and the more exact and critical you are in 
 your enquiries upon this head, the lefs will 
 be our concern as to the event ; being ful- 
 ly fatisfied, you will find abundant reafon, 
 with all freedom, to join in communion 
 with the New-England churches, and to 
 fettle in them as paftors, in the method of 
 inveftiture common among us, mould you 
 be called thereto in the providence of God. 
 
 L We 
 
90 Ordination by Preobyters 
 
 We ad vile you all, our beloved fons, to 
 make the wifeit and bell: ufe of the rich 
 advantages you are here favoured with, to 
 lay the foundation for fuch acquirements 
 in learning as will make you eminent 
 bleflings to the world, in the various fta- 
 tions of life, when you go from hence. 
 'Tis pity any of you fhould mifimprove the 
 valuable price that is put into your hands ; 
 a thoufand pities you fhould idle away 
 your time, much more that you fhould 
 mifpend it in needlefs diverfion, in vain 
 company, or, what is vaftly worfe, in the 
 purfuit of thofe follies, by which young 
 men are too apt to be drawn alide and en- 
 ticed. 
 
 Above all, we advife and befeech you 
 to cultivate in your minds a ferious fenie of 
 the things pertaining to the kingdom of God 
 and Chritt. Reft not fatisfied with any at- 
 tainments, till you have fecured thejuftifi- 
 cation of life, the falsification of the fpi- 
 rit, and the adoption of children. You 
 may then live joyfully, and you will die 
 fafely. The great God will be the guide 
 of your youth, your guide thro' the world, 
 your guide thro' death, and your portion 
 forever. Amen. 
 
 Appendix. 
 
(9* ) 
 
 Appendix, 
 
 Giving a brief hiftorical account of the 
 epiftles afcribed to Ignatius ; and 
 exhibiting fome of the many reafons, 
 why they ought not to be depended on 
 as his uncorrupted works. 
 
 IF we form our judgment of Ignatius from the 
 accounts that are given of him by fome mo- 
 dern authors, we mud conceive of him as 
 first among the oriental worthies, not only in 
 ecclefiaftical dignity, but in piety, learning, and 
 every other endowment, whether natural or fpiri- 
 tual. And, poffibly, fuch fentiments concerning 
 him may be juft: ; tho' there is no way in which, 
 at prefent, we can know them to be fo. The fa- 
 thers, who lived in the two or three flrfl: centuries, 
 fay but little about him. They don't fo much as 
 tell us, where he was born, how educated, when 
 brought over to the chriftian faith, or by the inftru- 
 mentality of what perfons or means. They have 
 indeed left nothing upon record, fave the manner 
 of his going out of the world, from whence his 
 character, as diftinguimed from that of others of 
 the fame age, can be particularly drawn. 
 
 L 2 He 
 
92 Appendix. 
 
 He is fpoken of, In after-time?, as bifhcp of 
 Antioch. * But it would lead us into wrong tho'ts 
 of this ftile, fhould we take our idea of it from that 
 fuperiority to which bifhops were then exalted. 
 *Tis probable, the fathers, who call him bifhop, 
 efteemed him fuch in the fenfe the word was under - 
 flood in their day ; but as the fenfe of this word 
 was diflerent then from what it was in the age in 
 which Ignatius flourifhed, they might take more 
 into it's meaning, than it at firft intended. Prime- 
 paftor, head-prefbyter, is the moil that was meant 
 by his being bifhop of Antioch, at the time when 
 he fuftained this relation to that church. 
 
 If there is no room to queftion his dying a mar- 
 tyr, the manner and circumflances of the facr, as 
 they are related in " the acts of his martyrdom, " 
 may reafonably be difputed. The (lory of Trajan's 
 fending him to Rome, after his condemnation at 
 Antioch, that he " might be thrown to wild beafts, '* 
 does not feem, however defended with his epiftlts, 
 to be any of the mod probable. u For wherefore 
 fhould Ignatius of all others be brought to Rome 
 to fuffer, when the " Proconfuls," and the" Prse- 
 fides provinciarum, " did every where, in time of 
 perfecution, execute their power in punifhing chri- 
 ftians at their own tribunals, without fending them 
 
 fo 
 
 * Origenj a writer in the third century, is the firft that 
 mentions him under this charter. He is herein followed 
 by the fucceeding fathers: Tho- they dirkr in the pkce they 
 pjve him in the line of fucceflion ; fonie putting Euodius be- 
 fore him, and others Ignatius next to the apoflle Fetcr, or 
 Paul, or both. This makes a difficulty not unlike to that of 
 Cement's fucceflion in the fee of Rome. The epifccparisns 
 takediifercnt methods to folve it ; which it is not my bufinefs, 
 ut prefent, to examine. 
 
Appendix. 93 
 
 fo long a journey to Rome, to be martyr* d there. 
 Aid how came Ignatius to make fo many, and fuch 
 ttrange, excurfions as he did, by the ftory, if the • 
 foldiers that were his guard were fo cruel to him, as 
 he complains they were." * 
 
 • 
 
 But however it might be as to circumftances, 
 the thing itfelf, his dying for the fake of Chrift, is 
 not denied •, tho' the year ©f his martyrdom can- 
 not be certainly nVd. Bafnage ranks it among the 
 obfcurities of chronology .+ Bifhop Pearfon, bifhop 
 Loyd, Pagi, LeClerc and Fabricius place it A. D. 
 115 or 116. But Du Pin, Tillemont, and Dr. 
 Ca^e, in the ioth of Trajan, 107. Perhaps, this 
 lad period is by far the more probable. 
 
 As to the epiftles that have been afcribed to this 
 primitive father, and given rife to fo much difpute 
 in the proteftant world, the mod perfect account of 
 them, I have been able to collect, is briefly this. 
 
 The firft edition of them came out in the year 
 1494 or 5 •, containing only three latin epiftles, one 
 to " the VirginMary, " the other two to " St. John." 
 A. D. 1497 or 8» Faber Stapulenfis publifhed ele- 
 ven more latin epiftles, which were feveral times 
 reprinted at Stratfburg, and once at Bafil. Cham- 
 perius afterwards impreffed the above three and 
 eleven epiftles, with the addition of another " ad 
 Mariam Caftabolitam. " This was done at Cologn 
 in 1536, and made in all fifteen epiftles. They 
 wer^ as yet extant only in latin, and thus they re- 
 mained, in ftill repeated impreffions, till 1557, 
 when Pacasus printed them in greek, with the latin 
 tranflation of Perionius. The following yearGefner 
 
 publifhed 
 
 * " Iren." pag. 298. f Anna!. 107. 5 vi. 
 
94 Appendix, 
 
 publifhed them in greek likewife, with the verfion 
 of Brunnerus. This Gtfner aflumed the honor of 
 being the firft, who had made thefe epiftles public 
 in greek. But Pacasus is allowed, both by DuPin, 
 and bimop Pearfon, to have been the firft editor 
 of them in this language. [ N. B. Thefe greek 
 editions contain only twelve of the fifteen epiftles. ] 
 In the year 1608, the edition of Meftrsus came 
 forth; and finally that of Vedelius in 1623, with 
 large commentaries. 
 
 This was the {late of the " Ignatian epiftles, " 
 when arch-bifhop Ufher firft law them. Upon 
 reading them, he took notice, that three ancient 
 Englifh divines * had formerly quoted a paiTage 
 from them in the very fame words, in which it had 
 been quoted by Theodoret, which words were not 
 to be found in the prefent editions, either greek or 
 latin ; and from hence he concluded, there muft be 
 fome manufcript copy of thefe epiftles in England. 
 He made diiigent fearch, and at length found two 
 copies, one at Cambridge in the library of Caius 
 college, the other in the private library of bifhop 
 Montague •, containing an ancient verfion different 
 from the vulgar. He compared it with the palTages 
 cited by the fathers, and, finding a good agree- 
 ment between them, tho't fit to put out an edition 
 of " the Ignatian epiftles, " from this verfion ; 
 which was printed in 1644. Not long after this, 
 the learnedVolTius found, in the duke of Tufcany's 
 library at Florence, a greek manufcript, containing 
 fix of thefe epiftles, fuppofed to be the fame that 
 are mentioned by Eufebius and Jerom ; which, 
 
 agreeing 
 
 * Wodeford, Robert Lincolnienfis, and Tiffington. 
 €t Hammond's anfw. to animadver. on his defence," pag.50 
 
Appendix. 
 
 95 
 
 agreeing with arch-bifhop Ufher's copies, he pub- 
 limed at Amfterdam in 1646, with the addition of 
 a feventh, that to " the Romans, " much amended 
 from the latin verfion. This laft epiftle, in 1684, 
 was publifhed at Paris, by Mr. Ruinart, from a 
 
 fuppofed uninterpolated copy. 
 
 1 
 
 From this account of the epiftles that go under 
 the name of Ignatius, 'tis obvious to divide them 
 into three clafles. 
 
 The firft contains thofe three that are extant 
 only in latin, infcribed to " the Virgin Mary, " 
 and " St. John." But they are of fo little impor- 
 tance, that learned men fcarce think it worth while 
 to be at the pains to prove them fpurious. 
 
 The fecond comprehends the epiftles that are 
 printed in greek, but not mentioned by Eufebius, 
 or Jerom. And thefe are five in number. The 
 firft, to " Mary CalTabolita •, " the fecond, to 
 " the inhabitants of Tarfus •, " the third, to " the 
 Antiochians ; " the fourth, to " Hero the deacon 
 of Antioeh •, " the fifth, to " the Phillippians. " 
 Bellarmine, Baronius, PafTevin, and a few others, 
 give credit to thefe epiftles as the real works of Ig- 
 natius ; but they are herein oppofed by almoft the 
 whole body, efpecially, of proteftant writers, who 
 look upon them to be evidently fuppofitkious. 
 
 In the third clafs are comprifed the feven epiftles, 
 which are fuppofed to be mentioned by Eufebius 
 and Jerom *, which are as Tollow. The firft, to 
 •* the Ephtfians •, the fecond, to " the Magnefians ;" 
 the third, to " the Trallians s " the fourth, to 
 
 " the 
 
9 6 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 " the Romans ; " the fifth, to " the Philadelphia 
 ans " ; the fixth, to " theSmyrnseans " -, the feventh, 
 " to Polycarp. " It may be obferved here, arch* 
 bifhop Ufher, and others after him, reject this lad j 
 looking upon the fix former as the only ones com- 
 memorated by Eufebius : Tho' there are thofe, on 
 the contrary, who, perhaps not with lb much rea- 
 fon, conclude he takes notice of the whole feven. 
 
 As for the feven greek epiftles, in this laft clafs, 
 they may be confidered as extant in the editions of 
 them before, or fince, the days of Ufher and Voffius. 
 
 In the former confederation of them, they are 
 fliled " the larger epiftles, " and generally dif- 
 carded as unworthy of fo primitive a father as Ig- 
 natius. Calvin, the Century- writers, Whittaker, 
 Parker, Scultet, Rivet, and others, always de- 
 clared this to be their opinion of them : Tho* the 
 advocates for prelacy, iuch as Whitgift, Bilfon, 
 Dounam, Heylyn, Taylor, and others, profeffed a 
 belief cf them as truly genuine. And as fuch they 
 were, in thofe days, appealed to, in the caufe-of 
 epifcopacy, with as much zeal and frequency as 
 they have been fince. But thefe " larger epiftles " 
 are now, I may fay, univerlally given up as inca- 
 pable of defence. The learned bifhop Pearfon 
 freely owns, that they are corrupted and interpo- 
 lated : And tho' he commends the induftry of 
 Vedelius in what he has done to diftinguifh between 
 what is genuine, and interpolated, in them ; yet he 
 thinks, at the fame time, that he has not fufficiently 
 done it ; and, in a word, does not undertake their 
 defence, in thefe editions of them. 
 
 These 
 
Appendix. 
 
 97 
 
 These epiftles, confidered in the latter view, as 
 publifhed from the " Cantabrigian " and " Flo- 
 rentine copies, are called the " fhorter ones, " 
 and reprefented by the epifcoparians to be the un- 
 corrupted works of Ignatius •, and, as fuch, we are 
 turned to them, upon all occafions, as containing 
 full evidence of the fuperiority of bifhops to pref- 
 byters in order and power. 
 
 Upon which, I can't but put you upon minding 
 the conduct of, at leaft, fome of our opponents. 
 The " larger epiftles " of Ignatius they once ear- 
 neftly contended for againft all that oppofed them, 
 and conftantly repaired to them as the great fupporc 
 of their caufe. But now they are willing to throw 
 them by as ufelefs -, the " fhorter editions " of 
 Ufher and Vofiius being the only ones to be de- 
 pended on. They could not be prevailed with, 
 by any methods of reafoning, to give up Ignatius 
 in the " former editions, " till they had got others, 
 from other copies, to fupply their place. And now 
 they readily fee the force of the arguments, they 
 before efteemed as nothing better than meer cavils. 
 It certainly looks as tho' they imagined their caufe 
 flood in abfolute need of Ignatius, and were will- 
 ing to part with him in " former editions, " only 
 becaufe they have others to fubflitute in their room, 
 that they can better manage : Nor can one well for- 
 bear thinking, if " other editions, " from Mill 
 other manufcripts, fhould come forth, more defen- 
 fible than thefe they now have, they would as 
 readily quit " thefe, " and cry up " them. ". 
 
 But however uncorrupt the ce fhorter Ignatian 
 epiftles u are faid to be, there are iome, and of 
 
 M the 
 
9 8 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 the fir ft rank too for learning, who have openly 
 declared their opinion of them as fpurious ; and a 
 dill greater number look upon them as interpolated, 
 and to a degree that renders them unfit to be re- 
 paired to, in order to know the mind of the true 
 Ignatius. 
 
 The ftrange filence of primitive antiquity con- 
 cerning epiftles under the name of Ignatius is given, 
 by the learned Daille, as a good reafon to fufpect, 
 that he never wrote any. There is no controverfy 
 about the fact itfelf, namely, that none of the wri- 
 ters, whofe works are ftill remaining, mention e- 
 piftles wrote by Ignatius, either a lefs or greater 
 number, till we come into the fourth century, three 
 only excepted. And 'tis really a difputable point, 
 to fay the leaft, whether any of thefe three, all cir- 
 cumftances confidered, are to be looked upon, as 
 proper vouchers in the cafe. * But fhould they be 
 
 allowed 
 
 * Polycarp, Irenssus, and Origen, are the tlnee fathers, 
 who are faid to mention epiftles wrote by Ignatius. The 
 Sentence in Polycarp, which takes notice of thtfe epiftles, is 
 that which concludes his own epiftle. "Tis an independant 
 paragraph, and may be confidered, either as an original part 
 of the epiftle, or an after-addition, without the leaft damage 
 to its connection or ienfe. In this view of it, Daille and 
 L'arroque look upon it as an interpolation ; and for this rea- 
 fon, becaufe it fpeaks of Ignatius as yet alive, and not come 
 to his laft futferings ; while, in the ninth feclion, he is di- 
 rectly mentioned as dead, and gone to the Lord ; which, as 
 they argue, is an inconfiftency, it would be a difhonor to 
 charge upon Polycarp. So far as I am able to judge, neither 
 bifhop Pearfon, nor arch- bifhop Wake have faid that which 
 is fufficient to take off the force of this arguing. As for Ire- 
 P2cus, the manner of his introducing what he gives us from 
 Ignatius is this, " quemadmoduni quidam de noftris dixit, " 
 as one from among us faid ; which is as properly applicable 
 
 to 
 
Appendix. 
 
 99 
 
 allowed to be fo, 'tis notwithftanding an unaccount^ 
 able thing, that, for the full fpace of two hundred 
 years, no more notice fhould be taken of the wri- 
 tings of this primitive father, if-he left any. For 
 let it be confidered, 
 
 M 2 Ignatius 
 
 to a verbal, as written faying : For which reafon I 
 can't but think, notwithftanding all that has been offered in 
 favor of this teftimony, that Mr. Lardner fpcaks the exact 
 truth, when he fays, " 'Tis difputable, whether he cites a 
 paiTage of a writing, or only mentions fome words or ex- 
 pressions of Ignatius, which might be fpoken by him upon 
 the near view of his martyrdom. " The teftimonies from 
 Origen (who, by the way, was a writer in jthe third century) 
 are two. The fvi\ is taken from M the prologue to the com- 
 mentaries on Canticles, " that goes under his name. If he 
 was the real author, (which is tho't que(Honable) we have it 
 only in the verfion of RurBn, who is reprefentcd as taking a 
 fhameful liberty in all his tranflations of Origen, to alter, add 
 or diminifh ; infomuch that there is no knowing what is his, 
 and what is Onsen's. 'Tis,! conclude, for this reafon, that 
 neither arch bimop Ufher nor Dr. Hammond do make ufe of 
 this Origenical testimony in the evidence they exhibit in favor 
 of the <4 Ignauan epiftles. " The other testimony is cited 
 from " his homily on Luke." This alfo is fufpe&ed to be 
 tie vv>rk of fome latin author ; but if Origen really wrote it, 
 'ti> ex mt only in latin : And if it was tranflated by Jerom, 
 a pretended, there is no knowing what is truly Origen's. 
 DuPia fays, the vertions of Jerom are not more exact tluu 
 RurH )'s. And RufHn complains of the liberty Jerom took in 
 h tranflatioQS, as Jerom complains, in like manner, of him. 
 And certainly no great credit ought to be givento translation* 
 which were done with unbounded licence. I may pertinently 
 add here, 'tis a fhrewd circumllance, giving realon to fufpecl 
 thdt Oigen never mentioned the " Ignatian epilUes " in his 
 writings, that he is lilentiy pafled over by Eufebius. For no 
 one was a greater admirer of Origen, nor was any one more 
 particularly verfed in his writings. And as he exprefsly re- 
 fers to the above paflages in Polycarp and Jrenseus, 'tis 
 ftrnnge he fliould take no notice of thofe in Origen, if the* 
 had, in his day, been contained in his writings, 
 
ico Appendix. 
 
 Ignatius was a perfon that lived in the firfl: age 
 ofchriftianity •, was perfonally known to, and ac- 
 quainted with, at leaft, fome of the apoftles, and 
 many of thofe who had been converfant with them 5 
 and he was ( as is generally fuppofed ) fixed, by the 
 apoftle Peter, or Paul, or both, in the paftoral 
 office at Antigen, a noted city in itfelf, and the 
 more fa on account of its being the place, where 
 believers were firft diftinguifhed by the name of 
 chriftians. Thefe are confiderations that open to 
 us fo much of the character of this ancient father, 
 as to leave it pad doubt, that he was not fo obfeure 
 a perfon as to be unknown in thofe days. Befides, 
 he was a glorious martyr for the caufe of Chrift ; 
 and, if he really wrote thefe epiftjes, the circum- 
 flances of his martyrdom were more fignally illuf- 
 trious, than ever attended any other martyrdom 
 before, or fince, that we have any record of. For 
 he was condemned at Antioch to die at Rome ; 
 and, in order to the execution of this fentence, was 
 conveyed by a band of foldiers, as a prifoner of 
 Jefus Chrift, through all the gofpelifed places, that 
 Jay between thefe two greatly diftant cities. Such 
 circumftances could not well fail of fpreading his 
 fame, and occafioning his being univerfally known, 
 and talk'd of, among chriftians, A primitive fa- 
 ther, and hrft-paftor of one of the mod celebrated 
 chriftian churches, to be carried, as it were, thro* 
 the world, in bonds for the namb of Chrift ; — it 
 could not but be taken notice of, by all the chur- 
 ches, as he pafled along : Nor is it conceivable, 
 but that his name upon this account, fhould be had 
 in remembrance. If he had been an obfeure perfon 
 before, thd'c obfervablcs would have " fet him on 
 a hill, '• and put him under an advantage, beyond 
 
 any 
 
Appendix. joi 
 
 any of the fathers of the fame age, of being com- 
 memorated in after-writings. Such are the circum- 
 ftances under which we are to conceive of the fup- 
 pofed author of thefe epiftles. 
 
 And extraordinary ones attend the epiftles them- 
 felves. For they were wrote, if at all wrote by 
 Ignatius, in the capacity of a " prifoner of death/* 
 and while actually on his journey to be "devoured 
 by wild beafts " : Nor were they wrote to a parti- 
 cular friend, upon fume private concern ; nor yet 
 to here and there an obfcure church, but to as noted 
 o/ies as had then been formed -, and this, if we may 
 credit the epifcoparians, upon matters of the greateft 
 importance : Which are considerations that won'c 
 fufTer us to think, that " thefe epiftles y were ei- 
 ther unknown, to the world, or efteemed worthy of 
 no notice. Six epiftles wrote and fent to as many 
 famous churches, by the head-paftor of Antioch, 
 upon the moft momentous affairs, and at fo folemn 
 a time as that of his being about to die for the fake 
 of Chrift, could not but have occafioned great talk 
 in the chriftian world ; nor is there room to doubt, 
 that they would have had a very diftinguifhing value 
 put upon them : Nay, they muft have been efteem- 
 ed the moft celebrated monuments of all uninfpired 
 antiquity, and as fuch have been univerfally known 
 and regarded, efpecially by the learned writers in 
 thofe times. And 'tis really a furprifing thing, that 
 fo little refpect fhould be paid to them for the full 
 fpace of 200 years, after their compofure *, and 
 what makes the matter ftill more ftrange is, that 
 the writings of others of the fame age are particu- 
 larly, named, or quoted. And why fhould the 
 writings of Ignatius, the moft famous of them all, 
 
 be 
 
102 Appendix. 
 
 be treated with fuch unbecoming neglect ? — There 
 is certainly fome reafon,from thefe hints, to fufpecl, 
 whether Ignatius was the real author ofthefe epiftles. 
 
 *Tis urged, if he did not pen them, they were 
 forged before the days of Eufebius, that is, between 
 the beginning of the fecond, and the coming in of 
 the fourth century -, which is reprefented as a thing 
 altogether incredible. 'Tis readily acknowledged, 
 this religious knavery was praclifed, if at ali, within 
 the time fpecified. And I freely own for myfelf 
 ftill further, that I really tho't it an incredible thing, 
 it mould be pracYifed within this period, till, by 
 better acquaintance with antiquity, I was fully con- 
 vinced I had been under a great miftake. Perhaps, 
 the knavifh forgeries, within this term, were as 
 numerous as they have ever been fince, in the fame 
 fpace of time. Scarce one of the apoftles, or fir ft 
 mod eminent fathers, have efcaped being perfona- 
 ted by fome wretched impoftor, in fome piece or 
 other, they have palmed on the world under their 
 name. Nay, our blefled Lord himfelf has been 
 thus bafely ufed. And there is no one tolerably 
 verfed in the ancient writings, but knows this to be 
 true. Hegefippus, ( contemporary with Juftin 
 Martyr, who fiourimed about the year 150 ) dif- 
 courfing of " apocryphal books, " fays, at lead, 
 of fome of them, that they * " were made by the 
 heretics of his time. " Irenaeus obferves, that f- 
 *' the heretics in his day had an innumerable multi- 
 tude of fpuribtts and apocryphal books, which they 
 had forged to delude the more weak and ignorant 
 fort of perfons. M Origen, Jerom, Epiphanius, 
 
 Ambrofe ? 
 
 # Eufeb. lib. IV. cap. xxii. 
 
 f Ad?;rf. Hseref. lib. I. cap. xvii. 
 
Appendix. 1O3 
 
 Ambrofe, and others, tell us of great numbers of 
 thefe books made ufe of by the heretics in their 
 times. Of thefe books, fome are quite loft, not 
 fo much as the names, or the lead part of them, 
 remaining. Of others, there are fome few frag- 
 ments in the writings of the fathers, without men- 
 tioning the books from whence they were taken. 
 Of others, there are undoubted fragments, with the 
 names of the books out of which they are cited. 
 Others are (till extant, at leaft, in part. The rea- 
 der may lee a furprifingly large catalogue of thefe 
 forged books, in Du Pin's " ecclefiaftical hiftory-, '* 
 and a much larger one (till in Mr. Jones's "method 
 of fettling the canon of the new-teftament " : From 
 both which authors, he may meet with what will 
 abundantly fatisfy him, that they are indeed forge- 
 ries, and were impofed on the world long before 
 the days of Eufebius. 
 
 And not only were books forged under the name 
 of infpired perfons, but of fome of the moit famous 
 primitive fathers. Such are the " Recognitions " 
 fathered oh Clement of Rome ; the " Clementines, %t 
 as aifo the " Epitome of the Clementine acts of 
 Peter " ; not to fay any thing of the pretended 
 " apoftolical conftitutions and canons," faid to be 
 penned by Clement. Such are Polycarp's " let- 
 ter toDionyfius the Areopagite," and his " difcourfc 
 on St. John's death". Thefe are all of them evi- 
 dently fpurious pieces, and mod of them univerfally 
 owned to be fo. And yet, they were forged before 
 the fourth century. So that, be our opinion of the 
 times before Eufebius as it will, lome there were, 
 even in thofe times, who were both impudent and 
 knavifn enough to be guilty of Rich a fraud, as that 
 
 we 
 
104. Appendix. 
 
 we fuppofe might have been pracYifed, under tha 
 name of Ignatius : And the fuppofition of his being 
 thus fraudulently dealt by is fo far from being an in- 
 credible thing, that it only adds one to the many 
 religious frauds, which were committed in thofe 
 days, and under the names of much better men 
 than he can be pretended to be. 1 
 
 After all, 'tis poflible, I own, Ignatius might 
 fee the writer of thefe epiftles : Nor will I pretend 
 to determine, that he was not : Tho* I am inclined 
 to think, moft unprejudiced perfons, from what 
 has been offered, will be difpofed to queftion, whe- 
 ther they are fo certainly his,as to leave no reafonable 
 room for, at lead, fome doubt in the cafe. 
 
 But fhould it be conceded, that thefe epiftles 
 were certainly wrote by Ignatius, we fhall, notwith- 
 standing, hope to be excufed, if we lay no great 
 Weight upon what is cited from them ; and for this 
 very good reafon, becaufe we judge they are fo 
 interlarded with corrupt mixtures, as not fairly to 
 exhibit the real fentiments of the primitive father, 
 whofe name they bear. * 
 
 , What 
 
 * It fliould be rernembred here 'tis not only the truth of 
 fact, that Ignatius has been bafely and fraudulently dealt 
 with, no lefs than eight of the fifteen epiftles that bear his 
 name being forgeries, and owned to be fo ; but 'tis fa <fl 
 likewife, and acknowledged as fuch, that the other feven, 
 in all the editions of them, before Ufher and Voflius, have 
 been so corrupted by fome knavifli interpolator, as that 
 they ought not to be received as his genuine works. We 
 don't argue from hence, that the " later editions" mufi 
 be corrupted alfo ; but thus much is obvioufly and certainly 
 deducible herefrom, that they may be fo ; that the fuppofi. 
 tion is quite eafy and natural, as falling in with what has al- 
 ready been practifed upon thefe epiftles. 
 
Appendix. 
 
 10 5 
 
 What we have to offer in fupport of this judge- 
 ment,, takes in fo many particulars, that it would 
 require a vaft deal more room than can at prefenc 
 be fpared to confider them. I fhall therefore 
 wholly pals them over, and confine myfelf to one 
 thing only, viz. what is here faid concerning the 
 officers of the churches he writes to. And I the 
 rather pitch upon this, becaufe the difcourfe upon 
 this head fo runs through all the epiftles, ( one only 
 excepted, the epiftle to the " Romans " * ) bears 
 fo great a pare in them, and is fo mingled with al- 
 moft every paragraph, that if what is offered upon 
 this point is not worthy of the true Ignatius, or evi- 
 dently exhibits the marks of an age posterior to 
 that in which he lived, they will have faftened on 
 them the charge of corruption, unfitting them to 
 be depended on in the prefent, or indeed any other, 
 debate. 
 
 Three things I have here to fay, which I efteem 
 worthy of particular notice, and fhall diftinftly 
 mention. # 
 
 I. There is vaftly more faid upon the head of 
 church- officers, than might be expected from the 
 true Ignatius. The feven epiftles, in the tranflation 
 of arch-bifhop Wake, take up about 50 pages in 
 oftavo •, and the extracts I have made from them, 
 as they relate only to bifhops and prefbyters, will 
 fill at leaft ten 5 tho' they are made from but fix 
 
 N of 
 
 * 'Tis obfervable, this epiitle is the only one that is 
 perfectly ufdef3 to the ep fcopil caufc. For it differs from 
 all the re t in this, that it don't once diftinguifti bifhops from 
 prefb/ters ; and, if I don't mifrcm^inber, the word bifhop 
 is bat once afed throughout the whole epiftle. 
 
106 Appendix. 
 
 of the feven epiftles. Now, confidering the cir- 
 cumftances of Ignatius, when he wrote thefe epiftles, 
 'tis highly improbable, he fhould have his heart fo 
 much fet upon the honor and power of the clergy, 
 as, in all of them, to be fo very lavifh in his dif- 
 courfe upon this point. He was now a "prifoner 
 of death, " and on " his journey to the place of 
 execution" ; And if he found within himfelf a dif- 
 pofition to write to the feveral churches, as he 
 went along, 'tis really ftrange, he fhould be fo 
 Jarge in his encomiums, exhortations, directions, 
 cautions, and informations, all tending to exalt the 
 clergy, and befpeak for them the higheft reverence, 
 and mod profound fubjectior*. Had he thus wrote 
 in one or two only of his letters, the fpecial cir- 
 cumstances of the churches to whom he wrote 
 might, perhaps, be pleaded in his excufe : But it 
 cannot be fuppofed, fo many churches fhould be 
 fo ignorant of their own oonftitution, or of the 
 duty they owed to the officers fet over them ; or 
 that they had been fo faulty in their behaviour to- 
 wards the clergy, as to make it proper for a con- 
 demned paftor, juft going out of the world, fo 
 to write to them, as if the main thing fuitable 
 to be faid was, " that they had very worthy, 
 and God-becoming bifhops and prefbyters, whom 
 they ought to revere and honor as God the 
 Father, and his fon Jefus Chrift. ,, There is plainly 
 much more fpoken upon the fubject of the clergy, 
 and their rights, than upon any other, tho' of the 
 mod fundamental importance ; which looks very 
 ftrange. It would certainly do fo in epiftles, wrote 
 at prefent,under like circumftances •, and the rather, 
 as the fame things are not only mentioned in all the 
 epiftles, but in molt of them needlefsly repeated, 
 
 and 
 
Appendix. 
 
 107 
 
 and in fome of them repeated over and over again 
 Co as to be quite fulfome. Shou'd a bifhop, at this 
 day; while in the near view of death for religion's 
 fake, write epiftles to the churches after this pattern, 
 I fcruple not to give it as my opinion, that the ge- 
 neral thought of the world concerning him, in this 
 day of chriftian liberty, would be, that over-heated 
 zeal for clerical honor and power had put him out 
 of the poffeffion of himfelf. This leads 
 
 II. To the next confideration, namely, the 
 <c lofty defections" that are given, in thefe epiftles, 
 of the officers of the chriftian church, with the 
 " exorbitant claims of power and dominion " made 
 on their behalf. The language to this purpoie is 
 truly extraordinary, not at all confonant to the age 
 of the true Ignatius, nor indeed worthy of fo pri- 
 mitive a father and martyr. What other thought 
 can we entertain of thofe numerous expreflions, 
 which reprefent bimops as " prefiding in the ptace 
 cf God " : which compare them to " God the 
 Father, and to JefusChrift the fon of the Father*' : 
 which declare it our duty to " receive them as the 
 Lord, to reverence them as Jefus (Thrift, " yea, 
 " to follow them even as Chrift does the Father " : 
 which caution againft " refifting the bifhop, left 
 we mould difobey God M : which command us " fo 
 to obey the bifhop, and fubje<ft ourfelves to him, 
 as to do nothing without him M : which, " without 
 the bifhop ", deem it " unlawful either to baptiff 3 
 or celebrate the facrament, or indeed do any thing, 
 however reafonable it may appear to us " : which 
 exhort to be " fo one with the bifhop, as Chrift is 
 one with the Father •, and fo to do nothing without 
 him, as Chrift did nothing without the Father M * 
 
 N 2 which 
 
108 Appendix/ 
 
 which make fo great account of " obedience and 
 fubjection to the bifhop," that they who " do any 
 thing without him " are efteemed " doing the devil 
 a fervice " ; and " thole that remain with him " 
 are, upon this account only, thought worthy of the 
 character " of belonging to Chrift: " ; and are re- 
 prefented " as walking not as men, but according 
 to Chrift " ; Yea, in fo high eftimation is obedience 
 to the officers of the church, with the author of 
 thefe epiftles, that he even M pawns his foul for 
 thofe who obey the bifhop, prefbyters and deacons," 
 and defires " his portion in God may be with fuch." 
 
 These, and like, exprefTions, fo frequently to 
 be met with in thefe epiftles, can't eafily be fuppo- 
 fed to have been penned by the true Ignatius. Jn 
 their literal ftrict fenfe, they are unworthy of any 
 pious writer $ much more of the celebrated father, 
 to whom they are afcribed : Nor can it be denied, 
 that they aggrandife bifhops beyond all reafonable 
 bounds, and plead for the mod blind, implicit and 
 abfolute obedience, as that which is properly due 
 to them. And, in a qualified fenfe, they are fome 
 of them very unguarded ; others fcarce capable of 
 being at all jufbified ♦, and, in general, all of them 
 do much rather favour of the language and fpirit 
 " of after times," than of the age in which Ignatius 
 is known to have lived. 
 
 There is, perhaps, no fact more notorioufly 
 evident, than that none of the facred writers, nor 
 primitive fathers, either of the fame age, or near 
 the fame age, in which Ignatius fioiirifhcd, do hold 
 the lead affinity with him, in his ftrange talk ( if it 
 be his ) about the officers cf the chriftian church. 
 
 If 
 
App B N D IX. 
 
 109 
 
 If wc look into the " Paftor of Hermas, '" the 
 u cpiftle of Polycarp," or any other genuine piece, 
 near the time in which thefe epiftles are faid to be 
 wrote, we (hall find in them all the difcoveries of a 
 quite different fpirit. Thefe unitedly concur in the 
 like plain language ; fpeaking of the officers of the 
 church in a manner becoming the fimplicity of the 
 gofpel, and the purity and humility of thofe early 
 days ; Whereas, when we turn to the " Ignatian 
 epiftles," the reverfe is clearly vifible through theft*- 
 all ; little being here to be feen but fuch high drains 
 of language, as are evidently adapted, if not pur- 
 pofely contrived, to exalt the clergy, and fecure to 
 them all power, reverence and fubjeclion. And 
 how fliall this be accounted for ? Why fhould there 
 be fuch a fignal difference between the manner of 
 writing in thefe epiftles, and all the other extant 
 books of the fame age ? 
 
 *D N 
 
 To this it is faid, that the ftile of authors is very 
 different, and the turn of expreflion, in every 
 writer, as peculiar to him, as his countenance or 
 gate : For which reafon, its thought to be no ways 
 ftrange, that the manner of Ignatius's writing is not 
 like that of his contemporaries. 
 
 It is readily acknowledged, that the particular 
 turn of language, in different authors, is different, 
 as is pleaded ♦, but at the fame time, denied, that 
 this at all removes the difficulty. For a number of 
 authors, writing upon the fame fubj eel:, may each 
 of them write in his own peculiar ftile, and yet a- 
 gree in exhibiting the like account. The ftile of 
 Hermas widely differs from that of Clement, as 
 Clement's does from that of Polycarp ; and yet, 
 
 they 
 
up Appendix. 
 
 they all lead us to think much the fame thing about 
 the clergy ; and this* very evidently, not with - 
 ftanding they feverally exprefs themfelves in a turn 
 peculiar each one to himfelf. And why might not 
 Ignatius, with the reft of his contemporaries, have 
 wrote in his own ftile, and yet have concurred with 
 them in a like account of the officers of the church ? 
 'Tis certain he might. Audit muft be afcribed, 
 not to meer difference of ftile, but to fome other 
 caufe, that he io ftrangely differs from them. 
 
 It is therefore further pleaded, Ignatius was a 
 Syrjajc, and its no other than might be expected 
 to find him writing in a " (welling turgid ftile. '* 
 To which it is eafy to reply, 
 
 His being a Syrian may poffibly* account for 
 Hs fometimes barbarous Greek, as well as uncouth 
 compound words peculiar to v himfelf •, but how it 
 fhould account for his fentiments concerning the 
 clergy, as differing from thofe of his contempora- 
 ries, is not fo eafy to fay. For not only is the 
 high language in thefeepiftles, but the thing intend- 
 ed by it, quite different from that which is contain- 
 ed in the other writings about the fame age. Ig- 
 natius is alone, not in ftile only, but in real mean- 
 ing. Unclothe the metaphors, qualify the hyper- 
 boles, bringdown the rhetorical drains ufed in thefe 
 writings, and put them into fimple language, and 
 their true fpirit, their genuine intendment, will car- 
 ry the honor and power of the clergy much higher, 
 than it is carried by all the phrafes of all the con- 
 temporary writers united together ; Nor can a per- 
 fon, who reads the epiftles of Ignatius, help having 
 excited in his mind a far more exalted idea of pref- 
 
 byters 
 
Appendix m 
 
 byters as well as bifhops, than by reading all the 
 other writers, till we come to the third and fourth 
 centuries. 
 
 The plain truth is, there is fo little refemblance 
 between thefe epiftles, upon the head under confr- 
 deration, and the other writings of the fame age ; 
 and, I may add, fo great a refemblance between 
 them, and the writings of a posterior date, that 
 one can fcarce help thinking, the real author of 
 them was alive in the world, long after the death 
 of the truly primitive Jgnatius. 
 
 However the difpute about the fuperiority of 
 bifhops to prefbyters be .determined, nothing is 
 more evident, than that the language relative to the 
 clergy, befp6aking the reverence and fubmiflion 
 due to them, was very different after* the fecond 
 century, from what it was before. And as the 
 language, in the " Ignatian epiftles," is quite dif- 
 ferent, upon this head, from the language of the 
 age in which this father lived ; fo it -well agrees with 
 that, which was in fad ufed afterwards. 
 
 This is particularly obvious, upon a comparifbn 
 between the books that go under the name of the 
 " apoltolical conftitutions, and canons," and ** thefe 
 epiftles." Before their appearance in the editions 
 of Ulher and Voflius, the agreement between them, 
 not in fpirit only, but in words and phrafes, was 
 fo obfervable, that fome have not lcrupled to fay, 
 that they had both one author. That great anti- 
 quary, the arch-bifhop of Armagh, was clearly of 
 the opinion, that the fame hand interpolated the 
 Ignatian epiftles, that interpolated the apoftolical 
 
 ccnflitutions"; 
 
H2 Appendix. 
 
 conftitutions ; and is fomewhat large in offering 
 the reafons of his entertaining fuch a thought. And 
 fince the publication of the new, and ( as is tho't ) 
 very much purged editions, the refemblance is ftill 
 vifible ; fo clearly fo, that I can't fuppofe, but 
 prejudice itfelf will own, there is a much greater 
 analogy between them, in their high defcriptions of 
 biffiops, and the honor and obedience due to thern, 
 than between thefe epiftles, and any other piece 
 that is not of a much later date. 
 
 And what mould be the reafon of this ? Why 
 fhould the Ignatian epiftles be thus different from 
 all the contemporary writings, and fo much like 
 thofe which did not appear till many years after 
 his death ? Why mould they be wrote with a fpirit, 
 and in language, that are well fuited to the claims 
 made by the clergy, and the honor and obedience 
 that were in fact yielded to them, not at the time 
 when they were wrote, but long after the fup- 
 poied author of them was gone out of the world ? 
 This furely looks iufpicious, and is a fhrewd fign 
 of unfair dealing fome how or other.— To proceed, 
 
 III. The mod weighty confederation of all is, 
 the appropriation of the names, bifhop and 
 prefbyter, fo commonly and certainly to be met 
 with in thefe epiftles. The learned Daille diftin- 
 guifhes this from all his other arguments, calling it 
 *' argumentum palmarium " ; as well he might, 
 it being an argument that is founded on one of the 
 bed and fureft rules in criticifm, evidencing a pre- 
 tended genuine writing to befpurious, or corrupted *, 
 namely, it's ufing words in an appropriated 
 fenfe, which words were not fo ufed at the time 
 
 when 
 
Appendix, f i 3 
 
 when this writing is known to have been penned, 
 but were fo ufed in after-ages. The grcateft 
 critics ever recur to this as the furcft teft : Nor is 
 its fufficiency, as fuch, in matters of this nature, 
 difputed by any. In applying therefore this teft 
 to the point in hand, let it be obferved j 
 
 The words, bifhop arid prefbyter, are, in the 
 " Ignatian epiftles ", appropriated terms ; not 
 ufed in a loofe and promifcuous manner, but in a 
 fenfe particularly ascertained and fixed. Bifliops 
 are not here called prefbyters, nor are prefbyters 
 called bifhops ; but the officers, filled bifhops, are 
 diftinguifhed from thofe that are ftiled prefbyters, 
 and, on the other hand, thofe that are (tiled pref- 
 byters are, in like manner, diftinguifhed from thofe 
 that are (tiled bifhops. And the terms, bifhop and 
 prefbyter, are the appropriated ones, pointing 
 out thefe different church-officers. And this appro- 
 priation of the words is not accidental, but runs 
 thro' all the epiftles, and all the editions of them, 
 the Ufherian and Voffian, as well as thofe that pre- 
 ceded them. And 'tis fo facred and inviolable, 
 that, in no cafe, at no time, upon no occafion, is 
 this ufe of the words departed from. Not an irv- 
 (tance is to be met with, where the word bifhop is 
 confounded with the word prefbyter ; or the word 
 prefbyter, with the word bifhop : But thefe terms 
 are accurately and religiouQy applied to different 
 perfons, in a fixed and appropriated (cnk. That is 
 the manner of diction in thefe epiftles, " obey your 
 bifhop, and the prefbytery. " — "I haye been 
 judged worthy to fee you by Damas, your bifhop •, 
 and your prefbyters, BafTjs and Apollonius. "— 
 " The bifhop prefiding in the place of God, y.mr 
 
 O prefbyters 
 
ii£ Appendix. 
 
 prefbyters in the place of the council of the apcftles." 
 — " Let all reverence the bifliop as the Father, 
 and the .prefbyters as the Sanhedrim of God. " — 
 *• Attend to the bifhop, and the prefbytery. " — 
 But I have no need to multiply citations here. 'Tis. 
 the very thing pleaded, in favor of epifcopacy, 
 that Ignatius ever diftinguifhes bifhops from pref- 
 byters. This he has been faid to do ( if my me- 
 mory don't fail me) thirty-fix times : Which, I am 
 fatisfied, is not an enlargement ; tho\ I muft con- 
 iefs, I have not been fo curious as to adjuft the 
 jprecife number. 
 
 What agreement now is there between the fup- 
 pofed Ignatius, and his contemporaries, upon this 
 head ? Do they likewife ufe the words, biihop and 
 prcfbyter, in an appropriated fixed fenfe ? The 
 plain anfweris, they do not. Far from fo doing, 
 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 : Nor is there an author 
 extant, that wrote either before Ignatius, or at the 
 time when he wrote, or even afterwards till we are 
 got into the third century and onwards, that ufes 
 thefe words as he does, in a fenfe fo certainly, fo 
 commonly, and fo invariably fixed and determined. 
 
 It is plain, there is no manner of affinity be- 
 tween the apoftolic,and Ignatian ufe of thefe words ; 
 tho' Ignatius was peifonally known to, at lead, 
 fome of the apoflles. With him they are always 
 appropriated terms ; but with them, they are 
 promifcuouQy ufed, as may be feen in the forego- 
 ing difcourfe. It evidently appears from hence, 
 that fcilhop and prcfbyter were not yet fettled 
 
 names 
 
Appendix. #*~i5 
 
 nimes, fignifying diftina officers. And this, as 
 He fay?, was the unanimous opinion of the an- 
 cW> fa hers, who fpeak of the ufe of thefe words 
 Is primitive age' And Dr. Whkby, an epifco- 
 pal writer, affirms°the fame thing ; as was obferved 
 in the difcourfe to which this is annexed. Nay, 
 Bellarmine himfelf, a Roman-cathohc-wnter re- 
 penting the fenfe of the fathers upon this point 
 fay , as he is quoted by Daille, « In the apoftohc 
 times, the names, biffiop and prefcyter, were com- 
 mon to all the priefts, both to the greater whom 
 we now callbimops; and to the left, whom we 
 calprefbyters." I don't bring thefe teftfansu* 
 by way of proof, that thefe names were thus uied 
 "I the firft age •, but only to (hoW.thtf to to« 
 of the matter is not confined to thofe, who live in 
 thefe latter days, and maybe fufpefted of prejud.ee 
 aga nft he order of bimops •, but that it was the 
 opinion of the ancient fathers themfelves, even 
 thofe of them who flouriftied after ep.fcopacy took 
 place, and were hearty friends to this kind of go- 
 vernment in the church. 
 
 And as thefe names are promifcuoufiy applied 
 in the apoftohc writings fo are they in toother 
 writings before thofe or Ignatius. In He mas s 
 «' Paftor " the word, bilhops, is explained to Ug- 
 aify * " thofe that prefide in the church •, and 
 thofe that prefide in the church are &?%&£ 
 ters that prefide in the church". And in Clement s 
 « epiftfe to the Corinthians," the fame officers that 
 are called " prefcyters," are exprdsly fpoken ot 
 as " caft out of their epifcopacy." U 
 
 O 2 AN0 
 
 | ibid. pag. 173- ca P« &*' 
 
 Si mil. ix. 
 
u6 m Appendix. 
 
 And if we turn to Polycarp, the fuppofed col- 
 lector of the " Ignatian epiftles, M and the next 
 and neareft writer to him, he fays nothing from 
 whence it can be gathered, that bifhop and prefby* 
 ter were, in his day, appropriated terms, and ap- 
 plied, as fuch, to diftinci officers in the church. 
 Pj^fbyters and deacons are the only officers he 
 fpeaks of *, and he undoubtedly means by them the 
 fame church-officers that are called by Clement, 
 and by the apoftle Paul, in his epiftle to this fame 
 church, bifhops and deacons. And 'tis remarkable, 
 Polycarp no where ufes the word bifhop, nor does 
 he fay a word of the bifhop of Philippi, much lefs 
 of his diftin&ion from the prefbyters of this church : 
 Wherein he widely differs from Ignatius •, which is 
 really unaccountable, confidering how lately Igna- 
 tius, under very extraordinary circumftances, had 
 wrote his epiftles, and how particularly acquainted 
 Polycarp ( as is pretended ) was with them *, efpe- 
 cially confidering (till further, that Ignatius had 
 wrote one epiftle to Polycarp himfelf, and another 
 to his church at Smyrna,in one of which he " pawns 
 his foul for them that were obedient to the bifhop 
 and the other clergy " ; and, in the other, make's 
 the bifhop fo necefTary, " that no adminiftration 
 could be valid without him, but whatever he fhouk). 
 approve would be pleafing to God. " 
 
 No more is to be feen of an appropriated ufe of 
 the terms bifhop and prefbyter in Juftin Martyr, 
 than in Polycarp. Irenaeus frequently ufes thefe 
 trerms, but in the loofe and promifcuous fenfe ; as 
 is well known to all who have read him : Nor dp 
 the terms appear to be ar p opriated ones, till to- 
 wards the dole of th* feaji.l century ; and even 
 
 then 
 
Appendix. 117 
 
 then the appropriation ( as was obferved in the fore- 
 going difcourfe) was not fteadily fixed. We muft 
 get into the third century, and the middle of it too, 
 before we (hall find it, after the manner of Ignatius, 
 facred and inviolable. 
 
 Upon which the enquiry is obvious and juft, 
 how comes it to pafs, that Ignatius mould con- 
 stantly ufe the terms, bifhop and prefbyter, not 
 in the fenfe, in which they were ufed, in the age in 
 which he wrote, but in the fenfe in which they were 
 ufed in other aces, long after his death ? 
 This ought certainly to excite our jealoufy, and 
 put us upon caution left we mould take fomeknavifh 
 lmpoftor for the worthy and primitive Ignatius. 
 Words, we know, often vary in their meaning ; 
 and fometimes particular words are as fure marks 
 of fuch a particular age, as particular garbs or fa- 
 ihipns. And this is the cafe here. Before the daya 
 of Ignatius, about the time of his nourifhing and 
 dying, and for fome confiderable time afterwards, 
 the words, bifhop and prefbyter, were unappro- 
 priated terms, and promifcuoufly applied to the 
 fame perfons : Whereas, towards the goino- out of 
 the age in which he lived, or rather the coming in 
 of the next, they loft their promifcuous ufe, and 
 became appropriated terms, and were as fuch 
 applied to different perfons, who were accordingly 
 now diftinguifhed from each other by being fpoken 
 of under thefe names. And as thefe names, in the 
 epifties afenbed to Ignatius, in their pureft editions 
 are ever ufed in the appropriated fenfe, diftin- 
 guiOiing bifhops from prefbyters, we are prefented 
 with a mod evident mark of time posterior to 
 that, m which the true Ignatius is known to have 
 Jived. 
 
 Enough 
 
1 1 8 Appendix. 
 
 Enough, Itruft, has now been faid to anfwer 
 the defignl had in view, which was to juftify thofe 
 who pay no great regard to what is bro't from the 
 •* Ignatian epiftles," in fupport of epifcopacy. 
 And I would flatter myfelf, that even our opponents, 
 while they judge impartially, will not think, we 
 herein acl: as tho* we had nothing to fay in vindica- 
 tion of ourfelves. Bigotry itfelf muft confefs there 
 h good reafon, at lead the plaufible appearance 
 of it, to fuppofe, either that Ignatius did not write 
 the epiftles that are afcribed to him ; or, if he did 
 write them, that they are handed down to us so 
 mingled with corruption, as not to defervc 
 a reception as his genuine works. 
 
 THE reader is defired to correS, with his pen, the fol- 
 lowing errata,and fach other as he may obferve, which 
 have efcaped the author's notice. 
 
 Page. io,linc2, read there. P,i5, I. 3, from the bottom 
 r. defcribing. P. 25, 1. 18, read conftituted. P. 37. l.ic, 
 r. confeffus. P. 39, 1. 9, from the bottom, r. confefTus. 
 P. 72. J. 5, of the note at the bottom, r. L'arroquc. 
 P. 76, 1. laft, r. confeflionura. P. 77. 1. 3. from the bot- 
 tom r. univerfali. P. 79, 1. laftbutone, r. or. P. Sa.J, 
 4, del. of. 
 
vS 
 
 Ml 
 
 • ■ 
 
 E&§P 
 
 ■■■■"-- 
 
 IBM'S™ 
 
 ■•">-• 
 
 
 Ii3i 
 
 1 ■ * 
 
 sin