OBSERVATIONS and REMARKS upon the foregoing testimonies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REMARKS and OBSERVATIONS on the foregoing testimonies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBSERVATIONS and REMARKS on the foregoing testimonies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBSERVATIONS and REMARKS upon the TESTIMONIES from IGNATIUS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBSERVATIONS.

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

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

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

OBSERVATIONS and REMARKS upon the testimonies from IRENAEUS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REMARKS and OBSERVATIONS on the foregoing TESTIMONIES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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