7x.-c^^^•^^^^j,L^*^••yY£^ OF

EPISCOPACY,

As exhibited from the Fathers of the Christi- an Church, until the Clole of the Second Century :

CONTAINING

An Impartial Account of them, of their Writings, and of what they fay concerning Bishops andPREs-

BYTERS ; WITH OBSERVATIONS, AND REMARKS,

Tending to fhew, that they efteemed thefe one and th« SAME Order of Ecclellaflicai Officers.

IN ANSWER

To thofe, who have reprefented it as a certain fact, univerfally handed down, even from the Apoftlcs Da3-s, that GOVERN IMG and o RDA IN IN Ct Authority was ex- ercifed by fuch Bifliops only, as were of an order supe- rior to Prelbvters.

By CharlesChauncy^D. D.

Paftor of the Firft Church of Chr isT in Boston.

** 1 hope my Reader will fee what weak Proofs are brought for * thisDiitinftion andSuperiority of Order [i. e. betwecnBifliops ** and Prelbyters]. No Scripture, no primitive general Coun- *' cil, no general Confent of primitive Doctors and Fathers, no, ** not one primitive Father of Note, fpeaking particularly, and ** home, to our purpofe." Bifliop Croft's Naked Truth, P. 47.

BOSTON: Printed by Daniel Kneeland, in Queen-Street, for Thomas Leverett, in Cora-hill,

iyi,DCC,LXXX.

HER CC

n\ 'iv

159637.

Af.TO.R, LF.NO/

1899.

PREFACE.

rHE materials for the following work were colledled more than twenty years ago, and would then have been put to- gether for public ufe, had it not been thought unfeafonable ; as the Colonies were noty at that timey difpofed to attend to the epifcopal- difpute : nor would this have been their in- clination at prefent, had it n$t been excited in them, more efpecially by the clergy of the church of "England, who, not beijig fatisficd with having tranfmitted petitions to their fuperiors at home, begging their influence- in favor of the fettlement of an Epifcopate in America, deputifed one of their number to nvrite ** an appeal to the Public," citing objcci - crs to their impartial tribunal for tryal cf the weight of their objeBions, if any they fc./ to offer ^ againji the reafonablenefs of their re-^. ^ueji^ This condu^ of their s has confira:?iei^

tJj^t

V iv PREFACE,

thofe of a dif event ferfuafion to /peak in their own behalf ; and the rather, as it was, in a format majiner^ given out, thaty '* if nothing was faid againji aii Atnerican Epifcopete, it would be taken for granted, all parties acqui- efced, and were fat is fed.**

IN confeguence of this extraordinary chal- lenge, that has been faid, which, I believe, the epfcopalians will not find themfclves eafly able to anfwer. But there is fill room for fuch a 'work as that profejfes to be, which is emitted herewith : and it was judged by many to be feafonable at this day ; more efpecially, as it has been openly and repeatedly declared, * that it is a FACT certainly and iiniv erf ally handed dpwn by the Chriftian Fathers, even from the ear Heft days, that goverjming and ordain- ing AUTHORITY was exercifed only by Bishops of an order, in the church, distinct from, and superior t®

PKESBYTERSo'

HO W far the above affirmation is agreea- ble to truth, or whether it will at all confijt with it, every man of common underfandingp who will be at the pains to read the fubfequent pages, will be able, from what he may fee with fpis own eyes, to judge, T^kofe, tnofl certainly,.

may

P R E F A C E. y

may he thought ivell qualified to forma j''dg^ ment in this matter ^ who are men of capacity and learnijigyt hough they have had neither oppor^ tunity, nor leifure^ to acquaint themjelves 'ivith the writings of the antient Fathers. It was principally for the fake of perjons in each of thefe kinds y whether e pi/cop alians, orChri/Vans of any other .denomination, that the prefent work was engaged in, and w.ade public. And for this reafon it was thought proper to he more particular y than would otherwife have heen ne- ceffary, in giving an account y not only of thefe Fathersy but of their writings ; dijiinguifiing between thofe that have heen falfely attrihu- ted to themy and thofe that may he cfteemed truly genuine , as alfo between thofe that are pure, and thofe that have been adulterated with corrupt mixture.:^. In the doing of this, which has enlarged the %^orky and increafed my labour y 1 pretend to be little more than a colleBor ; though, inflead of tranfcribing from others ^ I have ufed my own words, unlefs when I give notice to the contrary : and this Ichofe to do, that I might be more concife, and have it in my p.ower to convey only that to others y which I believe contains the .exa5l truth,

THE paffages from the Fathers^ called apofolicah that isy the Fathers ^lubo may he

VI

PREFACE.

fuppofed to have converfed with one^ or more^ cf the apoflksy I have given in the verjion of Arch'BifJ:op Wake ; not fo much to fave my-

/elf the trouble of a tranfation^ as to prevent all fufpicion of too high, or too low, a turn to any modes of exprejjiony in order to favor my oii-nfenfe cf the fact in difputc, I fhould have been glad, could I have done the like in regard of what is offered from the other Fathers. I am my felf accountable for the tranflation of the extraEls from them ; in which I have not fo much fudied elegance, as an exa^ reprefenta- tion of their real meaning, I can truly fay, I have, to the befi of my capacity, given the WHOLE that is contaified in the writings of the Fathers, within the time fpecified. Sure I am, I have willingly omitted no paffage, or word, that 7nay be found in any of their works ; hut have been as free to infer t thofe, epifcopa- Hans would defre might have a place here, as others they might wifh had been kept out of

fight. It is poffble, after all, there may be omijfons, or mi flakes, through inattention, for ^ getfulnefs, or feme other caufe more or Ifsfaul^ ty ; though I a^n not cojifcious of aiiy, and be- lieve there are none that are material. If any

fuch there fJjould be, I floould efeem it a favor to fee them corre5led. As to thofe of f mall importance^ the learned andjudicioi{s,fJ.wuld they-

obferve

PREFACE. vii

obferve any fuch, will candidly overlook and fxcufe them.

HAD there been a fufficiency of Greek types in town, and dexterity to ufe theniy more of the language in which many pajjages were wrote would have been printed : but this de- fe5i may be thought pardonable^ as I have all along infer t ed fuch original words , though in Englijh letters, as may be thought to be of importance in the prefent debate. I could eafly have crowded the margin with references to the booksy and particular pages in them, I have had occafion to confult ; but this, tofave room, and a vainfhew of learjiingy I have omitted : at the fame time, taking care to name my au^ thors, and particular places in their writings, in all injiances that have an argumentative connection with any confiderable part of the grand fubjeSi in difpute.

IT is hoped, the following work will not be altogether ufelefs. Much indeed has been al- ready, and repeatedly, publifhed relative to the Fathers, arid their writings -, and nothing more frequently to be met with than quotations from them, infupport of the epif copal caufe, by thofe who have appeared in its defence. But no me^ within the compafs of my knowledge, has

colle^ed

viii p }^ E I? A G e;

collecled together^ and brought to "vieWy A L L that they have Jhid exprej/ive of their fentfments upon this head. This, if I mijiake not, was a "work much needed, and may be improved to good purpcje. The truth of the fact in debate may herefrom be brought to a clear and full de- termination,-

IF any Jhould complain of it as a faulty that Ihave corifned myfelf within too Jiarrow limits, not goingbeyondthe clofeofthe fecond century -, — I would briefly fay, when we have paffed thefe bounds we have got into times, in which there was very vifibly a departure from the purity aruljimplicity of the grfpeL The man of sin^ now began to make his appearance ^ * though it

was

A Gentleman of learning beyond the Atl?tntic, to whom 1 had mentioned my confinement of the preient view of Kpilcopacy within the two firft centuries^ exprelfefi himfeif upon it in thcfc words, ** Ihe third and following centu- riLS are dcfcrvcdly to be rejeaed with a kind of pious in- dignation in an enquiry of this nature. For when Conftan- tine had deformed and corrupted chfiftianity ; and frorrJ Icing *' all glorious within/' had drelfcd up the church uf Chrirt in robes of external pomp, and made it all gnidy without, and decked and adorned it like the kingdoms *ji this world ; no wondei; that its native modefty foon be- came tainted ; that it yielded to the folicitations, and had criminal couverf^tion with the princes of tiie earth ; and by degrees funk into that MornFR of harlots, which it at prefent Ihcws iifclf to be, in almoft every part of the \vorld, where it is pretended to be cfl;ibliliied by their po^ve^> «ud enriched will: their wealth. "

PREFACE

IX

was in a gradual way that he attained to that exaltation in dignity and poiver,as to be *^ above all that is called god" Bejides, if there are no witnejfes for the firji ttvo hundred years, or infufficient ories only, to certify the truth of the fa5l in quejiion, the great argument in favor of epfcGpacyy fetched from the universal Consent of all Ages from the begin- ning OF CHRISTIANITY, muji inevitably lofe its force i And this is acknowledged by the cele-^ brat ed Bifi)opHoadlyy who has wroteyasljudge, in the mofl majierly way , upon this fide of the contra^ *verjj>, of any who have handled it. Says he, -f* ** IVe do not argue meerly from the tefiimony of ^^ fo late writers as theje [Jerom and St, Au-- *^J2in] that epifcopacy is of apoJioUcal in-* *^Jiitution» We grant it doth not follow ^ Sti, " Jerom thought fo, therefore it is fo. But ** writers of AZ^i. ages in the church witmfsi- *' that this was the government in their days^ ** that it was injlituted by the apofles, and ** delivered down as fuch* All that we pro-^ ** duce St. Jerom for in this cafe is ^t hat it was " in his time, and that he believed it to be apo^ **Jlolical, and received it asfuch : but with- ** out the teftimony of the ages before

" HIM

B

t Reafonablenefs of Gonformity to the church of Englaiadj

3t P R E F A G E.

" HIM, I (hould not efteem this a fufficient « argument that it was really fa."

I SHALL only add, that I have endea- 'vouredto exhibit the following a^ecount oj the ancient epifiopacy, not only with honejl tmpar- tiality, but 7neeknefs and candor, Jo as to give no jiiji occqfion for complaint, that I have wrote with bttternefs, and under the influence of that <« wrath of man which worketh not therightouf nefs of Godr All I defire is, that thofe int9 whafe hands this work may fall, 'WOuU read it mth Be impartiality and candor ; m which caj^, I may venture to fay, they will be at no lofs to determine on which fide the truth lies, with re/pea to the i^Sky that is thefubjedi tn debate^

INTRODUCTION,

INTPvODUCTION.

IN all difputes relative to gofpel-truth, the demand is juft, " what faith the fcrip- ture ? To the law, and to the teftimony.'* Such a demand is erPiinently proper, wheii the point in difpute is faid to be nearly and clofely connedcd v,'ith the very being of chriftianity itfclf. The facred books of the new-teftanient, if at all the rule cfchriftiaa truth, muft be allowed to be fo in inftances that are thus highly intereiling and itn^ poitant.

It were to be wifhcd, thefe infpired books had been more generally honored, as the only fufficient rule of judgment, by thofc who have wrote in favor of episcopacy, upon the plan of a divine right ; and the rather, as they fpeak of it, not meerJy as an inftitution of the golpel, but an eflen- tially neceffary one : infomuch, that gof-

ii I N T R O P U G T I O N,

pel-ordinances will be invalid, unlefs admi- niftrcd by thofe, who have been epifcopally veftcd with holy orders.

In a matter of fuch momcntoifs concern^ they would not have afted an unworthy part, if they had confined their pleas to the lacred writings ; producing fuch pafia.gc$ from them as fpeak to the point, not im- plicitly and darkly ; but in peremptory and cxprefs terms, fo as to Jeave no reafonablq room for hefitation or doubt. It would bo diflionorary to the bible, and a grofs re- flexion on the penmen of it, to call that an *' appointment of Chrift,"and an " ef- fentially necelTary" one, which is not contained in this facred volume, and with fuch clearnefs and precifion, that fober and impartial inquirers may readily perceive it to be there, without foreign help to afllft their fight. And yet, fuch help is made necefliry by epifcopal-writers. They fcarce ever fail of turning us to the Fathers in vindication of their caufe ; hereby vir- tually refledling difgrace on the fcriptures, as though they were infufficient, fimply> of themfelves, to briijg this controverfy to an iffue,

. We

INTRODUCTION. Hi

We obje6l not againfl: paying all due re* fpcD: to ihe primitive worthies, who wer^ .called afterlhe name of Chriil, and ho? nored that name by their faithful labors in the fervice of the gofpel. But we re- inember, our Savior has bid us *' call no man marter on earth," as wc have ** a maf- ter in heaven/' the only one hq will allow ys to ow.n by that name. We cannot there- fore but judge it unwarrantable to take our fentim^nts, relative to any chriftian truth, from meer men, however pious, learned^, .or ancient ; or bowevei* aOembled in coun- cils or fynods. This, we imagine, would l;)e a dilhonor to Chrift, the founder and revealer of our holy religion. He has given us the writings of the evangelifts and apoftles to be the rule of our faith and practice ^ and it is, as we think, fo perfedt and (ufiicient an one, that we have no need to have recourfe to humauy and therefore fellible, writers, either ancient or modern ; yea, it is pur firm perfuafion, that all that i^ delivered for ** the truth as it is in Je- fus'* by the fathers of whatever age, ftation, country, or charafler, ought to be judged of by this facred and unerring rule : ^nd if what they fay does not agree here- with, there is, fo far, no light nor truth in them* In

|v INTRODUCTION,

In order to reconcile the appeal that is fo often made to the Fathers with that honor which is aue to the fcripturcs,the epif- copalian-plea is, that they confider theft fathers, not as judges, but mtne[[es only in their caufe. But what arc they brought to witncfs ? Js it, that epifcopacy is an inftitjLition of Jefus Chrift ? If this is vvit.nefled to in the facred books, of which ^e, having thefe in our hands, are as good Judges as they, it is fufficient. There is no need of any foreign teftimony. if it is not, no other teflimony can fupply this dcfeft. Are thefe fathers cited as witneffcs to what was the practice in their day ? This is now generally the pretence. They may, iay the epifcopalians, be properly appealed to, in order to know the truth of fact in the ages in which they lived. And if, from their unanimous teftimony, even from the firft days of chriftianity, it appears, that go^

VERNING and ORDAINING AUTHORITY

was exercifed by Bishops only, in diftinc- tion from Prefbyters, and as an order in the the church above them, it would argue great arrogance, if not obftinate perverfene(s, to difputc the divine original of epifcopacy. But we muft be excufed, however perverfe wc may be accounted, if we cannot bring

our

INTRODUCTION, v

our felves to think, that the pra6lice of the church, fince the apoftles days, however nniverfal, will juftify our receiving that as an inftitution of Chrift, and an cflentially important one, which he himfelf hath not clearly and evidently made fo, either in i^is own perfon, or by thofe infpired writers, whom he Commiflioned and inftru6ted to declare his will : nor can we believe, the great author of chriftianity would have put the profeflbrs of it to the difficult, 1 may fay, as to moft of them, the impoffible tafk of colledling any thing effential to their fal- vation from the voluminous records of an- tiquity. We are rather perfuaded, he has ordered every article that is neccffary, either in point of faith or practice, to be fo fairly and legibly wrote by the facred penmen, as that there (hould be no need of having recou rfe to the ancient Fathers as witnesses, any more than judges, to afcertain his mind. To fappofe the contrary, would, in reality oi conftrudtion, fubftitue tradition the rule of effential truth, in the room of the scrip- tures, which were " given by infpiration of God ;" or, at leaft, make the former {o much a part of this rule, as that the latter, withoutit, would not befufficientlycompleat. Such difhonor ought not to be caft oa

the

VI iKfTRODUGt iO^.

the one only ftandard of the real mind of ehrifl.

Not that we fhould be under any fear-^ ful apprehenfion, was the epifeopal-difputd to be decided solely by what can be prov-' ed to be FAct, rcfpe<!ting the practice of the church before the coming on of thofd ages, in which rt is known that fuperftitiod and corruption had unhappily got mixed with raoft, if not all the appointments of Jefus Chrift. It has indeed been long given out, and of late with more pofitive af-^ furance than common, that within the two firft centuries, thofe pureft and truly primi-^ tive ones, and all along through them, aa well as in after ages, vniv^rsal coNSEN^^ is juftly pleadable in favor of epiicopacy^ The delign of the enfuing work is to put it in the power of all intelHgent readers, whe* ther learned or unlearned, to judge for them* felves in this matter ; and that they might be able to do it upon juftand iolid grounds-, nothere andthere adetachedteftimony, from this and theother feledled father, is brought to view, but the whole, until towards the clofe of the fecond century, they have all faid relative to the affair of Bidiops. If the confent of the church;, through this lon:g

and

INTRODUCTION. vU

and important period, without which it is impoffible it fliould be universal, can be known at all, it may be known in this way ; and it is the only one in which it can be known with any degree of certainty. The difpute about epifcopacy,fo far as it depends upon UNIVERSAL coNSE'NT, Hiav be fairly and fully determined by every one for himfelf, by what is herewith offered to his perufaL

The method, according to whtch I pro- pofe to proceed, is this eafy and plain one. The fathers will be diftindlly mentioned one by one, their characters given, their writ- ings fpecified, and what they fay relative to EPISCOPACY faithfully fet down, with, fach obfervations and remarks as may be thought needful. And they will feverally be brought to view in the order in which they are commonly placed, by the learned in fubjefts of this nature ; or, in other words, according to the time, in which it is fuppofcd they wrote. *

C Only,

* It may be proper to give notice to the reader, that, in fpeci- fying the date of the refpedive writings, from which I liavc extracted, 1 have only referred in general to the opinion of others, verfcd in this kind of learning. It would have re- quired a volume of itfelf, to have fixed the moft probable date of each writing, and to have afligned the reafons, why this date, rather than any other was pitched upon ; which would have been a needlefs labour to me, and of no tcne'fit to the reader^ in the prefejit cafe.

viii INTRODUCTION.

Only, before I proceed, T would make the following reafo^able requeft. It is, that every one would keep critically in view, as he goes along, the specified fact in dif- pute. And that he may be able to do this without miftake, I fball, in a few words, diftinf^ly point it out.

The Bifliop, in whofc defence an appeal is made to antiquity, is not related, by his of?xCe, to a fingle congregation of chriftians only, with one or more Preibyters belong- ing to it; but his charge is aDiocEss, con- fiding of a number of congregations, great- er or lefs, with their refpedive Prefbyters. The inquiry therefore is, whether it be an u n i-

VERSALLY ATTESTED FACT, that Cpilco-

pacy, in this fenfe, took place in, and through, the two firft ages ? A Bifhop, at the head of a number of congregations, greater or lefs, is an ofRcer m the church of Chrift quite different from the paftor of a fingle congregation ; though he fliould be called Bifliop, as being the Head-Presbyter, or vefted with the charafter of primus inter PARES. It fhould be particularly noted, which of thefe kinds of epilcopacy has the voice of the fpecihed antiquity in its favor. It is willingly left with every man of com- mon

INTRODUCTION. Ix

mon underftandH-ig,afterhehasgone over the following teftimonies, to fay, whether he thinksvthatBifhops,aftertheDiocESANMODE, were known in the firft ages of the church ?

The Bifliop^ for whom the fathers are called in as witnesses, is an o^cer in the church of an order superior to that of Prefbyters, and as diftinct from it as the or- . der of Prefbyters is for/ that of Deacons ; ^t^^^-^t^ the pretence being this, that Prefbyters were thought to have, in primitive times, no more right to meddle with the peculiar work of Bifliops, than Deacons have to concern themfelves with the pejcuiiar work of Pref- byters. The queflion therefore is. Whe- ther it will appear, from the following evi- dence, to be at all a fact, much lels an universally known, and certainly atteft- ed one, that there were Bifhops, in this fenfe, in any church, in any pait of the chriftian worlds within the two firil cen- turies ?

The Bifliop, in whofe favor the ancient Fathers are faid univerfally to fpeak, is one to whom the exclusive right of go- vernment has been committed by the appointment of Jefus Chrift, or bis apoftles

as

X INTRODUCTION,

as commiflioned by him. Says the famous Bifhop Hoadly, treating of the government of the church, as belonging to Eifnops only, in the above appropriated lenfe, * *^ And *' here— I think I may fay, that we have as " univerfal and as unanimous a teftimony ** of all writers, and hiftorians from the *' apoftles days, as could reafonably be ex- *- pefled or dciired : every one, who fpeaks *' of the government of the church, in any *^ place, witneffing, that epifcopacy was the " fettled form ; and every one, who hath *^ occafion to fpeak of the original of it, " tracing it up to the apoftles days, and *^ fixing it upon their decree. — Were there *^ only teftimonies to be produced, that this *^ was the government of the church in all *^ ages, it would be but reafonable to con- *' elude it of apoftolical inftitution ^— but ^^ when we find the fame perfons witnefling, *^ not only that it was epifcopal, but that it '^ was of apoftolical inftitution, and deliver- '* ed down from the beginning as fuch, ** this adds weight to the matter, and makes *' it more undoubted. So that here are two ** points to which they bear witnefs, that *^ this was the government of the church

in

* Jleafonablenefs of conformity to the church of England, p. 326, 327,

INTRODUCTION, xi

*' in their days, and that it was of apofto- " lical inftitution. And in thefe there is ** fuch a conftancy and unanimity, that even ^* St. Jerom himfelf traces up epiicopacy ** to the very apoules, and makes it of their " inftitution."— --He adds, '* All churches '* and chriftians, as far as we know, feeni " to have been agreed, in this point, amidft " all their other differences, as univerfally " as can well be imagined." One would fuppofe, from the peremptory manner in which this citation is exprefled, that the TACT it affirms was fo evidently clear, as to leave no room for iheleaftdoubt. Thofe, who may think it worth while to look over the tejiimonies brought to view, in the fol- lowing pages, will perhaps, by critically ob- ferving their real and juft import, be fur- prized, that any man of learning, who pro- it'K^^ a regard to truth, fhould fpeak of it, and with fuch a degree of affurance, as the

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF ALL AGES

from the apoftles, that epifcopacy, in the impleaded fenfe, was the " form of go- vernment in the church in their day," and that it was by " apoftolicalinftitution ;*' efpe- cially, if they fhould not be able to find, as it is certain they will not, fo much as $ fingle witnefs, for two hundred years,

whofe

xii INTRODUCTION.

whofe evidence is clear, dirc(£l:, exprefs, and full, in aiRrming, either that this was the form of government in the church, or that it was ever inftituted by Chrift, or his aof- tles : fo far is it from the truth, that this is

a FACT UNANIMOUSLY and CONSTANTLY

TESTIFIED TO, even from the beginning, and through all ages.

The Bifhop, for the fupport of whofe claims antiquity is repaired to, is one with whom the soile power of , ordination is lodged ; infomuch, that he only can con- vey holy orders conformably to jhc appoint- ment of JefusChrift ; and (hould PreAytcrs prefume to do this, they would take that upon them which they have no more a right to, than Deacons have to baptife, or admi- nifter the Lord's fupper. This part of the unanimous report of all ages concern- ing the exclusive right of Bifhops de- ferves mofl: of all the fpecial notice of the reader ; and he is particularly defired, as he goes along, to point out to himfelf, for his own fatisfaSion ; or to others, for theirin- formation, any one among all the tefti- monies he will have placed before his view, that plainly and directly affirms the right OF ordination to be peculiar to Biftiops as a diftind order fromPrefby ters, and fuperi- or to them ; or that this right was ever thus ex-

crcifed

INTRODUCTION, xiii

ereifed by them. If he fhould not be able to do this, as unqueftionably he will not, how ftrange muft that affirmation appear, which fays, in the moft pofitive terms, not only that this is FACT, but a {a£t constantly and UNANIMOUSLY witneffed to by the fathers,in ALL AGES from the days of the apoftles.

The Bifhop, in whofe defence antiquity is pleaded, is veiled with the power of con- firmation, according to the mode of the church of England ; and it is appropriated to him as his right in diftindion from all others. But I need not affure the reader, he will in vain look to find it a fact, with- in the two firft ages, that Bilhops were ei- ther veiled with, or ever exercifed this pow- er. For he mufl come down below thefc ages, before a word is faid,by any one of the fathers, relative to this fuperflitious pratlice. Tertullian is the firfl that mentions it , and he mentions likewife fome other corrup- tions, which had got mingled with chrifti- anity in that day.

In fhort, the queflion in debate, fo far as it relates to fact, is, not whether there were officers in the chriflian church, known by the name of Bifhops in the apo- ftolic age, and down along through the two firft centuries ? We join with the cpifcopa-

lians

xlv INTRODUCTION.

lians in affirming this to be a truth univer-^ fally teftified to in thofe times : but the pro- per queftion is, what is fact with refer- ence to the ORDER of thefe BiOiops, and

the POWERS PECULIAR TO THEIR OFFICEy

and as exercised by them in it ? The name of Bifhop is one thing, and the power claimed for, or exercifed by him, is another. The difpute is, not about the name, but the power appropriated to it. This therefore fhould be heedfully attended to by all, in their examination of the evidences that will be produced ; and they may, in this way, clearly and fatisfaftorily determine,, each one for himfelf, whether it be at all an aN tefted FACT, much lefs a constant and

UNANIMOUSLY ATTESTED ONE, from the

apoftles days, and down along through the^ two firfl ages, as well as after ones, that Bi- fhops were vefted with,anddida<51aa[ly exer- ciie, the above fpecified powers, which are at this day claimed for them, as the appropriate work of their office by divine appointment p

Having thus prepared the v/ay, I now go on to introduce the fathers, and point out what ihcy fay upon the head of epis- copacy ; and fhall do it in the order that has been mentioned.

[ ^5 T

BARNABAS,

WE read, in the facred books, of an eminent convert to the chrif- tian faith^ under the name of Barnabas. If our Barnabas v/as this venerable per- fbnV he is juftly placed ^r,^ among the writers in our propofed collection. Foe he lived in the days of the apoftles, was then a preacher of the gofpel, and a fel- lov^-laborer with Paul in a fpecial millioa to the gentile nations, to which they were both feparated by exprefs direction of the Holy Ghoft. But whether he was this Barnabas, or fome other perfon, in or near the apoftolic age, who was called by this name, or cliofe, for certain end^; t6 'borrow it, 'is a point in which neither aiij- '(iient nor mod'ern writers are agreed j as Ve {hall prefently have bccafion to make ^vldent. If. he Was the rcripture-Barna^ jSas, the beft account ofliimis cbnVairi- --■ D ed

ii6 13 A R N A B A S.

ed in the new-teftament-bocks, which every one is at liberty to confult at his leifure. If he was not this Barnabas, wc cart knew nothing about him, with any degree of certainty, but what may be col- led ed from the epiftle that goes under this name,

1 SHALL not amufe the reader with the hiftory of his fuppofed fufFerings, as a martyr for the caufe of Chrift ; much lefs with the mirabiliA that are told of him, and with an air of too much faith, even by Arch-Bifhop Wake, as well as br. Cave. For, to fpeak the truth, I pay no regard to the idle legandary ftories, invented by monks, and other ecclefiaftics, in the Roman church, after the vifiblc rife of ianti-chrift, to impofe upon the people to ferve their own bafe and wick* ed defignst

Leaving therefore thefe extraordlna^ fies, as not worthy of notice, I go on to fpeak of his works. Tertullian ieems to have been of the opinion, that he was the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews 5 for he plainly quotes it as his : but it is, Jvith Jerom, a matter of doubt, whether it

ought

BARNABAS. 17

ought to be afciibed to him, or Luke, or Clement, or Paul. It does not appear, that Barnabas wrote any thing more thafi an epiftle that is ftill extant, at leaft in part, both in greek and latin. The la- tin is thought to be a very ancient ver- fion from the greek ; tho 'gh, when, in what country, or by what hand, it was tranflated, none, fo far as lean learn, pre^- tend fo much as to conjeftnre, Neitlier the greek or latin copies are perfect. The beginning is wanting in the greek, and the end in the Latin.' * Dr. Cave, who was apt to entertain as high an opi- nion of ancient writings as they deferve, defcribes the epiftle of Barnabas in the following words. " The frame and con- *' texture of it is intricate and obfciire, *f made up of uncouth allegories, forced *^ and improbable interpretations of (crip- *? ture ; though the main defign of it is *^ to fhew, that the chriftian rehgion has

V fqperfeded

*' Dr. Lardqner fays of this epiftle, " It is entire in the la? tin veriion." Cotelerius declares the contrary. His. words are thefe, ** Vetus anteni interpretatio eft imper- fecta et mutila, turn paliim, turn precipue ?.d tinem, uhi pofteriora capita refecantur." The exac^ truth is, neithec the greek, or old latin copies are complete ; but as the latin contains what was wanting in- the greek, and th# greek what was wanting in the latin, between them botli the epiftk' is made entire*

i8 BARNABAS.

** fuperfcded the rites and ceremonies of '* the Moiaic law. The latter part oii it *' contains an ufeful and excellent cxt ** hortation, managed under the notion ** of two ways ; the one of light, the *' other of daiknefs ; the one under the *^ guidance of the angels of God, the 'Mother under the conduct of the angels *'-of fatan, the prince of the iniquity ^<< of the age."

The chief difficulty, relative to this cpiftle, is to know, whether the fcrip- tiire-Barnabas was its author, or fome- other perfon, really of thisname,or by ar- bitrary affumption.

Some of the ancient Fathers feem to have beea of the mind, that the Barna- bas, who was Paul's companion, was- the writer of it. Clement of Alexan- dria quotes it in that form, " /ays the apoftle Barnabas." Origin, in his anf- wer to Celfus, gives this epiftle the title of catholic, " the catholic epiftle of Bar- nabas ;" which it is fuppofed he would not have' done, had he notefteem- cd its author! tQ |).ave beentJie Barnabas, ■ 1 ,.....' ;: ;•!.'/ ■■ - whole

BARN A B A S,

19

whofe mqmoFy is ceVor^t^d in the infpired writings. Others^ among the fathers, to fay thq k^ft, were in doubt, whether this ep'iftle was wrote by Barnabas, who, with Paul, was '* feparated to the work, whei ^unto the Holy Glyod had called them.'* Eufebius and Jerpm both reck- on it among the '' apocryphal books ;" and doubtlefs for the fame reafon. What this h, we may learn from the epiftle of the latter of thefe fathers to Laeta, in which he f^ys, 'V Thofe books are apo- cryphal that do not belong to the aiuhors whofe nanie they bqar."

The moderns differ lik^wife in thek, judgment* Pea rfon. Cave, Du-pin, Wake, and others, fuppofe the fcripture-Barna- bas to have been the writer of this epi- ftle. Coteleriiis rather thinks it was fome other perfon * of this name, or that appe^r^d. . under it* i-f; . Others «are of

* '' — magis inclino iit ^enfeam,. non efid apoftoli," And again, *' Certe vix credi poteft, quod adeq exji»i- vs apoftolus--ea fcripferit quas in opufcula pr€;fenti coij- tinentur ; CQa<itas dico alkgorias, enarrationes fcriptur^- rum minus verifimiles, fabi^l^^s 4e: 9}iipaalibus^ aliaq^."-^

t It may feem. (irange to m^ny, that WTiters, in the fir 3:

ages

20 BARNABAS,

opinion, it is utterly unworthy of fo ex^ cellent a man as the Barnabas celebrated jn the infpired books. Bafnage and Jones have largely offered their objeclions againft this epiftle as the genuine work of Barnabas, the companion of Paul, And they appear to me, 1 truly confefs, to be unanfwerable. It would carry me too far out of my way to give fo much as an abftra6l of thefe objeitions, 1 fhall content myfelf with only tranfcribing a few paffages in this epiftle, as tranflated by Arch-Bifliop Wake ; leaving it with -Cfvery judicious reader to fay, whether he can think it at all probable, that fuch a man as the fcripture-Barnabas is known to have beep, could have been the author

of

ages of chriftianlty, Ihoidd appear, not under their own, but the names of thofe who were in high reputation in their day. But the fad is inconteftibly true. Says the learned Dr. Cave, ^' If it (hall be inquired, why a man, after much pains, ftiould chufe to publifli his labors rather under another man's name than his own ; there needs no other anfwer, than that this has been an old trade, which fome men have taken up,either becaufe it was ihcir humour to lay their own children at other men's doors, or to decline the cen-fure which the notions they publiilied AA-ere like- ly to expofe them to, or principally to conciliate the greater efteem and value for them, by tlirufting them forth under the name of thofe for whom the world have a juft regard and veneration." ' Lives of the fathers, p. 7^, vol. I ft.

BARNABAS. s!

of them ; a convert to the faith ill the days of Chrift ; one pcrfonally acquaint- ed with the apoftles ; a fellow-laborer with them, by the exprefs appointment of heaven, in fprcading the name and reli- gion of Chrift; and^ in a word, one that is charadterifed by an infpired pen as •* a good man, full of the Holy Ghoft, and of faith." A6ls xi. 24.

The paffages, I would bring to view, are thefe that follow.

Sect. V* — " And when he chofe his apoftles, which were afterwards to pub- lifh his gofpel, he took men that had been VERY GREAT SINNERS; that thereby he might plainly fhew, " he came not to call the righteous, but finners to repentance."

This paffage, in the Arch-Bifhop's tranflation, may not appear very ftriking- ly exceptionable ; but it really is fo, both in the original greek, and old latin verfi- on. What he tranilates, " men that had been very great finners," is in the greek, uper pafan am art tan anomoteroiis ; juftly tranflated by Cotelerius, '** omni peccato iniq^uiores." The old lattin ver-

fion

32 BARNABAS.

fidn has it, " fuper omne peccatum, pec- catores ;" in literal engliili, '* finners be- yond all fin." It is readily allowed, the mode of diftion is hyperbolicah But the thought intended to be conveyed could be nothing fhort of this, that the apbftles of our Lord had been ** the worft of men, the vilefl of all finners.'* Is this the truth of fa6t ? Will any thing, in the new-tefta- ment-books,jaftify this account of them ? It is a falfe flanderous report, * highly injurious to them : nor is the reafon af- figned for our Lord's chufing fuch wick- ed men any other than an abufe of the facred text mentioned in its fupport. No fuch reafon was ever given by our Lord, or any of his infpired apoftles.

Sect. IX.— ** Underftand thereforCj children, thefe things more fully, that Abraham, who w'^s the firft that brought in circumcifiOn> looking forward in the fpirit to Jefus> circumxiied, having receiv- ed

* Cotelerius, in his note upon this paffage, cites, the follow- ing words, from Origen's tirft book ag^inft Celfus, to- wards the end, ' extat fane in Barnabse Catholica epi- . ftola fifiptum. Inde fortafTe Celfiis ocdafionerti arri'- . , puit, ut apoftolos infarties et nequiflimos diCeret. Jefui|i ad apoflolicam functionem ekgifTt; hoin^es bnjiii ^ni(iur- -- t'^te nequiffimob,"

BARNABAS. 23

ed the myftery of three letters. For the fcripturc fays, *' Abraham circumcifed

THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN Hiea

©f his houfe/* But what therefore was the myftery that was made known to him ? Mark, firft the eighteen ; and next the three hundred. For the numeral letters of ten and eight arc I.H ; and thefe denote Jesus. And becaufc the cross was that by which we were to find grace, therefore he adds, three hundred, the note of which is T [the figure of his crofs]. Wherefore, by two letters, he fignified Jesus, and by the third his cross. Hr who has put the engrafted gift of his do(5trine within us knows, that I never taught to any one a more certain truth : but I truft that ye are worthy of it."

f

Sect. X. " But why did Mofes fay, •' Ye fhall not cat of the fwine, neither the eagle,nor the hawk, nor the crow, nor any fi(h that has not a fcale upon him ?" I anfwcr, that, in the fpiritual fenfe, he comprehended three doftrines that were to be gathered from thence. Befides which he fays to them in the book of Deuteronomy, ** atid I wrllgive my fta-

E lutes

24 BARNABAS.

tutes unto this people.'* Wherefore, k is not the command of God that they fhould not eat thefe things ; but Mofesin the fpirit fpake to them. Now, " the fow he forbad them to eat" > meaning thus much, thou Ihalt not join thyfelf to iuch perfons as are hke unto fwine.-— " Nei- ther Ihalt thou eat of the hare." To what end ? To fignify this to us, tliou flialtnot be an adulterer, nor hken thy- felf to fuch perfons. For the hare eve* ty year multiplies the places of its concep- tion ; and as many years as it lives, fo many it has* " Neither (halt thou eat of the hyasna ;*' that is, again, be not an adulterer, nor a corrupter of others, nei- ther be like unto fuch. And wherefore fo ? Becaufe that creature every year changes its kind, and is fometimes male, and fometimes female. For which caufe alfo he juftly hated the weefel -, to the end they fhould not be like fuch perfons, who with their mouths comm/it wicked- nefs, by reafon of their uncleannefs ; nor join themfelves with thofe impure wo- men, who with their mouths commit wickcdnefs ; becaufe that animal con- ceives with its mouth.** Mofes therefore jfpeaking as concerning meats, delivered

indeed

B A R N A B A S. 23

Indeed three great precepts to them la the fpiritual fignitication of t-hofe commands. 3ut thcy,acco! ding to the defires of theflefii, underftood him as if he had only meant it of iTieats. And therefore David took aright the knowledge of his threefold command, *faying in like manner ; ^* blefled is the man that harh not walked in the coun- fel of the ungodly ;" as the filhes before mentioned in the bottom of the deep in darknefs : ** nor ftood in the way of linners ;* as they who feem to fear the Lord, but y-et fin as the fow, " And hath not fat in the feat of the fcorners ;" as thofe birds who fit and watch that they may devour. Here you have the law concerning meat perfeftly fet forth, an4 according to the true knowledge of it.

TtiESE paflages are only a very fmall part of thofe, in which the fcriptures arc placed, in this cpiftle, in a moft ludicrous point of light. It is, as I imagine, be- yond the power of man to reconcile fach trifling, uncouth, romantic explications of the holy word of God, with the excel- lent character it has given us of the apof? tpJic-Barnabas.

I SHALL only add,no mention is made^ in this epifllc, of Bilhops, or Prclbyters i

not

26 BARNABAS.

nor the leaft hint given, from whence it may be collected, what was this writer's opinion about either of them. Both the greek and latin copies are abfolutely filent with reference to every thing con- troverted between the cpifcopalians and prefbyterians : for which reafon I have faid lefs of this primitive writer, than might otherwise have been proper, I ihall obferve the fame rule, refpefting thofe other fathers, whofe writings have not reached us, or contain nothing in them to the purpofe of the argument wc arc upon«

>:Q

r\t

DIONYSIUS

DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA,

THIS Dionyfius is filled the areopa- gitc, partly to diftinguifh him from feveral others of the fame name ; bat principally becaufe heis thus pointed out by theinfpired writer of the book of the a6ls.

The areopagite-fenate, fo denomina- ted from the famous areopagus, a court- boufe, built upon a hill in Athens, was the moft facred and venerable tribunal ia Greece. All the greater and more capi- tal caufes were brought before it ; efpe- dally matters of religion, blafphemy a- gainft the gods, and contempt of the ho- ly myftcries. Dionyfius is fuppofed to have been one of the judges, when Paul was arraigned before this fenate, as " a fetter forth of ftrange gods" for " preach- ing Jcfus and anaftafis,"or the refurrcc- tion. It is faid, and upon juft grounds, that he was converted by this apoftle, while, in the midft of mars-hall, he made the addrefs to the men of Athens, recor- ded

^8 DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA.

ded i;i the j 7th Chapter of the Afts. For though we are told, that ** fome mock- ed" at this preaching ; it is alfo affirmed, that *^ certain men beheved, among the which was Dionyfius the areopagite/' A<5ts xvii. 32, 34.

Nothing more is recorded, in the fa- cred books, concerning this truly primi- tive father. Eufebius fays, ** he was the firft Bi(hop of Athens ; and intro- duces Dionyfius of Corinth mentioning the fame thing. * No further notice is taken of him, until we come to ages rcr mote from that in which he lived ; on which account no great regard is to be paid to the commendations that are there bellowed on him, in thehigheft ftrains of hyperbolical language, .' c;

• Numerous are the writings faid to be left by this Dionyfius; for which rea- fon only I have given him, among the other fathers, a place in this work. Some there are who ftrenuoufly plead for thef« writings as genuine ; though it is uni- verfally thought by protcftants, and by fome of fame even in the roman commu- nion, that they are falfcly attributed to

him.

* H. E. Lib. 3, cap. 4. lib. 4. cap. zz.

DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA 29

him. None have wrote more largely, or with greater learning, in proof of their being fpurious, than Monfieur D'aille ; who has faid enough to convince all, that are capable of conviiSion, that this is their true charafler. The learned Du- pin not only entertained this opinion of them, but has faid that which is abun- dantly fufficient to lead others into the fame judgment about them. I fhall here tranfcribe one of the many arguments, he has ufed to evidence their being fuppofi- titious ; and I have lelededthis for a rea- fon that will obvioufly be fuggefted to the reader,when he fees what may be offered re- lative to the writings of another father,held in great reputation, at leaft among fome.

His argument is this ; " The manner ** of the firft appearing of thefe books '* ought to be fuipefted. For it is cer- ** tain, that, being unknown to all anti- ** quity, they werefirfl quoted by the j^w- ** r/^« heretics, in a conference holdcn be- tween them, and the orthodox Bifhops at Conftantinople, in the palace of the emperor Jujiinian, 532 years after " the nativity of Jefus Chrift. The fi- 1* lence of all the ancient ccclefiaftical

** writers

((

f(

30 DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA.

•' writers is, without doubt, a very great •* prejudice to them ; for who can ima- ** gine, that fo confiderablc an author a^ ** St. Denys (if thefc books had been real- ** ly compofcd by him) fhould have beert ** unknown to Eufebius and St. Jerom ? " And who can believe, that, if they had ** known them, they fliould take no no- •* tice of them, when they compofed an *• exaft catalogue of all the authors, of •* whom they had any knowledge -, not •* omitting even thofe that had fo little " reputation, that they were fcarcely *' heard of in the world ? Is it poflible " that Eufebius, in making mention of " Dionyfius the aropagite, in two feveral " places, (hould not have obferved, ac- " cording to his ufual method, that he " had written feveral books ? St. Jerom, " in his epiftle toMagnUs, doth not omit •* the tcftimony of one fingle author to " prove, that it is lawful to make ufe of •* prophane books ; whereas the wri- *' tings of St. Denys might have ferved " a« a notable proof. Why then doth ** he not fpeak fo much as one word con- " cerning them ? He gives us an ac- *• count, in his catalogue, of Quadratus " Bifhop of Athens, and of Arifttdes

" the

DIONYSmS AREOPAGITA. 3 1

*' the athenian philofopher : is It ppf* " fible>that St. Denyslhoiild be moreob- '* fcurc than thefe two writers, or left *' efieemed by St. Jerom ? How could it ** happen, that all the ancient writers ** mention St. Dionyfius the areopagite, '^ as Dionyfius Corinthius, St. Chyfo- *' ftom, St. Ambrofe, St. Auguftine, *^ and the author of the dialogues afcri- ** bed to St. Caefarius, the brother of St. " Gregory Nazian2en,fhould give us no •* intimation of thefe books ? In fhort, ** why were thefe books, which contain " many things relating to the doftrine ** and difciphne of the chriftian church, ** and that would have been of ^reat au- " thority, as proceeding from fo ancient ** and confiderable an author as St. Di- " onyfius the areopagite, never cited ei- " ther for, or againft any heretic, or for '' the illuftration of any point of dif- " cipline before the fi^th age of the ** church ?"-*

The writings falfely atributed to Di- onyfius the areopagite are as follow. A book " concerning the celeflial hiei^ar- chy ;" another of '' the divine nameC another of ** myftical divinity ;" \tn

F epiftles -,

3^ DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA/

epiftles ; fcur to ** Caius/' one ia ** Doroiheiis," another to '' Sofipater," another to ** Polycarp," another to *' De- mophilus," another to '' Titus," another to " John the evangelift." Thefe have been prhited, and reprinted, both in greek and liitin, in many parts ofEurope. Du- pin fays, feveral other books were compo* led by this author, and quoted by him- felf ; luch as a book concerning ** fymbo- Jical knowledge j" another of *' the foul ;" another cf " divine hymns >" another of the " juft judgment of God ; another of *« thofe things that are undcrftood by the mind, and that may be perceived by the fcnfes."— But thefe are all loft.

These books, as Johannes Scotus, the firfl tranflator of them intolaiin, tells us, are infinitely intricate and perplexed, faf beyond the reach of modern apprehen- fion, and which few are able to pierce in- to, by reafon of the iuLlimity of themyf- teries whereof they treat. And, as Dr^ Cavejuftly and judiciouflyobferves," Who- ** ever was their genuine parent, or up- " on what account foever he wrote them, ** it is plain, that he laid the foundation t* gf a myfticai and unintelligible divi-

t' nity

0IONYSIUS AREOPAGITA. 33

•♦* nity among chriftians, and "that hence ^* proceeded all thole vvild roficrufean •^'notions, which fomemen are fo fond " of, and the life and praciice whereof ^* they cry up as the very foul and per-- ♦* fev-tion of the chriftlan rehgion. And *'* that this author does immediately mi- '* nifter to this defign, let the reader •' Judge by one inftance, and laffure him ** none of the moft obfcure and intricate ** paffagesin theft books." This inftance he gives us^ as he himfelf declares, ex- preffed word for word. It is as follows; *v* God is known in all things, and without *'* all things. He is known by knowledge, ** and by ignorance. There is both a co- ** gitation of him, and a word, and a fci- ** ence, and a touch, and a fenfe, and an ^' opinion, and a name, and all other ^' things; and yet, he is neither thought, '* nor Ipoken, nor named. He is not any ^* thing of thofe things that are, nor is he ** known in anyof the things that are; he ** is both all things in all, and nothing in *^* nothing; out of all things he is known *• .to all, and out of nothing to nothing. ** Thefe are the things which we rightly *' difcourfe concerning God. /\nd this "** again is thq moft divine knowledge of

'' God

34 DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA.

** God, that which is known by ignorance,* ** according to the union that is above un- *' derftandmg; when the mind getting at *' a dirtancc from all things that are, and ha- ** ving difmifled itfelt, is united to thofe *' fuperiiluftrious beams from whence, and ** where, it is enlightened in the unta- *' thomable depths of wifdom.'^

** More of this, (fay^the Doftor,) and ** thclike ftuft'is plentifully Icattered up ** and down tbefe books. And if this be ** not myftic^l and profound enough, J V know not what is; and which certainly ** any man, but one well verled in this fort ** of theology, would look upon as ftrange *' jargon of nonfenfe and contradiction. ** And yet, this is the height of devotion ** and piety, which fome men eanieftly ^* prefs after, and wherein they glory : as " if a man could not truly underftand«the ** myfleriesof religion, until he had re- ** figned his reafon ; nor be a chriflian, ** without firfl becoming an enthufiafl, ^' nor be able to fpeak fenfe, qnlefs in a ^ language which none can underftand."

HERMAS.

' ■■' ■ , ".* ' .. ? ■;

H E R M AS.

ffjs chara5ier^ writings^ fejlimorites /rsm ther^i with obf^rvationSf and remark^.

THIS Hermas has fomctimes been miC- takenfor Hermes, brothertoPiusL an ^cclefiaftie beyond the middle of the fecond century. The author of the ^* pontifi- cal" fathered upon Damafus, the pre- tended <* decretals of the Bifliops of Rome," together with fome other ancient, as well as modern writers^ have fallen in- to this error, as Du-pin calls it, and has, in common with many other learned men, proved it to be, from all the primi- tive fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Ter- tullian, Origin^ Eufebius, and Jerom ^ who always call him Hermas never Her^ mes.

It

36 H E R M A S.

It is unqueftionable, that there was^ in the firil age, a perfon of this name ^ as the apoftle Paul, among other diriftians at Rome, falutes Hennas by name. * It is certain alfo, that feveral of the fathers thought the fcripturc-Hermas to be the fame with him, of whoni we are fpeak- ing. This was the opinion of Origin, Eufebius, and Jerom. But that he was really this perfon, is not certain : nof have we any particular account of his jufl charafter ; where he lived ; what he did in promoting the caufe of Chrift ; when, how, and in what place, he died. Arch-Bifhop W^ke, from fomc pafTages in his " Paftor," mentions feveral things, by way of conjecture, defcriptive of him ; but, as the more ancient records are fi- lent about him, I fhali pafs from bi;^ perfon to his

Writings,

And wc have no account of any thing he ever wrote, but only the book en- tituled, «• Pallor ;" than which, per- haps, no piece is more frequently menti- oned

^ Rpm. 1 6. r4.

H E K M A S. 37

oned in antiquity. And yet, it is hot cafy to fay, what its authority was in. thofc days. Ircna^us feems to quote i^ under * " the name of Icripture.'* Clement of Alexandria introduces a ci- tation from it in that language, •f' *^ the power which fpake divinely to Hermas by revelation." TertuUian, before his profeffing himfelf a montanift, fpeaks of it, if not with any high encomium^ yet without intimating a fufpicion as if it was of no good authorit.y. Origin calls it :{: " a very ufeful writing,and in his opini- on divinely infpired. Eufebius brings it in doubted of, as to its '* canonical au- thority ;" but allows that it was received as a " juftifiable book, publicly read in. the churches, and quoted by ancient au- thors." Jerom ftiles it, " a truly profi- table book, cited by the greek fathers."

But notwithftanding all this, it is fometimes even defpiled as a work of no value ; and this, by fome of the very per- fons above-named. TertuUian^ after his

being

• . ^.* '* Bene ergo prominciavit fcriptura.'*

t " Theios to Erma meta apokalupfiH laloufa." ^'** Valde milii utilis videtur et, ut puto, divinitus

* jnfpixata/^

38 H E R M A S,

being infefted with the monafllcal errors,^ fpeaks of it in language denoting the higheft contempt. It was fays he, * ** reje(3ed by all the churches as a falfe andfpurious writing/' Origin fome- times makes the fuppofuion, -f- '* if it be a book to be received ; " and mentions it moreover, ** as defpifed by fome." Je- rom calls it J " an apocryphal book, to be condemned for the folly contained in it." Such difficulty is there in ^fcer- taining the true eftimate put upon this writing in ancient times.

vi^nivjb r.< Nor are the moderns united iia the judgment they pafs on it. They are in- deed unanimoufly agreed to renounce it as " a canonical book ;'* yet, they diiFer widely in the value they exprefs for it. Some receive it with refpeft, as ** a vene- rable ancient piece -" while others look upon it as of *' little worth." The learn- ed Du-pin gives that account of it, " It *^ hath not bttn fo much valued by rao- ** dern authors ; and there are very few,

" at

* " Ab omnif cohcilio ecclefiarutti inter apocrypha and fa'lfa judicaretur."

t *' Si .Gui tamen libellus ille recipiendus videtur.** X *' Liber ilk apocryphus ftuhiti» condemnandus eft/*

M E R M A S. 39

'' at prefent, that commend it, or that " have the fame regard to it as thofethat " lived in the primitive ages of the *' church. And indeed, if we may judge' *' by the method according to which it1« ** wrote, and by the things therein con-- '* tained,itdoes Hot feetll to defeiVe much '' efteem. The firll part, entitled, *^ the " vifions," is full of many revelations that " are explained to Hernias by '^ a wo- '' man'' reprefenting the church, they '' all relate to the ftate of the church, '' and the manners of chriffians. the " iecbnd part, which is moft liibful, is ''^ called "the ordinances," wherein ar^' '' comprifed diverfe precepts of moralityi " and pious inftruftions, which th5 ** paftor," or " angel of Hermas'' pre^ " ftfibes to Him. Thd third par[ is cal^* *' led, the - fimilitudes," becaufe it be3 ^^ gins with feveral ^< fitiiilies,'^ or com-l '' paHfons, and concludes with vifions>^ " Thefe three books cdrhpre-hend Very *' many moral inftruaions concerninp^ " the praaice bf chriftian virtues 5 buc" '' the great number of vifions, allegories/ " T^j fi^iiHtudes, make therh tedious';^ *^ Addall chefc moral truths Would, in my cpmiori, have been more afefal, li

40 H E R M A S.

*' the author had propounded them fim- " ply, as the apoHles had done in their '} epiftles."

This work was penned in greek ; tTiough we have now extant only an old latin verfion. Barthius fuppofes it not to have been tranflated until the days of jerom, becaufc that writer fpeaks of it as *Vniuch ufed among the greeks, but fcarce known to the latins" But Cote- lefius herein oppofes him, proving it to haye been read, by feveral of the latins BeiFore the .age. of Jerom ; and probably they read it in the prefent tranflation : though it is not known^ at this day, by 'whom it was miade : nor can the time of writing this '' paftor ' be brpbght, with ' certainty^ to, an exaft period. Arch-Bifhpp Wake places it the laft piece Wt one in hi& ". apofto- lical fathers." He might probably think it was wrote after the epifiles of Igna-^ tius and Polycarp. But itis:rnpft.common- ly liippofed to have been wrote much fdoner. Some place its date^ about the year 90/ a little before the dioclefian ferfecution which he is thought to re- fer to in his _" fourth yifipn,'' Others

H E R M A S. 41

are perfuaded, it was wrote fooner yet, before the deftruction of Jerufalem, and not many years after {bme of the epiftles of the apoftle Paul. Of this opi- nion was the learned Dodweil ; and he fays that in defence of it, which is well worthy of confideration.

Testimonies from Hermas.

Vis. II. Sea. It.— ^' Thoufhalt there- fore fay to thofe who are over the church, * that they order their ways in righte- oufnefs, that they may fully receive the promife with much glory."

Vis. ibid. Seft. IV.-- ■« After this I faw a vifion at home in my own houfe, and the old woman, whom I had feea before, came to me, and alked me, whe- ther I had yet delivered •f her book to the elders of the church, t And I anfwered,

I

* Qui prsefunt ecclefiae. t In the common copies it is, " Si jam libeilum dediiiem fenioribAs." Bat Arch-Bifhop Wake fays, the word " fuum" is added in the Lambeth M. S. according to . which he has here given the tranllation. I The words, ^' of the church," are not in the original, and therefore, printed by the Arch-Bilhop in italic to give notice of it."

4? H E R M A S.

I had not yet. She replied, thou haft well done 3 for I have certain words more to tell thee. And when 1 fliall have finiflied all the words, they jfhall be clearly under- ftood by the eject. And thou flialt write* tvvo books, and fend one to Clement, and one to Grapte. For Clemept fliall fend it to the foreign cities, becaufe it is per- mitted to him to do (o. But Grapte Ihal! admonifli the widows and orphans. But thou fhalt read in this city witi) the elders of j- the church."

Vis. III. Se6l. V. '' Hear now con« eernmg the ftones that are in the build- ing. The fquare and white ftones, J which agree exaftly in their joynt3, are the apoftles, and bifliops, and dolors,

* *' Scribes ergo duos libellos, et mittes uniim Clemen ti, et unum Greptse. Mittet autem Clemens in exteras civita- tes ; illi enim permiirum eft. Grapte autem commone- bit viduas, et orphanos. Tu autem icges in hac civitate cum fenioribus qui prsefunt ecclefise."

t The reader is defired to take notice, that the original words, ** qui prsefunt," arc totally difregarcjed by the Arch-Bifhpp in his tranflation here.' Could he have left but the import of thefe words, without defign ? And could lie have any other defign, than to keep it out of fght, that> according to Hermas, Elders or Preftyters were the perfons who presided, or were set over the church.

I " Lapides quidem illi quadrati, et albi, convenientes in commiiruris fuis, ii funt apoftoli, et epilopi, et dodores

et

1^ E R M A S. 43

And roinifters, who, through the mercy of God, have come in, and governed, and taught, pd miniftred holily and modeft- ]y. to the eled of God, both that are men afleep, and which yet remain, and have always agreed with them, and have had peace within themfdves, and have he^rd each ftther,"

■ Vis. ib. Sea IX.--« Ye that arc more eminent, fearch out thofe that are hungry, whilft the tower is yet unfinifli- ed. For when the tower fhall be finifli-

t'Jy . -1' 5- "^'"'"g '" "^^ §°°d' and Ihall not find any place in it. Beware

therefore, ye that glory in your riches, left perhaps they groan who are in want, and their fighing come up unto God, and y? be fhut out with your goods without the gate of the tower. Behold I * now warn you who are fet over the church. ?nd love the higheft feats j be not like un- to thofe that work mifchief.— Take heed, tny children, that your d.ffentions de- prive you not of your lives. How will

ye

eeminiftri.qui ir.gre/n fet ir, elements Dei, et enif-

44 H E R M A S.

ve inftruft the deft of God, when ye vourfelves want correaion ? Wherefore admonifh one another, and be at peace amons vourfelves, that I, ftanding before your father, may give an account foi- you unto the Lord."

Command. XI. Sea. III." Hear now concerning the earthly fpn;it which is empty, and foolifl., and without virtue And firft of all. the man who is fuppofed to have this fpiril *exalteth hicnlelf, and defires to have the firft feat, and is wick- ed, and full of words 5 and fpends his time in pleafure, and in all nianner of voluptuoufnefs, and receives the reward of his divination."

SiMiL. VIII. Sea. VII.--"Asforthofc who had their rods green, but yet dettj they are fuch as were always faithful ana good, but they t had fome envy andftnfe among themfelves concerning dig- nity and pieheminence. Now all fuch^re

•" Exaltat enim fe, et vult primam cathredram ha-

+'"'Habentes inter ft a'oi.ndam invidiam et contenti- ^ner&incipatu, et" dignhate. Ver^ omr>e^Hu.

julmodi inllpier.tes fur.t et _ fatui, qui nauent inter

"emulationem dc panajatu. ,

H E R M A 'S. 45

vain, and without underflanding, as con- tend with one another about thefe things. Neverthelefs, feeing they are otherwife good, if, when they (hall hear thefe com- mands, they fliall amend themfelves, and fhall, at my perfuafion, fuddenly repent ; they fhall at laft dwell in the tower, as they who have truly and worthily re- pented. But, if any one (hall again re- turn to his diffentions, he iTiall be fhut out of the tower, and lofe his Hfe. For the life of thofe, who keep the command- ments of the Lord, confifts in doing what they are commanded ; * not in principa- lity, or in any other dignity."

SiMiL. IX. Sea. XV.—-'* But, fir, what were taken out of the deep, and fitted into the building ? The ten, faid he, which were placed- at the foundation* are the firft age ; the following five and twenty, the (econd, of righteous men. The next thirty-five are -f^, the prophets andminifters of the Lord. And the forty are the apoftles anddoftorsof the preach- ing of the fon of God.

SlMIL.

* Non In principatu, aut aliqua dignitate." •f "Prophetae domini et miniftri funt : quadraginta ve- To, apoftoli €t 4Q<^ores funt prasdicationis filii- Dei."^

46 H E R M A &.

SiMit. ib. Sea. XVI.—'' And I fald 9 why then, fir, did thefe forty ftones alfo afcend with them out of the deep, hav- ing already received that feal ? He afif- wered, becaufe * thele apoftles ahd teach- ers, who preached the name of the fon of God, dying after they had received his faith and power, preached to them who were dead before^ and they gave this feal to them."

SiMiL. ib. Sefl. XXV. As concerning the eighth mountain, in which were ma- ny fprings, by which every kind of all the creatures of God was watered, -f they are fuch as have believed the apoftles which the Lord fent into all the world to preach ; and fome of them, being teach- ers, have preached and taught purely and fincerely, and have not in the leaft yield- ed to any evil defigns, but have conftant- ly walked in righteoufnefs and truth. Thefe therefore have their converfation jimong the angels/'

SlMIL.

* " Apoftoli et doflores, qui praedicaverunt nomen fiiii Dei."

t ** Tales funt qui crediderunt apoftolis, quos mifit do- minus ill totutn orbem prxdicare ; et quidam do&o- res, qui oafte et fiiicerc prsedicaverunt, et docuerunt.'^

\ ■ ^

H E R M A S. 47

SiMiL. ib. Sea. XXVIL For wh^t concerns the tenth mountain, in which were the trees covering the cattle, they arc fiich as ^ have beheved, and lome of them beenBifliops, that iSjGovernorsof the churches, -f Others are fuch ftones as have not feignedly, but with a chearful mind, entertained the fervants of God. Then J fuch as' have been fet over inferior miniftries, and have protefled the poor, and the widows, and have always kept a chafte converfation. Thefe men there^ fore are prote6led of the Lord/*

Observations M

* Tales funt qui crediderunt, quidam Epifcopi, id eft, prae* fides ecclefiamm."

r

,_f It is obfervable, the Arch-Bifhop tranflates, in xhh place, " prseiides ecclcfiarum," governojr.s of the CHURCHES, becaufe conneded with the word " Epifr- copi/' Bilhops ; though in Vif. IL Se<tt. JLV. thewords, *\ qui paeCunt ecclefiae," are pafled over without any tranf^ lation at all ; and for no conceivable reafon, but be- caufe they were there connected with the word, El- ders or Presbyters. If in either of thefe para- ges, '* Governors of the churches/' is the proper tranfia- tion, it is equally proper In both ; for the original word§ no otherwife diftcr, than as a fubilantive difters fronj a verb. It is left with the reader to judge, whether the Arch-Bifhop h^s approved himfelf fo fair and impartia) a tranflator, as might juftly have been expeded.

J Et deinde qui prsfides funt minifteriorum, qui. ej mQp^ et viduas proti^erunt.

48 H E R M AS.

Observations and Remarks upon the foregoing teftimonies.

From thefe paffages in Hermas, which are all I can find to the purpolc of the prefent controverfy, the reader may, in ibme meafure, perceive the obfcuiity, with which his writings are perplexed. It appears that he has, here and there, drop- cd a few words that bear relation to the point we are upon -, but what he has laid is generally fo blended with vifionary or parabolical matter, that it is not eafy, by any rational connexion in his difcourfe, to determine his meaning ; and if we would underfland him, we muft ordina- rily confine ourfelves to the words bare- ly as they lie; unlefs, by comparing them with others of the like import, in other parts of his writing, we may be helped infixing their true fenfe.

But dark as he is, there arc fome plain intimations, that the world, in his day, were not acquainted with Bifliops, as offi- cers fuperior in their order to Prefbyters; yea, that the churches were fo far from being modelled after the prefent epifcopal forin, that the management of their reli- gious

H E R M A S.

49

gious affairs was in the hands, not of

SINGLE PERSONS, but a PLURALITY ;

and this, of equal rank. It is a com- mon phrafe in thefe v/iirings, *' qui piaefunt ecclefiae," that is, *' who are fet over the church.'* And left it ihould be pretended, the word, church, is ufed to fignify the church-catholic, in which fenfe it might be true, that it had a plurality fet over it, though parti- cular churches had only a fingle Bifliop at their head : I fay,to take away all ground for fuch a pretence, v/e have fuch an ob- fervable paffage as that, * *' And thou (Hermas) fhalt read in tkis city with the elders who are fet over the church/' A more exprefs teftimony could not well be given to this fact, that the church of Rome, at leaft, was, in this age, go- verned, not by ?ir\y Jingle paji or but 2i plu- rality, v/hlch pluraUty vjt^tPre/byterSy or if you pleafe BiJIoops; meaning hereby the SAME ORDER of officcrs in the church. For it is remarkable, the word, Bifhops, (Eplfcopl) is explained by Hermas him- felf to fignify, *' Praefides ecclefiarum ;" -f- that is to fay, he defcribes Bifhops by

their

* Vlf. IL Sefl. IV.

t Sim. IX. Seit XXVIL

50 H E R M A S.

their being " thofe who are fet over the church s" and thofe who are " fet over the church" he expreffly calls ^' (*^ Se- niores'') Elders, or Prefhyters ; io that, as it happily falls out, BiHiops and Prefby- ters, according to Hermas's ovv'n explana- tion of himfelf, are one and the fame offi- ccrs in the church, ipoken of promif- cuouily, as in the nevv-teftanlcnt- writings, pnder the names of Bifliops or Pref- byters.

But that this niatter may be fet in % yet ftronger point of light, I fliall bring to view, and confider, what is brought from Hermas in favor of the diflinfti^ on, he is fuppofed, by epifcopalian writers, to make betv^een Bilhops and Prelby-- ters. And,

The firft pafiage to this purpofe, we have in Vif. II. SclI. IV, in which it is faid, *' Thou flialt write two books, and fend one to Clement, and one to Grapte. And Clement fliall fend it to the foreign cities ; for to him it is permitted." In thefe words^ fome are fo fharp-fighted as

ta

*• Vif. II. Sea. IV.

HER MA S. 5f

tQ perceive plain evidence of epifcopal iuperiority. For, fay they, Clement was now Bifliop of Rome, gnd the care of " fendnig 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 bufinef3 moft properly l^elongedo

The anfwer is eafy. That Clement was now Bifhop of Rome, meaning here-^ by the f]ngle head, or governor of this church, k fo far from being probable, that the direft contrary hereto is moft evidently fignified by Hermas's '* paftor," in the latter part of this very paragraph ; where he fpeaks of the church of Rome ap under the government, not of any fin- gle perfon. And thou " fhalt read in THIS CITY with the Elders who are let over the church :" which words, I am perfuaded, can never be made to confift with Clement^ being now the epifcopal head of this church. He might, at this time, be related to the church of Rome, as one of their Biihops, or Eiders ; and be might alfo be the moft accomplifhed ^nd diftinguillaed among them ; the moft

known.

5S H E R M A S.

known, valued, and refpefted : to whom, upon thefe accounts, it might be given in charge,ratherthantoanyoftheotherElQers or Bifhops, to lend this book, or epiftle ; but not bccaufe it fo belonged to him ot right, and in virtue <S)f his office, as that it could not have been devolved upon any- other. It does not appear, either from Hermas, or any other ancient w^riter, that the care of fending letters to the churches was the work of Bifhops, as a peculiar badge of their office. The moft capable, or moft univerfally known officer, in any church, might ordinarily be pitched upoa to do this ; and nothing more can be ar- gued from it, than that he was thought the beft qualified perfon for fuch a work. Moft certainly, it is too trifling a matter on which to found a diftinftion of order between the officers of a church.

The next paflage recurred to we have, in Vif. III. Seft. V. in which are thefe words; " The fquare and the white ftones are the Apoftles, andBiOiops, andDodors, andMinifters, who, through the mercy of God, have come in, and exercifed epifco- pacy, and taught, and miniftred." Co-

telerius'snt^te here is, '' Hie habes. In

Englifli

H E R M A S. 53

Englifh thus, " You have here the dif- tinft orders of the hierarchy, in apoftles^ in Bifliops exercifing epifcopacy, in Doc- tors or Prefbyters teaching, and in Dea- cons miniftring." And the common plea of prelatical writers, from this paf- fage, is, that the three officers of the church, BifhopSy Prefbytersy and Deacons, arc here directly mentioned ; and the diflinction of their offices plainly infi- nuated by diftind work affigned them ; the Bifliops being defcribed by their '* ex- ercifing epifcopacy," the Doctors or Pref- byters by their " teaching,'* and the Dea- cons by their " miniftring."

This turn given to the words, may, to thofe who have not read the " paftor of Hermas,"carry the appearance ofplau- fibility; but, when fairly and impartial- ly examined, they will be found to make nothing againft the affirmation, that Bi- fliops and Prefbyters are one and the fame order of officers in the church of Chriiu Two things are here pleaded.

The firfl is, that direft mention is here made of three forts of officers in the church, viz. Bijlops, Doclors or Pre/by^

ters

54 HERMAN.

ters, and Minijlers or Deacons!* But M the word. Dolors, is here ufed exegeti* cally; not fpecifyingdiftind officers from Bifhops, but meaning only a difference in the work of one and the fame officers, there is plainly no force in the argument from this enumeration. And that this is really the truth of the matter, I {hall now make evident^ beyond all reafonable difpute, even from Hermas himfelf. In order whereto,

Let us turii toSimil.lX. Seft. XXVIL where we have thefe words, *' As con- cerning the tenth mountain, in which were trees that covered the cattle, they are fuch as have believed, certain Bifliops, that is, perfons fet over the churches,— and then fuch as are fet over the fervices, who haveprotefled the poor and widows,'* In thispaflage two orthreethingsare very obfervable. (i)That the word, Bifliops, is particularly ejiplained, and its fenfe, as ufed in the writings of Hermas, punc- tually afcertained : which I thus notice, prefuming it will be acknowledged rea- fonable to fland to that fenfe of a word, in an author, which he himfelt has givea of it. (2) It is plain, the words, ** Epif* copi," and **Pra^fides ecclefiarum," do, in

Hermas^

H E R M A S.

55

Hermas, fignify precifely one and the fame thing. That is to fay, ** Bifliops/' and ** fuch as are fet over the church," do intend one and the fame order of church-officers. For the explanati- on, given byHermas, of the word *^ Bi- ihops,** is, their being perfons that are " fet over the church/' (3) Here are evi- dently Tvvo, and only two orders of church-officers fpecified ; namely, BiJl:ops and Deacons : Bifhops, under that ilile, *^ Pr^fides ecclefiarum," perfons *' fet over the church ;" and Deacons, !chara6terifed by the phrafe, '' Pr^fides minifteriorum," fuch as were " let over the fervices ;" that is, that had the care of ♦* the poor, and the widows," as follows in the next words ^ which perfeflly co- incide with the original realon of the in- flitution of the Deacon's office, and de- fcribe its proper work.

Tjiese things confidered, I fear not to fay, that there is good reafon, why, when Hermas fpeaks of ** Bifliops, and Doc- tors, and Miniflers," we ihouid under- ftand the words, " Do6lors,"exegeticaily, or explicative of the word, " BiJhops i" not intending a diflin5l order of officers, I but

56 H E R M A §. ~

bul rather pointing our thoughts to dir- ferent work of the lame officers. And, ifi truth, unlefs we interpret the word after this, or fotnc fuch fenfe-, we fhall fet Her^ mas at odds with himfelf. For he has moft pandually afcertained the rneaning of the word, '' Blfhops," making it to fig- nify precifely the fame thing with «' prse- fides ecciefiarum," perfons *^ fet over the church." NoA^ thephrafe^ *^ Pr^fides ec-^ clefiarum/' is perfectly the fame with> " qui prsefunt ecclefise }* whibh, in Vifi II. Seit. IV, is, in the moft exprefs tnah- ner, applied to PresbytersovEIders. "Thou fhah read [cum Senioribus, qui praefunt ccclefise] with the Eldersy or Presbyters, that are fet over the church." So that, by the moft eafy and natural deduffion> Bifhops and Preftytcrs, according to Her- nias, are the same order of officers in the church : Nor can Hermas be evgt* made confiftent with himfelf, unlefs,when he fpeaks of " Bifhops and Doflors," we take him to ufe the word, " Doctors," as exegetical of the word, •' Bifhops," or a fynonimous expletive ; meaning only the fame order of perfons by both thefe terms. And, this interpretation will appear more caiy, if it be confidercd, that the words*

t[ JSifhops'l

H E R M A S. 57

.*' Bifiiops" and '* Do6lors," are comman- ly ufed in the writings of all antiquity, as fynonimops terras. Nor is the term, *' Doclor," ever appropriated to Prefbyters in diftin^^^ion frorq Bifhops. Far fron:i this, even after the difti nation between Bifhops obtained in the church, the word, *^ Do6tors"a is commonly applied to Bi- f]iops : nor was it ever an appropriated term to point out Prefbyters in diftia^tion ff oni Biliiops.

Moreover, it ought to be conficlered^ Hermas never makes the like enumerati- Qn, ** Apoftles, and Bifhops, arid Doc- tors, and Minifters j" but feveral times ipakes another, by which this ought, ia ail reafon, tobe explained. In Simil IV. SqO:. XV. it is faid, " the forty ftones are the Apoftles andDoftors of the preaching of the fon of God. Again, in Sim. ib. Seft. X VI. Thefe fame '' forty ftones" arc explained tp mean, " the Apoftles and Doftors of the preaching of the name of the Son of God." Yet again Sim. ib. &e£t. XXV. W? re^d of Vuch as '* be- lieved the Apoftles and certain Dodprs, who fincerely preached the ward." In $11 thefe placfS;, mention is made only of

58 H E R M A S.

" Apoftles" and *' Doaors." But, if Doftors Hid not mean the fame thing with B^ifhops, it is very extraordinary, and no epifcopalian can account for it, that Bi- fliops fhould always be omitted in thefe eniimerations,and ^^Dodors" always men- tioned. And truly, by this frequent coupling of Apoftles and Doctors, it is quite natural to think, that DoSors were^ in the opinion of Hermas, the next offi- cers in the church to Apoftles, and by no means an order inferior to Biiliops,

It may be properly added, as Hermas h*ad been fpeaking of " four-cornerecj ftones," it is highly probable, if not cer- tain, that he mentions the four names, ** apoftles, Bifiiops, Do61ors, and Mini- fters," only to make out fomething that might look like an analogy. In other pla- ces, where he had not to do with " fquare ftones," he gives us no fuch enumera- tion. For m.yfelf, I am fully perfuaded, we Ihould not have had it here, had it not been for this trifling circumftance. Bur if any fhould infift upon the neceffi- ty of a ftrift and proper analogy, and that it was Hermas's defign to exhibit one, the confcquence would be as fatal

to

H E R M A S. 59

to the caufe of epifcopacy, as to that of prefbyterianifm. For, upon this fuppofiti- on, there muft be four orders in the church, not three, anfwering to the *• four corners'' of thefe *' fquare-ftones ;" and the " Apoflles," here mentioned, muft be officers as diftinct from the ** Bi- fliops," as the " Bifhops" are from the " D66lors \' but hovvconnftent this will be with the pretence, thatBifhops are veft- ed with the apoftolic office, as their pro- per and only fucceffors,! muft leave thofe to determine, whofe concern it is to dofo.

The other branch of the plea is, that Hermas not only mentions " Bifhops, and Do6lors or Preft>yters, and Minifters or Deacons { but plainly infinuates a dif- tin6>ion of order between them, by dif- tindl: works affigned them : for, he re- prefents the Biftiops, as ^' exerciiing epif- copacy ;" the Dodtors, as " teaching j" and the minifters, as *' miniftring.*'

And it is confefied, if, in the age of Herm^as, the work of " exercifing epif- copacy," and the work of ** preaching/' were feparated from each other, as they too commonly are now a days, the argu-:

meat

5o HER MAS.

rnent would carry with it fome force, ix is in fa6l true, at prefent, that thoft ** exercife epifcopacy/' who ieldom or never exercife themfelves in *' preaching." And, indeed, it rarely happens, that the p^rfons veiled with the epiicopal office concern themfelves much with this other bufmefs. But it was not tlius from the beginning. Preaching was not then looked upon as the diftinguifliing mark of officers inferior to Bifliops : but, for many ages, the work of /f exerciiing epil- cppacy,'' and the work of ** preaching," were both united in one and the fame of- ficer of the church ; and ^^ laboring in the word and doftrine- was the moft known, and difl-inguiftiing cbara6ler of all that vvere Bifliops : infomuch, that a fingle inftance cannot be produced (I fpeak it with great pofitivenefs) of a perr fon ** exercifing epifcopacy," that did iipt, at the fame time, make it his c/jief bufinefs to " preach ;" until we come in- to thofe ages, in which the groHeft cor- loiptions were prevalent among all orders and degrees of men in the church. So that, it is no argument, that the '* Doc- tors" in Hermas were diftindl officers; from Eiftiops, becaufc they are ipoken of

M E R M A §. Si

as " preaching/' and the Bifhops as " ex- trclfing epifcopacy." For thefe are both parts of one and the fame office ; and Were always joined together, until, by- corruption, they were feparated. A Bi- fhop that was not a " Dodor," or " teach- er," was not known in the world in pri- tnitive times. It is therefore impofiible, the •* Doctors*', in this paffage, could be diftinft officers from the " Biihops," for this reafon ; as it had no exiftence until hundreds of years after its being penned. It is far more reafonable to fappoie,the fame order of officers are here called both " Bi- fhops" and " Do6lors," as pointing us to both parts of their office, " exercifing epifcopacy" and " preaching," or " teach- ing."

The only remaining places in Herman, in which epifcopacy is fought for, are Vif. III. Seft. IX. ** I fay unto you who are fet over the church, and love the Jirjl feats," Mand. XII. Sed. VII. " The earthly fpirit exalteth itfelf, and will have the/ry? cMr." Simil. VI. Seif. VII. ** They are fuch— as had fome envy and ftrife among themfelves for principality and dignity.*' The plea here is, though

Hermas

€% H E R M A S/

Hermas blames all contention about *' precedence ;" yet he plainly fappofes, at the fame time, a^r/? or chief feat -yiomt fuperior place in the church, proper to perfons of a fuperior rank or order ; fuch as Bifhops in that, and fucceeding ages.

To which i would fay, it is very plain, from thefe pafTages in Hermas, that there was an affuming ambitious fpirit then prevailing. among thofe, who were " fet over the church," which " earthly fpirit," as he terms it, :he cautions againft, as what ought not to be encouraged. But that he fuppofes, when he warns againft ^* pride, envy, and a loveof the firft feats," there were any officers in the church of a rank or order fuperior to that of Pref- byters, there is no juft ground to think. When Hermas dehorts from " loving the iirft feats, defiring the firft chair, con- tending for principality and dignity i" he undoubtedly intends, by all thefe ;phrafes,, one and the fame thing : that is to fay, he had it in view to difcountenancc that proud, ambitious fpirit, which reigned in ibme ; unreafonably pufliing them on to afpif« after fqperiority and prece- dence. It dpes n.ot appear tp have been

his

]« E R M A S. 63

his aim to infinuate a fuperiority of or« der between Bifliops and Prefbyters -, biat to check the growing vanity of thofe, tvho, being of one and the fame rank, yet fought for pre-eminence, and flrove to get exahed above their brethren. The temper of the perldns Hermas here find^ fault with, feems to have been much the fame with that, which the Apoflles dif- covered when they contended, " who among them fhould be greateft :'' or, ra- ther, Hke that of Diotrephes, of whom it is faid, *' that he loved to have the pre- heminence ;' or ( as the word Philopro^ teuein fignifies) " loved to hold the firft place." But, as it is no argument, that there was among the Apoftles zv\j Juperi- ority of order, becaufe they afFeded fome to be greateft -, or, that there v^^as a like fuperior office in the church, to which a chief feat was appropriated, becaufe Dio- trephes wa^ of an afpiring haughty fpirit : fo neither is it any argument of the fame thing, that Hermas blames the fame Ipi* rit, and warns againft it.

Nor if, in the days of Herman, there

had been a kno^ufrjlfeat, or chief chair^

appropriated to fome fpecial perfon;» would

K it

^4 H E R M A S.

it at once follow from hence, that thefe was a SUPERIORITY OF ORDER betwccn Bifhops and Prefbyters. Hermas, to be fure, neither plainly mentions, or tacitly fuggefts, fuch a thing; nor makes any ap- plication of thej'e feats to this purpofe^ And as a chief Jeat^ ox firjl chair ^ is com- monly afligned to the moderators of all ccclefiaftical confiftories, whether greater or lefs, who yet have no primacy of POWER, no superiority of office, but meerly for the fake of decency and order, this might be the cafe here : though I am rather inclined to think, that no- thing more is intended by thefe phrafes, than an indication of that pride and va- nity, which too much prevailed, even in thofe early days, among the officers of the chriftian church ; which Hermas there- fore endeavours, by proper confiderations, to reftrain and curb.

CLEMENT

CLEMENT OF Rome.

Ijis charaBery writings, and ie/iwionies from them, with obfervations and remarks^

THE accoynt we have In the ** Re- cognitions" falfely afcribed to tjiis CIement,ofhis noble birth and parentage; his being fent by his father Fauftinus to be a ftudent at Athens ; the manner and circumllances of his convqrfion ; his in- ftru6tion under Barnabas ; his baptifm by the Apoftle Peter, together with the various adventures of fome of his neareft relative? I fliall pafs over in filence : not Ipoking upon that fuppofuitious piece of authority fufRcient to encourage a beliqf of thefe things.

Nor is, it abfolutely certain, that this i^that Clement, of whom we read in the

fourth

66 CLEMENT of Rome,

fourth chapter to thePhilippians ; though^ as we know of no one under this name, to whom this text may be fo well applied^ the conjeiiure in which the generality of learned writers are agreed, feems no ways improbable, that he is the perfon there intended: efpecially, confideringthe an- cierit fathers do either expreflly call him the fcripture-Clement, or fo delcribe hini as naturally to point our thoughts to this father, rather than any other of the lame name. Irenaius fpeaks of him as one that " had ktn the Apoftles, converfed with them, and attended on their preach- ing/' Origan, Eufebius, and Jerom do all of them diredlly take notice of him^ as the Clement " fpoken of in fcripture/? And if this was he, the honorable men- tion an infpired pen makes of him, as " an Apoftle's fellow-laborer in the gofpel, and one whofe name was in the book of life," is a very recommending cir- cumftance, and cannot well fail of giv- ing us a favorable opinion of any ge- nuine writing, we may meet with under his name.

But however this be, he was a perfon anciently had in great veneration. Scarce

any

CLEMENT OF Rome. 67

any of the firfl: fathers are more frequent- ly mentioned in antiquity, or their names remembered in higher expreffions of re-^ fpeft and honor. Clement of Alexan^ dria fpcaks of him in the ftile of *• an Apoftle" i Origin (or Ruffin his tranfla- tor) calls him " the faithful Clement" i the author of " the queftions and anfwers" afcribed to Juftin Martyr, '' the blefTed Clement;" Jerom, ''an apoftollcal man."

He is faid to have been Bifliop of Rome : though It nriuft be obferved here, we fliall be much miftaken, if, from his bemg fppken of in the llile of Bifhop, we (hould imagine him like one of our Englifli diocelans. It is indeed probable enough, the ancients, that call him BiQiop, after the epifcopal power and grandeur had arofe to ibme height, might, by this ap- pellation, mean fuch a kind ot eccleflaftic as the Bifhop was in their day. But this is no argument that he was lo, either iii: reality, or in the efteem of the more pri- mitive fathers. We (hall afterwards fee it to be the truth, that, until towards the clofe of the fecond century, Bifhops and Prefbyters v/ere only different names for one and the fame order of officers in tiie

chriftiari

68 CLEMENT of Rome,

chriftian church, and promifcuoufly ufed juftiii the fame manner, as in the Apoftle? days : upon which account, when Cle- ment is fpoken of as Bifhop of Rome, it amounts to no more than if he had been called the Paflor, or one of the Pref- byters of that church. Agreably Ire- naeus, in mentioning the pcrfons that fucceeded in theroman church, fometimes does it under the name of Bifhops, and fometirnes under the names ot Pref-. byters ; evidently ufing thefe names pro^. mifcuoufly, as fignifying one and the iame order of church ofiScers. This will te fully fhewq in its proper placp.

But though he was Bifhop, or Faftor, of the church of Rome, yet the particular time of his entering upon this charge is matter of great difficulty ; as is alfo the exaft place he bears in the order of fuc- ceflion : the ancient fathers being (o ftrangely divided in their accounts upon this head. Tertullian derives the fuc- ceflion from Peter ; and makes Clement his immediate fueceflbr. The author of the '' apoftolical conftitutions" places ^t the head of the fucceffion the Apoftle Paul, as well as Peter; and makes Linus

to

CLEMENT OF Rome. 6^

tofucceed Paul, and Clement Peter ; but not until after the death of Linus. Irenaeus and Eufebius, befides Linus, name Anacletus before Clement ; giving the order thus, Linus, Anacletus, Clement. And, after the days of Eufebius, ftill grea- ter confufion is to be feen in the cata- logues of this fucceffion. In Ibme Ana- cletus is expunged, and Cletus placed in his room ; while others retain both Cle- tus and Anacletus. And the order in which thefe are placed, is much varied. In fome the line is ktn running thus, Li- nus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus. In others, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anacle- tus. And again in others, Linus, Cle- tus, Anacletus, Clement. And agrea- bly the later Greeks (as Bifnop Pearfon obferves from Cotelerius) do call Cle- ment, fometimes the fecond, and fome- times the third Bifhop of Rome.

In fuch confufion Is the line, in one of the greateft and mod celebrated chur- ches in primitive antiquity ; upon vi^hich the learned Stillingfleet pleafantly obferves, *' The fucceffion here is as muddy as Tyber itfelf." Nor would the remark Dr. Cave makes upon the writers of the

Romifti

fd CLEMENT of RoMfe/

Romifh churchy be lefs pertinent, if we fnould apply it to thofe of the Englifli : " They are (fays he) involved in ah in- extricable labyrinth about the firft foui* Bifhops of this (the Roman) lee -, fcarce two of them, of any note, bringing in the fame account." And after all that has been, or can be faid, perhaps, there is no way of accommodating this matter, but by fuppofing Linus, Cletus, and Cle- ment to be Bifhops of Rome, not fuc- ceffively, but at the fame time : which, though it breaks in upon the unity of the Epifcopate^ gives no juft oceafion for terror, fince the old maxim, " one Bi-^ fhop one altar,'' docs not appear to be facred and inviolable, either from reafon^ fcripture, or antiquity,

I CANNOT help digreffing fo far here^, as to infert a few words from the judici- ous Dr. Calamy. *' If (fays he) fuch con-- " fufion reigns here, (in the fucceffion *' at Rome) where one would apprehend " the matter to be clearefl, how weak is " it to place our whole dependance on *' thefe fort of tables ? How poor afoun- ** dation do thofe Gentlemen chufe to " build upon, who lay their main ftrcfs

f€

4<

CLEMENT OF Rome, jt

" on their derivation from the Roman " table, in proof of their miniflerial au- " thority ? Were it not a thoufand times " more candid, and ingenuous, to confefs ** weareinthc dark^and left at uncertain- " ty, than to make pompous boafts, the ** ground of which examined, vanifli from " under us ? Thefe fort of pretences to ^' apoftolical right^ and apoftolical tradi- '' tion, backed with the tables of fuc* '' ceffion,in the feveral churches, make, I confefs, a mighty noife,and may dazzle the eyes of the weak, and pais for a juftification with thofc tftat have the '' civil authority on their fide, which " may feem to give them validity : but " they difappear, whenever they are^exa- '* mined in cold blood, and viewed na- " ked as they are themfelves. When " we make the beft of them we can, '* Eufebius is the main author that wc " have to depend on for the credit of " thefe tables. And his account of the *' fucceflion, in the feveral churches, is " made up moftly of conjec^lures at three '* hundred years diftance from apofto- ** lical times, vouched by uncertain au- *' thors. And where he has left vacant ^' cies, Nicephorus Calliftus, and Simeort-

L *' the

^2^ C L EM E NT OF Rome.

^^ the Metaph raft, and other fuch hiftorP ^' cal tinkers, as Bifliop Stillingfleet plea-^ ** fantly calls them, have taken efFedual

^* care to fill them np. He that from

^' the blind, broken, and uncertain ta- ^^ bles of fuceeffion, that are tranfmitted ^^ to us in the records of antiquity, can '* infer thenecefiity of epifcopal, and the ^* invalidity of prefbyterian ordination/ ^* muft either have a ftrong faith, or a ** predominant fancy. If they cannot ^' be cleared, it is vain to argue from' *' them : but if they can, they will ferve '^ us as much as they will them/* Bu£ to return*

Being Bifhop of Rome^ he was a con- ftant, laborious preacher ofthev^ord, and difpenfer of gofpel ordinances to that church. For this is the moft juft and true idea of a faithful Bifliop or Paftor xn primitive times. The name Bifliop was not then looked upon fo much a ti- tle of honor,as implying in it great watch- fulnefs, labor and pains : and this, not in '* infpeding and governing inferior clergymen," but in ** feeding the flock of Ghrift" with the word and facraments. Nor is there a fa<5t more unquefl:ionabIy

clear,

CLEMENT OF Rome. 73

,€le^r,from the whole ftrain of primitive an^ tiquity,than that it was the ftated, known, perpetual en^ployment of all that were Eifliops, to exercife themfelves chiefly in this work. And this true fcripture no- tion of the work of a Bifiiop, was fo ge- nerally prevalent, even after the difrinc- tion between Bifhcp and Preibyter took place, that the fourth council of Car- thage came into fuch a decree as that^ >^ the BiOiop fliall wholly occupy himfelf in reading,and praying,and preach- ing the word.'' But the reader that has a mind to fee this matter indifputably cleared up, has it done ready to his hand by that wonder of learning, the great Jamefon,in his '' Nazianzeni Querela" and his " Cyprianus Ifotimus".

It is common in modern authors io read of this Clement as baniftied from his church, and at laft dying a mar- tyr for the caufe of Chrift : though thefe things, to fay the leaft, are mat^ ters of great uncertainty. None of the fathers of the three firft centuries,that I can find, make mention of him as an exile, or martyr. And what is pretty extraordinary, Eufebius, who is common- ly very particular in thefe cafes, i§ whol-^ k fiknt upon this head. If we may de- ^ pen!

74 CLEMENT of RomEo

dend on the credit of Cotelerius, Ruffin, who lived in latter end of the fourth cen* tury, is the firfl that fpeaks of him asho^ nored with martyrdom. After him in- deed Simeon Mctaphrad'es has exhibited to the world a moft particular and for- mal account of his '^ banifliment to Cher- ion to dig in the marble qua rries and la- bor in the mines ; and afterwards of his being carried and thrown into the bottom ofthefea."St.Ephra5maIfo,BifhopofCher- fon,relates feveral very extraordinary mira« cles, that followed upon his being then put to death : but thefe are authors too much giveu to the romantic ftrain to place any dependance on ; efpecially in matters fo d^ftant from their own times, about which the firft fathers are wholly filent. Nor is it much to the honor of the learned, and otherwiie valuable. Dr. Cave, that he takes fo much notice, with feeming faith, of thefe and luch like plainly fabu- lous relations : though I could wifh, he he had not, upon this account, been quite io feverely cenfured by my Lord Bar riiig-- ton, when he fays of him, *^ that he has little that is not common and obvious, be- iides fome idle and legendary ftories, with which be abounds*

BcfT

CLEMENT OF Rome. 75

But whatever was the manner of his death, Eufebius places it in the third of Trajan, that is, in the year of our Lord one hundred, after he had been Bifhop of Rome nine years : which, whether it be the true account, I leave to others to determine.

The writings that go under the name of this Clement are many, and may be diftinguifh'd into genuine, DouBTFUtf

and SUPPQSITITIOUS.

Genuine.

In this rank is placed that excellent cpiftle to the Corinthians, concerning which the great Du-pin has dropped that remark," next to the holy fcripture,it is,in my opinion, one of the moft eminent re- cords of antiquity." It was certainly {o accounted by the primitive fathers; who fcarce mention it without fomc epithet of honor. It is called by Irensus (as Dr. Cave tranflates the phrafe) " the moft excellent and abfolute writing ;" by Eu- febius ** the truly great and admirable cpiftle :" and what the fame author adds, may further affure us of its high va- lue

76 CLEMENT OF Rome,

luc in ancient times/' 5 this epiftle we have known to have been publicly read in many churches, both of old, and among ourfelves alfo." Nor is it unwor- thy obfervation, that the only copy of this epiille, known in the world, was found .written in the (ame volume with the fa- cred books of the new-teftament : to Vv^hich happy circumftance we may afcribe it, that w^e are favored with it, after it had been bewailed as loft for piany ages*

The manner of its difcovery and puk- iication was thus. When Cyrill, Pa- triarch of Conftantinople, returned frorn l>is Alexandrian feat in Egypt, he brought with him a large colle6lion of books ; among which was an ancient copy of the old and new-teftament, wrote by the hand of Thecla, a noble Egyptian virgin, about the time of the firft nicene coun- cil. This he fent as a prefent to King Charles the firft, by Sir Thomas Roc, his Majefty's then Embaflador at the Otto- man court, upon his return into England. At the end of this copy was added this epiftle of Clement, wrote by the fame hand 5 though fomething broken and de- faced s

Clement of Rome. 77

faced: which, when the learned Patrick Young, his Majefty's library-keeper, had difcovered, he was commanded by the King, to make it public y which he ac- cordingly did at Oxford, in the year 1633, with a latin tranflaiion, and learn- ed notes.

The occafion of Clement's writing this epiftle, we may learn from Irenaeus, who fays, '' In the days of Clement, the church of Rome wrote a very pathetical ktter [they are faid to have wrote it, though it was penned by Clement, be- caufe it was wrote and fent in their name] to reftore them to peace." Eufebins ex- hibits the like tefUmony, when he tells us, *' that Clement wrote this epiftle from Rome to Corinth, when fedition was raifed among the Corinthians." He adds a few words after, *« that there wasj> at that time, a fedition among the Co- rinthians, Hegefippus is a witnefs. Nor can any one that reads this epiftle be at a lofs as to the truth of this. It is plain, through the whole of it, there was a (hame- fuldifturbanceinthechurchjandthischief- ly againft its Prefbyters : fome of the peo- ple being vainly conceited of their fpi-

ritual

78 CLEMENT OF Rome.

ritual gifts, and therefore rifing up again{l their guides and teachers. Now, to heal this difference, and reftore peace and good order, this epiftle was principally defign-* cd ; and to this end it is admirably well adapted : being wrote in a plain and un- afFefted ftile ; yet with great ftrength and perfpicuity, and evidently breathing the true fpirit and genius of the apoftolie age.

The epiftle is wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Co- rinth : upon which a noted author per- tinently remarks, ** Had he (Clement) known himfeU to be the infallible judge of controverlies, to whofe fentence the whole chriftian world was bound to ftand, invefted with a fupreme, unaccountable power, from which there lay no appeal, we might have expe6led to hear him ar- gue at another rate." And as there is no mention in this epiftle of any fingle per- fon, as the head and Governor of the Co- rinthian church, I cannot forbear adding another remark, which feems full as na- tural ; namely. That if there had been, at that time, at the head of this church, an ecclefiaftical officer, in any meafure, refembling one of our modern Biihops,

it

CLEMENT OF Rome. 79

it is altogether unaccountable, how both Clement and the church of Rome fhould treat hhn with fuch neglecl, as to be to- tally filent about him. It would certain- ly look ftrange, and be refented ill, if one of our prefent Bilhops fhould be fo fhamefully overlooked 3 his church com- plained of, rebuked, exhorted, and dire6l- ed to a proper method of peace : and all^ without referring the matter to the Bi- fhop, or indeed taking the leaft notice of him.— But of this we may hear more afterwards*

The exaft time, when this epiftle was wrote, is not eafy to be ftated ; as we may be fully fatisfied from the difagree- ment of the mod learned writers on this head. Mr. Young*s thought is, that it was wrote about two years before his death, in the time that he fuppofes himi to be under banifhment. Dr. Cave fixe$ the period a few years fooner, a little af- ter the Dioclefian perfecution. Vende- iinus places it in the year 95, when he apprehends this perfecution was at its heighth. Cotelerius agrees with him as to the year, biit rather thinks the perfe- cution was drawing to an ead- But the M conieclure

Bo CLEMENT OF Rome.-

conjeflure of Grotius, Dodwell, Arch- Bifliop Wake, and fome others, makes it to have been wrote rhuch fooner ; be- tween the latter end of Nero's reign, and the deftrudiohof Jerufalem, that is, between the ye^rs 64 and 70 ; which they very hiuchgrouhd oh that paflageili the epiftle, where they fuppofe the Jewifii pricft- hood and Levitical miniftrations arefpo- kenof as yet continuing.—But as it would be a going too far out of my viay to con- fider the particular reaforls, on which thefc conjectures are built, I have barelj^ referred to them, without pretending to lay which are mofi: probable : but leaving it to the reader to examine the matter, and determine as He fees fits

The only colour of an obje6lion agaihft the genuinefs of this epiftle,is taken frorri the '' fable of the phaenix," which Cle- hient particularly relates, and then ufes to reprefent the credibility of the doctrine of the reluneflibii. But it is hot wor- thy of much notice. This was a ftory, however ridiculous, generally believed in that day, by the learned as well as un- learned, both Jews and Gentiles. And as the account of that " bird's reviving out

CLEMENT OF Rome. Sf,

q{ the afhes of the body conlumed by jfire," was capable of being improved as an illuftration of the doftrine of the re- furredlion^ where is the great abfurdity of its being applied tothis purpofe ? And if Clement had himfelf really believed this ftory, being too far carried away with the prevailing opinion, what greater in- firmity would it argue, than the befl and pioft valuable men always have been^ and ROW are, fubjeft to. * '

-Grotius's thoughts concerning this epiftle, in his letter toBign©rius,are worth tranfcribing here. ** I have (fays he) read it over and over again, with the utmofl care and diligence, and cannot thinjc any other,than that it is the fame epiftle which Photius read : m whofe day, fince il: was in being, it is not wonderful, it has been preferved to our's^ among the facred writings. Neither fee I any reafon, ei- ther vi^hy the epiflLe which Photius read,

flioulcj

f The learned reader, that is curious, may be gratified by reading what is faid upon the "fable of the ph^enix,*^ to fiience the objecflions againft this epiftle of Clement, - 9n account of his making ufe of it^ in the notes in the body of the epiftle, and m the prefixed judgment of feme of the greatefi antiquaries, as they may j?e (cen pf Le Clere's edition of Cotelerius's " apoftolical Fathers/*

8a CLEMENT of Rome,

/liould not be the fame v/hich Jerom had, and before him Clement of Alexan- dria, and Irenaeus, yet nearer to the time of Clement of Rome ; or why we fiiould afcribe it to any other, than Clement of Rome himfelf ; fince this has been hand- ed down to us, with fo great and univer- falconfent." To which I would only add, there is no one ancient piece, we have greater reafon, both from its internal cha- rader, and external evidence, to depend upon as genuine. It is perhaps the moft frequently quoted, by the more prirhi- tive Fathers, of any uninfpired book j between all which quotations, and the prefent copy of this epiftle, there is a won- derful agreement. And it carries in it pone of thofe marks of impofl^^at are to J)e met with, in fome other pieces ; and thefe too, palmed upon even this ve- ry Clement : but every thing is delivered both as to matter, and manner, as might be expefted from one that lived in the apoftolic age, and was a worthy faithful laborer in the vineyard of Chiifl.

Doubtful.

In this clafs I place the " fecond epil*- fle to the Corinthians," afcribed to this

elements

GLE'MENT of Rom-e. 83

Clement. It is unqueftionably an an^- cient piece ; and as it contains a pious exhortation to an holy life, without the mixture of any thing, that I at prefent remember, unbecoming the charadler of Clement, or diffonant from the age in which be lived, I fee no reafon abfolutely to condemn it as fuppofititious.

As the known ecclefiaftical hiftorian fpcaks of the firft epiftle as the only un- doubted one, and declares concerning the fecond, what appears, even to this day, to be fa6t, that it was ** neither ufed, nor alledged, by the ancient writers ;'* if we may not, with Jerom and Photius, plain- ly reject it, v/e may, at leaft, put it up on the foot of uncertain authority. — But I need not fay any more, there being ^xtant orJy a fragment of this epiftle ; in which we meet with nothing that bears l-elatign to the prefent controverfy,

Spurious.

The pieces of this fort, afcribed to Clement, as their author, or the penman of others, are the ♦^ apoftolical conftitu- tions," the " apoftolical canons,'* the

** recognitions/'

84 CLEMENT of Rome,

*; recognitions," the ^* Clementines" witiji the" prefixt epiftle of Clement to Jamfs," and the '' epitomp of the ^ds qi Peter."

As to the conftitutions ^ Mr. Whifton, the lateft patron of them, has given them the moil facred charaQer ; pre- tending, that they are the wo,rk of even the whole body of the Apoftles, and pen- ned by Clement as their anian.uenfis : than which, perhaps, there never v^as an opinion attended with mpre, or greater abfardities. It is obvious to all, m any meafure, verled in the ancient wri- tings, that there is a total filence of all primitive antiquity about thefe conftitu- tions. And however Mr. Whifton's authorities out of the fathers h^ve fwel- led even into a volume, yet that they are only a vaft he^p of mifapphcations is fo evident, that no one, lo lar as I can learn, ha? ever thought it wprth wl;il| to be at the pains to take them out of that ftrangly falfe light, in which he ha? placed them : nor is there any need of it, there being enough in the books them- felves to make it clearly evident, that riQ one of the apoftles had any hand in writ- ing them ; yea, that th.ey nev^r were ^21

® being.

CLEMEKTT OF Ro^rE. S5

being, at leaft as we now have therri, tin^ lil the church of Chrift was gone far in- to corruption and degeneracy. A few of thofe many things, which are open t6 every one's obfervation, upon the bare reading of them, and that are fufficienr indications of this, I fhall here infert.

The manner in which they /peak of Bifhops is very extraordinary. Thejr represent them as *' bearing the charafler of God among men ;" as " fet over all men, Priefts, Kings, Princes, fathers, fons, mafters, and all that are fubjecl to them." They command them to ** judge with like authority as God himfelf." They call the Bifllop, " the minifter of the word, the keeper of knowledge, the me- diator between God and his people in re* ligious worfllip, the mafter of piety, next Unto Gdd, the Chriftian^s father, his Prince, Governor, King, Potentate;" and declare, that he is to be "honor'd next to God as an earthly God." They fpeak of Bifhops, as thofe that aretobe **^ venerated and honoured with all kind of honor ;" as thofe who have ** received from God the power of life and death, in judging ^finners, and condemning them to eter- nal

86 CLEMENT of Rom^.

nal flames, and abfolving thofe who are converted/' They exhort the people to ** reverence their Bifhops as Kings, and to honor them as their Lord.*'

This is a tafte of the fpirit, anci ftile, in which Bifhops are here fpoken of ; between which, and the flile and fpirit of the truly apoftolical writings, upon the fame fubjecSV^ there cannot be a greater contrariety. Let a man read, over and over again, the genuine writings of the apoflles, and he fliall ever find what they fay concerning Bifhops, to be delivered in plain fimple language, per- fe(5lly fuitedto thefpiritual nature of that kingdom of Chrifl, in which they are of- ficers : whereas, thefe ** conflitutions" fo ftrangely differ from the apofloHc genius, that, if the writings of the moft corrupt ages be looked into, we Ihall not be able to find in them any expreffions, more unboundedly aggrandifing Bifhops, and claiming for them higher degrees of ho-^ nor and reverence.

And if we turn to the epiftle of Cle- ment, the pretended amanuenfis of the Apoftles, we fhall find as great a difTo-

nancy

Element of Rome. 87

liancy between that, and thefe confl:!tii« tions : which is truly wonderful, if h? had fucH an intimate acquaintance with them, as he muft have hadj if he was the penman of them. Nor can it, in any ra-- tional way, be accounted for, that, in wri-^ ting to the Corinthians, he fhould whol- ly pafs by this moft valuable and canoni- cal part of facred fcripture, (as it muft certainly be, if, as is faid, it was compo- led by the whole body of Apoltles) which yet he does j and this, when it was far better adapted toanfwer the defign of hia *' epiftle," than all the other books of the new-teftanrient put together. For here,i the boundaries, not only between Bi- fhops and Prefbyters, but between Pref- byters and Laics, are moft pun6luaUy fixed 'y their duty to them prefcribed^ their obedience fecured ^ and, in a word^ the whole controverfy among the Corin- thians, the occafion of Clement's writing to them, intirely fettled. And yet, he takes not the leaft notice of thefe " con- ftitutions," though, from the mouth of theApoftles, he had penned them; while^, at the fame time, he makes great ufe of the books both of the old and new-tefta- ment, to fetch in arguments to his pur-?^ pofe* But to proceed,

N In

88 CLEMENT of Rome.

In ihefe '* conftitutions," we have forms of prayer prefcribed for a great va- riety of occalions ; particularly for both facraments, '* baptifm and the Lord's fupper ;" for the " ordination of Bifhops, Prefbyters, Deacons, Readers, Singers," and fo on. But that thefe were, any of them, ever ufed in the primitive church, there are no footfteps in antiquity : nor is there the leaft reference made to them, by any truly ancient Father, upon any occafion : which is altogether unaccoun- table, if, as is pretended, they were com* pofed, even by the whole body of Apof- tles ; and this, purpofely for the ufe of the chriftian churcn.

We here read of the ufe of " oyl in baptifm ;" nor is it allov/ed to be valid without a prayer for the efficacy of it on the baptifed perfon : and he is repre- fented, without this prayer, as ** de- fending into the water to no better pur- pofe than a meei Jew ;'* and as " wafliing off the defilements of his body, but not of his foul."

We have here prefcribed an ** office for the dead ;" in which fupplication is

made

CLEMENT OF Rome. 89

made for the deceafed, that God would "pardon his fins, both involuntary and voluntary, and receive his foul to be with Abraham, liaac, and Jacob."

We are here commanded to attend^ " prayer at church," not only daily, but no lefs than " fix times a day ;* the particular feafons for which, toge- ther with the trifling reafons on which they are grounded, are all particularly fpecified.

Particular care is here taken about the '* form and fituation of churches ;" an appointment made, that they fhall be " oblong and facing the eafl."' Mag- nificence in churches is alfo commanded, the ** Biihops throne" adjufted, the place where he is to ftand appointed, namely, ** the altar -," where he mull: appear clothed with a " flaining fplendid veft-* ment :" and before he begins prayer, he is ordei-ed, in the fight of all the people, ** to make upon his forehead the fign of the crofs." The Deacons are command- ed to wait on each fide of the altar, with a " fan in their hands made of thia mcimbranes, or the feathers of a peacock^

05

90 CLEMENT of Rome,

or of fine cloth, to drive away the fmall animals from the facramental cups." A very minute account is alio exhibited of f places to fit in" in churches, and the *i junior ordered to be tinned of Iji? place," if he does not yield it to a " more honorable ftranger i" together with other like inftances of ceremony and gooc} raannerso

We are here direfted to *' obferye days in honor to deceafed faints ;" to accom- pany *' their funerals with finging," apd tp *' affemble in the dormitories of thp ipartyrs, and there to celebrate the holy cucharift/*

Particular mention is here ipad^ of" Sub-deacons, Readers, Singers, Con- fefTors, Porters, Minifters, Virgins, EX7 orcifts," as BEARING OFFICE inthechurch. We read alfo of " Energumens, Cate- chumens," together with a great num- ber of ** fafts and feafts,*' and a deal more fuch trumpery, which was abfo- folutcly unknown in the apoftolic age j but vifible enough in the church, iii after days, when fhe had become luper- liitious and corrupt. And this I fhould

.CLEMENT OF Rome. 91

BOW particularly and largely have fliewn, but that I muft have taken confiderable pains, in my ov;^n apprehenfion, to little purpofe ; not doubting, but the bare nar- rative of the above articles will be thought by moft, a full juftification of thofe, who difcard all pretence to thefe books, as apoftolically compofed.

This opinion then being thrown afide, it i^ not eafy to conceive of thefe " con- ftitutions" in their prefent form, as any other, than the work of fome very bold and impudent impoftor ; fince he perfonates theApoftles with all freedom; fpeakingin the name, fometimes of one, fometimes of another, and fometimes of them all ; with the greateft folemnity and formali- ty commanding this thing, and prohibit- ing another. Inftances of this are fo fre- quently to be met with, that it is needlefs to adduce any. And it demonftrably argues, that the author was a vile cheats and ought accordingly to be fo thought of.

As to the time in which thefe books may be fuppofbd to come abroad in the world> Iknow'of none (thofe few excep- ted who plead for them as penned by

Clement)

gz CLEMENT of Rome.

Clement) who pretend to fix the period higher than the latter end of the fecond,or the beginning of the third century. * But whether thofe, who thus fix the time, are in the right ; or others, who bring it down to the fourth or fifth century, I fhall not difpute. Probably, they were not complete, as we now have them, at once 5 but have been, from time to time, corrected, altered, augmented, according to the various, cuftoms of different ages and countries.

Mr* Whifton pretends the fame of the " canons" that he does of the conftitu- tions i that they were wTOte by Clement, as the work of the whole apoftolic body : but there does not appear any reafon, why the fape judgment iliould not be paffed

upon

^ BHhop Beveridge has oxpeuded no fmall labor to giye date to thefe '^ conftitutions," about the clofe of the fe-

. <;ond, or the beginning of the third century : but to no va- luable piirpofe. For, Itould it be even allowed, that fhey were then in being, it is abfolutely certain, they are not NOW, as they muft have been then. And, unlefs fome.vvay could be pointed out (which has nevdr yet been done) to diftinguilh the original c o n t f.-n ts, from

^ the MULTirLiciTY of corruptions that have

■ crept- into them, they can be of no real fervice ; as there is no knowing what is genuine, and[ what the WORK of fenfelcfsand knavilh interpoL-\'o**«.

CLEMENT OF Rome. 93

upon tbem^that wehave given of the cori- ftitutions, in point of their being apofto- lically compofed. As for myfelf, nothing more was needful to convince me of this, after I had once read them : fo many of them being either trifling in themfelves, or inconfiftent with the truly apoftolical writings, or containing fuch things as were not icnown in the church until ages after the apoftles. I fhall not think it beyond my defign, to prefent here td the reader's view a few of them.

Can. II. " If any Bifhop or Prefbyter, befides what our Lord has appointed for facrifice, fhall offer upon the altar other, things ; as honey, or milk, or cyder in- ftead of wine, or things made by the confedioner, or birds, or animals, or pulfe : let him be depofed. Excepting ears of corn, or grapes, it is not lawful to offer any thing upon the altar, favc only oyl for the holy lamp, and incenfe of thyme in divine oblation." Thofe who are in the leafl acquainted with the writings of the apoftolic age, and the af- ter corrupt ages of the church, can be at no lofs to determine, iti which of thefe ages, it is moft likely, this canon fliould

be

94 CLEMENT OF Rome.

]be formed. And the curious reader, that will be at the pains to run over the learn- ed DodwelFs " book of incenfe," cannot well help being fatisfied, particularly as to the article of offering incenfe, that it was abfolutely unknown in the church, for fome ages after the death of the Apoftles,

Can. V. '^ if any Bifliop, Prefbyter, or Deacon, ftiall celebrate with the Jews> the holy day of eafter before the vernal sequinox, let him be depofed." The controverfy between theeaftern and wef- tern churches, about the time of keeping eafter, that happened in the fecond cen- tury, long after the death of the Apoftles, might, by this canon, haive been fettled : and yet, in the whole management of this difpute, (which was prodigioufly fierce) it •was never once appealed to, nor the leafi: hint given, by either party, as if any fuch canon was in being : which is certain- ly a very ftrange thing, if, before this dif- pute, this cannon had been made, and committed to writing by direction from the Apoftles : efpecially confidering, the chief managers of this difpute were the Paftors of the feveral churches, the mofl:

learned

CLEMENT ov RoKie. 95

iearried and famous among theni ; who muft have known of this canon, if it had been in being j and cannot be fup-* pofed not to have made ufe of it, fmce it was An apoftolical one, and muft iat. once have ended the controverfy.

Can. XVII. '* Forbids any otie's being made a Clergyman, who hath made him-- fclf an euriuch ; and commands every Clergyman, who hath fo made himfelf, to be depofed : and, if he be a Laie, to be feparated for three years :" which looks 1a)o much hke the produ6lion of after ages, when this practice became fo common, a$ fo need fome reftraints to be laid upoix it, to be admitted for apoftolieal.

dAj^. XlX. " Of thofe who were fih- gle perfons, when they v/erc made Cler- gymen, v/e command, that only Readers and Singers m.ay take wives." A perfori can fcarce read this canon, without turn-* ihg his thoughts to ^ fcripture paffage^ which founds as if, by fpecial foreknow- ledge, it had been purpofely inferted, to confront the authority of thefe and fuch like decrees. Says one of the Apoftles jpf our Lordi ** Now the fpirit fpeaketh 0 exprefily^

96 CLEMENT of Rome.

expreflly, that in the latter times, fomc fhall depart from the faith,— forbid-

ING TO MARRY."

Can. XXVII. " Subjeas all Bifhops, bf every province, to one that is firft a- mong them, or the Metropolitan." But as nothing is more clearly evident, than that Metropolitans were not known, in the church, until ages after the Apofllesj to thefe times this canon ought to he referred.

I SHALL only add two or three more ca- nons, which feem to be of trifling con- fideration, and not to merit a formal decree of the whole body of Apoftles.

Can. LXIX. **!£ any Clergyman hath laughed at one that is dumb, or blind, or lame in his feet, let him be feparated : fo alfo let the Layman."

Can. LXX. '' If any one hath a devil, he may not be made a Clergyman 2- lior may he pray with the faithful."

Can. LXXI. '' He that is deaf, dumb^ i^r blind; let him not be giade a Bifliop."

Havino

CLEMENT OF Rome, 97

Having thus offered what may be thought fufficient to evince the abfurdi- ty of that opinion, which makes thefe canons the compofure of the Apoftles, I ihall not be fo much concerned to inquire into other things of lefs importance. Who the author of thefe canons was, is a matter of the greateft uncertainty. But whether he was an impoftor, that defign- ed to impofe upon the world, by putting thera forth under the name of the Apoi- ties : or whether they are only the de^ crees of ancient councils colledted toge- ther in this form, by fom.e perfon or per-- fons of honeft intention ; and ftiled apof- tolical, not as if they had been made by the Apoftles, but as containing things, in their apprehenfion, confonant to the rules delivered by the Apoftles ; or as made up of ufagesand traditions fuppofed, to be handed down from them : I fay, whether of thpfe opinions are the trueil:, I fliall not at prefent debate. Nor is it a matter agreed on, when thefe canons fifft made their appearance in the world. Mon- fieur D'aille does not allow them any be- ing, until towards the fifth century ; in oppofition whereto, Bifhop Beveridge has ranfacked all antiquity to confirm the

opinion.

§8 CLEMENT qf Rome.

opinion, that they ought to be placed In the third century. But inftead of examining the arguments of thefe au-^ thors to know which are in the right, I ilvdll rather obferve concerning both the apoftoHcal conftitutions, and canons, a| a conclufion of what I fhall offer about them.

That however thofe learned writers, 1^'ho have given the world their thoughts about theie books, may differ in matters of fmaller importance ; as the time, man- lier, ^nd occafiori of their being wrote ; yet, with great unanimity, they rejeft them as the work of infpired Apoftles. And indeed, Mr. Whifton (depending on the credit of Dr. Smallbroke) is the firft perfon, cither ancient or modern, fo far as we are informed by ecclefiaftical hif- tory, that ever had this opinion of them t ^* Even Bovius, and Turrianus, (to ufe ^* the language of that author) who ** firft recomniended the conftitutions to ** the learned world, how vainly foever ** they fpent their time in writing forced ** and unnatural apologies for them, ** were not fo foild of novelty, as to fup- " pofc they were truly apoftolical, and

(C

CLEMENT OF Rome. 99

^' the produSl of divine infpiration. ^* Much lefs did they ever dream of fo *' high a degree of infpiration, as renders ** them (according to Mr. Whifton) more \^ facred than the authentic gofpels them-^ f* felves. All that they pretended to af-^ ^* fert was, that Glerr)ens Romanus had " collefted fome apoftolical traditions, *' which he formed into the eight books ^* of conftitutions^ then retrieved and publifhcd by them. They, therefore, agreably to their hypothefis, weak ■' and precarious as it was, labored to " eftablifb the antiquity of the corzfti- ^f tutio.ns, as a body of ecclcfiaftical dif- ** cipline ^ but expreflly difclaimed all .^* pretenfipn^ to divine authority, or to f* their being a facred rule of life and :** n)anners/' He goes on in a man^ per that I fhall think worth tranf-^ Cribing : ** Indeed their principal de- f* fign was to oppofe thofe of the re^ ^' formation by them. And that it was fo, -* both tho(c warm patrons of the con- '* ftitutions very frankly acknowledge. ^^ Bovius, who tranfi^ted them firft into ** latin, and commented upon them, dc- •* diqated his work to the Pope's legates ^' tha.t prefided in the council of Trent :

ii ^n^.a:r>^

100 CLEMENT of Rome,

*' In the epiftle dedicatory to whom, he ** acquaints us, that, upon a recital of <* fome paflages of the Clementine con- *^ flitutions, at a meeting of the fathers " of the council of Trent, thofe paf- /' 'fages were thought fo very ferviceable ^ to what was there trahfading in thatiy- ** nod,as togive thefirfl: hint to the pubhca- ** tion of the v/^hole body of the conftituti- ** ons. After v/hich, Bovius aflferts, that ** there is fcarce any thing that is oppofed by >* the Heretics, that is, Proteftants, as crept *^ into the church by error and fuper- V flition, but may be defended by the •* authority of thefe conftitutions, and ** fhewn to be of primitive antiquity, ** Turrianus, likewife, who made thefe ** conftitutions a confiderable part of his " fludies, affures us, that they were ^* thought very beneficial to the church, *• that is, the church of Rome, by the ** cenfors of books in the council of '*= Trent ; and that their moft grave and weighty judgment of them was fealed, and laid up at Rome, in the public records of the inquifition. Again, he affirm3,that nothing of antiquity could be publifhed more proper for that age, and better adapted to the confutation

^^ of

<e

ie

CLEMENT OF Rome, ioj

'^ of thofe innovators, the Proteftants." He adds, "That thefe books were pro- " videntially publiflied in that age, whea " there \yas the greatqft occafion for ** them, as witneffes againft thofe of " the reformation : (at whom he raib " very plentifully) and that it feemedr ** nothing mere was either wanting, Of- ** could be expefted for their convicli- " on. That thefe books were fcnt by. ** God to triumph over thefe ProtejT- ** tants, and to fhew the world how juft-^ " ly they, were condemned in the coun- '' cil of Trent." c_

Dr. Smallbrokq adds, the reafon that he tranferibed thefe parages from Bovius and Turrianus was, " That the reader ** might be rightly informed of theavow- ** ed defign of publifhing the dementing ** conftitutions, even the confutation of " the reforrned religion," And I have thus tranferibed the paffages from him, becaufe he ftiles himfelf " Canon-Refi- dentiary of Hereford, Treafurer of the church of Landaff, and Chaplain to his Grace, the Lord Arch-Bifliop of Can- terbury/'

The

%6i CLEMENT of RoMe;

The next piece, that prefents itfelf tinder the name of Clement, is the " re- cognitions," as in the iranflation of Ruf- fin. But it is fo empty of every thing favoring of the fimplicity of the firft ana pure ages of chriftianity, and fo full of fable, and feigned conferences about fate^ and the influence of the ftars, and hea- tenly conftellations, and fuch like ridi- culous fluff, that it is univerfally placed below the time of Clement, as altogether Unworthy of him*

And the fame may be faid bf the bthet*' Ivritings, we have mentioned under the head of fuppofititious, if indeed they may be allowed to be called different oneSi The ** Clementines** are thought, by fome,- to be that '* other edition of the recog- nitions," Ruffin mentions in his preface to Gaudentius, prefixed to the recogni- tions he made a verfion of : fmce they fo exactly agree with the chara<5ler he there gives of them, differing in fome things from that he tranflated, but the fame in many. And for the ** epitome of the adls of Peter/' Dr. Cave calls it *' a third edition of the recognitions >" or rather an ** abftra(a of both the recog-

CLEMENT OF Romie. loj

liitlons and Clementines," though keep- ing more clofely to the latter. But whe- ther thefe are different compofitions, or only one and the fame piece, fomething Varied and differently modelled, it mat- ters not ; fo long as we have the con- currence of the main body of the learned world in throwing them afide as evident- ly fuppofititious.

1?E ST I MONIES from Clement's firft epiftle to the Corinthians.

The INSCRIPTION to ilVc epiftle.

"'^ The church of God which* is' at Rome, [eparoikoufa Romen] to the church of God which is at Corinth, \e paroikoufit- Korintkoii] eleft, fanftified, by the wilt ©f God, through Jefus Chrift our Lord :; grace and peace from the AlmightyGocJi^ fey Jefus Chrift^ be multipleduntoyou*^'.

Brethrehj,

,i'-ai

THE fudden and unexpefled dangers'

and calamities that ha*.'e fallen uppn

us, have, we fear, made us.^-tHe "'lor.a

fTdw'ia our cohfideration of thofe things

P which.

io4 CLEMENT of Rome.

Vvhich you inquired of us ; as alfo of that wicked and deteftable sedition, fo unbecoming the elefl: of God, which a few heady and relf-willed men have fo- mented to fuch a degree of madnefs^ that your venerable and renovvned name, fb worthy of all hieri to be beloved, is greatly blafphemed thereby. For vvho that has ever been among you, has riot experi-^ mented the firmnefs of your faith, and its fruitfulnefs in all good works ? and ad- ixiifed the temper and niiddefatiori of your rehgion in Chrift ?-.--F6f ye^id all things without refpeft of perfons, and walked according to the taws of God t being fubjeft to thofe who had the rule Over yoi3, [iipdtdffamehet t'ois egoumen'ois u- mon,] arid giving the honor thdt vvas fit- ing to fuch as were the aged ariiong you [tois p>df^ mtin pre/but erois.^ Yt corn- inanded the young riien [Nebts] to think tjbofe things that v^ere modeft arid grave. Tlte wbrrieri, ye exhorted, to do all things with an unblameable^ and feemly, and pure confcience ; loving their own huf* bands as was fiting."---

*^^fe goj^^'^On, ih the ricxt fcftiori, corii- Aferidingiheir former chrifti^in good terti-

';-. . -'•'^' ■'' ^ ' pe^

GLEMENT of Rome, rog

per and conduS ^ and then proceeds to fell thera of their faults, iil the follow- ing words.

Sect. III.--'^ So was fulfilled that which is written, " my beloved did eat and drink, he was enlarged, and w^xed fat^ and he kicked.'* Frbin hence canie emu'-i iation, and envy, and ftrife, and ieditipr^ j perfccution and diforder, wjir and capti^^ yity. So they who were of no renowij lifted up themfelyes againft the honora- ble; thofe of no reputation, againft thofc that were in refpeflt ; the foplifn againfl: the wife s the youqg rnen againft the aged [oi neqi.ept tous pre/but erous.'^ There- fore figbteonrnefs and peace are depart-r' cd from you, becaufe every one hath for-^- faken the fear of God,''—-' ■ :o

Sfct. XXI. -— " The Spirit of the Loi-d is a candle, fearching out the inward parts of the belly.'' Let us therefore confider Iiow near be is to us ; and how that none of our thoughts, or reafonings, which we frame within our felyes, are hid from him. It is therefore juft, that we Ihould not forfake our rank, by doing contrafv to his, wilL Let us cnufe to offend H

• .. few

iq6 clement of Rome.

fpvy foollfli and inconfider^te men, lifted up, and glorying in their own pride, ra- thej: than God. Let us reverence our Lord Jefus Chrift, whofe blood was giv- en for US; let us hpnor thofe who are fet over .us [tons proegoumcnQus e??w?t {\ let ias refpefl tl^e aged th^t are among us ^tQUs preJbiiterQus imm\\\tx. us inftrufl the younger men in the dilcipline and fear of the Lord. Our wives \tl us dirfdt Jp,4o th^t vvj)ich]s goQ4/*TTf?^ ^;j^;

-B*ip:'v> ^ lid? Ui '^Ji^ ?avjai)rr!3n' , J\\ .■Sect, XXXVIJ. ''.Let us therefor©

rnarch pn, n^en and brethren, with all leiarrjeftnefsip bis holy la^vs. Let us confider thofe vL'ho fight ur^der our earth- ly Governors: how orderly, how readily, and with what exadl obedience they per- form thofe thing$ that ^re conimanded them ? All are not Generals, nor Colo- nels, nor Captains, nor inferior officers ; but every one, in his refpe6tive rank, does what is commanded him by the King, andf thofe who hav^ authority over him. They who are great cannot fubfift without thofe that ^re little ; upr the little with- out the great. But there mufi be a rnix-^ ture in all thirigs, and then there will be ufe ^nd profit too. Let us, for exani-

ple^

CLEMENT OF :RoME. 107

©Ic, take our body : the he.ad without the ;teet is nothing, neither the feet .without the head. And eyen the fmall.eft members of our body are yet both neceflary, and ufe- ful to the whole body. But all confpirjci together, and are fubjeG to one conimon ufe, nanaely, the .prefery^tion .of ihc whole body:" *^:'^;:: ■ •^^'\?'^t.!S

Having applied what he had thus faid, in the two following fe6lions,xxxviii and xxxix, to the encouragement of good order in thechurch of Corinth, hegoespoi

Sect. XL. " Seeing then thefejhirigs are rnanifeft to us, it will behove us to talfe care, that, looJiing into the depths, of the divine knowledge, we do all things i^ order, :vs^h|itfoever pijr Lord h^s c6jr\r, njandcd'^.Hslto ^dOt.,.. Apy* ..p^r^ipqlarlyji that we perform oiir offerings , and fe'r;r vice to God at their ,apj)ointed feafpns ;; for thefe he has comm^nde4 to be dope, not raftily arid difbrd^rly^ blut at'cerjtjdil determinate times and hours; And there- fore he has ordained, by his fupreme w^l and authority, both 'where, and by what perfons, they are to be performed : that fo all things being pioufly done unto all

wdl-

lo8 CLEMENT of Rome.

wellrpleal^ng, they may be acceptable Xq him. They therefore who make their offerings at the appointed feafons are hap- py, and accepted ; becaufe that, obeying the commandments of the Lord, they are frep from fin. ^nJ thejame care mufl be had of the perfons that minijief unto him. * For the chief Prieft [Archiereus, high Prieftl has his proper fervipes ; and to the Priefts their proper place is appointed ; ^nd to the Levites appertain their pro- per itiiniftries y and the Lay-man is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to Lay-n\^no" Jt follqws immediately,

^ECT. XLL ** Let every one of you thereifore, brethren, blefs God in his proper fiction, with a good confcience, aqdwith all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his fervice that is appointed to hirn. The daily facrifices are not offered every where ; nor the peace-offerings, nor the facrifices appointed for fin and tranf- greffipns ; but only at Jerufalem : nor in any place there> but only at the altar

before

♦ Tlie Arch-Bifllop has printed the above f^ntence in italic, -iitOJUt us know, I fuppofe, that it is not ia the origmal*

For it i;» not to be found there.

lii

CLEMENT OF Rome. 109

before the temple ; that which is of- fered, being firft dihgeritly examined by the High-prieft, and the other mihi- fters, we before mentioned. They there- fore who do any thing which is not agreea- ble to his will, are punilhed with death. Confider, brethren, that by how much the better knowledge God has vouch- fafed unto us, by fo much the greater danger are we expofed to." The next words are,

Sect* XLII. « The Apoftles have |)reached to us, from our Lord Jefus Chrift ; jefus Chrift> from God. Chrift therefore was fent by God, the Apoftles by Chrift : fo both were orderly fent, ac- cording to the will of God. For having received their (command, and being tho- roughly affured by the refurreftion of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and convinced by the word of God, with the fullnefs of the Holy Spirit, they went abroad pub- liftiing, that ** the kingdom of God was at hand.". And thus preaching through countries and cities, [Kata CiSras kai poleis] they appointed the firft-fruits of their converfions to" be Bifliops and

Minifters

11^6 CLEMENT Of Rome.

M\n\{\.tts* [eis epiJkopouskdt^Takonousi o\ti fuch as (hould atferwards believe, having firftprovedthemby theSpirit. Nor was this any new thing ; feeing that, long be- fore. It was written concerning Bifhops and Deacons [peri ipifcopon kai diakonon.\ f'dr t'hus faith the lcripture> irf a cer- tain place, " I will appoint their over- feers [epijkopous auton] in righteoufnefs, and their miniftcrs \diakonoiis auton] in faith."

And having, in the next, the xliiid, feftion, fpokeri of the method Mofes, of^ old, came into to fettle the Jewifli Prieft- hoqd to prevent contention, he proceeds,

^p^t^::''XlA^:. *^ So likewift our Apof- ties krfevv by our Lord Jefus Chrifl-, that there fllould contention/ arife upon the

; --""'.:•-■■ r^-' /^\,.:''- account

larton;,. that Clement is here fpeaiiing of tlje apoftolic ccn-

^itution of .the T w o orders in the churchy Bishops

anciiDE acOns, as' it is 'to thofe who are acquainted with

•tfte original wt)ras } Can evdi' candor itf elf fupf>ofe> ^^'^'

■iflpe word Dl A KOjN o 1/ s , could, in this place,. haVe been-

vtranilated, not.DE a con«, but by the general word Mi-

■-'A'rSTETis, unlefe upon d^gn ?' Efpecially, wMen thoft

'offirers'^elhere intended to be pointed out, which both

Clement, and the fcriptures, iignify by the word,

DiAKONoi, Deacons, in its appropriated fenfe.

CLEMENt OF koME. Ill

acGdunt of the iiiinidry [epi toU onomatos th epifcopes.^'l And therefore havhig a perfect fore-knowledge of this^ they ap- pointed perfons, as we have before faid, and then gave direolion \ how^ when they fliould die^ other chofen and approv-p ed men fliould fucceed in their miniftry^ Wherefore we cannot think, that thofa may be jaftly thrown out of their mini- ftry, who were either appointed by thern> or afterwards chofen by other eminent men, with the confent of the whole church ; and who have, with all lovs^li- nefs and innocency, miniftred to the flock of Chrift^ in peacey and without felf-intereft, and were for a long time commended by all. For it would be tio fmall fin iri us, fliould we caft ofF thofe from their miniftry, + [tcs epi/kopes] Who holily and without blame fulfil the Q^ duties

^ " AhoifttKe name of bifliopric," as the Arch-Bifriop feu* ders it in the margin.

f The Arch^Bifhop has it in the margin, " left a lift of other chofen and approved men,- who Ihould fucceedl them in the miniftry."

+ Ifthe word,epifcopes, inftead of mlniftry.hid been tran'fla- fed here epifcopacy, or epifcopate, it would have been more agreeable to its juft import, particularly in this place, and hot have looked like a defigii to impofe on the En- glifh reader.

Ii2 CLEMENT OF Rome,

duties of it. Bleffed are thofe Priefts, * \jnakarm oi Pre/l'uterGi] who, having fi* nidied their courfe before thefe times, have obtained a perfed and fruitful diffo- liJtion : For they have no fear left any one fhould turn them out of the place which is novv appointed tor them. But we fee how you have put out fome, who Jived reputably among you, from the miniftry, which by their innocence they had adorned.

Sect. XLVII. '* Take the epiftia of the bleffed Paul, the Apoftle, into your hands. What was it that he wrote to

you,

^ It is not eafie to conceive, why flie Arclt^Bifliop fhould

' here~ tranilate P R. e s b u t e R o i , by the word Priests^ unlefs he had it in view to keep the English reader from feeing, in fo Ariking a light as . otherwife he wouldy that Prei'b3'ters, in the account of Clement, were pre- cifely the fame order of officers with Bifhops ; as they are, in the preceding line, diredlly faid to be '* caft out of

. Uieir EElscoPAcy." The flipping in here the wor^ Priests, inftead of Prefbyters, obfcures the light, in which this certain truth fo clearly Ihines in this place. It may be added, the word Priest is nowhere ufed by

- Clement, or by any of the writers of the new-teftament, toiignify that officer, in the chriilian chui'ch,who is point* cdoutby the word Fresbytfr : nor was it ever fo ufed, until the m a nt of sin had grown to a very confi- derable height. Its ufe, as having the fame meaning with Prefbyter, though common in the public fervices of the Engliih church,took ?ts rife from the church of Rom e, and its public offices i which refiedb no great honor on it.

CLEMENT Fo Rome. 115

you, at his firft preaching the gofpel among yoa ? Verily, he ciio, by the Spi- rit, adraonifli you concerning himfeif, and Cephas, and Apollos, becaufe that even then ye had began to fall into parties and factions among yourfelves. Neverthe- Jefs your partiality then led you into a niuch lefs fin : forafmuch as ye placed your affeitions upon Apoftles, men of eminent reputation in the church ; and upon another, who was greatly tried, and approved of5by theni. But confider,vve pray you, who v/ere they that have now led you aftray, and leffened the reputation of that brotherly love that was fo eminent among you ? It is a fliame, my beloved, yea a very great fliame, and unworthy of your chriftian profefiion, to hear^ that themoft firm and ancient church of the Corinthi- ans fhould, by one or two perfons, be led into a fedition againft its Pvit(is[pros tons PreJhuterQiis,'] And this report is come not only to us, but to thofe aifo that differ from us : infornuch that the name of the Lord is blafphemcd through your folly ; and even ye yourfelves are brought into danger by it.*'

Sect. XLVIII. *< Let 11s therefore, with all hafte, put an end to this fediti- on i

114 CLEMENT of Rome.

on , and let us fall down before the Lord, and befeech hiri) with tears, that he vvoukl De favorably reconciled to ps, and re- ftoreus again to a feemly and holy courle <6f brotherly love."--

Sect. LIV. " Who is th.ere among you that is generous ? Who that is com- paffionate f Who that Has charity ? Let him fay, if this fedition, this contention, ^nd thefe fchifms^ beupon my account, I arn ready to deparr, to go away whither- Ibever ye pleafe, and ' do v.'hatfoever ye fhall command rae : only, let the flock of Chrifl be in peace, with the Elders that are fer over it, [meta tSnkatheJla" menon Pre/hyterG?i.'] He that fhall " do this, fhall get to himfelf a very great ho- nor in the Lord.'-

Sect.LVIL ''Do ye therefore whofirft laid the foundation of this fedition, fub- mit yourfelves to your Priefts [tois Prejbu- terois {\ and be inftrufted unto repen- tance, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be fubjefl, laying afide all proud and arrogant boafting of your tongues. For it is better for you to be found little, and approved^ in the fheepfold of

Chrift,

CLEMENT OF Rome. 115

Ghrift, than to feem to yourfelves better than others; and be caft out of his fold/'—

Remarks and Observations on the foregoing teftitnonies,

HAVING laid before the reader's view all the parages, in Clement's epiftle, that relate to the Epifcopalian controver- {y, I fhali no\y take particular notice of thofe among them, I' have met with as ufed to fupport the opinion, which would make Bifljops an order in the church, diftincl from, and fuperior to,Prefbyters : which when I liave done, Ifliall then pro- pofe fuch obfervations, in favor of the parity of the order of thefe officers, as are evidently deducible from the whole of what Clement has faid upon this point.

The paflagcs infilled upon to fupport the fuperiority of Bifhops to Prefbyters, I fhall confider without oblerving any Q.ther method^ than the order in which they lie in the epiftlc.

The firft pafTage I meet with^, recurred to by epifcopal writers, we have in

Sect. I.—'' And ye walked accord- ing to the laws of God, being fubje6t to

thofe

ii6. CLEMENT of Rome.

thofc [upotajfamenoi tots egoiimenois union ] who had the rule over you, and giving the honor that was fitting [tois par iimin Pre/buterQis] to fuch as were aged among you/* To which they add thofe parallel words, in feft. xxi. ** Let us honor thofe that are let over us 5 [tous proegoumenous emon] let us refpedl \tonsPreJbuterQus emori] the aged that are among us/'

TuESE paffages, it is pleaded, afford clear evidence, that there was, in the days of Clement, a diftiriflion between Bifliops and Prefbyters. Being fubjedV, egoumenois umn^ that is, fay they, to your ecclefiaftical rulers ; by whom they con^r elude are meant Bifhops: and this, as of- ficers diftinSl from Prefbyters \ becaufe it follows, paying due honor tois far umin Prejbuterois ; by whom, they fup- pofe, we are to underftand, not aged men, but thofe officers in the church, called Prefbyters.

Now, in order to fhow the invalidity of this plea, I have no need to go into the opinion of the learned Salmafius, and Burton, who unfterftand by thefe egou- menoiy not ecclefiaftical, but civil rulers ; which opinion they ftrengthen by ob-

ferving.

CLEMENT OF Rome. 117

rerving, that this word is leveral times ufedin this epiftle ; but always as fig- nifying thofe, who were civil rulers. The places referred to by Salmafius are five; and except thofe under consideration, they are all, in which it is lifed j and it is ufed in them with reference to civil officers. But this notwithftanding, as the word may, with propriety, be applied to ecclefiaftical rulers, and is frequently applied to them in the facred books; and as th^re is no hint given, any wh^re iri Clement's epiftle, as if the Corintiii- ans were blameable for their difobedience to their civil rulers ; and its chief defigti is to teach them a futable conducV, not towards thofe in the ftate, but in the church, that were fet over thtm : I fay confidering thefe things> I am willing to allow, that, by thefe rulers, w-e are to underftand, not thofe of the civil, but ecclefiaftical order : but muft fay, at the fame time, that we have abundant reafon to conclude, they were Prefbyters> and not Bifhops ; unlefs we take Bi- fhop and Prelbyter, to be only different words for the fame officer. For let it bQ .obferved.

There

ii8 CLEMENT of Rom^t-

There was, at this time, a plurality of thefe rulers in the church of Corinth ; as is plain from the word, [egoumensu]which: is of a plural fignification. Now, it is certain, that there was a plurality of Prefbyters in this church -, and Prefby- ters too, who had been '' let over them/' to whom they were commanded to " be in SUBJECTION." Says Clement, [ufo- tagetetoisPreJbuterols^'' Be ye fubjed to your Prefbyters." , And it is obfervable^ the fame word, here joned with Pref- byters,- requiring the fubjeSion of the Corinthian church to them, is }omed alfo with the word, egoumenois, befpeak- ing the fame fubjeaion. The mterpre- tation is therefore fmooth, natural, and eonftftent with the current ftrain of the whole epiflle, while by thefe egoumenou we underftand the Prefbyters of the church ; efpecially, if it be further con- fidered, that Prelbyter-Bilhops are the higheft ecclefiaftical rulers any where men- tioned by Clement : nor is his epiftlc at all aGquainted with Biftiops, only as they mean officers in the church, precifely of the fame rank with the Prefbyters of it.

^..,.:-^ Besides^

CLEMENT OF l^oME* 119

Besides, it may be worth a remark, the word egoumend is one of the name^ ufed in fcripture to point out Prefbyters, or, in other words, thofe officers in the chriftian church, that are elfewhere, in thefacred writings, promifcuoufly and in- differently called either Bifhops,or Prefby*^ ters. Thus in the epiftle to the Hebrews, when they are minded of their duty to their ecclefiaftical guides, or rulers, it is exprefTed after that manner, <* Remem* ber \t6n egownenon umon\ them which have the rule over you, and have fpoken to you the word of God.'* * And a few verfes below, " obey \tois egoumenois umori] all them that have the rule over you." And the epiftle concludes ia that ftile, " falute [pantas tons igoume^ nous umon\ them that have the rule over you." And this ufc of the word, in this epiftle, is the rather to be regard- ed, becaufe Eufebius and Jerom fpeak, both of them, of fo great an affinity, in many things, both as to words and mat- ter, between this and the epiftle of Cle- ment, that it was from thence thought, that Clement was, at Ieaft>the traaflatorof

the

i2o CLEMENT OF Rome.

the epiflle to the Hebrews. And cri- ticks make life of it as a flrong argu- ment in proof of the genuinenefs of the prcfent copy of Clement's epiftle, that it is found to agree fo well with this obfer- vation of Eufebius and Jerom*

But if, with the Epifcopaliatis, wd fliould fuppofe thefe egoiimenoi mean Bi-« fhops, in diftinclion from Prefbyters ; will it not follow, as an inevitable confe* quence, that there was in the church of Corinth, at the fame time, a plurali- ty of Bifhops ? It is obfervable, the word is egoumemisy not in the Angular, but plu-^ ral number: which can never be recon- ciled with the do6trine of one " Bifhop in a church, as the center of unity." The dilemma here is plain : either thefe egou- menoi were not Bifliops in the lenfe pleaded for, or there were more of thefe Bifliops than one, in the fame church, at the fame time. That is to fay, either this teftimony from Clement mufl be given up, or the old facred maxim, " one Bifliop one altar." But rather than part with this, I doubt not we (hall be left in <^uict poffeffion of any teftimony whatever.

It

CLEMENT OF Rome. i2x

ix will perhaps be objected againft what has been offered, that thefe rulers are diftingulfhued, in die pailages them- felves, from PrefliytQrs ; apd therefore cm never mean the fame oflkers.

In anfwer whereto, I freely aeknowv ledge, the Greek words, egoumeyiois, and FrejhuterQis, are diftinguifhed from each other : but that the \yord, Prefoiiterois^ means here thofe officers in the church, that are called Prefbyters, ther^ is no rea- fon to think. It is certain, this term is fometimes ufed in its conimon and un- appropriated fenfe, as fignifying only aged perfons, In this fenle it is taken in 1. Tim. y. i. ** Rebuke not [Prejhu- Uro] m Elder, bgt intfe^t him as a fa- ther."r— Dr. Whitby's note here is, *' In the judgment of Chryfoftom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylaa, the Elder here fignifjes, not a Pricft, but a grav?; and ancient man ; fuch being in all ages ^nd nations ftiled fathers. And this fenfe, the diftinflion here of ages, and of fexes, fe„ems to plead for. For fo it follows, <' the younger men (intreat) as brethren, the elder women as mothers," ^nd fo on. la tUe fame fenfe, this word

U2 CLEMENT QF Rome.

is to be taken in thefe paflages of Cle- ment, and for the fame reafon ; though niuch flrengthened by its nrianner of con-* li^dion. For let it be obferved,

1$^ the firft of thefe paflages, Clement IS commending the Corinthians for what was formerly worthy in their conduSl I and, among other things, mentions it to their praife, that they *' had been fabjedl to their egqumenoisy' ^nd had *^ paid due honor to their Pref^ f)yterois ;" where, by Prejbyterois^ he means, and muft mean, not their Preibyters, but the AGED among them, not only becaufe it immediately follows, *^ ye commanded the YpUNG njen to think thofe things that were modeft and grave ;" but be- caufe the ^goummoiy they had, in their FORMER orderly flate, been fubjeft to, )vere the Presbyters of the church : for thefe, as has been proved, he elfc- where n)entions as *^ fet over the church," and accordingly enjoins their *'fubjc6liott to them ;" nor are any higher church officers fpokcn of in his t piftle ; and what is more, he fpeaks of thefe, as has been faid, and will hereafter be further prov- gd^ as aftually veiled with episcopacy.

The

CLEMENT OF Rome; laj

The interpretation therefore is natural, obvious, and confiftent, which under- ftands the ^o^A prejbyteroiy in this place, not ^s pointing out the ofBcers in the church, called Preibyters, who had been fpoken of in the immediately foregoing words ; but as fignifying,in its unappro- priated fenfe, aged persons : whereas, to conftrue it otherwifc, would make Glement a carelefs, inattentive, not to fay blundering, inconfiftent writer.

In the other paffage, Clement, in op- pofition to the present diforderly, fedi- tious behavior of fome in the Corinthian church, exhorts them to a temper and condu6l better bcfiting their chara6ler as Chriftians. Says he, " Let us rever- ence our Lord Jefus Chrift, whofe blood was given for us ; let us honor \tous pro- egoumenous emon] thofe who are fet over us ; let us refped [tons Prejbyferous emori] the aged among us ; let us inftru6l the younger men [neous] in the fear of the Lord." The Proegoumenoi here are the fame that are fpoken of in the above paffage, that is, the Prefbyters who had been fet over the church. The word, frejbyteroi, therefore muft mean their

aged

124 CLEMENT of Rome,

aged people. There will, in this con^ ftruflion of the word, be order, propri- ety, and beauty, in the exhortations that are feverally made : whereas, if the word is tranflated fo as to fignify the Preiby- ters of the church, there will be intro- duced tautology, and a breach of order in the advices that ,are here given.

The interpretation I have exhibited of thefe paflages will more evidently ap- pear to be juft ; if we turn to k&. iiid, where Clement fpecifies the difordcrs he would blame in the church at Corinth. His words are thefe, ^* They who were of no renown lifted themfelves up againfl the honorable ; thofe of no reputation againfl thofe that were in refpedl ; th^ foolifh againft the wife ; the young men againft the aged, ?2epus epi tons Pref- hyterous : therefore righteoufnefs and peace are departed from you."— The op- pofition between the young men and the aged, is fo plain here, that none ever pretended to difpute this fenfe of the word, prejbyteroiy in this place. And this, being its fenfe here> muft be its fenfe al~ fo in the other paffages we have confider-

cd ^

CLEMENT OF Rome. 125

cd ; for they all relate to one and the fame thing.

I SHALL only fubjoin upon this he^d ; in Cotelerius's " apoftolical fathers" by L'Clerc, in all thefe feclions, the word prejbuteroi is tranflated aged persons. Arch-Bifliop Wake alfo, in his " epiftles of the fathers/* renders, the fame word; in all the above places, in the fame manner : which I thus give notice of, becaufe their thus tranflating the word, muft have proceeded from a full conviftion of the neceflary propriety of this verlion, and not from want of a good heart to ferve the epifcopal caufe, as far as they could with a good confcience.

Th£ next plea, made in favor of the diftinftion between Bifliops and Prelby- ters, is fetched from kS^. xld, where Cle- tnent fpeaks of the threefold order in the Jewifti church, " High-Prieft, Priefts; and Levites :" which is fuppofed to be a plain intimation of a like threefold order in the Chriftian church, in the diftin(5l officers of Bifhops, Prefbyters, and Dea- (Cons. And as this is an argument

great

f-j;,Q K4jutLiyit.NT OF Rome.

great ftrefs is laid upon, I fhall be parti- cular in confidering it.

ONLvImuft firft dcfire the reader care- fully to look over fed. xxxvii, xl, xli, xliij xliv, which I have fet down entire, that he may be able to judge of the manner in which thefe words are introduced, th^ purpofe they are brought to ferve, and the fpecial application that is made of them ; which muft certainly be allowed to be the beft method to come at their genuine meaning. Nor can it be thought fair to fix upon a few words, in aconneft^ 2^r>^^ ed argumentative difcourfe, and plead i^ ^ them as they be dif-joined from what

preceeds, and follows : but their fenfe muft be determined by the place they bear in the argument of which they are a part. Having obferved this,

I AM free to own, Clement, in order to reduce the church of Corinth to a ftate of regularity, prefents to their view the ceconomy of the Jewifti church ; in which proper order and decorum had been conftituted, and was obferved. But when he mentions the *« Jewifh High-Priefl-, Priefts, and Levitcs/' that it was his

intention

CLEMENT OF Rqme* 157

intention to exhibit a pattern of the Chriftian church, under the threefolcj order of Bifliops, Prefbyters, and Deacons^ there is no appearance of a probability to fuppofe .* as will be evident if we con- fider what follows in one conjunct vie vyr,

i. Let us compare this with the like kind of arguing, in this epiflle. Irt {qA. xxxvii, Clement fets before the Co-^ rinthians the example of an army : ia which every one has his proper place. "Some are only common Soldiers -, {ocnt are Prasfecls ; fome Chiliarchs 5 foraO ^nturions; fome chieftains of fifty; eve- * ry one of whom keeps to his o\Vn ftation". Now, the defign of this comparifonis ob- vious, namely, to reprefent the beauty and neceflity of the like regularity ia the church of Corinth. And the mean- ing is irttirely abfolved in this general accommodation, without going fb far in^- to the parallel, as to fuppofe precifely as many diftin£l officers in the churchy as there are in an army-

Surely, it was not his n^eanmg,

*' that the church militant muft be re^

gimcnted into order, under Patriarchs,

$ Arch-

1^8 CLEMENT of Rome.

Arch-Bifhops, Bifhops, Priefts, and other officers, fupeiior to the common chrif- tian military !" There is no imaginable reafon to fuppofe, fuch a thought ever en- tered into his heart.

In Se6l. XLII, he, in like manner, propofes to the confideration of the Corinthian church the good order that was obferved in the Jewiih church, par- ticularly in their worfhip. They had (as he reprefents) " their facrifices both propitiatory andeuchariftical :'* butthefe Ivere not to be offered " every where," but " at Jerufalem only ;" and not in every place even at Jerufalem, but in *' the temple on the altar/' And his aim here is plain, to encourage, among the Co- rinthians, from this example, the like de- cent regularity ; without carrying the mat- ter fo far, as to make the Jewiih worfhip an exaft model for the Chriflian. So in the cafe before us : when Clement men- tions the *• High-Priefl, Priefts, and Lc- vites," with each " their proper fervices affigned them," though he fo far accom- modates this inftance, as to argue it to be reafonable, that there fliould be, in like manner, perfons in the Chriftian

church.

CLEMENT OF Rome

129

church, whofe proper bufinefs it might be to attend its miniftrations ; yet, that there ought to be exaSlly a threefold or- der of them, in anfwer to the threefold order in the Jewifh church, there is no more ground to think, than that the parallel in the foregoing cafes, ought to be intirely completed. It is enough that the parallel anfwer in the general defign, he has in view, without making it, as we vulgarly fpeak, " run on all four." And it deferves particular notice> in the ufe Clement makes of this argu-* raent, in the words immediately follow-. ing, he regards only its geneial accom-? modation. For thus he goes on, " Ltt every one of you. Brethren, la his owii proper order give God thanks ; living in good confcience, and keeping within thfc defined rule of his fervice." He infers nothing in particular from the example of the Jewifh ** High-Priefl, Priefls, and Le» vites'* with their " appointed fervices ;* but only, in general, takes occafion to re- commend it to everyone, in his proper ,place, to keep the duties of his ftation j .without fo much as giving the leafl: hint, :as if there were juft three ftations in the church of .Corinth, as there were in the

church

'130 CLEMENT of Rome.

church q( the Jews ; y/hich muft needs be deemed an argument of great negli- gence, if he had intended any thing likf gn exaft paralleL To go on,

II. It is moft obvioofly ren^arkablc? Clement purpofely fets hipfelf, in k^^ ^hid, to exhibit an account of the ^poftor lie appointment gf officers in the Chriftian church ; in which he qqite lays afide the Jewifh conftitution in a thiee- folc) order, and mentions, inftead of it, Only the twofold order of Bifhops ^nd Deacons. Says he, •* The Apoftle§ have preached the gofpel to us from oqr Lord Jefus ChriiJ, and Jefus Chrift from Odd. For Chrift was fent by God, and the Apoftlesby Chrift.— -Preaching thercr fore through cities and countries, they Conftituted their firft fruits fpr Bishop^ gnd DEACONS."

Ir certainly would have been natural, 5f Clenient had intended a parallel be-r iwten the Jewifn " High-Prieft, Prieft^, find Levites," and Chriftian *? Bifliops, Prefbyters, and Deacons ;' I fay, it would liav^ bce|i obvious for him to have ap~ ^' ■ plie4

CLEMENT OF Rome. 131

plied here his difcourfe but a few lines above : efpecially, confidering he was ftill upon the fame argument, purfuing one and the fame defign. But is there the leaft hint af any fuch application ? So far from it, that he fays not a fylla- ble of a threefold, but expreflly mentions a twi©-fold order ; and this, as appointed by the Apoftles : which is an inconfiften- cy, upon the impleaded interpretation, not capable pf being remove4 by any art of mail,

Nor is it unworthy of a remark, that, in proving this conftitution of Bifliops and Deacons to be, not a novel thing, but what had long before been wrote about, Clement refers us to that paffage in Ifaiah, *^ I will appoint their Biftiops in righteoufnefs, and Deacons in faith/* Whether this text is pertinently quoted, or not, is not my bufinefs to inquire: but thus much is undeniable, that, had Cle- ment pefceived any refemblance between the Jewifh '* High-Prieft and Levites," (of whom he had but juft before fpoken) and chriftian **Bi{hops and Deacons", he would have much fooner have turned us tack to that conftitution, then to this

text 5

132 CLEMENT of Rome.

text ; and his omitting to do this, can be afcribed to no other rational caufe, but its not having entered his heart, to fuppofe any exact parallel between the Jewifh, and Chiiftian conftitution^ in point of a threefold order of oncers.

III. It may not be amifs to inquire, upon fuppofition Clement really intend- ed the conftitution of the Jewifli church, in *« High-Prieft, Priefts, and Levites,** as a pattern for the conftitution of the chriftian church ; I fay, it may not be improper to inquire, whether, even up- on this fuppofition, he fays any thing in favor of a diftinftion of order be^ tvi^een Biftiops and Prefbyters. And it is plain he does not. For Bifhops, in the days of Clement, (according, to the higheft demand of prelatical writers) were the heads only of a few congrega- tions in particular cities, and their neigh- bouring villages :, whereas, nothing i$ more known, than that the '' High- Prieft" flood related, not to a few fyna- gogues in this, and the other city, and the towns bordering thereon ; but to the whole Jewifli church. There is therefore no analogy between Bifhops, . .: and

CLEMENT OF Rome. 133

and the Jewifh High-Prieft : nor fhall we be able to find one any where fhort of Rome. For, befides the Pope, there is no vifible head to the chriftian church, in any proper fenfe, anfwering to the High-Prieft among the Jews. One in- vifible one indeed there is, " Jefus the High-Priest of ourprofefTion ;" under whom are placed, in the church, Bifhops or Prcfbyters, and Deacons. And in this fenfe, the parallel is ftridly juft, and per- fectly confonant to the whole tenor of Clement's epiftle: in which Chrift is ex- preflly fpoken of in the ftile of High- Priest "* ; and under him, no other offi- cers are mentioned, as -conftituted in the chriftian church, but Bifhops, who are alfo called Pre{byters> and Deacons. But if we muft have a vifible head to the church, correfponding to the High-Prieft in the Jewifli model, there is no avoiding a fubmiflion to the Papal chair. And, accordingly, to this purpofe theRomanifts conftantly make ufe of this paflage in Clement : and every one, with half an

■ eye.

^

In fe<fl. xx:xvi, we have thefe words, '' This is the way, beloved, ia which we may find our Savior, Jefus Chrift,

TON ARCHIEREA TON PROSPHORON EMON," that

is,ihe '* High-Priest of our offerings."

134 CLEMENT of Rome.

eye, may fee, that the parallel is far more juft and natural between the Pope and the High-PriefV, than between the High-Prieft and Bilhops: fmce there may be hundreds of Bifhops in the chriftian church ; whereas there neither was, nor could be, but one High-Prieft in the Jewifh.

It will no doubt be here faid, it wa.$ the manner, in ancient times, to argue from the conftitution of the Jewifh churchy in High-Prieft, Priefis, and Le- vites, to the conftitution of the Chrif- tian church in Biftiops, Prejfbyters, and Deacons : and^ therefore, that the pa- rallel ought here to be thus run, however unnatural it may appear. In anfwer whereto,

1 READiLr ^ckrlowiedgey it was an ancient cuftom to argue from the Jewifta to the Chriftian conftitution, as is plead- ed > but, at the fame time, muft obfcrve^ this method of arguing was not in ufe, in the days of Clement. It was plainly the invention of later times, when Epifco- pacy (in fome fort analagous to the mo* dern fenfe of the word) began to ftiow it-.

fclf ;

CLEMENT OF Rome. 135

fdf : nor can an inftance be produced, from any writer, until long after the days of Clement, wherein it is thus ufed. Ic is not therefore fair to argue for this application of the words in Clement, fromi the like application of the fame words, in thofe authors, who had no being in the world, until Clement had been dead, and turned into duft, for many years. Befides, it ought to be confidered, the writers, in after times, direclly fpeak of Bifliops in the ftile of High-Priefts, and. exprefsiy make them, in the parallel, an* fwer to the Jewifh High-Prieft ; leaving no room for doubt in the matter, with how much weaknefs and aukwardnefs fo- ever they, upon this account, become chargeable. But is this the cafe with Clement ? Does he ever call a Bifhop, High-Prieft ? Does he ever go about to apply the Jewifh conftitution, fo as to make BiQiops anfwer in the parallel to the High-Prieft r So far from any thing of this tendency, that he makes mention (as we have feen) only of a twofold order of officers in the chriftian church 3 and gives not the leaft hint, as if he ever thought of a third that was higher,

T IV. T

i 36 CLEMENT OF Rome.

iV.I SHALL ^dd to what has been faidj if Cletiielit is interpreted in the fenfe I am oppofing, there will be no harmony between his difcourfe here, and the cur- r^ent ftrain of Hisepiftle ; v/hich, through the whole, ptrfc6tly agrees with the ac- count he gives of the twofold order of Eifliops and Deacons ^ bur hot at all with a threefold one, in imitation of the Jewifh hierarchy. It is corrimon in this epiftle, it muft be acknowledged, to meet with the word Bifliops as well as Prefby- ters ; to which if Deacons are added, fomc may think, the parallel will be made out; 5ut it is obferv^ble; there never once oc- turSj in Clement's epiftle, fuch a mode of fpeech, as Bifliops^ Prefbyters, and Deaconsj the aimoft facred and invaria- ble way of writings after the diftinftiort between Bifliops dnd Prefbyters took place. And though (as was faid) we read of Bifliops, as well as Prefbyters, yet it is io ordered, that the Bifliops are ne- ver fo much as once diftinguifhed from Prefbyters : nay, fo far is Clement from reprefenting any diftinction of order be- tween them, that he directly confiders the Preibyters of Corinth, as vefted with tfaeEpifcopal office, and in the moft plain

manner

CLEMENT OF Rome. 137

manner reftects blame upon that church, for " carting their Frelbyters out ot theic fenifcopacv.'^— But of this we Ilrdl more partictaariy fpeak, under the laft argu, ment, brought from Clement in defence of pioderr, Epifcqpacy,

And this is taken from thofe words ir. fea.xliv;"And the Apoftles knew by our Lord |efus Ghnft, that there^wouH be contention about the i]ame of Ei^il- *:opacy : therefore, being endued with perfea foreknowleage, they conftituted the before-mentioned perfons (namely, BiQiops and Deacons ;) and moreover gave direclion how. if they fl.ould die other approved men npuld fucceed m d.eir mh.iflry."--Here it xsurged^^thj Apoftles are reprefented as ktiowmg taere would arife tWe, whq would appea agalnft the caufe of Epifcopacy j and as it were on purpofe, to gua.rd agamft t. aid themfelves appoint Bifcops tn the church, and provide tor a fucceffion ot oth;rs in this office, af;er the dcceafc of |hofe they appointed.

This plea, however often it has been

138 CLEMENT OF Rome.

lid, by making it evident, even from Cle- ment himfelf, that his difcourfe in tliis palTage is fo far from favoring any dif- tindion of order between Biihops' and Prelbyters, that it is the ftrongeft tefti- piony, in his whole epilile, for their be- ing the fame order of officers in the church; and fiich an one, that we could not have defired a ftronger, if we h ad been prefent, when this was exhibited, to direit his pen.

The teftimony begins, '< And the Apoflles knew by our Lord Jefus Chrift, there would be contention about the name

of Epifcopacy." But what are we, to

underftand by this « Epifcopacy ?" Is it fuch an one, as they only are vefted with, who are officers in the church luperior in their order to Prefbyters ? The modern ijfe, and found, of the word, may poffibly be apt to lead the lefs thinking reader into fuch an imagination : but the term Epifcopacy, in the days of Clement, had quite another meaning from what it has now. With him, it intends only an overfight of the flock ; fuch an Epifco- pacy, as perfons nothing more than Pref- byters might be, and aftually were,

vefted

CLEMENT OF Rome. ,39

veftedwith. And for the proof of this, I Ihall appeal to Clement himfelf • who in th.s very feaion, teils us as much ia the moft plain language. His words are the e, '■ For ,t is no fn.all Hn, if we caftthofe out of their Epifcopacy. r£.^-, Y^. the very word ufed above] 4o have offered their g,fts in an holyn^an.ner :

iT/nTAY'^'^'''^'^' -^° have fi.ft fin.nied their courle." It fecms then

Prefbyters might, in Clement's opini- on be vefted with Epifcopacy. becaufe he declares the Prefbyters of Corinth were n facf thus vefted. Nor was the con- tention. " the Apoftles knew there would

fl u' "!" !^''^" °f Epifcopacy,-' any other than fuch a contention as rhen ac- tually fubfifled in the church of cSnth.

h .k"'^1 ^'^ '^'' ■ Not a contention whether there was a diftin6lion of order between Bifiiops and Prefbyters : we have no hmt of any fuch thing any where m the epiftle , but it was a contention a- bout the minifterial order itfelf ; a con-

ention about the office of Prelbyters.or (a?

hey are hkewifc called) Bifhops ; which the people had carried to fuch an height, ^ that they had rofe up againft their Bi- Ihops or PrefDyters, and turned them out of iheir Epiicopacy. The

,40 CLEMENT ^^ ^"'^^^

' The plea g«es on, the Apoftks.to guard a.^inft 4is contention ?bout Epiicopa- cf " co^ftituted Biihops and Deacons and moreover gave dlreSion (according ?o otrr a roll qr lift) that, when they 5ho° Id die, other approved men might focceed in the miniftry.T And no one doubts but the Apoftles appomted Bi- ^^ndproUfor.fuccpffio"^^ fuch offidsrs m the chuich- But tne ouemo?!?, ^-ho are here tpeant by thelf BUbops ?■ Were they an order m the fhtf dift^frpm. >nd a^^^^^^^^^ Prcfbvter$ ? Clement hmafeli can Deit frJSi Andthishehasd^^^^ Lntlv that we cannot well tail or Know-

Sfcot'Siof of Wf d*o«f= » *?

paragraph.

And he very plainly lays U down (i) that - the Apoftles knew there would fe contention about EF^oR^^y- J^ To Kuard againft this, they 4^ them Se\..app^mtKmopsanJD.acons.n

CLEMfiNt OF Rome. 141

cd to) they conftituted of the <* firft fruits of their converfions, a number of Bifliops and Deacons" for the benefit of the church, as believers fho'uld after- wards increafe. (3) Befldes this confti- tution of perfons, they *' gave dire61ion>" as deaths fliould happen, that " others jBiouId be conftituted td fucceed in their room." (4) From thefe premifes, he in- fers it to be an unjullifiable thing to " call thofe oiit of their Epifcopacy,** who have behaved well ; whether they had been conftituted by the Apoftlea therrifelves, or other excellent men af- terwards. And now (5) To bring hi^ argument to a pointy and to let the church of Corinth certainly know, that he aimed at them in all this difcourfe, and defigned to condemn their unfutable conduct towards, their Prefbyters, hg offers to their conficleration the " blelTed- nefs of thofe Prefbyters, who have gonr. off the ftage," in this article in fpeci- al, " that they could not be removed out of the place where they were fixed, as they had removed fome of their Pref- byters from their honorable miniftra- tions,'*

142 CLEMENT of Rome.

This is the unqueftionable connefl^ioii of Clement's arguing in this paragraph. Upon which I would appeal to any perfonof common underftanding, whether he could have any other intention, in this train of leafoning, than to offer conviction to the church of Corinth, of their fauhy con- duct in ** calling their Prefbyters out of their office ?'* But if their Prefbyters had been any other than ihofe Bifliops, he had fpoken of as conftituted, either by the Apoftles themfelves, or other famous inen afterwards, Vvhat pertinency is there in this method of reafoning ? He men- tions only Bifliops and Deacons as con- ftituted by the Apoftles, or to be con- ftituted afterwards by others, by their direftion. If therefore the Prefbyters of Corinth had not been in the number of thofe Bifliops, they had not afled againfl any apoftolical conflitution, and could not fall by the force of this arguing : whereas, on the other hand, if by thefe Prefbyters we underfiand the fame order of officers with the Eifhops here fpoken of, and confider the words Bifhops and Prefbyters, as only different names to point out the fame pcrfons, the reafoning V.'ill not only be clear and forceable, but

pcrfeftl^

CLEMENT OF Rome. 143

perfeclly confonant to the connection of his whole difcourfe ; which fo obvioufly and ncceflarily leads to this, that I am well (atisfied no art of man can elude the evidence there is for it.

Besides, if thefe Bifhops were an '5r^' der of officers fuperior to Prefbyters, why fhould Clement fo particularly mention the apoftolic conftitution of Bidiops, about whom (as officers diftincl from, and fuperior to, Prefbyters) there is no hint, in the epiftle, as if there was any conten- tion ; and, at the fame time, omit faying a word about the conftitution of Prefby- ters, (as he certainly does, if they are an. order diftinft from Bifhops) againft whom the church of Corinth had rofe up in the moft unfeemly manner ? This feems al- together unintelligible : efpecially con- fidering, it is the governing defign of this whole epiftle, and of this paragraph in fpecial, to correal: the condu6l of the Co- rinthians towards their Px^esbyters, and {et them right in their behavior for time to come.'

And now% being let into the true

meaning of dementis BiihopSj the con-

-iv :;.;.; V troverfy

144 CLEMENT of Roul.

troveify, among the learned, about that difficolt word ef?momjpi, in that part of the paragraph, where mention is made of the apoftolic provifion for the fuccefiion of Bifhops, is quite fuperfeded. For whe- ther we tranflate it with Arch-Biftiop Wake, and Boyfe, direction j or with Burton, Salmafius, and Bifhop Pearfon, command; or with Young and Dr. Ham- mond, defcriprion, lift, roll, catalogue : I fay, in which foever of thefe fenles we take the word, it matters not ; fo long as the Bifliops in Clement are precifely the fame order of officers with Preibyters.

Onlv I cannot omit obferving, that the conftru6tion, which fuppofes the Apoftles to have given a lift, or roll of fucceflbrs, does not feeni at all probable. For, as the learned Boyfe argues againft- this interpretation, " Who ever heard of ** fuch a lift or roll? Was it a catalogue of ** all their fucceflbrs to the worlds end ? ** Or a lift of their fucceflbrs, for one,: *< two, or three centuries ? How came " this lift, or roll to be loft ? when the ** prefervation of it would have been of *^ fuch vaft confequence, to prevent all ^l difputes about future eleftions. For

«' donbtlefs

GLE^MENT of KoJie-. F45

^* doubtlcfs the churches waiiM readily " have concurred in ahe choice of fuch, '* as the Apoftles,- from certain foreknow- *^ ledge, had marked dawn for Bilhops *' and Deacons. So that it is certaii^^ *' either this catalogue was never given ** by them, or thofe churches, to whom ^* it was given, v^-ere guihy of inexcufa- *^ ble neghgence, in fuftertng fo valua- *' ble a roll, that would have cleared up ^* the uninterrupted line of Epifcopal *' lucceflion, beyond difpute, to be fo ut- ^^ terly loft, that no notion, no monur. ^* ment of it, ibould be- heard of to this-? ^* day, and no Bifliop ever once appeal *' to it, to juftifte his claim af ainft com^\ **.petitors.*' I:

The evidence fiipppofed to be con- tained in this epiftle, for the fuperiority of Bifliops to Preibyters, b^ing thus re- moved out of the way'rloa'Ri.under.tlver^ fairer advantage to prdpofe. a few obfer*: vations, which feem abundantly fui5cH> eat to fliow it to ha^^e b^en the mind ofi^- Clement, that Bifhops and Preibyterst were, in his day, one and the fame or- > dsr of oflkiers in the Chi'ifti^n- ob^r^ii^is And, >iIotloc. > tniic^3£ ns tHid

I. I obsj;rve.

146 CLEMENT OF Rome.

I. I OBSERVE, when Clement fets him- felf, ex profeffo, to give an account of the apodolical conilitutlon of officers in the Chriftian church ^ and this, not in one or two particniar places only, but throughout cities and countries, as they travelled to propagate the faith of Chiift ; he makes mention only of the two or- ders of Bifhops and Deacons. And it 5s remarkable, how exactly confonant this account is, to the fcripture account of the conftitution of the chuich of Philippi ; in 'writing to whom, the Apoftle Paul takes notice'of rio other officers among them, fave: -only- Bifliops and Deacons. And the fa.me Apoftle writing to Timo- thy about church officers, defcrifaes only'' the qualifications of Bifhops and Dea- cons^; ^t^i 01 L

-12'. i OBSERVs what is yet more full too my purpofe,ithofe .BifhopsX'lentent meii-sa tions as conflituted by the Apoftles,. dr'^- other famous men afterwards, were onev arid the fame order of men w itb Prciby^T ; t^rS : othdrwife, he pafTes ov^r a whalfc) order of cccleflaftical gfficers ^ and this,/ at a time when he had undertaken to ex-' hibit an account of the apoflolic cor\Iti-. fayiSiaao 1 .x tution

CLEM.ENT OF Rome. 147

tution of officers, in theChriftian church; which cannot but be thought an incx- cufaWe omifTion. The only officers he takes notice of,as appointed by the Apof- tles, are Bifhops and Deacons. But if by the term Bifhops, he dees not mean the fame kind of officers with thofe that are called Prefbyters, he has certainly not fa id a word about any appointment of this order of officers ; which is unac- countably ftrange, confidering he makes particular mention of the lower order in the church, that of Deacons. And in- deed, unlefs we fuppole Clement to mean precifely the fam« fort of officers, when he ufes, fometimes the word Bifhops, and fometimes the word Prefbyters, we fhall make him a molt blundering writer. For one of the main arguments he ufes, to reflect blame upon the church of Co- rinth, for rifing up againft their Pref- byters, is, the apoftolic conftitution of Biihops : but if by this term, he did not mean the fame fort of officers, where would be the force of this reafoning ?. How would it tend to affiord convi)d\i6n to the Corinthians, that they had done ill in a6ling againft their Prelbyters, to be told of the .apoftolic appointment of ofie,

order

f4S CLEMENT of Rome,

order of officers fuperior to their Prefby- ters, and another inferior to them; while, at the fame time, not a word is faid whe- ther the order of Prefbyters was ever con- ftituted at all ? Such a method of rea-r foning is certainly very extraordinary, and much better calculated to encourage them in their fedition, than to bring them to repentance, and put a ftop to it, Bi« (hops therefore with Clement are the fame rank of officers with Prefbyters. And, as if he had it in defign, that we ftould not miftake him, he plainly (peaks of the Prefbyters of Corinth, as lome of thofe very Bifhops that were conftituted either by the Apoftles, or others after- wards by their diredion : for he fuppofes them placed in the epifcopal office, in that he directly finds fault with the Corinthi-*u ans " for cafting them out of their Epif'* copacy/*

And upon this, it is moft:ob\dous to I take notice of the perfefl harmony there • is, between the language of Clement and the xApoftle Paul; w^ho, 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

bp

CLEMENT OF Rome. ,49

be found in thofe, who were to be confti- tuted Bifliops ; evidently ufing the words, Prefbyters and Bifliops, as flgnifying the fame order of church officers. The Evan- gehft Luke likewife fpeaks of the Apof- tles, as ordaining Elders in every church • which h moft plainly the fame account with this of Clement, who mentions thetn as conftituting Bilhops in the churches they founded ; for thefe Bilhops were no other than Elders J and if Clement had Ipoken of the Apoflles, as appointing Elders or Prcltyters in the churches they planted, it would have been perfeclly the fame thing with his faying, that they ap- pointed Bilhops. ^

3. I OBSERVE, as a yet further confir- mati6n of what we are upon, that Pref- byter-Bilhops are the higheft order of ec- cldiaftical otTicers fpoken ofinthisepiftle. They are the only perfons mentioned as ' fet over the church of Corinth j" they are the only perfons that church are ex- horted to be " in fubjcdtion to :" nor is •there a word lifped of any duty owinr trom them to any fuperior order of men 1 no nor the leaft hint given of anv fuch order J which leads me to obferve in the

150 CLEMENT OF Rome.

4. The moral afTurance we have, that Clement knew of no Bifliop, at leaft, in the church of Gorinth, of a fuperior or- der to that of Prelbyter.— Let us confider the diredioii of the epiflle ; rt runs in that flile, " the church of Rome to the church of Corrnth," without any notice at all of their Bifliop ; which is fo much unlike the manner of infcriptions in afrer times, when Bifliops were diftinguifhed from Prefbyters, that, from this circum- ftance only, it looks probable, there was nofingleBifhop at the head of that church. But the probability will be heightened in- to certainty, if we add, there is as intirc filence, through the whole epiftle, of the Bifliop of this church : whereas, if any fmgle perfon had been at their head of an order diftinft from their Prefbyters, and invefted with a fuperior right of au- thoritatively managing in all ccclefiafti- cal affairs, it is not conceivable but he mufl, fome how or other, have been plainly pointed out.

The firfl:, mofl fuperior, and diflin- guifhed officer in this church, could not but have been interefled in the fhameful difturbance that was the occafion of this

letter.

CLEMENT OF Rome. 154

letter. He rnuft have jdinedj either vVitU the Prefbyters, or the people, or have been an idle fpectator of the prefent quar- rel ; and, in either cafe, there are great difSculties to be accounted for.

If he had been united with the Pref- byters, and made ufe oi his Epifcopal au- thority to oblige the people to peace, and their duty to their Pi*eibyters> it is flrange they are no where reprimanded for difre- garding the authority of their Bifhop ! nor can it well be imagined^ that Clement fhouldbe fofevere upon them for their in- decent carriage* to their Prefbyters, and yet filently pafsover their difobedience to their Bifhc?p ; which muft furely have deferved a rebuke, if they had oppofed his autho- rity, in their ufage of their Prefbyters.

Orj if he had favoured the Cdrmthiari church, in their ill treatment of their Prefbyters^ it is much he is not reafoned with, that he might be convinced of his miilake : lince the church are fo Iharply rebuked, and earneflly exhorted to re-^ pentance and amendment : nor is it eafy to conceive of the propriety (according to the epifcopal fcheme) of their being X thus

1^2 CLEMENT OF RomEo"

thus blamed, and condemned, while they had the countenance of their Bifnop in what they did. Upon this flippofition, the firft thing neceflary, in order to peace, muit have been to have offered conviflion to the Bifliop, and engaged him to defift from encouraging the church, in their fe- ditious pradice againft their Preibyters.

Or if we might imagine it poffible for a Bifhop, to be fo thoughtlefs of the peace and quiet of his church, as to be an un- concerned fpeftator of this fa£lion, which had increafed to fuch an height, as to ex- cite the compaflion of the church of Rome, it is wonderful he is ndt admonilhed, at leaft, in a foft and gentle manner, of his neglect i and befought to interpofe with his authority to heal this divilion 1 But inftead of this, to complete the unaccoun- table conduct both of Clement, and the church of Rome, though the Bifhop was the mofl futable perfon to be applied to in this cafe, neither Prefbyters, nor people are dire6fe i to refer the matter to him ; nor to afk his advice : nor is his name, or any thing relating to him, or his office, ib much as diflantly hinted at.

0%

.CLEMENT OF Rome. 153

Qr if it be fuppofed, without any ap- pearance of proof, that the church of Corinth happened to.be without aBifnop, juft at the time of this fedition, and the CQmpofLiie of this epiftie : I fay, even Tuppofing this^ rneerly to fei ve an hypo- thefis, it is a great difficulty no mention fiiould be made of their late Bifliop, nor any advice given them to come into a fpee- dy choice of a new Bifliop, as the moft fotable reipedy to heal their differences. This was thought one of the bell expedi- ents to compofe differences, in after times. And it is the very method, the Prefbyters of Rome, whc» that fee was vacant by the death of Fabiap> mention in their letter toCyprian, in order to the removal pf their difficulties. And it was as fit a method in the days of Clement, as in the days of Cyprian; and no other reafqn can be af- figned of his being wholly filent about it, but that he knew of no difference between the order of Blfhops, and Prefbyters.

Upon the whole, if Bifhops, in the days of Clement, were officers in the church any way refembling our modern Prelates, thefe are certainly moft inexcufable omif- fions : nor are they capable of bei^g ac- counted for toreafonable fatisfa^tion. I

154 CLEMENT of Rome.

I SHALL finifh my examination of plement, with inferting the opinion of two as learned men as ever appeared, upon the matter we have laft beeri dilputing. ''They that can find any one fmgle Bifliop at (^orinth, at the time^, ^Vhen Clement wrote this epiftle to them, mnft have better eyes, and judgment^, than the defervedly admire4 Grotius" • io ipeaks the great Billipp of Worcefler, Grotius's judgment (here referred to) wa5 plainly this, he mentions it as a proof of the antiquity and genuinenefs of the pre- sent Copy of Clement's epiftle, " That he no where takes notice of that exorbitant power of Bifnops, which was firft intro- duced in Alexandria, after the death of Mark, and from that example into other churches ; but evidently fliow^s, that the churches were governed by the common council of Prefbytersj who, by him, and the Apoftle Paul, are called Bi(hops.'*

POLYCARP.

POLYCARP.

Tlh charaBerj writings, and teliimonies Jrorn them, with objervations and remarks.

PREVIOUS to what may be offered re- lative to this Father, I would give BOtice,that the order of time is a little broke in upon, by giving him a place here ; for his " epiflle to the Pbilippians" was not wrote until after the death of Ignatius, who mufl: therefore have wrote before him. But, as there are fome im- portant paffages, in his " epiftle," the reader fliould be acquainted with, before he comes to Ignatius, it was thought beft to place him firft. Having obferved this, } go on J

POLYCARP

156 P O L Y C A R p.

Pol YC ARP had his birth in the apoftolig age; and probably not a great many years on this fide, the middle of the firft: cen- tury. Some modern authors fpeak of him as borp in Smyrna; as being a flave in his younger years, and bought by a certain Lady named Calefto, who, toge- ther with giving him his freedom, in- ftru(5led himin theChriftian rehgion, and afterwards made him her heir. But as thefe accounts, with many other of a like import, are extra6led from writers great- ly remote from the age in which Poly- carp lived, and that were too much given to the romantic ftrain, they are not to be depended on^

It may, upon much better authority, be efteemed a juft ftroke in his character, that I^e was one that *' fat under the teaching of the Apoftles," and was fa- miliarly " converfant with thofe that knew our Lord," and particularly " with the Apoftle John." This ac- count we have from Irenseus, which we may the rather give credit to, becaufe he fpeaks not only of his having, " in his younger years, k^n Polycarp ;" but as

♦« retaining '

P O L Y C A II p. i5f

" retaining in his mind a diftincl remem- brance of having heard him relate thefe things."

He likewife makes mention of him as Bifhop of Smyrna, and as placed in this office by the Apoftles ; though Tertulliaii names none of the Apoflles, fave ** John," as having an hand in his conftitution. And Eufebius only fays in general, " He was made Bifhop by thbfe, who faw the Lord, and miniftred to him." But how- ever it might be as to this circumftance, there is no difficulty abo«t the thing it- felf. He is readily allowed to have been Biihop of Smyrna*

And from hence -a mighty argumeat is drawn, in favor of his having been of an order in the church, fuperior to that of Prefbyters 3 efpecially, when, in conjunc- tion herewith, that is fuppokd to be true, which Arch-Bifhop Ufher has endea- vored to prove to be fo, namely. That he was Biihop of Smyrna, when the Apoftle John feht his '' apocalyptical letter" to the '* Angel of that church.'* But the foundation of the argument at bnce vaniflies, when it is cbnfidered,that,

in

158 P O L Y C A R P.

in the age of Polycarp, no fuch thing as a diftindlion of order, between Bi- fhops and Prefbyters, was known in the church. This we have ahxady proved from Clement of Rome, and Hermas, both Polycarp*s Contemporaries ; and ihall further confirm from Polycarp him- felf, when we come to take notice of his ** epiftle to the PhiHppians.'' And what is particularly obfervable, in the cafe of Polycarp^ he is by Irenseus called Pref- byter, as well as Bifhop. In his epiftle to Florinus, that is the ftile in which he fpeaks of him, ^'Polycarp, [apojiolikos Pre/- iuteros] the apoftolical Prefbyter" ; which is the more worthy of notice, becaufe, with Irenaeusj the reciprocal ufe of the words, Bifhop and Prefbyter, is very common. And herein (as we fhall fee in the progrefs of this work) there is a won- derful agreement among the writers of this age, Ignatius only excepted, which we fhall account for afterwards. So that if we fliould^ even, fuppofe, the ** An- gel of the church of Smyrna'* to be Po- lycarpi a then Bifhop of that church, {a long as we are juft to interpret the word Bifliop, in the fenfe, in which it was un^ derftood^ in this age of Chriftianity, no- thing

P O L Y C A R p. 159

thing more can be made of it, than that he was an officer in that church, of the fame order with the reft of the Prefby- ters of it : though he might be the moft eminent, known, and diftinguiflied among them ; and the moft proper, upon thefe accounts, to receive a letter which con- cerned the whole church.

It is commonly, in modern accounts of the life of Polycarp> mentioned as aa article particularly redounding to his ho- nor, that the venerable Ignatius had fuch an opinion of him, as a truly apoftolical man, that he pitched upon him, as the moft fuitable perfon he could commend the care of his church at Antioch to, when he was parted from them, and on his journey to Rome, to fufFer mar- tyrdom. He is likewife highly efteem-. ed in love, and reverenced, as being the fuppofed colledtor of the epiftles of Ig-f natius : which, together with one of his own, he is faid to have fent, by one Crefcens, to the church of Philippi. — But thefe things we fliall have occafion to exr.^ amine, at large, in a more proper place :i> and fo (hall leave them at prefent.

NOTHINQ

i6o P O L Y G A R P,

Nothing more is found recorded of this- primitiveFather, until the eallern and wef- tern churches began to controvert about the time ofkeepingeafter^ which occafion- ed his going to Rome (about the middle of tbefecond century) in the days* of Ani- cetus, to confer with him upon that mat- ter. And notwithftanding all the dif- courfe, thefe grave Fathers might have up- on this head, they could not come Xo an agreement ; the one pleading apoftolical' practice for one lime of obferving this feaft, and the other the cuftom of bis predecefibrs, even up to the Apoftles, for another : yet they were charitably dif- pofed towards