the Egean Sea, and couch at Smyrna and Troci^, and
thence fail into Neapolis in Macedonia, when there
was a nearer and more direct Paflage from Antioch to
Rome, as will appear to any one that confults the
Maps, and obferves Vatd's Voyage from Cefarea to
Rome *. The Centurion that quartered Paul, was
very courteous to him, but Ignatius was conduced by
ten Leopards, as he calls them (kv\ And can it be ima-
gined that thofe would allow Ignatius the Liberty of
failing fome hundreds of Leagues about to vific the
A/ian Churches ? He faith, he was carried bound fro?7i
Syria to Rome (1). And in another Place, that it
(f) Ep. ad Magn. p. ^8. Ad. Trail, p. ft. (g) Ad Philad. p. 4f.
(h) Ad Ephef. p. 18. * Gil. 1. 8, 9. (1) Ad Eph. p. 133. (k) Ep.
ad Rom. p. y8. (i) Ep. ad Eph, p. 19.
0^4 plea-
^5^ The Eijlory of Ordination.
pleafed God tojend him from the EaB to the IVefl (m).
Now if he was fent from the EaB to the WeBy what
Reafon can be alTign'd why he fhould turn his Courfe
Northward, as "trcm and NeapoUs, We find him at
Smyrna when he wrote the Epiftles to the Ephefians
(n), to the Magnefians (o), to the Trullians (pj, and to
the Ramans (qj. He wrote the Epiflles to the Smyr-
neans, to Poiycarpy and to the Philadelphians from
'tYoa6 {r)y whence he was commanded to fail fudden-
ly into Neapolisy and for this Reafon he faith, he can-
not write to all the Churches ; and therefore dejires Poly-
Carp to write to other Churches ^ to do the fame things fome
that were able to fend Aljfengers on Foot to Syria, others
to fend Epiflles by PolycarpV Mejfengersy who is defir'd
to call a Council worthy of God, and to ordain a fit Per-
fon to he fent to Antioch, who might be called a Divine
Curfttor (s).
Having pafs*d from Troas to NeapoIiSy and depu-
ted Polycarp to write Epiftles to feveral Churches, to
fend Meffengers to Syria, we read no more of his
Motions in thofe Epiftles that are reputed Genuine;
but by other Epiftles that go under his Name, he
went to Philippiy and thence wrote his Epiftles ad
\tayfenfcsy ad Jntiochy and ad Hsvon (u).
One may jiiftly wonder that Ignatius iliould write
fo many Epiftles to other Churches, and write none
to his own Church of Antioch. It would have
become him to write a Paftoral Letter to this
Church in che firft Place, as having the Charge of k^
and being now doftitute of its Biftiop. The other
Churches had Biftiops of their own, and were none
of his Charge, but Anttoch was his Charge, and
(ra; A. .i Rom. p. «; 6. «5 ^usiv )>vn,iivKTa>!vi^ yuiT* 7:^fji/^x^(^ (n) Ad Eph.
pi 3L9. Co) Ad Mign. p. 38. (p) Ad Trail, p. ^-z. (cjj Ad Rom,
p. 6i, (r) Vid. Voir. Ignat. p. 8. 15.46. (s) »9 ^nimleti ^io^€ofj^(^
ii^h^af' Ad Polyc, p. I J. (u; Vid. Epift. iuppofit. p. 73. 81 &
wanted
The Hijfmy of Ordination. ag^
wanted a Bifliop. Can any one imagine fo good a
Man, To faithful a Paftor as Ignatimy had he written
fo many Epiftles, as is fuggefted, fhoald negledt his
own Church, which mofl needed his Help, to efla-
blifh them in this Day of Trial ? It does not appear
what Occafion he had to write to fo many other
Churches, but there was juft Reafon why he fhould
write to his own Flock.
He defires Folycar^ to write to the Churches he
had not written to, to fend MefTengers or Epiftles to
Antioch (w). Can he be fuppofed to defire others to
write to them, and forbear himfelf ? The Author of
thefe Epiftles makes Ignatim not only a carelefs Shep-
herd, but inconfiflent with himfelf.
He reprefents him as playing the Bijhop in other Mens
Diocefcs, but overlooking his own (x).
But in another Collection of his Epiflles, fomc
kind Hand took Care to wipe off this Reproach, and
prepar'd a large Epiftle in the Name of Ignatim to
the Church at Antioch, and another to Heron Deacon
of that Church ; but neither of thcic Epiftles being
mentioned by Eujebim fy), they are defervcdly con-
demned for fpurious and counterfeit bv the learned
World.
5?. In the Epiftle to the Ephefians, he commends
that Church for two Things, in which they excell'd.
1. That there was no Herefy among them in his
Time. Te all Live^ faith he, according to the Truths
and no Herefy dwells among you (z).
2. That there never had been any Herefy among
them. May I he found in the Lot of the Ephefian Chri-
fitansy who have always confented to the Apoflles in the
Power of "Jefus Chrifi (a).
(w) va^'M? Tuiti \fji,fs^^t* <^x,Xi}
Vet. Verf. Lat. — - o/ p. Jltxf^ct snji?? yrt^Jt^^uf, el 3 fTHfoXx^* A^
Polyc. p. If. (xj
Hift. ;. 36. (z) cv v[Ai¥ ahfjuioc »i^tiffi^ n^To^yM, Ad. Eph. p. xi.
(3} 01 ^ 76ii ^fcAois 5r«vroTs nmivav* p. 24.
A.
2^4- Th Hijlory of Ordinatimt.
A. This Account is ditferent from the Apoftlcs
Charafter of them. In the Epillle to Timothy^ whom
he had defired to flay at Eph3fus, he mentions falje
Teac/iers there, who fet up the Righteoufnefs of the
Law, and made Shipwreck of the Faith (b). He fore-
tells a very great Apoftacy from the Faith (c) ; and as
he took Leave of that Church, he tells them, I know
that after ?):y departing^ grievous Wohes jhall enter in a-
mon^ you, not [paring the Flock. A I fo of your ozun fehef
jhall Alen arife, /peaking perverfe Things, to dravj away
Difciples after them. Ads 20. 2^, 30.
I leave the Reader to judge, whether PauVs or Ig-
natiHi his Report of this Church be the truefl:. I
will only add this. That Cenntbm the Hcretick was
at Ephefm, where "John the Apotlle finding him in a
Bath, retir'd in halt, and faid, he was afraid lefl the
Lath foould fallj fence Cerinthus the Adve/fary of the
Truth was within (d).
Jej-om adds to this Relation, That after the Apo-
flles Departure, the Bath fell, and Ctrinthus and hi^
Followers perifhed under the Ruines of it (e).
Irenaus affirms, that John wrote his Gofpel againfl
Cerinthpi6 and Other Hereticks, while he abode at
Ephfm (f), who is feconded by Eufebius (g) and Je-
rom^ who fays, it was written at the Defire of the Bifhop
cf Afia, to chviate the growing Herefies.
10. The Epillles of Ignatius are without Exception
condemn'd by Ntcephorus, Patriarch of ConftantmopUy
in the beginning ot the Ninth Century, and by Ana-
flafms Bibhothecavius, who lived in the fame Age (h).
NicephoYus in his Siichometria reckons up the Cano-
nical Books of the Old and New Teflament, and
adds a Table of luch as are fpoken again fl or doubt-
iu\, and of iuch as are Apocryphal. In the lail Clafs
(b) I Tim. 1. 5. 7. T 9. (c) 1 Tim. 4. li. fd) Ircn. adv. HxreC
5. 5. (e) Adv. Lucikr. (r) Ircn. adv. Hxref. 3. 1 & i. [g) EccL
Hift. f, (h) Dail. GC Script. Ignat. lib. 2. c 4.
he
Tlx HiJIoi-y of Ordination. a 35
he reckons, i. The Itinerary of Peter. 2. The Itinera-
r)' of John. 3. The Itinerary of Thomas. 4. The Gof-
pel according to Thomas. 5. 77;=? DoElnne of the Apcftle^j
a Book fo called. (5. 3c Books of Clemens. 7. Tfje
Books of Ignatius, Polycarp, Faftor and Hermas.
It's evident here, that Nicefho,us condemns all
thefe Books, as equally y^pocryphal, and if fome be
fpuriousand fuppofititious, they are all in his Judgment.
The learned Bifhop Pearfon conceives they are called
j4pocryphal in oppolition ro Canonical, that is, they arc
rot divinely infpir'd, but that hinders not but they
may be profitably read.
Larroque anfwers him well, that the Queflion is
not in what Senfe the Word Afvcryphal may be taken,
but in what Senfe Nicephorus takes it.
Now it*s plain, he oppofes Apocryphal Books not
only to Canonical, but to fuch as are doubtful ; and
he palles the fame Sentence on all the Books above-
mentioned, of which feveral are acknowledged by all
to be fpuricus.
Valejius obferves, that Apocryphal Books are thofe
that are notorioufly falfe, and generally compofed by
Hereticks (i), and to this agrees the Teihmony of
Hegeftppui in Eufdius fk). Bifhop Pear fen objects,
that Volycarp's Epiflle is genuine, that Herm.is's Epi-
iHe is commended by many of the Ancients, and
therefore Nicephorus cm z be fuppofed to take ^^ocry-
phal in the worfe Senfe.
La-rroqtte {}) anfwers, that all the Books in Nice^
phorus's Catalogue are equally condemn'd, that he
joyns them with the Itinerary of Pf^er, and other fpu-
rious Pieces, all which are alike Apccr^phal in Nice*
phorus his Opinion ; that fome of thofe Authors,
whom Pearfcn cites in Favour of Hermas^ fpeak de-
(.) In Ejfeb. Eccl. Hid. 6. 14. (k) Lib. 4. & 21. (1) Obfcmt."
iii l^nar. rciribnii vindiciias 4.
fpicably
0^^ TIk Hijhn' of OnliihUimi.
fpicably of him, particularly Ori^eti, who Uys, Si
an Ubeilus itlc mcipiendus I'tdetuv, it any one tliinks
him worth receiving ; and Ongen confciics, that
Hermai's Vnjlor was dcrpirc4 ^7 iomc (m). Jerem
charges that Author with Folly (n). Pro/per rejects
his Authority, whiwh was produced by Gijjiiu.
liirtulltiin liiggcils, that it was judg'd Apocnphul^
Falfi iiUil Spurtous by .ill the CathoUckChunbss (o) againil
wiiom he wrote that Book^, being then a MoarwrU.
'Jtrtulluiii durft not appeal to the Githolicks as to
Matter ot Fad, if it had not been true.
Bifhop Pc\irfon was at a great Lot's what to fay,
when he cxplam'd TertulIUu\ Ccnfurc of Hamus his
Pajicr^ p€/biip)y to JJ^titfy no tnore than tbat in the
*yudgn:cnt of the Ckirchy tt vias not a Canoakcil Book, but
rather to be rsikouJ amo/tg the Apocryphal j i e. not Qtho^
mull (p).
Tenui/ictu faith, that in the Judgment of the Church
H'}MAs's VVritmg is Apooyphal^ Fjlfi and Adulterous,
which is much more than meerly P^on-Qimuial, or
EwltfiijJiicaJ, which according to the learned Bifhop
are pious, authentick Books, worthy to be read by
all Chriiliaus, and next unto Canonical Writings-
No wonder then N'lcephorus ihould condemn Her-
mas his Pj/?t'r for Apocryphal y fmce he was condemned
by the Church long before him.
' As to Pohcarps Epiftle, its being condemn'd by fo
great a Man as Nicepbo-rus, and by Aiujhi/:us tor A'
po.nphMy and rank'd with Books co nfe iled ly //«nfl«/,
makes it fufpicious tlut it's a counterfeit Piece.
inn) Qai a tiuibmUam contemaitur. Philocal. cap. i. (n) Hicr.
Jn Vtx^yiz. cap. I. [o] Dc Puviicit. cap.io. Ccdercm tibi, li ^cl■ip:u^a
riitoris, que lola mjechos amat, divmo mlUuracntomeruilkc inciJi,
\\ noa aL> oinai conci'ij Ecvletiirum ctum vellrarum inter Apocry-
pha ii hlli jadiciicair liuitcri & ipib. (p) In verbis Tcrtaiiiani
ml a^jui forCific coiirmcftur, qujun P.uiorem Hcrmx non ruiile ex jj-
duio ecclctia: JibruniC-.noQicuni, icd potius mtcr Apocryphos, i. c.
noQ ciiionicns auir.erurj:!!. Igait. Viadsc. p. 43.
And
Tbc Hiflory of Ordma'ton, 0^7
And there is a palpable ContradiElion between the
Paragraph v/hich mentions /^/z^r/Ws Epiftlcs and that
bet'orc. The one making him dead, the other alive.
The former Paragraph exhorts the Philippians to fol-
low the Righteoufnefs and Patience of Jgnatiui^ Zox.y-
musy RuJHiy Fuul, and the red of the Ap^Jllei, being
confident that all thefc have not run in "uainy irut tn Faith
and Righteoufnefs, and are tn the Place due unto them
"jjith the Lord, -ujith vjhom they have fuff^erd fq). Hcrc
he makes Ignatius one of thofc who fuflFer'd with
Chrift, had fini(hcd his Courfe, and was gone to
Heaven.
A little after, in the Paragraph that fpcaks of Jg-
nattus his Epiftles, Ik; cicfircs of the Philtppians to fig-
nify to him what certain Knowledge they have of
Ignatiuf, and thofe that are vjith him (r).
Thefe laft Words arc only to be found in the an-
cient Latin Verfion publilhed by V^her^ and before him
by loackim Fniomui, Interpreter to Henry IV- King of
France (s).
The rcfl of t lie Paragraph is in Eufebiusy biit whe-
ther he omitted to tranicribe it out of the Greek
Copy, or whether the Latin Interpreter added to it,
is not certain ; but whether it be one or the other, it
cannot be deny'd but Pofy:arp\ Epifile had been cor-
rupted either by Addition or Mutilation. And if
part of that Pararagph about Ignatmi's Epiftfes be
fuppofititious, the whole. may be fo; It's certain that
Ntuphxirm and Anaflafius judg'd them Apocryphal.
There is no queflion but they were well acquaint-
ed With what Eufehius fays of Pc/ycarp and Ignatius y
and yet they faw reafon to condemn both. Dr. Pear-
(q) Epift. Pclyc. ad Philip. ir^., -Tm'nti » "^ r.n-TntC-*!.
fr) Et oc ip(b I^i'io, & d« his qui cum co fu.t, quod ccr lus ag-
noveritii, figniLcatc. Folyc id. FhLip. (r Euiu Lu^cuo. Aa.Dom.
fons
2^8 The Hijlory of Ordination.
Jons Objedions to Anaflajins his Ccnfure are fully an-
fwered by Larroque *.
The Dodor objeds further, that Nicephorus docs
not name Ignatius his Epiftles, nor intend them, but a
certain fpurious Book, call'd the DoBrine of Ignatinsy
which is condemned for Apocryphal in the Oxon
MSS. Indiculusy and in another publifhed by Cotek-
riusy out of the French Kings Lihrary (t).
But Nicephorus condemns all the Writings of Igna-
tiusy without any Diftindion, and fo doth Jnaflajius.
They would have excepted his Epiftles, had they
thoaght them genuine.
Thefe learned Men apply to the Docirine of Igna-
tius y what Nitephorus fpeaks of the Books or Writings
of Ignatius indefinitely. They may as well fay, he
meant his Epiflles, Ad MArianty Ad Tarfenfesy Ad Jo-
hannem Apoflolumy &c. which are confefledly fpurious.
He means neither one nor the other, but all the Books
or Writings of Ignatius without Exception. And per-
haps (y>$'ic)c^) the DoHrine of Ignatius may include all
the Writings under his Name, which were defigned
for Dodrine or Inftrudion. The Index publifhed by
Coteleriu) cenfures the DoBrine of Polycarp.
The Teftimony brought in Favour of Ignatius his
Epifties out of Irenaus is not conclulive, becaufe he
matces no mention of any Epifties written by him ; he
only quotes a Saying of his, in thefe Words, As one
of our ozvn hath fpoken, when, he was condemned to the
Beafis for the I'eftimony of Gody I am God's Bread-Corny
and when I am ground by the Teeth of the Beaftsy I JJjall
be found the pure Bread of God (u).
Thefe Words of Innaus are to be found in the £-
pipde to the Romans, which bears the Name of Igna-
tiusy and hence he argues that Irenaus took them
out of that Epiftle, and tho' he ufeth the Word, hath
"'f Obfervat. 6. ufque ad 1 1. { } Vindic. p. 59,60. (u) Iren.adv.
hxref. /. 28 Quemadmodurn quidcm dc noftris dixit.
* fpehjly
The liijloyy of Ordmaiion. a 59
fpokeuy the Meaning is, that Ignatius hath luritten thofe
Words. And this Diftinftion hath fpokeyi and hath
written, which Dailk infifts on, hath no Force at all,
Vihen we know tk' M'^ords are written.
True, faith Larroque ; when it's certain the Words are
written, but that's the Thing in queftion, whether the
Ignatian Epiftle to the Romans be genuine. The ASis
of that Martyr and Jerom do reftify, that when he heard
the Lions roar, he fpoke thefe Words (w).
And therefore Irenaus, making no mention of any
Writing of Ignatius, muft be underflood to refer unto
the Words, as fpoken by him. For this Reafon Arch-
bifhop UJher did not think fit to urge this Teftimony
of Irenaus (x).
Bifhop Pearfon, who leaves no . Stone unturn'd to
gain his Point, objeds feveral Miflakes in Jeroms
Hiftory, and that the JBs of Ignatius hts Martyrdom^
are not thofe which were in Being in Irenaus's Time,
but a fabulous Compofition of the fixth or fevcnth
Age (y>
Larroque anfwers, That by this Way of Reafoning,
he undermines his own Foundations, that if Jeroms
Authority may be rejefted, becaufe he is miftaken in
fome Things, fo may Eufebius's alfo, who is the beft
Evidence for Ignatnn his Epillles, for the Learned
have difcovered feveral Hallucinations and Miflakes
in him alfo. It's highly probable that Jerom had feen
the moft ancient AEls of his Martyrdom, which Irenaus
confulted. It would be highly injurious to that anci-
ent and eminent Father to fay, He invented what he
wrote of that Martyr. This would be indecent, tho'
a ready Way to confute ancient Authorities (z).
There are two Teflimonies produc'd out of Origen
by Ignatius's Defenders -, one out of his Prologue on
(w) Hieron. in Cat!, (x) Prolegom, ad Ignat. cap. 3. p. 13. (y)
Vindic. p. 89* (z) Obferv. in Tgnat. Vindic. 14.
the
^4-0 The Hijlory of Ordination.
the Canticles, the other out of bis fixth Homily on
Luke, But both thele Pieces are of uncertain Autho-
rity.
The former is judg'd to be none o^ Origens, by E-
rafmus and Rynandu^ (a), and ftifpedted by Labbe (h).
Dr. Fearfon produces three learned Editors of Origeyis
Works, who conceive it genuine; but Huet one of
them is forced to confefs.thofe imperfed Commenta-
ries to be altered and new modell'd by Rujfmus (c).
The fecond Teftimony out of his iixth Homily on
Luh^ is obnoxious to the fame Cenfure. Not only
thofe Tracts that were tranflated by Ruffinus are in-
terpolated, but thofe that were done by Jerowy if we
may believe Ruffinus (d).
Merlimis, another Editor of Ovigens Works, affirms,
that there are Errors in Origens Homilies, foifled
in by his Adverfaries Cej.
Genebrardy the Third Editor, after he had men-
tioned the two Homilies on the Canticles which y^-
ro?n tranflated, and the intire Preface to Pope Dama-
fas, which is the Front of them ; he adds. There is
another Fragment under the Name of Origcnj pious, learn-
ed and eloquent; this in fome ancient Copies has the Name
of Jerom prefix d. He obferves alfo, that Jerom ex-
cufes Origens Homilies on Luke, as written when he
was young, and fprinkled alfo with fome damned Er-
rors (f). Thefe learned Editors therefore do the
learned Dodor little Service.
Labbe the Jeficit alfo fpeaks doubtfully of them (g).
I will conclude wi:h one Obfeivation more out of
Larroque ; It is highly improbable, that Etifebius, who
was fo addicled to the Name and Works of Origen,
(a) Rayn. iaErotcm. p. lyi. (• ) Labb. de fcrlpt. in Eccl. in Orig.
(c) Huet. Orig. lib. 3. 1+9. (^) InvC(5l. ad Hieron. lib. x, p. 155.
(c) Vid. Hbeu lib. 5. Ong. p. 25-3. (r) GLnebr. Collect, devit. Cc
opcrib. Origen. (g) Non deluntqui ambigJiu, Labb. dc fcript. Eccl,
Tom. 2. p. 144-
* that
The Hijlory of Ordination. ^^I
that he was ceufur'd by Gelafius and a Roman Synod
upon that Account, would have pafs'd by his Tefti-
monies in Favour of Ignatim his Epiflles, had he be-
lieved them to be genuine. This is a flrong Argu-
ment that the Teftimonies produced now out of On-
gen, were not in the genuine Works of that Father,
with which Eufd/m was familiarly acquainted (h).
it's acknowiedg'd by both Parties, that Ignatius
his Epiflles are mentioned by no other ancient Au-
thor before Eufebim^ befides the three above-named,
and the Teftimonies produced out of them have
been proved very doubtful. It's true, Etijebim cites
Polycarp and Iren^m his Teftimony. But it has been
obferv'd already, that Nicephoms and Anaftafms con-
demn Polycarp's Works without Diftin6tion j and ad-
mitting the Epifile under his Name were genuine,
there is great Sufpicion that the Paragraph that men-
tions thofe Ep idles is added by feme other Hand.
One may juftly wonder, if Ignatims Epiflles be
genuine, that they are not cited by the uncontefted
Writers of the 2d and 3d Age, efpecially fuch as
wrote againft the Herefies mentioned in thofe Epi-
flles, and it is yet more furprizing that his Teftimony
fhould be overlook'd, when they had occafion for it,
and produced others of lefs Note, as is done by Ca-
jus an ancient Writer againfl: Artemon, who cites Ju^
fiin Martyr, MiltiadeSy latiamtij Clemens, Irenaus, Me-
lito, &c. aflerting the Divinity of Chrifl (i), but
makes no mention of Ignatius, who in feveral Places
affirms him to be God. It cannot be fuppofed he
was unacquainted with his Writings, who fhews
himfelf well verfed in the Writers of thofe Ages, and
i^ he knew him, he had nor overlooked fo great a
Name, fince he names thofe that were lefs eminent.
It's a poor Shift of the learned Vindicator of Ignatius^
(h) 9bfcr7. in VinJic. 19. p. 108, 109. (1; Eufcb. E. H. 5. i8.
R that
04-^ The Hiftory of Ordination,
that Cajus did not name him, becaufe he did not
write profefledly againft Heretick^ ("k). That an-
cient Writer, confuting Artemon'j Herefy^ and fhewing
it to be new, he reckons up the chief Writers who
floufiftiM before Zephyrinus^ and either profefTedly or o-
therwife alTerted the Divinity of Chrift, and none
does it more clearly than Ignatius ; and therefore
Cajus had not omitted him, had he known him, but
had put fo great and apoftolick a Man in the Front
of his Witnefles.
From the Whole, it's doubtful whether Ignatius
wrote any Epiflles at all ; it's probable that the Col-
ledion which Eufcbhis had was the Work of fome o-
ther Hand, who fathered his Compofure on that
great Man, as was ufual with the 2d and 3d Ages,
to procure it Authority. The Defign being fious, to
encourage ^Martyrdom, and politick, to advance the
Power of Bifliops, it might eafily pafs uncenfur'd, as
fome other Writings did, particularly the S) trills Ora-
cles, which were urged by the Chriftian Apologifts
of the 2d and 3d Centuries againft the Heathens, as
if they were Authentick. Tho LaSl ant itis, who makes
great ufe of them, confeffes that the Heathen difown'd
the Authority of them, and faid, that the SybilUne
Verfes, that fpoke exprefly of Jefus Chrift and the
Myfteries of Chriftianity, were counterfeited by the
Chriftians (Q.
(k) Vindic. p. \0f, io5. (1) Aiunt non efle ilia Carmina Sybil-
liaa, fed i noftris confi^a atque compofita, LadV. Inftit. Div. 4. 15.
i
CHAP.
The Hijhry of Ordination. 245
Chap. III.
^0 the Chief Vresh)ter^ who was fiiN the Bijhop
and Paftor of the Churchy did of Qourfe belong
the Adminiflration of all Ordinances^ as the Chief
and more im?nediate Paflor of the Church, Mi'
nifiers Elected by the People ; when and how de*
priv^d of that Power, The Original of Laj-*
Patrons. Presbyters not fujfred to adminijier
Ordinances without the Bijhofs Confent^ ^etfjar^d
in the Government of the Church,
Prop. IX. A Fter the Vyr/nitive Churches chvfe one Chief
-^~*' Treshyter^ who ivm Jliled the B/jbop and
PafioY of the Churchy the Adminiflration of all Ordinances
did of Coiirfe belong unto him as the Chief and more im^
mediate Paftor of the Church, and not unto the other Pref-
byters without his Confent. This feemed neeeflary for
the Peace and Union of the Church. Presbyters had
all Minifterial Power committed to them in Ordi-
nation, but the regular Exercife of that Power muft
be in a conftituted Church, and they could not put
forth any Miniflerial Ad: without the Confent of the
Church and the Paftor in poileffion. Ordination
gives the Power, but the Exercife of it depends on'
the Call or Confent of fome particular Church, Church-
es are golden Candlefiicks, and Minifters are as burning
and pining Lights^ but they cannot fliine until they
be put in their proper Sockets. They muft neither
ufurp the Office, nor intrude on the Exercife of it.
God is the God of Order and not of Confulion.
To this End confider two Things.
I. That the Exercife of the' Paftoral OlFice de-
pended on the Eledion of the People in the primi-
tive Church. This will not be denied by fuch as are
R t acquaint-
^4-4- '^^^^ Htjlory of Ordtnatmi.
acquainted with the Fathers and ancient Councils o?
the Church.
Cyprian faith, that the Teofle bath the chief Tower of
chitjing worthy Priefis, or rejujing the unworthy (^). And he
adds a little after, that it miiR- be received a6 ^Divine
Tradition and an Apoflolical Obfervation, and that it
was obfervd among theniy and almofl in all the Provin-
ces, that for the right Performance of Ordination, the
neighbouring Bifhops meet together in that Congregation^ or
Teople, for whom a Ruler is to be ordain d^ and the Bifhop
is chofen in the Prefeme of the People, who have mosJper'
feB Knowledge of the Life of every one, and have flriBly
obferved their manner of Converfation (b)-
It were eafy to produce hundreds of Teflimonies
afferting the Power of the People tochufe their own
Paftorsi but that would fwell this Difcourfe into too
great a Balk. 1 fhall only note, that by thi^ Tefti-
niony of Cyprian, it appears to have been the general
Pradice in the ancient Church for the Paftor to be
ordain'd in the Prefence of the People, who had the
chief Power of chuflng or rejeding them, and that
iwis Practice was of Divine and Apoflolical Original.
It appears that the People were to ad in conjundion
with the Paftors and Presbyters, and that the Paflors
could not ordain without the Choice and Confent of
the People, nor could the People fet up Paftors
without the Approbation of Neighbouring Bifhops.