distinct from, and fuperior to, Prefbyters) was the government of the primitive church, in the purelt ages of Christianity, that we have for the CANON OF SCRIPTURE." Another author ftill has thefe words, "The Apoftles leaving the power of ORDAINING PRESBYTERS in the hands of FIXED BISHOPS, being a matter of fact paffed many years ago, the only method by which we can come to the knowlege of it is, the teftimony of writers, who lived in the apoftolical and following ages." And this teftimony he puts upon the fame foot with that we have for the facred fcriptures. CAN it be fuppofed, that thefe writers had acquainted themselves with the records of the ages that next fucceeded the Apoftles? Had this been the cafe, it fhould feem impoffible, however biaffled in their minds, that they could have delivered their fentiments in language fo replete with pofftive affurance. Surely, they would not have put the teftimonies in favor of Epifcopacy, upon a par with the teftimonies in proof of the authority of the facred books of fcripture. This must have been the effect, not only of deeply rooted prejudice, but of an hearfay-know 1-ledge *Brief defence of epifcopal ordination,” p. 9. ledge only of the most ancient and truly primitive writings. It cannot easily be accounted for in any other way. As the reader has had laid before him a full view of what is faid, upon the doctrine of Epifcopacy, from the first hundred and ninety years, fo far as it can be collected from the extant writings of the Fathers within this period, or the remaining fragments of their writings, he may, from ocular infpection, make a fatisfactory judgment in relation to this Epifcopacy Only, he fhould keep in mind the GRAND POINT in queftion, which is, what is the truth of FACT, in the records of the ages next to the Apoftles, with refpect to the ORDER, and OFFICEPOWER, of Bishops? For the difpute is not about the NAME of Epifcopacy, but the THING intended by it. Prelatifts fay, the FACT univerfally handed down is, that Bishops are an ORDER of officers in the church diftinct from, and fuperior to, Prefbyters; and that the powers of GoVERNMENT, ORDINATION, and CONFIRMATION, are appropriated to them infomuch, that Prefbyters no more exerci fed thefe powers, than Deacons baptifed, or adminiftred the Lord's fupper. Let the reader have this conftantly in his view, as it may reafonably be expected he fhould, while he confiders the teftimonies that have been produced; and I may venture to fay, with the highest affurance, that he will be in no danger of calling in queftion the authority of the new-teftamentbooks, for want of teftimonies in their behalf, though he should utterly reject EPISCOPACY, in the impleaded fenfe, as having no fupport, either in point of RIGHT, OF PRACTICE, from any thing he may have met with in the writers within the two first ages of the Chriftian church. He is accordingly appealed to, and let him be judge; taking care to act his part, in this character, upon a fair, impartial, and thorough examination of the evidence that has been held out to his view! FINIS, The Reader is defired to correct the following Errata, PAGE 5, line 22, read fubftitute; p. 9, 1.9, t. from; p. 34, 1.9, fays; p. 38, 1. 1, marg. r. omni; p. 42, laft 1.7 .Epifcopi,p. 68, laft 1. r, makes ; p. 82, 1. 18, r. impofture p. 90, 1. 19, r. Exorcifts; p. 92, laft 1. marg. r. interpolators; p. 126, 1.14, af. plead-r. from; p. 144, I. EPINOMEEN p. 217, 1. 24, r. he; p. 228,1; 1, marg. r. propter; p. 234, 1. 14,f being dele as; p. 245,1. 14,r. epiftles; p. 256,1. 171 r. exhort; p. 334, r. adepts; p. 335, 1. 17, r. change; p. 345, 1. 2, r. icholaftical; p. 369, 1. 5. r. elegance; 1. 11, 7. Autolycus; p. 381, 1. 21, r. him; p. 383, 1. 13, r. delufions; P, 390, 1. 24, r.Epiphanius;p. 392, 1, 6, 1. modeftly; p. 399,1. 4, marg. r. ecclefiis, and in laft 1. r. Magifterii p 403, 1.,marg. r. confeffionis tumore; p. 407, laft 1.r. apoftolical p. 418, 1. 8, r. eafter; p. 433, laft 1. r. Caracalla, p. 439, 1, 6, r. heretios ; p. 440, l. 9, r. ftromateus. ; After the Title-Page, follows the Preface, confifting of P. 10. INTRODUCTION, of The ancient Writers are introduced at In his epiftle no mention of Bishops or Prefbyters. called his, proved not genuine. TERMAS, and his writings; his paftor, with the judgment of the ancients and moderns; it Pallages from Clement's firft epiftle admitted; and proofs from him, that Bifhops and Prefbyters are the fame. 103 &c. No Bishop diftinct from Prefbyter in him. 6 IGNATIUS's charaéter, writings, &c. He a Bishop, or Paftor, or Prefbyter. Fraudulent and impudent treatment of Ignatius. 250 True fentiments of Ignatius not given us under his name, 259 Remarks on thofe teftimonies. HisBifhops not diocefan. 289 Of the peculiar epifcopal powers, government, ordination, and confirmation,neither of which are faid by Ignatius to belong to Bishops in diftinction from Prefbyters. 303, &c. HisBishops, upon the whole,parochial, and what he fays about them not fo favorable to the epifcopal,asPrefbyters caufe 317 |