have the same arrangement. Their Chief Superintendents, in America, are actually and regularly called Bishops. And yet, in all these Churches, all Ministers are acknowledged equal by Divine right. A BISHOP, then, in THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH was A SUPERINTENDENT. This is expressly said, (by one acknowledged qualified to give the sense of the antients,) to be only a human arrangement, a CUSTOM, and that, by Divine right, both the Superintendent and the Ministers whom he superintended were equal. When the FATHERS, therefore, mention the acts of a Bishop, in SUPERINTENDING others, this simply, and of itself, proves NOTHING, as to Divine right of Bishops, as a distinct order, but only the fact of such Superintendency. We now proceed to the Fathers.

CLEMENS ROMANUS is the earliest writer we have after the Apostles' days. Dr. Cave places him An. Dom. 70. His Epistle to the Corinthian church is esteemed one of the most precious remains of antiquity. He never mentions more orders than Presbyters and Deacons, or Bishops and Deacons. He says the Apostles, "preaching through countries and cities, appointed the first fruits of their conversions to be Bishops and Deacons over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the spirit. Nor was this any thing new; seeing that long before it was written concerning Bishops and Deacons : For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place; I will appoint their overseers (Bishops) in righteousness and their ministers (Deacons) in faith. Our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that there should be CONTENTIONs arise upon the account of Episcopacy. And THEREFORE having a perfect knowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have before said, and then Gave directions, HOW, when they should die, other chosen men should* SUCCEED in their ministry." Here then, is a

* I have generally followed Archbishop Wake's Translation. But I think the last sentence is not properly rendered. It should be,—“ Our Apostles knew, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention about the name of Episcopacy; and therefore, being endued with a perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid officers, viz., Bishops and Deacons, and gave Regulations for these offices separately and mutually, that so when they died, other PROVED men might succeed to their Ministry."

The difference between this translation and the translation of Episcopal Divines, is, that these Divines make the “Regulations" belong to the Succession; but the above translation makes it belong to the offices of Bishop and Deacon. Archbishop Usher translates, "Ordinem praescriptum;" Dr. Hammond, " Seriem Successionis, Catalogum;" Archbishop Wake, as in the text. The learning and talent of such men deserve profound respect. The power and influence, however, of a favorite theory are wonderful, even over the greatest minds. Had not this been before these great men, they would have seen, in a moment, that if Clement had meant "Catalogus," a Catalogue, he would have written Καταλογυς ;—if, “Series Successionis," Siadoxn;—if, Ordo, tağı5, His expression μetažu eπivoμn following immediately upon his mention of Bishops and Deacons, evidently implies "A law or regulation of these offices separately aud mutually." It may be doubted whether it ever means a catalogue, succession, or order of men. This proper rendering of the pas sage takes away all ground for the supposition that St. Clement meant to say that the Apostles left lists of persons for the succession; and shews that the regulations he mentions, referred to the worthiness of the persons to be ordained. Now this is in perfect accordance with the regulations given by St. Paul to Timothy and Titus; and it is to these that Clement most probably refers; the other is unworthy of St. Paul and Clement, and only tends to support a bad scheme.

fair opportunity for treating this subject. There was a "sedition" in the Corinthian church "against its Ministers, whom he calls Presbyters." Clement says all this was perfectly foreseen and provided for; and he tells us "HOW." Well How was it provided for? To be sure, by appointing an order of Bishops over Presbyters and people, with the SOLE right, authority, and power of ordaining ministers, performing confirmations, and of governing both ministers and people. How different is the fact! He never mentions Bishops and Presbyters as distinct orders, but speaks of them as one and the same. "Bishops with St. Clement," says Lord Barrington, "are always the same with Elders or Presbyters, as any one must see if they read the Epistle." (a) Of course he never mentions a syllable about their prerogatives in ordination, confirmation, &c. never a syllable about their governing Ministers as well as people. Clement knew no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. He uses the names as different denominations of the same office.

66

66

We have heard what he says of Bishops. Hear him as to Presbyters. "Ye walked according to the laws of God, being subject to those who had the RULE over you; and giving the HONOR that was fitting to such as were PRESBYTERS among you." § 1. Only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the PRESBYTERS that are SET OVER IT." § 54. Here Presbyters are set OVER the flock, and RULE them; and are most evidently the same persons as are before called Bishops. The occasion of his writing arose from the disorders in the Church at Corinth, by the opposition of some factious members against their regular Ministers. In speaking of this faction or sedition, he speaks of it as against the PRESBYTERS." § 47. In the conclusion, he exhorts to subjection unto their Presbyters. § 57. Nay, he speaks of the happiness of those "Presbyters" who had finished their duties in their "Episcopacy" before those times of sedition had come on. § 44. He hardly could have said more plainly that Presbyters and Bishops are one and the same. In those early days, a Church, a city, a parish, and a Diocese, were all one and the same thing. Now, according to Modern Episcopacy, there cannot be more than one Bishop in one city, or Diocese, at the same time. But Clement always speaks of the Ministers of the single city of Corinth, whether called Bishops or Presbyters, in the plural number; that is, as many Bishops in the same Church at the same time. He never mentions such a thing as a Bishop in the singular number. 'Tis evident he knew nothing of modern Episcopacy; nor even of one Presbyter acting as chief Presbyter in superintending other Presbyters. It was then exactly as Jerome says, "Presbyters ruled the Church in common.” establishment of a Superintendency, by one Presbyter elected by the other Presbyters to preside over themselves, took place "afterwards." Thus then this most Ancient of all the Primitive writers, coeval it is supposed with

(a) Miscellanea Sacra, vol 2, p. 154, ed. 1770.

H

The

the Apostle John, shews us that, in his day, the terms Bishop and Presbyter were only different names for the same office; and that Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same order of Ministers.

Ignatius comes next. Dr. Cave places him A. D. 101. He is the greatest authority of High Churchmen. Some care will be necessary in examining his writings. I merely mention, though I do not stand upon it, that many profound scholars seriously doubt the genuineness of the Epistles which go under his name. I shall only bring one reason before the reader, though many might be added, it is this, that viewing the character of Ignatius in no ordinary light as a witness, and an eminent martyr for the truth, several parts of these Epistles are a powerful reflection on the soundness of his judgment, if not on the goodness of his heart. Such weak, silly rant, and rhodomontade, is found running through them, as makes a Christian half ashamed to own it as coming from so eminent a martyr. Those who contend for the authority of these Epistles, seem to me to prefer the credit of their scheme of Episcopacy to the character of Ignatius himself. 'Tis probable the Epistles were greatly corrupted by some high advocates of priestly power and authority. Some parts of the Epistles, first published under his name, have been acknowledged HERETICAL, and have been rejected by the most learned men of the Church of England. Many of the best Continental Divines SUSPECT THE WHOLE. However, we will grant them to be genuine.

Now two points will be sufficient to settle with Ignatius. The first is, that whatever he makes of Bishops, he yet makes Presbyters as high as we can desire for our argument. He says, the Deacon "is subject to the Presbyters as to the LAW of Jesus Christ,"—" the PRESBYTERS PRESIDE in the place of the COUNCIL of the APOSTLES." (b) "Be ye SUBJECT to your PRESBYTERS AS to the APOSTLES of Jesus Christ our hope." (c) "Let all reverence the Presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and COLLEGE of APOSTLES." Same Ep. "Being subject to your Bishop as to the command of of God; and so LIKEWISE to the PRESBYTERY." Id. " See that ye followthe Presbyters as the APOSTLES." (d) All the above passages are from Archbishop Wake's Translation. If Ignatius's authority is worth any thing it proves Presbyters to be in the place of the Apostles. This is surely enough for the most rigid Presbyterian.

The second point is, that he says, "Let no man do any thing of what belongs to the Church separately from the Bishops. Let that Eucharist be looked upon as well established, which is either offered by the Bishop or by him to whom the Bishop has given his consent. Wheresoever the Bishop appear, there let the people also be; as where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church. It is NOT LAWFUL without the Bishop, neither to baptize, nor to celebrate the Holy Communion; but WHATSOEVER he shall

shall

(b) Ep. to the Magnesians.

(c) Ep. to the Trallians. (d) Ep. to the Smyrnians.

approve of that is also pleasing unto God; that so whatever is done, may be sure and well done." There is no stronger passage in favour of High Church Episcopacy in his Epistles than this. The term translated " LAWFUL," frequently means "permitted," as by custom, or courtesy;" so Acts, xxi. 37, "May I speak unto thee." Acts, ii. 29, "Men and brethren, Let me freely speak unto you." Hence it does not necessarily mean Divine law, but only what is matter of custom, or courtesy. The expression "Let no man do any thing of what belongs to the Church separate from the Bishop," simply signifies, that where a Superintendent had been appointed for the sake of order, that order was to be kept. VERY RIGHT. So say all Churches where a Superintendency has been established, though making no pretensions to Divine right for it. To interpret the passage that a Presbyter absolutely had not power, by Divine right, to baptize, to celebrate the Holy Communion, nor do ANY THING of what belongs to the Church, except the Bishop bade him, is absurd, and is confuted by Ignatius himself. For he says, "the PRESBYTERS are in the PLACE of the APOSTLES." Surely men that are the " Sanhedrim of God and the College of the Apostles,” have Divine authority to baptize, &c., when occasion should require it, whether the Bishop bade them or not. Indeed, FIFTY PLACES might be quoted from COUNCILS, and better writers than the author of these Epistles, where this mode of expression means nothing but human arrangement. We find Bishops themselves forbid by a Council to do certain things without the Archbishop. (e) Is the order of Archbishops, then, by Divine right, also? These advocates will not say so. "No Bishop was to be elected or ordained," says Bingham, "WITHOUT their (the Metropolitans') consent and approbation; otherwise the Canons pronounce both the election and the ordination NULL." (f) What will our High Churchmen make of this? a matter determined by the authority of hundreds of Bishops in Council? Will they say it has Divine right? Then numbers of the English Bishops' Ordinations were NULL ab initio for they frequently were not ordained by their Metropolitan, nor with his consent. Nay, it WILL DESTROY ARCHBISHOP PARKER'S ORDINATION, upon which all the Ordinations of the present Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England depend. For the Canons require a Metropolitan to be ordained by his Patriarch, or, at least, by all the Bishops of his province: now Parker was ordained by neither, but against the consent of the first, and only by three or four, if any, of the last, many of the rest being opposed to his Ordination.

Even Bishops were not allowed to do ANY THING of importance WITHOUT the Presbyters. Bishop Overall himself affirms this in his letters to Grotius, (g)" Notum est antiquitus, NIHIL majoris momenti Episcopum SINE concilio sui Presbyterii fecisse." It is a known matter that anciently

(e) See the Council of Antioch, (90 Bishops,) A. D. 341, Can. 9.

(f) Bingham, B. 2, chap. 16, § 12. (g) Epistolae Præstantium Virorum, p. 460, ed. secund.

the Bishop did NOTHING of moment WITHOUT his Council of Presbyters." So Cyprian apologises for ordaining only a Sub-Deacon without the Presbyters and Deacons. Ep. 24.

But Ignatius says, “WHATEVER the Bishop shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God." Now it is clear that he makes the power or authority of the Bishop in restraining and permitting to be equal. Whatever he could prohibit the Presbyters from doing, he could equally appoint and approve of their doing the same thing. He could restrain them from baptizing, and he could appoint them to baptize. His authority in both respects was equal. Apply this to ordaining Ministers. Suppose he could restrain Presbyters from ordaining; he could equally appoint them to ordain Ministers; and then their performance of this duty WOULD BE PLEASING TO GOD." Then Presbyters, as Presbyters, have as much inherent power to ORDAIN, as they have to baptize, or to do ANY THING else in the Church. This is clearly the doctrine of Ignatius. Now all Churchmen allow they have power and authority as Presbyters to baptize. They have, therefore, from the principles of Ignatius, power and authority to ordain Ministers, to confirm, &c., as much as Bishops have. The only difference was, that for the honor of the Bishop, and by ecclesiastic arrangement, they were not to do these things without the permission of the Bishop.

Hence, then, even Ignatius says nothing to prove High Church Episcopacy of DININE RIGHT; but the contrary, that “Presbyters are in the place of the Apostles," "the College of the Apostles," "the Sanhedrim of God." The Bishop, as Superintendent, for the sake of ORDER, has, by Ecclesiastical arrangement, the oversight of all, and authority to regulate the administration of the affairs of the Church. So have the Lutheran Superintendents. So have the Wesleyan Methodist Superintendents. But they and all the other Ministers of those Churches are equal by Divine right. So were the Ministers in Ignatius's time.

Justin Martyr flourished about A. D. 155. The most celebrated passage in his works, relating to the present question, is in his Apology, from chap. 85 to 88. The President of the Chirstian Assembly he denominates gоçws. In these chapters, this term, and this only, as designating the Minister, occurs six times: neither the term Bishop nor Presbyter is used at all. The word simply means a President. Reeves, the Translator of Justin, a Churchman, and who loses no opportunity of opposing Sectarians, allows, in his notes on the passage, that the goɛçws of Justin, the Probati seniores of Tertullian, (h) the majores natu, in Cyprian's works, (Ep. 75,) and the TROESWTES TREOBUTEgo, or presiding Presbyters, of St. Paul, (1 Tim. iv. 17.) were all one and the same. Now Tertullian, Cyprian, (or rather Firmilian, the celebrated Bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia,) and St. Paul, all mean PRESBYTERS. Their language cannot be otherwise interpreted without

(h) Apol. c. 32.