cration at the hands of any other prelates; and that each church was essentially independent of every other.

"If then all this be so, there seems to be an end to the question; for under whatever circumstances the privilege of ordaining was afterwards committed to the bishop, he could of necessity receive no more than it was in their power to bestow, from whom he received it, who were co-ordinate presbyters, not superiors... At whatever period, therefore, it was adopted, and with whatever uniformity it might be cons tinued, and whatever of value or even authority it might hence acquire; still as an apostolical institution it has none; there is a gap which never can be filled; or rather, the link by which the whole must be suspended, is wanting and can never be supplied. There can be no apostolical succession of that which had no apostolical existence; whereas the aver ment to be of any avail must be, not only that it existed in the time of the apostles, but was so appointed by them as that there can be no true church without it."107 quod à

་་

oThe right of presbyters, then, to ordain, is admitted by moderate Episcopalians even at the present time, 108 It was maintained by the reformers generally, both in England, and on the continent. It was their undoubted prerogative in the early ages of the Christian church.. to lost telling you atom. To en bro om it 901194 vw mob od domest beTo sum up all that has been said if presbyters and bishops are known by the same names, if they are required to possess the same qualifications, and if they are found actual ly discharging the same duties, then what higher evidence can we expect or desire of their equality and identity? This course of argumentation is precisely similar to that by which orthodoxy defends the supreme! divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his equality with the Father. And none perhaps more readily admit the validity of this mode of 7107 Bowdler's Letters, pp. 48-50.

108 Comp. Whately's Kingdom of Christ, pp. 151, 212.

argument, when applied to this cardinal principle in the Christian system, than the members of the Episcopal communion. What is the argument for the oneness of Christ with the Father? Simply that he is called by the names, that he possesses the attributes, that he receives the honors and performs the works of the Father; and, therefore, is one with Him. If, then, this course of reasoning commands our assent in these profound mysteries, why not much more in the case under consideration? We confidently rest, in the conclusion of the learned Dr. Wilson, that "whatever misconstructions of the presbyterial office may have obtained, it is and always will be, the highest ordinary office in the Christian church; and no presbyter, who is officially such, can be less than a bishop, and authorized to instruct, govern, and administer, and ordain at least in conjunction with his co-presbyters of the same presbytery and council."

4. Bishops themselves, in their ministerial character, exercised only the jurisdiction, and performed merely the offices, of presbyters in the primitive church.

For the sake of argument, let us admit "that this office of bishop is disclosed to us in the Christian church in the very earliest records of history. Within ten years after the death of St. John, we find that the three orders of ministers were actually denominated bishop, priest and deacon; and to each was assigned the same office, together with nearly the same power and duty as appertain to them at the present day. Hear how Ignatius speaks to the Philadelphians: 'Attend to the bishop, and to the presbytery, and to the deaSuch is the exultation with which Episcopalians appeal to Ignatius. It is indeed clear beyond a doubt, that this writer does speak of bishops, presbyters and deacons ; and that, in strains almost of profane adulation, he seeks to exalt the authority both of bishops and presbyters. But the

cons.'

109

109 Bishop De Lancey's Faithful Bishop. Boston, 1843, p. 17.

learned hardly need to be reminded that suspicion rests upon all these epistles of Ignatius. Many, both in this country and in Europe, who are most competent to decide upon their merits, have pronounced them undoubted forgeries. No confidence can be placed upon them as historical authority. Whether they really belong to the second, third, or fourth century, is altogether uncertain. They have been often and carefully canvassed by eminent scholars, both in America and in Europe. Professor Norton declares them to be undoubted forgeries. Rothe has written with surpassing ability a defence of them. But the most probable conjecture, and the one most generally received, is, that they are filled with interpolations from various hands, and of different dates. Such is Dr. Neander's opinion, as stated to the writer in conversation upon them.

Milton, after exposing the absurdities, corruptions and anachronisms of these epistles, proceeds to say, "These, and other like passages, in abundance through all those short epistles, must either be adulterate, or else Ignatius was not Ignatius, nor a martyr, but most adulterate and corrupt himself. In the midst, therefore, of so many forgeries, where shall we fix to dare say this is Ignatius? As for his style, who knows it, so disfigured and interrupted as it is, except they think that where they meet with anything sound and orthodoxal, there they find Ignatius? And then they believe him, not for his own authority, but for a truth's sake, which they derive from elsewhere. To what end then should they cite him as authentic for Episcopacy, when they cannot know what is authentic in him, but by the judgment which they brought with them, and not by any judgment which they might safely learn from him? How can they bring satisfaction from such an author, to whose very essence the reader must be fain to contribute his own understanding? Had God ever intended that we should have sought any part of useful instruction from Ignatius, doubtless he would not have so ill provided for

4

our knowledge, as to send him to our hands in this broken and disjointed plight; and if he intended no such thing, we do injuriously in thinking to taste better the pure evangelic manna by seasoning our mouths with the tainted scraps and fragments of an unknown table, and searching among the verminous and polluted rags dropped overworn from the toiling shoulders of time, with these deformedly to quilt and interlace the entire, the spotless and undecaying robe of truth, the daughter not of time, but of heaven, only bred up here below in Christian hearts between two grave and holy nurses, the doctrine and discipline of the gospel."110.

T

But we will suppose these epistles to be the genuine productions of Ignatius, and that he himself is one of those "apostolic men who drank in Christianity from the living lips of the apostles themselves." Grant it all. What then? Do not these epistles, says the churchman, testify explicitly, clearly, fully, to the superiority of bishops in government and ordination over presbyters and deacons??" Not in the least. What, we ask, were the dioceses of these bishops of Ignatius's epistles? Nothing.. but single parishes. What were these venerable bishops themselves? Nothing more than the pastors each of a single congregation. They were merely parish ministers, parochial bishops; and, though bearing the name of bishop, they were as unlike a modern diocesan las can well be imagined. This fact deserves a careful consideration. Let us not deceive ourselves with a name, a title. We are not inquiring after names, but things. Be cause we read of primitive bishops in the early church, must we suppose that each, of necessity claimed the superiority, or enjoyed the proud distinction of the modern dignitary of the church bearing the same title? The name determines nothing in regard to the official rank and duties of a primi tive bishop. Give to a congregational or presbyterian minister this title, and you have made him truly at primitive

1

110 Milton's Preiatical Episcopacy. Prose Works, Vol. I. pp. 79, 80.

bishop. These ancient dignitaries, down to the third century, and in many instances, even later, exercised no wider jurisdiction, and performed no higher offices, than a modern presbyter, or any pastor of a single parish or congregation.

In support of the foregoing representation, we have to offer the following considerations:

(a) By all primitive writers, the bishop's charge is denominated invariably a church, a congregation; never in the plural, churches or congregations.

(b) It is admitted by Episcopalians themselves, that the diocese of a primitive bishop comprised only a single church.

(c) The Christians under the charge of one of these ancient bishops, were all accustomed to meet in one place, like the people of a modern parish congregation.

(d) All under his charge were, in many instances, as familiarly known to the bishop himself, as are the people of a parish to their pastor.

(e) So many bishops were found in a single territory, of limited extent, that no one could have exercised a jurisdiction beyond the bounds of a single parish.

(f) The charge of a primitive bishop is known, in many instances, not to have equalled that of a modern presbyter or pastor.

(a) By all primitive writers, the bishop's charge is denominated invariably a church, a congregation; never in the plural, churches or congregations.

The cure of a primitive bishop is never, in a single instance, represented as comprising several congregations, like that of a modern diocesan; but is always restricted to a single body of Christians, denominated a church. As the epistles of Paul the apostle are addressed to the church at Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, etc., so those of the apostolical fathers, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius are addressed,