ordinate presbyters, not superiors. At whatever period, therefore, it was adopted, and with whatever uniformity it might be continued, and whatever of value or even authority it might hence acquire; still as an apostolical institution it has none: there is a gap which can never 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 averment 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."103 The right of presbyters, then, to ordain, is admitted by moderate Episcopalians even at the present time.104 It was maintained by the reformers generally, both in England, and on the continent, and was their undoubted prerogative in the early ages of the Christian church. To 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 do actually discharge 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 asserts and 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 argumentation, on this cardinal principle in the Christian system, than the members of the Episcopal communion. What is the argument for this 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, there 103 Bowdler's Letters, pp. 48-50. 104 Comp. Whateley's Kingdom of Christ, pp. 151, 212. fore, 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, therefore, 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 deacons."105 Such is the evident exultation with which Episcopalians appeal to Ignatius. It is 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 learned need hardly 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 105 Bishop De Lancey's Faithful Bishop. Boston, 1843, p. 17. 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. The great 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 any thing 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 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." 106 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 testify explicitly, clearly, fully, "to this superiority of bishops in government and ordination over presbyters and deacons?" Not in the least. What, we ask, was the diocese of these bishops of Ignatius's epistles? Nothing but single parishes. What were these venerable bishops themselves? Nothing more than the pastors 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 as 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. Because we read of primitive bishops in the early church, must we suppose that each, of necessity, had the superiority, or enjoyed the proud distinction of the modern dignitary of the church who bears the same title? The name determines nothing in regard to the official rank and duties of a primitive bishop. Give to a congregational or presbyterian minister this title, and you have made him truly a primitive bishop. These ancient dignitaries, down to the third century, and in many instances, even later, 106 Milton's Prelatical Episcopacy. Prose Works, Vol. I, pp. 79, 80. 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 these ancient bishops, all were accustomed to meet in one place, like the people of a modern parish or congregation. (d) All under his charge were, in many instances, as familiarly known unto their bishop himself, as the people of a parish to their pastor. (e) So many bishops are 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 to comprise several congregations, like that of a modern diocesan; but always is 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, &c., so those of the apostolical fathers, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius are |