Page images
PDF
EPUB

than himself. This person, arriving at Corinth in his way to Rome, found Primus the bishop in the former city. Here is a document, much in favour of the present argument. An historian, reputed faithful, cites another historian whose works were extant, giving an account of a journey. Being himself a Christian of note, he records the name of the person, whom he found presiding in a populous and celebrated city, which he visits on his way. Thus Episcopacy is recognized as the regimen obtaining in Corinth, and under circumstances precluding the suspicion of novelty, before the anti-episcopalian date of it; and when, according to the same historian, the whole Church of Christ had retained her integrity.

But to return to the epistle of Clement: it is here conceived, that there are two orders of men contemplated in the following passage-" And our apostles knew, by the Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention concerning the name of the Episcopacy. Therefore they appointed those spoken of above: and from that time they delivered a rule, that when they" (the apostles) "should be deceased, other approved men should receive their ministry. Therefore we think, that they" (the Corinthian pastors)" who were constituted by them," (the apostles)" or thenceforward by other chosen men" (the successours of the apostles in the power of constituting) "the whole church consenting and approving; and who with humility, with quietness, and not negligently, have ministered to the sheepfold of Christ, and who for a long time have been well reported of by all, are unjustly deposed from office."*

What stands in parentheses, well easily be distinguished from the words of Clement; and is designed to show the ground on which it is here conceived, that through the whole passage, there are recognized two distinct orders of ministers: one

* Cap. 44.

order, consisting of the apostles and their successours constituting; and others who, with the approbation of the whole Church, were constituted. Of the latter description were all the ejected ministers of the Church of Corinth: unless we suppose an exception in one of them—their bishop; which, it must be confessed does not appear, however clearly there is described an Episcopacy extraneous to themselves.

The name of St. Ignatius is handed down by ecclesiastical authors, as that of a blessed martyr, who had conversed with the apostles; and who had been established by them in Antioch, as the bishop of the Church in that city. His martyrdom took place in the city of Rome, in the year one hundred and seven. On his way thither, he wrote six epis. tles to as many Churches; which epistles were highly esteemed in primitive times; and many passages are professed to be quoted from them by Eusebius, in his history. In after times, there were circulated, under the name of Ignatius, epistles which bore evident marks of interpolation. But in the sixteenth century, there were discovered, through the industry of Archbishop Usher and of Isaac Vossius, a Latin and a Greek manuscript; both of which were presented to the world, as bearing evident marks of the original epistles. Among other marks, there is that of their agreement with the passages professed to be quoted from them in Eusebius. And as some parts of the work apply directly to the proof of Episcopacy; there is no rejecting of the discovered copies, unless on the presumption, that the epistles themselves were forged before the time of that historian. The extreme improbability of this, in aid of other considerations, has induced a general acceptance of the copies by the learned: so that their authenticity seems to be not questioned, except by some who are zealous in the cause of ministerial parity; which is utterly inconsistent with these documents. Dr. Mosheim, who was of a Church

not Episcopal, adopts the opinion of their being genuine; but adds the drawback-"That they seem to labour under much obscurity, and to be embarrassed with many difficulties." And even a very respectable critick of the Church of England -Dr. Jortin-says of these epistles-"I will not affirm, that they have undergone no alterations at

all."

It is probable, that the clogs hanging to the assents of these two learned men, were owing to the unqualified injunctions in the epistles, exacting unlimited submission of the respective Churches, to their bishops: which, indeed, have been offensive to very many. Now it should be considered, that we know not in what degree there were calls for precepts on that subject, in the Churches to which such admonitions were addressed. For if, as is strongly insinuated, there prevailed in some persons a disposition to hold unauthorized and irregular assemblies; it is easy to conceive, that the writer would be disposed to uphold the contrary propriety of conduct, in a very different form from that which would have been adopted by him, had he treated of the subject without a reference to existing cir

cumstances.

But allowing the utmost weight to such difficulties; and supposing, yet not granting, that liberties may have been taken in some respects, although no evidence of the same is offered; yet it should be remembered, in relation to the subject of Episcopacy, that the forgeries must have been such as to contradict the undoubted knowledge of those who were to be deceived by them. How far such a manœuvre might have contributed to the extending of the prerogatives of bishops, is another question. But that a work should be imposed on the Christian Church, over and over recognizing the bishop and the presbyters of each Church as two distinct orders; when, in the age of the fathers of many living, every diocese had been under the go

vernment of a presbytery, and not under that of a bishop; and that even the father of ecclesiastical history should have swallowed the deception, and have disgraced his work with it; is here held to be beyond the bounds of credibility. For the reasons given, Ignatius is now offered as a witness in favour of Episcopacy. Of his referring to bishops and to presbyters as distinct orders, two instances only shall be given. In the Epistle to the Ephesians he says, that their "famous presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop, as the strings to the harp."* And soon afterwards he says

"If I, in this little time have had such familiarity with your bishop" (who was then with Ignatius) how much more must I think you happy, who are so joined with him as the Church is to Jesus Christ." Again, the same father, in the Epistle to the Magnésians, after mentioning their "very worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius," tells the Church" It will behove you, in all sincerity, to obey your bishop; in honour of him whose pleasure it is that you should do so."}

It has happened, that from the beginning of the second century, in which Ignatius wrote, until towards the end of it, the works of all the Christian authors are lost; except a few fragments, found in other authors of later dates; and except the apologies and the dialogue of Justin Martyr, who has said nothing which makes for the one side or for the other of the present question. Hence arose the opportunity to the antiepiscopal system to supposefor it is supposition only and no evidence is produced that between these two periods, the Christian Churches, however scattered over the world, and however conducting its concerns each diocese within itself, and independently on any common and controlling authority, underwent a radical change in the form of government; by the elevating

* Sect. iv. † Sect. v. + Sect. ii. § Sect. iii..

of one of the presbyters above the rest, and the vesting of him with very considerable prerogatives, to the manifest invasion of the rights of his equals; who, however, in every diocese-for any thing known to the contrary-submitted without a murmur to the usurpation. However great the improbability of this, on the very face of the subject; it may be rendered still more improbable by recurrence to the works of men, who flourished towards the close of the century; and who will be found to speak of Episcopacy, as the established regimen of every Christian Church: and this not in the shape of controversy, but on the presumption of known fact and universal consent. The authors in view are Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.

The first of these-a very pious and learned bishop, and finally a martyr, says-" We can enumerate those who were constituted by the apostles bishops in the Churches, and their successours to our time."* The second, who was learned and high in reputation, speaking of various kinds of precepts, says "Some relate to presbyters, others to bishops, and others to deacons." The third, who notwithstanding some peculiarities of his character, has been held to be faithful in the relation of facts, after mention of certain principal cities, says"Among which, the very chairs of the apostles still preside in their places." Of the three testimonies it is observable, that two of them affirmed not only the existing regimen, but its having been from the beginning. These men must have been born, before the change contended for could have occurred: for it is conjectured to have been about the middle of the century.§

* Contra Heræses, lib. ii. cap. 3. † Pod. lib. iii. cap. 12. De Prescript. cap. 36.

§ It is not here unknown, that from one of these three authors-Clement-there have been cited passages, which have been said to have bearings against the Episcopal scheme. If the constructions given were plausible-which is

« PreviousContinue »