the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits of their conversions to the bishops and ministers (deacons) over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the Spirit. Nor was this any new thing; 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 in faith."*

Nothing could be more formally historic than this passage. The object is clearly to give the origin of the church officers whom he would have the Corinthians obey, and to show that they were of divine authority. Can any one suppose, then, if there had been more than the two orders denominated by him bishops and deacons, that he would have failed to mention the third! The distinction of bishop, presbyter, and elder, had not yet been made by the Apostles; and, therefore, this Father, so well acquainted with Paul and his proceedings, mentions only the two orders as comprehending the entire official constitution of the churches planted by the Apostles. That the propriety of this mode of organizing the churches might the more fully appear, he quotes Isaiah to show that it was "no new thing," but the subject of prophecy long before.

But the occasion being one which called for the most explicit teaching upon the origin and authority of rulers, this pious Father is not content with simply stating the fact and what he understood to be the prophetic allusion to it, but proceeds also to give the reason of the arrangement. Alluding to the text of the budding rod, by which the emulation among the tribes concerning the priesthood was settled in favor of Aaron, to the end that there might be no division nor tumult in Israel, "so likewise," says he, "our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should contentions arise upon the account of the ministry. And, therefore, having a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have before said, and then gave directions how, when they should die, other chosen and appointed men should succeed in their ministry.Wherefore we cannot think that those may be justly thrown out of their ministry, who were either appointed by them or afterwards chosen by other eminent men,with the consent of the whole church,” provided only, they live reputably, &c. ver. 17-18.

*The passage here referred to is Isai. lx., 17., and reads in the common version thus: "I will also make thine officers peace and thine exactors righteousness" Whether this zealous Father has made a right use of this passage or not, does not affect our argument,

It is scarcely possible to conceive how this writer, in thus urging upon the Corinthians the authoritative origin of the official ranks in the church, and the particulars concerning the mode by which they were to be perpetuated, could have entirely overlooked the bishop, if there had been such an officer in contradistinction from the elders or presbyters. He first shows that the Apostles had appointed but two ranks; and then, that it might not be supposed that they had not given any rule for their future selection, states, not only the fact that they had, but assigns as the reason of it, their perfect foreknowledge that contentions would arise on account of it. Both the rule and the reason of it, then, are clearly set forth by this Father, and the exact correspondence of the one with the teachings of the Apostles is not more remarkable than the literal fulfilment of the other, in the angry wars of ambitious ecclesiastics, so long waged upon this very subject.

There are but two other allusions to this subject, in this epistle. The first is found in the 22d chapter, 14th verse, and is thus introduced. The example of Moses in interceding for Israel, and praying God, if he would not forgive them, to blot him also out of the book of the living, is urged upon these seditious Corinthian leaders as worthy of their imitation; and he then asks, "Who is there among you that is generons? Who that is compassionate? Who that has any charity? Let him say, if this sedition, this contention and these schisms be upon my account: I am ready to depart-to go away whithersoever you please, and do whatsoever you shall command me; only let the flock of Christ be in peace, and the elders that are set over it." Here again the authority of the elders is clearly recognized, and no allusion whatever made to one superior and supreme bishop. The question is one of authority and obedience, and the elders alone are represented as entitled to the one, and the congregation as obliged to the other.

The other passage referred to is but an exhortation to the seditious leaders to submit to the elders. It is in the 23d chapter, 15th verse, and reads thus: "Do ye, therefore, who laid the first foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves unto your elders; and be instructed unto repentance, bending the knees of your hearts." Thus do we find this, the earliest and most authentic of what are denominated the Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers, agreeing in every, the most minute particular with the regulations of the Apostles, and corroborating, if possible, the strength of the position, that the only official ranks known or authorized in the Christian church, in apostolic days, were those of bishops or elders and deacons; and

that the third order now claimed under the term bishop as contradistinguished from elders or presbyters, was not then recognized.

The next of the Apostolic Fathers, in chronological order, is Ignatius. His epistles were written about the year 116, or perhaps a little earlier; but for sufficient reasons we shall first consider the testimony of Polycarp, who is generally supposed to have written his epistle to the Philippians, the only one extant, about the same time, or at any rate in the first half of the second century. The genuineness of the epistle, so far as it pertains to our subject, is generally conceded; and its concurrence with the style of St. Clement and the Apostles, is without an apparent exception. The introduction of this epistle reads thus: "Polycarp and the presbyters (or elders) that are with him;" and from this we infer that he considered himself as one of those whom he styles presbyters, notwithstanding the assumption that he was a prototype of bishops to the contrary. He was the writer, but his co-presbyters united with him in the communication. Had he considered himself as holding an official rank different from that of the presbyters, the presumption is he would have written thus: 'Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, with the presbyters who are under him,' &c. Paul almost invariab y distinguishes himself as an Apostle from those who united with him in his epistles. It is Paul an Apostle, and Sosthenes the brother; Paul an Apostle, and Timothy the brother; Paul an Apostle, and all the brethren with him; and why not Polycarp the bishop, and the eiders with him? But it is simply Polycarp and the elders with him, or his associates; for this is the clear import of the style. Paul, it is true, does sometimes omit to distinguish himself as an Apostleas "Paul and Sylvanus and Timothy," &c.; but here there is no distinctive epithet attached to any of the parties named, for reasons sufficient.

But not to insist on the style of introduction farther, let us proceed to the passages in which allusion is made to the officers of the church at Philippi. There are but two in the epistle: the first occurs in the 2d chapter, 13th verse. After giving directions for the regulation of their habits, he says: "Wherefore, ye must needs abstain from all these things; being subject to the elders and deacons as unto God and Christ." He then proceeds to give directions to the elders: "And let the elders be compassionate and merciful towards all; turning them from their errors; seeking out those that are weak; not forgetting the widows, the fatherless, and the poor; but always providing what is good both in the sight of God and man," &c. We here have recognized but the two orders-elders

1

and deacons; nor can we suppose, had there been a third, exclusively entitled to the rank of bishop, St. Polycarp would have so outraged his rights and respects as to have thus passed him by in perfect silence, or worse-to have enjoined upon the congregation subjection-not to him, but to the elders, who, according to modern church polity, were his inferiors!

Nor can we find any explanation of a style so insulting, in an evasion which might be sought from the present relations of bishops. According to the admission of even the most strenuous advocates of episcopacy, every church in those days had its own bishop, who in person exercised a paramount authority in the management and direction of its concerns. This letter, therefore, addressed to the church at Philippi, and urging them to obey and be subject to the elders, must be regarded as totally wanting in decent respect to the bishop, provided there had been such an officer, as now understood, at that time recognized among them.

But once more, in Polycarp, does the term occur; and there he is expressing his affliction on account of Valens, who was once a presbyter among them, because he had so little understood the place that was given to him in the church, as to fall into the sin of covetousness and other vices, making it prudent that he should be removed from his office.

There is nothing, then, in this epistle, which even the most superstitious admirer of the Fathers can, by any ingenuity, construe into a presumption against our interpretation of the Apostles; but, on the contrary, upon the subject of church officers the most exact conformity in style to the injunctions given us by those inspired authors of the only true and primitive system of church discipline. There are but five of the Fathers properly denominated Apostolic, and of these only three have said any thing, so far as hath been delivered to us, concerning the subject on which we are now inquiring of them. We have already heard two-St. Clement Romanus, who wrote perhaps just before the destruction of Jerusalem; and St. Polycarp, whose epistle may be dated somewhere before the middle of the second century. The third and last of these Apostolic Fathers is St. Ignatius, to whose writings is assigned a date nearly the same as that of Polycarp, but somewhat earlier. Notwithstanding, we have laid him over to be considered last, mainly because we do not regard his epistles upon this subject, of even plausible pretensions to authenticity. Professedly writing at an intermediate period between Clement and Polycarp, he not only employs a style entirely different from theirs, but utterly irreconcilable with the plainest

teachings of the Apostles, not only on this, but on other subjects.— While the inspired writers, of the New Testament never make the slightest official distinction between bishop and presbyter-and Clement and Polycarp, one before and the other after him-uniformly follow their example, the epistles ascribed to this Saint invariably, and with the most labored diligence, distinguish them as never the same, but always of two distinct and unequal ranks. It is needless to cite examples. In all his six epistles extant this style is forced into the letters with the most studious and unnecessary repetition, as though it were the special and peculiar design of the writer to set forth the honor and glory due to the bishop, and to mark the superiority of his rank to that of mere presbyters. On this wise, times fulsomely numerous, do these productions speak: "I exhort you that you study to do all things in a divine concord. Your bishop presiding in the place of God; your presbyters in the place of the council of Apostles; and your deacons, most dear to me, being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ; who was the Father (!) before all ages, and appeared in the end to us." Epistle to the Magnesians, chap. ii., ver. 5. And again: "I cried whilst I was among you; I spoke with a loud voice, Attend to the bishop and the presbytery, and the deacons;" and this he claims to have done by the Spirit; for, says he, "I knew nothing from any man concerning the division which should come among you; but the Spirit spoke on this wise, Do nothing without the bishop." Epist. to the Philadelphians, chap. ii. 14th verse.

Now the manifest and unexampled prominence which is given in these epistles to an official distinction no where else found at so early a period, is enough in itself to satisfy an impartial critic that such passages are interpolations, or that the whole productions are fabrications of a later day, got up to support a growing assumption of ambitious and tyrannical hierarchs. But just because they do support this assumption to the full extent of their authority, do those who love the chief places in the synagogue attempt to support them; yet even the most zealous advocate for their authenticity on this point, would be very unwilling to admit their authority on other subjects. Even a Lord Archbishop of Canterberry, (of whose official rank, by the by, not even Ignatius says a word,) has been constrained to acknowledge that these epistles "not only labored under many impertinences unbecoming the character of that great man, but were fraught with many things that were altogether fabulous: nay, if we may credit the Archbishop Usher, had some passages in them that tended to corrupt the very faith of Christ, in one of the most