authority and jurisdiction of their prelate; and whether, the system of prelacy being then known, Clement would not also have done the same; or, if they had no prelate, have recommended the immediate appointment of such a head. But Clement did neither the one nor the other. He assumes that the church was perfectly organized, and had all the divinely instituted officers. He therefore requires their mutual subjection to God, and not to him, or to any prelate.1 He enjoins, also, their coöperation with those whose aim and object was the preservation of peace and harmony," and who were characterized by humility. He calls upon them to be subject, not to any prelate, but to one another. He beseeches them to carry their difficulties in prayer to God;5 to exercise love and charity; to remember heaven, their common and heavenly home; to examine the scriptures, and thus ascertain their errors; and, by a voluntary sacrifice and yielding, to compromise their difficulties and restore peace to their bleeding Zion."

3

From this epistle of Clement, therefore, six things are evident. First, that in his time, and in both the churches of Corinth and Rome, the only officers known to the churches were bishops, or presbyters, and deacons; secondly, that while Clement only mentions these two classes of officers as having been instituted by Christ and his apostles, he calls the office of the presbyters by the name of episcopacy; thirdly, that this was not only the order of the churches of Rome and Corinth, but that pursued every where, in all the churches planted by the apostles, so that, as Luke says, they 'ordained presbyters in every city;' fourthly, that throughout the whole epistle there is no allusion to the possibility, or the fact, of any officer superior to presbyters or bishops, so that, as Stillingfleet says, 'they that can find any one single bishop at Corinth, when Clement wrote his epistle to them, must have better eyes and judgment than the deservedly admired Grotius,' &c. ;10 fifthly, that from several passages it appears that these presbyter-bishops had the charge of only one christian community, who could unite together in all acts of worship and service, and by whom their ministers were elected to their office so that every region and country village had their own bishops and deacons ;1 and, sixthly, that the suc

cession, established by the express order and appointment of these apostles, was presbyterian, and not prelatical.

The single testimony, therefore, of this most ancient of all the fathers, in this most authentic epistle, written by him as a bishop to a divided and distracted church; for the very purpose of pointing out the true order and constitution of the church, according to the apostolic model; and in which he identifies presbyters with bishops, in name, office, and powers, as the successors of the apostles; is of itself sufficient to test the correctness of our conclusion, as to the true model of the primitive and scriptural churches, and for ever to blast the divine right of prelacy.2

§ 4. The testimony of Hermas and Polycarp.

Hermas, who is supposed to be referred to in Rom. 16: 14, lived A. D. 100. He left behind him a work, entitled Pastor, written in Greek, but remaining only in a Latin version. In this he speaks of 'the elders,' (or presbyters,) 'who preside over the church,' and again, of 'bishops, that is, presidents of the churches. Then such as have been set over inferior ministries, and have protected the poor and the widows,' &c. In another passage he speaks of 'apostles, bishops, doctors, and ministers, who, through the mercy of God, have come into this building of Christ, and have managed the episcopal office, and have taught and have ministered holily and modestly to the elect of God who have fallen asleep."3

4

From a comparison of these extracts, says Dr. Miller, it will appear that Hermas considered bishops and elders, as different titles for the same office. He speaks of elders as presiding over the church of Rome; he represents a plurality of elders as having this presidency at the same time; having used the

1) § 37, and all the later sections. See also Baxter on Episc. part i. and part ii. p. 19, &c.

2) On the testimony of Clement Romanus, see Dr. Miller on the Min. p. 83, &c., 2d ed.; Powell on Aposto. Succ. p. 48; The Divine Right of the Min. part ii. pp. 104106; Corbet's Remains, p. 114; Schism, p. 126; Faber's Albigenses, p. 558; King's Primit. Ch. pp. 68, 69, &c.; Anderson's Defence of Presb. p. 181; Stillingfleet's Irenicum, pp. 310, 311; Potter on Church Government, p. 257; Plea for Presbytery. Glasgow. 1840, p. 252, &c.; Welles's Vind. of Presb. Ordin. New Haven, 1767, p. 124, &c.; Wil

son's Primit. Govt. of the Church, pp. 4-6; Campbell's Lect. on Eccl. Hist. p. 77, 3d ed. This testimony is very fully handled in Boyse's Anct. Episcopacy, pp. 32-65, where all possible objections are met and answered; Baxter on Episc. part. ii. p. 19, &c.; Ayton's Orig. Constit. of the Church, p. 490; Jameson's Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, pp. 192-198.

3) See the Shepherd of St. Hermas, Vision ii. § 4, and iii. § 5, 6. Also Similitude, ix. 27. See the passages fully given by Dr. Miller on the Min., p. 87.

4) Dr. Miller on the Min., p. 88.

word bishops, he explains it as meaning those who presided over the churches; and immediately after bishops, (without menioning presbyters,) he proceeds to speak of deacons, that is, those who are intrusted with the protection of the poor and of the widows.'

As to the last quotation, it must either be interpreted in accordance with the preceding one, the terms bishop, doctor, and minister, as in scripture, being applicable to the one general order of christian ministers, whom Hermas had denominated presbyters, and who are here made to succeed the apostles; or, if it must be taken literally, then it recommends four orders of the ministry, and not three, and these, too, such as no man on earth can find or distinguish. It is apparent, that to all these officers, Hermas attributes the management of the episcopal office, and the power of the keys, and therefore they must all possess the same powers and functions. He makes no distinction whatever between the rulers and the teachers, but identifies their office. And hence we must conclude, that, in the time of Hermas, presbyters were equally called apostles, that is, their successors in the ordinary ministry of the word, bishops, doctors, and ministers, and that no other officers were known to the churches, except deacons, who attended to the wants of the poor. These presbyters or bishops, it is further evident, constituted a college, who governed, in common, the church of some single city or parish,-'the presbyters in this city who govern the church."

Polycarp was one of the disciples of John, and bishop of Smyrna, in Asia, A. D. 108. There is preserved but one of his epistles, which was addressed to the Philippians. St. Paul, in writing to this church, directs his epistle to the bishops and deacons,' (Phil. 1: 1,) as the only officers in the church at that time. That these were only presbyters and deacons, and that no other officer or order was then existent in this church, we have seen admitted by archbishop Potter.2 Now, in a similar strain, Polycarp introduces his epistle, saying, 'Polycarp, and the presbyters that are with him, to the church of God which is at Philippi.' It is thus directed to the church at Philippi, and not to any superior officer or prelate. In section fifth, he tells them to abstain from all the evil things he had mentioned, 'being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ." Again, in section sixth, he says, 'and let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful towards all; turning them from their

1) Lib. i. Vis. 2, on Hermas's Testimony. See Dr. Miller as above; Boyse's Anct. Christ. pp. 111, 113.

2) Potter on Ch. Govt. p. 107, &c. 3) See in Cotelerii Patres Apost. tom. ii. p. 188.

errors; seeking out those that are weak; not forgetting the widows, the fatherless, and the poor; abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unrighteous judgment; not easy to believe any thing against any; nor severe in judgment, knowing that we are all debtors in point of law.' Polycarp, it will be observed, uses no other term than presbyter to designate the ministerial office. He does not allude to bishops. He assigns to presbyters all ministerial authority. And he testifies that as presbyters were left in this church by apostolic appointment, so did presbyters continue to exercise there all apostolic authority, as the only ministerial successors of the apostles.

Polycarp was himself styled by Irenæus 'the apostolical presbyter,' and, after an examination of his epistle, Dr. Wilson declares, 'Not a word have we yet found, nor shall we in this letter discover any thing, that bears even the semblance of a proof of any diversity of grade in the ordinary preaching office, the possessor of which was as yet indiscriminately called bishop and presbyter.' The admission of the judicial authority of these associated presbyters over their co-presbyter Valens, is not merely a renunciation of all authority on the part of Polycarp himself, but a proof also that the cognizance of such causes, and the exercise of all ecclesiastical discipline, lay, not in the hands of any prelate, but of the presbytery of the church. His petition, that Valens should not be treated as an enemy, is addressed to the presbyters, as such, and is proof positive that power was vested in the hands of the presbytery. According to Polycarp, therefore, every presbyter was a bishop; was by his commission equally set over and bound to feed and govern the flock; and was, therefore, apostolical, or a successor to the ordinary ministerial office possessed by the apostles. Polycarp, though called a prelate, was himself a presbyter-bishop. He had charge of one single church, which he ruled, and governed, and taught, and was thus as different from a modern diocesan prelate, as any presbyterian bishop who is the pastor of a city church.2

1) Primit. Govt. of the Ch. p. 8. See also pp. 10, 11.

2) On this testimony see Dr. Miller on the Min. p. 88; Plea for

Presbytery, p. 256; Welles's Vind. of Presb. Ord. p. 128; Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. of the Ch. pp. 7-12.

§ 6. The testimony of Ignatius; even his smaller epistles are interpolated, especially on the subject of the ministry.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is placed in the year A. D. 107, and was also one of the apostolic fathers. There are seven epistles attributed to him, called the smaller, to distinguish them from eight others, which are called the larger. The larger epistles are now universally rejected as spurious, and the forgeries of a later age. The smaller epistles are, however, as universally received, as substantially those of Ignatius, though there are not wanting those who think it altogether incredible, that, at that age, a man on his journey to Rome, and in the company of soldiers, could have found opportunity to compose and forward these writings. These epistles are depended on by prelatists as demonstrative of their views on the subject of church government, and as in themselves abundantly sufficient to overthrow all the pretensions of presbytery to apostolical or primitive institutions.

We will, therefore, more fully consider the testimony of this author. And in doing so, we will, in the first place, show, that even these smaller epistles are corrupted and interpolated, and are not, therefore, altogether genuine. This is the opinion of the large body of the learned of all non-episcopal denominations; and also of many episcopalian writers of eminence and impartiality. We do not design to enter into this controversy.2 We undertake, however, to deny that even the smaller epistles ascribed to Ignatius, are thoroughly genuine, or so free of forgeries as to contain no chaff mingled with the wheat. There is no certainty that they have not been so corrupted. All the copies which existed previous to the publication of the old latin version of Usher, were manifestly corrupted, since they differed from each other, and from the quotations made from them by the earlier fathers. Forgeries were, we know, very early

1) Salmasius, Blondel, and Daillé, regard them as spurious. Stillingfleet, in Iren, p. 298, advances the above view.

2) The reader is referred to Jameson's Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, part ii. § 1-6, p. 109-164, who gives a full view of the history, and enters into the merits of the controversy. The reader is also referred to Dr. Miller, on the Min. pp. 90-92, 329. Schism, pp. 128, &c. and 517. The Divine Right of the Min. part ii. p. 106-114. Bp. Marsh's Lect. part v. p. 17. Bib.

Repert. 1833, p. 354, and for 1834, p. 9. Henderson's Review and Consideration, Edinb. 1746, 4to. p. 332, &c. Plea for Presbytery, 1840, p. 93, &c., and also p. 258. Welles's Vindication of Presb. Ordn. New Haven, 1767, p. 121, and as there quoted, Dr. Chauncey's Dudleian Lect. Dr. Wilson, Primit. Govt. of the Ch. p. 7, and § vi. pp. 45-60. Chevalier's Translations of the early Fathers, Introd. p. xlvi. &c.

3) Archbp. Wake's Prel. Disc. to Polycarp's Ep. § 17, 18, p. 125.