thing of what belongs to the Church without the Bishop. Let that eucharist be looked upon as firm and just which is either offered by the Bishop, or by him to whom the Bishop has given his consent. Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: As where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the Bishop, neither to baptize, nor to celebrate the holy communion: But whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing unto God." His epistles abound with other passages to the same effect. From this unequivocal testimony it fully appears, that in the Apostolic age there were three orders of the ministry, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, distinct and subordinate, deriving their commission from God, and claiming the reverence and obedience of the people; that the Bishops were at the head of the Churches; that through them ministerial authority was conveyed; and that without the Bishop, that is, without power derived from him, it was not lawful to perform any ecclesiastical act.* Q. But has it not been asserted that in the Apostolic age, the authority of a Bishop was confined to a single congregation? A. The assertion has been made, but without the shadow of foundation, that in the Apostolic age the authority of a Bishop was confined to a single congregation. It is indeed absurd to suppose, that, in the large cities of Jerusalem, Antioch, &c. where many thousands were converted to Christianity, all these believers constituted one congregation, and met together in one place for the purpose of worship. Yet this must have been the case, if a Bishop was originally the head of only a single congregation, since in each of these cities there was but one Bishop, St. James being Bishop of Jerusalem, and Ignatius of Antioch. The same remarks may be applied to the Churches in other cities, *The testimony of Ignatius is so express and decided in support of Episcopacy, of the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, and of their being the only constituted source of authority in the Church, that some persons have attempted to disprove the genuineness of these epistles. It is certain, bowever, that Polycarp and Irenæus in the second century, Origen in the third, Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Jerome in the fourth, with a great number of writers down to the fifteenth century, all bear witness to these epistles. Their genuineness has been fully vindicated by Archbishop Wake and Bishop Pearson. For a concise but satisfactory statement of the proofs of the genuineness of these celebrated epistles, the reader is referred to D. Bowden's two letters to Dr. Stiles, of Yale College, and particularly to the second letter. o Acts ii. 41. v. 14. iv. 4. vi. 7. xxi. 20. xi, 19. v. 21–27; over which there were Bishops constituted. Each Churcir undoubtedly consisted of several congregations, subject to one Bishop, who had under him Presbyters and Deacons. So that, in the primitive age, every Bishop was the head of a diocess, consisting of several separate congregations, and not merely of a parish consisting of a single congregation of Christians.* Q. What evidence does the second century afford on the subject of Episcopacy? A. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, who lived about seventy years from the Apostolic age, expressly asserts, that in his time there were Bishops in all Churches, who acted with Apostolic authority, and succeeded in a direct line from the Apostles. "We can reckon up those whom the Apostles ordained to be Bishops in the several Churches, and who they were that succeeded them down to our own times. They (the Apostles) desired to have those in all things perfect and unreprovable, whom they left to be their successors, and to whom they committed their own Apostolic authority." Clemens of Alexandria thus designates the three orders. Summing up the duties of Christians contained in scripture, he adds, "There are other precepts without number; some which relate to Presbyters; others which belong to Bishops; others respecting Deacons." Tertullian, who lived near the end of the second century, in his treatise of baptism, affirms, "That the power of baptizing is lodged in the Bishops, and that it may also be exercised by Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Bishop's commisgion." " This passage is a full evidence of the superiority of Bishops over the two lower orders, these being not allowed to exercise even the lowest function in the Church without the Bishop's permission. Q. What evidence do the writers of the third century afford on the subject of the government of the Church? A. Origen, a Catechist and Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, who lived in the beginning of the third century, in his explanation of the Lord's Prayer, on the words, "Forgive our debts," uses these words: "Besides these The scheme of parochial Episcopacy is advocated by Sir Peter King. But the unfairness of the quotations from the primitive writers by which he attempts to support his scheme, and the fallacy of his reasonings on the primitive government of the Church, are fully exposed by Slater, in his *Original Draught of the Primitive Church. Irenæus, lib. iii. cap. 5. q Pædag. lib. iii. cap. 12. Lib, de Bap. cap. 17. general debts, there is a debt due to widows who are maintained by the Church; another to Deacons ; another to Presbyters; and another to Bishops; which is the greatest of all, and exacted by the Saviour of the whole Church, who will severely punish the non-payment of it." Thus, according to the testimony of Origen, Bishops were superior to Presbyters and Deacons, by the appointment of Christ. St. Cyprian, the famous Bishop of Carthage, who flourished in this century, affords, in his writings, the most full and unequivocal proofs of the divine institution of the Episcopal office, and of the subordination of Deacons and Presbyters to their Bishops. The following passages, among many others that might be selected, are express on the subject: "Our Lord intending to establish the Episcopal dignity, together with the constitution of his Church, says thus to Peter: "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall never prevail against it." Thence in the course of times and successions, the ordination of Bishops, and the constitution of the Church proceeds: so that the Church is built on the Bishops, and all acts of the Church are governed and directed by them its Presidents." "The Dea cons ought no more to attempt any thing against Bishops, by whom Deacons are made, than Deacons should do against God, who makes Bishops."" In his absence, and without his consent, some of his Presbyters would have restored to the Church's communion some who had lapsed in the time of persecution. On this occasion he tells his Presbyters: "What a dreadful prospect must we have of the Divine vengeance, when some of the Presbyters, neither mindful of the Gospel, nor of their own station; neither regarding the future judgment of God, nor the Bishop that now presides over them, dare arrogate entirely to themselves, what was never attempted under any of my predecessors." Eusebius, the celebrated ecclesiastical historian of this century, derives the Bishops of all Churches from the Apostles, and gives the succession of Bishops in all the principal cities of the Roman empire, from the Apostles down to his own time. Q. Is not a similar account of the constitution of the Christian Church given by the writers of succeeding centu ries? A. It would be easy to continue this account of the go Origen on Prayer. t Cyprianu principio Epist. 33. u Epist. 3. v Epist. 16 vernment of the Church by Bishops through all succeeding ages to this time; but it being universally acknowledged, even by the professed enemies of Episcopacy, that the Church was governed by Bishops of a superior order to mere Presbyters after the third century, it is needless to adduce any more testimonies on this subject. Q. But does not St. Jerome assert the original parity of Bishops and Presbyters? A. St. Jerome, who was a Presbyter in the Church in the fourth century, was displeased at the Bishop of Jerusalem, who, he thought, exercised authority with undue severity; and he was also offended with the Deacons for their insolent attempts to advance themselves to an equality with Presbyters. Under a strong anxiety, therefore, to magnify as much as possible the office of a Presbyter, he hazards the following conjecture: "That the Churches were at first governed by common councils of Presbyters. But when divisions arose from this parity among the Presbyters, when every Presbyter began to claim as his own particular subjects those whom he had baptized, and it was said by the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas; to remedy this evil, it was decreed all the world over, that one of the Presbyters in every Church should be set over the rest, and peculiarly called Bishop; and that the chief care of the Church should be committed to him." But even this conjecture of St. Jerome, which is not only unsupported, but contradicted by the testimony of all the primitive writers, so far from militating against Episcopacy, proves that it was his opinion that Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles; for since he refers the advancement of Bishops above Presbyters to the time when it was said, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, which was the time of St. Paul. When St. Jerome delivers his unbiassed and dispassionate sentiments, he holds the same language on the subject of Episcopacy with the other primitive writers. "What Aaron, his sons the priests, and the Levites were in the temple, the same are Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Church." "Wheresoever a Bishop is, whether at Rome or Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tani, he has the same merit and the same Priesthood: neither the power of riches, nor the humility of poverty makes a Bishop higher or lower, but they are all successors of the Apostles." Hieron. Cem. ad Tit, cap. 1. 7. Epist. ad Evag. Epist. ad Evag. ? Ibid. Q. But may not the Bishops have usurped this supérior power over the other orders of the ministry? A. No supposition can be more absurd and improbable than that the Bishops usurped their superior powers. That there was originally no distinction of office or prerogative between Bishops and Presbyters, but that a set of designing and ambitious Presbyters usurped authority over the rest of their brethren; that this usurpation should take place, and yet the degraded Presbyters make no resistance, and enter no protest against this daring invasion of their rights; that the whole Christian world should, in the space of a few years, submit to the unjust authority of these usurping Bishops; that this fundamental revolution should take place in the Church, and no accounts of it be given by any ecclesiastical writers, are suppositions which common sense would immediately reject, even if they were not refuted by the decided and universal testimony of primitive writers, in favour of Episcopacy, as the original constitution of the Church. Q. Does it not appear necessary from the constitution of the Church, as thus established, that the Episcopal succession from the Apostles should be uninterrupted? A. As a divine commission is required to qualify any one to exercise the priestly office, there must be a succession of persons authorized from Christ to send others to act in his name, or there can be no authority in his Church. For if that succession which conveys a divine commission for the ministry be broken, people must either go into the ministry of their own accord, or be sent by those who received no power to send them. And it is surely evident that those persons cannot be called ministers of Christ, be considered as his ambassadors, be authorized to proclaim the testimony of his salvation, or to administer his sacraments, who never received a commission from him. As, therefore, it has been proved that a divine commission to exercise the ministry was to be conveyed through the order of Bishops, it is necessary that the Episcopal succession, from the days of the Apostles, should be uninterrupted. The divine Head of the Church has pledged himself to preserve the succession of his ministry to the end of the world." There is not the slightest evidence for believing that the succession has been interrupted: its interruption seems indeed morally impossible. For it has been the universal practice of the Church, from the time of The necessity of a divine commission has been proved page 26, 27. |