is too late to call them Apostles; it is too early to call them Bishops. It is not pretended that they are at this period called anything if not angels. It is certain that they are not so called anywhere save in this passage of the book of Revelation; and it is a baseless, unreasonable conjecture to suppose that they are so called here.

After this book of Revelation, it is certain that these high functionaries, the successors in the office of the Apostles, are not called angels of the Churches. Nor are they called Apostles. For a hundred years, the pastors of Churches everywhere monopolize the name of Bishops. Where, in the name of wonder, are these Diocesan successors of the Apostles? There is no trace of them after the "angels," till more than a century afterwards they come out Bishops! A double change of title occurs, in two orders of Church officers; a change involving some confusion and mingling of terms; it occurs in thousands of instances, in many languages, all over the world, and no trace, no fragment indicative of that change remains! A body of men nowhere alluded to by any distinct name, move noiselessly about, bearing on their shoulders the supreme authority of the Churches; till at last they have everywhere filched away the names of the second order in the ministry, and no trace or fragment of this double change remains.

But it is said that there is testimony to the fact of such a change, though the process of the change cannot be traced. "It was after the Apostolical age," says Bishop Onderdonk, "that the name Bishop was taken from the second order and appropriated to the first, as we learn from Theodoret."

Well, who is Theodoret? A man who lived in the fifth century! No hint or trace of such an opinion ever has been cited before him. On what authority does Theodoret say this? Does he allude to any record, any memorial, or even any tradition? None at all. It stands on his conjecture, bare and unsupported; an unreasonable and absurd conjecture, about a thing concerning which all proof is wanting, and that, too, when proof could not be wanting, were the thing itself true. Episcopacy thus hangs her monstrous claims upon a conjecture unsupported, unreasonable and absurd; and this conjecture of Theodoret concerning a matter of which he knows nothing, Episcopacy calls his testimony! TESTIMONY! about a thing which he neither saw nor read of; and which if it had ever taken place, must have taken place two or three centuries before he was born! If it did not take place four centuries before he was born, Episcopacy is a demonstrable perversion of the institutions of Christ and his Apostles.

Prelacy must needs take the laboring oar here. Let her tell

when or how this double change occurred. Let her explain how it could possibly occur, and no trace or fragment remain to indicate the process. Let her tell by what name these successors in the Apostolic office were known; or where they lurked, when for one hundred years they were neither Apostles, nor Angels, nor Bishops; and how it was possible that this nameless body of Prelates could so entirely escape the observation or notice of all writers for so long a time. Let Prelacy explain these matters to us; or let her frankly admit that the pretended change never occurred, but that ambitious parish Bishops, in favorable situa tions, gradually assumed more and more, till they became Prelates; metropolitans grew up by degrees into Archbishops and Patriarchs; till at last, this gradual stealing of power from the many to the few, brought forth the Pope; while Pope, Patriarch, Archbishop, and Diocesan, are alike unknown and unauthorized in the Word of God.

XXVII.

PRELACY DISPROVED BY THE FATHERS.

WE have now searched clear down through the Scriptures, and find not a trace or fragment of Episcopacy. The supposition, to which the advocates of the scheme are obliged to resort in order to maintain that it had any existence in the first age after the Apostles, we have seen to be absurd and impossible. Beyond this point, we are bound to receive nothing. We are not bound to inquire any further: we are already beyond the Apostles and Apostolic times. In all propriety, the argument should end here.

But we will not end here: we are willing to follow the pretensions of Prelacy to her haunts and strongholds, in the deep tangled wild-wood of the Fathers, and to see what sort of restingplace she possesses even there.

And first, as to the nature of the authority to be allowed to the Fathers. We are willing to admit them as witnesses to matters of fact existing in their own day, and coming under their own observation, so far as any testimony can be ascertained to be really theirs, and not a forgery or an interpolation. Secondly, when they conjecture merely, as Theodoret does, without referring to any record or even to any tradition, we are willing to weigh even their conjectures; especially when they give reasons for the same. But thirdly, as authoritative interpreters of Scripture, we know them not. It is said indeed, that we must receive their opinions and interpretations, or reject the Bible; but we beg leave to dissent from this;-a man may be a good witness of the authenticity of a document, when he would make a most miserable interpreter of its meaning. And it may be affirmed, without any danger of contradiction, that nowhere, among Shakers, Swedenborgians, or Mormons, can there be found interpretations more crude, or monstrous, than are everywhere rife in the writings of the boasted Fathers.

And now, let the Fathers advance and give their testimony: The first who comes upon the stand is Clemens Romanus.

He is supposed to be the Clement mentioned by Paul. He wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians about A. D. 96. It is the earliest and most authentic of all the writings of the Fathers. His object in writing, was to conciliate the minds of the Corinthians to their Pastors, some of whom they had rejected from the ministry. Throughout his epistle, he calls these ministers Presbyters, and speaks of the people having expelled them ano 175 EлTоXO from the Episcopate (the office of Bishop). He uses the words Pastors and Bishops repeatedly and throughout, as synonymous. This, Slater admits; and the learned Dr. Campbell says, "No critic ever questioned" it.

But let Clemens speak for himself. "The Church of God which sojourneth at Rome to the Church of God which is at Corinth." (Why, this seems not a lordly Diocesan writing to Diocese, but very much like the minister of a congregation writing in the name of the people to a sister Church.) But read on. "The Apostles have preached to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ, therefore, was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ; so both were orderly sent accord ing to the will of God. For, having received command, and being thoroughly assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and convinced by the Word of God, with the fulness of the Holy Spirit, they went abroad publishing that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits of their conversions, to be Bishops and Deacons over such as should afterward believe, having first proved them by the Spirit; for thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their overseers [Bishops] in righteousness, and their Deacons in faith."

Here we have everywhere, in cities and country places, Bish ops and Deacons, in each place or congregation; and with Cle mens as with Paul, a Bishop is the simple Pastor of a Church.

Clemens goes on to show how Moses, to prevent all dispute about the priesthood, referred the matter to God; when Aaron's rod alone blossomed. "So likewise, our Apostles knew that there should contentions arise upon the name of the Bishopric, and therefore, having a perfect knowledge of this, they appointed persons as we have before said, and gave directions, how, when they should die, other and approved men should succeed in their ministry; who were either appointed by them, or afterwards chosen by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church. For it would be no small sin in us should we cast off these from their Episcopate [Bishopric], who nobly and without blame fulfil the duties of it. Blessed are those Presbyters, who having finished their course before these times, obtained a perfect and fruitful dissolution. For they have no fear lest any one

*

should turn them out of the place which is now appointed for them." * "It is a shame, my beloved, yea, a great shame, and unworthy your Christian profession, to hear, that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians, should by one or two persons be led into a sedition against its Presbyters. Do ye, therefore, who first laid the foundations of this sedition, submit yourselves to your Presbyters," "only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the Presbyters that are set over it."

**

*

*

In this discourse, speaking expressly about the ministry, its appointment and succession, Clemens recognizes only two orders, Bishops and Deacons; and he uses the words Bishop and Presbyter as synonymous, meaning the same identical office, as belonging to the same identical men (just as we have seen the words to be uniformly used in the New Testament).

It is therefore certain, that both at Rome and at Corinth, the name Bishop has yet undergone no change from its original signification. The Bishop is still the simple pastor of a Church; Presbyter being used as the title of honor [Elder], and Bishop [overseer] being the name of office.

If there had been a Diocesan over these "Presbyters," whom the Corinthians were rejecting from "the Episcopate," how strange that Clemens did not mention him; how impertinent in that case, for Clemens to write at all! How passing strange that Clemens should say so much about these Presbyters coming in succession from the Apostles, and forget to say one word about their Diocesan, if they had one!

Will it be said that their Diocesan is dead; and that Clemens is writing as their provisional Diocesan? But he writes not as Diocesan, or in his own name at all; it is the Church of Rome writing to the Church of Corinth!

Ask Clemens, while he is on the stand, whether he ever knew the title Bishop to signify an office superior to that of Presbyter, i. e., one holding the official rank of Apostle. He is silent as the grave; he knows nothing about it. Ask him, if he knows of any such things as Angels of Churches, so called, who in his day were in reality Apostles. He knows nothing about it. Ask him if such an order of men exists, with or without a name, whom it is too late to call Apostles, and too early to call Bishops; he knows nothing about it, save that "everywhere," in cities and in country places, at " Rome and in Corinth," a Bishop is, like the New Testament Bishop, the Pastor, or Presbyter (Elder) of a Church, i. e., of a congregation of Christians.

But Prelatists, nevertheless, claim Clemens as proving for them three orders instead of two. Let us notice this claim. It will serve as a fair specimen of the way in which Prelatical writers