Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 situations, 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 ins εлTσXолs 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 a 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 according 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, Bishops and Deacons, in each place or congregation; and with Clemens 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

delude each other, and mislead their people by mistaken interpretations of the Fathers. Perceval, in his famous book on Apostolic succession (p. 54), cites this epistle of Clemens thus: "It will behoove us, looking into the depths of divine knowledge, to do all things in order, whatsoever our Lord has commanded us to do. He has ordained by his supreme will and authority, both when and by what persons, they [the sacred services and oblations] are performed. For the chief priest has the proper services, and to the Priests their proper place is appointed, and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries; and the layman is confined within the bounds of what is appointed to laymen."

Perceval cites this with the express design of making those who read him, believe that Clemens applies the term Chief Priest, Priests, and Levites, to three orders in the Christian ministry; and here he leaves it. He passes entirely by the plain testimony of Clemens concerning the identity of Presbyters and Bishops; but he adduces this passage as proof positive of three orders, and especially of the Diocesan Bishop. Sure enough, people who read Perceval, and who are not aware of his barefaced trickery in this quotation, will naturally conclude that Clemens acknowledges three orders in the Christian ministry.

But Clemens is not speaking here of the Christian ministry as existing in three orders: he is drawing an argument for orderly proceeding among Christians, from the consideration of the regard to order observed in the Jewish sacrifices and priesthood and immediately after the sentence quoted by Perceval, he makes the application: "Let every one of you, therefore, bless God in his proper station, with a good conscience, and with all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his sacrifice, which is appointed to him. The daily sacrifices are not offered everywhere, nor the peace-offerings, nor the sacrifices appointed for sins, but only at Jerusalem."

Why did not the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Perceval, Chaplain to the Queen, tell his readers, like an honest man, that he had suppressed the true testimony of Clemens, and made a gross perversion of his words, in the quotation which he gave?—that he was, in this instance, dealing wholly in false pretences; and that if they understood the words, Chief Priest, Priest and Levite, in this passage, to refer to three orders in the Christian ministry, they must also conclude that Christian ministers offered. daily sacrifices, peace-offerings, and sin-offerings, and that only at Jerusalem? And if Perceval was not honest enough to tell the truth in this matter, why does the American Protestant Episcopal Tract Society still persist in scattering that Tract, on the wings of the wind, without one word of correction, and that, so long

« PreviousContinue »