the presbyters, who had presided over the church in that city before that bishop. One of these bishops, the predecessors of Victor, was Anicetus, whom Polycarp endeavored in vain to persuade to "retain the usage of the presbyters who had preceded him.”73 We submit the above extracts to the attention of the reader, who cannot fail to observe, that the terms, bishop and presbyter are used by this ancient father, as perfectly convertible terms. Bishops he denominates presbyters; and presbyters, bishops. In so many words he ascribes the Episcopate to presbyters. They unitedly constitute but one order in the priesthood. Both Justin and Irenaeus represent the churches of Asia Minor. The latter also resided for many years in the Western part of the Roman empire. The former, resided at Rome when he wrote the Apology from which the extract is taken. He travelled in the different countries where the gospel had been preached, confirming the churches, and was personally acquainted with the usages both of the Eastern and Western churches. The concurring testimony of these two witnesses shows, that as yet the Christian church universally retained the apostolical institution of two orders of the clergy. We We are not ignorant of the gloss that is given to these passages from Irenaeus, in the endeavor to defend the theory of an original distinction between bishops and presbyters. But the consideration of the Episcopal argument is foreign to our purpose. The authorities are before the reader; and of their obvious meaning, any one is competent to form an independent, unaided judgment. Titus Flavius Clemens, commonly known as Clement of Alexandria, lived at the close of the second, and the beginning of the third century. He was at the head of the celebrated school at Alexandria, the preceptor of Origen, and 73 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 5. c. 20. the most learned man of his age. He speaks indeed of presbyters, bishops and deacons. After citing from the epistles various practical precepts, he proceeds to say that "numerous other precepts also, directed to select characters, have been written in the sacred books, some to presbyters, some to bishops, some to deacons, and others to widows."74 In this enumeration he appears to have followed the order of the apostle in Tit. 1: 5—7, mentioning presbyters first. He repeatedly shows, however, that there were at that time but two orders, deacons and presbyters; having observed that in most things there are two sorts of ministry, the one, of a nobler nature than the other, and having illustrated this distinction by several other examples, he says: "Just so in the church, the presbyters are entrusted with the dignified ministry; the deacons, with the subordinate."75 Ile also speaks of a noоxavɛdoía, or first seat in the presbytery; from all which, the obvious inference is, that the bishop of this author is only the 700εστs of earlier writers, the presiding elder of the presbytery. Henceforth the title of 70оrozás is seldom found in the fathers, but instead of it that of έziozonos, bishop, constantly occurs. In his treatise, "What rich man can be saved?" Clement relates that John, the apostle, observing a young man of singular beauty, was so struck with his appearance, that turning to the bishop who presided over all, he commended him. to his care in the presence of the church. John after repeating the charge, is said to have returned to Ephesus, and "this presbyter," taking home the young man that had been committed to his care, nourished, educated, and lest him. John himself, on his return, is represented to have addressed this same presbyter as a bishop, “O bishop, return to us your 74 Paedag. Lib. 3. p. 264. Comp. also Strom. Lib. 6. p. 667. * ̔Ομοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, τὴν μὲν βελτιωτικὴν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι σώζουσιν, εἰκόνα τὴν ὑπερτικὴν οἱ διάκονοι —Strom. Lib. 7. p. 700. charge."76 Here then Clement uses interchangeably the terms, bishop and presbyter, to designate the same person, and makes John address, as bishop, one who was, notwithstanding, a mere presbyter. "In this author we find a presbytery and deacons only, which is as forcible an exclusion of a third order, whether superior or intermediate, as can be reasonably expected from a writer, who had no knowledge of a third." The account of Tertullian again, contemporary with Clement, both having died the same year, A. D. 220, harmonizes in a remarkable manner with that of Justin Martyr, as exhibited above. In describing the worship of Christian assemblies, he observes: "Certain approved elders preside who have obtained that honor, not by price, but by the evidence of their fitness."77 Aged men never presided by virtue of their age, in ancient Christian assemblies. Besides the passage distinctly asserts that these presidents were chosen to their office. They administered the sacrament and fulfilled the office of the 700σrs of Justin Martyr. "We never take from the hands of others than presidents, praesidentium, the sacrament of the eucharist," says Tertullian.78 The president is also denominated in the same chapter, antistes, a terin exactly corresponding to that of 700867s in Justin. That this president, styled also bishop, is only the presiding and officiating presbyter, is apparent from another passage in Tertullian. "The highest priest, who is the bishop, has the right of granting baptism; afterwards, the presbyters and deacons; not, however, without the authority of the bishops for the honor of the church."79 The highest priest implies the existence of inferiors of the same order. What then is the 76 Chap. 42. pp. 667, 669, vol. 7. Sanct. Pat. Op. Polemica. 77 Praesident probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio, sed testimonio adepti; neque enim pretio ulla res Dei constat.-Apol. c. 39. 78 De Corona, c. 3. p. 102. 79 Dandi baptismum quidem habet jus summus sacerdos qui est bishop, but a presbyter elevated to the office of a president or moderator? That this office implies no superiority in order or rank, appears from the fact that he who held it was appointed to it, not by any scriptural or apostolical ordination or appointment, but simply for the preservation of the honor and peace of the church. Tertullian represents another division of the church, that of Africa, in which the Episcopal government was earliest developed; but even in these churches the apostolical order had not yet been fully superseded by the hierarchy. The sum of his testimony as well as of that of all who have gone before him, is, that there was but one order in the church superior to that of deacons. The government of the church was, in his time, in a transition state. Tertullian stands, as has been justly observed, “on the boundary between two different epochs in the development of the church." Henceforth the bishop assumes more prominence; but as yet he has not begun to be acknowledged as one of an order superior to presbyters. From the days of the apostles downwards he has been one among his fellow-presbyters possessing merely that conventional distinction which belongs to any one who may be appointed the presiding officer of a body, all whose members enjoy equal rights and privileges. Whatever apostolical succession there has been thus far, has been through a line of presbyters by presbyterian ordination. The lists which Irenaeus has given of primitive bishops are only catalogues of presbyters bearing this title. The usurpation of Episcopal prerogative, the assumption by the bishops of divine right, and all those innovations whose general progress, we are soon to witness are unauthorized and anti-scriptural, and consequently are mere nullities; and such they must ever continue to be, notwithstanding the incredible assurance with which, by some, their canonical authority is ceaselessly episcopus Dehinc presbyteri et diaconi; non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate propter ecclesiae honorem.-De Bapt. c. 17. asserted. General assertions however unfounded are easily made; and, when boldly made and perpetually repeated, they do sometimes ensure reception. But we know not how any man who knows what proof is, and what the evidence in the present case is, can venture on such assumptions. What if Tertullian, Clement, Irenaeus, and others, tell us of bishops? "It remains yet to be evinced out of this and the like places, which will never be, that the word bishop is otherwise taken, than in the language of St. Paul and the Acts, for an order above presbyters. We grant them bishops, we grant them worthy men, we grant them placed in several churches by the apostles, we grant that Irenaeus and Tertullian affirm this; but that they were placed in a superior order above the presbytery, show from all these words why we should grant. It is not enough to say that the apostle left this man bishop in Rome, and that other in Ephesus, but to show when they altered their own decree set down by St. Paul, and made all the presbyters underlings to one bishop."80 3. Presbyters were understood in the early ages of Christianity to possess the right to ordain, and generally to perform the functions of the Episcopal office. The right of presbyters to ordain, and the validity of ordination administered by them, is a direct inference from what has already been said of their identity with bishops. Clement knows nothing of any distinction between bishops and presbyters. Polycarp knows nothing of bishops. Each specifies but two orders or grades of officers in the church, of which two deacons are one. Presbyters or bishops, of necessity form the other order, and are one and the same. Justin Martyr, again, speaks of only two grades, of which deacons form one. Irenaeus, still later, uses the titles, bishop and presbyter, as perfectly convertible terms; and Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian recognize no clear distinction between bishops and presbyters as different orders. If there 80 Milton's Prelatical Episcopacy, Prose Works, Vol. I. p. 85. |