and bishop Pearson." What is the fact? These writers both reject some of the epistles, which have been attributed to Ignatius, and allow the others to have been mutilated. They maintain the genuineness of the less copy, but they do not pretend that it has not been interpolated. Archbishop Wake supposes the text, from which he translated, to be the purest that had been published, but does not attempt to defend it as immaculate. He receives none but the seven epistles; and the evidence of the genuineness of these, he draws principally from the reputed epistle of Polycarp, which is scarcely better authenticated, than the epistles of Ignatius. He also relies implicitly on the authority of Eusebius, who lived in the fourth century, and who speaks on this subject more from tradition, than actual knowledge.*

Many instances of interpolation in the received epistles, were long ago discovered by archbishop Usher. These had reference principally to disputed. points of doctrine and church government, and were no doubt inserted by designing transcribers into early copies. I shall have occasion to speak of some of these in another place. If interpolations have been found, even in what are called the genuine epistles of Ignatius, we want no stronger proof, that others might still be found, if we had access to earlier and more correct manuscripts. This consideration, together with the doubts hanging over the whole subject, is sufficient to destroy the authority of these epistles, especially in every thing relating to the controversies of the church.

* See archbishop Wake's Preface and Introduction to his translation of the Apostolic Fathers.

Herbert Marsh, now bishop of Landaff, in his notes to Michaelis, after stating that there is good reason for suspecting the authenticity of all the writings ascribed to the Apostolic Fathers, among which are the epistles of Ignatius, observes, "This at least is certain, that passages are found in these writings, which from the nature of the subjects could not have existed in the first century, and if they prove not the whole to be spurious, they prove at least, that these writings have been so interpolated, as to make it difficult to distinguish what is genuine from what is false."* The celebrated scholar, Semler, who, according to Dr. Marsh, "has made a more particular study of ecclesiastical history perhaps, than any man that ever lived," rejects these writings entirely as fabrications of a later age, than that in which they are pretended to have been written.t

In regard to the testimony of the later Fathers, it should be remembered, when they speak of bishops, they do not mean the same kind of officers, as in modern times constitute the first order of episcopacy. There is no doubt, that soon after the age of the apostles, when churches became very large, it was found convenient to have presiding officers. When public business was transacted, such as the ordination of presbyters, or the chusing of officers, it was natural, that some person should be appointed to preside. In cities, where several churches had sprung up, it

*Michaelis, Note to vol. i. c. ii. § 6.

† See Gen. Rep. vol. i. p. 55;,where the opinion of Semler on this subject, may be found translated from his Novae Observationes.

was convenient to have a standing president to preserve the harmony, and superintend the concerns of the whole. This president would be likely to be selected from among the more distinguished bishops, or presbyters. In length of time, the name bishop was confined exclusively to this officer. But it is to be observed, that a bishop had no more than a parochial authority. The president of a single church was called a bishop, as well as the president of a larger number. These presidents, or bishops, were first chosen by the congregations at large, and ordained, or inducted into their offices, by the presbyters.

Irenaeus, whose testimony you bring in favour of episcopacy, was ordained, according to Basnage, by presbyters only, even after the distinctions between bishops and presbyters began to exist; and this is allowed to have been the custom of the church of Alexandria, during the three first centuries. At length it became customary to invite neighboring bishops to aid in this ceremony; and thus, by degrees, arose the three orders in the ministry, which was afterwards called an episcopacy.

To make any use of the testimony of the Fathers, we must know to what stage this government had advanced, at the time when any one of them lived. We must know the country in which they lived, and the extent of the church of which they speak. The bishop of a single church was much the same, as the minister of a single parish at the present day. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, had charge of only one congregation, and in his epistles he speaks of the people joining with him in the discipline of his church, and intimates, that the choice of pastors

rested with the people.* Jerome, who wrote at the beginning of the fifth century, says, in his remarks on the epistle to Titus, "among the ancients, priests and bishops were the same, but by degrees, the care of a church was given to one person, in order to prevent dissention. And again, "let the bishops know, that they are above the priests, more by custom, than by the appointment of Christ;" and further, "at the beginning, churches were governed by the common council of presbyters, like an aristocracy; but afterwards, the superintendency was given to one of the presbyters, who was then called the bishop, and who governed the church, but still with the council of the presbyters."+

Archbishop King, who examined this subject thoroughly, in his inquiry into the constitution of the primitive church, says, "a bishop preached, baptized, and confirmed, so did a presbyter; a bishop excommunicated, absolved, and ordained, so did a presbyter; whatever a bishop did, the same did a presbyter; the particular acts of their office were the same."‡ Origen mentions bishops, but does not allow, that their authority extended beyond the congregation over which they were placed; and all, that Tertullian says on this subject, is as applicable to parochial, as to diocesan, bishops.§

From this view of the testimony of the Fathers, it is evident, that it affords no proof of the institution

* Doddridge's Lectures, Part IX. prop. 150.

† Opera, vol. vi p. 198. Anecdotes, p., 24. 54. See Corruptions of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 240.

+ Chap. vi.

§ Doddridge, ubi supra.

1

of episcopacy in the primitive ages. If we are to judge from the above quotations, it has decidedly a contrary bearing. If you can prove from the same Fathers, or from others, that the present form of episcopacy actually existed in the first ages of christianity, it will be, to say the most, a very weak argument in favor of the cause. It will show them to contradict one another, and themselves, and what can more entirely invalidate their authority?

In many places where there was but one church, bishops were parochial ministers, and nothing more; in other places, where several churches were united, bishops had a sort of presiding charge over the whole, with presbyters to aid them; but they discharged no duties, in the immediate service of the church, which did not equally belong to the presbyters. In their ecclesiastical functions, they were the same as presbyters. Deacons, for a long time, seem to have taken no part in the ministry, but to have been appointed to manage the temporal concerns of religious societies. The churches were not all uniform in their

mode of government. Some churches gave more authority to their bishops than others; and some retained their primitive usages longer than others. Doddridge observes, that "the power of the bishops seems to have prevailed early in Rome; that of the presbytery at Alexandria; and at Carthage, such a discipline as comes nearest to what is now called congregationalists."* The churches at Alexandria and Carthage gradually declined, and the Roman increased. The church of England, and the episco

* Lectures, vol, ii. p. 354.