istence of at least six or seven, as apostles, bishops, prophets, evangelists, elders, teachers, deacons.* I should not deem it necessary to dwell on this topic any longer, had you not mentioned other testimony, besides that of the scriptures, in support of your views of episcopacy. I do not consider this testimony of any value in deciding the main question of divine right; but as you have introduced it at some length I will not pass it over. The testimony * The celebrated commentator and critic, Kuinoel, in his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, published about two years ago at Leipsic, has entered at some length into the discussion of this subject. After proving, that "lidem, qui in libris N. T. vocantur επίσκοποι et ποιμένες, appellantur etiam πρεσβυτεροι” which he says some have rashly denied, (quod temere nonnulli negarunt, atque de discrimine episcoporum et presbyterorum in primitiva ecclesia hallucinati sunt,) he goes on to observe, that the christians, in the time of the apostles, established in the church a form of government and discipline similar to what prevailed in the Jewish synagogues. It was the duty of the rulers of the synagogue to preserve discipline, superintend the external concerns of the respective societies over which they were placed, and also to teach and explain the law. In the same manner, it was the duty of the bishops, or presbyters, to superintend the government of the church, and teach the doctrines of the christian religion. They were both governors and teachers. The rulers of the synagogues were confined to particular societies; and so were the first bishops, or presbyters. No one had any control, except in the single society over which he had been appointed. "Episcopi singulis christianorum coetibus praefecti erant." To show this resemblance still more strongly, Kuinoel further remarks, that the rulers of the synagogues were called 'apt, TgEOBUTEgo, and quotes Philo and Vitringa to prove, that their office must have been the same as that of the first christian bishops.. Vid. Kuinoel Comment. in Act. Apos. Leip. 1818, p. 681. * of all succeeding ages can never prove that to he a divine, positive institution in religion, which is not sanctioned, nay, commanded in the records of divine truth. It is remarked of almost all the writers in favour of episcopacy, that they show a singular fondness for the ancient Fathers. They appeal to them with scarcely less confidence, than to the sacred writers themselves, and seem to think that whatever is doubtful in scripture, is fully settled by a quotation from Rosenmuller advances a similar opinion; and adds, that presbyters and bishops, in the time of the apostles, were the same; but afterwards it became customary to call any person, who was eminent among them, bishop, by way of distinction. "Qui in ordine presbyterorum primas tenebat, xar' ežoxnv dicebatur ó 1×0Tos." Vid. Rosenmul. Scholia in Act. Apos. c. xx. 28; et in Epist. ad Philipp. c. i. 1. Hammond supports the episcopal hypothesis in its fullest extent. He puts all the Fathers in requisitron. and quotes profusely from the beginning of Ignatius to the end of Theophylact. He maintains, that Timothy and Titus were metropolitans, and proves it by the testimony of Theodoret and Theophylact. He also proves from Eusebius, that the hundred cities of Crete were converted to the christian faith by Paul himself, although Eusebius declares, that, for his history of those times, he depends solely on the scriptures. Le Clerc, in his reply to Hammond, says that Grotius, and others, who found no authority in scripture for these distinctions between metropolitans, bishops, and presbyters, have much more correct notions. "Nor," he adds, "can we receive as proof the authority of ancient Fathers, who wrote more after the manner of their age, than from any certain knowledge; nor would say, that bishops, or presbyters, are always to be trusted, when they give evidence in their own cause." Nec potest probar auctoritate scriptorum sequentium saeculorum, &c. Vid. Nov. Test. Hammond. et Cleri, Adnotationes in Act. c. xx. 28, et Philippi. i. 1. some writer, who lived as long ago as the third or fourth century. But let it be asked, since we have the original book in our posession, to which they all referred, what occasion have we to consult any other authority? These Fathers lived in a rude age, and wrote on subjects quite different from any, which are introduced into modern controversy; their writings have been corrupted, and many forgeries have been sent out under their names; they have often written with reference to opinions unknown to us, and frequently contradicted one another. Can we believe the testimony of such writers to be of the least value, when the divine origin, and divinely protected succession of a religious institution is in question? Daillé, in his celebrated work on the right use of the Fathers, has stated seventeen reasons, why these writers are not to be implicitly relied on, each of which is enough to invalidate their authority, in a question of so much importance. We find a similar opinion in authors of much more celebrity, than Daillé. The following is from Milton. "Whatever time, or the heedless hand of blind chance, hath drawn from old to this present, in her huge drag-net, whether fish or seaweed, shells or shrubs, unpicked, unchosen-those are the Fathers."* Jeremy Taylor, in his admirable treatise on the Liberty of Prophecying, says, "there are some, that think they can determine all questions in the world, by two or three sayings of the Fathers, or by the consent of so many as they will please to call a concurrent testimony; but this consideration will soon be at * Prose Works, vol. i. p. 87. an end; for if the Fathers, when they are witnesses of tradition, do not always speak truth, as it happened in the case of Papias, and his numerous followers, for almost three ages together, then is their testimony more improbable, when they dispute or write commentaries."* Such were the opinions of men, who knew as much on this subject, perhaps, as any other; and of such men as Milton and Jeremy Taylor. Your testimony from this source, you take from the book of Festivals and Fasts, and begin by remarking, that "those denominations, which controvert the divine institution of episcopacy, and consider it the invention of an age subsequent to that of the apostles, have never been able to agree upon any one period, in which it could, even in their opinion, have probably originated." p. 39. Admitting this to be true, what weight has it in the argument? It is not of the least consequence, when, or how, or where, episcopacy commenced, since it is proved not to have been instituted by our Saviour, nor adopted by the apostles. Your first extracts to prove the divine right of episcopacy, by the evidence of the Fathers, are quoted from Ignatius, who lived at the close of the first century. Was it not very well known to you, that the epistles attributed to him, and from which this testimony is taken, have been considered by very learned men, as spurious? No one has attempted lately to defend the genuineness of all the epistles, which were formerly ascribed to Ignatius. Five, at least, have been given up; and the seven, which re * Chap. viii. on the Inconsistencies of the Fathers. main, are universally allowed, even by those who are most zealous in proving them genuine, to be disfigured by interpolations. Le Clerc, who is fully persuaded, that some of the epistles attributed to Ignatius were actually written by him, acknowledges, that some are entirely spurious, and others interpolated.* Of those, which are considered as having some claims to authenticity, we have two copies. One is called the larger, and the other the smaller. Each of these copies has its advocates; but whether the larger copy was made by adding to the smaller, or the smaller by abridging the larger, has not been ascertained. Each party in the controversy adopts the one, which is most agreeable to his favorite tenets. It is no place here to go into the controversy; nor do I wish to do any thing more, than simply to state the fact of such a controversy having existed, and of these epistles being, at best, of too doubtful a character to be quoted as authority on any point of doctrine. As your discourse was intended for persons, who could not be supposed to be very familiarly acquainted with disputed points of criticism, if you thought proper to bring testimony from this source, it would certainly not have been amiss, to let them know its doubtful character, and the degree of credit, which it ought to receive. The American editor of the work, which you quote, has given a very partial view of this subject. After mentioning "that some persons have attempted to disprove the genuineness of these epistles," he adds, "it has been fully vindicated by archbishop Wake, * Ars Crit. vol. ii. p. 331. Ed. Lugd. Bat. 1778, |