The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-27

very time Bishop, but which had, never
theless, already left its first love-?
CLEMENT AND GNATIUs--CoNGREG.A-
TIoNAL AND DIOCESAN EPIscoPACY.
g. DR.. Armstrong very naturally ap-
peals to the Ignatian Epistles but we
were startled when he selected Clement of
Rome as the only other Father to appeal
to. Why, Clement of Rome proves ex-
actly the reverse of Episcopacy. He is
the great Presbyterian witness, after the
Apostles. His first Epistle to the Corin-
thians was written A. D. &c. 1t is the
first Christian writing that we have after
the death OF the apostles. In this letter
there is no trace of three orders in the
ministry. His language is: that the
apostles, preaching through countries and
cities, appointed the frst-fruits of their
conversions to be bishops and deacons
over such as should afterwards believe"
Like Paul, writing to the Philippians, he
recognizes only two classes of officers
They did not appoint bishops, and pres
byters, and deacons; but only bishops
and deacons. Again: 1T is shame
that the ancient Church of Corinth should,
by one or two persons, be led into Sc
dition against its presbyters" See chap
55, At.
AS to Ignatius, even if we allow his
Epistles to be genuine and autographed
1--WE mean three of them-the others are
undoubtedly spurious), the Episcopacy
which he writes of CA. D. 1867 is CON:
gregattoraal Episcopacy. He represents
the whole Church of Ephesus as assem-
bling IN one place; he represents the
whole Church of Magnesia as single
congregation; he represents the Church
at Smyrna as single congregation. The
bishops that Ignatius was talking of were
merely pastors, And we cannot, as re-
marked above, get either DR.. Armstrong
or the Cturchman to recognise this dis
tinction. All that they allege to prove
Episcopacy in the first two centuries, re-
fers to parochial or congregational Epis-
copacy-pastor, elders, deacons- just such
church as any Presbyterian congrega-
ton now.
| SWARMS OF BISHOPS.
We do not deny that early in the Sec
ond century the pastor of the church be-
gan to assume this prominence-whatw we
deny is pretaticaJ or diocesan EpiScopocy.
This, as we have said, developed much
later. We mentioned in our previous
article that there were 35 bishops between
the mouth Of the Tiber and the Tuscan
Sea. How is this consistent with any
thing but parochial Episcopacy? Why,
Bingham states that in Asia Minor (about
the size of Great Brittany there were about
400 bishops. Bishop Burnett mentions
that at conference between st. Angus
tine and the Donatists in North Africa,
about A. d. 40, there were present be-
tween 500 and 600 bishops-and, as
would appear, from a single province
And, according to Victor Uticensis 18th
century,, from that part of Africa in
which the Vandalic persecution ragged
ego bishops fled, besides great number
that were murdered and imprisoned, and
many more who were tolerated" Greg
Dry Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo- C@sa-
rea in Pontus, states that he had but II
Christians in charge when he was ordain-
ed CA. D. 240). What reply can be made
to this?
And yet DR.. Armstrong says: "I main
tain that the first organisation of the
Church on her appearance in post-Apos-
tolc times was Diocesan Episcopal. -
This looks like play upon words. We
use the word diocese in contradistinction
to parish, and understand tito have ref
erence to large area or population. If
DIR. Armstrong means that Dr. Mutually
and the elders and deacons of the church
in Lexington constitute diocese. there is
no controversy between US.
MACAULAY AND HALLAM.
8. We observed in our former article
that the attitude of erclASiUeneSS is "a
new position for the Episcopal Church ="
that it was not so in the beginning-in
L II IL