p69 [To the same.] H C Anstey, I suspect your good vicar has never read Clemens Romanus, but only his (Mr. Marshall's) epitome: probably it was before he was born that I did. But you ought yourself to have had the answer ready. Clement speaks, § 42, of bishops and deacons: but if there were several that is not episcopacy. There are only two classes - so in Timothy and Titus, called also bishops and deacons. Titus was to appoint elders, several, in each city; and Paul goes on, "for a bishop must be blameless": bishops and deacons in 1 Timothy 3. So Paul in Acts 14 chose elders for them - forgot the bishop! - and in chapter 20 calls for the elders, and then says to them "bishops" - again forgot the poor bishop or awfully despised him! We have thus the certainty that those whom Clement speaks of, § 42, were several in one place. He always speaks in the plural. They appointed persons, § 44. He does not think those should be thrown out of their ministry, and says, 'Blessed are those elders who, having finished their course before these times, have obtained a fruitful and perfect dissolution.' Clement, like Paul, ignores the existence of a bishop, writes (if there was one) to his church, without hinting at the existence of such a personage. 'Further we see that ye have put out some who lived,' etc. The letter is a letter from 'the church of God which is at Rome to the church of God which is at Corinth.' There is no trace, I repeat, of a bishop at Rome or at Corinth. The passage he refers to is the proof that he objected to their deposing their elders, but has no thought of any bishop, as the word is now used. Speaking of some - 'You have put out some' - though it was in the one church of Corinth; and calls them elders, for which archbishop Wake has translated 'priests' - Chevalier, honestly, 'elders,' with 'presbyters' in margin.

You can easily see why I suspect your clergyman (I have not his name exactly) has read Marshall, which I have not, and not Clement, which I often have, and discussed with others, too. Perhaps he has not read Tertullian or Jerome either. Tertullian says John the apostle instituted them in Asia Minor, a plain proof Paul had not. Jerome says the church got into this plan as the elders were each trying to draw the faithful to themselves, and then they set up one as primus inter pares. In Alexandria, though there was a patriarch, Jerome tells us there was no episcopal ordination till Hesychius and the council of Nice. As to Justin, I do not remember his saying anything about bishops. He speaks largely of a president at their Lord's day meeting, and his praying as well as he could, also of his holding meetings at his lodgings, at Rome, when he went there. But I cannot now look them up; but I have read them more or less, and I am not aware of any such passage, or finding it quoted on the subject. Clement being short, and I having often read it, I could lay my hand on it. As to Clemens Alexandrinus, he may be quite at ease: in his day there were bishops plenty, but the reference is unfortunate, for, if I am to believe Jerome, there was then no episcopal ordination. As to Ignatius, all the rhetoric on the subject [notwithstanding], I have no doubt it is spurious. In the genuine Syriac copies a bishop is mentioned in this way once. Now I do not doubt, according to Jerome's account, they soon came in, possibly, partly through John, too. In Clement's time it is clear there were none such that he recognises - 'not a trace' - but what totally excludes the idea.

As to Article XVII., I quite admit that God's predestination is secret to us, but the seventeenth Article is not: it is very plain, and I think very good. I may add, in Clement, § 57, where he exhorts the leaders of the sedition to submit to their elders. I have read some of Hooker, too; but [he was] one whose mind rested in human order, and not on scripture, but a reverend, godly man; but while a standard work with the clergy it is really intrinsically not worth reading. They say he died meditating on the hierarchical order of the angels. As to the Fathers, I have read some, consulted almost all, and some a good deal. But when, many years ago, I set about to read them, I found them as a body such trash that I gave it up as a study: for history they are of course useful, and I have examined them largely. Did Mr. - ever read Hermas? If that is not enough to destroy all confidence in the early church, I do not know what would. Did he ever read Cyprian or Chrysostom on the state of the church in their days? Talking of looking to the primitive church for some doctrine or morality is the most wicked humbug that ever was: either people have not read what is patristic, or they must love and excuse wickedness. Hermas was read in the churches, and is quoted by Irenæus as scripture, and Origen speaks of it as inspired. Pretty work you give one to do.

March 23rd.