the mouth of Narcissus, what the government of the Church was in the very age of the Apostles. I cannot conceive any thing more to the point, than the testimony of such a man.

The next person that I shall quote, as maintaining this opinion, was the learned Origen. He was born in the year 186, and for talents and literary acquirements, was not surpassed, if equalled, by any one in his day. According to Jerome, who was an excellent judge of literary merit, Origen was master of all the learning then existing, and thoroughly versed in the principles of the different sects of Grecian philosophers. This kind of knowledge, it must be confessed, led him astray from the simplicity of the Gospel. He maintained some tenets that were pretty generally condemned; but still, he was a great and illustrious man.

This man, distinguished for his talents, learning, virtue, and piety, is entirely on our side of the question. He must have known perfectly well what was the government of the Church, not only in the early part of the third century, but also in the second, and at a very early period of it too; for his father, Leonidas, who was a martyr to Christianity, and who was converted from Gentilism not many years after the death of the Apostle John, would not, we may be sure, fail to instruct him upon that subject. With such an advantage and with such talents for research, Origen could have been at no loss to trace episcopacy to its very source. In him, we find no hint of ministerial parity, no hint of a change of government. speaks exactly as we do. Let us hear him.

He

In his twentieth Homily on St. Luke, he has these words: "If JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, is subject to Joseph and Mary, shall not I be subject to the Bishop, who is of GoD ordained to be my father? Shall not I be subject to the Presbyter, who, by the divine vouchsafement, is set over me?" Here, the Bishop, as distinguished from the Presbyter, is said to be ordained by GOD; the Presbyter also, according to him, holds a divine commission; and this we most readily grant, and contend for. Again: In his book upon the subject of prayer, discoursing on the debts mentioned in the LORD's prayer, after he has named the duties common to all Christians, he adds "Besides these, there is a debt peculiar to such as are widows maintained by the Church. And there is a debt peculiar to Deacons, and another peculiar to Presbyters; but of all these peculiar debts, that which is due by the Bishop is the greatest. It is exacted by the SAVIOUR of the whole Church; and the Bishop must suffer severely for it, if it be not paid." More might be extracted from Origen, but surely this is quite enough. I shall now conclude the testimonies of this century, with a few extracts from the Apostolical Canons, These, you are

k Catalog. Eccles. Scriptor.

1 See PEARSON. Vind. Ignat. Epist. c. 11.

pleased to say, are an "impudent forgery." If your meaning be, that these Canons were not made by the Apostles, you mean no more than what we are willing to allow. We say the same thing. But if you mean to assert, that they were not compiled till a late age of the Church, say the fifth or sixth century, you stand condemned by almost all the learned. Daille contended that they were not compiled till the fifth century; but he has been completely refuted by Bishop Beveridge. Even Blondel, who had no more reason to be pleased with those Canons than you have, acknowledges, that they were published as early as the year 280. This is too late, but let it be so. They will then bear complete testimony to the practice of the Church, in the third 'century.

I do not introduce the subject of these Canons, because I stand in need of their assistance; but to show that you are incautious in calling them an "impudent forgery," unless you mean as already explained. I also wish to have an opportunity of giving our readers a summary view of Beveridge's able Defence of these Canons. I cannot possibly suppose that you have ever read that Defence; for then, I must think, that you would have been more modest in giving your opinion. Dogmatical assertions, I can assure you, Sir, will not do with us. Every thing must be brought to the test of fact, reason, and sound criticism. Let us see now, whether those Canons can be defended upon these solid grounds.

Bishop Beveridge, in his able defence, which is published in Cotelerius' Apostolical Fathers, maintains this opinion, that the Canons now in question, are the decrees of synods in the second and third centuries, collected at different times, and by different persons. This he proves from the testimonies of Athanasius and Basil of the fourth century, and from the decrees of several councils of that age. 1. The Nicene council. He shows that the 9th, 10th, 15th, and 16th Canons of that council, are transcripts of the 14th 15th, 61st, and 62d of the Apostolical Canons. But it may be said, that, perhaps, the latter are transcripts of the former. This supposition he entirely destroys, by showing, that the style of the Apostolical, is more simple than that of the Nicene Canons; and from that circumstance, which is generally admitted by sound critics, he infers the earlier date of the former. But what decisively proves it to be so, is, that the word "Metropolitan," was first used by the Nicene Council, and is never to be found in the Apostolic Canons: that dignity, indeed, that "primus inter pares" is to be found there, but not the title "Metropolitan." And let me add, what he has not observed, that the testimony of Athanasius and Basil proves the greater antiquity of the Apostolical Canons; for if they were transcripts, in the instances mentioned, of the Nicene Canons, those writers could not possibly have been ignorant of it. The Bishop next proves the superior antiquity, of the Apostolic Canons, from those of the council of Antioch. That council met in the year 341, sixteen years after that of Nice.

He gives the following view of the corresponding canonscorresponding not only in the matter, but nearly in the words.

The Bishop proves also, that the Apostolical Canons were published before the fourth century, from the canons of the councils of Gangræna, Constantinople, Carthage, and Ephesus, which were holden in that century. Further: After observing, that the Apostolical Canons were sometimes styled Ecclesiastical, he adduces proofs from a number of writers in the fourth and fifth centuries, in favour of our side of this question. 1. From a letter written by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, which letter is preserved in the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret. That letter was written before the meeting of the Nicene council. The Apostolical Canons are particularly named, and a reference evidently made to the 12th Canon. You have the Greek of both Canons translated into Latin, at the bottom of the page."

The Bishop quotes in favour of his point, a testimony from the emperor Constantine, preserved by Eusebius; and in the fifth century the testimony of the emperor Theodosius; and in the beginning of the sixth, that of the learned emperor Justinian, that of John, Bishop of Antioch, and also the testimonies of the synod of Trullo, and of the second Nicene council. Thus, abundance of evidence has been given to prove, that the Apostolical Canons are of very high antiquity; published, at the lowest, in the third century; and are an exact representation of the government, rules, and practices of the primitive Church, in the second and third ages. And now, I leave our readers to judge, whether you were prudent in pronouncing them to be an "impudent forgery."

As to the Apostolic Constitutions, I shall not concern myself about them, because they were not published till after the time when all acknowledge that diocesan episcopacy prevailed. But I shall make use of the Apostolical Canons, to which I have

m Unde fit ut nonnulli literis eorum subscribentes, in ecclesiam eos recipiant, cum tamen comministris nostris, qui hoc ausi sunt, gravissima, ut opinor, reprehensioni immineat infamia, eo quod nec Apostolicus canon id permittit. Apud THEOD. Eccles. Hist. lib. i. c. 14.

Apost. Can. 12th runs thus.-Si quis Clericus vel Laicus segregatus, vel non recipiendus, discedens in altera urbe receptus fuerit absque literis commendatitiis, segregetur et qui receptus est.

an unquestionable right, till you refute Bishop Beveridge's masterly defence of them.

"Canon 1. Let a Bishop be consecrated by two or three Bishops. Canon 2. Let a Presbyter and Deacon be ordained by one Bishop." Here the power of ordination is lodged in one person, the Bishop, and not in the presbytery. "Canon 15. If any Presbyter or Deacon shall leave his own parish, and go to another, without the Bishop's leave, he shall officiate no longer; especially, if he obey not the Bishop when he exhorts him to return, persisting in his insolence and disorderly behaviour; but he shall be reduced to communicate only as a layman." "Canon 32. If any Presbyter, despising his own Bishop, shall gather congregations apart, and erect another altar, his Bishop not being convicted of wickedness or irreligion; let him be deposed as an ambitious person: and likewise, such other clergy, or laity, who shall join themselves to him, shall be excommunicated." "Canon 39. Let the Presbyters or Deacons do nothing without the consent of the Bishop." This is in perfect conformity with the injunction of Ignatius.

"Canon 55. If any clergyman shall reproach or revile his Bishop, let him be deposed; for thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.' Exod. xxii. 28."-The same distinction of offices runs through all these canons.

And now, Sir, I may safely assert, that if any matter of fact is capable of being proved; if any matter of fact has actually been proved; it is, that diocesan episcopacy was the government of the Church in the third century.

We are now prepared to examine what you have to oppose to this great mass of clear, decisive, uncontrovertible evidence,

First: You quote a passage from St. Cyprian's third epistle, "whence we understand that it is lawful for none but the Presidents of the Church to baptize and grant remission of sins." Pray, Sir, are not the Bishops Presidents of the Churches which they govern? Can any title be more appropriate? Do they not preside in all conventions of their clergy? You certainly could not be in earnest when you quoted this passage! Your argument stands unparalleled for logical accuracy. I have tried, for some time, to make a syllogism of it: I believe I have succeeded at last. It will run thus:

A diocesan Bishop presides over both the clergy and laity of all the churches within his diocese.

A Presbyterian president presides over no clergy, but only over the laity of one congregation.

Therefore, a Presbyterian president and diocesan Bishop are the same officers.

I have not skill enough to determine to what mood and figure this syllogism belongs; but perhaps you, Sir, can settle the point. But if you could possibly have been at any loss what kind of president Cyprian means, had you read a little farther in the epistle, you could easily have satisfied yourself. It was that kind

P

66

of president who administered confirmation. Speaking of Peter and John, who confirmed the disciples at Samaria, Cyprian observes: This is our practice, with regard to such persons as are baptized in our church; who are brought before the presidents, and so, by our prayer and imposition of hands, receive the HOLY GHOST." This has been proved from Cyprian to be the prerogative of diocesan Bishops. St. Jerome also tells you so; and founds that prerogative upon the holy Scriptures. I hope you will not dispute his authority, whose soever else you may.

You go on, Ep. 67.-" The people should not flatter themselves that they are free from fault when they communicate with a sinful priest, and give their consent to the presidency of a wicked Bishop," &c. I omit the remainder of the quotation because it is long, and amounts to nothing more than this, that Cyprian calls a Bishop a priest three or four times. Well, Sir, I hope you do not mean to deny that a Bishop is of the sacerdotal order; but if you mean to infer from that, that he is on a level with a Presbyter, I should not much applaud the correctness of your inference. Aaron the High Priest is called a priest, repeatedly; indeed, most commonly; therefore, Aaron was no High Priest. Strange logic!

It appears to me to be a total waste of time to reply to suchwhat shall I call them ?-nothings.

You should, Sir, have told your "Christian brethren" that the epistle from which you made your extract was a synodical one, written by thirty-seven Bishops, and not a Presbyter among them, upon a very important occasion-the lapse of two Spanish Bishops, Basilides and Martialis; and that it was addressed "to their brethren in the LORD, the Presbyter Felix, and to the people dwelling at Legio and Asturica, as likewise to the Deacon Lælius, and to the people dwelling at Emerita." You should have told them this, and then, perhaps, they could have determined whether, after such an enumeration of the orders of the Church, a Bishop's being called a priest proves him not to hold the highest grade in the priesthood-sacerdotii fastigium-which very expression would settle the point, were there not a hundred other considerations to put it beyond the possibility of doubt.

But you have given your readers this quotation, principally, I presume, to show, that in the time of Cyprian, a Bishop was chosen by the people; and thence you infer, in the face of complete evidence to the contrary, that a Bishop presided over no more than a single congregation. But whether your premise be true or not, the inference has no necessary connexion with it. A Bishop may be chosen by the people, and yet he may preside over a hundred congregations. I shall not, therefore, enter into the dispute about the mode of electing a Bishop, but refer you to the Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic age," in which you will find a complete refutation of the notion,

n From p. 392 to 436.