You sum up the evidence, which the preceding quotations afford against diocesan episcopacy, in the following triumphant manner; These extracts are remarkable. Though they are precisely those which Episcopalians generally adduce from Cyprian in support of their cause, the discerning reader [the discerning! Aye-there lies the emphasis] will perceive, that all their force lies against that cause.' Now, Sir, I do not perceive, that, in the great mass of evidence which I have given for diocesan episcopacy, I have made use of one of these extracts; although I might have used them all with propriety. Your intimation, therefore, that these extracts are the only or the principal dependance of Episcopalians, shows, either that you do not know what we have to say, or, that knowing it, you were not ingenious enough to produce it. I suppose the first part of the alternative to be the truth; for, I never will admit any thing that bears hard upon your integrity. And what a strange thing is it, for a man to undertake a controversy, when he does not know the whole of the evidence his opponents can bring against him! Even the great number of quotations that I have made, and which are so pointed, so uncontrollable, are not a quarter part of what I might have made; and there is also a variety of topics from which powerful arguments might be raised, such as no man ever has, or ever can answer, that I have entirely omitted, merely for the sake of brevity. But whoever wishes to see them handled in a masterly manner, may consult Bishop Sage's Cyprianic Age, and the Vindication of it.

You go on: "It is evident from the extracts, that Bishop and President are used by this Father as words of the same import.” So we say too-the Bishop, presiding over both clergy and people. A Presbyter, also, may be styled President, in an inferior sense, as he presides over his own congregation. But Cyprian, I believe, generally uses the word Prepositus, President, to signify a Bishop. And what a curious circumstance it is, to make this an argument against diocesan episcopacy, without first proving that parochial was the government of the Church! Whichsoever was the fact, the appellations Bishop and President must be understood accordingly.

You proceed: 6 The officer thus denominated, was the only one who had the power of administering baptism.' There is nothing that looks like that in all the writings of Cyprian. His doctrine was perfectly the same with that of Ignatius-that the Bishop had the chief, but not the sole power of the keys. None could baptize and administer the Eucharist, without his authority. This is every where apparent in Cyprian; and this superior power of the keys, upon which all discipline is founded, is an invincible argument against parity; and, as such, I have urged it in this controversy.

But as there is nothing like matter of fact, to convince the generality of readers, I would observe, that Tertullian, who had been a Presbyter of the Church of Carthage some years before

Cyprian, says, that Deacons had a right to baptize, when given them by the Bishop. Now, we may be sure from this testimony, that this was the fact in that Church; and, consequently, that the Bishop's power of the keys was not sole, but supreme.

Further you say: 'The Bishop in Cyprian's days was chosen by the people of his charge.' If he were, it does not at all affect diocesan episcopacy; but, as I have already observed, try your hand upon Bishop Sage, who has pretty amply discussed that point. The Bishop was ordained over a particular flock.' You mean over a single congregation. The contrary has been demonstrated-‘And received his ordination in the presence of that flock.' That might very well be-all that chose, attended, no doubt; and those who did, received every possible accommodation. In no other sense can we conceive, that a Bishop was ordained in the presence of his flock, when that flock consisted of many thousands, as I have fully proved was the case at Carthage.

Your other inferences are so much of a piece with the foregoing, that it is not worth while to consider them. Let our readers compare them with the proofs I have given, that diocesan episcopacy was the government of the Church in the third century, and then judge for themselves. I am perfectly willing to leave the decision to every impartial mind.

I shall just notice, before I conclude this letter, your unfounded assertion, that Cyprian repeatedly calls Presbyters his colleagues. Now, Sir, I, on the contrary, assert, that he never once calls them his colleagues. He sometimes, indeed, calls them his Fellow Presbyters, and this is frequently done by Bishops in our day. The same condescending language is very common among military men. A General frequently addresses even common soldiers, in the familiar style of, fellow-soldiers. But how ridiculous would it be to infer from this, that the soldiers and their General are colleagues! Just so ridiculous is the inference, that Cyprian and his Presbyters were equal, because he sometimes calls them his fellow-presbyters. His colleagues he never calls them.

I will conclude this letter in the words of Dodwell. Speaking upon this point, he says, Cyprian appropriates the word colleagues to Bishops, and plainly intimates, that Presbyters were entirely excluded from that college.r

p Dissert, Cyp. 10. p. 200, Et quidem ita propriam facit episcopis ut collegas presbyteris opponat, &c,

LETTER VI,

REV. SIR:

In my last, I finished a pretty long list of testimonies from the writings of St. Cyprian, and proved, I am persuaded, beyond the possibility of refutation, that he and all his contemporaries did believe and assert the divine institution of episcopacy. I also considered three or four passages which you adduced from that father, to which you give a very surprising gloss, and which does not display your usual ingenuity; for episcopacy still shines in them, notwithstanding your efforts to obscure it. I shall now close the evidence from the Cyprianic period, by considering your quotation from Firmilian, Bishop of Cesarea.

In an epistle addressed to Cyprian, Firmilian thus speaks: "But the other heretics also, if they separate from the Church, can have no power, or grace, since all power and grace are placed in the Church, where Elders preside, in whom is vested the power of baptizing, and imposition of hands, and ordination." You add, 'this passage needs no comment. It not only represents the right to baptize, and the right to ordain, as going together; but it also expressly ascribes both to the Elders who preside in the Churches.'

This needs no comment!' Concise enough, to be sure! But there are some of your readers, who will, I hope, venture to think for themselves. To such I address the following observations:

1. Firmilian was a very distinguished Bishop, and contemporary with Cyprian, from whose works we have extracted such a body of evidence, that Bishops, in his day, were an order superior to Presbyters, as cannot possibly be controlled. 2. Firmilian appears to have been perfectly of the same mind with Cyprian, in all matters relating to the discipline and government of the Church, as any one may see, who will read the whole of the 75th epistle. 3. Firmilian was the disciple of Origen; and we have seen that he asserted the divine institution of episcopacy. From these considerations we have strong ground to presume, that Firmilian had the same sentiments with respect to episcopacy that all his contemporaries had.

But what amounts to more than presumptive evidence, Firmilian, in this very letter, explains what he means by Elders. "How is this," says he, "that when we see Paul baptized his disciples again after John's baptism, we should make any doubt of baptizing them who return from heresy to the Church, after that unlawful and profane baptism of theirs, unless Paul was less than these Bishops of whom we are speaking now, that these, indeed, might give the HOLY GHOST by imposition of hands alone, but Paul was insufficient for it." Now we see of what kind of Elders Firmilian was speaking; it was expressly the

Bishops, to whom belonged the supreme power of baptism, confirmation, and ordination. It has been made as clear as any matter of fact can be made, that Bishops, in the age of Cyprian, were the supreme ministers of the sacraments, and the sole ministers of confirmation and ordination; and Firmilian's ascribing these powers to Elders, would prove decisively to every impartial person, that by them he meant Bishops, even if he had not said so himself; but when he calls those who were to lay their hands upon the returning heretics, by the appropriate name of Bishops, such Bishops as he and Cyprian were-there cannot be the shadow of a doubt remaining. And here let me add, that when the appellative Bishop is used by the writers of the third century, it is always used in the appropriate sense; and Presbyters are never called Bishops, as has been fully proved by Pearson and Dodwell. I will give you another quotation from the 75th epistle, which will answer the double purpose of strengthening the above proofs, if they need it, and of showing Firmilian's coincidence of opinion with Cyprian and the other African Bishops, and with his master Origen, in regard to the divine institution of diocesan episcopacy. After showing from Scripture, that the Church was founded upon Peter and the other Apostles, he says, "where we may observe, that the power of remitting sins was granted to the Apostles, and to those Churches which they, when sent forth by CHRIST, formed and founded, and to those Bishops who succeeded them in a due and regular course of vicarious ordination. Under what other notion can we, therefore, consider these adversaries of the one Catholic Church, whereof we are members, these enemies of ours, of us I say, who are successors to the Apostles," &c. Here Firmilian declares himself, and Cyprian, and the other Bishops of his time -Bishops in the appropriate sense of the word-Bishops, who had many Presbyters and many congregations under themBishops, who had the supreme power of the keys, and the sole power of confirmation and ordination; he declares, I say, these "diocesan Bishops to be the successors of the Apostles, holding by vicarious ordination, the very commission which they held; and then, by irresistible consequence, diocesan episcopacy is a divine institution. If any man can now doubt what sort of Presbyters or Elders Firmilian speaks of, all I have to say is, that he has the power of doubting entirely at his own disposal.

I am really, Sir, astonished, that such a man as you are, should give in to that puerility of catching at every passage of the ancient writers, in which Bishops are styled Presbyters, when you very well know, that the High Priest is generally styled Priest, and that a Bishop is a Presbyter, as the greater implies the less. If you can produce any passages from the writers of the third century, (I confine myself to that at present,) in which a Pres

q PEARSON'S Dissert. and DoDWELL in Pearson's Dissert. prima de Succes. prim. R. Epis. chap. ix. p. 97. 4to.

byter is styled Bishop, it would be something in your favour; but I believe you will search long enough for those passages.

I shall now close the testimonies of the third century with the usual quotations from Tertullian, who, as you justly observe, 'began to flourish about the year 200.' As he was converted to Christianity twenty-five years before that period, he is a good witness for the government of the Church, both in the beginning of the third century and in the latter part of the second. Let it also be remembered, that he was a Presbyter of the Church of Carthage, but never attained the episcopal dignity. He was greatly admired for his extensive learning, by St. Cyprian, who always I called him his master. We may, therefore, very reasonably suppose, that Cyprian and he did not differ in the article of Church government. Towards the close of his life, indeed, he fell into the errors of the Montanists, and there the orthodox Bishop of Carthage left him.

The quotation which you have given from Tertullian, I claim for episcopacy. It has been proved from Origen, that, in the early part of the third century, diocesan episcopacy prevailed in the Church. Indeed, all the testimonies I have produced from the different writers of that age prove the same thing; for it is ridiculous to talk of any change a few years before those men lived, when they so positively, so repeatedly, and so unanimously, found episcopacy upon apostolic institution. Tertullian, we shall find, bears his testimony to the same thing, in the following passages: "The chief or highest Priest, who is the Bishop, has the right of giving baptism, and after him, the Presbyters and Deacons; but not without the Bishop's authority." Now, what would a man, who has no hypothesis to maintain, think and say of this passage? Certainly he would say-here, it is evident, that Tertullian speaks of an order, or grade, to which he gives the title of High Priest and Bishop, and which, of consequence, from the very title, must be possessed of powers superior, not only to those of the Deacon, but also of the Presbyter. And this is not only implied in the title, but the writer also gives an instance of the superiority of the Bishop, in ascribing to him, as its source, all the power which the inferior orders have to baptize; and the same must be true, also, of whatever other powers they are possessed. Now, if this be not the meaning of Tertullian, then I do declare, that I have not intellect enough to discover the meaning of as plain a passage as ever was written. This, too, is exactly the language, and precisely the sentiment of Cyprian and his contemporaries, as has been proved ad satietatem. They all ascribe to the Bishop the supremacy of the keys, or sacraments, and all the power which the inferior orders exercise in the Church; and the Bishop's power they ascribe to the apostolical commission, and that commission to CHRIST; and thus they make out the divine institution of episcopacy. And this, I aver, was the universal opinion, so far as the records of antiquity inform us, from the first foundation of the Christian Church; as I hope to make appear in due time,