ner, appears to me to have a way of thinking, of which the small portion of philosophy I am master of, will not enable me to give any tolerable account.

The council of Laodicea, which met some time in the fourth century, after specifying particular instances of subordination to the Bishop, sums them up thus: "So likewise the Presbyters, let them do nothing without the precept and counsel of the Bishop." This is exactly the language of Ignatius; no ministrations in the Church were admitted without the Bishop's authority; of course he was the head of the clergy, and sacred orders were derived only from him. The council of Arles, which was held before that of Nice, commands the same thing.P So likewise the thirteenth canon of the council of Ancyra, according to the Latin of Isidore. And all this exactly coincides with Jerome's advice-" Be subject to thy Bishop, and receive him as the father of thy soul." Strange advice, if Jerome did not think episcopacy was founded upon the word of God!

There were three remarkable facts which occurred; two of them in the fourth century, the other in the beginning of the fifth. The latter case was thus: Musæus and Eutychianus, who were only Presbyters, took upon them to ordain; but the council of Sardis would not admit them into the order of clergy: they would admit none "but such as were ordained by Bishops, who were so in truth-for they were no Bishops that imposed hands on them." This shows clearly, what the council of Sardis thought of Presbyterian ordination. It was declared by them to have no validity, because the ordainers had no authority to impose hands.

One of the other two cases, was that of Ischiras, who was ordained a Presbyter by Colluthus, who was himself no more than a Presbyter. Ischiras was reduced to lay-communion by the synod of Alexandria, because he was not ordained by a Bishop. Perhaps you will say, that was done because it was contrary to the canons, which had appropriated ordination to the episcopal office. But that evasion will be of no manner of service to you; for, happily, we have a full account of the matter in the synodical epistle of the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, Lybia, and Pentapolis, and in the joint letter of the clergy of the province of Mareotis, both preserved in the works of Athanasius. These Bishops say expressly, that the ordination was null, because it was performed by a Presbyter. "How came Ischiras," say they, "to be a Presbyter, and by whom was he ordained? Was it by Colluthus? But Colluthus died a Presbyter, so that all the impositions of his hands were invalid and null." The clergy of Mareotis likewise say, "Ischiras, who calls himself a Presbyter,

o Can. 56.

p Ut presbyteri sine conscientia episcoporum nihil faciant. q "Sed nec presbyteris civitatis sine episcopi precepto amplius aliquid imperare, vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque parochia aliquid agere." Can. 19. See TAYLOR on Epis. p. 114.

* Ep. ad Nepot.

s Can. 19.

is not a Presbyter, since he was ordained by Colluthus, who assumed an imaginary episcopacy, and was afterwards commanded by Hosius, and other Bishops synodically assembled, to return to the order of Presbyters, whereto he was ordained. And consequently, all those whom Colluthus ordained, returned to their former stations, and Ischiras himself became a layman." Here is not a word said about a violation of the canons of the Church; that would have made the ordination of Ischiras uncanonical, but not invalid. His ordination was not admitted, because it was performed by a Presbyter, and a Presbyter had not the power of ordaining; consequently, there must be a higher officer in the Church, to whom ordination belongs, and that officer can be no other than the Bishop. This is an excellent comment upon Jerome's assertion, Quid enim facit Episcopus, quod etiam Presbyteri non faciant, excepta ordinatione? "What does a Bishop do, which a Presbyter may not, excepting ordination?" In the opinion of all the writers and councils of the fourth century, no Presbyter, from the original restriction of his office, could ordain. We may, therefore, very reasonably suppose, that, Jerome meant to comprehend within his observation, the power of a Presbyter in the apostolic age.

The third case is that of Maximus, who was another imaginary Bishop. All his ordinations were pronounced null by the council of Constantinople. Taylor on Epis. p. 103.

When the canons of the Church were transgressed by clergymen, they were either deposed or suspended from the execution of their office, but still their character remained; but if they performed any clerical act, although it was deemed irregular and contumacious, yet it was not deemed invalid, except by a few rigid disciplinarians. When the clergyman repented, and was restored to the exercise of his office, he was not re-ordained, not having lost his character by the sentence of deposition, nor were his baptisms reiterated. But in the cases adduced, the ordinations were pronounced null; because they were performed by Presbyters, "who" says Ambrose "gave nothing, because they had nothing to give." This was, beyond controversy, the opinion of the fourth century.

Upon these facts I shall make one observation-It is a very surprising thing, that those who were concerned in these ordinations, did not contend for their right to ordain, and did not attach a party to themselves upon that ground. Nothing could have been more praise-worthy, than to restore primitive ordination, and thereby strip usurping Bishops of their ill-gotten power. They could hardly have failed of success; for the truth of the matter, in that day, must have shone with great lustre. There could have been no difficulty in determining what were the sentiments of the second and third centuries; no more than there can be in my determining what have been the sentiments and practice of Episcopalians or Presbyterians for the last two hundred years. The fathers of the fourth century had the Scrip

tures in their hands in as great purity as we have, and they were full as capable of understanding them as we are. If, then, the Scriptures assert a parity of ministers in the Church, as well as the whole Christian world, for the first three centuries, in the name of common sense, how could it be, that in the fourth century, hundreds of Bishops, a large number of whom are acknowledged by all to have been great and good men, could have had the impudence and wickedness, (if they had the power,) to deprive Presbyters of their just rights; and that these Presbyters should have been so stupid, or so regardless of what was due to them, as not to make the least struggle in their own defencethe people too, remaining quiet spectators of this most flagitious act of injustice. Sir, if you can believe this, all I have to say is, that you have greatly the advantage of me.-Credat Judæus Appella, non ego.

t

"No

We shall now, I think, be pretty well prepared to appreciate what you object to the testimony of Eusebius. You say, one disputes that before the time of Constantine, in whose reign Eusebius lived, a kind of prelacy prevailed," [a kind of prelacy! What does that mean?]" which was more fully organized by that Emperor. But does Eusebius inform us what kind of difference there was between the Bishops and Presbyters of his day?" Supposing he does not in so many words, do not others inform us, that Bishops were an order of apostolic institution, and that Presbyters had no power of ordaining ministers? Do not Ambrose, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and Jerome, expressly tell us so? Do not the councils who invalidated ordinations by Presbyters, tell us so? Do not all the clergy of Mareotis tell us so? Now, who can doubt that Eusebius, who was a Bishop, held the same opinion as to the government of the Church, with all the writers of his age? What "contemptible cavilling" is it to set aside the testimony of Eusebius, because he does not give us a detail of the particulars, in which a Bishop was superior to a Presbyter in his time, when others do, and when our opponents acknowledge that they do? What "contemptible cavilling" is it to assert, that because Eusebius does not expressly say, ordination is the prerogative of a Bishop, when he gives us numerous instances of Bishops ordaining Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and never once hints at an ordination by Presbyters, that his testimony is nothing to our purpose? What "contemptible cavilling" is it to say, that Eusebius can render us no service, because he does not assert that confirmation was administered by Bishops only, when others in the same age do assert it, particularly Jerome, and when several assert the same thing, from fifty to a hundred years before Eusebius? What " contemptible cavilling"

t The testimony of Ambrose was forgotten in its proper place. This father says, St. Paul had ordained Timothy a Bishop: Unde et quemadmodum episcopum ordinet ostendit. Neque enim fas erat; aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret majorem." He then gives this reason-Nemo tribuit, quod non accepit. This testimony can never be evaded.-AMBROSE in loco.

VOL. I.-3

is it to say, that because Eusebius does not positively declaré episcopacy to be a divine institution, and does not positively say, that Bishops in the apostolic age, and for a hundred years afterwards, were the same as in his age, that, therefore, they were different, when he speaks of Bishops in the first three centuries, exactly as he does of Bishops in the fourth, without the least hint of any difference of authority; and when he declares the Bishops of his time to have derived their authority by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles, and the Apostles theirs from CHRIST; and, consequently, that the episcopal office is of divine origin? Is it not "contemptible cavilling" to say, that because Eusebius does not expressly declare that Bishops were Diocesans, that, therefore, he ought not to be considered as a witness to that kind of episcopacy, when he gives us the names of the Bishops of the four great cities, Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, in which there were many Presbyters, and thousands of Christians, and, consequently, numerous congregations? But this is a point of the utmost consequence, and deserves a very particular discussion: I shall, therefore, defer it till we ascend into the Cyprianic age; and I hereby promise you, that if I do not completely prove congregational episcopacy to be the invention of man, that I will never more consider diocesan as any thing but a wise, human institution.

But to Eusebius' account of the succession of Bishops, you object his own acknowledgment, that he had to rely much on tradition, and that he was but scantily supplied with historical documents. But Eusebius could not mean, that he was at a loss about the government of the Church, from the want of records; for if he had never seen a line upon that subject, tradition alone was quite sufficient to determine whether it was episcopal or presbyterian. He was born about the year 266. Now, he must have known some who were born in the second century, from whom he could have known what the government of the Church was in their youth, and who must have had the same information from hundreds who were born in the apostolic age. Forms of government are matters of great notoriety, and can undergo no essential change without much commotion. Eusebius gives no hint of any change in the government of the Church; but, on the contrary, speaks of it in the same manner in the first century, in which he speaks of it in the subsequent ages down to his time. He frequently distinguishes the officers of the Church by the usual names-Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. He also gives the succession of Bishops in different Churches, which would be ridiculous, upon any other principle than that of one Bishop to a diocese. And as to the difficulty of settling the succession, for a short time, in the Churches of Rome and Antioch, it is very rationally accounted for by Hammond, who, in this particular, is generally followed by learned Episcopalians. The circumstance of there being thousands of Jews in those cities, who were still tenacious of the Mosaic rites, particularly of the Sabbath,

rendered it next to impossible for the Gentile converts to worship with them. Each, therefore, by apostolic indulgence, had a Bishop, which continued probably till the destruction of Jerusa lem. That event convinced the Jewish converts that "the law was but a shadow of good things to come ;" and thenceforth we find in those Churches a clear single succession. When, therefore, Eusebius speaks of a scantiness of materials for his history, it cannot be as to the form of church government; för of that he could not possibly be ignorant; but of numberless particulars of an inferior nature, which are seldom noticed in the records of any diocese, but are left to a precarious existence, by being entrusted to memory. In remote and obscure Churches too, where the people were illiterate, and not much cultivated in any respect, he could be furnished with but few materials: but such as they are, we find episcopacy every where prevailing. But, after all, making every concession upon this point that can be reasonably expected, Eusebius had no small collection for his work. He certainly had all that we have, and a great deal that we have not. He tells us himself, that he was furnished with all the records of the Churches throughout the empire, by the order of Constantine. He had also the histories of Hegesippus and Papias, who wrote very near the apostolic age, and who were acquainted with numbers that had conversed with the Apostles. The learned Valesius, in his edition of Eusebius' history, gives a long list of writings and records, with which that celebrated Bishop was furnished; so that, notwithstanding your caveat and Milton's sneering observations, we have quite enough in Eusebius to show, that a true and proper episcopacy existed in his day, and had existed from the apostolic age.

I shall now close this letter, and in my next begin with the writings of the third century. These will bring forward the subject of congregational episcopacy, and, of course, what you deem facts in favour of it.

Before I conclude, I shall just observe to you, that you have a very improper way of quoting authors. If it be a Latin or Greek author, you sometimes give us the English without the original, even when the sense of the original is very different from what you give it as when you translate consignant, ordain; and in a few other instances, as will be shown hereafter; and you also give us the English, without referring us to that part of the work which contains the original. This puts an opponent to a great deal of unnecessary trouble. I must, therefore, tell you plainly, Sir, that if this controversy proceed, you must give the original, unless it be a passage well known, and about which there can be no dispute, or unless the passage be very long; but in every instance, you must note precisely the place whence you took the quotations. I will promise you to do the same: we shall then see the words of an author with our own eyes, and proceed in a fair and scholar-like manner,