himself in the singular number; and founds that power upon his having the government of the Church committed to him.f A third testimony you will find in his 72d epistle, written to Stephen, Bishop of Rome. It runs thus: "By common consent and authority, dear brother, we tell you farther, that if any Presbyters, or Deacons, who have either been ordained before in the Catholic Church, and have afterwards turned perfidious, and rebellious against the Church, or have been promoted by a profane ordination, in a state of schism, by false Bishops, and AntiChrists against our LORD's institution; that such, if they should return, shall only be admitted to lay-communion." From this testimony it appears, 1. That all ordinations of Presbyters, as well as Deacons, were performed by Bishops. 2. That the power of ordaining was so universally acknowledged to belong to Bishops, and to them only, that even the schismatics themselves observed the common rule. They would not, by departing from it, subject their ordinations to the charge of invalidity. We have another proof of this point in Cornelius' letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch. He says, Novatianus was ordained a Presbyter, merely by the favour of the Bishop of Rome; that all the clergy, and many of the people opposed it; yet, notwithstanding, he ordained him; promising, however, that he would not make a precedent of it. Thus, Sir, we have ample proof, that a Bishop, in the age of St. Cyprian, had the sole power of ordination. There is another very important point, in which Bishops were superior to Presbyters, and that is, the supreme power of the keys. No man could be admitted into the Church, nor excommunicated, nor absolved, nor restored to communion, if the Bishop refused to concur. Neither could any ecclesiastical law be made, nor rescinded, nor dispensed with, without his consent. All discipline in the Church depends upon the sacraments, and neither sacrament could be administered without authority and allowance from him. Of this, we have full proof in the works of that holy martyr. Let one suffice. It was a question much agitated in his day, whether baptism, performed by heretics, or schismatics, was valid. St. Cyprian maintained, that it was not. Now, Sir, consider his reasoning. "It is manifest," says he, "where, and by whom, the remission of sins can be given, which is given in baptism. For our LORD gave first to Peter-that power, that whatsoever he should loose on earth, should be loosed in heaven; and after his resurrection, he gave it to his Apostles, when he said, as my Father hath sent me, &c. Whence we learn, that none can baptize authoritatively but the Bishops, and those who are founded in the evangelical law, and our LORD's institution. Further, dearest brother, we want not divine warrant for it, when we say, that God hath disposed all things by a certain law, and a proper f See Cyprianic Age, p. 40. ៩ EUSEB. Hist. lib. vi. c. 43. ordinance; and that none can usurp any thing against the Bishops, all being subject to them. For Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, attempted to assume to themselves a privilege of sacrificing against Moses and Aaron the Priest, and they were punished for it, because it was unlawful." Now, whatever you may think of the force of Cyprian's argument, that baptism, performed by heretics, or schismatics, was not valid, because not done by the Bishop, or with his allowance; certain it is, that he argues upon a universally received principle in his time, that none but Bishops, and those to whom they gave authority, had a right to baptize: Firmilian has been already quoted to the same purpose. And Fortunatus, Bishop of Thuchaboris, in his suffrage at the council of Carthage, expressly says, "JESUS CHRIST, Our LORD and GOD, built his Church upon a rock, and not upon heresy, and gave the power of baptizing to Bishops, and not to heretics," &c.i This also was the opinion of Tertullian and Ignatius, as we shall see in due time. 2. In the age of Cyprian, the Bishop had equal power with respect to the holy Eucharist. No Presbyter, within his diocese, could administer it but in subordination to him. The testimonies to this purpose are too numerous to be repeated. Take two or three. In his sixteenth epistle, directed to his Presbyters and Deacons, he resents, in strong terms, the conduct of some of the former, who had admitted the lapsed to the Eucharist without his permission. Such," says he, "deny me the honour of which, by divine right, I am possessed," &c. The 15th, 16th, and 17th epistles are to the same purpose. And in his 59th epistle, he has these words: "Is glory given to GOD when... Presbyters, contemning and trampling on their Bishops, should preach peace with deceiving words, and give the communion," &c. I will add one testimony which relates to both the sacraments. It is in the 69th epistle, written to Magnus. His design is to represent the atrocious guilt of schism and the wretched condition of schismatics. Amongst other arguments, he uses the following: "Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, were of the same religion of which Moses and Aaron were, and served the same GOD. But, because they transgressed the limits of their own stations, and usurped a power of sacrificing in opposition to Aaron the Priest, they were punished in a miraculous manner; neither could their sacrifices be valid or profitable. Yet these men had made no schism; they had not departed from the tabernacle, nor raised another altar, which now the schismatics do," (meaning the Novatians,) "who, deriding the Church, and rebelling against peace and unity, are bold to constitute an [episcopal] chair, and assume to themselves a primacy, [an episcopal authority,] and a power of baptizing, and offering," that is, of celebrating the holy Eucharist. More testimonies might be produced, but surely they are needless. h Ep. 73. i Conc. Carth. Suff. 17. * k Ep. 69. And now, having made it fully appear, that a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time presided over many Presbyters and numerous congregations that he was raised to the top of the priesthood, as the pious Bishop expressed himself, by a new ordination, his orders to the presbyterate being insufficient-that he had the sole power of ordaining and confirming, and the supreme power of the keys, no Presbyter having the right to administer the sacraments but in subordination to him; it follows irresistibly, and beyond the least possibility of a reply, that a Bishop, in the third century, was superior in dignity, in power, in order, to a Presbyter. I have now nothing more to do, but to show that St. Cyprian and his contemporaries did believe this superiority of Bishops to be by divine institution. But with this I shall begin my next letter. REV. SIR: LETTER V. I AM now to show, that St. Cyprian and his contemporaries, believed that episcopacy, which has been fully proved to be diocesan, is a divine institution. One may fill a volume with testimonies to this purpose. Let a few suffice. "that our if Cyprian, in his address to Fortunatus, says, that "the people are by GoD committed to the Bishop's care."a In his discourse at the opening of the council at Carthage, he says, LORD JESUS CHRIST, and he alone, has power of setting Bishops over the Church to govern it." He says to Cornelius, that the courage of Bishops be shaken, and they shall yield to the temerity of wicked schismatics, there will then be an end of the episcopal authority, and the sublime and divine power of governing the Church." And in the same epistle, he says, that "CHRIST constitutes, as well as protects Bishops." In his Epistle to Florentius Pupianus, he says, that "it is GOD that makes Bishops," and that "it is by the divine appointment a Bishop is set over the Church." This, Sir, is but a small part of what might be produced; but I think it is quite sufficient to prove, that Cyprian believed episcopacy to be a divine institution. Let us now see what his contemporaries say. In the council of Carthage, which was holden in the year 256, Fortunatus a Thuchabori, Venantius a Tinisa, and Clarus a Muscula, expressly say, that "our LORD left the care of his spouse to the Bishops." And we may reasonably believe, that all the other Bishops of the council were of the same opinion with these three, and with St. Cyprian, their president; especially when we cona De Exhort. Martyr. p. 167. b Ep. 59. c Ep. 66. sider, that it is fully attested by other African Synods, as appears from their synodical epistles. Thus: the 57th among St. Cyprian's, is a synodical epistle, written by forty Bishops, in the year 252. In that, they consider themselves as CHRIST's Generals, having a commission from heaven to animate his soldiers under their command-as "the pastors to whom the sheep are entrusted by the chief shepherd." The 61st seems to be another synodical epistle, congratulating Lucius upon his return to the see of Rome. In that, we have Bishops of divine ordination. The 67th was written by thirty-seven Bishops, giving their resolution of the case proposed to them, concerning Martialis and Basilides, two Spanish Bishops, who had lapsed in the persecution. Now the divine right of episcopacy runs through the whole epistle. I will not give you the contents of it, but refer you to the epistle itself for your satisfaction. The 70th is another synodical epistle, signed by thirty-two Bishops, in which they expressly say, that "it was by the divine vouchsafement, that they administered God's priesthood in his Church." The 72d is another synodical epistle, written to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, in which it is expressly affirmed, that the episcopal authority is of divine appointment; and that the one altar, (which is a figure for the Bishop's communion,) is divine; and that the setting up of other altars in opposition to it, or independant on it, is to counteract a divine ordinance. Nothing can be more expressive of the belief of that council. Here, then, we have the opinion of, perhaps, all the Bishops, certainly of a great majority of them, in Mauritania and Numidia, that episcopacy is a divine institution; and, I think, nobody can, with any show of reason, doubt, that they were full as able to give a correct opinion upon this subject as the same number of Our adversaries are in the present day. Had they given an opinion upon a point of doctrine, we should not be under any obligation to acquiesce in it, unless it was well supported by Scripture proof, upon sound principles of interpretation; but here is an opinion concerning a matter of fact, which is the same as a testimony to that fact, that CHRIST, by his Apostles, did appoint an order of ministers in his Church, superior to Presbyters; and to that order was committed the government, in all spiritual matters, of both ministers and people, To these testimonies from the African Bishops, may be added those of Cornelius, the clergy, and the people of Rome. Let us begin with the testimony of those Roman confessors, who had joined in the schism of Novatianus, but soon became sensible of their fault, and returned to the communion of the Church. Cornelius, satisfied of the sincerity of their penitence, convenes his Presbyters, before whom the associates of Novatianus make the following confession: "We know that Cornelius is chosen Bishop of this most holy catholic Church, by the Omnipotent GOD and by our LORD CHRIST: we confess our error. We have been imposed upon-we have been abused by treachery and ensnaring talk. For we are not ignorant that there is one GOD, and one LORD CHRIST, whom we have confessed, and one HOLY GHOST; and that there ought to be but one Bishop in a catholic Church." This, also, was the belief of Cornelius, and all his clergy. We might fairly judge so, had we no particular evidence to the purpose; but we need not depend upon conjecture, however reasonable-we have their positive testimony. Cornelius, in one of his epistles to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, as recorded by Eusebius, says expressly, that "Novatianus usurped, and by force seized the bishopric, when it was not given him from above." And the Roman Presbyters and Deacons were as fully persuaded, that episcopacy was a divine institution. This appears from two letters written to St. Cyprian, during the vacancy in the see of Rome. In the one, having told him how far they had proceeded in the case of the lapsers, they say, that they can proceed no farther, till GoD shall give them a Bishop. In the other, their belief is fairly intimated. They tell St. Cyprian, how much his vigour in the administration of his episcopal office, agreeably to the evangelical discipline, comforted them amidst their great pressures. And, with respect to the lapsers, they say, their best course would be "to excite the clemency of GOD by submission, and draw upon themselves the divine mercy, by giving due honour to God's priest," that is, the Bishop. Thus we have the sentiments of the Bishop and clergy of the Church of Rome, when she was as pure a Church as any upon earth. Another testimony to this purpose, is that of Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem. It was the general belief of that time, as we learn from Eusebius, that Alexander was made Bishop of that city by extraordinary designation. The historian says,b it was God's special care for his Church that did it: that there was something peculiar to GOD in the matter. Alexander himself believed it; he must, therefore, have believed the episcopal office to be of divine appointment. This appears, also, from his congratulatory epistle to the Church of Antioch, when Asclepiades was promoted to the chair of that diocese. He tells them, that "his bonds turned light and easy to him, when he heard that such an excellent person was made their Bishop, by the special favour of GOD."i How, after this, can it be supposed, that Alexander did not believe that episcopacy was a divine institution ? Alexander was as well qualified as any man then living, to determine what was the government of the Church in the apostolic age. It was about the year 212 that he was made coadjutor to Narcissus in the see of Jerusalem. Narcissus was, at that time, aged 116 years, and, consequently, was born before the death of St. John. Alexander, then, must have had it from |