Revelations were Bishops. Yet this is one of the authors favourable to your cause. See Archbishop Potter, p. 175.

The next testimony you produce, is from Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople. "The Apostle," says he, " having discoursed concerning the Bishops-omitting the order of Presbyters, descends to the Deacons; and why so, but because between Bishop and Presbyter there is scarcely any difference; and to them is committed both the instruction and the presidency of the Church; and whatever he said of Bishops, agrees also to Presbyters. In ordination alone, they have gone beyond the Presbyters." Now, Sir, this last is the grand prerogative of the Bishop-that which places him at the head of the Church; for in every government, both civil and ecclesiastical, he from whom all commissions flow, must necessarily be the chief ruler. The Presbyters instruct as well as the Bishops-they preside over their particular congregations, as the Bishops do over their particular dioceses; presidency, therefore, belongs to both but as to ordination, that be-longs not to Presbyters; therein the Bishops excel.

I really, Sir, was amazed, when I found this passage `quoted in favour of ministerial parity. It is one of those many strange things that will appear in the course of this controversy. How to account for it upon any rational ground, is indeed beyond my capacity.

But, Sir, as usual, all the testimonies of Chrysostom are not produced; for a very good reason, I presume-because they do not much help the cause of parity.

The eloquent Bishop of Constantinople observes, (Comm. Ep. Philip.) "Paul saith in his epistle to Timothy, fulfil thy ministry; being then a Bishop; for that he was a Bishop" (in the appropriate sense)". appears by Paul's writing thus unto him, Lay hands suddenly on no man." This is the very act in which the Bishops principally excel the Presbyters; by which the former are in a peculiar manner distinguished, and which the father quotes to prove their superiority over Presbyters. Again: In his thirteenth Homily on 1 Tim. iv. 4-with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery-he has these pointed and decisive words: He (Paul) does not speak of Presbyters, but of Bishops. For Presbyters did not ordain Timothy a Bishop.". All the art of man cannot evade this testimony, for it implies, 1. That Bishops, as an order superior to Presbyters, existed in the apostolic age; 2. That Timothy was one of those Bishops; and, 3. That Presbyters could not in that age, as well as in the age in which Chrysostom lived, ordain a Bishop. Need I quote any more from this author? I certainly need not. I shall but just mention his opinion of the Presbyters, or Bishops convened by St. Paul at Miletus. He supposes several of them to be Bishops in the appropriate sense of the word; but this I candidly acknowledge, does not admit of any satisfactory proof. It, however, shows, that this father believed episcopacy was an apostolic and divine institution. I would also refer you to what he says upon Acts viii.

on the subject of confirmation. He places that rite entirely in the hands of the Bishops, in virtue of their being the successors of the Apostles; and, consequently, the episcopal office is of divine origin.

Your next friend to parity is, the celebrated Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus; an eloquent, copious, and learned writer, says Mosheim. Your quoting this high churchman, as Presbyterians have always considered him, is another of your strange things; but, Sir, I do not dislike your spirit, whatever I may think of your prudence. When a man attempts great things, the greater the better; for then, if he do not reach his point, he falls nobly. Your undertaking, from first to last, is arduous, and, in some of your quotations, you are perfectly romantic. But it may be said of you, if it will afford you any comfort, as it was of a daring adventurer of old

-magnis tamen excidit ausis.

Your quotation from Theodoret is as follows: "The Apostles call a Presbyter a Bishop, as we showed when we expounded the epistle to the Philippians, and which may be also learned from this place; for after the precepts proper to Bishops, he describes the things which belong to Deacons. But as I said, of old they called the same men both Bishops and Presbyters.' Now, Sir, to every word of this quotation I can heartily subscribe; yet Í do not think that you will be much disposed to place me among the advocates of parity. Theodoret admits, what almost all Episcopalians admit, that for some time there was a community of names; but this was while the Apostles governed the Church, which prevented any inconvenience from the promiscuous use of titles. The inference, therefore, that you would have your readers draw from the above quotation, is as gross a fallacy as ever was committed to paper; and it is an inference directly contrary to the opinion of Theodoret. Why, Sir, did you not inform your "Christian brethren," that Theodoret maintains, that those who had the appropriate title of Bishop in his day, and for ages before, were called Apostles in the first age of the Church? Why did you not lay before them the following passage? "Epaphroditus was called the Apostle of the Philippians, because he was entrusted with the Episcopal government, as being their Bishop. For those now called Bishops, were anciently called Apostles; but in process of time, the name of Apostle was left to those who were truly Apostles, and the name of Bishop was restrained to those who were anciently called Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, Titus of the Cretans, and Timothy of the Asiatics." This was exactly the opinion of Jerome, and of Hilary the Deacon, as we have already seen; and nothing can be more definite and explicit.

Your next quotations are from Primasius and Sedulius, two writers of the same century; but their testimonies are not at all to your purpose; for they go no farther than to assert the community of names, to which Episcopalians readily subscribe.

After quoting these authors, you make an attempt to invalidate the argument drawn from Aerius' condemnation, on account of his asserting a community of titles in the apostolic age, and inferring from it, that there should be a parity of officers in the church. For this, Aerius was universally condemned, and branded with the title of heretic. Epiphanius calls him a madman. But you inform us, that Epiphanius is a writer of no credit, and you quote Mosheim in support of your opinion. Now, if you mean by "no credit," that he was not a man of great talents, and an accurate, fine writer, I believe you are right; but if you mean that he was not a man of integrity and veracity, you have no ground for that opinion. The character which Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, gives of him, does not accord with yours and Mosheim's. He says, "he lived a great while in Egypt, where his eminent skill and practice in the evangelical philosophy, rendered him very famous; as it did in Palestine, and in the isle of Cyprus, of which he became Metropolitan, and from thence, as from a centre, diffused the lustre of his merit and significancy, in the conduct of civil as well as spiritual affairs, throughout the world." But let his talents and learning be great or small, I think he must have had sense enough to know, that his contemporary Aërius, who was a semi-Arian, and the founder of a new sect, after he was disappointed of a bishopric, taught erroneous doctrines, of which this relating to Episcopacy was one, and that he was generally condemned by the Christian Church. Had Aerius asserted only a community of names in the apostolic age, he would never have been blamed for that by Epiphanius; for that was the general opinion; but when he inferred a parity in the Church from that circumstance, he was universally condemned for it, and pronounced a heretic. It was not because (as you say) "he set himself against the actual constitution of the Churches in his day," that he was deemed a heretic; for no man was ever so deemed for violating the canons of the Church, upon which, according to your hypothesis, that constitution rested; but because, in the opinion of Epiphanius, and the generality of Christians in that age, Aërius' notion of church government would essentially alter the Church of CHRIST. "The order of Bishops," says Epiphanius, "begets fathers to the Church of God; but the order of Presbyters begets sons in baptism, but not fathers by ordination."h Such was the catholic doctrine which Aërius opposed, and which you are at this day opposing.

But, Sir, were I to admit your objection against Epiphanius, I do not see what service it would render your cause, while St. Augustin stands in your way. I think you must know, that hei gives the same account of Aerius, that Epiphanius does; and I do not think that you will venture to assert, that Augustin de

g See PARKER's Abridg. Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, p. 412. h Her. 75.

i TAYLOR, Epis. p. 150.

serves no credit. If it be your humour to admit no testimony in this controversy, unless it come from men of great talents and extensive learning, I make no objection, however absurd the notion may be. To this ordeal, then, I present St. Augustin. What says Mosheim of him? "The fame of Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, filled the whole Christian world; and not without reason, as a variety of great and shining qualities were united in the character of that illustrious man. A sublime genius, an uninterrupted and zealous pursuit of truth, an indefatigable application, an invincible patience, a sincere piety, and a subtle and lively wit, conspired to establish his fame upon the most lasting foundations." Bishop Taylor mentions another author of that age, who bears the same testimony-Philastrius; but of him I can say nothing.

I do not see, then, but that we are entitled to our argument drawn from the condemnation of Aërius' opinions, one of which was, that Bishop and Presbyter are not, by apostolic institution, different orders in the Church; and most assuredly, had you lived in that day, and published your "letters" to your "Christian brethren," your name would have been handed down to posterity, by a sentence of condemnation passed upon that performance: for Chrysostom's opinion was, beyond all controversy, the universal opinion of that age, that ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop, which principally gives him his superiority over a Presbyter.

Before I take notice of what you have said, in answer to the testimonies adduced from Eusebius, I have some quotations to make in favour of episcopacy, which think will clearly show, that all you have said with respect to this author is mere cavil.

Athanasius, you know, was contemporary with Eusebius, and sat with him in the famous council of Nice. He was the great champion of the Trinitarian cause; and was, in every respect, a great and excellent man. Now what does this illustrious Bishop say with respect to episcopacy? You certainly ought to have told your readers, after so much profession of fairness and candour. But this defect I shall supply. Let us attend to his epistle to Dracontius. This Presbyter was elected to a bishopric, but declined the office. Upon which Athanasius writes thus to him: "But if you think there is no reward allotted to the office of a Bishop, you despise the SAVIOUR Who instituted that office. I beseech you suffer nothing of that kind to enter your mind; for what the LORD instituted by his Apostles, that is good, and remains firmly established," &c.1 Here Athanasius declares episcopacy, as it was in his days, to be CHRIST's institution by his Apostles. This is a very weighty testimony against you.

There is another writer who was contemporary with Theo

k Eccles. Hist. vol. I. 362.

p.

1 Quod si nullam omnino mercedem episcopi functioni destinatam arbitraris; Ser. vatoremque, qui eam ita instituit, contemnis, &c. Nam quæ Dominus apostolos in. stituit, ea et bona sunt, et firma persistunt, &c. Ep. ad Dracon.

doret, that deserves to be noticed-I mean Isidore, Bishop of Pelusium, of whom Mosheim gives the following character: "He was a man of uncommon learning and sanctity. A great number of his epistles are yet extant, and discover more piety, genius, erudition and wisdom, than are to be found in the voluminous productions of many other writers." Isidore says, "The Bishops succeeded the Apostles-they were constituted thro' the whole world in the place of the Apostles." He then says, that "Aaron, the high-priest, was what a Bishop is; and that Aaron's sons prefigured the Presbyters." This appears to be in perfect coincidence with the opinion of St. Jerome, who lived at the same time. They speak in nearly the same terms, and cannot be understood in any other manner, than what is strongly in favour of episcopacy.m

In this century lived Optatus, a Numidian Bishop, who says, that "the Laity, the Ministers, the Deacons, the Presbyters-nay, the Bishops themselves, the princes and chief of all, proved traditors." "There are," says he, "four sorts in the ChurchBishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and the faithful Laity;" that is, these are the constituent parts of a Christian Church. See Taylor's Epis. p. 95.

To these individual testimonies, let us add those of several councils, both provincial and general, by which we shall see, what was the opinion of the whole Christian world upon this subject.

In the year 265, a council convened at Antioch, to try Paul, Bishop of Samosata. The fathers of that council declare, (as related by Eusebius, lib. vii.) that "the office of a Bishop is sacred and exemplary, both to the clergy and to the people." Now if it be sacred, it certainly must be agreeable to the will of CHRIST. But, upon your hypothesis, it has no warrant from the word of GOD-it is an usurpation, and consequently, an antiChristian office, as you and your brethren very graciously represent it. This council, then, consisting of seventy or eighty Bishops," living but about a century and a half from the apostolic age, at a time when the Church was pure in her doctrine, and strict in her discipline; when the clergy were purified by sufferings, and kept alive to their duty, by death being constantly presented to their view in the most horrible forms: at this time, and under these circumstances, this council, bearing testimony to the divine origin of episcopacy, is to weigh less with us, than the opinion of a small part of the Christian world, for two hundred years past. He that can appreciate testimony in this man

m I am indebted for this testimony to a book, entitled A brief account of ancient Church Government, by an anonymous author. The Latin of the above quotation is as follows: "Apostolis decedentibus successerunt episcopi qui sunt constituti per totum mundum in sedibus apostolorum." Again: "Quo toto contemplari oportet, Aaron summum sacerdotem, id est, episcopum fuisse; filios ejus presbyterorum figuram præmonstrasse." Lib. ii. ch. 5.

n So says Athanasius; so says Hilary. See VALESIUS' note on Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vii.

350.