preme officers. All authority emanates from them. The Presbyters and Deacons are repeatedly and solemnly admonished to yield obedience to them as paramount officers in the Church of Christ. In his Epistle to the Trallians, he exhorts them "to obey their Bishop, as Christ and his Apostles had commanded them." This proves that Ignatius believed that the order of Bishops was instituted by Christ and his Apostles. Thus does Ignatius establish the doctrine for which we contend, beyond all rational contradiction. And let it be remarked, that the peculiar circumstances that attend his testimony are calculated to give it additional force. He suffered martyrdom four or five, or perhaps eight years after the death of St. John. Here, then, is this distinct and reiterated mention made of our three orders of Ministers within eight years of the Apostolic age. Will any one believe that in that short space of time, the hierarchy had been altered from Presbyterianism to Episcopacy?

Nor could it be that the good Ignatius was influenced by any sinister view in exalting the office of the Bishop. If motives of personal aggrandizement, if any worldly considerations had ever mingled themselves with the incentives that propelled him to action, they had, surely, at this time, ceased to operate. He was, at the period in which his Epistles were written, under the prospect of immediate death. He was just about to appear in the presence of that Master whom he would have trembled to think of, had he been conscious of having been influenced in his conduct by any unworthy motives. Would he have proceeded as he did, exultingly, on his way to the place of martyrdom, rejoicing in the anticipation of being offered up for his Saviour, had he made the iniquitous attempt which some are willing to ascribe to him, to overturn the government of his Church? Would he not rather have shrunk back with horror from the prospect of appearing in the presence of that Redeemer whom he had injured and insulted in his body the Church?

We defy the enemies of Episcopal government to evade, by any shifts, that strong and irresistible evidence with which we are furnished from the Epistles of Ignatius. They have never yet been able to refute or in any degree invalidate the arguments we draw from this source, and they never will be able to refute or invalidate them. CYPRIAN.

For the Albany Centinel.

CYPRIAN. No. VII.

AFTER the abundant proof in demonstration of the divine in

stitution of Episcopacy, which has been extracted from the Epistles of IGNATIUS, it would seem to be superfluous to produce the testimony of any other ancient writer. Nevertheless, I should not do justice to our argument should I stop here. The whole stream of antiquity flows strongly in our favour.

IRENEUS, the celebrated Bishop of Lyons in France, who was

the disciple of St. Polycarp, gives us also his testimony in confirmation of those truths which had been delivered by Ignatius. He asserts the uninterrupted succession of Bishops in all the churches, to the period in which he wrote. He urges this circumstance as an argument by which to refute the opinions of the hereticks, who had arisen in his day. "We," says he, "can reckon up those -whom the Apostles ordained to be Bishops in the several churches, and who they were that succeeded them down to our own times. And had the Apostles known any hidden mysteries which they imparted to none but the perfect (as the hereticks pretend), they would have committed them to those men, to whom they committed the churches themselves; for they desired to have those in all things perfect and unreprovable, whom they left to be their successors, and to whom they committed their own apostolic authority." He then adds, "because it would be endless to enumerate the successions of Bishops in all the churches, he would instance in that of Rome. He enumerates twelve Bishops, down to Elutherius, who filled the Episcopal chair in his own time." This is the testimony of Ireneus.

To prove the same point, goes the testimony of HEGESIPPUS, of POLYCRATES, and CLEMENS of Alexandria, who flourished at the same period. Clemens of Alexandria was the most learned man of his age. Giving a summary of those duties which concern Christians in general, he says, "that there are other precepts without number, which concern men in particular capacities: some which relate to Presbyters, others which belong to Bishops, others respecting Deacons, and others which concern widows." In another place he tells the Presbyters and Deacons, "that those amongst them who both teach and practise what our Lord hath prescribed, although they be not promoted to the chief seat (that is, the Bishop's) here on earth, shall at last sit on the twenty-four thrones, spoken of in the Revelations of St. John, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And again he "speaks of the gradual promotion of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, which he resembles to the orders of Angels."

To the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, we may add that of TERTULLIAN, who lived nearly at the same time. From him it appears that there had been Bishops settled in all the churches of Africa, from the times of the Apostles to his own. In his Treatise on Baptism, he says, "that the power of baptising is lodged in the Bishops, and that it may also be exercised by Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Bishop's commission." He asserts also, like Ireneus, the uninterrupted succession of Bishops in all the churches from the apostolic age. It would extend my numbers to a much greater length than I would wish, were I to dwell long enough on these articles, to give full force to the evidence we can draw from each of the Fathers; I must, therefore, pass rapidly from one to another.

ORIGEN, who was the scholar of Clemens Alexandrinus, and who lived in the last of the second and beginning of the third century, lends his aid also in confirmation of our doctrine. Speaking of the debts in the Lord's Prayer, he first insists on the debts or duties, common to all Christians:" and then adds, " Besides

these general debts, there is a debt peculiar to widows who are maintained by the Church, another to Deacons, another to Presbyters, and another to Bishops, which is the greatest of all, and exacted by the Saviour of the whole Church, who will severely punish the non-payment of it." Here he surely asserts that Bishops are made by Christ himself superior to Presbyters and Deacons.

But let us now come to the writings of CYPRIAN, Bishop of Carthage, in which the most irresistible light is thrown on this subject. I shall give only a few quotations. In reasoning against Novatian, he says, "that there being only one Church, and one Episcopacy all the world over, and orthodox and pious Bishops being already regularly ordained through all the provinces of the Roman Empire, and in every city, he must needs be a schismatic who laboured to set up false Bishops in opposition to them." He affirms, that there cannot be more than one Bishop at the same time in a Church. He maintains, that Bishops are of our Lord's appointment, and derive their office by succession from the Apostles. "The Church," he says, "is built upon the Bishops, and all acts of the Church are governed and directed by them." He speaks of the Christians under his charge, as his Clergy and people, his Presbyters and Deacons. He advises Rogatian, one of his contemporary Bishops, who had desired his opinion concerning a disobedient Deacon," that if he persisted in provoking him, he should exert the power of his dignity (whereby he means his Episcopal office), and either depose him from his office, or excommunicate him." He complains that some of his Presbyters had arrogated powers to which they had no claim. He even excommunicated some of them for their presumption. He expressly asserts the authority of Bishops over Priests as well as people. He charges all who disobey their Bishop with the sin of schism. In short, to transcribe all that St. Cyprian has said in our favour on this point, would be to write a volume.

Thus does this cloud of witnesses give their united testimonies in proof of the apostolic institution of the Episcopal form of Church government. And EUSEBIUS, who lived in the latter part of the third and the beginning of the fourth century, has, as it were, completed the evidence we derive from this source. He traces back the succession of Bishops in many of the churches, from the apostolic age to his own times. Eusebius had the advantage of all the records of the Church, which could be collected by the aid of Constantine the Emperor of Rome. He lived only two hundred years after the Apostles. He traces back the succession of Bishops at Jerusalem to St. James, of Rome to Linus, of Alexandria to St. Mark, of Antioch to Evodius, of Ephesus to Timothy, of Crete to Titus.

After the times of Eusebius, that the Church was Episcopal, both in her sentiments and in her form of government, is almost as certain as that the sun shone. When AERIUS appeared in the fourth century, and, because he himself was disappointed in his expectation of obtaining the office of a Bishop, of which he was ambitious, endeavoured to sink the Bishops to a level with Presbyters, he met with the general indignation and abhorrence of the Church. For this attempt he is stigmatised as a heretick by Epiphanius, and his new opinion represented "as full of folly and madness, beyond

what human nature is capable of." Could the Church, then, at this period, have been in any degree verging towards these equalizing principles that have since gained admission into her?

Thus strongly does the current of antiquity run in favour of Episcopal principles. The advocates of parity have here, no evasion by which to avoid the force of this accumulated evidence. A, few of the Fathers indeed, they have endeavoured, but in vain, to enlist in their service. On the opinion of St. JEROME they place their principal reliance. Let us, then, examine for a moment, the testimony of St. Jerome, and see whether he advances any thing that will operate to their advantage.

Let it be remarked that St. Jerome flourished in the last of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century. His testimony, therefore, supposing it to militate against us, could not be estimated as possessing the same weight as that of those writers who lived nearer the time of the Apostles. It happens, however, that St. Jerome, so far from having advanced any thing that militates against our opinion, has said a great deal in confirmation of it. His words are these: "Having observed that the names of Bishop and Presbyter are used promiscuously in the scriptures, and that the Apostles call themselves Presbyters, he concludes, that at first there was no distinction between their offices, but that Apostle, Bishop, and Presbyter, were only different names for the same thing; and that the churches were then generally governed by a college of Presbyters, equal in rank and dignity to one another. Afterwards divisions being occasioned by this parity among Presbyters, when every Presbyter began to claim as his own particular subjects those whom he had baptised; and it was said by the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas;' to remedy this evil, it was decreed all the world over, that one of the Presbyters in every Church should be set over the rest, and peculiarly called Bishop, and that the chief care of the Church should be committed to him." This is the wonderful passage on which the advocates of parity place so much reliance, and which they represent as fraught with such ruinous consequences to the cause of Episcopalians. Let us analyze it, and we shall find that it is perfectly harmless.

こ

In the first place it will be observed, that St. Jerome merely hazards a conjecture, which he thinks probable on this subject; and as he, as well as ourselves, in matters of opinion is fallible, we are left to judge of the degree of probability on which his conjecture rests. But St. Jerome builds this conclusion on the promiscuous use of the terms Apostle, Bishop, and Presbyter in the Scripture, which has already been shown to be too weak a foundation to support its superstructure. Chrysostom and Theodoret had remarked the same community of names, but they did not think themselves justified to draw such an inference from it. They still maintained that there was a difference in the authority, which was possessed by the different orders of Ministers. But let us admit that all that St. Jerome says on this subject is well founded. Let us admit that his premises are just, his conclusion legitimate. Let us admit that first there was no distinction between the Ministers of the Church of Christ, but that all its concerns were managed solely by a College of Presbyters. What is the conclusion that can be drawn from

1

these concessions which will prove in any degree inimical to us? This is the only inference which we shall be licensed to draw, and which is perfectly innocuous, as it relates to our principles. It will follow, that although there was but one order of Ministers existing in the beginning, yet the Apostles, as soon as men began to say, "I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," and dissention began to rise from this source, instituted the order of Bishops, and invested them with supreme authority in the Church. Let it be noted, that this is said to have been done by the Apostles. The order of Bishops is, then, according to St. Jerome, of apostolic institution. This is all that we wish to prove. That the Apostles had a reason for making this appointment surely ought not to diminish the veneration in which we hold it. The same imperious reason will subsist in every age of the Church.

But let us account for these expressions of St. Jerome which have even the appearance of giving a degree of countenance to the principles of our adversaries. He was highly offended at the conduct of some Deacons, who, in consequence of the wealth they had acquired, acted with insolence towards their Presbyters. This excited the resentment of the venerable Father; and whilst under the influence of these feelings, what wonder that in order to humble the Deacons and elevate their Presbyters, he should speak in exaggerated terms of the dignity of the latter? On such an occasion it was natural to run into this extreme. But even whilst in the height of his zeal for the Presbyters he is almost exalting them to the Episcopal dignity, he admits that-in the business of ordination, Bishops are superior to Presbyters. In another place he says, that what "Aaron, his sons and the Levites were in the temple, such are the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Church of Christ." St. Jerome then says nothing that will contribute to give countenance to those principles which are maintained by the advocates of parity.

I might go through the other Fathers from whom they have endeavoured to derive succour. But if their principal support fails them, his auxiliaries can do them but little service. I have now slightly glanced at the support which we derive from the testimony of the primitive Church. I leave it to my readers to judge whether with such evidence as this on her side, the Episcopal Church has any thing to fear from the assaults of her adversaries.

CYPRIAN.

For the Albany Centinel.

CYPRIAN. No. VIII.

THUS I have, as it were, barely laid open to view the fountains

from which we draw our evidence in favour of Episcopacy. I have displayed only the corner stones of that strong foundation which supports the principles of Episcopalians. I have not been able to enter into a minute or thorough investigation of the subject of Church government.