heretics, and cast you out as aliens and enemies: BUT WHENCE are heretics aliens and enemies to the Apostles? it is by opposition of DOCTRINE.” c. 37.

But what says Tertullian about the order of Bishops by DIVINE RIGHT? You shall hear: "The highest priest, who is the Bishop, has the right of administering Baptism. Then the Presbyters and Deacons, yet NOT WITHOUT the Authority of the Bishop, BECAUSE of the HONOR of the church.” Well, (our opponents will reason) here, at least, Bishops are High Priests; now the high priest was an order by divine right superior to the other Priests; it follows then Bishops are a divine order above Presbyters. Besides Presbyters can do nothing without the Bishop's authority. What can be more decisive! So triumph our high churchmen from this passage. Their triumph shall be short. They have not generally the honesty to quote the very next words, as this would spoil all in a moment. We will give the whole passage: "The Highest Priest, who is the Bishop, has the right of administering Baptism. Then the Presbyters and Deacons, yet not without the authority of the Bishops, because of the honor of the church. THIS BEING PRESERVED, peace is preserved. OTHERWISE the RIGHT belongs even to laymen. However the laity ought especially to submit humbly and modestly to the discipline or ecclesiastical regulations of the church in these matters, and not assume the office of the Bishop, seeing their superiors, the Presbyters and Deacons, SUBMIT to the same. Emulation is the mother of Divisions. All things are lawful to me, said the most holy Paul, but all things are not expedient.' Let it suffice that you use your LIBERTY in cases of necessity, when the condition of the person, or the circumstances of time or place compel you to it." De Baptismo, c. 17. This is too plain to need comment. To prevent divisions, as Jerome says, to secure the peace of the church by taking away emulation, the mother of divisions, Tertullian shews, one Presbyter was placed over the rest, as the highest Priest, that is, the highest PRESBYTER: and yet by no divine right: all, even laymen have, HE SAYS, the right. His words are, "Alioquin etiam laicis Jus est." This is enough for our present argument, and with other bearings of his words we, at present, have nothing to do.

In his most celebrated work, his Apology, whilst describing the order and government of the church, he says, "PRAESIDENT PROBATI quique SENIORES, &c. Approved Elders or PRESBYTERS PRESIDE amongst us; having received that honor not by money, but BY the suffrages of their BRETHREN." cap. 39.* Reeves, who was, as has been remarked, a rigid churchman, in his note on the place, says, "The presiding Elders here,

*"Seniores are, in the Greek language, called Presbyters," says the learned Popish Ecclesiastical Historian Cabassutius. Notitia Eccle. p. 53. Indeed this is beyond all doubt the direct and proper TgEoBUTEgos, Presbyter, senior:"

sense. Scapula says, TgEOBUTEgos, senior;" Schrevelius: "

and Suicer:"TgEBUTEgos, id est, senior."

are undoubtedly the same with the Igorsws in Justin Martyr." (vid. page 52 of this Essay.) Here the Presbyters preside. One, as Primus Presbyter, as the highest Priest or highest Presbyter, presided over the rest, and, for distinction's sake, was called Bishop. So in another very noted passage in his Praescriptions against Heretics, he speaks of the Apostolical churches "Over which the APOSTOLICAL CHAIRS still presided.' The order was usual, in the meetings of ministers in the Primitive church, for the Ministers' chairs to be set in a semicircle. The middle chair was raised a little above the rest. The highest Presbyter or Priest sat in this, and the other Presbyters or Priests sat round him. The Deacons were never allowed chairs, they always stood. I mention the fact without justifying it. Now these were the chairs Tertullian means. The Presbyters sat in them, and thus in council presided over the church in common. So says Jerome, "the church was governed by the common council of the Presbyters.” Here then PRESBYTERS are Apostolical SUCCESSORS, SIT in APOSTOLICAL CHAIRS, and are the SAME ORDER with Bishops.

Origen flourished about A. D. 130. All he says is conformable to the statement of Jerome, viz. that Presbyters and Bishops are substantially the same order; the circumstantial difference is, that one Presbyter was set over the rest, and distinguished by the denomination of Bishop. If we shew this substantial identity, it will follow of course that the difference is only circumstantial. Let us hear Origen. "Dost thou think that they who are honored with the Priesthood, and glory in their Priestly Order, walk according to that order? In like manner, dost thou suppose the Deacons also walk according to their order? Whence then is it that we often hear reviling men exclaim, 'What a Bishop!' What a Presbyter!' or 'What a Deacon is this fellow.' Do not these things arise from hence, that the Priest or the Deacon, had, in some thing, gone contrary to his order, and had done something against the Priestly, or the Levitical order." (r) Here is the Priesthood and Priestly order; and the Levitical order; the Bishop and Presbyter are EQUALLY put into the first, i. e. the Priesthood, or Priestly order; and Deacons are noticed in the place or order of the Levites. The Bishops and Presbyters are spoken of as one and the same order. In another part, speaking of the Queen of Sheba admiring the order of Solomon's servants, Origen's lively imagination supposes that Solomon's household typified the church of God; and Solomon's servants, the ministers of the church: " Imagine the ecclesiastical ORDER, SITTING in the seats or CHAIRS Of BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. She saw also the array of SERVANTS STANDING to wait in their service. This (as it seems to me) speaks of the order of Deacons STANDING to attend on divine service." (s) Here one and the same ecclesiastical order includes both Bishops and Presbyters. Again: "What will it profit me to sit in a HIGHER chair, if my works are

not answerable to my dignity." (t) This is his mode of representing the circumstantial difference of a Bishop-occupying the dignity of a "higher chair," in sitting, with his Co-Presbyters, to preside over the church. For he says the Presbyters preside over the church too. Thus, addressing his hearers in Hom. 7, on Jeremiah, he says, "WE of the CLERICAL ORDER Who PRESIDE over you." Now every one knows that ORIGEN was NEVER any thing more than a Presbyter. Speaking in another place of the ambition of some persons to be great in the church, he says, "They first desire to be Deacons, but not such as the Scripture describes, but such as devour widows' houses, and for pretence make long prayers; and therefore shall receive a heavier judgment. Such Deacons consequently will go about to seize the HIGH Chairs of Presbyters-PRIMAS cathedras. Some also, not content with that, attempt more, in order that they may be called Bishops, i. e. Rabbi; but they ought to understand that a Bishop must be blameless, and have the rest of the qualities described there, (Titus i. 6, &c.) so that though men should not give such a one the NAME of Bishop yet he will BE a Bishop before God." (u) This is the general style of Origen on this subject, and the substance of what occurs in his Works on the matter. It is clear enough that Jerome has given us the sense of Origen, as well as of the rest of the Ancients. He was perfectly acquainted with Origen's opinion, and translated many of his works. Bishops and Presbyters, with Origen, were the same order; they RULED the church in common, the PRESBYTERS PRESIDING with the Bishop; he having a higher chair, and being distinguished by the name of Bishop.

Cyprian flourished about A.D. 250. He was a great and good man, and nobly sealed the truth with his blood as a martyr for Christ. However he certainly had some-what inflated views of the dignity of a Bishop, and is considered to be as high as any of the Primitive Fathers in his notions on the subject. Yet they amount to no more than Jerome's statement. Let the man that says they do produce the proof. One thing may assist the reader's judgment here. He has seen the levelling views of Tertullian. Now it is well known that Cyprian was so PASSIONATE an ADMIRER of TERTULLIAN as never to let a DAY pass without reading some part of his writings; and his language, in calling for his Works to be brought to him regularly for this purpose, was, "DA MAGISTRUM”. "Give me the Master." The admiring scholar must resemble his master.. Well, then, even under Cyprian, the church was ruled in common by the Bishops and Presbyters. Cyprian did not suppose he ought to DO ANY THING of moment in his church WITHOUT the council of his clergy. Writing to his Presbyters and Deacons, he says, "From the beginning of my Episcopacy I determined to do nothing of my own accord, but only by your council, and with the consent of the People. When, by the grace of God, I return unto you,

then we will, as our MUTUAL HONOR REQUIRES, CONFER IN COMMON upon those things which have been done, or which still remain to be done." (v) But he goes further than this. He shews his opinion that the Presbyter had powers, by divine right, to perform ANY of a BISHOP'S DUTIES in his absence. In his seclusion from the rage of his persecutors, he writes to his Presbyters and Deacons, saying, "I beseech you, according to your faith and religion, that you perform your own duties, and also those belonging to me, so that nothing may be wanting either as to discipline or diligence." Ep. 5. Again, having mentioned matters of church government; "I rely upon your love and your religion, which I well know, and by these letters I exhort AND COMMIT THE CHARGE to you, that you whose presence does not expose you to such peril, would perform ALL those things which the administration of the church requires." Ep. 6. These passages are decisive in proof, that, substantially, the Bishop and Presbyter were in Cyprian's opinion the same. The PRESIDING power of the clergy is very strongly put by him, when, in writing to Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, he speaks of them as the most illustrious CLERGY PRESIDING WITH THE BISHOP Over the church." Ep. 55. Again, as "the sacred and venerable Consistory of his clergy." Ep. 55, p. 107. He applies the term Praepositus, President, as well as Pastor, to the Presbyters, and to the Bishops in common. Ep. 10, 11, and 62. In his Epistle to Pupian, when put upon the point of clearing himself from some vile slanders which Pupian had encouraged by giving credit to them, he stands in the defence of the divine authority of his office in the church, and places it upon this, that he was a PRIEST, sacerdos, that is, a Presbyter. None of our high churchmen deny that a Priest is a Presbyter. All authority, human and divine, makes the PRIESTHOOD to be ONE and INDIVISIBLE. Cyprian mentions no distinction or division of it. Here again, then, the Bishop and Presbyter are in substance the same.

66

The Epistle on the Unity of the Church will develop the same thing. He explains and confirms his views by the case of the Apostles. Peter, he thinks, had the first grant of the Keys. After the Resurrection, each and all of the other Apostles had EQUAL power given to that of PETER." This, he supposes, gives a principle of unity, a kind of headship, with EQUALITY of power amongst ALL. Having laid down his scheme in the Apostles, he applies it to all Ministers. "ALL are PASTORS, but the flock is only one, which was fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent." He proceeds to point out the duty of keeping this unity in general, and shews the importance of the Bishops of different parts of the church acting on the same plan, in order to prevent the scheme of Novatus and others, who tried to gain over, and did gain over, some of the Bishops to their side. This was good advice. Then "All Ministers are Pastors," as really as all the Apostles

(v) Ep. 6, ed. Pamel. 1589.

were Apostles: and one person in each city or district having a kind of headship over others, for the sake of unity, perfectly consists with equal powers amongst all; as much so as that the Apostles had all equal power notwithstanding the headship of Peter. Whether Cyprian was right or wrong in his opinion about Peter's headship, makes no difference to our present argument. We give his scheme merely to shew Cyprian's views of the substantial identity of Bishops and Presbyters, with the shadow of a distinction between them in the headship of the Bishop. One remark easily suggests itself, which is this, that the same mode of arguing which our high churchmen employ for their view of Bishops, jure divino, is employed with equal plausibility by the Papists for the universal headship of the POPE. Cyprian maintained the DIVINE RIGHT OF EQUALITY amongst all Pastors, and that the difference was circumstantial and non-essential. The contrary tends to Popery.

FIRMILIAN was a CELEBRATED BISHOP OF CESAREA, in Cappadocia. He was cotemporary with Cyprian. A very long letter of his is found in Cyprian's works. He says, "All power and grace is in the church, in which PRESBYTERS PRESIDE, and have the POWER of Baptizing, CONFIRMING, and ORDAINING. Omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta sit, ubi PRAESIDENT MAJORES NATU, QUI et baptizandi, et MANUM IMPONENDI, et ORDINANDI, possident POTESTATEM. This is every way a DECISIVE TESTIMONY. The manner in which he puts it shews that he had not a suspicion that the assertion had any thing in it contrary to Cyprian's views. Had Cyprian believed in the divine right of the order of Bishops, as possessing the SOLE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF ORDINATION AND CONFIRMATION, he would necessarily have opposed the doctrine of Firmilian as a dangerous heresy. He did not. The consequence is plain: he did not hold such a view of the divine right of Bishops.

The decisive language of Firmilian gives a proper key to Cyprian. The Letter of Firmilian has the most perfect authenticity. Firmilian is equal, or even superior authority to Cyprian himself. Eusebius, (Eccles. History, L. 6, c. 26) says, "HE was VERY FAMOUS." "He made," says

66

Howel, a MUCH MORE considerable figure in the church at that time than the Bishop of Rome. Firmilian was President of this council," i. e. the council of Antioch. (w) Firmilian's testimony is as high and as decided as language can make it. And it does not speak of isolated facts, but of the PRACTICE of the church. It was the practice then for Presbyters to preside over the church, to confirm, and to ORDAIN. Suppose this chiefly to have been confined to the country of Firmilian, that is Asia Minor; this is abundantly enough. Firmilian was known over the whole Christian world. The PRACTICE was NEVER condemned; the ordinations were NEVER OBJECTED to. This case is worth a THOUSAND single instances of ordination; for

(w) Howel's Pontificate, p. 24.