mentions the High Priest, the Priests and Levites, in direct allusion to the standing orders of the church in that age.

. Ignatius who suffered martyrdom but four or five years after the death of St. John, and who of course must have been well acquainted with the Apostles and the government of the church in those days, says, "do nothing without the Bishop; be subject to the college of Presbyters; and let the Deacons by all means please all men; for they are not Deacons of meats and drinks, but ministers of the church of God."

Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons, who was instructed by Polycarp the disciple of St. John, and who lived within fifty years from the time of St. John's death, says, "We can reckon those whom the Apostles appointed Bishops in the churches, and who they were that succeeded them down to our own times."

Clement of Alexandria who lived also about the same time was considered the most learned man of his age. In a catechism which he published, he lays down "precepts which concern men in particular stations; some of which relate to Presbyters, others to Bishops, and others to Deacons." He also informs us in other parts of his writings, that St. John after his return from Patmos, went about the country near Ephesus, and in some places ordained Bishops, and in others clergymen by direction of the Spirit. And again speaking of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, he says he thinks they resemble the order and degrees of angels.

Tertullian about twenty years later, says that, "the power of baptizing is lodged in the Bishop, and that it may be exercised by Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Bishop's commission."

Origen who lived about the year 200, and Cyprain Bishop of Carthage twenty years later, inform us, that "Valerian the Roman emperor wrote to the senate that the Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons should be prose

cuted."

St. Jerome who wrote about the year 380, and whe did not pretend to be any thing more than a Presbyter, says that, "the Bishops are the successors of the Apos tles, and they hold the Apostle's place or office." Again, "we may know the Apostolical economy to be taken from the Old Testament; for the same that Aaron, his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, the Bishops, Priests, and Levites are in the church of God." Speaking further of the community of duties belonging to the different offices, he says, "for what does a Bishop which a Presbyter cannot, excepting ordination."* The Bishop is chief; though every Bishop is a Presbyter, every Presbyter is not a Bishop."t

Travelling down the course of ecclesiastical history we come to three facts which we think confirm these implications. Two of them occurred in the fourth, the other in the beginning of the fifth century. The latter

Nam quid facit Episcopus, quod non Presbyter, excepta or

dinatione. Comment. 1 Tim. iii.

It is proper to state that Jerome has been cited on the other side, as proving, that "before there were, by the instigation of the devil, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common councils of Presbyters." Admitting the force of this passage in the fullest sense intended by those who adduce it, it proves only that Episcopacy was the only cure that could be found by the Apostles for the evil of schism, and this is certainly saying much in its praise. The passage cannot be rehed on, to show that Bishops and Presbyters were the same of ficers under different names; for, besides that this could never be deduced from any natural construction of it; it would make Jerome contradict himself in those other numerous passages where he asserts the existence of three orders, and their different grades of superiority. He tells us, indeed, that as early as the time of St. James, that Apostle was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the hands of the Apostles. The testimony, then, of this writer as far as it goes, establishes a plain matter of fact, in which he could not be mistaken, and which he had no motive for misrepre senting, that the church had for a long time been under Episcopal government. His opinion as to the reasons which led to this form of government is mere opinion, and we may take it or leave it as we please. In either case, we have an eulogium on Episce pacy, since that alone could give peace to the churchs

case was thus; Musæus and Eutychianus, Presbyters, undertook to ordain. But the council of Sardis would admit none of them into the clergy.* One of the other two cases, was that of Ischiras, who was ordained a Presbyter by Colluthus, also a Presbyter. Ischiras was reduced to the lay communion by the synod of Alexandria. In the synodical epistles of the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, Lybia, and Pentapolis, there is a full account of it: "How come 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 are null and void." The third case was attended with the same circumstances.

In the recent discovery of the Syrian Christians, inhabiting the interior of Travancore and Malabar, there is corroborative proof of the antiquity of Episcopacy. This venerable church was planted by St. Thomas, in the early ages of Christianity, and, for 1300 years, has enjoyed a succession of Bishops from the patriarch of Antioch. During this long lapse of time, this interesting people, have existed in the wilderness, like the bush of Moses, burning and unconsumed. Insulated by their idolatrous neighbours, they have preserved pure, and uninterrupted, the order, doctrine, and worship of a regular church under Episcopal regimen, with its three orders, and a scriptural liturgy, and in short, in all its essential features, resembling the Protestant Episcopal Church in England and America. Differing from the Church of Rome, they have but two sacraments, no image worship, no purgatory, and married clergy. When their tranquil retreat was invaded by the Roman Church, who wished to force upon them a conformity with her doctrines and ceremonies, they retired to their mountains, and there cherished and preserved the integrity and simplicity of their faith and worship. How Can we account for all this, but by supposing that they received Episcopacy by succession from the Apostles, and in their migration from the west carried it with

* IX. C

them into those retired regions, where they remain a monument of its antiquity, and of the truth that the Bible and a scriptural liturgy can preserve a church in the worst of times?*

"Upon all the testimonies of the ancients," says Bishop Beveridge, "it may be observed in the first place, that three distinct orders of ecclesiastical ministers, Bishops, Priests and Deacons in the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles, were constituted, not in one place or other, but in all the parts of the habitable world then known, in Europe, Asia and Africa. If therefore there were no other this is satisfactory proof that the three orders in question were instituted by the Apostles themselves: for it appears improbable that churches established in every part of the world, and placed at so great a distance from each other, should conspire in adopting the same form of government, unless it was delivered to them by the very Apostles who delivered to them their faith."

It is universally admitted, that Episcopacy was esta blished as the exclusive form of church government, in the third century. Gibbon, who was no friend to hierarchy of his own country, says, "After we have passed the difficulties of the second century, Episcopacy seems to have been universally established, until it was inter rupted by the republican genius of the Swiss reformers." It is remarkable, that they who have undertaken to deny its antiquity, have never been able to agree on the time when it commenced. But if it had been an innovation introduced after the times of the Apostles, should we not have had some information of the fact, from cotemporary writers? We have abundant notice in the annals of these times, of the struggles for power which were carried on between the Bishops of Rome and their compeers. The disputes about the mere time of keeping Easter, which agitated, and almost rent asunder the Eastern and Western church, are also amply detailed. Is it probable, or even possible then, that an

See Christian Researches in Asia by Dr. Buchanan.

usurpation of so great a magnitude as that involved in Episcopacy; an usurpation which, on this supposition, must have raised itself on the degradation of the great majority of the clergy, could have been superinduced, without any struggle or opposition, and without any notice of such an event in all the records of antiquity? The supposition appears to us incredible. As such an usurpation, then, cannot be traced, and no one has ever yet been able to point out the period of history subsequent to the Apostolic age, in which Episcopacy was introduced, it is a reasonable presumption, that it was the order and form of government established by the Apostles themselves.

In closing the remarks on this subject, it may not be uninteresting or unedifying, to hear the sentiments of one who, whether he be considered in relation to his talents, or his piety, or his form of religion, must be acknowledged as of great authority in this case. Calvin, in his Institutes (Book iv. Chap. iv.) shews not only that the government of the church in the primitive times, was conducted by three orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, but he adds, that every province had among their Bishops an Archbishop, and this for the better preservation of discipline. And if the name (Hierarchia) given to this kind of government, (adds this reformer,) were omitted, there was nothing in this kind of government different from that which God had prescribed in his word.* Among the manuscripts of Archbishop Usher was found a paper, written by Archbishop Abbot, which explains the circumstances that had caused the failure of Calvin's project, for a general union of the Protestant churches, on the basis of uniformity of worship and government. Among other causes, the principal one as alleged is, that Calvin "had sent a letter in king Edward the Sixth's reign, to have conferred with the clergy of England about some things to this effect, whereas

* "Verum si rem, omisso vocabulo, intuemer, reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regende eccleside formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam Deus verbo suo pre scripsit."