The

the succession of faithful ministers found in the orthodox churches, yet he is very far from placing this succession, as prelates do, in a personal succession of individual men. true succession, according to Tertullian, is to be found mainly in true doctrine, the very last standard by which the claims of the prelatico-Romish succession could bear to be tested. Thus he affirms,1 But if the heritics FEIGN OR FABRICATE SUCH A SUCCESSION, THIS WILL NOT HELP THEM. For their DOCTRINE itself, compared with the doctrine of the apostles, will, by its own diversity and contrariety, pronounce against them, that it had not as its author any apostle or apostolic man; for as there was no difference among the apostles in their doctrine, so neither did any apostolic men teach any thing contrary to them, except those who DIVIDED FROM THE APOSTLES, and PREACHED DIFFERENTLY. TO THIS FORM of trial will appeal be made by those churches HENCEFORWARD daily established, which though they have neither any of the apostles, nor any apostolic men, for their founders, yet ALL agreeing in the SAME FAITH, are, from this CONSANGUINITY OF DOCTRINE, to be esteemed NOT LESS APOSTOLICAL than the former.'

Our conclusion, therefore, is, that, in the time of Tertullian, who stood, as Neander remarks, on the boundary between two different epochs in the development of the church, there was a growing elevation of the presiding elder, or presbyter-bishop, to which, however, a powerful opposition still existed. It also appears that, even then, the bishop was but a presbyterian pastor, having a presidency over the other pastors and officers, and the church generally; and that presbyters were therefore still regarded as the true successors of the apostles. And of this opinion was archbishop Usher.3

IV.

THE TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS, origen, and GREGORY
THAUMATURGUS.

4 6

Hippolytus, probably of Arabia, flourished about A.D. 220. In reference to his writings, Dr. Wilson remarks, The apostolic tradition, being indeed a modification from the eighth book of the Apostolical constitutions, merits equal contempt, and carries its obvious grounds of condemnation. on its face. Yet was it written when bishops were parochial, commissioned without imposition of hands, when a presbytery was in every church, when the presbyters were all

1 De Præscript., c. xxxii and xxxiii, in Wks. p. 210. 2 Neander's Hist. of Ch. Rel., vol. i, p. 199. 3 See his Reduction of Episcopacy to Presb. Govt., Lon. 1656; on the testimony of Tertullian, see Dr. Miller on Min. p. 111, etc.; Schism, p. 141; Powell on Apost. Succ. pp. 56-58; Anderspn's Defence, p. 181; Plea for Presb. p. 262; Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. of the Ch, pp. 40-44; Jamieson's Cyp. Isot. 433, 450; Baxter's Disput. 93-95. Prim. Govt. pp. 63, 64.

preachers, and the deacons served.' The tract Against the heresy of a certain Noetus,' the patripassion, contains much good sense, and has claims of genuineness. In the first paragraph Noetus is said to have affirmed, that Christ was the Father, and that the Father himself suffered; that Noetus was Moses; and his brother, Aaron; and that the presbyters, having heard these things, and cited him, they examined him before the church.' He denied, but afterwards defended, openly, his opinions. The presbyters summoned him a second time, condemned,' and 'cast him out of the church.' If this be a part of the writings of Hippolytus against heretics, mentioned by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius, and quoted, without name, by Epiphanius, it accords with all antecedent evidence, and evinces, that the presbytery in a church, then, had the power of citing, trying, and excommunicating heretics.

Origen flourished about the year A.D. 230, and lived a presbyter. His views on the subject before us, as far as they can be known from his imperfect remains, are nearly similar to those of Tertullian. He speaks of one general order of the ministry, and of bishops, as distinguished from other presbyters, by their ecclesiastical dignity and power. He nowhere allows them to be a distinct order, having any inherent preeminence and authority. The custom of fixed presidents was, in his day, evidently progressing fast towards its consummation in the fixed order of prelates. The following are quotations from his writings, from which it may be clearly deduced, that bishops and presbyters were the same order, and, therefore, that presbyters are the ministerial successors of the apostles. 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 presbyter, PRIMAS CATHEDRAS. Some, also, not content with that, attempt more, in order that they may be called bishops. that is, rabbi; but they ought to understand, that a bishop must be blameless, and have the rest of the qualities described there, (Titus, i, 6, etc.,) so that, though men should not give such a one the NAME of bishop, yet he will BE a bishop before God. This is the general style of Origen, on

1 Tract 24,jin Matt. xxiii. ¡

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. We only add, that, speaking of the angels in the Apocalypse, he says, that certain ruling presbyters in the churches were called angels, by John, in the apocalypse.'

2

3

Gregory Thaumaturgus was one of the pupils of Origen, and bishop of Neocæsarea. He was denominated Thaumaturgus, or the wonder-worker, from his supposed power of working miracles. His life is written by Gregory, bishop of Nyssa. He gives the following account, as it is translated by bishop Burnet, of his introduction into the Christian ministry." 4 6 Being much set on the study of philosophy, he was afraid of engaging in the pastoral charge, and, therefore, avoided all occasions in which he might have been laid hold on, and ordained; which, Phedimus, a neighbouring bishop, observing, though Gregory was then distant three days' journey from him, he did, by prayer, dedicate him to the service of God, at Neocæsare, where there were, then, but seventeen Christians; to which the other submitted, and came and served there. Whether he received any new orders is but dubiously and darkly expressed by that author.'

This account may be considered a commentary on the opinions of Gregory, and the custom of the age. It is a further and explicit proof of the fact, that nothing like the views attached by prelatists to the sacred orders were then prevalent in the church. Gregory was made a bishop of a small parish, and while there were no more than seventeen Christians in 'Neocæsarea and the whole neighbourhood. He was also the sole pastor, and, therefore, of necessity, we must conclude, that the only distinctive importance then attached to the office of bishop, was when there were more ministers in the same church than one, and when one presided among them. At his death, Gregory said he had but seventeen Christians in his charge when he was ordained. His episcopal authority could, therefore, have been neither over pres

1 Powell on Apost. Succ.

2 On the testimony of Origen, see Powell on Ap. Succ. p. 60; Anderson's Def. pp. 185, 186; Dr. Wilson's Govt. of the Ch. pp. 65-68; Ayton's Constit. of the Ch. of Christ, p. 566; Jameson's Cyprianus Isotimus. pp. 396, 400, 407, 408, 410; Blondel, in Natali. Alexandr. p. 76. 3 Hist. of Rights of Princes, p. 9. 4 Oratio in Greg. Thaum.; see also, Basil Mag. 1. de Spir. Sanct. c. xix, Rom. Breviar, die 15, Novemb. Menolog Græc. in Wks. of Greg. Neoces. Paris, 1662. 5 Clarke's Success. of Sacred Lit., vol. i. p. 173.

byters, for his only subordinate was one deacon; nor diocesan, for he had the oversight of no more than seventeen people. This fact, which is in perfect accordance with the history of the church prior to this period, evinces, that there were but two orders, one to preach and rule, and the other to serve.1

V. THE TESTIMONY OF CYPRIAN, FIRMILIAN, AND NOVATUS. Cyprian, the martyr, bishop of Carthage, A.D. 248, is our next witness. We have carefully examined his writings, and we cannot come to any other conclusion than that, while, in his day, there was a perceptible increase in the power and assumptions of the bishops, they were, still, parochial presidents; they still regarded the presbyters as their coequals, in point of ministerial order, whilst the government of the church was still in the hands of the presbytery, in conjunction with the people.

That a change had taken place in the character of the church and in its ecclesiastical system in the age of Cyprian, every one must admit. This resulted, first, from the fact, that Cyprian and his compeers were wholly penetrated by the notion that the Jewish hierarchy was the model of the Christian ministry and church. Secondly, from the doctrine that the principle of unity was placed in the bishop alone, without whose authority nothing could be done in the church, and by which the bishop was substituted for Christ; and, thirdly, from the close connection of the bishops with one another, in their synodical assemblies, since by thus acting in concert they were able to triumph over the opposition of the presbyters, who were obliged to carry on their struggles in separate and disjointed efforts. The power and activity of Cyprian contributed much to promote this victory, and to establish those views, by which, as Dr. Nolan candidly acknowledges, a total revolution has been eventually effected in the ecclesiastical discipline.+

That there existed, therefore, in Cyprian's age, a species of episcopacy, we do not deny, and that the claims and power of bishops had considerably advanced beyond those of the previous age we also admit. But, after all, the episcopacy of the Cyprianic age can no more be called the prelacy of modern times, than an infant can be called a man. It was parochial episcopacy, abused to the undue exaltation of the presiding officer. This we will show by

1 Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. p. 85; on the test. of Gregory Thaumaturgus, see Anderson's Defence, p. 186; Clarke's Succ. of Sacred Lit., vol. i, p. 173; Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. of the Ch., p. 84; Baxter's Disput. on Ch. Govt. p. 93; Corbet's Remains, p. 103. There was but one church in Neocæsarea, in A.D. 376, as appears from the canons of the Synod which met then; (Can. 13;) see Clarkson's Prim. Episc. p. 90. 2 Neander's Hist. of the Chr. Rel. vol. i, pp. 197, 198. 3 Neander, as above, p. 195. 74 Cath. Char. of Christ., p. 138; see also, pp. 100-103, 132-134, 179-180.

proving that the church over which bishops then presided, not a diocese, but a congregation; and, secondly, that the bishop was not distinguished from the other presbyters, by any exclusive assumption of order or power.

And first, the Cyprianic church was not a diocese, made up of several distinct churches, with their several altars or communion tables, as are the churches in any modern diocese, but was one congregation, however numerous. The church at Carthage was a particular one. There was but one in the city, although its members held assemblies, for religious exercises, at different places. But independent, stated churches, with officers and discipline of their own, and members peculiarly attached to them, there were none. This may be inferred from the fact, that, in all his writings, Cyprian never once alludes to any more than one church, although he would have been necessarily led to do so by his subject, had any such existed. We have nearly one hundred epistles of this father, many of them written to his church, during his absence, and when dissensions and troubles had arisen among his presbyters, and yet he never hints that there was any church but one in the city. This appears also from the positive testimony of Cyprian. Thus having, during his absence, ordained one of the readers of his church, in writing to his presbyters, deacons, and people, he says, What was more fit than that he should be set on the pulpit, that is, the tribunal of the church, that, by the height of the place, he might be seen by the whole flock, and read unto them the precepts and the gospel of the Lord, which he had so courageously and faithfully followed, that that voice of his that had confessed the Lord, might be daily heard in reciting what the Lord had spoken (in his word).' And then he adds, that he had thoughts also of advancing him to be one of the presbyters. And the same is observable in the ordination of Aurelius, another reader, who is supposed by Cyprian to read to the fraternity, and to be reader to the same flock to whom he was bishop.

3

Now, had there,' says Mr. Boyse, been several congregations under Cyprian's charge, as their bishop, how comes he to give no intimation in which of them Aurelius and Celerinus were to officiate as readers? Nay, how comes he to suppose only one pulpit for his church, and that Celerinus's person might be seen and his voice heard of the whole flock?"

This will be further manifest from the fact, that the whole church at Carthage were accustomed, ordinarily, to join together, in the celebration of the Lord's supper. 1 See Ep. 43, and Boyse, pp. 153-158. 2 Ep. 39. : Anct. Episcop. p. 159.