"I have long preserved my patience, very dear brethren," &c. "For what danger ought we not to fear from giving offence to the Lord, when some Presbyters, neither mindful of the Gospel, nor of their own place, nor bearing in mind the future judgment of the Lord, nor the Bishop now set over them, assume all (power) to themselves with the injury and contempt of him that is set over them, which was never done at all under our predecessors." In addition to this plain assertion of his own superiority, he suspended the persons who had been received until he should return, and promises them a fair hearing before him, in the presence of the confessors and all the people. (Taylor's Works, vol. vii, p. 163.)

202. Cyprian in his two next epistles, (10th and 11th) says more on this subject, telling the Presbyters that they ought to have asked the Bishop's leave, "as was always done in time past under our predecessors." And upon its being alleged that the confessors, whose requests were almost always granted, had interceded for the lapsed, he writes, that the confessors should have kept their petitions for the Bishop to consider, and because they did not, in so doing, "reserve for the Bishop the honor of his office and chair,” he suspended them, as before mentioned; until he might be able to return and examine their cases. (Ibid.)

203. With like views, Cyprian, in his Epistle to Rogatianus, who complained to him of a Deacon who had abused him, his Bishop, writes, "Exercise the power of your office upon him, and either suspend him or depose him." He likewise commends Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, for driving Felicissimus, the schismatic, from the Church "with full authority, as becomes a Bishop."(Ibid.).

204. Dr. Miller says, "Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea, who was contemporary with Cyprian, in an Epistle addressed to the latter, has the following passage. Cyprian. Epist. 75: But the other heretics also, if they separate from the Church, cen have no power or grace, since all power and grace are placed in the Church, where Elders preside, in whom is vested the power of baptizing and imposition of hands, and ordination." (p. 179.)

205. In this very letter, however, Fermilian says, "How is this, that when we see Paul baptized his disciples again after John's baptism, we should make any doubt of baptizing them who return from heresy to the Church, after that unlawful and prophane baptism of theirs, unless Paul was less than these Bishops of whom we are speaking now," &c. (Bowden 1, 138.)

206. In his 75th epistle he says, "Where we may observe, that the power of remitting sins was granted to the Apostles, and to those Churches which they, when sent forth by Christ, formed and founded, and to those Bishops who succeeded them, in a due and regular course of vicarious succession. Under what other notion can we, therefore, consider these adversaries of the one Catholic Church, whereof we are members, these enemies of ours, of us, I say, who are successors to the Apostles," &c. (Bowden 1, 140.) 207. From a comparison of these quotations (204 to 206) it is manifest that they were Bishops whom he speaks of under the name of Elders in the first, (204.) Being a Bishop and calling himself a Bishop and a successor of the Apostles, (206) he must have had the same powers with other Bishops of the age, such as Cyprian, with Presbyters under him: consequently he did not mean to call those who were Bishops, Presbyters in the inferior sense. It has been already shown that some writers occasionally used the general term Presbyter, or Priest in speaking of the Bishop, (155 and preceding sections,) and the following quotation from Jerome, (who, according to Dr. Miller, is a decisive witness in his favour,) is an instance of the application of the word Priest to the Bishop, at the same time that the superiority of the latter is declared. Advising Nepotian, Jerome says, "Be thou subject unto thy Bishop, and receive him as the Father of thy soul. This also I say, that Bishops should know themselves to be Priests, and not Lords; that they ought to honour the Clergy as becometh the Clergy to be honoured, to the end their Clergy may yield them the honour which, as Bishops, they ought to have." (Hooker 2, 263.) See 3rd section of the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians and the 12th of that to the Trallians for passages enforcing this obligation of the Pres. byters to honour the Bishop.

208. The preceding sections had been put to press when a very strange objection to the testimony of Irenæus was observed in turning over the leaves of Dr. Miller's Reply to Dr. Bowden.

209. Irenæus states that the Apostles left the Bishops as their successors in the Churches, delivering to them their own places of governors; and that having founded and instructed and built up the Church at Rome, they delivered to Linus the Bishoprick, to govern the Church. To him succeeded Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement obtained the Bishoprick; who both saw the Apostles themselves, and conferred with

them, &c. To Clement succeeded Evaristus; and Alexander te Evaristus, and so on to twelve, (130.)

Thus the Bishoprick was delivered to one person and after his death to another; and so on, to one at a time. But we know that there were many Presbyters at the same time in Rome. Under Cornelius there were forty-six, (Euseb. Ec. Hist. Lib. vi. cap. xliii;) and Paul incidentally mentions eight Sunergoi, fellow-labourers or helpers in the Gospel, besides two Diakonoi, Deacons or ministers.*

210. To the question, Why does Irenæus single out Linus, Anacletus, &c. (209) as successive Bishops of the Church at Rome, when there were many others in that Church at the same time, who according to the Presbyterian doctrine, were all equal to the one singled out by name?-Dr. Miller has no other reply to make than this, that the statement of Irenæus is not to be relied on. In support of this he makes the following observations.

211. Irenæus "says that Anacletus was before Clemens, and next to Linus. Tertullian and several others assure us that Clemens was next to Peter, and of course before Anacletus. Epiphanius and Optatus say that Anacletus and Cletus were before CleWhile Augustin, Damasus, and others, assert that Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus, were all antecedent to Clemens. Here is perfect confusion." (Miller's Reply to Bowden p. 174.)

mens.

212. Dr. Miller has given no references, and after long search I have found Tertullian's and Epiphanius's lists. They do not agree with Dr. Miller's statements.

Tertullian's list is as follows: Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens, Evaristus, &c. agreeing entirely with Irenæus except in the intro

*These are Urbane, our helper in Christ, Sunergon, the same title which Paul gives Timothy in the same chapter verse 21, (Rom. xvi, 9;) Aquila and Prisca or Priscilla (Prisca according to Griesbach) my helpers, sunergous, (the same title in the accusative plural,) (Rom. xvi, 3;) Marcus, Aristarchus, Jesus who is called Justus, my fellow-workers, sunergoi, (the same title in the nominative plural,) (Coloss. iv, 10, 11;) the two former likewise, with Luke, and Demas who afterwards left him in Rome, are styled fellow-labourers, sunergoi, in the Epistle to Philemon 24th verse. Besides these eight who are called by somewhat different titles in our translation of the New Testament, but all by the same in the original, SUNERGCI, there were two others, Epaphras and Tychicus.

Epaphras is called a servant of Christ, (Coloss. iv, 12,) doulos, and our dear fellow-servant, sun-doulou, and faithful minister of Christ, diakonos, or deacon of Christ, (Coloss. i, 7.) Tychicus is called a faithful minister inthe Lord, (Ephes. vi, 21,) diakonos, or deacon in the Lord; and also a faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord, diakonos, or faithful deacon and fellowservant in the Lord. (Coloss. iv, 7.)

Besides these ten, there were Linus and Clemens, both of whom were afterwards Bishops of the Church at Rome, (139.)

N

duction of the name Cletus after Linus. (Tertull. vs. Marcion, Lib. iii, cap. ix.)

Epiphanius's list is as follows after Peter and Paul: Linus and Cletus, Clemens, Evaristus, &c. agreeing with Irenæus except in the substitution of the name Cletus for Anacletus, and the mention of Evaristus's name twice. (Epiphanius, Bishop, against the Heresies, Book A, heresy 27.)

To the other authors I have not access, but it is not material, inasmuch as Dr. Miller says Optatus agrees with Epiphanius, and Augustin and Damasus mention the same names as preceding Clemens, that Tertullian does.

213. The whole difference, then, is in the names intervening between Linus and Clemens. They are almost the same, and might easily be mistaken one for the other. And if Dr. Miller, who lives in an age when the art of printing has so multiplied books, has such mistakes as those above stated, it certainly would not be a strange thing if some of those who in the scarcity of manuscripts in ancient times, often quoted from memory, were to mis-spell the name of Cletus or Anacletus, and thus in process of time cause some to have one name, others to have the other, and a third set to have both in their writings. After this was written I met with the following observation in Cave's Lives, which strongly supports this view of the matter. He speaks of Cletus or Anacletus; "for," he says, "the Greeks, and doubtless most truly, generally make him the same person." (Cave's Lives 2, 189.) This statement reduces the number of lists from three to two, inasmuch as the two Greeks, Irenæus and Epiphanius, differ in nothing but in using different names of the same person, or rather spelling the same name differently; the one being a mere contraction of the other, not more remarkable than occurs in every language. Thus we have Derick for Theodorick, Elmer for Ethelmer, Ralph for Rodolph, Reynaldus for Reginaldus, &c.

214. Tertullian has one passage which, possibly, Dr. Miller had in view in the quotation above. (211.) He says, "Sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit:" "As the Church of the Romans tells of Clement ordained by Peter." The whole passage has been given in a previous section. (185.) Tertullian mentions the ordination of Clement by Peter as a circumstance stated, said, or asserted by the Church of the Romans: he does not state it on any special authority, much less does he say it on his

own. On the contrary he says expressly, "Hac cathedra, Petrus qua sederat ipse, locatum Maxima Roma Linum, primum considere jussit." "In this chair, in which Peter himself had sat, he commanded Linus, settled in Great Rome, first to sit." (Tertullian. adv. Marcion. Lib. iii, cap. ix.)

215. But why spend more time upon so insignificant an objection? Is not the statement to be relied on as to the main fact, that one was singled out and set over the Church to govern it? Does not every one, even of Dr. Miller's witnesses, testify as to the fact that there was a succession of individual Bishops, each in his day governing the Church? Tertullian uses the strong language, "Evaristus ab hoc rexit sine crimine legem." "Evaristus after him ruled or governed without reproach." The word rexit conveys the idea of governing as a king. Speaking of Higinus who succeeded Telesphorus, he uses the word magister, a master, ruler, or chief. (See passage last quoted.)

How insufficient too, an objection that will apply to the list of one Church only, while the lists of the successive Bishops of the Churches at Alexandria and Jerusalem, given by Eusebius from the time of the Apostles down, stands unaffected by it.

216. To argue that the statement, universal in the Church, that "in one city there could not be more than one Bishop," (Jerome, Miller's Letters p. 182) is not to be relied on, because there is a disagreement among the Fathers, as to the name of one of the Bishops of the city of Rome,-is about as reasonable as to argue that the same city was not governed by a succession of Consuls, but that all the Senators had equal authority in the government, because there is some confusion in the lists which are handed down, of those who successively filled that high office. If there is some uncertainty respecting the exact order in which these succeeded one another, when there was every possible inducement to keep an exact account, and every aid that power could afford to have it done, how much greater might there be expected in the records of a people incessantly persecuted, whose leading men were continu. ally slaughtered, insomuch that for 300 years every Bishop, except perhaps one, suffered martyrdom, and whose Church books were continually sought after and destroyed? How miraculous would it be if there were not some confusion in some of the many lists that were kept of the Bishops of the different Churches!

217, The simple fact that such a list was kept in each Church, is