A. D. 170.-IRENAEUS, Bishop of Lyons, and Disciple of Polycarp, writes, (lib. 3, cap. 3.):

"We can reckon those Bishops who have been constituted by the Apostles and their successors all the way to our times. We have the succession of the Bishops to whom the Apostolic church in every place was committed."

The reader will observe how entirely this agrees with the statement made by Clement, that the Apostles committed the churches in different places to faithful men as their successors.

A. D. 200.-TERTULLIAN, a Presbyter of Carthage, writes: (De Prescript. c. 32.) "Let them produce the originals of their churches, and show the order of their Bishops, so running down successively from the beginning, as that every first Bishop among them shall have had, for his author and predecessor, some one of the Apostles or Apostolic men, who continued with the Apostles. For in this manner the Apostolic churches bring down their registers: as the church of Smyrna from Polycarp, placed there by John; the church of Rome from Clement, ordained by Peter; and so do the rest prove their Apostolic origin, by exhibiting those who were constituted their Bishops by the Apostles."

A. D. 250.—1. CYPRIAN, Bishop of Carthage, (Epist. 27.) Having spoken of the ministerial commission given by Christ to his Apostles, he says:

"From thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordination of Bishops and the government of the church have descended, so that the church is built upon the Bishops."

On

No writer of the primitive church, whose works have descended to us, is so strenuous an advocate for episcopacy as Cyprian. Every where in his "epistles," as well as in his treatise on "the unity of the church," evidence abounds in favor of the three-fold ministry. the authority of the learned S. R. Schlegel, we insert the following references. "He inculcates, on all occasions, that Bishops derive their office, not so much from their election by the clergy and people, as from the attestation

and decree of God. See Ep. liii. p. 68, 69. Ep. xlv. p. 59. Ep. lv. p. 82. Ep. lxv. p. 113. Ep. lxix. p. 121. He regards Bishops as the successors of the Apostles. Ep. xliii. p. 57. So that Bishops are amenable to God only; while Presbyters are amenable to the religious society. Ep. xi. p. 19. Deacons were created by the Bishop; and, therefore, can be punished by him without the voice of the society. Ep. lxv. p. 114." Much more to the same purpose might be added; and, after making every abatement for what is termed, by some, the arrogance of this learned father of the church, enough remains to prove conclusively that episcopacy or the three-fold ministry is a divine institution, upon which alone the church of Christ is founded. We are to bear in mind, also, that this writer lived near the Apostolic times, for in 250, when he was promoted to the See of Carthage, he was at an advanced period of his life.

2. FIRMILIAN, Bishop of Cæsarea.

(Epist. to Cyprian.) "The Bishops who succeded the Apostles by a vicarious ordination."

3. CLARUS, a Bishop in the council at Carthage, affirmed:

"The will of our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest, who sent his Apostles, and gave to them alone the power which had been given to him by the Father; whom we have succeded, governing the Church of the Lord with the same power." Cyprian Suffrag., p. 242.

A. D. 324.EUSEBIUS, Bishop of Cæsarea, and the most eminent of the ancient historians. After giving the names of various individuals, who were placed by the Apostles in the different churches, he remarks, generally:

"And in the sequel of this history, the succession of Bishops from the Apostles shall be set down in order.” This succession will be found by a reference to his Ecclesiastical history.

Now, these quotations from ancient authors prove conclusively that the Apostolic succession, or the regular descent of Bishops, was a universally received DOCTRINE of the church; furthermore, that such succession did IN FACT exist, and was carefully preserved, from A. D.

G2

64-70 (even in the life-time of some of the Apostles) to A. D. 324. From that period the historic testimony becomes so abundant and general that quotations are needless.

On the question of the authenticity of the works from which the above quotations are made, time and the occasion forbid us to enter. But we would merely remark, that their authenticity rests on precisely the same evidence, both in kind and degree, as the writings of ancient. authors generally; nay, even of the Holy Scriptures. This point is settled, partly by the internal marks of genuineness in the writings themselves, and partly by the concurrent testimony of antiquity in their favor. It is an easy matter to start doubts and suggest difficulties, in reference to the authorship of any ancient book; but these doubts are no direct proof of its being spurious, nor ought they to weigh a straw in the balance against the unanimous testimony of past ages.

The quotation, which we have given above from St. Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians, is conclusive on the succession. He tells us that the Apostles gave directions concerning the succession; and further, that they did this by the command of Christ. Now, this epistle of Clement is the most authentic of any of his writings. It was formerly bound up with the New Testament, not, indeed, as an inspired writing, but as of great value, coming from the pen of one who had been the personal associate of Apostles. It was also read in the churches as early as the beginning of the fourth century. In reference to it, Moshiem, (certainly the most impartial authority I can quote-or, perhaps I may say, unfavorably prejudiced,) in his Ecclesiastical history, remarking on Clement says: "There are still extant two epistles to the Corinthians, bearing his name, and written in Greek of these, it is generally supposed, that the first is genuine, and that the second is falsely palmed upon that holy man by some deceiver."

Arch-Bishop Wake incontestably proves its authenticity, as well by his own arguments as by his learned references. How, it may be asked, do we establish the authentieity of the New Testament Scriptures? Is it not by

appealing to this very Clement, and to Ignatius, and the other Apostolic Fathers? Their evidence is regarded as indispensable. The reader may consult here Dr. Lardner's credibility of the Gospel history, where he will find an ample account of these Apostolic epistles. They are adduced, by every writer of any note, as most important witnesses in favor of the truth of the christian religion. When these ancient authorities are cited for such a purpose, no one thinks of impugning their genuineness. And why should a question be raised, when they are cited to prove the succession or Episcopacy, which they do most triumphantly establish? Let those who rashly, and without evidence, deny these writings when brought to sustain Episcopacy, and particularly the succession, reflect that they also deny them when brought against the infidel to prove christianity, and thereby wrest from us one of the main evidences of our religion.

DIOCESAN EPISCOPACY.

In connection with the subjects of the preceding pages, it is necessary here to make a few remarks on Diocesan Episcopacy; for, although it is abundantly evident, as we have shown, that episcopacy or the threefold ministry, is the institution of Christ and his Apostles, and has been handed down, in succession, to us of the present day, by the special Providence of God, yet it is sometimes asserted, that the bishops of the New Testament or the Apostolic age presided over one church or congregation only, and not over many. This assertion is frequently made even by those who, we would suppose, possessed ample means of being better informed. Such, for instance, is the historian Mosheim. Our object, therefore, in these remarks, will be to show, that this assertion is in direct contradiction to the statements of the New Testament, as well as ancient authors. Bishops were always, from the very first, diocesan, having the oversight of several congregations, and many Presbyters and Deacons. This proposition we undertake to prove and place beyond the reach of doubt or controversy.

*

Dr. Mosheim, in his ecclesiastical history, expressly says, that there were Bishops in the church in the first century, besides Presbyters and Deacons. But with the view of qualifying this important admission, he adds"whoever supposes that the Bishops of the first and golden age of the church corresponded with the bishops of the following centuries, must blend and confound characters that are very different. For, in this century and the next a Bishop had charge of a single church which might ordinarily be contained in a private house."

Again, he says" The first of all the christian churches founded by the Apostles, was that of Jerusalem: and *Vol. 1. p. 85, 86.