And, by the way, we should desire no better evidence than the epistles of Ignatius present, that the only episcopacy which existed in the age immediately after the apostles (the time in which that father lived) was parochial, and not diocesan; that is, that the only bishop then known was the pastor of a single parish or congregation. That there were several worshipping assemblies in this parish is not improbable for then such public edifices as we now call churches were unknown. Christians were neither able nor permitted to erect them; and no doubt separated themselves for social worship into as many private houses, upper chambers, and even cellars and caves, as might be necessary for their reception and accommodation. Still, in each city or town they seem to have been considered as one body; to have had one pastor, with several assistants; to have communed together as often and as unitedly as possible; and to have been fond of considering themselves one church. That this principle was carried out into practice with different degrees of success and perfection, according to the numbers and local circumstances of these little christian communities respectively, and the degree of persecution they endured, we may not only conjecture to have been the case, but we have satisfactory evidence that it was really so. Yet the general plan seems to have been to consider all the christians in the same city or town as one church. And hence in all the epistles of Ignatius, as well as in contemporary and immediately subsequent writings, we see abundant evidence that the bishop spoken of is represented as always present with the people when assembled for worship; as having one assembly and one altar or communion table in his parish; as eating of one loaf, having one prayer, and, in a word, uniting in all the acts of solemn worship. Again, the bishop is represented in the same writings as not only present with his flock whenever they were convened, as conducting their prayers and presiding in all their public service, but also as the only administrator of baptism and the Lord's supper; as the only person by whom marriages were celebrated and children catechised; as bound to take cognizance of the relief of every poor person in his parish; and as called in duty to search out and know every individual in his flock by name, not overlooking even the servant men and maids. We cannot suppose it can enter into the imagination of any one that it is physically possible for services of this kind to be per

formed by a diocesan bishop, with a number of congregations and presbyters under his care. The statement can agree only with the pastor of a single parish. As to the subterfuge to which Dr C. resorts, in order to evade the force of this representation, viz. that Mr John Wesley, while he had the whole Methodist body in England under his care, was able, in travelling over the whole kingdom, to have the name of every member, however humble, brought in writing under his notice, we think it utterly inapplicable to the case, and worthy of ridicule only.

Dr Cooke makes some remarks on Dr Miller's testimony from Hilary, (sometimes called Ambrose), which appear to require a passing notice. This testimony was mentioned in a preceding page, when Hilary was brought as a witness in behalf of the prelatical claims of Timothy and Titus; but it may not be improper to bring it into view again, to present it in a clearer light, and to divest it of some of the entanglements by which Dr Cooke has attempted to make it speak a language entirely different from that which its venerable author plainly intended. The extract from Hilary is as follows: "After churches were planted in all places, and officers ordained, matters were settled otherwise than in the beginning. And hence it is that the apostle's writings do not in all things agree with the present constitution of the church; because they were written under the first rise of the church. For he calls Timothy, who was created a presbyter by him, a bishop; for so, at first, presbyters were called: among whom this was the course of governing churches, that, as one withdrew, another took his place; and in Egypt, even at this day, the presbyters ordain in the bishop's abBut because the following presbyters began to be found unworthy to hold the first place, the method was changed, the council providing that not order, but merit, should create a bishop."-(Comment. on Ephes. iv. 2.) In this form Dr Miller exhibited the testimony of Hilary. Of this exhibition Dr Cooke makes much and loud complaint. He complains, in particular, that in the extract, as given by Dr Miller, clauses are picked out from a long page of Hilary, detached from their proper connection, and made to speak a language which, properly understood, they ought not to be considered as speaking; and, especially, that the word translated ordain, has no reference to ordination whatever, but means entirely another thing.

sence.

H

We have carefully compared the extract as given by Dr Miller with that which is given at length by Dr Cooke, and we think not only that Dr C.'s complaints have no solid foundation, but that several of them are childish. It is true that Dr M. evidently, in order to avoid giving his readers the trouble of a long and tedious extract, a very large portion of which would have been wholly irrelevant, selected those parts which were to his purpose. But in doing this he certainly did no injustice to the connection and scope of the venerable father. Had he given the whole, he would, undoubtedly, have confirmed rather than weakened his own argument. Not a single sentence is perverted from its genuine meaning; and although the translation, as presented by Dr M. is, in one or two cases, what may be called free, yet we are persuaded it is, in no instance, chargeable with any departure from the spirit of the original. Of this perhaps a better example cannot be given than in reference to the clause: "And in Egypt, even at this day, the presbyters ordain in the bishop's absence." For although there are no words in the original which strictly answer to the English words even at this day, yet every intelligent and candid reader will perceive, at once, that the scope of the original calls for this rendering; that consignant is in the present tense, and that the whole reasoning of the author would be lost if the substance of Dr M.'s version were not adopted.

As to Dr M.'s rendering the word consignant, ordain, it is of no account whatever to his argument. Some very eminent episcopal writers, indeed, have adopted the same meaning. Yet he frankly acknowledges, in his second volume of "Letters," (p. 215), that there is some uncertainty as to its proper rendering; but remarks as follows: "whatever religious rite it is that Hilary refers to, it is something which the bishops in his day generally claimed as their prerogative; but which had not been always appropriated to them; and which, even in his time, in the bishop's absence, the presbyters considered themselves as empowered to perform. This is sufficient for my purpose." We concur in this opinion; and also think that the explanation ought to have been sufficient for Dr Cooke.

Our readers must not suppose, from these decisive awards in Dr Miller's favour, that we are prepared to acquiesce in every tittle, both of authority and of reasoning, which he has advanced. Amidst so great a number of quotations from

different authors, ancient and modern, and of commentaries upon them, it would be strange indeed if his vigilance and caution, which are commonly so much on the alert, had never slumbered. We verily think that, in regard to all leading and important points, both his authorities and his arguments are impregnable; yet, in a few minor cases of both, we are free to say that, if we had been at his elbow, and had been consulted, we should have advised some omissions and some modifications. Still the articles which we could have wished altered are all of them trifling. They have not, in a single instance, an unfavourable bearing on any one material point in the controversy: and, what is remarkable, Dr Cooke has not happened to notice one of them; probably for the best of all reasons, that he had not sufficient acquaintance with the subject to perceive them.

The only remaining observations we have to offer respecting the testimony of the fathers on the subject of episcopacy, shall be in relation to the extracts adduced by Dr Miller from Jerome; concerning which Dr Cooke is of the opinion that great injustice has been done to that father, as well as to the public. We shall not so far trespass, either on the patience of our readers or on the pages of this work, as to detail at length the extracts usually adduced from Jerome by the friends of presbyterianism. Their amount is generally known. Their close and their quintessence is in these words: "Our intention in these remarks is to show, that among the ancients presbyters and bishops were the very same. But, by little and little, that the plants of dissentions might be plucked up, the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. As the presbyters, therefore, know that they are subjected by the custom of the church. to him who is set over them, so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by any real appointment of Christ." This extract is taken from Jerome's Commentary on Titus, i. 5, and in his epistle to Evagrius he expressly maintains the same doctrine, quotes at length the same passages of Scripture in support of it, and comes to the same conclusion.

Dr Cooke, however, treading in the footsteps of Dr Bowden, deals out against Dr Miller charges of gross misrepresentation and perversion in the most unceremonious manner. We should be deeply surprised at these charges, did we not recollect how completely prejudice can blind the most intel

ligent and upright minds; and did we not see so much evidence of Dr Cooke's repeating, almost by rote, even the frivolous objections and allegations of his guide. But we have not the least fear that any candid reader who understands Latin, and who has intelligence enough to comprehend the spirit and scope of Jerome's reasoning, will charge Dr Miller with the smallest misrepresentation or perversion of either. We have neither room nor inclination to examine in detail Dr C.'s twenty closely printed pages of cavil and protest against the simple and obvious meaning of Jerome. We shall make short work of it. We agree with Dr Miller, not only in his version of this father, but likewise in the substance of all his comments, for the following reasons:

The first is, that we find another passage in Jerome, which Dr Miller has not quoted, but which plainly corroborates his interpretation of that father. It is from his epistles, the 83d in order, directed to Oceanus, a presbyter, and is in these words:" In utraque epistola, sive episcopi sive presbyteri (quanquam, APUD VETERES, IIDEM EPISCOPI ET PRESBYTERI fuerint) quia illud nomen dignitatis est, hoc ætatis ; jubentur monogami in clerum elegi." Here the venerable father declares, as plainly as words can enable him, that in the primitive church (for the members of the primitive church were alone the veteres in his day) bishop and presbyter were THE SAME; that is, the same office, the one name being expressive of dignity, the other of age.

The second reason is, that it is impossible to represent Jerome as speaking otherwise than Dr Miller represents him, without making him weakly and inconsistently contradict himself. The whole scope of the passage extracted from his commentary, and the occasion, purpose, and reasoning of the epistle to Evagrius, all conspire to show that he could not have had any other meaning than that which presbyterians ascribe to him, and which episcopalians reject and resist. To suppose that he can mean any thing else is to make him talk idly, and to destroy all connection between his premises and his conclusion.

Our third reason is, that some of the greatest and best men in the christian church, nearly contemporary with Jerome, speak in substance the same language, and bear testimony to the same fact. Augustine, undoubtedly one of the greatest names in all uninspired antiquity, for the united characteristics of intelligence, learning and piety, writing