escaped the observation of the Professor.— "Episcopacy (says Cyprian in his small tract of the Unity of the Church) is but one; a part whereof each (Bishop) holds, so as to be interested for the whole. The Church is also one; which by its fruitful increase improves into a multitude; as the beams of the Sun are many; as branches from trees and streams from a fountain; whose number, though it seems dispersed by the abundant plenty of them, yet their unity is preserved by the common original of them all."* Let this simple principle of Unity be. applied to the several primitive expressions of our Church, "One Altar, one Bishop;" and it will be found to consist with as many Churches, Altars, and Bishops, as can be proved to be undeniably derived from one and the same original institutor. * "Episcopatus est unus, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Ecclesia quoque una est, quæ in multitudinem latius incremento fœcunditatis extenditur; quo modo Solii multi radii, sed lumen unum, &c. Numerositas licet diffusa videatur exunditatis copiæ largitate, unitas tamen servatur in origine."-Cypr. de Unit. Eccl. p. 108. The The Unity of whose divine power and spirit, diffused at first among the chosen Twelve, stamps a Character of Unity upon all who regularly descend from them: and upon every individual, who only claims under, and owns his authority from, and his dependance on such as them. Consequently the Unity of separate congregations of Christians assembled within the same diocese, consisted, according to the primitive idea on this subject, in the ministerial offices of each congregation being performed by a person duly authorized, and acting under the appointment and direction of the rightful Bishop of the whole flock. Thus the plurality of Eucharists is made one, throughout all the united Provinces and Dioceses of the Catholic Church; in conformity to the well known maxim, 66 - Qui facit per alium, facit per se."-Thus Ignatius, one of the great Advocates for the Unity of the Christian Altar, when he says, "Let that Eucharist be looked upon as firm and established," interprets his meaning by adding; *" which is either * Ἡ ὑπὸ τῶ ἐπισκοπῆ οὖσα, ἡ ᾧ ἂν αὐτος ἐπιτρεψη. offered offered by the Bishop, or by him to whom the Bishop has committed it."-The Bishop was then, in the primitive Church, considered as the centre of Unity to that particular Church, over which he was placed. So long as all order of ministration in that Church was regularly derived from him, and carried on under his superintending authority, so long the Unity of that Church was preserved. Thus Tertullian in his book about Baptism, to the question, "Who may baptize?" answers positively; "The HighPriest, who is the Bishop, hath the power of baptizing; and after him (or in subordination to him,) Presbyters and Deacons ; but not without the Bishop's authority.”*. And before his time, the Apostolical Ignatius, who spent almost all his days in the first century, said in express terms; "That it is not lawful to baptize without the Bishop.+" Much more might be said; was it not «Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus; dehinc Presbyteri et Diaconi; non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate." C. 17. † Οὐκ ἔξόν ἔσιν χωρίς το Επισκόπε ετε βαπτίζειν, &c. Epist. ad Smyrn. p. 6. my my purpose to confine my observations chiefly to those points which constitute the foundation, on which the Professor has raised his imaginary superstructure, respecting the Constitution of the primitive Church. The reader has seen, that the Catholic phrase of One Altar and one Bishop, used by Ignatius, on which the Professor builds with such confidence and apparent security, no more proves the necessity of but one congregation in a primitive Bishop's Diocese, than it would do in the most extensive one of this or any other former ages; provided every person who ministered at each separate congregation, had a regular commission from his Bishop for so doing. The reader has had the meaning of Ignatius explained by himself; and that meaning confirmed by the testimony of Tertullian and Cyprian, both living within the third century of the Church. He has seen enough, it is therefore presumed, to authorize the conclusion, that the Professor has in this case dealt with the testimony of Ignatius, as he had before done with that drawn from other quarters; namely, brought it to prove what the author of it never designed that it should prove. The reader will also perceive (if I have succeeded in treating this subject intelligibly,) that the Professor's misinterpretation on this occasion, has proceeded from an ignorance of the language of the primitive writers; in which the expression, One Altar, is used to signify, not one individual altar, (as the Professor understands it;) but the communion of the Bishop, though in distant places and Churches; in allusion to the one altar at Jerusalem under the Law, and the one High-Priest; with whom the Synagogues in different places, and all the inferior Priests, did communicate; without supposing the personal presence of the High-Priest: upon the general idea, that personal presence, and virtual presence by delegated authority, meant the same thing. Of this imperfect acquaintance with the language of the Scriptures and antiquity, many more instances, certainly of not less importance, must occur to the recollection of all those scholars and critics, who have read, with due attention, the sundry dissertations and discussions, crowded into his translation |