your God, and offer to him reasonable and unbloody sacrifices, through Jesus the great High Priest. Ye are to the laity prophets, rulers, governors and kings; the mediators between God and his faithful people, who receive and declare his word, well acquainted with the Scriptures. Ye are the voice of God, and witnesses of his will, who bear the sins of all, and intercede for all; whom, as ye have heard, the Word severely threateneth if ye hide from men the key of knowledge; who are liable to perdition, if ye do not declare his will to the people that are under you; who shall have a sure reward from God, and unspeakable honor and glory, if ye duly minister to the holy tabernacle. For as yours is the burden, so ye receive, as your fruit, the supply of food and other necessaries. For ye imitate Christ the Lord; and, as he bare the sins of us all upon the tree, at his crucifixion, the innocent for those who deserved punishment; so also ye ought to make the sins of the people your own." The second is B. ii. c. 26: "The Bishop is the minister of the Word, the keeper of knowledge, the mediator between God and you in the several parts of your divine worship. He is the teacher of piety; and next after God, he is your father, who hath begotten you again to the adoption of sons by water and the Spirit. He is your ruler and governor; he is your king and potentate; he is, next after God, your earthly God, who hath a right to be honored by you.' And the passage in B. vi. c. 2, which we are especially requested to compare with these two, in order to make out the parallel between the errors of Paul of Samosata and the teaching of the Constitutions, is as follows: "Let us therefore, beloved, consider what sort of glory that of the seditious is, and what their condemnation. For if he that riseth up against kings is worthy of punishment, even though he be a son or a friend, how much more he that riseth up against the priests! For by how much the priesthood is more noble than the royal power, as having its concern about the soul, so much hath he a greater punishment who ventureth to oppose the priesthood, than he who ventureth to oppose the royal power, although neither of them goeth unpunished." To all which we ought, perhaps, to add a few words from B. ii. c. 6: "Let a Bishop be not entangled with the affairs of this life;... not ambitious... Let him be prudent, humble, apt to admonish with the instructions of the Lord, well-disposed, one who hath renounced the wicked projects of this world, and all heathenish lusts. Let him be orderly, sharp in observing the wicked and taking heed of them, but yet a friend to all; just and discerning; and whatsoever qualities are

commendable among men, let the Bishop possess them in himself."

The reader, with these passages fully before him, will, we suppose, need no comment. He will need only to bear in mind that the condemned Bishop of Antioch held a high civil office, (that of ducenarius Procurator,) with the pomp and honors of which he was thought to be exceedingly elated. The Constitutions, most manifestly, would have a Bishop magnify his spiritual office, and keep aloof from all secular employments.

3. "Paul prepared for himself a tribunal and a throne, like the rulers of this world, (ib.,) and the Constitutions give directions concerning both. Thus, B. ii. 47 directs the time and manner of the Bishop's court; B. ii. 57, the place of the Bishop's throne, and the manner in which the clergy should be arranged, the Presbyters sitting, the Deacons standing on each side of him."

Whoever will turn to the Encyclical Epistle itself, to which reference is here again made, and which may be found in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, will perceive that the offense committed was, not the preparing of a tribunal and throne, after the manner and style of a Christian Bishop, but the doing of it ostentatiously, after the manner and style of a secular magistrate. The Council observe: "We shall say nothing of his preparing himself a tribunal and throne, not as a disciple of Christ, but having, like the rulers of this world, a secretum, and calling it by this name." The Latin word secretum, which is used in the Greek text of the Epistle, indicates the separated and exclusive seat or place where the magistrate sat while deciding cases. To separate him the more effectually from all other persons that were present, the place was elevated, and inclosed with railings and curtains. Paul was deposed in the year 269. He had presided over the church at Antioch, one of the most wealthy and luxurious cities of the East. And if he was among the foremost to introduce a pompous display into the large city churches, it does not follow that this had any special connection with his speculative system. Other Bishops in flourishing cities, being situated in this respect substantially as he was, may have exerted an influence similar and even superior to his in favor of arrangements to sustain the dignity of the High Priesthood. It is certain that a few years only after the close of the third century, (after the year 313 and before the year 315, as might be shown from internal evidence,) when the newly rebuilt Christian temple at Tyre was dedicated, the preparing of thrones for Bishops was adverted to, not with reproach, but

VOL. XV.-NO. LXII.

33

with joy and congratulation. On that occasion Eusebius himself, the ecclesiastical historian, delivered a panegyric, in the course of which he said: "When the architect had thus completed the temple, he also adorned it with lofty thrones, in honor of those who preside, and also with seats decently arranged in order throughout the whole, and at last placed the holy altar in the middle. And that this again might be inaccessible to the multitude, he inclosed it with frame latticework, accurately wrought with ingenious sculpture, presenting an admirable sight to the beholders."*

But why is reference made to what the Constitutions say in B. ii. c. 47? After directing that the judicatures of Christians be held on Monday, so as to give the most ample oppor tunity for having the contending parties brought to peace before the Lord's day, the chapter proceeds thus: "Let also the Deacons and Presbyters be present at your judicatures, to judge without acceptance of persons, as men of God, with righteousness. When therefore both the parties are come, according as the Law saith, [Deut. xix. 17,] they shall both stand in the middle of the court; and when ye have heard them, give your votes religiously, endeavoring to make them both friends before the sentence of the Bishop, that judgment against the offender may not go abroad into the world; knowing that he (the Bishop) hath in the court the Christ of God, observing and approving his judgment. But if any persons are accused by any one, and their fame suffereth, as if they did not walk uprightly in the Lord; in like manner ye shall hear both parties, the accuser and the accused, but not with prejudice, nor with hearkening to one party only, but with righteousness, as passing a sentence concerning eternal life and death."

Do these injunctions indicate any influence from the Samosatean school? Our readers doubtless all remember that an apostle (in 1 Cor. vi. 1) had asked, "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints ?"

4. "It was one of the charges against Paul, that he accumulated wealth by his exactions of the people, (ib. ;) and the Constitutions are particular in their directions concerning oblations. Thus B. iv. 4-9 exhort to magnificent offerings, and B. ii. 25 had directed what was to be done with them. All these were to pass through the hands of the Bishop, who was never to be inquired of concerning them."

In reply, we call attention again to B. ii. c. 6, where it is

* See his History, B. x. c. 4.

said: "Let not a Bishop be given to filthy lucre; . . . not covetous nor rapacious; not eager after worldly things, nor a lover of money. . . . For if the pastor be unblamable as to any wickedness, he will compel his disciples, and by his manner of life press them to become worthy imitators of his own actions;❞—and to B. ii. c. 25: "Let him [the Bishop] use those tenths and first-fruits which are given according to the command of God, as a man of God. Let him dispense in a right manner the free-will offerings which are brought in on account of the poor, the orphans, the widows, the afflicted, and strangers in distress, as having that God for the examiner of his accounts who hath committed the disposition to him... Now we say these things, not as if ye might not partake of the fruits of your labors; for it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox which treadeth out the corn; but that ye should do it with moderation and righteousness."

5. "The Constitutions give to the Bishop that honor and reverence, authority, and irresponsibility to the church, which the Council that condemned Paul tell us he exacted and received from the people."

We have examined carefully the Epistle of the Council, as preserved by Eusebius; and we have been utterly unable to find any basis for this fifth and last specification. Without saying another word in this connection, we are willing to submit the whole effort concerning the discarded Bishop to any sober-minded man, of any denomination: Can Paul of Samosata be made a scape-goat to bear away into the wilderness the hierarchical sins of these mysterious Constitutions?

We hasten to other topics belonging to the subject before us. Respecting the opinions of the Ante-Nicene fathers, it may be well to call to mind the elaborate and voluminous works of Petavius* and of Bull.t Whoever has examined them, and

* Dionysii Petavii, e societate Jesu, Opus de Theologicis Dogmatibus; in six folio volumes, edited by Leclerc, at Antwerp, A. D. 1700. The second volume treats of the Most Holy Trinity, and is dedicated Trinitati personis distinctæ, PATRI ingenito et genitori; FILIO soli ac sine initio genito; SPIRITUI SANCTO, ab utroque procedenti;-uni, coæterno, consubstantiali Deo.

Georgii Bulli, S. Theologica Professoris et Presbyteri Anglicani, Opera Omnia, quibus duo præcipui Catholicæ Fidei Articuli, de S. Trinitate et Justificatione, orthodoxe, perspicuè, ac solide exponuntur, illustrantur, confirmantur; in one folio volume, edited by Dr. Grabe, A. D. 1703. The works pertaining to the subject now before us are three:-1. Defensio Fidei Nicænæ, ex Scriptis Catholicorum Doctorum, qui intra tria prima Ecclesiæ Christianæ secula floruerunt. This consists of four principal sections; the last of which is De Subordinatione Filii ad Patrem, ut ad sui originem ac principium. 2. Judicium Ecclesiæ Catholicæ Trium Primorum Seculorum, de Necessitate credendi quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus sit verus Deus, assertum contra M. Simonem Episcopium, aliosque. 3. Primitiva et Apostolica Traditio Dogmatis in Ecclesia Catholica recepti, de Jesu Christi Servatoris nostri Divinitate, asserta, atque evidenter demonstrata contra Davidem Zwickerum, Borussum, ejusque nuperos in Anglia Sectatores.

especially whoever has himself read the writings of those ancient fathers, or any considerable portion of them, must be prepared to admit the correctness of what we stated in the former part of this article. Even Petavius and Bull, those profound investigators of ecclesiastical antiquity, though they differ widely from each other in some of their representations, yet, it is well known, agree in maintaining that a theory of subordination, with correspondent modes of expression, was very prevalent before the Arian controversy, and of course in the latter part of the third century, the time which the author of the Prize Essay on the Apostolical Constitutions mentions as the time when the first seven books of them were written. Hence, as we have been endeavoring to show, these Constitutions, though containing expressions which would not have been chosen by an orthodox writer after that controversy, and especially after the adoption of the perfected form of the Athanasian Creed, might not originally have been intended to promote heterodoxy. In respect to this, they might easily have seemed to be unobjectionable. And the confident tone of denunciation which they assume towards all heretics, is a strong indication that the writer was not conscious of inculcating what would be deemed heresy.

Besides, Epiphanius, in his work against Heresies, written about A. D. 380, speaks of the Constitutions then extant as being orthodox, and containing "every canonical arrangement; and no adulteration of the faith, or of the profession, or of the ecclesiastical administration." But after that time the Constitutions seem to have been altered here and there, and enlarged, by an Arian hand. And, at length, they were condemned by the Trullan Council, A. D. 692, as having been long ago corrupted,-not as having been written originally with the design of propagating unsound doctrine. But if such a charge as this latter could have been sustained, would it not then have been brought forward?

The general aspect and texture of the original work, written as it was in an age when there prevailed a theory of subordination that might easily slide into Arianism, would naturally encourage an enterprising Arian or semi-Arian to prepare a new and improved edition. Though the doctrinal interpolations in the first seven books might have been very few, yet a very few would, in the circumstances, have been sufficient to furnish an occasion for casting aside a work whose good influence seemed to be no longer needed, and whose bad influence it seemed desirable to counteract. Zealously orthodox men who had long been accustomed to the perfected