of another Hippolytus. The tract "De Consummatione Mundi," which treats of Antichrist, is the production of a later age. The confdence and ignorance, which it displays, agree not with the character given by Photius and others, of this father. "The commentary on the story of Susannah" is equally unworthy. "The accounts of the Apostles and Disciples," if his, have been interpolated with fictions of later times. The nameless monumental statue, now in the vatican, rescued from the ground in 1551, bearing an engraving of the Cycle attributed to Hippolytus, is supposed to have been of him; but four fifths of the titles of the works, appearing on the engraved representa tion of it, are not those ascribed to him by Eusebius, Jerom, Photius and the rest; and no one of them is certain. The forms of some of the Greek letters are later, and so must the statue be, than the sixth century. "The apostolic tradition" which is now published in his name, rests upon no other evidence than this stone. Being indeed a modification from the eighth book of the apostolical constitutions, it merits equal contempt, and carries its obvious grounds of condemnation on its face. Yet was it written when bishops were parochial, commissioned without imposition of hands, when a presbytery was in every church, when the presbyters were all preachers, and the deacons served." The demonstration against the Jews," seems to be a commentary on the 69th Psalm. Neither in it, nor in any of the fragments of his commentaries, has any thing been found relative to the government of the church. The tract"Against the heresy of a certain Noetus," the patripassian, contains much good sense, and has claims of genuineness. In the first paragraph Nætus is said to have affirmed, that Christ was the Father, and that the Father himself suffered; that Noetus was Moses; and his brother, Aaron; and that the presbyters having heard these things, and cited him, πρεσβύτεροι προσκαλε dauevo, they examined him before the church." He denied, but afterwards, defended openly his opinions. "The presbyters summoned him a second time, condemned"-and "cast him out of the church." If this be a part of the writings of Hippolytus against heretics, mentioned by Eusebius, Jerom, and Photius, and quoted without name by Epiphanius, it accords with all antecedent evidence, and evinces, that the presbytery in a church, then, had the power of citing, trying, and excommunicating heretics. The presbyters in this case acted unquestionably as a presbytery, which must have had its president, or in the language of some in that day, bishop. The whole proceedings are described as they should have been, upon the supposition, that this had all the officers heretofore found in any regularly constituted church. The trial and sentence against a heretic, here had by presbyters, well accords with their clerical ordination. Hippolytus says, Noetus was of Smyrna. Epiphanius makes Ephesus, the birth place of this heresy, but he is a loose writer, and was born more than a century after. Origen, who was honoured with the name Adamantius, was born some time before the end of the second, and lived unto the middle of the third century. Having taught successfully a philosophic and catechetic school in Alexandria, he was at length irregularly ordained in Palestine, a presbyter.(a) His expositions of the scriptures are often refined, and visionary; and his doctrines on some points unsound. But as his powers of discrimination have (a) Erasmus in his life of Origen, and others, have given too much credit to the Origen, and opposed Porphyry by stories relations of Eusebius: he was partial to instead of proofs. justly demanded high respect, so his piety was of the purest water. Speak ing of the Angels in the Apocalypse, he says; "That certain ruling presbyters in the churches were called angels, by John in the Apocalypse." (a) The same term, gosolws, was used by Paul;(b) and continually by Justin Martyr, for that presbyter, who presided in worship, and blessed the sacramental elements. This bead of the elders must have been, for there was no higher ordinary officer in any Christian church, the angel in each of the churches in the Apocalypse. Here is the learned Origen, a cotemporary for many years with Irenæus, Clemens Al. and Tertullian, another decisive witness, that the ruling, was not a lay, presbyter. He observes also o; "With us, reasonings are mild towards those, who receive instruction; but it becomes him, who has been promoted to the work of teaching, προισταμένου του λόγου, to be able to convince such as oppose the Gospel." (c) The word gaiolausvov here used for any person, who has been elevated to the office of a teacher, is used in the same sense, in 1 Thess, v. 12. where, following, without the article, it is another characteristic of those, who had been described as "labouring in the word." If it be the duty If it be the duty of a goiolaμevos, president, to be able to convince adversaries, it follows that the same gaolauevos, ruling elder of a church was a teacher. The word denotes presidency or priority, and being associated with the authority to teach, but contrasted with the milder instructions of catechists, it sufficiently discovers the of fice to have been that of a presbyter; for although the term bishop was now often used for gosolws, presiding elder; there were, as yet, but the two ordinations, one of presbyters, the other of deacons. (α) οι Προεστώτας τινας των εκκλησιών απ γελους λέγεσθαι παρα τῷ Ιωάννη εν τη αποκα fu." De Orat. S. 34. An argument for the identity of the orders of bishops and presbyters, has often been drawn from the first chapter of Titus, where the terms of office, and the personal qualifications are used so promiscuously, as to baffle all powers of discrimination. Or igen has observed on the same passage, that; "It is evident, that in the designation of those denominated bishops, Paul delineating what kind of a man, it was fit, should be a bishop, has directed, that he be a teacher, saying, it becomes him to be able to confute gainsayers."(d) Here the presbyters, whom Titus was left in Crete to ordain, are declared by Origen, to have been the persons, whom Paul immediately afterwards denominates bishops; and if these were all to be teachers, which is here also affirmed, they were of one kind only, and none of them laymen. A passage has sometimes been quoted and unfairly translated, on prayer. "Besides those which are general, there is a certain debt to the widow, who has been received by the church, ris xngas—opeiλn, and another to the deacon, και έτερα διακοvou, and another to the bresbyter, και άλλη πρεσβυτέρου, but the debt to the bishop is the most weighty, xai επισκοπου δε οφειλη βαρύτατη εστιν, being required by the Saviour of the whole church, and avenged, unless it be paid."(e) If the debt to the presbyter was thought by Origen, to be different from that due the bishop, he has not so expressed it. The translation, "another to presbyters, and another to bishops" is indefensible. Yet if we suppose Origen to have intended, that the debt due the bishops was weightiest, because of his care and responsibility, as the presiding presbyter, whose superintending anxiety for the whole church, laid a just foundation of a claim upon the people for proportional remuneration, the passage will be a just representa tion of facts, in the government of the churches at that time; and the adoption of the word bishop in the sense of gosdrws, ruling elder, would have been no more than a conformity to a mode of expression, which was beginning to be adopted in his day. But the debt to the bishop not being expressed to be another, may be taken to be that, which was before declared to be due to the presbyter, and what may be said of the bishop's claim may be grammatically viewed, as affirmed of the last of the three kinds of debts, which had been enumerated. This interpretation is supported also, by the circumstance, that he speaks of the officers of the church, sometimes as presbyters, and deacons, and at others as bishops, presbyters and deacons. (a) But upon any interpretation there is no ground to imagine, that he meant by the presbyter, a layman. The Philocalia were collected more than a century after Origen's death. To quote this production in support of those writings, from whence they are presumed to have been taken, may be proper. But they ought not to be deemed competent evidence of any thing, not found in his works. A mistaken passage has been brought from the Philocalia to prove "the succession Siadoxny of the apostles," but the writer is speaking of the handing down of the scriptures by the apos tles. He censures those deacons, who coveted "the first seats of those, who are denominated presbyters, and such as laid schemes to be called presbyters; (b) and alleges, that as Christ washed the feet of his disciples, "so a bishop should minister as a servant, to his fellow servants." (c) His complaint of those bishops and presbyters, who were unlearned (a) Tract. No. V. on Matt. and Hom. VII. on Jeremiah. (b) Tract 24, on Matt. (c) Tract. 31, on Matt. and flagitious (d) may have provoked his own bishop, by whose obloquy his character was assailed. Had the office of Demetrius, been by ordination, or resulted from seniority, those jealousies would probably never have arisen; nor had the church at Alexandria been deprived of the unrivalled learning, and exemplary piety of Origen. That there should be one, however designated among the plurality of equals, in every public body, to facilitate their operations, or lead in duties, is suggested by the experience of all assemblies, civil and ecclesiastical. The Greeks denominated him gosolws, president, the identical term adopted by the first Christian presbyteries for their primus. The seven apocalyptic churches were indirectly addressed, through that officer, by the name angel, chosen because less publicly known, but we have found not one instance in any uninspired writing of the use of that name in the same sense. To show, how this unordained presidency over equals, grew into parochial episcopacy, all the credible evidence, which has hitherto occurred, has been presented. But every effort to discover, even the existence of lay elders, or of any inferiour grade of presbyters, has totally failed; neither has there been found a single word of such a diversity, nor the idea of such an officer, in any church. If such a class of men had existed in the apostolic churches, it could not have escaped detection. If the scriptures had been understood, by the apostles and evangelists to warrant it, the grade must have existed, and would certainly have appeared. The conclusion is conse. quently undeniable, that those, whe find lay presbyters in the New Testament, have made a discovery of that, of which the inspired men, who wrote it, never entertained an idea. J. P. W. (d) Trast. 15 on Matt. The power and grace of Christ dis- This simple and comprehensive prayer, in connexion with the events which preceded and accompanied it, furnishes an interesting theme for meditation. It was the language of a malefactor, justly suffering for his crimes, and casting his soul on the expiring Saviour, by whose side he was suspended, for forgiveness and salvation. May the Holy Spirit lead us to adore the riches of God's grace displayed in the conversion of this guilty man. In elucidating the subject, it may be remarked, 1. The person, who uttered the prayer under consideration, was one of the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and one who had possessed, in the eyes of the world, an openly vicious and immoral character. due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss." We have, then, full evidence, that the person who made this interesting prayer, was one who had sustained an infamous character, who had been convicted of his crimes, who at the time he uttered it, was and received sentence of death, and enduring the agonies of dissolving nature. He and his vile associate were crucified with our Saviour, not with a design to alleviate the sufferings of that holy person, or to confer any honour on him, but to add, in the view of the spectators, to his disgrace. To a Redeemer, not only thus numbered with transgressors, but suspended between them, as if he himself were the chief of transgressors, the request was made -"Lord, remember me, when thou comest into thy kingdom." Such a prayer, from such a man, and in such circumstances, must lead us to admire the riches of divine grace. We shall have still greater occasion to do this, as we advance in the illustration of the subject, and remark; He had been publicly arraigned as a thief. His iniquitous deeds had, this prayer, was an open despiser of 2. That the person, who uttered on trial, been proved against him, the Saviour, even after he was susand he was condemned to suffer a painful death, as an example to oth- pended by his side on a cross. From ers. Nothing more is recorded of the testimony of the inspired wrihis history, than what transpired, ters, it appears, that he came to the during the crucifixion of the Saviour. place of his execution, with a hard But the character he sustained is ex- heart, and with as contemptuous plicitly stated, by all the Evangel- views of Christ, as his executioners ists, who agree in speaking of him, words of Matthew are the following: had, or any of the spectators. The as a thief and a malefactor. It is also worthy of notice, that the proph- him, wagging their heads and saying, -"And they that passed by reviled et Isaiah, who foretold the sufferings Thou that destroyest the temple, of Christ hundreds of years before and buildest it in three days, save the event took place, makes particular mention, that the Messiah was to thyself: if thou be the Son of God, be "numbered with the transgress-wise also the chief priests mocking come down from the cross. Likeors," one of which was this very thief. That he was not unjustly condemned, is evident from his own confession to his companion in wickedness, when they were enduring together the tortures of crucifixion." We receive," said he, "the him, with the scribes and elders said, He saved others, himself he cannot save: if he be king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he : said I am the Son of God." Such was the scornful and triumphing language of the spectators of a scene which no serious mind can contemplate, but with the deepest emotion. To this affecting account it is added -The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. It is not said one of them, but the thieves, which were crucified with him. It appears, then, from the testi mony of this Evangelist, that the person who was heard to make the prayer, under consideration, was an open despiser of the Saviour, even after he was suspended with him on the cross. The Evangelist Mark testifies to the same effect. His words are these:"And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking, said among themselves, with the scribes, He saved others, himself he cannot save. Let Christ the king of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him, reviled him." The four Evangelists testify, that two thieves were crucified with Christ. Matthew and Mark affirm, that these two thieves joined the multitude in reviling him;—and though Luke and John have not recorded this particular fact, yet they have said nothing to contradict it. These men, it is to be remembered, did not write in concert, but, at different times; and they relate different circumstances of the same great event. Comparing their histories, we fairly and unavoidably come to the conclusion, though many have presumed to entertain a different opinion, that the penitent thief, at first joined his companion in wickedness and suffering, in reviling the Saviour, as is affirmed by Matthew and Mark; and that some time before he expired, divine grace subdu ed him, and he possessed another heart, as is affirmed by Luke, in the text and context. Admitting these facts, we may see further and more abundant occasion to admire the power and grace of God, our Saviour. Truly we have before us a wonderful instance of conversion from sin to holiness;-an instance, which establishes, beyond all controversy, the reality of what is called conversion or the new birth. The same invisible and constraining influence, which struck dumb a persecuting Saul, in bis mad career, and caused him to bow in humble submission at the feet of Jesus, must have wrought a thorough change, in the heart of this graceless, unbelieving thief. So totally blinded by sin was this wretched man, and so contemptuous were his views of Him who claimed to be the Messiah, and who was now in a condition similar to his own, that he could openly join with others in mocking him, when he knew himself to be fast sinking into the eternal world. Possibly he came to the cross determined not to shrink in passing through the painful scene of being tortured to death; and to convince the spectators of his fortitude, he might be influenced to join the multitude in the common cry. Whether he was thus influenced or not, the evidence is clear, that he did revile the Saviour, after he was suspended on his cross. How sudden, and how great then must have been the change wrought in this man! How astonishing the grace and compassion of the Redeemer! What greater proof could he exbibit, that he truly laid down his life for his enemies; and that he came into the world to save even the chief of sinners! This interesting event took place, not in a corner, but in a populous city, and in the presence of a great concourse of people, to convince the world, that none are so deeply sunk in sin, as to be beyond the reach of the all conquering grace of Christ. Here, was one of our fallen race, rescued from endless destruction, who was known to possess a vile character, and who had just |