about 396. His works consist of five tomes in two volumes. The commentary on the epistles of Paul written by Hilary the deacon has already passed under review; the apology of David, and several other portions were the productions of others.

The bishopric of Milan adjoined that of Turin, the Milanese on the east, and the Piedmontese on the west, being divided by the river Ticino, a small branch of the Po, in the great valley in which these two dioceses lay. The influence of the bishop of Rome, was acknowledged, disavowed, and re-established alike in both, till the times of Charles the Great.

As their political government was the same, both before and after the partition of the Empire in 364, so was their ecclesiastical of the same kind. They were equally Vallenses, inhabiting the same valley, and their religion the same, both in the days of Ambrose and of Claude. And since no such sequestered primitive Christians, as some have dreamed to have existed in that valley, are once mentioned in the works of this writer, there is all the certainty that a negative admits, that there were none.

In his commentary upon the words, "the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches," &c. in the Apocalypse, he observes: "We ought therefore to understand the seven angels to be the rectors or presidents of the seven churches,f because angel means messenger, and they who announce the word of God to the people, are not improperly called angels, that is, messengers."

A letter of Syriciuss to the church at Milan, and the answer of Ambrose, signed also by a number of bishops and presbyters, clearly show the claim and acknowledgment of superiority in the bishop of Rome, who is denominated not only pastor and brother, but Lord. By another, Syricius appears to have written

f "Septem igitur angelos, rectores septem ecclesiarum debemus intelligere," &c.-Igitur hoc, quod præsuli ecclesiæ Ephesi a Domino dicitur, &c. Tom. v. p. 183.

8 Tom. v. p. 90.

to Syrus, the presbyter of Ambrose, to reprove him for inattention to his charge. Ambrose concurs, denominating Syrus brother and co-presbyter, "fratrem nostrum et compresbyterum Syrum." The expression conservitium, might have been used, if the canonical had been original scriptural distinctions, for there was fellowship in their services; but co-presbyter fairly implies, that the archbishop was still a presbyter, which was strictly true, if he had been ordained such, because the presiding presbyter, “ngoes7ws," is the very highest ordinary officer named in the New Testament. Ambrose certainly had some view in which his language appeared to himself to be correct. But that he considered himself a lay presbyter is inconceivable.

66

That deacons served tables and instructed others in the fourth century, may be inferred from these words: "The apostles did not esteem it best to leave the word of God and serve tables, but each is an office of wisdom, for Stephen full of wisdom was chosen a deacon. Let him therefore who waits detail from him who teaches, and let the teacher invite the deacon. the church is one body though the members be different, and necessary each to another." If deacons were then teachers, what were presbyters who were ever their superiors?

66

For

Ambrose exercised, but with Christian humility, all the powers, which, by the canons and customs of his day, he might claim; but his interpretation of the Scriptures relative to the offices of apostles and evangelists is very different from that which some have adopted in our day. "I do not claim the honor of the Apostles, for who (had) this, but those whom the Son of God himself chose; nor the grace of prophets, nor the authority of evangelists, nor the circumspection of pastors; but the attention and diligence concerning the divine writings, which the apostles placed last among the duties of the saints, I wish only to at

h Tom. v. 112, cum de conservitio nostro aliquos dirigis, &c. i Tom. iii. p. 95.

tain; for, snatched from benches of justice, and robes of government, unto the priesthood, I have begun to teach you, what I have not myself learned." He neither considered himself, though an archbishop, to be a successor of the apostles, nor claimed the extraordinary office of evangelist; but why he confined his claim to a part only of the pastoral office, is not discernible, unless it may be imputed to his humility.

In his day, so soon after the erection of Constantine's hierarchy, bribery had commenced. This good man complains, "you may see every where, those whom not merit, but money has advanced to the order of the episcopate; a weak and ignorant populace, who have called to themselves such a priest. If you strictly inquire, who promoted them to be priests? they forthwith answer: I have lately been ordained a bishop by the archbishop, and given him a hundred shillings, seeing I had deserved to have the episcopal grace, which, if I had not paid, I had not been a bishop today. Wherefore it is better for me to bring the gold from my purse, than lose such a priesthood. I gave the gold, and obtained the episcopate; I do not doubt that I shall soon receive, if I live, the shillings which I love. I ordain presbyters, consecrate deacons, and receive gold. Lo, the gold which I gave, I have already received in my purse. Wherefore the episcopate has cost me nothing." This representation of archbishop

k Ambr.Tom. iv. 1. "Non igitur mihi Apostolorum gloriam vendico. Quis enim hoc, nisi quos ipse filius elegit Dei? Non prophetarum gratiam, non virtutem Evangelistarum, non pastorum circumspectionem; sed tantummodo intentionem et diligentiam, circa scripturas divinas opto assequi, quam ultimam posuit Apostolus inter officia Sanctorum-Ego enim de tribunalibus atque administrationis infulis ad sacerdotium raptus, docere vos cœpi, quod ipse non didici."

"Videas, in ecclesia passim, quos non merita sed pecuniæ ad episcopatus ordinem provexerunt: nugacem populum et indoctum, qui talem sibi adsciverunt sacerdotem. Quos si percunctari fideli. tur velis, quiseos præficerit sacerdotes, respondent mox et dicunt, ab archiepiscopo sum nuper episcopus ordinatus, centumque solidos, ei dedi ut episcopalem gratiam consequi meruissem; quos si minime dedissem, hodie episcopus non essem. Unde, melius est

or bishops ordaining severally without the concurrence of their brethren of their respective grades, is at variance with the canons of the council of Nice, but unless founded on fact would have compromised the veracity of the worthy writer. The assumption of power is as common with ecclesiastical as civil officers; and, for various reasons, effected with much less danger of reprehension. But in this instance the evil was of small moment, because there was only at most a violation of a legislative provision enacted without authority, since neither the council nor emperor might erect offices in the kingdom of Christ.

His classification of officers in a church perfectly agrees with those of his day, and fairly excludes the possibility of the existence of lay presbyters: "What God requires from a bishop is one thing, that from a presbyter, another; and that from a deacon, another; and that from a clerk, another; and that from a layman, even every individual whatsoever, is another."m

mihi aurum de sacello invehere, quam tantum sacerdotium perdere. Aurum dedi et episcopatum comparavi; quos, amem, solidos, si vivo, receptum me illico non diffido; Ordino presbyteros, consecro diaconos, et accipio aurum. Ecce aurum, quod dedi, in meo sacello recepi, episcopatum igitur gratis accepi." Tom. iv. p. 181.

m "Aliud est enim quod ab episcopo requirit Deus, et aliud quod à presbytero et aliud quod à diacono, et aliud quod à clerico, et aliud quod à laico, vel à singulis quibusque hominibus." Tom. iv. 179.

SECTION XVI.

Epiphanius a weak and credulous writer; intoxicated with clerical power.-His detraction of Aerius.-His opinion of the difference between bishop and presbytery; contrary to Jerom's.-His notion, that different primitive churches had different kinds of officers, without foundation, and contrary to evidence and facts. He received the apostolical constitutions, but shows they were doubted.-Eusebius and Jerom say nothing of them; and they contain false history. They profess to have existed in the life-time of Peter, and yet require to read the gospel of John, which was written after Peter's death: and give, as officers, several who came into office after the death of the apostles.

EPIPHANIUS was born in Palestine, about the year 332, became metropolitan of Cyprus in 366, and died in 402. Though acquainted with five languages,a : he was no proficient in Attic diction, the only test to which he is now subject. His credulity might have been at least compatible with sincerity; had not his conditional promise of a miracle, to the empress, rendered even this problematical. His invasion of the canonical rights of John of Constantinople,b sprang from his seduction by Theophilus of Alexandria, and both from the inebriating influence of ecclesiastical power, disproportioned to his mental vigor. To prove heresies supposititious, which is the chief object of his writings, catalogues of bishops are presented, who are assumed to have had the same authority, and to have held the same faith, from the days of the apostles. It had been usual to argue the genuineness of the gospel faith from the identity of the doctrines retained by the church throughout the world. But, howsoever plausibly the antiquity of doctrines might be argued, from

2 Πεντάγλωπος. Jerom.

b Socrat. Hist. lib. vi, c. 9-13.