and the more strictly historical characters and tenets of Cerinthus, Saturninus, Basilides, Valentinus, Bardesanes, and Marcion, are successively and successfully depicted. In a note appended to p. 95, (vol. ii.) Mr. Milman acknowledges his obligations to Brucker's History of Philosophy, Mosheim de Rebus Christ. ante Const. Mag., the Histoire du Manicheisme of Beausobre, and above all, the excellent Histoire du Gnosticisme of M. Matter; but we were surprised to see no references to Baur's 'Christliche Gnosis,' (not however that we consider the book as an authority) and that even Neander's Genetische Entwicklung der vornehmsten Gnostischen Systeme,' does not appear to have been consulted.

The manner in which Mr. Milman treats those events of early history which border on the miraculous, may be seen in the accounts which he has given of the death of Polycarp, and the legend of the thundering legion: see pp. 184-189, 190— 192 (vol. ii.) We have room but for a portion of the former narrative. The aged martyr has been brought to the stake, to which however he is bound only, not nailed; the author thus continues:

The calm and unostentatious prayer of Polycarp may be considered as embodying the sentiments of the Christians of that period. O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy well-beloved and ever blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of thee; the God of angels, powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before thee; I thank thee that thou has graciously thought me worthy of this day and this hour, that I may receive a portion in the number of thy martyrs, and drink of Christ's cup, for the resurrection to eternal life, both of body and soul, in the incorruptibleness of the Holy Spirit; among whom may I be admitted this day, as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as thou, O true and faithful God, hast prepared, and foreshown, and accomplished. Wherefore I praise thee for all thy mercies; I bless thee, I glorify thee, with the eternal and heavenly Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, to whom, with thee and the Holy Spirit, be glory now and for ever.'

The fire was kindled in vain. It arose curving like an arch around the serene victim, or like a sail swelling with the wind, left the body unharmed. To the sight of the Christians, he resembled a treasure of gold or silver (an allusion to the gold tried in the furnace,) and delicious odours, as of myrrh or frankincense, breathed from his body. An executioner was sent in to dispatch the victim; his side was pierced, and blood enough flowed from the aged body to extinguish the flames immediately around him.

The whole of this narrative has the simple energy of truth: the prudent yet resolute conduct of the aged bishop; [it will be understood that the author in this and some of the following circumstances, refers to a portion of the narrative preceding our extract] the calm and digni fied expostulation of the governor; the wild fury of the populace; the

Jews eagerly seizing the opportunity of renewing their unslaked hatred to the Christian name, are described with the simplicity of nature. The supernatural part of the transaction is no more than may be ascribed to the high wrought imagination of the Christian spectators, deepening every casual incident into a wonder. The voice from heaven heard only by Christian ears; the flame from the hastily piled wood, arching over the unharmed body; the grateful odours, not impossibly from aromatic woods, which were used to warm the baths of the more luxurious, and which were collected for the sudden execution; the effusion of blood, which might excite wonder from the frame of a man at least a hundred years old. Even the vision of Polycarp himself, by which he was forewarned of his approaching fate, was not unlikely to arise before his mind at that perilous crisis. Polycarp closed the nanieless train of Asiatic martyrs.'-vol. ii. pp. 187–189.

The elucidatory hints thrown out in the preceding and other similar passages, are, it is only proper to observe, occasionally confirmed by brief notes, which however we have not always considered necessary to transfer to our pages. Some of them are, however, both interesting and valuable; others even necessary to the text.

Mr. Milman having, as a previous extract shows, declared his honest purpose to maintain, with due allowance for any unconscious prepossessions, the impartiality of scientific history, our readers will derive some pleasure from perusing a few passages which show that this impartiality has been observed in connexion with a subject where learned men, and good men too of every party, have frequently failed. We mean the constitution of the early Christian churches, a subject, the interest of which we are assured would alone justify the length to which our remaining extracts are likely to extend. In laying these passages before our readers, as specimens of candid statement and impassionate discussion, we are not, however, to be considered as indorsing them for circulation on credit; we shall use our privilege of offering any comments on them, we trust in the same candid and upright spirit in which they are written.

'Such are the few vestiges of the progress of Christianity which we dimly trace in the obscurity of the latter part of the first century. During this period, however, took place the regular formation of the young Christian republics, in all the more considerable cities of the empire. The primitive constitution of these churches is a subject which it is impossible to decline; though few points in Christian history rest on more dubious and imperfect, in general on inferential evidence, yet few have been contested with greater pertinacity.

The whole of Christianity, when it emerges out of the obscurity of the first century, appears uniformly governed by certain superiors of each community called Bishops. But the origin and extent of this

superiority, and the manner in which the bishop assumes a distinct authority from the inferior presbyters, is among those difficult questions of Christian history which, since the Reformation, has been more and more darkened by those fatal enemies to candid and dispassionate inquiry, prejudice and interest. The earliest Christian communities appear to have been ruled and represented, in the absence of the apostle who was their first founder, by their elders, who are likewise called bishops, or overseers of the churches. These presbyter bishops and deacons are the only two orders which we discover at first in the church of Ephesus, at Philippi, and perhaps in Crete.* On the other hand, at a very early period, one religious functionary, superior to the rest, appears to have been almost universally recognized: at least, it is difficult to understand how, in so short a time, among communities, though not entirely disconnected, yet scattered over the whole Roman world, a scheme of government popular, or rather aristocratical, should become, even in form, monarchical. Neither the times nor the circumstances of the infant church, nor the primitive spirit of the religion, appear to favor a general, a systematic, and an unauthorised usurpation of power on the part of the supreme religious functionary. the change has already taken place within the apostolic times. The church of Ephesus, which in the Acts is represented by its elders, in the Revelations is represented by its angel or bishop.'-vol. ii. pp.

63–65.

Yet

In a note appended to the preceding paragraph, we have the following additional observations on the early distinction of the episcopal from the presbyterial order:

The most plausible way of accounting for this total revolution is by supposing that the affairs of each community or church, were governed by a college of presbyters, one of whom necessarily presided at their meetings, and gradually assumed, and was recognised as possessing, a superior function and authority. In expressing my dissatisfaction, with a theory adopted by Mosheim, by Gibbon, by Neander, and by most of the learned foreign writers, I have scrutinised my own motives with the utmost suspicion, and can only declare that I believe myself actuated only by the calm and candid desire of truth. But the universal and almost simultaneous elevation of the bishop under such circumstances in every part of the world (though it must be admitted that he was for a long time assisted by the presbyters in the discharge of his office,) appears to me an insuperable objection to this hypothesis. The later the date which is assumed for the general establishment of the episcopal authority, the less likely was it to be general. It was only during the first period of undivided unity that such an usurpation, for so it must have been according to this theory, could have been universally acquiesced in without resistance. All presbyters, according to this view, with one consent gave up or allowed themselves to be deprived of their

* Acts xx. 17, compared with 28. Philip. i. 1. Titus i. 5-7.

co-ordinate and co-equal dignity. The farther we advance in Christian history, the more we discover the common motives of human nature at work. In this case alone are we to suppose them without influence? Yet we discover no struggle, no resistance, no controversy. The uninterrupted line of bishops is traced by the ecclesiastical historian up to the apostles; but no murmur of remonstrance against this usurpation has transpired; no schism, no breach of Christian unity followed upon this momentous innovation. Nor does any change appear to have taken place in the office of elder in the Jewish communities: the rabbinical teachers took the form of a regular hierarchy; their patriarch grew up into a kind of pope, but episcopal authority never took root in the synagogue.'-vol. ii. pp. 64, 65, note.

So far we have given without gloss or mutilation the views and arguments of Mr. Milman on this interesting subject. Having seen, however, what he does not consider to have occasioned the distinction between the presbyter and bishop, there is yet one thing we have to see, which is, what he does consider to have occasioned this distinction. His views on this point we shall be obliged to separate from some connected matter, but we pledge ourselves to do it fairly. Having shown (pp. 65-68) that, although there were several points of essential difference between the Jewish synagogue and the first Christian churches, the latter were in the first instances formed almost universally by a secession from, and on the model of, the former; and, in a following page or two, illustrated the predominant influence of the apostles, or other primitive teachers who had founded particular churches over the brethren who constituted the eldership of those churches, Mr. Milman thus continues:

The wider, however, the dissemination of Christianity, the more rare, and at longer intervals, the presence of the apostle. An appeal to his authority by letter became more precarious and interrupted; while at the same time, in many communities, the necessity for his interposition became more frequent and manifest; and in the common order of nature, even independent of the danger of persecution, the primitive founder, the legitimate head of the community, would vacate his place by death. That the apostle should appoint some distinguished individual as the delegate, the representative, the successor, to his authority, as primary instructor of the community; invest him in an episcopacy or overseership, superior to that of the co-ordinate body of elders, is, in itself, by no means improbable; it harmonizes with the period in which we discover, in the sacred writings, this change in the form of the permanent government of the different bodies; accounts most easily for the general submission to the authority of our religious chief magistrate, so unsatisfactorily explained by the accidental preeminence of the president of a college of co-equal presbyters; and is confirmed by general tradition, which has ever, in strict unison with every other part of Christian history, preserved the names of many

successors of the apostles, the first bishops in most of the larger cities in which Christianity was first established. But the authority of the bishop was that of influence, rather than of power. After the first nomination by the apostle (if such nomination as we suppose generally took place) his successor was elective, by that kind of acclamation which raised at once the individual most eminent for his piety and virtue to the post, which was that of danger, as well as of distinction. For a long period, the suffrages of the community ratified the appointment. Episcopal government was thus, as long as Christianity remained unleavened by worldly passions and interests, essentially popular. The principle of subordination was inseparable from the humility of the first converts. Rights are never clearly defined till they are contested; nor is authority limited as long as it rests upon general reverence. When on the one side, aggression, on the other, jealousy and mistrust, begin, then it must be fenced by usage, and defined by law. Thus, while we are inclined to consider the succession of bishops from the apostolic times to be undeniable, the nature and extent of authority which they derived from the apostles is altogether uncertain. The ordination or consecration, whatever it might be, to that office, of itself conveyed neither inspiration nor the power of working miracles, which, with the direct commission from the Lord himself, distinguished and set apart the primary apostles from the rest of mankind. It was only in a very limited and imperfect sense that they could, even in the sees founded by the apostles, be called the successors of the apostles.'

vol. ii. pp. 70-72.

We believe it to be impossible for any writer to put the argument in favor of super-presbyterian episcopacy in either a fairer or a stronger light than this. For though other schemes may be met with every day, which assume much more, yet unsupported assumption is no argument. Mr. Milman cannot but be aware that the position he has taken, as well as the structure of his argument, will be deemed by many (should we not rather now say most?) episcopalians as a virtual surrender of a large portion of the matter in dispute. But he has chosen his ground deliberately, and, unless we are very much deceived, without consulting any other consideration than his own conviction,—a practice at once honorable and safe, as it obviates the necessity of putting forth weak and unsupported assertions. There are, on both sides of this question, certain views, accepted by their holders on grounds of slight, though to them preponderating, probability; and it is an honorable feature of Mr. Milman's argument, that he states these probabilities as they appear to him, and as he naturally supposes they will appear to any other man who will pay them due attention. we do not see them, therefore, as he does, it is not through any want of skill in his manner of stating them, nor yet, we trust, through want of inclination on our own part to do them justice, but because, as we shall endeavour to show, we recognize other probabilities as more convincing.

If