St. Paul, three years after his conversion, went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, “but other Apostles saw he none,” says he, “but James the brother of our Lord.” St. Jerome says this was James the first Bishop of Jerusalem. This is mentioned for the notice of those who may have taken up an opinion that bishops were appointed only when schisms began to shew the necessity of the order, and degrade it almost to a human invention; and if any further demonstration be required, we must have recourse to the testimony of the primitive fathers, those eminent men who immediately succeeded the Apostles; but in the writings of these holy men we find such abundant proof for the Divine authority of bishops, that it is difficult to know how to select, or where to end. From the Apostles thus descending to their successors, some of whom conversed with them and were their disciples, we find that the succession of bishops and the government of the Church by them still prevailed wherever the Gospel was planted. The writings of Ignatius are of all others the most direct and explicit in establishing episcopacy, and in asserting the authority of bishops. There is scarcely a page of his Epistles which contains not some instructions upon these points. To the Smyrneans he says, “Flee divisions as the beginning of evils. All of you follow your bishop as Jesus Christ the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles, and reverence the deacons as the command of God. Let no man do anything of what appertains to the Church without the bishops.” Again, the venerable Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, “Let nothing be done without thy approbation;” and to his people, “Give heed to your bishops, that God also may hearken to you.” The great evil of schism, the absolute duty of unity and obedience to the bishop, were always the leading ideas in this great man’s mind; and stronger testimony we cannot have (the Sacred Scriptures alone excepted) to enforce the perpetual observance of these duties. And regarding the bishop sitting in Parliament, is there any law of the Gospel to forbid it? and if he should haply gain the good opinion and confidence of the prince of the land, does he not obtain a most valuable opportunity of commending to his favour the best interests of the Gospel of Christ? There is a generation who are fond of recommending the poverty and the lowly circumstances of our Lord and His Apostles to the imitation of the clergy, and are constantly reminding them of the zeal and disinterestedness of the first ministers of the Gospel. All good men must undoubtedly reverence such examples as these, but it must be observed that from the days of the Apostles the Gospel never was destitute of human aid. Those times, so frequently pressed upon the recollection of Churchmen, were remarkable for the liberality of the laity; men sold their possessions, and laid the price at the Apostles’ feet for their disposal.