it would seem chiefly: but even where a superintendency had taken place, they appear with the Bishop, as sitting to rule in common with him; and without them he could not do any thing of importance in the church. So Ignatius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen, Cyprian, Cornelius, Firmilian and Jerome.

6. PRESBYTERS ORDAINED; this is, as to the fact, proved by Firmilian, the celebrated Bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia ; by the custom of the church of Alexandria for the first 200 years after Christ; by the testimony of Jerome and Eutychius; and by the Council of Ancyra, and the Council of Nice.-The right or power also necessarily follows from their being the same order as Bishops.

7. Presbyters are the SUCCESSORS of the Apostles; this is distinctly stated by Ignatius, Irenæus, and Jerome. We have not yet given a most striking passage of Jerome on this point. Hear him then: "Do you approach to the CLERGY?—God forbid that I should speak disparagingly of the CLERGY: they are SUCCESSORS to the DEGREE OF APOSTLES,-qui Apostolico gradui succedentes." And, after mentioning the difficulties and dangers of their station, he says, "Non est facile stare loco Pauli; tenere gradum Petri."—" It is no easy matter to stand in the place of Paul, nor in the degree of Peter."

8. The ONLY true and indispensable succession to the Apostles is the succession of FAITH, and not of Persons: Irenæus, Tertullian, and Ambrose. This last Bishop says, "They have not the succession of Peter, who have not the faith of Peter."

The conclusion is, then, that in the purest Christian antiquity, Bishops and Presbyters were, by divine right, THE SAME; "all the difference which existed in fact between them was almost nothing;" and was merely by custom, or the use of the church, as a prudential measure, to promote order, peace, and unity. Ordination by Presbyters, and all other acts of Presbyters, are, by divine right, EQUALLY VALID with those of Bishops: the succession of FAITH is the only true succession. Ministers and churches who do not hold this; who adulterate it; are to be FORSAKEN; and those ALONE received as TRULY apostolical successors, Ministers, Ordinances, and Churches, where this FAITH is preached as the apostles preached it, and as they left it to us in the SACRED SCRIPTURES as their last will and Testament, sealed

as with their oath, and their blood. Let the semi-popish divines, allowed improperly in the Church of England, and the thoroughgoing Papists of our country, look about them. Their succession is NOT the succession of the Apostles, NOR of the EARLIEST FATHERS; but a fabrication of their own, based upon false assumptions, and built up by bigotry and intolerance, out of human traditions, forged authorities, and abominable idolatries: see Section 10th of this Essay.

APPENDIX TO SECTION VI.

ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES MENTIONED IN THE REVELATION; AND ON THE SUPPOSED DIFFICULTY OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EPISCOPACY AT SO EARLY AN AGE OF THE CHURCH.

There are two points which Episcopal writers consider of much importance in this controversy, and which we have not yet introduced. They might chronologically have been introduced sooner; but the reader will here examine them with greater advantage, after the preceding discussion: they are

1. As to what are called the Bishops of the seven churches of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of St. John: and

2. The supposed difficulty of accounting for the existence of Episcopacy at so early an age of the church, except on the principle that it is jure divino, established by divine right.

First, then, as to what are called the Bishops of the seven churches of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of St. John. As most of the difficulty upon both these points arises from the ambiguity of the words Bishop or Episcopus, and Episcopacy, let it be premised that there are three different senses in which these words are used in this controversy. As to the word Bishop:this word is used in the New Testament-1. as synonymous with the word Presbyter; "The names are common :" see pages 80-82 of this Essay; 2. somewhere in the second or third century the word Bishop was applied to distinguish the Primus Presbyter, appointed by the suffrages of the other Presbyters, and by ecclesiastical arrangement, as superintendent of ministers and people; 3. high churchmen use it for an order of ministers claiming powers and authority incompatible with the office of Presbyters. Now we grant there were Bishops in the seven churches of Asia in the first sense; but we deny that there is

any solid proof of their existence, in the second sense, in these seven churches. Clemens Romanus who, according to the best authority, wrote A.D. 96 to the church at Corinth, (comparatively in the neighbourhood,) mentions not a syllable about a Primus Presbyter as superintendent over the Presbyters. Presbyters, according to Clemens, then "ruled the church in common." The Revelation is supposed to have been written only four years after this time. As to Bishops in the third sense, high church Bishops, we utterly deny that there is any evidence of any such Bishops in the seven churches. Even the corrupted Epistles of Ignatius would not sustain the authority of high church Bishops; for Presbyters are there made EQUAL to the Apostles: are they so with high church Bishops? Nay, so far from this, Bishop Taylor maintains that Bishops ONLY are properly Pastors, § 25; Doctors, or Teachers, § 26; and Priests, § 27: so that, on this scheme, poor Presbyters are only a sort of tolerated Pastors, existing by the leave of the Bishops: see § 9 of his Episcopacy Asserted. As to Tradition, on this question, there is none that can be surely depended upon. Take, for instance, the case of Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus. There is absolutely none that gives him the rights and authority of a high church Bishop. But, passing the question of the kind of Episcopacy, for a moment, is there any satisfactory proof of the fact, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, one of these seven churches? I unhesitatingly answer, there is not; see page 56 of this Essay. Dr. Whitby grants, "that he can find nothing on this subject in any writer of the first three centuries." But then he says "this defect is abundantly supplied by the concurrent suffrage of the fourth and fifth centuries." Well, let us see. He refers to Eusebius first, and very properly: for succeeding authors generally took their reports from him. If the fountain fails us, the streams must fail too. Now Eusebius honestly confesses, that though he made it a main point, in writing his history of the early ages of the church, to inquire into such matters, yet all was dark, and he "could nowhere find so much as the bare steps of any who had passed that path of inquiry before him," excepting something like "a torch here and there afar off." Then, speaking of Paul and Peter, and the churches founded by them, he says, "Now how many, and what sincere followers of them have been approved as sufficient to take the charge of those churches by them founded, is not easy

to say, except such and so many as may be collected from the words of Saint Paul." Does this sort of evidence abundantly supply the defect of the total silence of the first three centuries? And nothing better is to be found. Eusebius says, "Timothy is reported to have been the first that was chosen to the bishopric of the Ephesian church." He gives no authority; which he always does when he has it. The report is evidently only guess work, in its origin, having arisen from St. Paul's mentioning his name in connexion with Ephesus; but see page 56 of this Essay. The stories in ecclesiastical history about the early Bishops and Founders of churches, are generally full of confusion and contradiction; they are mostly the inventions of a later age: see Section 10. But were we to grant these statements (confusion as they are) to be true, they never make the powers and authority to be those of high church Bishops; the preceding discussion has abundantly shewn this. The result, then, of this investigation of ecclesiastical authority, and of tradition on this point, is, that there were Bishops in the seven churches of Asia; for Bishops and Presbyters are spoken of by Clemens Romanus, the best authority on the subject, as one and the same; that there is no clear evidence of a superintendency, in the seven churches, of a Primus Presbyter as over ministers and people; and that, as to high church Bishops, it would be a burlesque to compare them with the Bishops of the seven churches, and of Clemens Romanus.

Secondly, let us consider the supposed difficulty of accounting for the existence of Episcopacy at so early an age of the church, except on the principle that it is jure divino,-established by divine right. Here we must remember the distinction, above made, as to the different meanings of the word Bishop: the same applies to the word Episcopacy. 1. We grant a SCRIPTURAL Episcopacy by divine right, in which Bishops and Presbyters are identical; 2. we grant an ecclesiastical arrangement of Superintendency, otherwise called Episcopacy; 3. we grant a USURPATION of powers and authority claimed for Bishops by divine right, otherwise also called Episcopacy. Now we have no difficulty in accounting for the first, or scriptural Episcopacy. The second also is easily accounted for, as is shewn from Jerome, &c. in the preceding pages. The third kind, viz. high church Episcopacy, had no existence in the early ages of the church; we have not to account, therefore, for what did not exist.

S

SECTION VII.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AT THE REFORMATION AGAINST THESE CLAIMS.

I know it would be in vain for me to attempt to persuade many church-people that I am not writing against the church of England. They mean the church as necessarily implying a divine order of Bishops, &c. I mean the church, according to the principles of the REFORMERS. They mean the church with all its state-importance, its wealth, its emolument, &c. The question of Church and State, in the abstract, is a matter of indifference to me; and I think it is indifferent also in the eye of the Scriptures. At the utmost, however, the connexion of a church with the state is only a circumstance: it is not essential to the existence of the church. The church is spiritual. The church is, under God, founded on its doctrines, discipline, and ordinances; on the faith and the piety of its members. In this light I view the Church of England. Taking the Church of England in this view on the question before us, as constituted at the Reformation, I write not a sentence to oppose it, but daily pray for the blessing of God upon it, and upon all other Christian churches. Taking the words as frequently used by bigoted churchmen, I utterly deny the truth and scriptural character of their claims and pretensions; I believe them to be semi-popery, and necessarily leading to bigotry, intolerance, and persecution. Believing, as I do, that this is the nature and tendency of these claims, I think myself bound in conscience to put away all flattering titles as to any men or order of men, and to speak as plainly and powerfully as I can to the overthrow of this system from its foundation. Amicus Socrates, Amicus Plato, sed magis Amicus veritas:-Socrates is my friend, Plato is my friend, but Truth is my friend above all friends.

h Froude, a leader amongst the Oxford Tract-men, says, Really I hate the Reformation and the Reformers more and more."-"Why do you praise Ridley? Do you know sufficient good about him to counterbalance the fact that he was the associate of Cranmer, Peter Martyr, and Bucer? As far as I have gone, too, I think better than I was prepared to do of Bonner and Gardiner."Froude's Remains. Very consistent!