Bishop of Jerusalem, in the age of Cyprian, had been made the helper of Narcissus, who was born before the death of St. John.

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion from this imperfect summary of an elaborate argument, that the prelacy of Bishops was not the invention of the Cyprianic age, but derived from a preceding period. That period was not the time of Tertullian, whom Cyprian was wont to call his master, and who required of the heretics to set forth the originals of their Churches, to reckon upon the order of their Bishops, so running down from the beginning, as that their first Bishop had one of the Apostles or Apostolic men for his author and predecessor: he calls these Bishops "traduces apostolici seminis," scions from the stock of the Apostles; and of their superior dignity he observes, that the Priest, who is the Bishop, hath the sovereign power of Baptism; afterwards the Presbyters and Deacons, not however without the authority of the Bishop. The same testimony concerning the succession and derivation of Bishops from the Apostles is borne by Junæus, the disciple of Polycarp, and contemporary of Tertullian. Ignatius, who was constituted Bishop of Smyrna by St. John, frequently insists on the office and authority of Bishops, and exhibits the order of the Apostolic government, in requiring all to reverence the Deacons, as the ministers of Jesus Christ, and in like manner the Bishop as Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, and the Presbyters as the senate of God, and College of the Apostles without these it is not called a Church. Lastly, Clemens, the fellow-labourer of St. Paul, who was

probably constituted Bishop of Rome by St. Peter, writing to the Church of Corinth, and applying the denominations of the Jewish priesthood to the Christian ministry, says, The chief priest has his proper offices, and to the Priests their proper place is appointed, and to the Levites belong their proper ministrations or deaconships, and the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen: and again; The Apostles having preached the Gospel through countries and cities, constituted the first fruits of their conversions, whom they approved by the Spirit, Bishops and Deacons of those who should believe.

There is therefore no interval between the Apostolic and Cyprianic ages, in which Episcopacy was not admitted and received: and shall it be said, that it originated even in the time of the Apostles? Let the adversary beware, lest by the same arguments which he uses against the hierarchy of the Church, he weaken the truth of the Gospel, which rests not on testimony more copious, more convincing, more continuous, or more uninterrupted. Episcopacy was either of Apostolical institution, or its early and universal establishment is miraculous. It was the conclusion of the learned Hammond, who argued against the imagination, that Episcopacy was the man of sin, which was working in the days of the Apostles: "If the parity of Presbyters had been established by Christ or by his Apostles, and had been extended in the Apostolic age, throughout the Universal Church, in such manner, that the pride of Episcopacy had not dared to shew itself in any part of the first century, it would have

been impossible that the form of ecclesiastical administration, which was instituted by Christ or his Apostles for the observance of all ages, should be changed by the whole Church in the age immediately succeeding, into another different, and directly opposite and contrary form; and that at a time, when there was neither synod, council, or convocation of the Church, by whose influence so many Churches, remotely separate from each other throughout the universe, might be brought to agree in this act of sacrilege; and when there were no canonical Epistles, by which the design might be generally communicated, and by which such an alteration might be sanctioned, there should be a revolution in the constitution of the Church from a Christian to an Antichristian, from a genuine to a spurious, from a divine to a diabolical form."

SECTION VI.

APPLICATION OF THE ARGUMENT.

A DISPASSIONATE examination of the Scriptures, and an attentive collation of the several texts which relate to ecclesiastical polity, lead to these conclusions; that the constitution of the Christian Church is of God; that the first ministers of the Gospel were chosen immediately by God; that they conveyed the ministerial power which they received, by ordaining, and by appointing others to ordain, Presbyters in every Church; and that the administration of the Church was distributed among three orders, distinguished not only by name and title, but by specific and appropriate offices. The nature of these several orders, and of the communion of the primitive disciples with each other, in subordination to the Apostles, has been illustrated; and it has been shewn, that the order established by the Apostles was designed for universal and perpetual use. These conclusions have been proved to be neither unreasonable, nor inconsistent with the general tenour of the Scriptures; and they have been confirmed by a reference to the Mosaic œconomy, and to the universal establishment of Episcopacy, and by the production of proof, that there has been no time in which the prelacy of Bishops was not received as a divine and apostolical institution, or in which it was possible to introduce it, if it had been the mere invention or innovation of man. It only remains to apply the survey which has been drawn, to the circumstances and condition of the Church as it now exists in the world.

It will afford satisfaction to the Romanist, and should diminish the obloquy under which he labours, to observe, that the essential orders of his ministry, his bishops, priests, and deacons; their regular succession from the Apostles; and their zeal in planting Churches among the heathen, on a Scriptural model, are founded on apostolical precedent, and are entitled to the respect of the Christian world. These practices the Church of England cordially approves, and offers to her elder sister of Rome the right hand of fellowship, and admits the validity of her ordinations. Thus far, and unhappily no farther, can the union be admitted: the simple truth of the Gospel and the original order of the Church must not be compromised, even for the love of peace and conciliation. The vain ambition of her prelates, and the superstitious credulity of her inferior ministries, are in direct opposition to the spirit of the Gospel, in which they are thought worthy of distinct prediction and condemnation. The infallibility of general councils is not only refuted by the history of their own conflicting decrees, but by scriptural testimonies, and by daily experience of the peccability of individual and associated man. The pre

sumption of an universal Father is contrary to the equality and mutual submission, the modesty even of childhood, which should distinguish the brethren of the ministry, and to that devout homage, which is due from all to Christ, the only Master, and to God, the only Father of the Christian family. The boasted inheritance of the keys of St. Peter is a gratuitous assumption from the history of that Apostle, who does