a£*j? LIBRARY OF THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. Case > Division.... SW, Sect i on Book, Vo. 8V './yi5v at three hundred years after Christ, no trace of prescribed liturgies is to be found. The liturgies which go under the names of Peter, Mark, James, Clemens, and Basil, have been given up as forgeries, even by the most re- spectable Episcopal writers. See A Discourse concerning Liturgies, by the Rev. David Clarkson, a Presbyterian minister of England, the venerable ancestor of the large family of that name in the United States. TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 169 gregation conducted its worship in his day, it follows, that in the time of Justin, every congregation had its bishop; or, in other words, that this was a title applied in primitive times to the ordinary pastors of particular churches. The testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, who flou- rished at the close of the second century, is likewise in favour of our doctrine concerning the Christian ministry. Clement was a. presbyter of the church in Alexandria, and a prodigy of learning in his day. The following extracts from his writings will enable us to judge in what light he ought to be considered as a witness on this subject. Pxdagog. lib. 1. " We who have rule over the churches, are shepherds or pastors, after the image of the Good Shepherd." Ibid. lib. iii. In proof of the impropriety of women wearing foreign hair, among other arguments, he uses this, " On whom, or what will the presbyter impose his hand? To whom or what will he give his blessing ? Not to the woman who is adorned, but to strange locks of hair, and through them to another's head." Ibid. " Many other commands, appertaining to select persons, are written in the sacred books; some to presbyters, some to bishops, some to deacons, and some to widows." Stromat. lib. i. " Just so in the church, the pres- byters are intrusted with the dignified ministry ; the deacons with the subordinate." Ibid. lib. iii. Having cited the apostolic directions concerning marriage, in 1 Tim. v. 14, &c. he adds, " But he must be the hus- band of one wife only, whether he be a presbyter, or deacon, or layman, if he would use matrimony with- out reprehension." Again — " What can they say to 15 170 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. these things who inveigh against marriage? Since the apostle enjoins, that the bishop to be set over the church be one who rules his own house well. Ibid, lib. vi. " This man is in reality a presbyter ', and a true deacon of the purpose of God — not ordained of men, nor because a presbyter, therefore esteemed a righteous man ; but because a righteous man, there- fore now reckoned in the presbytery; and though here upon earth he hath not been honoured with the chief seat, yet he shall sit down among the four and twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Revelation." Again, Ibid. " Now in the church here, the progressions of bishops, presbyters^ deacons, I deem to be imitations of the evangelical glory, and of that dispensation which the Scriptures tell us they look for, who following the steps of the apostles, have lived according to the Gospel in the perfection of righteousness. These men, the apostle writes, being taken up into the clouds, shall first minister as dea- cons, then be admitted to a rank in the presbytery, according to the progression in glory: for glory dif- fereth from glory, until they grow up to a perfect man." Again — u Of that service of God about which men are conversant, one is that which makes them better; the other ministerial. In like manner in the church, the presbyters retain the form of that kind which makes men better; and the deacons that which is ministerial. In both these ministries, the angels serve God in the dispensation of earthly things." Again, in his book, Quis dives salvandus sit, he has the following singular passage: "Hear a fable, and yet not a fable, but a true story reported of John the apostle, delivered to us, and kept in memo- ry. After the death of the tyrant, when he (John) TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 171 had returned to Ephesus, out of the isle of Patmos, being desired, he went to the neighbouring nations, where he appointed bishops, where he set in order whole cities, and where he chose by lot unto the ecclesiastical function, of those who had been pointed out by the Spirit as by name. When he was come to a certain city, not far distant, the name of which some mention, and among other things had refreshed the brethren; beholding a young man of a portly body, a gracious countenance, and fervent mind, he looked upon the bishop, who was set over all, and said, I commit this young man to thy custody, in pre- sence of the church, and Christ bearing me witness. When he had received the charge, and promised the performance of all things relative to it, John again urged, and made protestations of the same thing; and afterwards departed to Ephesus. And the presbyter, taking the young man, brought him to his own house, nourished, comforted, and cherished him ; and at length baptized him." From these extracts it will be seen that Clement, though a presbyter of the church of Alexandria, speaks of himself as of one of its governors, and claims the title of " a shepherd or pastor, after the image of the good Shepherd," a title which the greater part of Episcopal writers acknowledge to have been given in the primitive Church to the highest order of minis- ters. He represents the presbyters as intrusted with " the dignified ministry," and the deacons with the subordinate, without suggesting any thing of a more dignified order. He applies the apostolic direction in 1 Tim. iii. 2, 4, in one place to bishops, and in another to presbyters, which would have no pertinency if he did not refer in both cases to the same order of ministers. 172 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. He compares the grades of church officers with the orders of angels; but we read only of angels and archangels. It is observable also, that the person to whom John committed the young man, is in one place called a bishop, and immediately afterwards a presby- ter, which we cannot suppose would have been done, had the superiority of order for which prelatists con- tend, been known in his day. It is further supposed by some, that when Clement speaks of imposition of hands on the heads of those females who wore false hair, he alludes to the rite of confirmation. If this be so, which is extremely doubtful, it is the first hint we have, in all antiquity, of this right being practised; but, unfortunately for the Episcopal cause, the impo- sition of hands here mentioned, is ascribed to presby- ters. " On whom or what will the presbyter impose his hands?" From these circumstances we may con- fidently infer, that Clement knew nothing of an order of bishops, distinct from and superior to presbyters, and that the purity of the apostolic age was not, when he wrote, in this respect, materially corrupted. It is readily granted, that this father once speaks of " bishops, presbyters, and deacons," and once more, inverting the order, of " presbyters, bishops, and dea- cons." He also represents these as " progressions which imitate the angelic glory," and refers to the "chief seat in the presbytery." But none of these modes of expression afford the least countenance to the Episcopal doctrine. He no where tells us that there was any 'difference of order in his day, between bishops and presbyters; and far less does he convey any hint, that only the former ordained and confirmed. He says nothing of either of these rites, directly or indirectly, in any of his works. And when the friends TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 173 of Episcopacy suppose, that the mere use of the words bishop and presbyters, establishes their claim, they only adopt the convenient method of taking the point in dispute for granted, without a shadow of proof. If we suppose the bishop, alluded to by Cle- ment, to be the pastor of the church, the president or presiding presbyter, and the other presbyters to be his assistants, or perhaps ruling elders, it will account for the strongest expressions above recited, and will entirely agree with the language of Scripture, and of all the preceding fathers. The well informed reader will observe, that I have taken no notice of certain writings, called the " Apos- tolical Canons," and the " Apostolical Constitutions/' which have been sometimes quoted in this contro- versy. They are so generally considered as alto- gether unworthy of credit, that I deem no apology necessary for this omission. When Episcopal writers of the greatest eminence style them " impudent forge- ries," and their author " a cheat, unworthy of credit," I may well be excused for passing them by. Indeed, concerning the " Apostolical Constitutions," it is believed that scarcely any writer of intelligence and credit pretends to plead for their authenticity. As to the " Apostolical Canons," though Beveridge, and a few others have been disposed to contend in their behalf, it is certain that the weight of evidence is against them. Bishop Taylor speaks of them in the following strong terms: "Even of the fifty (Canons) which are most respected, it is evident that there are some things so mixed with them, and no mark of difference left, that the credit of all is much impaired; insomuch that Isidore, of Seville, says, " they were apocryphal, made by heretics, and pub- 15* 174 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. lished under the title apostolical; but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them."* I have now given a fair specimen of the manner in which the fathers of the first two hundred years speak on the subject before us. I know not of a single pas- sage to be found among the writers of that early- period, more direct or decisive in favour of prelacy than those which I have quoted. It would give me the greatest pleasure, if the limits to which this manual is confined allowed me, to present every line and word left by the early fathers, that can be considered as having the remotest relation to the subject under con- sideration. I am perfectly persuaded that the more complete and faithful the collection of such extracts, the greater would be the amazement of the reader at the claims which our Episcopal brethren profess to found upon them, and the stronger his conviction of the utter failure of their testimony. Let me, then, appeal to the candour of the reader, whether the assertions made at the beginning of this chapter, are not fully supported. Has he seen a sin- gle passage which proves that Christian bishops, with- in the first two centuries, were, in fact, an order of clergy distinct from those presbyters who were au- thorized to preach and administer sacraments, and superior to them? Has he seen a sentence which fur- nishes even probable testimony, that these bishops received, as such, anew and superior ordination; that each bishop had under him a number of congregations with their pastors, whom he governed; and that with this superior order exclusively was deposited the power of ordaining and administering the rite of con- * Liberty of Prophesying, Sect. 5, Art. 9- TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 175 firmation? Has he found even plausible evidence in support of any one of these articles of Episcopal be- lief? Above all, has he found a syllable which inti- mates that these were not only facts, but also that they were deemed of so much importance as to be essential to the very existence of the Church? Even supposing he had found such declarations in some or all of the early fathers; what then ? Historic fact is not divine institution. There were many facts in the apostolic church which none of us now think it our duty to adopt in practice. But has he found the fact ? I will venture to say, he has not. We are so far from being told by the writers within this period, " with one voice," that bishops are a superior order to preaching presbyters, that not one among them says any thing like it. Instead of finding them " unani- mously," and "constantly" declaring that the right of ordination is exclusively vested in bishops as a superior order, we cannot find a single passage in which such information, or any thing that resembles it, is conveyed. And, with respect to confirmation, which is claimed as one of the appropriate duties of the diocesan bishop, it is not so much as once men- tioned by any authentic writer, within the first two hundred years, as a ceremony which was in use at all,* and much less as appropriated to a particular order of clergy. On the contrary, we have seen that these writers, with remarkable uniformity, apply the terms bishop, presbyter, president, shepherd, pastor, interchange- * Unless the doubtful passage before quoted from Clemens Alex- andrinus, may be supposed to refer to this rite: and if so, then it will follow, from that passage, that, in the days of Clemens, presbyters confirmed. 176 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. ably to the same officers; that the apostolical succes- sion is expressly ascribed to presbyters; that a bishop is represented as performing duties which would in- volve absurdity on any other supposition than that of his being the pastor of a single flock ; and that in all cases in which any distinction is made between bishops and presbyters, it evidently points out, either the distinction between preaching and ruling presby- ters; or that between those who were fixed pastors of churches, and those who, though in full orders, and of the same rank, had no pastoral charge, and, until they obtained such a place, acted the part of assistants to pastors. In short, when the testimony of the early fathers is thoroughly sifted, it will be found to yield nothing to the Episcopal cause but simply the use of the title bishop. Now, when the advocates of Epis- copacy find this title in the New Testament evidently applied to presbyters, they gravely tell us that the mere title is nothing, and that the interchange of these titles is nothing. But when we find precisely the same titles in the early fathers, and the same inter- change of these titles, as in the Scriptures, they are compelled either to alter their tone, and to abandon their former reasoning, or else to submit to the morti- fication of being condemned out of their own mouths. The friends of prelacy have often, and with much apparent confidence, challenged us to produce out of all the early fathers, a single instance of an ordination performed by presbyters. Those who give this chal- lenge might surely be expected, in all decency and justice, to have a case of Episcopal ordination ready to be brought forward, from the same venerable records. But have they ever produced such a case? They have not. Nor can they produce it. As there TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 177 is, unquestionably, no instance mentioned in Scrip- ture of any person, with the title of bishop, perform- ing an ordination; so it is equally certain that no such instance has yet been found in any Christian writer within the first two centuries. Nor can a sin- gle instance be produced of a person already ordained as a presbyter, receiving a new and second ordination as bishop. To find a precedent favourable to their doctrine, the advocates of Episcopacy have been un- der the necessity of wandering into periods when the simplicity of the gospel had, in a lamentable degree, given place to the devices of men; and when the " man of sin" had commenced that system of unhallowed usurpation, which for so many centuries corrupted and degraded the church of God. I promised, in a preceding chapter, to produce some testimony from the fathers in regard to the deacon's office. The following extracts from early writers plainly show, not only that the deacon was originally what we have stated in a former chapter, but that this continued to be the case for several centuries. Hermas, one of the apostolical fathers, in his Simili- tude, ix. 27, tells us, that " of such as believed, some were set over inferior functions, or services, being in- trusted with the poor and widows." Origen (Tract. 16, in Matt.) says, "The deacons preside over the money tables of the church." And again, "Those deacons who do not manage well the money of the church committed to their care, but act a fraudulent part, and dispense it, not according to justice, but for the purpose of enriching themselves; these act the part of money-changers, and keepers of those tables which our Lord overturned. For the deacons were 178 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. appointed to preside over the tables of the church, as we are taught in the Acts of the Apostles." Cyprian (Epist. 52) speaks of a certain deacon who had been deposed from his sacred deaconship on account of his fraudulent and sacrilegious misapplication of the church's money to his own private use, and for his denial of the widow's and orphan's pledges deposited with him." And, in another place, (Epist. ad Ro- gatianum) as a proof that his view of this office is not misapprehended, he refers the appointment of the first deacons to the choice and ordination at Jerusalem, as recited at large in the Acts of the Apostles. Ambrose, in speaking of the fourth cen- tury — the time in which he lived — (Comment, in Ephes. iv.) says, " The deacons do not publicly preach." Chrysostom, who lived in the same century, in his Commentary on Acts vi. remarks, that " The deacons had need of great wisdom, although the preaching of the gospel was not committed to them;" and observes further, that " it is absurd to suppose that they should have the offices of preaching and taking care of the poor committed to them, seeing it is impossible for them to discharge both functions ade- quately." Jerome, in his letter to Evagrius, calls dea- cons " ministers of tables and widows." And in the Apostolical Constitutions, which, though undoubtedly spurious as an apostolical work, may probably be referred to the fourth or fifth century, it is declared, (Lib. viii. cap. 28,) " It is not lawful for the deacons to baptize, or to administer the eucharist, or to pro- nounce the greater or smaller benediction." Other citations, to the same amount, might easily be pro- duced. But it is unnecessary. The above furnish a TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 179 clear indication of the nature of the deacon's office, in the primitive Church, and during the first three or four centuries. I will therefore only add, that the learned Suicer, of Germany, in his " Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus," under the article AeaxdW, speaks thus, "In the apostolic Church, deacons were those who distributed alms to the poor, and took care of them; in other words they were the treasurers of the Church's charity. The original institution of this class of officers is set forth in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. With respect to them, the sixteenth chapter of the council of Constantinople (in Trullo) says, " They are those to whom the common administering unto poverty is committed; not those who administer the sacra- ments." And Aristinus, in his Synopsis of the Canons of the same Council, Can. 18th, says, " Let him who alleges that the seven, of whom mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles, were deacons, know that the account there given is not of those who ad- minister the sacraments, but of such as "served tables." Zonaras, ad Can. 16. Trullanum, p. 145, says, " Those who by the apostles were appointed to the deaconship, were not ministers of spiritual things, but ministers and dispensers of meats." CEcume- nius, also, on the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, says, " They laid their hands on the deacons who had been elected, which office was by no means the same with that which obtains at the present day in the Church, (i. e. under the same name,) but that with the utmost care and diligence, they might distri- bute what was necessary to the sustenance of widows and orphans." Such is the result of the appeal to the early fathers. 180 TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. They are so far from giving even a semblance of sup- port to the Episcopal claim, that, like the Scriptures, they every where speak a language wholly incon- sistent with it, and favourable only to the doctrine of ministerial parity. What then shall we say of the assertions so often and so confidently made, that the doctrine of a superior order to presbyters, styled bishops, has been maintained in the Church, " from the earliest ages," in " the ages immediately succeed- ing the apostles," and by " all the fathers, from the beginning?" What shall we say of the assertion, that the Scriptures, interpreted by the writings of the early fathers, decidedly support the same doctrine? I will only say, that those who find themselves able to justify such assertions, must have been much more successful in discovering early authorities in aid of their cause, than the most diligent, learned, and keen- sighted of their predecessors. TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 181 CHAPTER V. TESTIMONY OF THE LATER FATHERS. In citing the fathers, it was necessary to draw a dis- tinct line between those who are to be admitted as credible witnesses, and those whose testimony is to be suspected. I have accordingly drawn this line at the close of the second century. About this time, as will be afterwards shown, among many other corruptions, that of clerical imparity appeared in the Church ; and even the Papacy, as we have before seen, had begun to urge its antichristian claims. From the commence- ment of the third century, therefore, every witness on the subject of Episcopacy is to be received with cau- tion. As it is granted, on all hands, that the mystery of iniquity had then begun to work: as great and good men are known, from this time to have countenanced important errors, errors acknowledged to be such by Episcopalians as well as ourselves: as uncommanded rites and forms, both of Jewish and pagan origin, be- gan to be introduced into Christian worship, and to have a stress laid upon them as unreasonable as it was unwarranted; we are compelled to examine the writers from the commencement of the third century downwards, with the jealousy which we feel towards men who stand convicted of having departed from the simplicity of the gospel; and concerning some of whom it is perfectly well known, that many of their alleged facts are as false as their principles. 16 182 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. But though the fathers from the beginning of the third century are not to be contemplated with the same respect, nor relied upon with the same confi- dence as their predecessors; still they deserve much attention; and in the perusal of their writings, we shall find many passages which confirm the doctrine and the statements exhibited in the foregoing pages. We shall sometimes, indeed, meet with modes of expres- sion and occasional hints, which indicate that the love of pre-eminence, which has, in all ages, so much dis- turbed the church as well as the state, had begun to form into a system its plans and claims. Not a sen- tence, however, can be found until the fourth century, which gives any intimation that bishops were con- sidered as a different order from presbyters ; or that the former were peculiarly invested with the ordain- ing power. Let us then inquire in what manner some of these later fathers speak on the subject under con- sideration. Tertullian began to flourish about the year 200. His writings are voluminous, and their authenticity is generally admitted. And though he has been often quoted by our opponents in this controversy, as a wit- ness favourable to their cause, yet if I mistake not, a little attention to the few hints which he drops on this subject, will show that his testimony is directly of an opposite kind. The following passages are found in his works. *dpolog. " In our religious assemblies certain ap- proved elders preside, who have obtained their office by merit and not by bribes." Be Corona. " We re- ceive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper from the hands of none but the presidents of our assemblies." In the same work, cap. 3, he informs us, that the TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 183 Christians among whom he dwelt, were in the habit of receiving the Lord's Supper three times in each week, viz. on Wednesdays and Fridays, as well as on the Lord's days." Ibid. " Before we go to the water to be baptized, we first in the church, under the hand of the president, profess to renounce the devil." Be Baptismo. " It remains that I remind you of the cus- tom of giving and receiving baptism. The right of giving this ordinance belongs to the highest priest, who is the bishop; then to elders and deacons; yet not without the authority of the bishop, for the sake of the honour of the church. This being secured, peace is secured; otherwise, even the laity have the right." He then goes on to observe, that although the laity have the right of baptizing in cases of neces- sity, yet " that they ought to be modest, and not to assume to themselves the appointed office of the bishop." Be Hseretic. " Let them (the heretics) pro- duce the original of their churches ; let them turn over the roll of their bishops; so running down in a con- tinued succession, that their first bishop had some one of the apostles, or of the apostolic men (who perse- vered with the apostles) for his author and predeces- sor. Thus the apostolical churches have their rolls, as the church of Smyrna has Polycarp constituted there by John, and the Church of Rome, Clement or- dained by Peter. And the other churches can tell who were ordained bishops over them by the apos- tles, and who have been their successors to this day." These quotations are the strongest that Episcopa- lians produce from Tertullian in support of their sys- tem. Let us examine them. This father tells us, that in his day, presbyters presided in their assemblies; that the presidents of their assemblies alone, in ordi- 184 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. nary cases, baptized ; and that they received the Lord's Supper from no other hands but those of the presi- dents: and at the same time he informs us, that ad- ministering baptism is the appropriate right of the highest priest, who is the bishop. What are we to infer from this representation, but that presbyter, pre- sident, and bishop, are employed by Tertullian as titles of the same men? Again; this father, while he declares that each bishop or president performed all the baptisms for his flock, and that they received the eucharist from no other hands than his, mentions that they were in the habit of attending on the eucharist three times in each week. Now the man who per- formed every baptism in the church under his care, and who administered the Lord's Supper three times every week to all the members of his church, could only have been the pastor of one congregation. To suppose that any minister, however great his activity and zeal, could statedly perform this service for more than a single church, involves a manifest impossibility. Nor is this all: absurdity is added to impossibility, by supposing, as Episcopalians must, that the bishop did all this when he had many presbyters under him, who were all invested by the very nature of their office, with the power of administering both sacraments as well as himself. But it will be asked — why then is the bishop called by Tertullian the highest priest? Does not this ex- pression indicate that there was one priest in a church, at that time, who had some kind of superiority over the other priests of the same church ? I answer, this expression implies no superiority of order. The high- est priest might have been the only pastor of the church; nor is there any thing in the title inconsistent TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 185 with this supposition. A common pastor is " the highest priest" known in the Presbyterian church. To draw a conclusion either in favour of diocesan Episcopacy, or against it, from language so entirely ambiguous in its import, is surely more calculated to expose the weakness than to exhibit the strength of the cause in which it is adduced. Besides, Tertullian informs us that this bishop, or highest priest, was alone invested with the right of baptizing and administer- ing the Lord's Supper; that the bishop might, when he thought proper, empower elders and deacons to baptize; and that even private Christians, who bore no office in the church, might also baptize in cases of necessity. But still he declares that administering baptism was " the appointed office of the bishop," and that they received the Lord's Supper from no other hands than his. Either, then, Tertullian writes in a very confused and contradictory manner, or else both the bishop and elders mentioned by him are officers of a very different character from those who are dis- tinguished by the same titles in modern Episcopal churches. His highest priest was evidently no other than the pastor of a single congregation; the president of the assembly, and of the presbytery or eldership, which belonged, like himself, to a particular church. With respect to the passage quoted above, in which this father speaks of" the roll of bishops," and of the line of bishops running down in a continual succes- sion, it is nothing to the purpose of those who adduce it to support diocesan Episcopacy. What kind of bishops were those of whom Tertullian here speaks? were they parochial or diocesan ? If we consider them, as other passages in his writings compel us to con- sider them, as the pastors of single congregations, then 16* 186 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. the obvious construction of the passage is perfectly- agreeable to Presbyterian principles. But, what esta- blishes this construction is, that Irenseus, who was nearly contemporary with Tertullian, in a passage quoted in a preceding chapter, in a similar appeal to the heretics, speaks of the list or roll of presbyters, and represents the apostolical succession as flowing through the line of presbyters; an incontestible proof that the words bishop and presbyter were used by both these fathers, as convertible titles for the same office. Cyprian, the venerable bishop of Carthage, who flourished and wrote about the year 250, is often quoted by Episcopal writers as a strong witness in their favour. The following quotations will show in what light his testimony ought to be viewed. Epist. 73. " Whence we understand, that it is lawful for none but the presidents of the church to baptize and grant remission of sins." And again, Epist. 67. "The people should not flatter themselves that they are free from fault, when they communicate with a sinful priest, and give their consent to the presidency of a wicked bishop. Wherefore a flock that is obedient to God's commands, and fears him, ought to separate from a wicked bishop, and not to join the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest; since the flock or people has the chief power of choosing worthy priests and refusing unworthy ones, which we see comes down to us from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the flock, and in the sight of all, that he may be approved as worthy and fit, by the judg- ment and testimony of all. This is observed, accord- ing to divine authority, in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter, speaking to the people concerning the TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 187 ordination of a bishop in the place of Judas; it is said Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples, the whole multitude being met together- And we may take notice that the apostles observed this, not only in the ordination of bishops and priests, but also of deacons, concerning whom it is written in the Acts, that the twelve gathered together the whole multitude of the disciples, and said unto them, &c. which was, there- fore, so diligently and carefully transacted before all the people, lest any unworthy person should, by secret arts, creep into the ministry of the altar, or the sacer- dotal station. This, therefore, is to be observed and held as founded on divine tradition and apostolic prac- tice; which is also kept up with us, and almost in all the provinces, that in order to the right performance of ordination, the neighbouring bishops of the same province meet with that flock to which the bishop is ordained, and that the bishop be chosen in presence of the people, who know every one's life, and are ac- quainted with their whole conversation. Which we see was done by you in the ordination of Sabinus, our colleague, that the Episcopacy was conferred on him by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and of the bishops who were met there, and wrote to you concerning him." - Epist. 32. " Through all the vicissitudes of time, the ordination of bishops, and the constitution of the church, are so handed down, that the church is built on the bishops, and every act of the church is ordered and managed by them. Seeing, therefore, this is founded on the law of God, I wonder that some should be so rash and insolent as to write to me in the name of the church, seeing a church consists of a bishop, clergy, and all that stand faithful." 188 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. Tract. Be Unitat. Eccles. " Our Lord speaks to Peter, I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, &c. Upon one he builds his church; and though he gave an equal power to all his apostles, yet that he might manifest unity, he ordered the beginning of that unity to proceed from one person. The rest of the apostles were the same that Peter was, being endued with the same fellow- ship both of honour and power. But the beginning proceeds from unity, that the church may be shown to be one." Epist. 3. " The deacons ought to remember, that the Lord hath chosen apostles, that is, bishops and presidents; but the apostles constituted deacons, as the ministers of their episcopacy and of the church." These extracts are remarkable. Though they are precisely those which Episcopalians generally adduce from Cyprian in support of their causey yet the dis- cerning reader will perceive that all their force lies against that cause. It is evident from these extracts, that bishop and president are used by this father as words of the same import; that the officer thus de- nominated was the only one who had the power of administering baptism; that the bishop in Cyprian's days was chosen by the people of his charge, was or- dained over a particular " flock," and received his or- dination in the presence of that flock. All these cir- cumstances agree perfectly with the Presbyterian doctrine, that the bishop is the pastor of a single con- gregation; but wear a most unnatural and improba- ble aspect when applied to a diocesan bishop, having a number of flocks or congregations with their pas- tors under his care. It is readily granted, that Cyprian speaks of the TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 189 church of Carthage as having several presbyters or elders as well as deacons, and that he distinguishes between presbyters of that church, and himself their bishop. But how many of these were ruling presby- ters, and how many were empowered to teach and ad- minister sacraments, as well as to rule •, and in what respects he differed from the other presbyters, whether only as a standing chairman or president among them, as seems to be intimated by his calling them repeat- edly his colleagues or co-presbyters, we are no where informed. The probability is, that he was simply the pastor of the church, and that the presbyters of whom he speaks, were either his assistants, or ruling elders. All we know is, that writing to them in his exile, he requests them, during his absence, to perform his du- ties as well as their own; which looks as if Cyprian considered the presbyters of his church, or at least some of them, as clothed with full power to perform all those acts which were incumbent on him as bishop, and consequently as of the same order with himself. Again; when Cyprian speaks of the Church as " be- ing built on the bishops," and of all the acts of the Church as being managed by them, Episcopalians hastily triumph, as if this were decided testimony in their favour. But their triumph is premature. Does Cyprian, in these passages, refer to diocesan or paro- chial bishops? To prelates, who had the government of a diocese, containing a number of congregations and their ministers; or to pastors of single flocks ? The latter, from the whole strain of his epistles, is evi- dently his meaning. He no where gives the least hint of having more than one congregation under his own care. He represents his whole church as ordi- narily joining together in the celebration of the eucha- 190 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. rist. He declares his resolution to do nothing with- out the council of his elders, and the consent of his flock. He aflirms that every church, when properly organized, consists of a bishop, clergy, and the bro- therhood. All these representations apply only to parochial, and by no means to diocesan Episcopacy. For if such officers belong to every church, or or- ganized religious society, then we must conclude that by the clergy of each church, as distinguished from the bishop, is meant those elders who assisted the pastor in the discharge of parochial duty. It is well known that Cyprian applies the term clergy to all sorts of church officers. In his epistles, not only the presbyters, or elders, but also the deacons, sub- deacons, readers, and acolyths are all spoken of as belonging to the clergy. The ordination of such per- sons, (for it seems in his time they were all formally ordained) he calls ordinationes clericce; and the let- ters which he transmitted by them, he styles liters clericse. * The same fact may be clearly established from the writings of Ambrose, Hilary, and Epipha- nius, and also from the canons of the Council of Nice. When Cyprian, then, speaks of a church, when pro- perly organized, as consisting of a bishop, clergy, and brotherhood, he not only speaks a language which is strictly reconcilable with Presbyterian church govern- ment; but which can scarcely be reconciled with any thing else. For it is alone descriptive of a pastor or overseer of a single church, with his elders and dea- cons to assist in their appropriate functions. But there is one passage in the above cited extracts, which com- pletely establishes the position, that Cyprian con- sidered bishops and preaching presbyters as of the same order. He recognizes the same kind of pre- TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 191 eminence in bishops over presbyters, as Peter had over the other apostles. But of what nature was this superiority ? He shall speak for himself. " The rest of the apostles/' says he, " were the same that Peter was, being endued with the same fellowship, both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the church may be shown to be one." In other words, every bishop is of the same order with those presbyters who labour in the word and doc- trine: and only holds, in consequence of his being vested with a pastoral charge, the distinction of presi- dent or chairman among them. That I do not mis- take Cyprian's meaning, you will readily be per- suaded, when I inform you that Mr. Dodwell, that learned and able advocate for Episcopacy, expressly acknowledges, that Cyprian makes Peter the type of every bishop, and the rest of the apostles the type of every presbyter. Firmilian, bishop of Cesarea, who was contempo- rary with Cyprian, in an epistle addressed to the lat- ter, has the following passage. Cyprian. Epist. 15. " But the other heretics also, if they separate from the Church, can have no power or grace, since all power and grace are placed in the Church, where presbyters preside, in whom is vested the power of baptizing and imposition of hands, and ordination." This passage needs no comment. It not only represents the right to baptize and the right to ordain as going together; but it also expressly ascribes both to the elders who preside in the churches. The testimony of Jerome on this subject is remark- ably explicit and decisive. This distinguished father, who nourished about the year 380, and who was ac- knowledged by the whole Christian world to be one 192 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. of the most pious and learned men of his day,* does not merely convey his opinion in indirect terms and occasional hints, as most of the preceding fathers had done, but in the most express and formal manner. In his Commentary on Titus we find the following pas- sage. " Let us diligently attend to the words of the apostle, saying, That thou mayest ordain elders in every city, as I have appointed thee. Who discoursing in what follows, what sort of presbyter is to be or- dained, saith, If any one be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c, afterwards adds, For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, &c. A presby- ter, therefore, is the same as a bishop; and before there were, by the devil's instinct, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos,and I of Cephas,! the churches were govern- * The celebrated Erasmus declared concerning Jerome, that " he was, without controversy, the most learned of all Christians, the prince of divines, and for eloquence that he excelled Cicero." f Some Episcopal writers have attempted, from this allusion of Je- rome to 1 Cor. i. 12, to infer that he dates Episcopacy as early as the dispute at Corinth, to which this passage refers. But this inference is effectually refuted by two considerations. In the first place, Je- rome adduces proof that bishop and presbyter were originally the same, from portions of the New Testament which were certainly written after the first Epistle to the Corinthians. In the second place, that language of the apostle, one saith I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos, &c, has been familiarly applied in every age, by way of allusion, to actual divisions in the Church. And were those who put the construction on Jerome which I am opposing, a little better acquainted with his writings, they would know that in another place he himself applies the same passage to some disturbers of the Church's peace in the fourth century. Suppose any one were describing a di- vision in a church in the nineteenth century, and were to say, as has been said a thousand times since the days of Paul, " They are all at strife, one saying, ' I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos, &c.' " how would he be understood ? As referring to that Scripture by way of allusion, or as meaning to say that the division which he described, took place in the days of Paul ] TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 193 ed by the common council of presbyters. But after- wards, when every one thought that those whom he baptized were rather his than Christ's, it was deter- mined through the whole world, that one of the pres- byters should be set above the rest, to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schism might be taken away. If any suppose that it is merely our opinion, and not that of the Scriptures, that bishop and presbyter are the same, and that one is the name of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostles to the Philippians, saying, " Paul and Timo- thy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Philippi is a city of Macedonia, and cer- tainly in one city there could not be more than one bishop as they are now styled. But at that time they called the same men bishops whom they called pres- byters; therefore, he speaks indifferently of bishops as of presbyters. This may seem even yet doubtful to some, till it be proved by another testimony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when the apostle came to Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the presbyters of that church, to whom, among other things, he said, "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood." Here observe dili- gently that calling together the presbyters of one city, Ephesus, he afterwards styles the same persons bishops. If any will receive that epistle which is written in the name of Paul to the Hebrews, there also the care of the Church is equally divided among many, since he writes to the people, " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for 17 194 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. they watch for your souls as those that must give an account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you.'' And Peter (so called from the firmness of his faith) in his epistle, saith," The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter, and a witness of the suffer- ings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you, not by constraint but willingly." These things I have written to show, that among the an- cients, presbyters and bishops were the same. But, by little and little, that all the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one. As, therefore, the presbyters know, that by the custom of the church they are subject to him who is their president, so let bishops know that they are above presbyters more by the custom of the Church than by the true dispensation of Christ; and that they ought to rule the Church in common, imitating Moses, "who, when he might alone rule the people of Israel, chose seventy with whom he might judge the people. " In Jerome's epistle to Evagrius, he speaks on the same subject in the following pointed language.* " I * Among the numerous expedients to get rid of this decisive testi- mony of Jerome, one is, to represent that the epistle to Evagrius was written in a fit of passion, in which the worthy father had particular inducements to magnify the office of presbvter as much as possible. To suppose that a man of Jerome's learning and piety, even in a fit of anger, would deliberately commit to writing a doctrine directly opposite to " the faith of the universal church from the beginning," and that too on a point of fundamental importance to the very exist- ence of the Redeemer's kingdom on earth; that he should so earnestly insist upon it, and make such formal and solemn appeals to Scripture in support of it, is a supposition which can only be made by those who are driven to the utmost extremity for a subterfuge. But how shall we account for Jerome's having maintained the same doctrine, TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 195 hear that a certain person has broken ont into such folly that he prefers deacons before presbyters, that is before bishops: for when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and bishops were the same, who can endure it, that a minister of tables and of widows should proudly exalt himself above those at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is made ? Do you seek for authority? hear that testimony : "Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Would you have another example ? In the Acts of the Apostles, Paul speaks thus to the priests of one church — " Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, that you govern the church which he hath purchased with his own blood." And lest any should contend about there being a plurality of bishops in one church, hear also another testimony, by which it may most manifestly be proved, that a bishop and presbyter are the same — " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I have appointed thee. If any be blameless, the hus- band of one wife, &c. For a bishop must be blame- less, as the steward of God." And to Timothy — " Ne- glect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." And Peter also, in his first epistle, saith, " The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who illustrated by the same reasonings, and fortified by the same Scrip- tural quotations, in his Commentary on Titus, before quoted, which must be supposed to have been written with much reflection and se- riousness, and which was solemnly delivered as a legacy to the Church, by one of her most illustrious ministers ? 196 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. am also a presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed ; to rule the flock of Christ, and to inspect it, not of constraint, but willingly according to God;" which is more significantly expressed in the Greek 'ErtusxoTtow'tss, that is, superintending it, whence the name of bishop is drawn. Do the testimonies of such men seem small to thee? Let the evangelical trum- pet sound, the son of thunder, whom Jesus loved much, who drank the streams of doctrine from our Saviour's breast. " The presbyter to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth." And in an- other epistle, "the presbyter to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth." But that one was after- wards chosen, who should be set above the rest, was done as a remedy against schism; lest every one drawing the Church of Christ to himself, should break it in pieces. For at Alexandria, from Mark, the Evangelist, to Heraclas and Dionysius, the bishops thereof, the presbyters always named one, chosen from among them, and placed in an higher degree, bishop. As if an army should make an emperor; or the deacons should choose one of themselves whom they knew to be most diligent, and call him arch- deacon." And a little afterwards, in the same epistle, he says, " presbyter and bishop, the one is the name of age, the other of dignity: Whence in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, there is mention made of the ordination of bishop and deacon, but not of presbyters, because the presbyter is included in the bishop." After perusing this most explicit and unequivocal testimony; a testimony which one would imagine could scarcely have been more formal or more deci- sive; the reader will be surprised to learn that some TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 197 Episcopal writers have ventured to say, that Jerome merely offers a "conjecture," that in the apostles' days, bishop and presbyter were the same. If the extracts above stated be the language of conjecture I should be utterly at a loss to know what is the language of assertion and proof. In what manner could he have spoken more clearly or more positively ? But I will not insult the understanding of the reader by pursuing the refutation of this pretence. From the foregoing extracts, it is abundantly apparent: 1. That the interpretation given, in a former chap- ter, of those passages of Scripture which represent bishops and presbyters as the same, in office and power, as well as in title, is by no means a novel in- terpretation, invented to serve the purposes of a party, as Episcopalians have frequently asserted; but an in- terpretation more than fourteen hundred years old ; and represented as the general sense of the apostolic age, by one who had as good an opportunity of be- coming acquainted with early opinions on this sub- ject as any man then living. 2. That a departure from the primitive model of church government had taken place in Jerome's day; that this departure consisted in making a distinction of order between bishops and presbyters ; and that this distinction was neither warranted by Scripture, nor conformable to the apostolic model; but owed its origin to the decay of religion, and especially to the ambition of ministers. It commenced " when every one began to think that those whom he baptized were rather his than Christ's." And to crown all he as- serts, that it was "founded on the custom of the Church," rather than upon " any true dispensation of Christ." This conclusively decides his meaning. 17* 198 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 3. It is expressly asserted by Jerome, that this change in the constitution of the Christian ministry came in (paulatim) by little and little. He says, in- deed, in one of the passages above quoted, that it was agreed " all over the world," as a remedy against schism, to choose one of the presbyters, and make him president or moderator of the body ; and some commentators on this passage have represented it as saying that the change was made all at once. For- tunately, however, we have Jerome's express decla- ration in another place, that the practice came in gradually. But whether half a century or two cen- turies elapsed before the " whole world" came to an agreement on this subject, he does not say. 4. Jerome further informs us, that the first pre- eminence of bishops was only such as the body of the presbyters were able to confer. They were only standing presidents or moderators; and all the ordi- nation they received, on being thus chosen, was per- formed by the presbyters themselves.* This he tells us was the only Episcopacy that existed in the church * To this some Episcopal writers reply, that Jerome does not ex- pressly assert that the presbyters ordained the bishop, but only that they chose him, placed him in a higher seat, and called him bishop. And hence they take the liberty of inferring that the election was by the presbyters, but the ordination by other diocesan bishops. To sup- pose this, is to make Jerome reason most inconclusively, and adduce an instance which was not only nothing to the purpose, but directly hostile to his whole argument. If the presbyters did not do all that was done, the case had nothing to do with his reasoning. Besides, Eutychius the patriarch of Alexandria, in his "Origines Ecclesia Alexandrince," published by the learned Selden, expressly declares, " that the twelve presbyters constituted by Mark, upon the vacancy of the see, did choose out of their number one to be head over the rest, and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him, and blessed him, and made him patriarch." TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 199 of Alexandria, one of the most conspicuous then in the world, until after the middle of the third century. 5. It is finally manifest, from these quotations, that while Jerome maintains the parity of all ministers of the gospel in the primitive Church, he entirely ex- cludes deacons from being an order of clergy at all. " Who can endure it, that a minister of tables and of widows should proudly exalt himself above those at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is made?" Some zealous Episcopal writers have endeavoured to destroy the force of these express declarations of Jerome, by quoting other passages, in which he speaks of bishops and presbyters in the current language of his time. For instance, in one place, speaking of that pre-eminence which bishops had then attained, he asks, " What can a bishop do that a presbyter may not also do, excepting ordination?" But it is evident that Jerome, in this passage, refers, not to the primi- tive right of bishops, but to a prerogative which they had gradually acquired, and which was generally yielded to them in his day. His position is, that even then there was no right which they arrogated to themselves above presbyters, excepting that of ordi- nation. In like manner, in another place, he makes a kind of loose comparison between the officers of the Christian Church, and the Jewish priesthood. These passages, however, and others of a similar kind, fur- nish nothing in support of the Episcopal cause.* Je- rome, when writing on ordinary occasions, spoke of * Accordingly bishop Stillingfleet declares, " Among all the fifteen testimonies produced by a learned writer out of Jerome, for the supe- riority of bishops above presbyters, I cannot find one that does found it upon divine right; but only on the convenience of such an order for the peace and unity of the Church." — Irenicum, Part II. Chap- ter 6th. 200 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. Episcopacy as it then stood. But when he undertook explicitly to deliver an opinion respecting primitive Episcopacy, he expressed himself in the words we have seen; words as absolutely decisive as any friend of Presbyterian parity could wish. To attempt to set vague allusions, and phrases of dubious import in op- position to such express and unequivocal passages; passages in which the writer professedly and formally lays down a doctrine, reasons at great length in its support, and deliberately deduces his conclusion, is as absurd as it is uncandid. Jerome, therefore, notwith- standing all the arts which have been employed to set aside his testimony, remains a firm and decisive witness in support of our principle, that the doctrine of ministerial parity was the doctrine of the primitive Church. Accordingly some of the most learned advo- cates of prelacy that ever lived interpret Jerome pre- cisely as I have done, and consider him as expressly declaring that bishop and presbyter were the same in the apostolic age. Take the following as a specimen: Bishop Bilson, a warm friend of prelacy, in his work against Seminaries, book i. p. 318, expressly quotes Jerome, as teaching the doctrine which we ascribe to him, viz. " That bishops must understand that they are greater than presbyters, rather by cus- tom than by the Lord's appointment; and that bishops came in after the apostles' time." Dr. Willet, a very eminent divine of the Church of England, in the latter part of the reign of Queen Eli- zabeth, in his " Synopsis Papismi" a large and learned work, dedicated to the queen, and professedly containing the doctrines of his Church, in opposition to the Romanists, speaks thus — " Of the difference between bishops and priests there are three opinions: TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 201 the first, of Aerius, who did hold that all ministers should be equal, and that a bishop was not, nor ought to be superior to a priest. The second opinion is the other extreme of the Papists who would have not only a difference, but a princely pre-eminence of their bishops over the clergy, and that by the word of God. The third opinion is between both; that although this distinction of bishops and priests as it is now received, cannot be proved out of Scripture, yet it is very ne- cessary for the policy of the Church, to avoid schism, and to preserve it in unity. Jerome thus writeth, ' The apostle teaches evidently that bishops and pres- byters were the same, but that one was afterwards chosen to be set over the rest, as a remedy against schism.' To this opinion of St. Jerome subscribeth bishop Jewel, and another most reverend prelate of our own church, Archbishop Whitgift." — Synopsis Papismi, p. 273. The celebrated Episcopal divine, Dr. Saravia, who was honoured and preferred in England, explicitly grants that Jerome was against the divine right of Episcopacy. " Jerome's opinion," says he, " was private, and coincided with that of Aerius."* The learned prelate, Alphonso de Castro, understood Jerome in the same manner. He sharply reproves a certain writer who had endeavoured to set aside the testimony commonly derived from that father in favour of Presbytery, and insists that the testimony, as usually adduced, is correct. " But Thomas Wai- densis," says he, "truly is deceived; for Jerome does endeavour to prove that, according to divine institu- tion, there was no difference between presbyter and * De Gradibus Minist. Evangel. Cap. 23. 202 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. bishop." He afterwards adds, u Neither ought any- one to wonder that Jerome, though otherwise a most learned and excellent man, was mistaken."* Bishop Jewel understood Jerome as we do, and ex- pressly quotes the passage which is commonly quoted by Presbyterians, to show that this father asserts the original equality and identity of bishops and pres- byters.t Bishop Morton interprets Jerome in the same man- ner. He expressly acknowledges that Jerome repre- sents the difference between bishop and presbyter as brought into the Church not by divine, but human authority. He further asserts, that there was no sub- stantial difference, on the subject of Episcopacy, be- tween Jerome and Aerius. And further, that not only all the Protestants, but also all the primitive Doctors were of the same mind with Jerome.:}: The learned Episcopalian, Professor Whitaker, of the University of Cambridge, England, who flourished in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, concurred in this in- terpretation. " If Aerius," says he, " was a heretic in this point, he had Jerome to be his neighbour in that heresy; and not only him, but other fathers, both Greek and Latin, as is confessed by Medina. Aerius thought that presbyter did not differ from bishop by any divine law and authority; and the same thing was contended for by Jerome, and he defended it by those very Scripture testimonies that Aerius did."§ Few men have been more distinguished for their * Contra Heres. p. 103, 104. t Defence of his Apology for the Church of England, p. 248. t Cathol. Apolog. Lib. i. p. 118—120. § Controv. iv. Quest, i. Cap. iii. Sect. 30. TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 203 learned and zealous labours in favour of Episcopacy than Dr. William Nichols. Yet this eminent Episco- palian, speaking of Jerome, thus expresses himself. "At last came St. Jerome, though not till above three centuries after the apostles' times, who valuing him- self upon his learning, which, indeed, was very great; and being provoked by the insolence of some deacons, who set themselves above presbyters; to the end he might maintain the dignity of his order against such arrogant persons, he advanced a notion never heard of before, viz. that presbyters were not a different order from bishops; and that a bishop was only a more eminent presbyter, chosen out of the rest, and set over them, for preventing of schism."* Luther, in the Articles of Smalcald, which he framed, expressly declares that Jerome taught that bishop and presbyter were the same by divine right, and that the distinction between them was brought in only by human authority. This declaration was also subscribed by Melancthon. And in the Confessions of Wirtemberg and Helvetia the same statement is explicitly made.t * Defence of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, p. 241. t The manner in which Hooker, the author of the " Ecclesiastical Polity," treats Jerome's testimony is remarkable. After giving one of those Episcopal glosses of the learned father which would fasten upon him either self-contradiction or absurdity, he adds " This an- swer to St. Jerome seemeth dangerous. I have qualified it as I may by the addition of some words of restraint. Yet I satisfy not myself. In my judgment it would be altered." Perhaps the most natural construction of this passage is, that the author wrote it on the mar- gin of his manuscript, to express some misgiving of mind as to the gloss he had offered, and to suggest the propriety of some alteration ; but that some ignorant transcriber incorporated it with the text 204 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. I shall close my remarks on the testimony of Je- rome, with the judgment of Bishop Croft, an English prelate, who flourished in the reign of Charles Unex- pressed in the following words — " And now I desire my reader, if he understands Latin, to view the epis- tle of St. Jerome to Evagrius ; and doubtless he will wonder to see men have the confidence to quote any thing out of it for the distinction between Episcopacy and Presbytery; for the whole epistle is to show the identity of them."* But what strongly confirms our interpretation of Jerome is, that several fathers contemporary, or nearly so, with him, when called to speak specifically on the same subject, make, in substance, the same statement. In other parts of their writings, they speak, as Jerome did, in the current language of their time: but when they had occasion to express a precise opinion on the point now under consideration, they do it in a way not to be mistaken. Two or three examples of this will be sufficient. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, in writing to Jerome, who was a presbyter, expresses himself thus: " I en- treat you to correct me faithfully when you see I need it; for although, according to the names of honour which the custom of the Church has now brought into use, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter, nevertheless, in many respects, Augus- tine is still inferior to Jerome." Epist. 19. ad Hierom. It is worthy of notice that Bishop Jewel in the " Defence of his Apology for the Church of England," produces this passage for the express pur- pose of showing the original identity of bishop and * Naked Truth, p. 45. TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 205 presbyter, and translates it thus: " The office of bishop is above the office of priest, not by authority of the Scriptures, but after the names of honour which the custom of the Church hath now obtained." Defence, 122, 123. If there is meaning in words, Augustine represents the superiority of bishops to presbyters as introduced by the custom of the Church, rather than divine ap- pointment. Hilary, (sometimes called Ambrose,) who wrote about the year 376, in his Commentary on Ephesians iv. 2, has the following passage. " After that churches were planted in all places, and officers ordained, mat- ters were settled otherwise than they were in the be- ginning. And hence it is, that the apostles' writings do not in all things agree to the present constitution of the Church: because they were written under the first rise of the Church ; for he calls Timothy, who was created a presbyter by him, a bishop, for so at first the presbyters were called; among whom this was the course of governing churches, that as one with- drew another took his place; and in Egypt, at this day, the presbyters ordain (or consecrate, consignant) in the bishop's absence. But because the following presbyters began to be found unworthy to hold the first place, the method was changed, the council providing that not order,- but merit, should create a bishop." In this passage, we have not only an express decla- ration that the Christian Church, in the days of Hilary, had deviated from its primitive pattern, but also that this deviation had a particular respect to the name and office of bishop, which, in the beginning, was the same with presbyter. He also declares, that, not- withstanding this change, presbyters, even then, 18 206 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. sometimes ordained; and that the reason of their not continuing to exercise this power was, that an eccle- siastical arrangement, subsequent to the apostolical age, alone prevented it. It has been doubted, indeed, whether the word con- signant refers to ordination at all. It is conceded by several eminent Episcopal divines that the reference is to that rite; but whether it be so or not, the pas- sage undoubtedly teaches that there was something which the bishops in his day claimed as their pre- rogative, which had not been always appropriated to them, and which even then, in the bishop's absence, the presbyters considered themselves as empowered to perform. This is quite sufficient for my purpose. It shows that in the days of Hilary there had been a change from the original state of things, and that the bishops had encroached. The testimony of Chrysostom, who wrote about the year 398, is also strongly in our favour. " The apos- tle," says he, " having discoursed concerning the bishops, and described them, declaring what they ought to be, and from what they ought to abstain, omitting the order of presbyters, descends to the dea- cons; and why so, but because between bishop and presbyter there is scarcely any difference; and to them are committed both the instructions and the presidency of the Church; and whatever he said of bishops agrees also to presbyters. In ordination alone they have gone beyond the presbyters, and of this they seem to have defrauded them."* 1 Epist. ad Tim. * This perfectly agrees with the representation of Jerome, (with whom Chrysostom was nearly contemporary) who says that the only right which bishops had gained over presbyters, in his day, was that of ordination. TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 207 Horn. 11. The slightest inspection of Chrysostom's original here will add peculiar strength to this passage. The word here rendered defrauded, is n^sovextsiv, which implies a dishonest overreaching; and distinctly conveys the idea, not only that ordination was the only point, in his day, concerning which bishops had gained the precedence over presbyters; but that they had gained this by fraudulent means. This is the evident meaning of the word ^-Ksovextav. See 1 Thes- salonians iv. 6. " That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter," &c. See also 2 Cor. vii. 2; and again, xii. 17, IS, where the same word is used. Such a declaration from the pen of Chrysostom, who was himself a prelate, settles the matter that in the estimation of this father, (and it was impossible he should be mistaken about it,) the superiority of bishops was a contrivance of unhallowed ambition, Theodoret, who flourished about the year 430, in his Commentary on 1 Tim. iii., makes the following declaration: "The apostles call a presbyter a bishop, as we showed when we expounded the epistle to the Philippians, and which maybe also learned from this place, for after the precepts proper to bishops, he de- scribes the things which belong to deacons. But, as I said, of old they called the same men both bishops and presbyters." Primasius, who was contemporary with Theodoret, and is said to have been Augustine's disciple, in ex- plaining 1 Tim. iii. asks, " Why the apostle leaps from the duties of bishops to the duties of deacons, without any mention of presbyters?" and answers, "because bishops and presbyters are the same degree." .Sedulius, also, who wrote about the year 470, in his 208 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. Commentary on Titus i., expressly asserts the identity of bishop and presbyter. He declares, not only that the titles are interchangeably applied to the same men, but also that the office is the same; many of them being found in the primitive Church, in one city; which could not be true of diocesan bishops. In proof of this, he adduces the case of the elders of Ephesus, Acts xx., who all dwelt in one city, and who, though called elders or presbyters in the 17th verse of that chapter, are yet, in the 28th verse, called bishops. And, finally, Aerius, a presbyter of Sebastia, and contemporary with Jerome, maintained the same doc- trine with that father, on the subject before us. He not only opposed prayers for the dead, the supersti- tious observance of fasts and festivals, and other un- commanded rites; but he insisted, with zeal, that bishop and presbyter were the same in the apostolic Church, and that there ought to be no distinction of orders in the holy ministry. We are told, indeed, by the friends of prelacy, that Aerius was reputed an heretic for holding that there was no difference between bishops and presbyters. And as an authority on this subject, they refer us to Epiphanius, who, towards the close of the fourth cen- tury, undertook to give a list of heresies, and included Aerius in the number. But when this alleged fact is impartially examined, it will be found to weigh no- thing in this controversy. For, in the first place, Epi- phanius is a writer of no credit. The learned Mosheim speaks of him in the following terms. "His book against all the heresies which had sprung up in the Church until his time, has little or no reputation; as it is full of inaccuracies and errors, and discovers TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 209 almost in every page the levity and ignorance of its author." But, secondly, by comparing the whole tes- timony of antiquity on this subject, it appears that Aerius was condemned, not so much for maintaining that bishop and presbyter were the same by the word of God, as for insisting that there ought not to be any difference made between them; in asserting which, he opposed that pre-eminence which the bishops had gradually gained, and set himself against the actual constitution of most of the churches in his day. For this he was hated and reviled by the friends of high- church doctrines, and stigmatized as a heretic and schismatic* This appears to have been the true reason why Aerius rendered himself so obnoxious, and was condemned by so many; while Jerome and Augustine, unquestionably the most learned divines of the age, though they held and avowed substantially the same doctrine, yet escaped similar treatment, by tolerating, and even approving the moderate prelacy which was established in their time, not as a divine appointment, but as a system founded on human pru- dence. Accordingly Bishop Stillingfleet observes, " I believe, upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, were all of * The following passage from Dr. Hawies's (an Episcopal clergy- man) Ecclesiastical History, i. p. 340, is worthy of notice. " Aerius made a fiercer resistance, and maintained more offensive doctrines ; that bishops and presbyters in the Scripture are the same persons, and only different descriptions of age and office; that prayers for the dead were futile, and hopes from their intercession vain ; that stated fasts and festivals had no prescription in the New Testament. These, with similar assertions, roused a host of enemies, and he was quickly silenced. So superstition stalked triumphant, and no man dared open his mouth against any abuses." 18* 210 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. Aerius his judgment, as to the identity of both the name and the order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive Church. But here lay the difference : Aerius proceeded from hence to separate from bishops and their churches, because they were bishops. Whereas Jerome, while he held the same doctrine, did not think it necessary to cause a schism in the Church by separating from the bishops, for his opinion is clear, that the first institution of them was for preventing schism, and therefore for peace and unity he thought their institution very useful in the " Church of God. 57 Irenicum. To the judgment of Stillingfleet may be added that of Professor Raignolds, Bishop Morton, and other eminent Episcopal writers, who frankly ac- knowledge that Aerius coincided in opinion on this subject with Jerome, and other distinguished fathers, who undeniably taught the same doctrine, without being stigmatized as heretics. Another witness on whose testimony much stress is laid by Episcopalians, is Eusebius. They tell us that this historian, who lived early in the fourth cen- tury, frequently speaks of bishops as superior to com- mon presbyters; that he gives catalogues of the bishops who presided over several of the most emi- nent churches; that he mentions their names in the order of succcession, from the apostolic age down to his own time; and that all succeeding ecclesiastical writers speak the same language. But what does all this prove? Nothing more than we have before granted. No one disputes that before the time of Constantine, in whose reign Eusebius lived, a kind of prelacy prevailed, which was more fully organized and established by that emperor. But does Eusebius inform us what kind of difference there was between TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 211 the bishops and presbyters of his day? Does he say that the former were a different order from the latter? Does he declare that there was a superiority of order vested in bishops by divine appointment ? Does he assert that bishops in the days of the apostles, and for a century afterwards, were the same kind of officers with those who were called by the same title in the fouth century? Does he tell us that this superior order of clergy were the only ecclesiastical officers who were allowed, in his day, to ordain and confirm? I have never met with a syllable of all thisinEusebius. All that can be gathered from him is, that there were persons called bishops in the days of the apostles; that there had been a succession of bishops in the Church from the apostles to the fourth century, when he lived; and that in his day, there was a distinction between bishops and other presbyters. But does any one deny this? To assert that, because Eusebius speaks of par- ticular persons in the first and second centuries as bishops of particular churches, therefore they were so in the prelatical sense of the word, is really, im- posing on the credulity of unwary readers; since Episcopalians themselves grant that the term bishop was applied, in the apostolic age, and for some time afterwards, differently from what it was in the age of Eusebius. We agree that there were bishops in the first century, and have proved from Scripture and the early fathers, that this title was then applied to the ordinary pastors of single congregations. We agree, also, that there was a succession of bishops in the second and third centuries. And, finally, we agree that in the time of Constantine, prelacy was established in the Church. All this is perfectly consistent with our doctrine, viz. that diocesan Episcopacy, or bishops, 212 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. as an order superior to presbyters, were unknown in the primitive Church. I have never read a sentence in Eusebius that touches this point; and I need not repeat that it is the grand point in dispute. On the other hand, we have seen that Jerome, who lived and. wrote a little after Eusebius, not only touches this point, but formally discusses it, and unequivocally de- cides, that the bishops of Ephesus, Phiiippi, and Crete, in the days of Paul, were a very different kind of church officers from those bishops who lived in the fourth century. But this is not all. When Eusebius gives us formal catalogues of bishops in sucession, from the apostles' time until his own, he himself warns us against lay- ing too much stress on his information; frankly con- fessing, "that he was obliged to rely much on tradi- tion, and that he could trace no footsteps of other his- torians going before him only in a few narratives." This confession of Eusebius, I shall present in the words of the great Milton. " Eusebius, the ancientest writer of church history extant, confesses in the 4th chapter of his 3d book, that it was no easy matter to tell who were those that were left bishops of the churches by the apostles, more than what a man might gather from the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, in which number he reckons Timothy for bishop of Ephesus. So as may plainly appear, that this tradition of bishopping Timothy over Ephesus, was but taken for granted out of that place in St. Paul, which was only an entreating him to tarry at Ephesus, to do something left him in charge. Now if Eusebius, a famous writer, thought it so difficult to tell who were appointed bishops by the apostles, much more may we think it difficult to TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 213 Leontius, an obscure bishop, speaking beyond his own diocese; and certainly much more hard was it for either of them to determine what kind of bishops these were, if they had so little means to know who they were; and much less reason have we to stand to their definite sentence, seeing they have been so rash as to raise up such lofty bishops and bishopricks, out of places of Scripture merely misunderstood. Thus while we leave the Bible to gad after these traditions of the ancients, we hear the ancients themselves con- fessing, that what knowledge they had in this point was such as they had gathered from the Bible." Milton against Prelatical Episcopacy , p. 3. Besides the quotations above presented, which abundantly prove that the primitive bishop was the pastor of a single congregation, there are some facts, incidentally stated, by early writers, which serve re- markably to confirm the same truth. The first fact is, that as the superiority of bishops was first embraced in populous and wealthy cities, so the pastors of the country churches maintained the primitive form of government considerably longer than those of the cities. The ministers of the congregations surrounding the cities were called chorepiscopi, or country bishops. They continued to exercise full episcopal powers a considerable time after the pres- byters within and near the great cities had become subject to diocesans; until at length the influence of the Bishop of Rome, and of some other ambitious prelates, procured a decree of the Council of Sardis to suppress the chorepiscopi entirely. The reason given by the Council for this decree is remarkable. Ne vilescat nomen Episcopi; i. e. " lest the title of bishop should become too cheap'' This fact distinctly 214 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. marks the course of transition from plain rural pastors, to proud and wealthy prelates. A second fact is equally decisive. It is the small number of souls committed to the care of some of the early bishops. We are informed that Gregory Thau- maturgus, when he was made bishop of Neo-caesarea, in Pontus, about A. D. 250, had but seventeen pro- fessing Christians in his parish.* And in many of the early writers we read of bishops being located in small obscure villages, within three or four miles of each other. This is surely descriptive of parochial, and not of diocesan Episcopacy. It would, manifestly, be the height of absurdity to suppose that pastors who could not possibly have more than a few hundred souls under their care, were any other than overseers of single congregations. A third fact, which goes far towards proving that bishops, in early times, were the ordinary pastors of single congregations, is that it was then customary for the flock of which the bishop was to have the charge, to meet together for the purpose of electing him; and he was always ordained in their presence. Cyprian, in a passage quoted in a preceding page, expressly tells us, that these were standing rules in choosing and ordaining bishops; and Eusebius, (lib. 6. cap. 28, p. 229,) in giving an account of the election of Fabi- anus to the office of bishop, in Rome, confirms the statement of Cyprian. He tells us, that upon the death of Bishop Anterus, " All the people met to- gether in the church to choose a successor, proposing several illustrious and eminent personages as fit for that office, whilst no one so much as thought upon Fabianus, then present, till a dove miraculously came * Gregor. Nyss. Oper. vol. ii. p. 979. TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 215 and sat upon his head, in the same manner as the Holy Ghost formerly descended on our Saviour; and then all the people, guided as it were with one divine spirit, cried out with one mind and soul, that Fabianus was worthy of the bishoprick; and so straightway taking him, they placed him on the episcopal throne." The very existence of these rules in early times shows that bishops were then nothing more than the pastors of single churches; for in no other case is the appli- cation of such rules possible. And accordingly after- wards, when diocesan Episcopacy crept into the Church, this mode of choosing and ordaining bishops became impracticable, and was gradually laid aside. A fourth fact, which shows that the primitive bishop was the pastor of a single church or congrega- tion, is that in the first three centuries, the bishop's charge was commonly called rfagotxta, a parish, signi- fying those who resided in the immediate vicinity of each other. But, in process of time, when the bishop's power was enlarged, and his territorial limits extend- ed, his charge began to be called Scoixqots, a diocese, a word notoriously taken from the secular language of the Roman empire, and expressive of a larger juris- diction. This change of diction, evidently contempo- rary with the change of fact, is too significant to be overlooked. A fifth fact, which shows that primitive Episco- pacy was parochial and not diocesan, is, that for a considerable time after the days of the apostles, all the elders who were connected with a bishop, are represented as belonging to the same congregation with him, and sitting with him when the congrega- tion was convened for public worship. Indeed, some of the early writers go so far as to inform us in what ^216 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. manner they were seated, viz. that the bishop sat in the middle of a semi-circular bench ; that the elders took their places on the same bench, on each side of their president or moderator; and that the deacons remained in a standing posture in the front of this seat, and in a lower place, ready to perform the ser- vices required of them. This representation perfectly accords with our doctrine of primitive Episcopacy, in which every congregation was furnished with a bishop, elders, and deacons ; but cannot possibly be reconciled with the diocesan form. A sixth fact, which shows that the primitive bishop was only the pastor of a single congregation, is, that the early writers represent the bishop as living in the same house with his presbyters or elders; a house near the place of worship to which they resorted, and capable of accommodating them all. They tell us, also, that the bishop, together with his elders, were sup- ported by the same oblations; that these oblations were offered on one altar, or communion table ; and that they were constantly divided, agreeably to cer- tain established rules between the bishop and elders. It must be obvious to every impartial reader, that this account agrees only with the system of parochial Episcopacy, and that on any other principle such a plan of procedure would be at once impracticable and absurd. The last circumstance relating to the primitive bishop which serves to fix his character, as the pastor of a single congregation, is the nature of that service which he was accustomed to perform. We have seen something of this in the foregoing quotations; but it will be proper to bring together into one view the duties incumbent on the bishop, in the apostolic and TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 217 immediately succeeding ages. The early writers, then, speak of the primitive bishop as performing, in gene- ral, all the baptisms in his flock; as the only person who, in ordinary cases, administered the Lord's Sup- per; as constantly present with his people, when con- vened; as the leader of their worship; as their stated public instructor; as visiting all the sick under his care ; as catechising the young people several times in each week ; as having the superintendency of the poor, none of whom were to be relieved by the dea- cons without, in each particular case, consulting the bishop; as celebrating all marriages ; as attending all funerals; as under obligations to be personally ac- quainted with every individual of his flock, not over- looking even the servant-men and maids; as employed in healing differences among neighbours; and besides all these, attending to the discipline of his society, re- ceiving and excluding members, &c. &c. Now is it not evident that no man could perform these duties for more than a single congregation? Can any im- partial reader believe that the officers to whom all these details of parochial labours were allotted, were any other than the pastors of particular churches? To suppose that they were diocesan bishops, having a number of congregations, with subordinate pastors, under their control, is a supposition too absurd to be for a moment admitted. Such is the testimony of the later fathers on the sub- ject before us. We can find much evidence that, after the close of the third century, a difference of rank between bishops and ordinary presbyters began to be generally acknowledged; but we can find no evidence whatever, within the first four centuries, that the Christian Church considered diocesan Episcopacy as 19 218 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. the apostolic and primitive form. On the contrary, we have found several fathers of high reputation ex- pressly declaring, that in the primitive Church, bishop and presbyter were the same; and that prelacy, as it existed in the fourth and following centuries, was a human invention, and gradually adopted in the Church, as a measure of prudence. We have found, in particular, one father, who stands at the pinnacle of honour, for learning as well as piety, maintaining both these positions with a clearness, a force of argu- ment, and a detail of illustration, which one would imagine might satisfy incredulity itself. And we have seen in these early writers, a variety of facts inci- dentally stated; facts which, taken alone, would be considered by any court on earth as affording con- clusive proof, that even after a moderate kind of pre- lacy arose, the bishops were still the pastors of single congregations. I repeat, it is not true that any one of the fathers, within the first four centuries, does assert the apos- tolical institution of prelacy. Some writers produce Cyprian as saying, that " Jesus Christ and he alone has the power of setting bishops over the Church to govern it;" that " Christ constitutes as well as pro- tects bishops;" and that "it is by divine appointment a bishop is set over the church." They produce Ori- gen, as saying, " Shall I not be subject to the bishop, who is of God ordained to be my father? Shall not I be subject to the presbyter, who is, by divine vouch- safement, set over me?" They quote Hilary as de- claring, " The bishop is the chief; though every bishop is a presbyter, yet. every presbyter is not a bishop." And also as asserting, that James, and Timothy, and Titus, and the angels of the Asiatic churches were TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 219 bishops. They cite Athanasius as remonstrating with one who declined a bishopric, in the following terms — " If you think there is no reward allotted to the office of a bishop, you despise the Saviour who instituted that office." They represent Chrysostom, as com- menting on 1 Tim. iv. 4, in these words — " Paul does not speak of presbyters, but of bishops, for presbyters did not ordain Timothy a bishop." And, finally, they produce the fathers of the Council of Antioch, in the year 265, as declaring, that "the office of a bishop is sacred and exemplary, both to the clergy and to the people." Now, is it possible that such writers have yet to learn, that all these quotations, and ten thousand more like them, are nothing to their purpose ? It is truly amazing! Have not I, who am a Presbyterian, repeatedly said, in the foregoing sheets, that "bishops were, by divine appointment, set over the Church ?" Do not Presbyterians perpetually speak of the office of bishop in their Church as a " sacred office?" And would any Presbyterian on earth scruple to say, that bishops were and are ordained of God to be set over the Church; and also that every member of their flock, and even assistant preachers, within their parish, if not invested with a share in the pastoral charge, are bound to be " subject to them ?" But no one, surely, could construe these expressions, on our part, as implying that we believed in the divine institution of such bishops as our Episcopal brethren contend for. The truth is, these quotations, so confidently made, only prove two points; First, that the fathers in question believed that there were pastors called bishops in the apostolic Church ; which no man, in his senses, ever doubted: and, Secondly, that at the time when they wrote, bishops were considered as 220 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. having some kind of superiority over common pres- byters ; which is as little doubted as the former. In short, these writers are deceived by the bare occur- rence of the word bishop. Whenever they find this word in the writings of the fathers, their imagination is instantly filled with prelates, and with all the pecu- liarities of the Episcopal system. But before the smallest touch of inquiry this hallucination vanishes. Though bishops in the third and fourth centuries had appropriated to themselves powers, which before had been enjoyed by others in common with them; yet their office itself was of divine appointment. Pre- latists, indeed, say, and endeavour to persuade their readers, that the writers whom they quote, declare the bishops which existed in the days of the apostles to have been just such bishops as existed several centu- ries afterwards, in their own times — bishops in the prelatical sense of the word. But they have produced no passage which makes any such declaration, or which legitimately implies it; nor are they able to produce such a passage, from all the stores of anti- quity, within the specified limits. I will not exhaust the reader's patience, by pursu- ing further a chain of testimony so clear and indis- putable. I have intentionally disguised nothing that seemed to favour the Episcopal cause ; and, indeed, amidst such poverty of even plausible evidence in their behalf, there is little temptation to disguise any thing. It has truly filled me with surprise at every step of my progress, to observe, that, with all the con- fidence of assertion, and all the parade of testimony, exhibited by the friends of prelacy, they should be able to produce so little from the fathers, their strong hold, which can yield them any solid support. I can- TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 221 not, therefore, conclude this chapter in words more expressive of my fixed opinion, than those of a distin- guished bishop of the Church of England, who, though he regarded prelacy as a wise human institution, stead- fastly resisted the claim of divine right, which some high churchmen in his day were disposed- to urge. After having stated some of their most plausible argu- ments, he declares, " I hope my reader will now see what weak proofs are brought for this distinction and superiority of order. No Scripture ; no primitive general council; no general consent of primitive doc- tors and fathers; no, not one primitive father of note, speaking particularly and home to their purpose. "* After this brief survey of the testimony of the Fathers, I cannot help repeating a remark which I made in reference to the testimony of Scripture. Those early writers say very little on the subject in question; and of that little a very small proportion is at all decisive or " home to the purpose." Now, I ask, could this possibly have been the case had those vene- rable men viewed the subject in the same light with modern high churchmen? Can it be imagined that if they had considered prelacy as a divine institution, and above all, as essential to regular ecclesiastical or- der, without which there could be no gospel ministry; no valid ordinances; in fact, no Church — can it be imagined, I say, that, if they had regarded the sub- ject in this light, they would have said so little respect- ing it, and that that little should have been so remark- ably wanting in explicitness and decision, as all must acknowledge it, at least for the most part, to be? No, I will venture to say it is impossible. Had I no other reason for the confident persuasion that they were * Bishop Croft's Naked Truth, p. 47. 19 222 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. entire strangers to the doctrine of Episcopacy, in the sense of our opponents, than the consideration of what they omitted to say, that alone would be suffi- cient to banish all remains of doubt. If they were honest men, and really believed prelacy to be so im- portant a matter as modern high churchmen would persuade us, they could never have written on the subject as they have, nor left it under so questionable an aspect as the most sanguine and confident pre- latists must acknowledge them to have done. To suppose that, under such circumstances, they could have done so, is one of the most incredible of all sup- positions, EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 223 CHAPTER VI. EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. One of the most plausible arguments in favour of prelacy, is drawn by Episcopalians from the early rise of the prelatical system. The argument is thus stated — " Bishops, as an order superior to presbyters, are freely acknowledged by Presbyterians to have existed toward the close of the third, and, beyond all doubt, early in the fourth century. Now, in what manner shall we account for the introduction of such an order? Can any man believe that it was an inno- vation, brought in by human ambition within the first three hundred years ? Is it supposable that men of such eminent piety, self-denial, and zeal as the ministers of the first two hundred and fifty, or three hundred years are represented to have been, could have been disposed to usurp unscriptural authority ? But, even if they had been wicked enough to be so disposed, can we believe that any temptation to do so then existed, when it is known that, by gaining eccle- siastical pre-eminence, they only became more promi- nent objects to their pagan enemies, and, of course, more exposed to the fury of persecution? But, even supposing them to have been so ambitious and un- principled as to attempt encroachment on the rights of others, and to have had ever so strong a tempta- tion to do it, can we imagine that such an attempt could have been successful ? would the rest of the 224 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. clergy have quietly submitted to such an usurpation? would the people have endured it? In a word; even supposing the clergy of that period to have been un- principled enough to aspire to unauthorized honours, and to encroach on the rights of their brethren; and to have had the strongest inducements thus to act; is it credible that so great a change in the constitution of the Church could have taken place without oppo- sition, without much conflict and noise? And if any such conflict and noise had occurred, should we not now find some record of it? Could such an encroach- ment possibly have taken place without convulsion; without leaving on the records of antiquity some traces of the steps by which it was accomplished? No, say the Episcopal advocates, it is not credible; nay, it is impossible. The unavoidable inference, then, is that no such alteration ever took place ; that prelates, as an order superior to presbyters, have ex- isted in the Church from the beginning; and, conse- quently, were of apostolical origin." This is the substance of an argument which emi- nent Episcopal writers have ventured to call "demon- stration," and on which great stress has been laid by them all. And, indeed, I am free to confess, that I think it is the most plausible argument they have. Their Scriptural testimony amounts to nothing — absolutely nothing. Their testimony from the Fa- thers, we have seen to be a failure. But the argu- ment which I am about to examine, has, at first view, something like cogency. I am persuaded, however, that a very slight examination will suffice to show that this cogency is only apparent, and that it can boast of nothing more than mere plausibility. And the first remark which I shall make on this EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. 225 argument is, that it is the very same which the Pa- pists have been accustomed, ever since the time of Bellarmine, to employ against the Protestants, and, among the rest, against Protestant Episcopalians. The Papists argue thus — "Every one grants," say they, " that the bishop of Rome claimed a certain pre-eminence over all other bishops, before the close of the third century ; and in the fourth century some pre-eminence seems to have been extensively con- ceded to him." Now, they ask — " How could this happen? The bishops of that day were all too pious to be suspected of an attempt to encroach on the rights of their brethren. But if it were not so; if the prelate of Rome had been wicked enough to make the attempt, what inducement had he to desire such pre-eminence, since it would only expose him to more certain and severe persecution? Even supposing, however, that he was proud and selfish enough to attempt to gain such pre-eminence, and had had the strongest temptation to seek it, could he have accom- plished any usurpation of that kind, without many struggles, and much opposition? What were the other bishops about? Is it credible that men of sense, with their eyes open, and < of like passions with other men,' should be willing to surrender their rights to an ambitious individual? And even if an ambitious individual had attempted thus to usurp authority, and had succeeded in the attempt, would there not have been resistance — warm resistance — much conflict in the unhallowed struggle for pre-eminence? And among all the records of antiquity, should we not be able to find some traces of the conflict and noise occa- sioned by this ambitious and fraudulent encroach- ment? Now, since we find," say they, " no distinct 226 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. account of any such conflict and noise ; since we are wholly unable to trace the various steps by which the bishop of Rome is alleged to have gained the ecclesi- astical throne on which he has been sitting for ages — we infer that he was never guilty of any such usur- pation; that his pre-eminence existed from the days of the apostles ; and, of course, is an institution of Christ." It is perfectly manifest that the argument of the Papists — and which they too call " demonstration" — is of the very same character with that of modern Episcopalians. It is, in fact, mutatis mutandis — the very same argument ; and every intelligent reader will see that it is quite as potent in Popish as in Pro- testant hands. But, as was pronounced in the former case, it is, in regard to both, plausible — simply plausi- ble — and nothing more. A few plain statements, and especially a few indubitable facts, will be quite suffi- cient to destroy its force in the estimation of all intel- ligent and impartial readers. The first assumption in this argument is, that the clergy, during the first three hundred years, had too much piety, zeal, gospel simplicity, and disinterested- ness, to admit of their engaging in any scheme for usurping a power in the Church which Christ never gave them. We are accustomed to look back to the early Church with a veneration nearly bordering on super- stition. It is one of the common artifices of Popery to refer all their corruptions to primitive times, and, in concurrence with this, to represent those times as exhibiting the models of all excellence. But every representation of this kind ought to be received with much distrust. The Christian Church during the EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 227 apostolic age, and perhaps for half a century, and even a whole century afterwards, did indeed present a venerable aspect. Persecuted by the world on every side, she was favoured in an uncommon mea- sure with the presence and Spirit of her divine Head and Lord; and perhaps exhibited a degree of sim- plicity and purity, which has never since been ex- ceeded — possibly not equalled. But long before the close of the second century the scene began to change ; and before the commencement of the fourth, a deplorable corruption of doctrine, discipline, and morals, had crept into the Church, and dreadfully dis- figured the body of Christ. Hegesippus, an ecclesias- tical historian, who wrote in the second century, de- clares that " the virgin purity of the Church was con- fined to the days of the apostles." Nay, Jerome asserts that " the primitive churches were tainted with gross errors, while the apostles were still alive, and while the blood of Christ was still warm in Ju- dea." We know that in the very presence of the Saviour himself, the evening before he suffered, there was a contest among his disciples, "which of them should be the greatest." The apostle Paul expressly cautions ministers of his day against attempting to be "lords over God's heritage." What a caution, you will say, at such a time, when they were in jeopardy of martyrdom every hour! Yet the undoubted fact is, that we read, in several of the epistles, strong in- dications of the ambition, the selfishness, and the en- croaching spirit even of those who were set as leaders and guides of the people, and who ought to have been " ensamples to the flock." We read of Diotre- phes, who " loved to have the pre-eminence," and who, on that account, troubled the Church. In short, 228 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. the apostle Paul informs us, 2 Thessalonians, ii. 7, that the mystery of iniquity, which afterwards wrought such an amount of corruption and mischief in the church, had already begun to work. All this we find in the New Testament. But let us pursue the course of the Church a little further, and see whether the supposition of its entire freedom from corruption, and from the influence of ambition and conflict at this early period can be sustained. Was there no spirit of domination manifested in the fierce dispute between Victor, Bishop of Rome, and Polycrates, of Ephesus, which took place in the second century, as related by Eusebius? Was no love of pre-eminence displayed by Cerinthus and Basilides, whose burning desire was " to be accounted great apostles?" Did Montanus, in the same century, exhibit no ambition in broaching his celebrated heresy? Was Samosatenus, in the third, wholly free from the same charge? Did Demetrius of Alexandria, discover nothing of an aspiring temper, when he sick- ened with envy at the fame and the success of Origen? Are there no accounts of Novatus having sought, ambitiously and fraudulently, to obtain the bishopric of Rome? Did not his contemporary, Felicissimus, make a vigorous attempt to supplant Cyprian, as Bishop of Carthage? Was not Cyprian brought in to be bishop in that city, by the influence of the people, in opposition to the majority of the presbyters, some of whom were anxious to obtain the place for them- selves? And did there not hence arise frequent colli- sions between him and them, and at length an open rupture? I ask, are any of these things related in the early history of the Church? And can any man, with such records before him, lay his hand on his heart, EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 229 and assert that there were no symptoms of a spirit of ambition and domination in those times? But I will not content myself with this general re- ference to the early conflicts of selfishness and ambi- tion. The following specific quotations will be more than sufficient, if I do not mistake, to establish all that the opponents of prelacy can need to refute the plea before us. Hermas, one of the earliest fathers whose writings are extant, says, in his Pastor, " As for those who had their rods green, but yet cleft; they are such as were always faithful and good; but they had some envy and strife among themselves, concerning dignity and pre-eminence. Now all such are vain and without understanding, as contend with one another about these things. Nevertheless, seeing they are otherwise good, if, when they shall hear these commands, they shall amend themselves, and shall, at my persuasion, suddenly repent; they shall, at last, dwell in the tower, as they who have truly and worthily repented. But if any one shall again return to his dissensions, he shall be shut out of the tower, and lose his life. For the life of those who keep the commandments of the Lord, consists in doing what they are commanded; not in principality, or in any other "dignity."* Hegesippus, who lived in the second century, and who was the first father who undertook to compose a regular ecclesiastical history, writes thus. " When James, the just, had been martyred for the same doc- trine which our Lord preached, Simon, the son of Cleophas, was constituted bishop with universal pre- ference, because he was the Lord's near kinsman. Wherefore they called that church a pure virgin, be- * Simil. 8. § 7. 20 230 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. cause it was not defiled with corrupt doctrine. But Thebuli, because he was not made bishop, en- deavoured to corrupt the church; being one of the seven heretics among the people, whereof was Simon, of whom the Simonians."* Some zealous Episcopalians represent the age of Cyprian as among the very purest periods of the Chris- tian Church, and quote that father with a frequency and a confidence which evince the highest respect for his authority. The following passages will show how far the illustrious pastor of Carthage considered the bishops of his day as beyond the reach of selfishness and ambition. " A long continuance of peace and security! had relaxed the rigour of that holy discipline which was delivered to us from above. All were set upon an immeasurable increase of gain; and, forgetting how the first converts to our religion had behaved under the personal direction and care of the Lord's apostles, or how all ought in after times to conduct themselves; the love of money was their darling passion, and the master-spring of all their actions. The religion of the clergy slackened and decayed ; the faith of priests and deacons grew languid and inactive; works of charity were discontinued; and an universal license" and cor- ruption prevailed. Divers bishops, who should have taught both by their example and persuasion, neglect- ing their high trust, and their commission from above, entered upon the management of secular affairs; and leaving their chair, and their charge with it, wandered about, from place to place in different provinces, upon * See fragments of this writer preserved in Eusebius, Lib. iv. Cap. 22. t They had been free from persecution a very few years. EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. 231 mercantile business, and in quest of disreputable gain. Thus the poor of the Church were miserably neglect- ed, while the bishops, who should have taken care of them, were intent upon nothing but their own private profit, which they were forward to advance at any rate, and by any, even the foulest methods/*'* Speaking of Cornelius, who had been made bishop, Cyprian says, " In the next place, he neither desired, nor canvassed for the dignity conferred upon him; much less did he invade it, as some others would, who were actuated by a great and lofty conceit of their own qualifications; but peaceably and modestly, like such as are called of God to this office. — Instead of using violence, as a certain person in this case hath done, to be made a bishop, he suffered violence, and was raised to his dignity by force and compulsion."! The same father, in the same epistle, has the follow- ing passage. " Unless you can think him a bishop, who, when another was ordained by sixteen of his brethren bishops, would obtrude upon the Church a spurious and foreign bishop, ordained by a parcel of renegadoes and deserters; and that by canvassing and intriguing for it.":}: Cyprian speaks also of a certain deacon who had been deposed from his " sacred deaconship, on account of his fraudulent and sacrilegious misapplication of the church's money to his own private use ; and by his denial of the widows' and orphans' pledges de- posited with him."§ Origen, the contemporary of Cyprian, more than once lashes the clergy of his day for their vices. The following passage is surely strong enough, were there no other, to take away all doubt. " If Christ justly * De Lapsis, § 4. t Epist. 55. t Ibid. § Epist. 52. 232 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. wept over Jerusalem, he may now, on much better grounds, weep over the Church, which was built to the end that it might be an house of prayer; and yet, through the filthy usury of some, (and I wish these were not even the pastors of the people,) is made a den of thieves. But I think that that which is writ- ten concerning the sellers of doves, doth agree to those who commit the churches to greedy, tyrannical, un- learned, and irreligious bishops, presbyters, and dea- cons."* The same father elsewhere declares, " We are such as that we sometimes in pride go beyond even the wickedest of the princes of the gentiles; and are just at the point of procuring for ourselves splen- did guards, as if we were kings, making it our study moreover to be a terror to others, and giving them, especially if they be poor, very uneasy access. We are to them, when they come and seek any thing from us, more cruel than are even tyrants, or the crudest princes to their supplicants. And you may see, even in the greater part of lawfully constituted Churches, especially those of greater cities, how the pastors of God's people, suffer none, though they were even the chiefest of Christ's disciples, to be equal with them- selves.' 7 ! Eusebius, who lived in the next century, writes in the same strain concerning the age of Cyprian. " When, through too much liberty, we fell into sloth and negligence; when every one began to envy and backbite another; when we waged, as it were, an in- testine war amongst ourselves, with words as with swords; pastors rushed against pastors, and people against people, and strife and tumult, deceit and guile advanced to the highest pitch of wickedness — Our * In Matt. p. 441. t Ibid. p. 420. EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 233 pastors, despising the rule of religion, strove mutually with one another, studying nothing more than how to outdo each other in strife, emulations, hatred, and mutual enmity; proudly usurping principalities, as so many places of tyrannical domination. Then the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger."* Gregory Nazianzen, who flourished in the fourth century, at a time which many are disposed to assume as the very best model of the Christian Church, speaks, in a number of places in his writings, with bitter re- gret of the proud and ambitious contests among the clergy of his day. His language is the more remarkable because he was himself a bishop, and of course some- what interested in maintaining the credit of his order. Speaking of one of the most famous councils of his time, he says, " These conveyers of the Holy Ghost, these preachers of peace to all men, grew bitterly out- rageous and clamorous against one another, in the midst of the church, mutually accusing each other, leaping about as if they had been mad, under the furious impulse of a lust of power and dominion, as if they would have rent the whole world in pieces." He afterwards adds, " This was not the effect of piety, but of a contention for thrones." — Tom. ii. 25. 27. On another occasion, in the bitterness of his spirit, he expresses himself in the following strong language, " Would to God there were no prelacy, no prerogative of place, no tyrannical privileges; that by virtue alone we might be distinguished. Now this right and left hand, and middle rank, these higher and lower dig- nities, and this state-like precedence, have caused many fruitless conflicts and bruises; have cast many • Hist. Eccles. Lib. viii. Cap. 1. 20* 234 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. into the pit, and carried away multitudes to the place of the goats." — Orat. 28. Nay, Archbishop Whitgift, with all his Episcopal partialities, was constrained to acknowledge the am- bitious and aspiring temper which disgraced many bishops even as early as the time of Cyprian. " There was great contention," says he, " among the bishops in the Council of Nice, insomuch that even in the presence of the emperor, they ceased not to libel one against another. What bitterness and cursing was there between Epiphanius and Chrysostom! What jarring between Jerome and Augustine! Bishops shall not now need to live by pilling and polling, as it seems they did in Cyprian's time; for he complain- eth thereof in his sermon De Lapsis."* With Whitgift agrees his contemporary Rigaltius, who was so much distinguished for his learned An- notations on the works of Cyprian. Speaking of Cyprian's age, and of the deacon's office, he says, " By little and little, and from small beginnings, a kingdom and a love of dominion entered into the Church. In the apostles' time there were only dea- cons; Cyprian's age admitted sub-deacons; the fol- lowing age arch-deacons, and then arch-bishops and patriarchs." These extracts are produced, not to blacken the ministerial character; but to establish the fact, that clerical ambition, and clerical encroachments were familiarly known, even during that period which modern Episcopalians pronounce the purest that was ever enjoyed by the Christian Church. I certainly have no interest, and can take no pleasure in depict- ing the foibles, the strife, and the vices of the clergy * Defence of his Answer against Cartwright, p. 472, &c. EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. 235 in any age. But when assertions are made respect- ing them as directly contradictory to all history, as they are contrary to the course of depraved human nature j and especially when these assertions are tri- umphantly employed as arguments to establish other assertions equally unfounded, it is time to vindicate the truth. To do this, in the present case, is an easy task. The man who, after perusing the foregoing extracts, can dare to say, that the clergy of the first three centuries, were all too pious and disinterested to admit the suspicion, that they aspired to titles and honours, and intrigued for the attainment of episcopal chairs, must have a hardihood of incredulity, or an obliquity of perception truly extraordinary. We have seen that Hermas plainly refers to certain eccle- siastics of his time, who had " envy and strife among themselves concerning dignity and pre-eminence." Hegesippus goes further, and points out the case of a particular individual, who ambitiously aspired to the office of bishop, and was exceedingly disappointed and mortified at not obtaining it. Cyprian expressly declares not only that a spirit of intrigue, of worldly gain, and of ecclesiastical domination, existed among the clergy of his day, but that such a spirit was awfully prevalent among them. Eusebius gives us similar information in still stronger terms. Archbishop Whitgift makes the same acknowledgment, more par- ticularly with respect to the bishops of that period. And even Dr. Bowden acknowledges that a number of persons, as early as the days of Cyprian, and be- fore his time, who aspired to the office of bishop, and who used every effort and artifice to attain it, on be- ing disappointed, distinguished themselves as heretics or schismatics, and became the pests of the Church. 236 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. These extracts might be multiplied twenty-fold. If any intelligent reader will look through the pages of Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Chrysostom, and, above all, Basil, to name no more, he will find, within the first three hundred and fifty, or four hundred years, an amount of evidence of the depravity of ecclesiastics which will amaze and revolt him. He will find evidence, not only of selfishness, of pride, and of grasping ambition, but of voluptuous and licentious habits, with the description of which I cannot pollute my pages; and which would convince every impartial mind that not merely some, but large numbers of them were utterly unprincipled and profligate. Now, I repeat, if any man, after reading such ac- counts, can lay his hand on his heart, and say, that there is no evidence that the ministers of the Christian Church, even for the first two hundred years after the apostolic age, were too pious, pure, and disinterested to make any ambitious attempts to usurp power; or to pursue their own aggrandizement at the expense of the rights and claims of others; I say, if any man, after reading the foregoing statements and citations can lay his hand on his heart, and say this — he must be blinded by a prejudice of the most extraordinary kind. Nay, I will venture to assert, that, so far from having reason to doubt the possibility of the clergy of those early times striving with unhallowed ambi- tion to gain the upper hand of each other, and to ob- tain titles and places; if they were really such men as their most venerable and trust-worthy contempo- raries describe — it would have been something bor- dering on miracle, if prelacy, or some such innovation on the simple and primitive model of church order had not arisen. EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 237 Still, however, the question recurs; What, in those days of persecution and peril, before Christianity was established, when the powers of the world were leagued against it, and when every Christian pastor especially held a station of much self-denial and dan- ger, what could induce any selfish or ambitious man to desire the pastoral office, and to intrigue for the extension of the powers and honours of that office? When my opponents can tell me what induced Judas Iscariot to follow Christ, at the risk of his life; when they can tell me what impelled Diotrephes to desire the pre-eminence in the Church; or what were the objects of Demas, Hymensens, and Alexander, in their restless and ambitious conduct, while Calvary was yet smoking with the blood of their crucified Lord, and while their own lives were every moment exposed to the rage of persecution; — when my oppo- nents can tell me what actuated these men, I shall be equally ready to assign a reason for the early rise and progress of prelacy. But there is no need of retreating into the obscu- rity of conjecture, when causes enough to satisfy every mind may easily be assigned. If the advocates of Episcopacy do not know that there are multitudes of men, in all ages, in the Church, and out of it, who are ready to court distinction merely for distinction's sake, and at the evident hazard of their lives, they have yet much to learn from the instructions both of human nature and of history. But this is not all. It is a notorious fact, that the office of bishop, even in those early times, had much to attract the cupidity, as well as the ambition of selfish and aspiring men. The revenues of the primitive Church were large and alluring. It is granted that, during the first three 238 EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. centuries, the Church held little or no real property ; as the Roman laws did not allow any person to give or bequeath real estates to ecclesiastical bodies, with- out the consent of the Senate or the Emperor. The contributions, however, which were made to the Church, for the support of the clergy, the poor, &c. were immense. During the apostolic age, the pro- ceeds of the sale of real estates were devoted to eccle- siastical and charitable purposes, and laid at the apos- tles' feet. We find the gentile churches contributing liberally to the relief of the churches of Judea, in Acts xi. 29. Rom. xv. 26. 1 Cor. xvi. 1, and 2 Cor. viii. The same liberality manifested itself in subsequent times.* So ample were the funds of the Church of Rome, about the middle of the second century, that they were adequate not only to the support of her own clergy and poor members, but also to the relief of other churches, and of a great number of Christian captives in the several provinces, and of such as were condemned to the mines.t Such was the wealth of the same church, in the third century, that it was considered as an object not unworthy of imperial ra- pacity. By order of the Emperor Decius, the Roman deacon Laurentius was seized, under the expectation of finding in his possession the treasures of the * One cause of the liberality of the primitive Christians in their contributions to the Church, was the notion which generally prevail- ed, that the end of the world was at hand. This notion was adopted by some of the early fathers, and propagated among the people with great diligence. Cyprian taught, in his day, with great confidence, that the dissolution of the world was but a few years distant. Epist. ad Thibart. The tendency of this opinion to diminish the self-denial of parting with temporal wealth is obvious. See Father Paul's Hist, of Benefices and Revenues. Chap. II. t Father Paul's Hist, of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Revenues, Chap. iii. EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. 239 Church, and of transferring them to the coffers of the Emperor: but the vigilant deacon, fearing the avarice of the tyrant, had distributed them, as usual, when a persecution was expected. Prudentius introduces an officer of the Emperor, thus addressing the deacon, Quod Csesaris scis, Csesari da, nempe justum postulo; ni fallor, haud ullam tuus signat Deus pecuniam. i. e. Give to Caesar what you know to be his, I ask what is just; for if I mistake not, your God coins no money.* Now the revenues of the churches, whether great or small, were at the disposal of the bishops. The deacons executed their orders. Of course they had every opportunity of enriching themselves at the ex- pense of the Church. And that they not unfrequently embraced this opportunity, is attested by Cyprian, who laments the fact, and is of opinion that the per- secution which took place in the reign of Decius, was intended by God to punish a guilty people, and to purge this corruption from his Church. t And yet, in the face of all this testimony, the advocates of Epis- copacy permit themselves to maintain that there was no temptation, either before or during the age of Cyprian, to induce any man to desire the office of bishop. Nay, they tell us, that to suppose there was any such temptation, is, in fact, to yield the argument, because it is to concede that the office then included such a superiority and pre-eminence of rank as we utterly deny. Nothing will be more easy than to show that this whole plea is false, and every thing founded upon it worthless. * Prudent, in Lib. de Coronis. Father Paul's History of Ecclesi- astical Benefices and Revenues, Chap. iii. t See his discourse De Lapsis, before quoted. 240 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. The love of pre-eminence and of power is natural to man. It is one of the most early, powerful, and universal principles of our nature. It reigns without control in wicked men ; and it has more influence than it ought to have in the minds of the most pure and pious. It shows itself in the beggar's cottage, as well as on the imperial throne; in the starving and gloomy dungeon, no less than in the luxurious palace. Nay, it has been known to show itself with the rack, the gibbet, and the flames of martyrdom in the imme- diate prospect. This is wonderful; but so it is. And to attempt to set up our imaginary reasonings against the fact, is in the highest degree presumptuous and irrational. Now, though the bishop, for the first two centuries after Christ, was, as we have seen, nothing more than a mere parochial " overseer," in other words, the pastor of a single church ; yet his office was not without its attractions. It was a place of honour and of trust. He was looked up to as a leader and guide. The ruling elders and deacons of the parish by whom he was surrounded, regarded him as their superior, and treated him with reverence. And, as the bounty distributed by the deacons was, to a considerable ex- tent, directed by his pleasure — the poor, of course, considered and revered him both as their spiritual and temporal benefactor ; and gave him much of the in- cense of respect, gratitude, and praise. Here was abundantly enough to tempt an humble ecclesiastic in those days, or in any days. There are thousands of men — thousands of honest, good men, quite capa- ble of being attracted by such fascinations as these. Many an humble rectory; many a plain, and even poor pastoral charge has been sought, from that time EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 241 to the present, with zeal and earnestness, for one half the temptation which has been described. But this was not all. While such were the attractions con- nected with the bishop's office, in its primitive paro- chial form, these attractions were not a little increased in the third century, when ambition sought and ob- tained some extension of the bishop's prerogative; and still more augmented in the fourth, when worldly- pride and splendour in that office began to be openly- enthroned in the Church. But still it may be asked — Even supposing the clergy of the first three centuries to have been capa- ble of aspiring, ambitious conduct; and supposing that there were temptations to induce them thus to aspire; can we suppose that their unjust claims would have been calmly yielded, and their usurpations sub- mitted to without a struggle on the part of the other clergy, and the great body of the people ? If, then, such claims were made, and such usurpations effected, why do we not find, in the early history of the Church, some account of a change so notable, and of conflicts so severe and memorable as must have at- tended its introduction? In answer to this question, let it be remembered, that the nations over which the Christian religion was spread with so much rapidity during the first three centuries, were sunk in deplorable ignorance. Grossly illiterate, very few were able to read; and even to these few, manuscripts were of difficult access. At that period, popular eloquence was the great engine of persuasion ; and where the character of the mind is not fixed by reading, and a consequent habit of at- tention and accurate thinking, it is impossible to say how deeply and suddenly it may be operated upon 21 242 EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. by such an engine. A people of this description, wholly unaccustomed to speculations on government; universally subjected to despotic rule in the state; having no just ideas of religious liberty; altogether unfurnished with the means of communicating and uniting with each other, which the art of printing has since afforded; torn with dissensions among them- selves, and liable to be turned about with every wind of doctrine; such a people could offer little re- sistance to those who were ambitious of ecclesiastical power. A fairer opportunity for the few to take the advantage of the ignorance, the credulity, the divi- sions, and the weakness of the many, can scarcely be imagined. In truth, under these circumstances, eccle- siastical usurpation is so far from being improbable, that, to suppose it not to have taken place, would be to suppose a continued miracle. Nor is there more difficulty in supposing that these encroachments were submitted to by the clergy, than by the people. Some yielded through fear of the bold and domineering spirits who contended for seats of honour; some with the hope of obtaining prefer- ment themselves in their turn; and some from that lethargy and sloth which ever prevent a large portion of mankind from engaging in any thing which re- quires enterprise and exertion. To these circum- stances it may be added, that, while some of the pres- byters, under the name of bishops, assumed unscrip- tural authority over the rest of that order; the in- creasing power of the latter over the deacons, and other subordinate grades of church officers, offered something like a recompense for their submission to those who claimed a power over themselves. In addition to all these circumstances, it is to be EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 243 recollected, that the encroachments and the change in question took place gradually. The advocates of Episcopacy sometimes represent us as teaching that the change in question was adopted at once, or by a single step. We believe no such thing. As we have seen, Jerome expressly tells us that prelacy was brought in paulatim — by little and little. It was three hundred years in coming to maturity. When great strides in the assumption of power are suddenly made, they seldom fail to rouse resentment, and ex- cite opposition. But when made artfully, and by slow degrees, nothing is more common than to see them pass without opposition, and almost without notice. Instances of this kind among nations sunk in ignorance, and long accustomed to despotic govern- ment, are numberless; and they are by no means rare even among the more enlightened. The British nation, in the seventeenth century, saw a monarch restored with enthusiasm, and almost without oppo- sition, to the throne, by those very persons, who, a few years before, had dethroned and beheaded his father, and declared the bitterest hatred to royalty. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, one of the most enlightened nations of Europe, in a little more than twelve years after dethroning and decapi- tating a mild and gentle king, and after denouncing kingly government, with almost every possible ex- pression of abhorrence, yielded, without a struggle, to the will of a despotic usurper. And, still more re- cently, we have seen a people enlightened and free, who had for more than two centuries maintained and boasted of their republican character, submit ignobly and at once, to the yoke of a monarch imposed on 244 EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. them by a powerful neighbour. In short, the most limited knowledge of human nature, and of history, shows not only the possibility, but the actual and fre- quent occurrence of changes from free government to tyranny and despotism, in a much shorter period than a century; and all this in periods when information was more equally diffused, and the principles of social order much better understood, than in the second and third centuries of the Christian era. Nor is it wonderful that we find so little said con- cerning these usurpations in the early records of anti- quity. There was probably but little written on the subject; since those who were most ambitious to shine as writers, were most likely to be forward in making unscriptural claims themselves; and, of course, would be little disposed to record their own shame. It is likewise probable, that the little that was written on such a subject, would be lost; because the art of printing being unknown, and the trouble and expense of multiplying copies being only incurred for the sake of possessing interesting and popular works, it was not to be expected, that writings so hostile to the am- bition and vices of the clergy, would be much read, if it were possible to suppress them. And when to these circumstances we add, that literature after the fourth century, was chiefly in the hands of ecclesias- tics; that many important works written within the first three centuries are known to be lost; and that of the few which remain, some are acknowledged on all hands, to have been grossly corrupted, and radically mutilated, we cannot wonder that so little in explana- tion of the various steps of clerical usurpation has reached our times. In confirmation of this reasoning, a variety of facts, EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 245 acknowledged as such by the advocates of Episcopacy themselves, may be adduced. The first is, the rise of arch-bishops and metropo- litans in the Church. All Protestant Episcopalians, with one voice, grant that all bishops were originally equal; that arch-bishops, metropolitans, and patri- archs were offices of human invention, and had no other than human authority. Yet it is certain that they arose very nearly as soon as diocesan bishops. In fact they arose so early, became in a little while so general, and were introduced with so little opposi- tion and noise, that some have undertaken, on this very ground, to prove that they were of apostolical origin. How did this come about? How did it hap- pen that any of the bishops were proud or ambitious enough to usurp titles and powers which the Master never gave them? How came their fellow-bishops to submit so quietly to the encroachment? And why is it that we have quite as little on the records of an- tiquity to point out the arts and steps by which this usurped pre-eminence was reached, as we have to show the methods by which diocesan Episcopacy was established ? Closely connected with the introduction of arch- bishops, and other grades in the Episcopal office, is the rise and progress of the Papacy. It is certain that the anti-christian claims of the Bishop of Rome were begun before the close of the second century. The writings of Irenseus and Tertullian, both furnish abun- dant evidence of this fact. Yet the records of antiquity give so little information respecting the various steps by which this "man of sin" rose to the possession of his power; they contain so little evidence of any effi- cient opposition to his claims; and represent the sub- *21 246 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. mission of the other bishops as being so early and general, that the Papists attempt, from these circum- stances, to prove the divine origin of their system. Yet what Protestant is there who does not reject this rea- soning as totally fallacious, and conclude that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is an unscriptural usurpation? And although the most impartial and learned divines may and do differ among themselves in fixing the several dates of the rise, progress, and establishment of this great spiritual usurper; yet the fact that he did thus rise, and advance, and erect a tyrannical throne in the Church, contrary to all that might have been expected both from the piety and the selfishness of the early Christians, is doubted by none. Accordingly, this view of the gradual and insidious rise of prelacy is presented by a number of the most learned and impartial ecclesiastical historians. Of these a specimen will be given. The first whom I shall quote is the learned Dr. Mosheim, a Lutheran divine, whose Ecclesiastical History has been for a century the theme of praise, for the general impartiality as well as erudition mani- fested by its author. In his account of the first cen- tury, he has the following remarks: " The' rulers of the Church at this time, were called either presbyters or bishops, which two titles are in the New Testa- ment, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men. These were persons of eminent gravity, and such as had distinguished themselves by their superior sanc- tity and merit. Their particular functions were not always the same; for while some of them confined their labours to the instruction of the people, others contributed in different ways to the edification of the EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. 247 Church. Such was the constitution of the Christian Church in its infancy, when its assemblies were neither numerous nor splendid. Three or four presbyters, men of remarkable piety and wisdom, ruled these small congregations in perfect harmony, nor did they stand in need of any president or superior to maintain concord and order, where no dissensions were known. But the number of the presbyters and deacons in- creasing with that of the churches, and the sacred work of the ministry growing more painful and weighty by a number of additional duties, these new circumstances required new regulations. It was then judged necessary that one man of distinguished gravity and wisdom should preside in the council of presby- ters, in order to distribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and to be a centre of union to the whole society. This person was at first stjrled the angel of the church to which he belonged ; but was afterwards distinguished by the name of bishop or inspector; a name borrowed from the Greek language, and ex- pressing the principal part of the Episcopal function, which was to inspect into, and superintend the affairs of the Church. Let none, however, confound the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the Church with those of whom we read in the following ages. For though they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they differed extremely, and that in many respects. A bishop, during the first and second centuries, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which, at that time, was, gene- rally speaking, small enough to be contained in a pri- vate house. In this assembly he acted, not so much with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant. He instructed the peo- 248 EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. pie, performed the several parts of divine worship, attended the sick, and inspected into the circum- stances and supplies of the poor." — Eccles. Hist. I. 101. 104 — 106. Such is the representation which this learned historian gives of the government of the Chris- tian Church during the first, and the greater part of the second century. Of the third century he speaks in the following manner: " The face of things began now to change in the Christian Church. The ancient method of eccle- siastical government seemed, in general, still to sub- sist, while, at the same time, by imperceptible steps, it varied from the primitive rule, and degenerated to- wards the form- of a religious monarchy. For the bishops aspired to higher degrees of power and authority than they had formerly possessed, and not only violated the rights of the people, but also made gradual encroachments upon the privileges of the presbyters. And that they might cover these usurpa- tions with an air of justice, and an appearance of rea- son, they published new doctrines concerning the na- ture of the Church, and of the Episcopal dignity. One of the principal authors of this change in the govern- ment of the Church, was Cyprian, who pleaded for the power of the bishops with more zeal and vehe- mence than had ever been hitherto employed in that cause. This change in the form of ecclesiastical government was soon followed by a train of vices, which dishonoured the character and authority of those to whom the administration of the Church was committed. For though several yet continued to ex- hibit to the world illustrious examples of primitive piety and Christian virtue, yet many were sunk in luxury and voluptuousness; puffed up with vanity, EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. 249 arrogance, and ambition; possessed with a spirit of contention and discord; and addicted to many other vices, that cast an undeserved reproach upon the holy religion of which they were the unworthy professors and ministers. This is testified in such an ample manner, by the repeated complaints of many of the most respectable writers of this age, that truth will not permit us to spread the veil which we should otherwise be desirous to cast over such enormities among an order so sacred. The bishops assumed, in many places, a princely authority. They appropri- ated to their evangelical function, the splendid ensigns of temporal majesty. A throne surrounded with ministers, exalted above his equals the servant of the meek and humble Jesus; and sumptuous garments dazzled the eyes and the minds of the multitude into an ignorant veneration for their arrogated authority. The example of the bishops was ambitiously imitated by the presbyters, who, neglecting the sacred duties of their station, abandoned themselves to the indo- lence and delicacy of an effeminate and luxurious life. The deacons, beholding the presbyters deserting thus their functions, boldly usurped their rights and privileges; and the effects of a corrupt ambition were spread through every rank of the sacred order." — I. 265—267. I shall only add a short extract from the same wri- ter's account of the fourth century. " The bishops, whose opulence and authority were considerably in- creased since the reign of Constantine, began to intro- duce gradually innovations into the form of ecclesi- astical discipline, and to change the ancient govern- ment of the Church. Their first step was an entire exclusion of the people from all part in the adminis- 250 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. tration of ecclesiastical affairs; and afterwards, they, by degrees, divested even the presbyters of their an- cient privileges, and their primitive authority, that they might have no importunate protesters to control their ambition, or oppose their proceedings; and prin- cipally that they might either engross to themselves, or distribute as they thought proper, the possessions and revenues of the Church. Hence it came to pass that at the conclusion of the fourth century, there re- mained no more than a mere shadow of the ancient government of the Church. Many of the privileges which had formerly belonged to the presbyters and people, were usurped by the bishops; and many of the rights which had been formerly vested in the Uni- versal Church, were transferred to the emperors, and to subordinate officers and magistrates." — I. 348. Such is the representation of Mosheim, one of the most learned men of the eighteenth century; and who had probably investigated the early history of the Church with as much diligence and penetration as any man that ever lived. The next citation shall be taken from Gibbon's " Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." The hos- tility of this writer to the Christian religion is well known. Of course, on any subject involving the divine origin of Christianity, I should feel little dispo- sition either to respect his judgment, or to rely on his assertions. But on the subject before us, which is a question of fact, and which he treats historically, he had no temptation to deviate from impartiality; or, if such temptation had existed, it would have been likely to draw him to the side of ecclesiastical aristocracy and splendour, rather than to that of primitive sim- plicity. In fact, his leaning to the external show of EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 251 Romanism is well known. His deep and extensive learning, no competent judge ever questioned: and, indeed, his representations on this subject, are fortified by so many references to the most approved writers, that they cannot be considered as resting on his can- dour or veracity alone.* Mr. Gibbon thus describes the character and duties of Christian bishops in the first and second centuries: " The public functions of religion were solely entrusted to the established ministers of the Church, the bishops and the presbyters; two appellations which, in their first origin, appear to have distinguished the same office, and the same order of persons. The name of presbyter was expressive of their age, or rather of their gravity and wisdom. The title of bishop de- noted their inspection over the faith and manners of the Christians who were committed to their pastoral care. In proportion to the respective numbers of the faithful, a larger or smaller number of these episcopal presbyters guided each infant congregation, with equal authority, and with united counsels. But the most per- fect equality of freedom requires the directing hand of a superior magistrate ; and the order of public delibera- tions soon introduces the office of a president, invested, at least with the authority of collecting the sentiments, and of executing the resolutions of the assembly. A regard for the public tranquillity, which would so * The pious Episcopal divine, Dr. Haweis, speaking of Mr. Gib- bon's mode of representing this subject, expresses himself in the fol- lowing manner : " Where no immediate bias to distort the truth leaves him an impartial witness, I will quote Gibbon with pleasure. I am conscious his authority is more likely to weigh with the world in general, than mine. I will, therefore, simply report his account of the government and nature of the primitive Church. I think we shall not in this point greatly differ." — Eccles. Hist. I. 416. 252 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. frequently have been interrupted by annual, or by oc- casional elections, induced the primitive Christians to constitute an honourable and perpetual magistracy, and to choose one of the wisest and most holy among their presbyters, to execute, during his life, the duties of their ecclesiastical governor. It was under these circumstances that the lofty title of bishop began to raise itself above the humble appellation of. presbyter; and while the latter remained the most natural dis- tinction for the members of every Christian senate, the former was appropriated to the dignity of its new president. The pious and humble presbyters who were first dignified with the Episcopal title, could not possess, and would probably have rejected the power and pomp which now encircle the tiara of the Roman pontiff, or the mitre of a German prelate. The primi- tive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals, and the honourable servants of a free people. Whenever the Episcopal chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the pres- byters, by the suffrage of the whole congregation. Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were governed more than an hundred years after the death of the apostles."* — Decline and Fall, Vol. II. 272—275. Concerning the state of Episcopacy in the third century, Mr. Gibbon thus speaks: " As the legisla- tive authority of the particular churches was insensi- bly superseded by the use of councils, the bishops obtained, by their alliance, a much larger share of * Here is an explicit declaration, that the presidency or standing moderatorship of one of the presbyters, among his colleagues, without any claim to superiority of order, was the only kind of Episcopacy that existed in the Church, until near the close of the second century, EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. 253 executive and arbitrary power; and, as soon as they were connected by a sense of their common interest, they were enabled to attack with united vigour the original rights of the clergy and people. The prelates ^ of the third century imperceptibly changed the Ian- " guage of exhortation into that of command, scattered the seeds of future usurpations; and supplied by Scrip- ture allegories, and declamatory rhetoric, their defi- ciency of force and of reason. They exalted the unity and power of the Church, as it was represented in the Episcopal office, of which every bishop enjoyed an equal and undivided portion. Princes and magistrates, it was often repeated, might boast an earthly claim to a transitory dominion. It was the Episcopal authority alone, which was derived from the Deity, and ex- tended itself over this, and over another world. The bishops were the vicegerents of Christ, the successors of the apostles, and the mystic substitutes of the high priest of the Mosaic law. Their exclusive privilege of conferring the sacerdotal character, invaded the freedom both of clerical and of popular elections; and if, in the administration of the Church, they some- times consulted the judgment of the presbyters, or the inclination of the people, they most carefully incul- cated the merit of such a voluntary condescension/' I. p. 276, 277. Dr. Haweis, an Episcopal divine, in his Ecclesias- tical History, a late and popular work, before quoted, substantially agrees with Dr. Mosheim and Mr. Gib- bon, in their representations on this subject. He ex- plicitly pronounces with them, that primitive Episco- pacy was parochial, and not diocesan; that clerical pride and ambition gradually introduced prelacy; that there was no material innovation, however, on the 22 ■ 254 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. primitive model, until the middle of the second cen- tury; and that after this, the system of imparity made rapid progress, until there arose, in succession, dioce- san bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, and, finally, the Pope himself. I shall only add one more to this class of testimo- nies. It is that of the celebrated Professor Neander, of Prussia, probably the most deeply learned eccle- siastical antiquary now living. And his connexion with the Lutheran Church, as before observed, ex- empts him from all suspicion of strong prejudice in favour of either Prelacy or Presbyterianism. His statement on the subject is so extended and circuitous, that it is necessary to present an abridgment rather than the whole, in this place. He expresses a de- cisive opinion, then, that prelacy was not esta- blished by the apostles-, that nothing more than a moderator of each parochial presbytery existed for nearly two hundred years after Christ ; that these pa- rochial moderators or " presiding elders," had no higher office than their colleagues in the eldership, being only primi inter pares, i. e. the first among equals; and that as the first Christian spirit declined, the spirit of ambition and encroachment gained ground against the " Presbyterian system," as he emphati- cally styles the apostolical model. And, accordingly, in speaking of the struggle of Cyprian against his op- ponents, in the third century, he styles the success of the former against the latter, as the triumph of the Episcopal system over " Presbyterianism."* The fact being thus established, that diocesan Epis- copacy was not sanctioned by the apostles; that it * History of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 194, 238. London edi- tion. Rose's translation. EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 255 was the offspring of human ambition; and that it was gradually introduced into the Church; I shall not dwell long on the precise gradations by which it was introduced, or the precise date to be assigned to each step in its progress. Such an inquiry is as unneces- sary and unimportant as it is difficult. But as it may- gratify some readers to know how those who have most deeply and successfully explored antiquity, have considered the subject, I shall attempt a sketch of what appears to have been the rise and progress of this re- markable usurpation. The Christian religion spread itself during the apos- tolic age, over a large part of the Roman empire. It was first received in the principal cities, Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. Here con- gregations appear to have been first formed, and church officers first appointed. As the places of wor- ship were usually private houses, it follows of course that each congregation was comparatively small. And as we read of great multitudes having believed in several of the larger cities, we may infer that there were a number of these congregations, or small house- churches in each of those cities; without, however, being so distinctly divided into separate societies as is common at the present day. Each primitive congregation was probably fur- nished with one or more elders, and also with dea- cons. The elders were of two kinds: the first class were ministers of the gospel, and therefore taught and led the devotions of the people, as well as ruled in the church. The other class assisted as rulers only. It is not certain that both these classes of elders were found in every church. We only know that they both existed in the apostolic age; and that all the elders of 256 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. each congregation, when convened, formed a kind of parochial presbytery, or church session. The teaching elders were also called bishops. Of these each con- gregation was always furnished with one, and some- times with several, according to the number of its members, and other circumstances. We are expressly told in the sacred history, that in the days of the apos- tles there were a number of bishops in each of the cities of Ephesus and Philippi; and it is most proba- ble that these were the pastors of different congrega- tions in those cities respectively. In those cases in which there were several pastors or bishops in the same church, they were at first per- fectly and in all respects equal. "They ruled the church," as Jerome expresses it, " in common ;" and the alternate titles of bishop and elder belonged and were equally applied to all. It does not appear, that in the beginning, even a temporary chairman was found necessary. There was probably little formality in their mode of transacting business. A large por- tion of the spirit of their Master supplied the place of specific rules, and of energetic government. But towards the close of the first century, when both churches and ministers had greatly multiplied; when it was common to have a number of teaching as well as ruling elders in the same congregation; when, with the increasing number, it is most probable that some unworthy characters had crept into the ministry; and when, of course, the preservation of order in their pa- rochial presbyteries was more difficult, the expedient of appointing a president or moderator would natu- rally and almost unavoidably be adopted. This pre- siding presbyter was generally, at first, the oldest and gravest of the number; but soon afterwards, as we EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 257 are told, the rule of seniority was laid aside, and the most able, enterprising, and decisive presbyter, was chosen to fill the chair. After a while, the choice of a president was not made at every meeting of the parochial presbytery, or church session, but was made for an indefinite time, and sometimes for life ; in which case the choice usually fell upon the person who had the most influence, and was supposed to pos- sess the greatest weight of character. This chairman or moderator, who presided during the debates, col- lected the voices, and pronounced the sentences of the bench of presbyters, was, of course, the most con- spicuous and dignified of the number. He had no pre-eminence of order over his brethren ; but (to em- ploy the illustration of a respectable Episcopal divine, before quoted,) as the chairman of a committee has a more honourable place than the rest of the members, while the committee is sitting; so a chairman for life, in a dignified ecclesiastical, court, was generally re- garded with peculiar respect and veneration. In con- ducting public worship, this chairman always took the lead; as the organ of the body, he called the other presbyters to the performance of the several parts assigned to them; and usually himself prayed and preached. When the bench of presbyters was called to perform an ordination, the chairman, of course, presided in this transaction; and in general, in all acts of the church session or consistory, he took the lead, and was the principal medium of communication. This practice of choosing a president in the con- sistorial courts appears to have begun in a short time after the death of the apostles, and to have been the only kind of pre-eminence that was enjoyed by any of the bishops, over their brethren, until the close of 22* 258 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. the second century. Indeed Jerome declares, that this was the only kind of Episcopal pre-eminence that ex- isted in the church of Alexandria, one of the most conspicuous then in the world, until the middle of the third century. That such was the only superiority which the principal pastor of each church enjoyed in primitive times, and that such was the origin of this superiority, is evident, not only from the direct testi- mony of antiquity, but also, indirectly, from the names by which this officer is generally distinguished by the early writers. He is not only called emphati- cally the bishop of the church, but, as all his col- leagues also had the title of bishop, he is, perhaps, more frequently styled, by way of distinction, the president, (n^osat^s,) the chairman, (nposbpo^,) and the person who filled the first seat, (npw*o%a0£Spia,) in the presbytery. Had we no other evidence in the case, these titles alone would go far towards establishing the origin and nature of his pre-eminence. The powers of this chairman were gradually in- creased. In some cases his own ambition, and, in others, the exigencies of particular times and places, at once multipled his duties, enlarged his authority, and augmented his honours. Not only the ruling elders, but also his colleagues in the ministry were led insensibly to look upon him with peculiar reverence. His presence began to be deemed necessary, at first to the regularity, and afterwards to the validity of all the proceedings of the bencli of presbyters. And as his office, in those times, was a post of danger as well as of honour, the rest of the presbyters would more readily submit to the claims of a man who put his life in his hand to serve the Church. This may be called the first step in the rise of prelacy. The ex- EARLY RISE OP PRELACY. 259 ample once set in some of the principal cities, was probably soon adopted in the less populous towns, and in the country churches. This measure led to another equally natural. The pastors or bishops who resided in the same city, or neighbourhood, were led on different occasions to meet together, to consult and to transact various kinds of business. Their meetings were probably at first attended with very little formality. In a short time, however, as Christianity gained ground, they came together more frequently; had more business to trans- act; and found it expedient to be more formal in their proceedings. A president or chairman became ne- cessary, as in the smaller presbytery or church session. Such an officer was accordingly chosen, sometimes at each meeting, but more frequently for an indefinite period, or for life. Whatever number of congregations and of ministers were thus united under a presbytery, they were styled, (upon a principle of ecclesiastical unity which was then common,) one church. The standing moderator or president of this larger presby- tery, was styled the bishop of the city in which he presided. This was a second step towards prelacy. At what precise time it was taken, is difficult to be ascertained. But before the middle of the third cen- tury, so greatly increased were the affluence and pride of ecclesiastics, that the claims of this presiding pres- byter began to be large and confident. As he offi- cially superintended the execution of the decrees of the assembly, his power gradually increased ; and it was a short transition from the exercise of power in the name of others, to the exercise of it without con- sulting them. In the towns where there was but one congregation, 260 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. and that a small one, there was generally but one teaching presbyter associated with a number of ruling presbyters. This was the pastor or bishop. When the congregation increased, and the introduction of other teachers was found necessary, the first retained his place as sole pastor, and the others came in as his assistants; and although of the same order with him- self, yet he alone was the responsible pastor. In short, the rest of the teaching presbyters in this case, bore precisely the same relation to the bishop, on the score of rank, as curates bear to the rector in a large Epis- copal congregation. They bore the same office. They were clothed with the same official power of preach- ing and administering ordinances with the pastor, and were capable, without any further ordination, of be- coming pastors in their turn; but while they remained in this situation, their labours were chiefly directed by him. As a congregation under these circumstances increased still more, and included a number of mem- bers from the neighbouring villages, some of these members, finding it inconvenient to attend the church in which the bishop officiated every Lord's day, be- gan to lay plans for forming separate congregations nearer home. To this the bishop consented, on con- dition that the little worshipping societies thus formed, should consider themselves as still under his pastoral care, as amenable to the parent church, and as bound to obey him as their spiritual guide. When the pas- tor agreed to this arrangement, it was generally un- derstood, that there should be but one communion table, and one baptistery in the parish; and, of course, that when the members of these neighbouring socie- ties wished to enjoy either of the sealing ordinances, they were to attend at the parent church, and receive EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 261 them from the hands of the pastor or bishop himself. At ordinary seasons they were supplied by his curates or assistants, who, in labouring in these little orato- ries or chapels of ease, were subject to his control. There was, however, but " one altar" — one commu- nion table — one baptistery allowed in his parish. This was laying a foundation for the authority of one bishop or pastor over several congregations, which was not long afterwards claimed and generally yield- ed. This proved a third step in the rise of prelacy. The progress of the Church towards prelacy was further aided by the practice of convening synods and councils. This practice began at an early period, and soon became general. The Latins styled these larger meetings of the clergy Councils, the Greeks Synods; and the laws which were enacted by these bodies, were denominated Canons, i. e. Rules. " These councils," says Dr. Mosheim, "changed the whole face of the Church, and gave it a new form." The order and decorum of their business required that a president should be appointed. The power lodged in this officer scarcely ever failed to be extended and abused. These synods were accustomed to meet in the capital cities of the district or province to which the members belonged, and to confer the presidency upon the most conspicuous pastor, for the time being, of the city in which they met. And thus, by the gradual operation of habit, it came to be considered as the right of those persons, and of their successors in office. " Hence," says the learned historian just quoted, "the rights of metropolitans derive their ori- gin." The order of the Church required, at first, the presence of the presiding bishops, to give regularity to the acts of synods and councils. In a little while 262 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. their presence was deemed necessary to the validity of these acts ; and, in the third century, it began to be believed that without them nothing could be done. Such is the ordinary progress of human affairs. The increase of wealth, the decay of piety, the corruption of morals, and the prevalence of heresy and conten- tion, were all circumstances highly favourable to the progress of this change, and concurring with Jewish prejudices, pagan habits, and clerical ambition, hur- ried on the growing usurpation. That the synods and councils which early began to be convened, were, in fact, thus employed by the am- bitious clergy, to extend and confirm their power, might be proved by witnesses almost numberless. The testimony of one shall suffice. It is that of the emi- nent Bishop Gregory Nazianzen, who lived in the fourth century, and who, on being summoned by the Emperor to the general Council of Constantinople, which met in 381, addressed a letter to Procopius, to excuse himself from attending. In this letter he de- clares, "that he was desirous of avoiding all synods, because he had never seen a good effect, or happy conclusion of any one of them; that they rather in- creased than lessened the evils they were designed to prevent; and that the love of contention, and the lust of power, were there manifested in instances innu- merable." — Greg. Naz. Oper. Tom. I. p. S14. Epis- tle 55. Toward the close of the third century, the title of bishop was seldom applied to any other of the pres- byters, than the different classes of presidents before mentioned. The only shadow which now remained of its former use was in the case of the pastors of country parishes, who still maintained the parochial EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 263 Episcopacy, under the name of Chorepiscopi. The ordaining power, originally vested in all presbyters alike, was in the third century seldom exercised by presbyters, unless the presiding presbyter, or bishop, was present. About this time, the name of presbyter was changed into that of priest, in consequence of the unscriptural and irrational doctrine coming into vogue, that the Christian ministry was modelled after the Jewish priesthood. About this time also the office of ruling elder appears to have been chiefly laid aside, because discipline became unfashionable, and was put down, and a part of the ministry of the word bestowed upon deacons, contrary to the original design of their office, which was to superintend the maintenance of the poor. The presbytery sunk into the bishop's council. The synod subserved the pretensions of the metropolitan; and there was only wanting a general council, and a chief bishop, to complete the hierarchy: both of which were not long afterwards compliantly furnished. In the mean time, the few humble ad- mirers of primitive parity and simplicity, who dared to remonstrate against these usurpations, were reviled as promoters of faction and schism, and either thrust out of the Church, or awed into silence. When Constantine came to the imperial throne, in the fourth century, he confirmed the usurpation of the bishops by his authority, and bestowed upon them a degree of wealth and power to which they had before been strangers. He conferred new splendour on every part of the ecclesiastical system. He fostered every thing which had a tendency to convert religion from a spiritual service into a gaudy, ostentatious, dazzling ritual; and its ministers into lords over God's heritage, instead of examples to the flock. Old Tes- 264 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. tament rites, heathen ceremonies, and institutions of worldly policy, which had long before begun to enter the Church, now rushed in like a flood. And, what was worse, the great mass of the people, as well as of the clergy, were gratified with the change. The Jew- ish proselyte was pleased to see the resemblance which the economy of the Christian Church began to bear to the ancient temple-service. The Pagan con- vert was daily more reconciled to a system, which he saw approximating to that which he had been long accustomed to behold in the house of his idols. And the artful politician could not but admire a hie- rarchy, so far subservient to the interests, and con- formed to the model of the empire. Constantine assumed to himself the right of calling general coun- cils, of presiding in them, of determining controver- sies, and of fixing the bounds of ecclesiastical pro- vinces. He formed the prelatical government after the imperial model, into great prefectures; in which arrangement, a certain pre-eminence was conferred on the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; the first rank being always reserved for the Bishop of Rome, who succeeded in gradually extending his usurpation, until he was finally con- firmed in it by an imperial decree. Though an attempt has been made to trace some of the gradations by which ministerial imparity arose from small beginnings to a settled diocesan Episco- pacy; yet, from the very nature of the case, the dates of the several steps cannot be precisely ascertained. To definite transactions which take place in a single day, or year, or which are accomplished in a few years, it is commonly an easy task to assign dates. But, in this gradual change, which was more than EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. 265 three centuries in accomplishing, no reasonable man could expect to find the limits of the several steps pre- cisely defined; because each step was slowly, and almost insensibly, taken; and more especially, because the practice of all the churches was not uniform. There was no particular time when the transition from a state of perfect parity, to a fixed and acknowledged superiority of order took place at once, and therefore no such time can be assigned. It is evident from the records of antiquity that the titles of bishop and pres- byter were, as in the beginning, indiscriminately ap- plied to the same order in some churches, long after a distinction had begun to arise in others. It is equally evident, that the ordaining power of presby- ters was longer retained in the more pure and primi- tive districts of the Church, than where wealth, am- bition, and a worldly spirit, bore greater sway. In some churches there were several bishops at the same time; in others, but one. In some parts of the Chris- tian world, it was the practice to consider and treat all the preaching presbyters in each church as col- leagues and equals; in others, one of the presbyters was regarded as the pastor or bishop, and the rest his assistants. Further, when the practice of choosing one of the presbyters to be president or moderator com- menced, it appeared in different forms in different churches. In one church, at least, according to Jerome, the presiding presbyter was elected, as well as set apart, by his colleagues; in other churches, according to Hilary, the president came to the chair agreeably to a settled principle of rotation. In some cases the presiding presbyter was vested with greater dignity and authority; in others with less. In short, it is evi- dent, that, in some portions of the Church, a differ- 23 266 EARLY RISE OF PRELACY. ence of order between bishops and presbyters was re- cognized in the third century; in others, and perhaps generally, in the fourth; but in some others, not until the fifth century. No wonder, then, that we find a different language used by different fathers on this subject, for the practice was different; and this fact directs us to the only rational and adequate method of interpreting their different representations. Such being the case, what reasonable man would expect to find in the records of antiquity, any definite or satisfactory account of the rise and progress of pre- lacy? If changes equally early and important are covered with still greater darkness; if the history of the first general council that ever met, and which agi- tated to its centre the whole Christian Church, is so obscure that many of the circumstances of its meeting are disputed, and no distinct record of its acts has ever reached our times; what might be expected con- cerning an ecclesiastical innovation, so remote in its origin, so gradual in its progress, so indefinitely diver- sified in the shapes in which it appeared in different places at the same time, and so unsusceptible of pre- cise and lucid exhibition ? To this question, no dis- cerning and candid mind will be at a loss for an an- swer. No ; the whole of that reasoning, which con- fidently deduces the apostolical origin of prelacy, from its acknowledged and general prevalence in the fourth century, is mere empty declamation, as contradictory to every principle of human nature, as it is to the whole current of early history. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 267 CHAPTER VII. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS, AND OTHER WIT- NESSES FOR THE TRUTH, IN DIFFERENT AGES AND NATIONS. The reader has been already reminded, that neither the question before us, nor any other which relates to the faith or the order of the Church, is to be decided by human authority. We have a higher and more unerring standard. But still, when there is a remark- able concurrence of opinion among learned and holy men, in favour of any doctrine or practice, it affords a strong presumptive argument that such doctrine or practice is conformable to Scripture. Thus the fact, that the great body of the reformers concurred in em- bracing and supporting that system of evangelical truth, which has been since very improperly styled Calvinism,* is justly viewed by the friends of that system as a powerful argument in its favour. Let us apply this principle to the case under consideration. It has been common for the zealous friends of pre- lacy to insinuate, that the Presbyterian doctrine of parity was unknown till the time of Calvin; that he was the first distinguished and successful advocate for this doctrine ; and that the great body of the reformers totally differed from him on this subject, and em- * I say improperly styled Calvinism, because, to say nothing of its much greater antiquity, the same system had been distinctly taught by several eminent reformers, and among others, by Luther himself, before Calvin appeared. 268 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. braced Episcopacy. How persons even tolerably versed in the history of the reformed churches, could ever allow themselves to make such a representation, I am altogether at a loss to conceive. Nothing cer- tainly can be more remote from fact. The smallest attention to the subject will convince every impartial inquirer, that the most distinguished witnesses for evangelical truth, through the dark ages, long before Calvin lived, maintained the doctrine of ministerial parity; that the earliest reformers, both in Great Bri- tain and on the continent of Europe, admitted the same principle; that all the reformed churches, ex- cepting that of England, were organized on this prin- ciple ; that the Church of England stands alone in the whole Protestant world, in making diocesan bishops an order of clergy, superior to presbyters; and that even those venerable men who finally settled her government and worship, did not consider this supe- riority as resting on the ground of divine appointment, but of ecclesiastical usage and human expediency. If I mistake not, it will be easy to satisfy you, by a very brief induction of facts, that these assertions are not lightly made. In the honourable catalogue of witnesses for the truth, amidst the corruption and darkness of papal error, the Waldenses hold the first place. They began to appear as soon as the " man of sin" arose, when they resided chiefly in the valleys of Piedmont. But they afterwards greatly multiplied, spread themselves extensively in France, Switzerland, and Italy, and, under different names in different districts, continued their testimony in favour of evangelical truth, for a number of centuries. All Protestant historians con- cur in representing them as constituting the purest TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 269 part of the Christian Church for several ages: and Reinerius, who had once lived among them, and who was their bitter persecutor, says, " They are more pernicious to the Church of Rome than any other sect of heretics, for three reasons: 1. Because they are older than any other sect; for some say that they have been ever since the time of Sylvester; and others say, from the time of the Apostles. 2. Because they are more extensively spread than any other sect; there being scarcely a country into which they have not crept. 3. Because other sects are abominable to God for their blasphemies; but the Waldenses are more pious than any other heretics; they believe truly of God, live justly before men, and receive all the articles of the creed; only they hate the Church of Rome." Among the numerous points in which these wit- nesses for the truth rejected the errors of the Romish Church, and contended for the doctrine of Scripture, and of the apostolic age, one was that there ought to be no diversity of rank among ministers of the gospel; that bishops and presbyters, according to the word of God, and primitive practice, were the same order. Nor did they merely embrace this doctrine in theory. Their ecclesiastical organization was Presbyterian in its form. I know that this fact concerning the Wal- denses has been denied; but it is established beyond all reasonable question by authentic historians. JEneas Sylvius declares concerning the Waldenses, "They deny the hierarchy; maintaining that there is no difference among priests by reason of dignity of office." — Hist. Bohem. Cap. 35. In one of their public documents, dated in 1395, those pious witnesses of the truth declared, "that the Romish priests were grossly immoral; while theirs 23* 270 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. were humble, generous, chaste, sober, full of love, peaceable, &c, and therefore gave greater evidence than the Papists of being ministers of Christ, though not ordained by ecclesiastical bishops." — Blair'' s His- tory of the Waldenses, Vol. I. 435. John Paul Perrin, who was himself a pastor among them, in his history of that people, delivers at length, H the discipline under which the Waldenses and Albi- genses lived; extracted out of divers authentic manu- scripts, written in their own language, several hun- dreds of years before Luther or Calvin" From this work the following extracts are made. Art. 2. " Of Pastors." "All they that are to be received as pas- tors amongst us, whilst they are yet with their own people, are to entreat ours, that they would be pleased to receive them to the ministry; and to pray to God that they may be made worthy of so great an office. We also appoint them their lectures, and set them their task, causing them to learn by memory all the chap- ters of St. Matthew and St. John, and all the Epistles that are canonical, and a good part of the writings of Solomon, David, and the prophets. Afterwards, hav- ing produced good testimonials, and being well ap- proved for their sufficiency, they are received with imposition of hands into the office of teachers. He that is admitted in the last place, shall not do any thing without the leave or allowance of him that was admitted before him. As also he that was admitted first, shall do nothing without the leave of his asso- ciates, to the end that all things, with us, may be done in order. Diet and apparel are given unto us freely, and by way of alms, and that with sufficiency, by those good people whom we teach. Amongst other powers and abilities which God hath given to his TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 271 servants, he hath given authority to choose leaders, to rule the people, and to ordain elders in their charges. When any of us, the aforesaid pastors, falls into any gross sins, he is both excommunicated, and prohibited to preach." Art. 4. " Our pastors do call assemblies once every year, to determine of all affairs in a gene- ral synod."* In another Confession of Faith, drawn up about the year 1220, they declare that the functions of mi- nisters consist in " preaching the word and adminis- tering sacraments," and that " all other ministerial things may be reduced to the aforesaid." Speak- ing of the rite of confirmation, and of the Popish claims that it must be administered by a bishop, they assert, that "it has no ground at all in Scripture; that it was introduced by the devil's instigation, to seduce the people; that by such means they might be induced the more to believe the ceremonies, and the necessity of the bishops."! In the same work, (chap. 4,) it is expressly and re- peatedly asserted, that the synods of the Waldenses were composed of ministers and elders. This mode of speaking is surely not Episcopal. In perfect coincidence with all this, is the testimony of Gillis, in his History of the Waldenses. This writer, like Perrin, was one of the pastors of that people, and therefore perfectly qualified to give an account of their peculiar doctrines and practices. He speaks familiarly of the pastors of their churches, in the Pres- byterian style. He says, u These pastors, in their ordi- nary assemblies, came together and held a synod once a year, and most generally in the month of Septem- * Perrin's History of the Old Waldenses, Part II. Book v. Chap. 7. t Ibid. Chap. 8. 272 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. ber, at which they examined the students, and admit- ted them to the ministry." Chap. ii. p. 12. In their Confession of Faith, which Gillis inserts at length, in the " Addition" to his work, p. 490, and which he expressly informs us was the confession of the ancient as well as the modern Waldenses; in Art. 31, they declare, " It is necessary for the Church to have pastors esteemed sufficiently learned, and exem- plary in their conduct, as well to preach God's word, as to administer the sacraments, and watch over the sheep of Jesus Christ, together with the elders and deacons, according to the rules of good and holy church discipline, and the practice of the primitive Church." Here are the declarations of the Waldenses them- selves. And I will venture to say that there is not a syllable in the above extracts which has the most dis- tant appearance of prelacy. On the contrary, they all bear the most decisive indications of Presbyterian parity. But besides this, Bellarmine acknowledges that the Waldenses denied the divine right of prelacy. Medina, in the Council of Trent, declared that the Waldenses were of the same mind with Aerius on this subject. And the learned Episcopalian, Professor Raignolds, in his famous Letter to Sir Francis Knollys, asserts, that the Waldenses, and all others who had distinguished themselves as opposers of Popery, and as reformers of the Church, for five hundred years, prior to the seventeenth century, had uniformly taught that " all pastors, whether styled bishops or priests, have one and the same authority by the word of God." But what places this matter beyond all doubt, is, that in the year 1530, these pious witnesses of the TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 273 truth addressed a long letter to Oecolampadius, the famous German reformer, giving a particular account of their situation, their trials, and their opinions. In this letter they state in the most explicit manner, that they had not the different orders of ministers such as bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in their churches. Those who wish to see this interesting letter, will find, it preserved in full by Gerdes in his Historia JRefor- mationis II. See also a reference to it in Scott's continuation of Milner's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I. p. 134—139. In confirmation of these views, it is a notorious fact, that after the commencement, and in the progress of the Reformation, these pious witnesses for the truth freely held communion with the Presbyterian churches of France and Geneva; received ministers from them; and, of course, recognised them as sister churches, and acknowledged their ordinations to be valid. This, it is manifest, could never have been done had the Waldenses maintained the divine right of prelacy. Accordingly, the Rev. Mr. Gilly, a clergyman of the Church of England, one of the latest and most intelligent visitants of that interesting people, tells us that, at present, they most resemble Presbyterians; each church being governed by its own consistory, or church session, consisting of the minister, elders, and deacons. (See his Researches, p. 383.) He expresses an opinion, indeed, that they were once Episcopal in their form of government; and that as late as the lat- ter end of the sixteenth, or the beginning of the seven- teenth century. But this supposition is completely disproved by their own recorded testimony, addressed to Oecolampadius, in 1530, in which, as before stated, they declare that, at that time, they had no bishops, 274 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. and evidently had no recollection of ever having had any; for the express design of their communication to that venerated reformer was to consult him, among other things, as to the propriety or necessity of having such a class of officers. The Bohemian Brethren, who were but a branch of the Waldenses, also maintained the doctrine of mi- nisterial parity by divine right. In their Confession there is not only a profound silence as to any distinc- tion or difference of degrees among pastors; but, what is more decisive, they place ordination, and excom- munication, as well as preaching the gospel, not in the power of one, but in the hands of presbyters and brethren of the ministry. And in their Book of Order, or Discipline, p. 20, we have the following express words. " It is true, the Bohemians have certain bishops, or superintendents, who are conspicuous for age and gifts; and chosen by the suffrages of all the ministers, for the keeping of order, and to see that all the rest do their office. Four, or five, or six such have they, as need requires; and each of these has his dio- cese. But the dignity of these above other ministers, is not founded in the prerogative of honours or reve- nues, but of labours and cares for others. And, ac- cording to the apostles' rules, a presbyter and bishop are one and the same thing." This statement is am- ply confirmed by Dr. Heylin, the zealous high church Episcopal historian. He explicitly grants that the Bohemian churches were not Episcopal, either in principle or practice. In his History of the Presby- terians, p. 409, 410, there is the following decisive passage. " About the year 1400, we find a strong party to be raised amongst the Bohemians, against some superstitions and corruptions in the Church of TESTIMONY OP THE REFORMERS. 275 Rome; occasioned, as some say, by reading the works of Wickliffe, and by the diligence of Picardus, a Fleming, as is affirmed by some others, from whom they had the name of Picards. Cruelly persecuted by their own kings, and publicly condemned in the Coun- cil of Constance, they continued constant, notwith- standing, to their own persuasions. In this condition they remained till the preaching of Luther, and the receiving of the Augsburgh Confession in most parts of the empire, which gave them so much confidence as to purge themselves from all former calumnies, by publishing a declaration of their faith and doctrine; which they presented at Vienna to the Archduke Fer- dinand, about ten years before chosen king of Bohe- mia; together with a large apology prefixed before it. By which Confession it appears that they ascribe no power to the civil magistrate in the concernments of the Church ; that they had fallen upon a way of or- daining ministers amongst themselves, without re- course unto the bishop, or any such superior officer as a superintendent; and finally that they retained the use of excommunication, and other ecclesiastical censures, for the chastising of irregular and scandalous persons." The noble stand in defence of evangelical truth, made by the celebrated Dr. John Wickliffe,* is well known. This illustrious English divine was professor of divinity in the university of Oxford, and has been frequently called " the morning star of the Reforma- tion." He protested with great boldness and zeal * " Wickliffe," says Bishop New come, " was not only a good di- vine, and scripturist, but well skilled in the civil, canon, and English law. To great learning and abilities, he added the ornament of a grave, unblemished, and pious conduct." 276 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. against the superstitions of the Church of Rome, and taught a system, both of doctrine and order/remarka- bly similar to that which Luther, Calvin, and the great body of the reformers, two hundred years after- wards, united in recommending to the Christian world.* " He was for rejecting all mere human rites, and new shadows or traditions in religion; and with regard to the identity of the order of bishops and priests in the apostolic age, he is very positive: Unam audacter assero, &c. One thing I boldly assert, that in the primitive Church, or in the time of the apos- tle Paul, two orders of clergy were thought suffi- cient, viz. priest and deacon; and I do also say, that in the time of Paul, fuit idem presbyter atque epis- copus, i. e. a priest and a bishop were one and the same; for, in those times, the distinct orders of Pope, Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, arch-dea- cons, officials, and deans, were not invented.! The followers of Wickliffe imbibed this as well as the other opinions of their master; and, accordingly, it is well known that they held and practised ordination by presbyters, not for want of diocesan bishops, but on the avowed principle, that they considered all ministers who " laboured in the word and doctrine," and administered sacraments, as having equal power.J * He renounced the supremacy of the Pope ; rejected the heresy of transubstantiation ; and taught, that the Bible is a perfect rule of life and manners, and ought to be read by the people ; that human traditions are superfluous and sinful; that we must practise and teach only the laws of Christ ; that mystical and significant ceremo- nies in religious worship are unlawful ; and that to restrain men to a prescribed form of prayer, is contrary to the liberty granted them by God. t See Lewis's Life of Wickliffe, 8vo. 1720. t See Walsingham's Hist. Brevis A. D. 1389, 339—340. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 277 The renowned martyrs, John Huss and Jerome, of Prague, who laid down their lives for the truth, a little after the time of Wickliffe, embraced the greater part, if not all the opinions of the English reformer, and especially his doctrine concerning the parity of Christian ministers. Their disciples acted in con- formity with this doctrine. JEneas Sylvius, (after- wards Pius II.) speaking of the Hussites, says, " One of the dogmas of this pestiferous sect, is, that there is no difference of order among those who bear the priestly office. " This account is confirmed by the historian Thuanus, who expressly speaks of their opi- nions as resembling those of the English dissenters. These churches distinctly held and taught, as their book of discipline proves, that there is but one order of ministers of divine right, and, of course, that all difference of grades in the ministry, is a matter of human prudence. They had, indeed, among them persons who were styled bishops; but thejr expressly disavowed the divine institution of this order; and what is more, they derived their ministerial succession from the Waldenses, who had no other, strictly speak- ing, than Presbyterian bishops. Even Comenius, their celebrated historian, who says most about their bishops, distinctly acknowledges that bishop and presbyter are the same by divine right. It is also an undoubted and remarkable fact, that the Bohemian brethren retained the office of ruling elder in their churches; an office which, toward the latter part of the fourth century, had been, in the greater part of the Christian world, discontinued. The following re- presentation by the learned Bucer, will be deemed, by those who are acquainted with his character, con- clusive as to this fact. " The Bohemian brethren, who 24 278 TESTIMONY OP THE REFORMERS. almost alone preserved in the world the purity of the doctrine, and the vigour of the discipline of Christ, ob- served an excellent rule, for which we are compelled to give them credit, and especially to praise that God who thus wrought by them; notwithstanding those brethren are preposterously despised by some learned men. The rule which they observed was this: be- sides ministers of the word and sacraments, they had, in each church, a bench or college of men excelling in gravity and prudence, who performed the duties of admonishing and correcting offenders, composing differences, and judicially deciding in cases of dispute. Of this kind of elders, Hilary wrote, when he said, Unde et Synagoga" &c. — Script. Jldvers. Latom. p. 77. The celebrated Mr. Tindal, a canon of Oxford, who gave the first translation of the Bible into English, and who suffered martyrdom in the reign of Henry VIII. for his zeal and his distinguished labours in the cause of truth, has the following explicit declaration, in his " Practice of Popish Prelates." " The apostles following and obeying the rule, doctrine, and com- mandment of our Saviour, ordained in his kingdom and congregation, two officers, one called after the Greek word bishop, in English an overseer; which same was called priest, after the Greek. Another officer they chose, and called him deacon, after the Greek; a minister, in English, to minister alms to the poor. All that were called elders (or priests, if they so will) were called bishops also, though they have now divided the names." The famous John Lambert, another martyr in the same reign, who is represented even by Episcopal historians, as a man of great learning, as well as TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 279 meekness and piety, expressed himself on the subject under consideration in the following manner: "As touching priesthood in the primitive Church, when virtue bare the most room, there were no more officers in the Church than bishops and deacons, as witness- eth, besides Scripture, full apertly Jerome, in his Com- mentary upon St. Paul's Epistles, where he saith, that those we call priests, were all one, and no other but bishops, and the bishops none but priests."* The fathers of the reformation in England were Presbyterians in principle; that is, a majority of the most pious and learned among them considered bishop and presbyter as the same, by divine right. But as the influence of the crown was exerted in favour of prelacy; as many of the bishops were opposed to the reformation altogether; and as the right of the civil magistrate to direct the outward organization of the Church at pleasure, was acknowledged by most oi the reformers, they yielded to the establishment ot diocesan Episcopacy, as the most suitable form ot government in the circumstances then existing. But it does not appear that any one of them thought of placing Episcopacy on the footing of Divine right, and far less of representing it as of such indispensable and unalterable necessity, as many of their less learned sons have thought proper to maintain since that time. I know that this fact, concerning those venerable re- formers, has been denied. But I know, at the same time, that it rests on proof the most complete and satis- factory, and which will ever resist all the ingenious arts which have been used to set it aside. * It is truly remarkable that we find such a striking concurrence among all learned men, at and shortly after the time of the reforma- tion, in interpreting Jerome precisely as I have done in a preceding chapter. 280 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. In the year 1537, in the reign of Henry VIII. there was a book published for the purpose of promoting the reformation, entitled, "The Institution of a Chris- tian Man." It was called the Bishop's Book, because it was composed by Archbishop Cranmer, and several other prelates. It was recommended and subscribed by the two archbishops, by nineteen bishops, and by the lower house of convocation; published under the authority of the king, and its contents ordered to be preached to the whole kingdom. In this book it is expressly said, that, " although the fathers of the suc- ceeding Church, after the apostles, instituted certain inferior degrees of ministry; yet the truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any other degree or distinction in orders, but only of dea- cons or ministers, and of presbyters or bishops." * About six years after the publication of this book, another appeared, which was designed to promote the same laudable purpose. This was entitled, " The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man." It was drawn up by a committee of bishops and other divines; was afterwards read and approved by the lords spi- ritual and temporal, and the lower house of parlia- ment; was prefaced by the king and published by his command. This book certainly proves that those who drew it up, had obtained much more just and clear views of several important doctrines, than they possessed at the date of the former publication. But with regard to ministerial parity, their sentiments re- mained unchanged. They still asserted the same doc- trine. They say, " St. Paul consecrated and ordained * " In Novo Tcstamento, nulla mcntio facta est aliorum Graduum, aut distinctionum in Ordinibus, scd Diaconorum (vel ministrorum) ct Prcsbyterorum (vel Episcoporum.") TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 281 bishops by the imposition of hands; but that there is no certain rule prescribed in Scripture for the nomi- nation, election, or presentation of them; that this is left to the positive laws of every community. The office of the said ministers is, to preach the word, to minister the sacraments, to bind and loose, to excom- municate those that will not be reformed, and to pray for the universal Church." Having- afterwards men- tioned the order of deacons, they go on to say, " Of these two orders only, that is to say, priests and dea- cons, Scripture maketh express mention; and how they were conferred of the apostles by prayer and im- position of hands." About five years after the last named publication, viz. about the year 1548, Edward VI. called a " select assembly of divines, for the resolution of several ques- tions, relative to the settlement of religion." Of this assembly Archbishop Cranmer was a leading member, and to the tenth question, which respected the office of bishops and presbyters, that venerable prelate re- plied, " bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but one office, in the beginning of Christ's religion." * Sl Thus we see," says Dr. Still * Time was when the dignitaries and other leading clergy of the Church of England, and of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, thought and spoke with profound reverence of Arch bishop Cranmer, and his brother reformers, as men entitled to the grateful respect of every Protestant Episcopalian, from whom it was unsafe and presumptuous to differ. See Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, p. 319. But now the authors and friends of the Oxford Tracts can, without ceremony, speak of those venerable men and martyrs with disrespect and severity; as chargeable with carrying the reformation by much too far ; as having lopped off from Popery many things which ought to have been retained ; and as deserving the reprobation rather than the gratitude of the Church of England and all her chil- 24* 282 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. lingfleet, " by the testimony of him who was chiefly instrumental in our reformation, that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery by divine right, but only as a prudent constitution of the civil magistrate for the better government of the Church." — Ireniciim, part I. chapter VIII. Two other bishops, together with Dr. Redmayn and Dr. Cox delivered a similar opinion, in still stronger terms ; and several of them, adduced Jerome as a decided authority in support of their opinion. An attempt has been made to place this transaction a number of years further back than it really stood, in order to show that it was at a period when the views of the reformers, with respect to the order of the Church, were crude and immature. But if Bishop Stillingfleet and Bishop Burnet are to be believed, such were the language and the views of Cranmer and other prelates, in the reign of Edward VI. and a very short time before the forms of ordination and other public service in the Church of England were published; in compiling which, it is acknowledged, on all hands, that the archbishop had a principal share; and which were given to the public in the third year of the reign of that prince. Accordingly, Mr. Le Bas, the recent high-church biographer of Cranmer, acknowledges that in answer- ing the interrogatories referred to, " He maintains that the appointment to spiritual offices belongs indiffer- ently to bishops, to princes, or to the people, accord- ing to the pressure of existing circumstances. He dren. In short the spirit of their doctrine seems to lead to the con- clusion, that there ought never to have been a separation from the Church of Rome; but a reformation of some abuses within her bosom ! TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 283 affirms the original identity of bishops and presbyters; and contends that nothing more than mere election, or appointment, is essential to the sacerdotal office, without consecration or any other solemnity." See Life of Cranmer , Vol. I. p. 197. And although Mr. Le Bas seems to think that Cranmer afterwards altered his mind in regard to these points; yet I have seen no evidence of this, and must beg to be excused for disbelieving it until such evidence appears. Another circumstance, which serves to show that Archbishop Cranmer considered the Episcopal system in which he shared, as founded rather in human pru- dence and the will of the magistrates than the word of God, is, that he viewed the exercise of all Episcopal jurisdiction as depending on the pleasure of the king; and that as he gave it, so he might take it away at pleasure. Agreeably to this, when Henry VIII. died, the worthy primate regarded his own Episcopal power as expiring with him; and therefore would not act as archbishop till he had received a new commission from King Edward. Accordingly, when these great reformers went fur- ther than to compile temporary and fugitive manuals; when they undertook to frame the fundamental and permanent articles of their church, we find them care- fully guarding against any exclusive claim in behalf of diocesan Episcopacy. If they had deemed an order of bishops superior to presbyters indispensably ne- cessary to the regular organization of the church, and the validity of Christian ordinances, can we suppose that men, who showed themselves so faithful and zealous in the cause of Christ, would have been wholly silent on the subject? And, above all, if they entertained such an opinion, would they have forborne 284 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. to express it in that article in which they undertook formally to state the doctrine of their church with re- spect to the Christian ministry? That article (the 23d) is couched in the following terms. " It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge law- fully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men, who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send minis- ters into the Lord's vineyard." Here is not a syllable said of diocesan bishops, or of the necessity of Epis- copal ordination; on the contrary there is most evi- dently displayed a studious care to employ such lan- guage as would embrace the other reformed churches; and recognise as valid their ministry and ordinances. Is it conceivable that modern high-churchmen would have expressed themselves in this manner ? And that such was really the design of those who drew up the articles of the Church of England, is ex- pressly asserted by Bishop Burnet, who will be pro- nounced by all a competent judge, both of the import and history of these articles. This article, he observes, " is put in very general words, far from that magiste- rial stiffness in which some have taken upon them to dictate in this matter. They who drew it up, had the state of the several churches before their eyes, that had been differently reformed; and although their own had been less forced to go out of the beaten path than any other, yet they knew that all things among themselves had not gone according to those rules, that ought to be sacred in regular times." And, in a sub- sequent passage, he explicitly declares, that neither TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 285 the reformers of the Church of England, nor their successors, for nearly eighty years after the articles were published, did ever call in question the validity of the ordination practised in the foreign reformed churches, by presbyters alone. And again, he de- clares — "Whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this, since that time, yet we are very sure, that not only those who penned the articles, but the body of this church for above half an age after, did, notwith- standing these irregularities, acknowledge the foreign churches, so constituted, to be true churches, as to all the essentials of a church." * The fact is, the leading reformers who survived the sanguinary reign of Mary, and were called to act un- der the despotic sway of Queen Elizabeth, and who, under her dictation, organized the reformed Church of England, did not profess to take the Scriptures for their guide in framing the government of the church. It is notorious that, in their contest with the Puritans, soon after Elizabeth acceded to the crown, they openly assumed, in relation to that subject, a different standard. While the puritans contended that the Scriptures ought to be regarded as the only- test of ecclesiastical government and discipline, as well as of doctrine; the court bishops and clergy zealously main- tained, that the Saviour and his apostles left it to the discretion of the civil magistrate, in those places in which Christianity should obtain, to accommodate the government of the Church to the polity of the state. Nay, they went so far as to maintain, that the primi- tive and apostolical order of the Church, was accom- modated only to its infant state, while under persecu- tion; whereas the model of the third, and especially of * Exposition of the XXIII. Article. 286 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. the fourth century, when Christianity became the established religion of the empire, was a much better standard for a mature ecclesiastical establishment, than the age of the apostles. And this, by the way, evinces a kind of consistency between the language and conduct of Archbishop Cranmer, to whom we have before referred, as well as his immediate succes- sor. Cranmer, as we have seen, said that " bishop and priest were not two offices, but one thing in the beginning of Christ's religion." And yet he consented to take the office of archbishop in the established church of his country, because he entertained the opinion that prelacy was a convenient and wise human institution, and that the Church had a right, in all ages, to order her government according to her own discretion, and in conformity with the govern- ment of the state. And, therefore, he and his brethren did not hesitate to assume and avow as their model the Church as it stood in the days of Constantine, rather than as it was left by the inspired apostles. These venerable men, then, did not so much as pro- fess to make the truly primitive and apostolic Church the pattern of their organization, but openly preferred a much later one. They virtually acknowledged that the primitive model rather made in favour of Presby- terians.* And, therefore, when they undertook to frame the office for conferring orders, they selected those Scriptures as proper to be read which they con- sidered as best adapted in their general diction and * The fact here stated is an unquestionable one. It is stated at large in Neal's History of the Puritans ; and the author of the " Na- tural History of Enthusiasm," in his late able work, entitled " Ancient Christianity," in opposition to the " Oxford Tracts," recognises the fact, as confirmed by the highest Episcopal authority. TESTIMONY OP THE REFORMERS. 287 scope to make the intended popular impression. It is evident that they considered the term bishop, in the New Testament, as the highest title intended to be applied to any permanent officer. Those who wish to persuade us that the venerable reformers of the Church of England held the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy, refer us to the preface of the Ordination Service drawn up by them, the lan- guage of which, it is contended, cannot be interpreted, and far less justified on any other principle. The language referred to is this — " It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there have been three orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons," &c. There is not a syllable here inconsistent with the foregoing statement. There is not a Presbyterian in the land who would not most readily say, that there have been in every scripturally organized church, since the apostles' days, three orders of officers (or ministers — the word minister having been often used, in earlier as well as later times, for all classes of church officers) bishops, presbyters, (or elders,) and deacons. Cranmer and his associates avowed their belief that bishop and presbyter were titles applied interchangeably to the same men — the bishop being a presbyter invested with a pastoral charge. If, as Presbyterians believe, there were in every single church in the apostolic age, a bishop, or pastor, a bench of ruling elders and deacons, it is manifest that they might adopt the language of the preface to the Ordinal without scruple. And if Cran- mer believed in the divine origin of ruling elders, as he probably did,"* all difficulty in reconciling the lan- * For proof of this, see, among other testimonies, Reformatio Le- 288 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. guage in question with his belief, vanishes. Episco- palians either do not inform themselves, or perpetually forget, that Presbyterians are as firm contenders for three orders of church officers as themselves; that they apply to them the same titles as themselves; and that they only differ as to the respective powers and func- tions of each. As to the latter part of the preface in question, it only implies, that none but those who were ordained according to the ecclesiastical rule of England, could be considered as regularly introduced into the ministry in the established church. In conformity with this principle, an act of Parlia- ment was passed, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to reform certain disorders touch- ing ministers of the church. This act, as Dr. Strype, an Episcopal historian, informs us, was framed with an express view to admitting into the Church of Eng- land, those who had received Presbyterian ordination in the foreign reformed churches, on their subscribing the articles of faith. But can we suppose that both houses of parliament, one of them including the bench of bishops, would have consented to pass such an act, unless the principle of it had been approved by the most influential divines of that church ? Nor was this all. The conduct of the English re- formers corresponded with their laws and public standards. They invited several eminent divines from the foreign reformed churches, who had received no other than Presbyterian ordination, to come over to England; and on their arrival, in consequence of this formal invitation, actually bestowed upon them important benefices in the church and in the univer- gum Ecclcsiasticarum, ex authoritate Regis Hen. VIII. et Edv. VI. 4 to. 1640. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 289 sities. A more decisive testimony could scarcely be given, that those great and venerable divines had no scruple respecting the validity of ordination by pres- byters. Had they held the opinion of some modem Episcopalians, and at the same time acted thus, they would have been chargeable with high treason against the Redeemer's kingdom, and have merited the repro- bation of all honest men. But further; besides inviting these distinguished divines into England, and giving them a place in the bosom of their church, without requiring them to be re-ordained, Archbishop Cranmer and his associates corresponded with Calvin; solicited his opinion re- specting many points in the reformation of the church; transmitted to him a draft of the proposed liturgy; requested his remarks and corrections thereon; adopt- ed several of his corrections; and not only acknow- ledged him in the most explicit manner to be a minis- ter of Christ, and the Church of Geneva, to be a sister church; but also addressed him in terms of the most exalted reverence, and heaped upon him every epithet of honour. Could they have done all this, if they had considered him as subverting the very foundation of the Church, by setting aside prelacy. The simplest narrative of the extent to which Cranmer and the other English reformers consulted and honoured Cal- vin, is sufficient to demonstrate that they did not by any means agree in opinion with modern high-church- men. When I look at the language of those reformers to this venerable servant of Christ; when I hear them, not only celebrating his learning and his piety in the strongest terms, but also acknowledging, in terms equally strong, his noble services in the cause of evan- gelical truth, and of the reformation; and when I find 25 290 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. the greatest divines that England ever bred, for nearly a century afterwards, adopting and repeating the same language, I am tempted to ask — are some modern ca- lumniators of Calvin really ignorant of what these great divines of their own church have thought and said respecting him; or have they apostatised as much from the principles of their own reformers, as they dif- fer from Calvin? Another testimony as to the light in which ordina- tion by presbyters was viewed by the most distin- guished reformers of the Church of England, is found in a license granted by Archbishop Grindal to the Rev. John Morison, a Presbyterian minister, dated April 6, 15S2: "Since you, the said John Morison, were admitted and ordained to sacred orders, and the holy ministry by the imposition of hands, according to the laudable form and rite of the reformed Church of Scotland: — We, therefore, as much as lies in us, and as by right we may, approving and ratifying the form of your ordination and preferment, done in such man- ner aforesaid, grant unto you a license and faculty, that in such orders, by you taken, you may, and have power, in any convenient places, in and throughout the whole province of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, and to minister the sacraments," &c. Here is not only an explicit acknowledgment that ordina- tion by presbyters is valid, but an eulogium on it as laudable, and this not by an obscure character, but by the primate of the Church of England. An acknowledgment, still more solemn and deci- sive, is made in one of the canons of the Church of England, in which all her clergy are commanded " to pray for the churches of England, Scotland, and Ire- land, as parts of Christ's holy catholic Church, which TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 291 is dispersed throughout the world." This canon, (the fifty-fifth) among others, was enacted in 1604, when the Church of Scotland was, as it now is, Presbyte- rian; and although the persons who were chiefly in- strumental in forming and adopting these canons, had high Episcopal notions; yet the idea that those churches which were not Episcopal in their form, were not to be considered as true churches of Christ, seems at this time to have been entertained by no person of any influence in the Church of England. This extravagance was reserved for after times, and the invention of it for persons of a very different spi- rit from that of the Cranmers, the Grindals, and the Abbots of the preceding age. Dr. Warner, a learned Episcopal historian, declares, that " Archbishop Bancroft was the first man in the Church of England who preached up the divine right of Episcopacy." The same is asserted by many other Episcopal writers; and this passage from War- ner is quoted with approbation by Bishop White of Pennsylvania, in his Case of the Episcopal Churches, in showing that the doctrine which founds Episcopacy on divine right, has never been embraced by the great body of the most esteemed divines in the Church of England. Another fact which corroborates the foregoing state- ment is, that Dr. Laud, afterwards Archbishop, in a public disputation before the University of Oxford, venturing to assert the superiority of bishops, by di- vine right, was publicly checked by Dr. Holland, pro- fessor of divinity in that university, who told him that " he was a schismatic, and went about to make a division between the English and other reformed churches." 292 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. In short, for a number of years after the commence- ment of the reformation, the ecclesiastical intercourse between the Church of England and the reformed churches on the continent was so constant, respectful, and affectionate, as to show plainly that the high- church notions so prevalent among many modern Episcopalians, were not thought of, and far less en- forced by the reformers of England. The examples which illustrate this fact are so many and striking, that no one even tolerably versed in the ecclesiastical history of England can deny or doubt the truth of my statement. With respect to John Knox, the great reformer of Scotland, no one is ignorant that he was a warm ad- vocate of Presbyterianism, and that he took a leading part in establishing that form of church government in his native country. It has been sometimes indeed rashly asserted that the Church of Scotland was not originally reformed upon principles strictly Presbyte- rian. This, however, is a groundless assertion. The model of the reformed Church of Scotland, as esta- blished in 1560, appears in the First Book of Discip- line, drawn up by Knox and others. In that book, in chapter fourth, the ministry is spoken of, as consisting of a single order, in the same language which has been common among Presbyterians ever since; nor is there the least hint given of different ranks or grades of ministers, much less of such an hierarchy as was then established in England. In the seventh chapter ruling elders and deacons are described, and their du- ties pointed out; the former to assist the minister in the government of his flock, and the latter to take care of the poor. And in other parts of the work, the government of the church by kirk sessions, presbyte- TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 293 lies, and synods, is expressly laid down. This is the essence of Presbyterianism. It is true, in that book, the appointment of ten or twelve ministers, under the name of superintendents, is recognised and directed. But it is as true, that the same book declares, that this appointment was made, not because superintendents were considered as of divine institution, or an order to be observed perpetually in the kirk; but because they were compelled to resort to some such expedient, at that time, when the deficiency of well qualified Protestant ministers was so great, that if some of the more able and pious had not been entrusted with much larger districts than single parishes, in which to preach the gospel, to plant churches, and to superin- tend the general interests of religion, the greater part of the country must have been given up, either to Popish teachers, or to total ignorance. And it is as true, that the powers with which those superintend- ents were invested, were, in all respects, essentially different from those of prelates. They did not con- firm; they did not exclusively ordain; they had no Episcopal consecration; they had none of the pre- rogatives of prelates; they were entirely subject to the synodical assemblies, consisting of ministers and elders; they were appointed by men who were known to be Presbyterians in principle; who, in the very act of appointing them, disclaimed prelacy as an institu- tion of Christ; and who gave the strongest evidence that they viewed the subject in this light, by refusing to make the former bishops, superintendents, lest their office should be abused, and afterwards degenerate into the " old power of the prelates." In short, the superintendents were only the agents of the synods, for managing the affairs of the Church, in times of 25* 294 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. peculiar difficulty and peril; and whenever these times ceased, or rather before, their office was abo- lished. It may be supposed by some, however, that Knox opposed prelacy because a participation in its honour was not within his reach. But, the truth is, a bishop- ric was offered him, which he refused, because he con- sidered prelacy as unlawful. Accordingly when John Douglass was made tulchan (or nominal) bishop of St. Andrews, Knox utterly refused to induct or instal him. And when this refusal was imputed to unworthy mo- tives, he publicly declared from the pulpit, on the next sabbath, " I have refused a greater bishopric than ever it was; and might have had it with the favour of greater men than he hath this: but I did and do repine for the discharge of my conscience, that the Church of Scotland be not subject to that order."* It were easy to fill a volume with testimony to the same amount. But it is not necessary. If there be any fact in the history of the British churches capable of being demonstrated, it is, that their venerable re- formers uniformly acknowledged the other Protestant churches formed on the Presbyterian plan, to be sound members of the Universal Church, and maintained a constant and affectionate intercourse with' them as such. This is so evident, from their writings and their conduct, and has been so fully conceded by the ablest and most impartial judges among Episcopalians themselves, that it would be a waste of time further to pursue the proof. From the British reformers let us pass on to those distinguished worthies who were made the instru- ments of reformation on the continent of Europe. * Bezae Iconcs. Mclchior Adam, p. 137. M'Crie. Calderwood. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 295 Luther began this glorious work in Germany, in the year 1517. About the same time the standard of truth was raised by Zuingle, in Switzerland; and soon afterwards these great men were joined by Carlostadt, Melancthon, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Beza, and others. The pious exertions of these witnesses for the truth were as eminently blessed as they were active and unwearied. Princes, and a multitude of less cele- brated divines, came to their help. Insomuch that before the close of that century, numerous and flou- rishing Protestant churches were planted throughout Germany, France, Switzerland, the Low Countries, Sweden, Denmark, and various other parts of Europe, from the Mediterranean to the confines of Russia. Now it is well known that all these Protestants on the continent of Europe, when they threw off the fet- ters of papal authority, and were left free to follow the word of God, without any exception, recognised the doctrine of ministerial parity, and embraced it, not only in theory, but also in practice. They esta- blished all their churches on the basis of that princi- ple; and to the present hour bear testimony in its favour. This may be abundantly proved, by recur- ring to their original confessions of faith; to their best writers; and to their uniform proceedings. When the churches began to assume a systematic and organized form, they were all arranged by eccle- siastical writers under two grand divisions — the Re- formed and the Lutheran. The reformed churches, which were established in France, Holland, Switzer- land, Geneva, and in some parts of Germany, from the beginning, as is universally known, laid aside diocesan bishops; and have never, at any period, had an Episcopal government, eithrr in name or in fact. 296 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. That these churches might have had Episcopal ordi- nation, and the whole system of prelacy continued among them, if they had chosen to retain them, no one can doubt who is acquainted with their history. Several Roman Catholic bishops joined the reformers on the continent, by whom Episcopal ordination might have been had, if it had been desired. But they early embraced the doctrine of ministerial parity, which had been so generally adopted by preceding witnesses for the truth; and erected an ecclesiastical organization in conformity with this doctrine. Ac- cordingly, the venerable founders of those churches, having been themselves ordained presbyters by Ro- mish bishops; believing that the difference between these two classes of ministers was not appointed by Jesus Christ or his apostles, but invented by the church; and persuaded that, according to the practice of the primitive Church, presbyters were fully invested with the ordaining power, they proceeded to ordain others, and thus transmitted the ministerial succession to those who came after them. But it is said, that, although the reformers of France, Holland, Geneva, Scotland, &c. thought proper to or- ganize their churches on the Presbyterian principle of parity; yet that Calvin, Beza, and other eminent di- vines of great authority in those churches, frequently expressed sentiments very favourable to diocesan Episcopacy, and spoke with great respect of the English hierarchy. It is not denied that those illus- trious reformers, on a variety of occasions, expressed themselves in very respectful terms of the Church of England, as it stood in their day. But whether we consider the sentiments which they expressed, or the circumstances under which they delivered them, no TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 297 use can be made of this fact favourable to the cause of our opponents. The truth is, the English reform- ers, prevented, on the one hand, by the crown and the papists, from carrying the reformation so far as they wished; and on the other, urged by the Puritans, to remove at once, all abuses out of the church, wrote to the reformers at Geneva, whom they knew to have much influence in England, soliciting their aid, in quieting the minds of the Puritans, and in persuading them to remain in the bosom of the church, in the hope of a more complete reformation afterwards. Is it wonderful, that, at a crisis of this kind, Calvin and Beza, considering the Church of England as strug- gling with difficulties; viewing Cranmerand his asso- ciates as eminently pious men, who were doing the best they could in existing circumstances; hoping for more favourable times; and not regarding the form of church government as an essential, should write to the English reformers in a manner calculated to quiet the minds of the Puritans, and induce them to remain in connexion with the national church? This they did. But in all their communications they never went further than to say, that they considered the hierarchy of England as a judicious and respectable human in- stitution; and that they could without any violation of the dictates of conscience, remain in communion with such a church, if their lot had been cast within her bosom. And what is the inference from this ? Could not thousands of the firmest Presbyterians on earth, under similar circumstances, say the same? But did Calvin or Beza ever say, even in their most unguarded moments, that they considered prelacy as an institution of Christ, or his apostles? Did they ever express a preference of this form of government to the 298 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. Presbyterian form? Did they, in short, ever do more than acknowledge that Episcopacy might, in some cases, be useful and lawful? But, on the other hand, how much these same reformers have said against prelacy, and in favour of ministerial parity; how strongly they have asserted, and how clearly they have proved, the former to be a human invention, and the latter to have the sanction of apostolic example; and how decidedly they speak in favour of Presby- terian principles, even in some of their most com- plaisant letters to the English reformers, our oppo- nents take care not to state.* Their caution is politic. For no human ingenuity will ever be able to refute the reasonings which those excellent men have left on record against the Episcopal cause. The doctrine held by Luther on this subject will be made evident by the following quotations from his works. In his treatise, Be Mroganda Missa Privata, con- tained in the second volume of his works,t remarking on Titus i. 5. he makes the following explicit decla- ration. " Here, if we believe that the Spirit of Christ spake and directed by Paul, we must acknowledge that it is a divine appointment, that in every city there be a plurality of bishops, or at least one. It is mani- fest also, that, by the same divine authority, he makes * It is almost incredible how far the declarations of Calvin on this subject have been misunderstood and misrepresented. Who would imagine, when that venerable reformer, in his Institutes, represents the Scriptures as affording a warrant for three classes of church offi- cers, viz. teaching elders, ruling elders, and deacons, that any could interpret the passage as favouring the doctrine of three orders of clergy ? t My edition of Luther's works is in seven volumes, folio, printed at Wittemberg, 1546-1552. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 299 presbyters and bishops to be one and the same thing; for he says that presbyters are to be ordained in every city, if any can be found who are blameless, because a bishop ought to be blameless." In his treatise Adversns Falso Nominatum Ordi- ncm Episcoporum* Oper. Tom. Ibid. p. 342. re- marking on the same passage of Scripture, he speaks as follows — " Paul writes to Titus that he should or- dain elders in every city. Here, I think, no one can deny that the apostle represents bishop and elder as signifying the same thing. Since he commands Titus to ordain elders in every city; and because a bishop ought to be blameless, he calls an elder by the same title. It is, therefore, plain what Paul means by the term bishop, viz. a man eminently good and upright, of proper age, who hath a virtuous wife, and children in subjection in the fear of God. He wills such an one to preside over the congregation, in the ministry of the word, and the administration of the sacraments. Is there any one who attends to these words of the apostle, together with those which precede and follow, so hardened as to deny this sense of them, or to per- vert them to another meaning?" In the same work, page 344, 345, he thus speaks — " But let us hear Paul concerning this divine ordina- tion. For Luke, in the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, writes concerning him in this manner. 'From Miletus, having sent messengers to Ephesus, he collected the elders of the church, to whom, when * Whoever will take the trouble to look into this treatise, which is expressly written against bishops, as a separate and pre-eminent order, will find Luther decidedly maintaining- that a scriptural bishop was nothing more than a pastor of a single congregation ; and strongly inveighing against the doctrine that bishops are an order above pastors, as a Popish error. 300 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. they had come to him, he thus said — Take heed to yourselves and to ail the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers/ &c. But what new thing is this? Is Paul insane? Ephesus was but a single city, and yet Paul openly calls all the presby- ters or elders, by the common style of bishops. . But perhaps Paul had never read the legends, the misera- bly patched up fables, and the sacred decretals of the Papists; for how otherwise would he have dared to place a plurality of bishops over one city, and to de- nominate all the presbyters of that one city, bishops; when they were not all prelates, nor supported a train of dependents, and pack horses, but were poor and humble men. But, to be serious, you see plainly that the Apostle Paul calls those alone bishops who preach the gospel to the people, and administer the sacra- ments, as, in our times, parish ministers and preachers are wont to do. These, therefore, though they preach the gospel in small villages and hamlets, yet, as faith- ful ministers of the word, I believe, beyond all doubt, possess, of right, the title and name of bishop." A little after, commenting on Philip i. 1. he says — " Behold Paul, speaking of Philippi, which was a single city, salutes all the believers, together with the bishops. These were, beyond all doubt, the presby- ters, whom he had been wont to appoint in every city. This now is the third instance in the writings of Paul, in which we see what God and the Holy Spirit hath appointed, viz. that those alone, truly and of right, are to be called bishops who have the care of a flock in the ministry of the word, the care of the poor, and the administration of the sacraments, as is the case with parish ministers in our age." In the same work, p. 346. commenting on 1 Peter TESTIMONY OP THE REFORMERS. 301 v. 1. he says — " Here you see that Peter, in the same manner as Paul had done, uses the terms presbyter and bishop to signify the same thing. He represents those as bishops who teach the people, and preach the word of God; and he makes them all of equal power, and forbids them to conduct themselves as if they were lords, or to indulge a spirit of domination over their flocks. He calls himself a fellow presbyter, plainly teaching, by this expression, that all parish ministers, and bishops of cities, were of equal autho- rity among themselves; that in what pertained to the office of bishop, no one could claim any superiority over another; and that he was their fellow presbyter, having no more power in his own city than others had in theirs, or than every one of them had in his own congregation." In his Commentary on 1 Peter v. 1. Oper. Tom. v. p. 481, he thus speaks — "The word presbyter signi- fies an elder. It has the same meaning as the term senators, that is, men, who on account of their age, prudence, and experience, bear sway in society. In the same manner Christ calls his ministers, and his senate, whose duty it is to administer spiritual gov- ernment, to preach the word, and to watch over the Church, elders. Wherefore let it not surprise you, if this name is now very differently appli- ed; for of those who are at present called by this name, the Scriptures say nothing. Therefore banish the present order of things from your eyes, and you will be able to conceive of the fact as it was. When Peter, or either of the other apostles, came to any city where there were Christians, out of the number he chose one or more aged men, of blameless lives, who had wives and children, and were well acquainted 26 302 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. with the Scriptures, to be set over the rest. These were called presbyters, that is elders, whom both Pe- ter and Paul also style bishops, that we may know that bishops and presbyters were the same." But this is not all. Luther declared his principles on this subject by his practice, as well as by his writings. He was ordained a presbyter in the Romish church, in the year 1507, in the twenty-fourth year of his age.* As a presbyter, he considered himself as authorized to ordain others to the gospel ministry; and accordingly, soon after assuming the character of a reformer, he actually did ordain. t Nay, he went a step further. Though a firm believer in the doctrine of the primitive parity of ministers, he seems to have considered it as not unlawful to have diocesan bishops or superintendents in the Church, when either the form of the civil government, or the habits or wishes of the people rendered it desirable; always, however, placing their appointment on the ground of human expediency alone. Accordingly, in the year 1542, when an Episcopal seat within the electorate of Sax- ony became vacant, Luther, at the request of the Elector, though himself nothing more than a presby- ter, consecrated Amsdorrf bishop of that diocese.^ But if Luther had believed in " the apostolic institu- tion of diocesan Episcopacy," as Dr. Bowden tells us he did, could he have acted thus ? It is not possible. It would have been a grossness of inconsistency and dishonesty with which that pious reformer was never charged. * Vid. Gerhard, De Ministerio, p. 147, 148. The same fact is also attested by Zanchius. In iv. Praecep. p. 774. Gerhard, who lived not long after Luther, expressly asserts that he was ordained a pres- byter, with the imposition of hands, in the year above mentioned. t Melchior Adam, 129. t Ibid. 150. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 303 Nor did Luther abandon either his principles or his practice, on this subject, to his last hour. This ap- pears from the following testimony of his biographer, concerning what occurred a few days before his death. "From the 29th day of January till the 17th day of February, he was continually occupied about the matters of concord and agreement of the aforesaid noble princes, bringing it unto a most godly conclu- sion. And besides his great labour in so necessary a cause, he preached in the mean time, four worthy sermons, and two times communicated with the Chris- tian church there, in the holy Supper of the Lord; and in the latter communion, which was on Sunday, he ordained two ministers of the word of God, after the apostles' manner." * This great reformer, then, in the solemn anticipation of death, and when he ex- pected, in a few days, to appear before his eternal Judge, still claimed and exercised the right of ordain- ing ministers, as he had done for nearly thirty years; and what is more, his biographers, who were eminent divines of the Lutheran denomination, and Luther's most intimate friends, declare, that, in their judgment, as well as that of their illustrious chief, ordination by a presbyter was in conformity with " the apostles- manner." It is true, Luther and the leading divines of his de- nomination, differed from Calvin and his associates, with respect to one point in church government. The latter totally rejected all ministerial imparity. The former supposed that a system embracing some de- gree of imparity, was, in general expedient; and ac- * « The True History of the Christian Departing of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther ; collected by Justus Jonas, Michael Celius,and Joan- nes Aurifaber, which were present thereat." 304 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. cordingly, in proceeding to organize their churches, appointed superintendents, who enjoyed a kind of pre-eminence, and were vested with peculiar powers. But they explicitly acknowledged this office to be a human, and not a divine institution. The superintend- ents in question were mere presbyters, and received no new ordination in consequence of their appoint- ment to this office. The opinion of their being a dis- tinct and superior order of clergy was formally re- jected. And all regular Presbyterian ordinations were recognised by the church in which they presided as valid. Nor have modern Lutherans apostatized in any of these points from the principles of their fathers. In all the Lutheran churches in America, and in Europe, to the south of Sweden, there are no bishops. Their superintendents, or seniors, have no other ordination than that of presbyters. When they are not present, other presbyters ordain without a scruple. And the ordinations practised in Presbyte- rian churches they acknowledge to be as valid as their own; and accordingly receive into full ministerial standing those who have been ordained in this manner. The testimony of Dr. Mosheim, the celebrated ec- clesiastical historian, who was himself a zealous and distinguished Lutheran, will doubtless be considered as conclusive on this subject. He remarks, (Vol. IV. p. 287,) that " the internal goverment of the Lutheran church is equally removed from Episcopacy on the one hand, and from Presbyterianisrn on the other; if we except the kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark, who retain the form of ecclesiastical government that preceded the reformation, purged, indeed, from the superstition and abuses that rendered it so odious. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 305 This constitution of the Lutheran hierarchy will not seem surprising, when the sentiments of that people with regard to ecclesiastical polity are duly considered. On the one hand, they are persuaded that there is no law of divine authority, which points out a distinction between the ministers of the gospel, with respect to rank, dignity, or prerogatives; and therefore they re- cede from Episcopacy. But, on the other hand, they are of opinion, that a certain subordination, a diver- sity in point of rank and privileges among the clergy, are not only highly useful, but also necessary to the perfection of church communion, by connecting, in consequence of a mutual dependence, more closely together the members of the same body; and thus they avoid the uniformity of the Presbyterian govern- ment. They are not, however, agreed with respect to the extent of this subordination and the degrees of superiority and precedence that ought to distinguish their doctors; for in some places this is regulated with much more regard to the ancient rules of church government, than is discovered in others. As the divine law is silent on this head, different opinions may be entertained, and different forms of ecclesiasti- cal polity adopted, without a breach of Christian cha- rity and fraternal union." But although the Lutherans in America, and in the south of Europe, are not Episcopal; perhaps it will be contended, that this form obtains among the Lu- therans of Sweden and Denmark. This plea, how- ever, like the former, is altogether destitute of solidity. It is readily granted that the Lutheran churches in those kingdoms have officers whom they style bishops; but when we examine the history and the principles of those churches with respect to their clergy, these 26* 306 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. bishops will be found to have no other character, ac- cording to the doctrine of the Church of England, than that of mere presbyters. For, in the first place, all ecclesiastical historians agree, that when the refor- mation was introduced into Sweden, the first minis- ters who undertook to ordain were only presbyters. Their ministerial succession, of course, flowing through such a channel, cannot include any ecclesiastical dig- nity higher than that of presbyter. Further; in Swe- dish churches it is not only certain that presbyters, in the absence of those who are styled bishops, ordain common ministers, without a scruple; but it is equally certain, that in the ordination of a bishop, if the other bishops happen to be absent, the more grave and aged of the ordinary pastors supply their place, and are con- sidered as fully invested with the ordaining power. Finally; the Swedish churches explicitly renounce all claim of divine right for their ecclesiastical govern- ment. They acknowledge that the Scriptures contain no warrant for more than one order of gospel minis- ters;* that their system rests on no other ground than human expediency; and that an adherence to it is by no means necessary either to the validity or regularity of Christian ordinances. If I mistake not, I have now demonstrated that the whole body of the reformers, with scarcely any ex- ceptions, agreed in maintaining that ministerial parity was the doctrine of Scripture, and of the primitive Church: That all the reformed churches, excepting that of England, were organized on this principle; and that even those great men who finally settled her government and worship, did not consider prelacy as * The Swedish churches wholly discard deacons as an order of clergy. TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. 307 founded on divine appointment, but only as resting on the basis of expediency. In short, there is complete evidence, that the Church of England stands alone in making bishops an order of clergy superior to presby- ters; nay, that every other Protestant church on earth, has formally disclaimed the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy, and pronounced it to be a mere human invention. Now is it credible, I ask, that a body of such men as the early reformers; men who to great learning added the most exalted piety, zeal, and devotedness to the truth; men who counted not their lives dear to them that they might maintain what appeared to them the purity of faith and order in the Church; is it credi- ble that such men, living in different countries, influ- enced by different prejudices, all educated under the system of diocesan bishops, and all surrounded with ministers and people still warmly attached to this system: Is it credible, I say, that such men, thus situ- ated, should, when left free to examine the Scriptures and the early fathers on this subject, with almost per- fect unanimity, agree in pronouncing prelacy to be a human invention, and ministerial parity to be the doc- trine of Scripture, if the testimony in favour of this opinion had not been perfectly clear and conclusive ? It is not credible. We may suppose Calvin and Beza to have embraced their opinions on this subject from prejudice, arising out of their situation; but that Lu- ther, Melancthon, Oecolampadius, Bullinger, Bucer, Peter Martyr, and all the leading reformers on the continent of Europe, differently situated, and with dif- ferent views on other points, should embrace the same opinion; that Cranmer, Grindal, and other pre- lates in Britain, though partaking in the highest 308 TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS. honours of an Episcopal system, should entirely eon- cur in that opinion; that all this illustrious body of men, scattered through the whole Protestant world, should agree in declaring ministerial parity to be the doctrine of Scripture and of the primitive Church; and all this from mere prejudice, in direct opposition to Scripture and early history, is one of the most in- credible suppositions that can be formed by the human mind. I repeat again, the question before us is not to be decided by human opinion, or by the number or re- spectability of the advocates which appear on either side. We are not to be governed by the judgment of reformers, or by the practice of the churches which they planted. But so far as these considerations have any weight, they are unquestionably and strongly on the side of Presbyterian parity. CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 309 CHAPTER VIII. CONCESSIONS OF EMINENT EPISCOPALIANS. The concessions of opponents always carry with them peculiar weight. The opinions of Presbyterians, in this controversy, like the testimony of all men in their own favour, will of course be received with suspicion and allowance. But when decided and zealous Epis- copalians; men who stand high as the defenders and the ornaments of Episcopacy; men whose prejudice and interest were all enlisted in the support of the Episcopal system; when these are found to have con- ceded the main points in this controversy, they give us advantages of the most decisive kind. Some in- stances of this sort, I shall now proceed to state. When I exhibit Episcopal divines as making con- cessions in favour of our doctrine, none certainly will understand me as meaning to assert, that they were Presbyterians in principle. So far from this, the chief value of their concessions consists in being made by decided friends of Episcopacy. Neither will you understand me to assert, that none of these writers say any thing, in other parts of their works, incon- sistent with these concessions. Few men who write and publish much are at all times so guarded as never to be inconsistent with themselves. It is enough for me to know what language they employed, when they undertook professedly to state their opinions on the subject before us, and when they were called upon 310 CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. by every motive to write with caution and precision. The reader will find most of these writers, differing among themselves; some taking higher ground, and others lower. For this he is doubtless prepared, after being informed that there are three classes of Episco- palians, as stated in a former chapter. Some of the concessions which might with propri- ety be here introduced, have been already exhibited in various parts of the foregoing chapters. It has been stated, that Mr. Dodwell frankly acknowledges that bishops, as an order superior to presbyters, are not to be found in the New Testament; that such an order had no existence till the beginning of the second cen- tury; that presbyters were the highest ecclesiastical officers left in commission by the apostles. On the other hand, Dr. Hammond, perhaps the ablest advo- cate of prelacy that ever lived, warmly contends, that in the days of the apostles there were none but bishops ; the second grade of ministers, now styled presbyters, not having been appointed till after the close of the canon of Scripture. Now, if neither of these great men could find both bishops and presbyters, as different or- ders, in the New Testament; however ingeniously they endeavour to extricate themselves from the difficulty, it will amount, in the opinion of all the impartial, to a fundamental concession. In like manner you have seen, that the arguments drawn from the Episcopal character of Timothy and Titus; from the model of the Jewish priesthood; and from the angels of the Asiatic churches, have been formally abandoned, and pro- nounced to be of no value, by some of the ablest champions of Episcopacy. The same might be proved with respect to all the arguments which are derived from Scripture in support of the Episcopal cause. CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 311 They have almost all of them been given up in turn by distinguished prelatists. But let us pass on to some more general concessions. The Papists, before as well as since the reforma- tion, have been the warmest advocates for prelacy that the church ever knew. Yet it would be easy to show, by a series of quotations, that many of the most learned men of that denomination, of different periods and nations, have held, and explicitly taught, that bishops and presbyters were the same in the primitive Church; and that the difference between them, though deemed both useful and necessary, is only a human institution. But instead of a long list of authorities to establish this point, 1 shall content myself with pro- ducing four, the first two from Great Britain, and the others from the continent of Europe. The judgment of the Church of England on this subject, in the times of popery, we have in the canons of Elfrick, in the year 990, to Bishop Wolii n, in which bishops and presbyters are declared to be of the same order. To the same amount is the judgment of An- selme, archbishop of Canterbury, who died about the year 1109, and who was perhaps the most learned man of the age in which he lived. He explicitly tells us, that, " by the apostolic institution, all presbyters are bishops." See his Commentary on Titus and Philippians. In the canon law we find the following decisive de- claration: "Bishop and presbyter were the same in the primitive Church; presbyter being the name of the person's age, and bishop of his office. But there be- ing many of these in every church, they determined among themselves, for the preventing of schism, that me should be elected by themselves to be set over 312 CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. the rest; and the person so elected was called bishop, for distinction sake. The rest were called presbyters; and in process of time, their reverence for these titu- lar bishops so increased, that they began to obey them as children do a father." — Just. Leg. Can. I. 21. Cassander.a learned Catholic divine, who flourished in the sixteenth century, in his book of Consultations, Art. 14, has the following passage: " Whether Epis- copacy is to be accounted an ecclesiastical order, dis- tinct from presbytery, is a question much debated be- tween theologues and canonists. But in this one par- ticular all parties agree. That in the apostles' days there was no difference between a bishop and a pres- byter; but afterwards, for the avoiding of schism, the bishop was placed before the presbyter, to whom the power of ordination was granted, that so peace might be continued in the Church." It has been observed, that all the first reformers of the Church of England, freely acknowledged bishops and presbyters to have been the same in the apostolic age; and only defended diocesan Episcopacy as a wise human appointment. It was asserted on high Episcopal authority, in the preceding chapter, that Dr. Bancroft, then chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, was the first Protestant divine in England, who at- tempted to place Episcopacy on the foundation of di- vine right. In 1588, in a sermon delivered on a pub- lic occasion, he undertook to maintain, " that the bishops of England were a distinct order from priests, and had superiority over them by divine right, and directly from God; and that the denial of it was here- sy." This sermon gave great offence to many of the clergy and laity. Among others, Sir Francis Knollys, much dissatisfied with the doctrine which it contained, CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 313 wrote to Dr. Raignolds, Regius professor of divinity in the University of Oxford, for his opinion on the subject. That learned professor, who is said to have been the " oracle of the university in his day," * re- turned an answer, which, among other things con- tains the following passages. " Of the two opinions which your honour mentions in the sermon of Dr. Bancroft, the first is that which asserts the superiority which the prelates among us have over the clergy, to be a divine institution. He does not, indeed, assert this in express terms, but he does it by necessary consequence, in which he aftirms the opinion of those that oppose that superiority to be an heresy; in which, in my judgment, he has com- mitted an oversight; and I believe he himself will acknowledge it, if duly admonished concerning it. All that have laboured in reforming the Church, for five hundred years past, have taught that all pastors, be they entitled bishops or priests, have equal authority and power by God's word; as first the Waldenses, next Marsilius Petavinus, then Wickliffe and his dis- ciples; afterwards Huss and the Hussites; and last of all Luther, Calvin, Brentius, Bullinger, and Musculus. Among ourselves we have bishops, the Queen's pro- fessors of divinity in our universities; and other learned men, as Bradford, Lambert, Jewel, Pilking- ton, Humphreys, Fulke, who all agree in this matter; and so do all divines beyond sea that I ever read, and * Professor Raignolds was acknowledged by all his contemporaries to be a prodigy of learning. Bishop Hall used to say, that his me- mory and reading were near a miracle. He was particularly con- versant with the fathers and early historians; was a critic in the lan- guages ; was celebrated for his wit ; and so eminent for piety and sanctity of life, that Crakenthorp said of him, that • to name Raig- nolds was to commend virtue itself." •27 314 CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. doubtless many more whom I never read. But what do I speak of particular persons? It is the common judgment of the Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Sa- voy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Low Countries, and our own, (the Church of England.) Wherefore, since Dr. Bancroft will cer- tainly never pretend that an heresy, condemned by the consent of the whole Church in its most flourish- ing times, was yet accounted sound and Christian doc- trine by all these I have mentioned, I hope he will acknowledge that he was mistaken when he asserted the superiority which bishops have among us over the clergy, to be God's own ordinance."* Archbishop Whitgift, referring to the great attention which Ban- croft's sermon had excited, observed, that it "had done good;" but added, that with respect to the offen- sive doctrine which it contained, he " rather wished, than believed it to be true." The same Archbishop Whitgift, in his book against Cartwright, has the following full and explicit decla- rations: Having distinguished between those things which are so necessary, that without them we cannot be saved; and such as are so necessary, that without them we cannot so well and conveniently be saved, he adds, " I confess, that in a church collected together in one place, and at liberty, government is necessary with the second kind of necessity; but that any kind of government is so necessary that without it the Church cannot be saved, or that it may not be altered into some other kind, thought to be more expedient, I utterly deny, and the reasons that move me so to do, be these: the first is, because I find no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or com- * See the letter at large in Boyse on Episcopacy, p. 13—19. CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 315 manded in the Scriptures, to the Church of Christ; which, no doubt, should have been done, if it had been a matter necessary to the salvation of the Church. There is no certain kind of government or discipline prescribed to the Church; but the same may be altered, as the profit of the churches requires. I do deny that the Scriptures do set down any one certain kind of government in the Church to be perpetual for all times, places, and persons, without alteration. It is well known that the manner and form of government used in the apostles' time, and expressed in the Scrip- tures, neither is now, nor can, nor ought to be ob- served, either touching the persons or the functions.* We see manifestly, that, in sundry points, the govern- ment of the Church used in the apostles' time, is, and hath been of necessity, altered; and that it neither may nor can be revoked. Whereby it is plain, that any one kind of external government perpetually to be observed, is no where in the Scripture prescribed to the Church, but the charge thereof is left to the magistrate, so that nothing be done contrary to the word of God. This is the opinion of the best writers; neither do I know any learned man of a contrary judgment." Dr. Willet, a distinguished divine of the Church of England, in the reign of Elizabeth, in his Synopsis Papismi, a large and learned work, dedicated to that * It has been said that Archbishop Whitgift, in this passage, merely meant to say that all the details of ecclesiastical discipline are not laid down in>' Scripture, nor to be considered as of divine right. But he utterly precludes this construction, by declaring that he con- siders no form of government as of unalterable divine appointment, either with respect to persons or functions! He could scarcely have employed language to express the opinion which we ascribe to himi more perspicuously or decisively. 316 CONCESSIONS OP EPISCOPALIANS. Queen, undertakes professedly to deliver the opinion of his church on the subject before us. Out of much which might be quoted, the following passages are sufficient for our purpose: " Every godly and faithful bishop is a successor of the apostles. We deny it not; and so are all faithful and godly pastors and minis- ters. For in respect of their extraordinary calling, miraculous gifts, and apostleship, the apostles have properly no successors; as Mr. Bembridge, the mar- tyr saith, that he believed not bishops to be the suc- cessors of the apostles, for that they be not called as they were, nor have that grace. That, therefore, which the apostles were especially appointed unto, is the thing wherein the apostles were properly succeed- ed; but that was the preaching of the gospel: as St. Paul saith, he was sent to preach, not to baptize. The promise of succession, we see, is in the preach- ing of the word, which appertained as well to other pastors and ministers as to bishops." Again; " See- ing in the apostles' time episcopus and presbyter, a bishop and a priest, were neither in name nor office distinguished; it folio weth, then, that either the apos- tles assigned no succession while they lived, neither appointed their successors; or that indifferently, all faithful pastors and preachers of the apostolic faith are the apostles' successors." — Controv. v. Quest. 3. p. 232. "Of the difference between bishops and priests, there are three opinions: the first, of Aerius, who did hold that all ministers should be equal; and that a bishop was not, neither ought to be superior to a priest. The second opinion is the other extreme of the Papists, who would have not only a difference, but a princely pre-eminence of their bishops over the clergy, and that by the word of God. And they urge CONCESSIONS OP EPISCOPALIANS. 317 it to be so necessary, that they are no true churches which receive not their pontifical hierarchy. The third opinion is between both, that although this dis- tinction of bishops and priests, as it is now received, cannot be proved out of Scripture, yet it is very ne- cessary, for the policy of the Church, to avoid schisms, and to preserve it in unity.. Of this judgment, Bishop Jewel against Harding, showeth both Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome, to have been. Jerome thus writeth, ( The apostle teaches evidently that bishops and priests were the same; but that one was after- wards chosen to be set over the rest as a remedy against schism.' To this opinion of St. Jerome, sub- scribeth Bishop Jewel, and another most reverend prelate of our church, Archbishop Whitgift," p. 273. Dr. Willet also expressly renounces the argument drawn by many Episcopalians from the Jewish priest- hood. In answer to a celebrated popish writer, who had, with great confidence, adduced this argument, to support the authority of bishops, as an order superior to presbyters, he observes: First, " the high priest un- der the law was a figure of Christ, who is the High Priest and chief Shepherd of the New Testament: and therefore this type, being fulfilled in Christ, cannot properly be applied to the external hierarchy of the Church. Secondly, if every bishop be this high priest, then have you lost one of your best arguments for the Pope, whom you would have to be the high priest in the Church." * This champion of the Church of England further concedes: " That it may be doubted * It will be observed, that this zealous Episcopalian not only re- jects the argument in favour of prelacy, drawn from the model of the Jewish priesthood, but also declares it to be a popish argument, and of no value excepting on popish principles. 27* 318 CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. whether Timothy were so ordained by the apostle bishop of Ephesus, as a bishop is now set over his diocese; for then the apostle would never have called him so often from his charge, sending him to the Co- rinthians, to the Thessalonians, and to other churches beside. It is most likely that Timothy had the place and calling of an evangelist." Again; " Seeing that Timothy was ordained by the authority of the elder- ship, how could he be a bishop strictly and precisely taken, being ordained by presbyters?" p. 273. Dr. Willet also formally gives up the claim that diocesan bishops are ^peculiarly the successors of the apostles; explicitly conceding that all who preach the gospel, and administer sacraments, are equally entitled to this honour. And, to place his opinion beyond all doubt, he observes, " Although it cannot be denied but that the government of bishops is very profitable for the preserving of unity; yet we dare not condemn the churches of Geneva, Helvetia, Germany, Scot- land, that have received another form of ecclesiastical government; as the Papists proudly affirm all churches which have not such bishops as theirs are, to be no true churches. But so do not our bishops and arch- bishops, which is a notable difference between the bishops of the popish church, and of the '-reformed churches. Wherefore, as we condemn not those re- formed churches which have retained another form of ecclesiastical government; so neither are they to cen- sure our church for holding still the ancient regimen of bishops, purged from the ambitious and supersti- tious inventions of the popish prelacy," p. 276. Bishop Bilson, in his work against Seminaries, lib. I. p. 318, delivers it as his opinion, and confirms it by quotations from Jerome, that "the Church was at CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. 319 first governed by the common council of presbyters; that therefore bishops must understand that they are greater than presbyters, rather by custom than the Lord's appointment ; and that bishop's came in after the apostles' time." Dr. Holland, the King's professor of divinity in the University of Oxford, at a public academical exercise, in the year 1608, in answer to a question formally and solemnly proposed — An episcopatus sit ordo dis- tinctus a presbyter 'cttu, eoque superior jure divino? i. e. Whether the office of bishop be different from that of presbyter, and superior to it, by divine right, declared that " to affirm that there is such a difference and superiority, by divine right, is most false, contrary to Scripture, to the fathers, to the doctrine of the Church of England, yea to the very schoolmen them- selves." Bishop Morton, in his Catholic Apology, addressed to the Papists, lib. I. tells them " that the powers of order and jurisdiction, which they ascribe to bishops, doth by divine right belong to all other presbyters; and that to ordain is their ancient right." He further asserts, that Jerome does not represent the difference between bishop and presbyter as of divine institution. He assents to the opinion of Medina, the Jesuit, and declares that there was no substantial difference on the subject of Episcopacy between Jerome and Aerius. He avers, further, that not only all the Protestants, but also all the primitive doctors were of Jerome's mind. And, finally, he concludes, that according to the harmonious consent of all men in the apostolic age, there was no difference between bishop and presbyter; but that this difference was aftewards in- troduced for the removal of schism. 320 CONCESSIONS OF EPISCOPALIANS. Bishop Jewel, one of the most illustrious advocates for diocesan Episcopacy, in the Defence of his Apo- logy for the Church of England against Harding, p. 248, has the following remarkable passage. " But what meant M. Harding to come in here with the difference between priests and bishops? Thinketh he that priests and bishops hold only by tradition? Or is it so horrible an heresy as he maketh it, to say, that, by the Scriptures of God, a bishop and a priest are all one ? Or knoweth he how far, and to whom he reacheth the name of an heretic? Verily Chrysos- tom saith, Inter episcopum, et presbyterum interest fere nihil: i. e. ' between a bishop and a priest there is, in a manner, no difference. ' St. Jerome saith, somewhat in rougher sort, Audio, quendam in tan- tarn eripuisse vecordiam, ut diaconos presbyteris, id est episcopis, ante ferret: cum Apostolus perspicue doceat, eosdem esse presbyteros, quos episcopos, i. e.