and universally acknowledged, that the order of Bishops was of Apostolical institution.*

That this order, in the sense contended for by Episcopalians, was actually existing, and generally established, as early as the year 160. P. C. is a fact which was never denied by any candid adversary of primitive Episcopacy; not even by Blondel, Molinæus, nor Beza. See in the 3d chap. of Sage's Principles of the Cyprianic Age, &c. a large collection of the most celebrated Presbyterian writers acknowledging that Episcopacy prevailed in the Church in St. Cyprian's time. And what account can be given of this fact, but continuance, and not usurpation? How can it be accounted for, but by supposing that it had existed from the beginning? The mere continuance of an old establishment may easily fail of being directly noticed in the records of the times; but the commencement of a new one could not be overlooked.

That these Epistles are genuine has been fully proved by Isaac Vossius, (a Presbyterian,) Archbishop Usher, Bishop Pearson, Du Pin, &c. See Bishop Pearson's Vindicia Ignatiana, and Bishop Horsley's Tracts, p. 120.

Even Mosheim, who was no great friend to Episcopacy, says of these Epistles, "Nulla forte lis plerisque Ignatianarum Epistolarum mota fuisset, nisi qui pro divino origine et antiquitate gubernationis Episcopalis pugnant, causam suam ex his fulcire potuissent."-De Rebus Christian. ante Constant. p. 160.

So meanly did Le Clerk think of De la Roque's answer to Bishop Pearson's Vindication of St. Ignatius's Epistles, that he would not reprint it along with the works of some eminent moderns, relating to the subject of the Apostolical Fathers, subjoined to his edition of those fathers.

1

"When I shall see all the democracies and aristocracies in the world lie down and sleep, and awake into monarchies, then will I begin to believe that Presbyterian government, having continued in the Church during the Apostles' times, should presently after, against the Apostles' doctrine and will of Christ, be whirled about like a stone in a masque, and be transformed into Episcopacy."*

The question between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians is not, what degree of power and splendour the primitive Bishops enjoyed, or what might be the precise extent of their dioceses? but simply and solely, whether they were the same as the Presbyters, or whether they were a distinct order?

The Episcopalians contend for this last opinion; and, insisting that the Episcopal form of Church Government was not only primitive and Apostolical, but also universal,†t they challenge their antagonists to produce, from all the records of antiquity, a single instance of a presbyteral

* Chillingworth. See in his works, his Apostol. Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated, which is comprised in four pages.

"Truly this" (the Episcopal) "form of government, all churches every where received;" i. e. “ presently after the Apostles' times, or even in their time, as ecclesiastical history witnesseth." So says Petrus Molinaus, in a book purposely written in defence of the Presbyterian Govern

ment.

community, previous to that established by Calvin at Geneva.*

When the name of Patriarch first arose in the Church has not been fully ascertained; it is, however, certain, that it was well known in the 4th century, and the patriarchal power was not one and the same precisely in all churches, but differed according to the different customs of places and countries, or the pleasure of kings and councils. Patriarch was originally of the same import with Archbishop, which last was first used about the same time, and was anciently a more extensive title than now, being seldom given to any but those whose

*Hooker challenges the sectaries of his time, "to find out but one Church upon the face of the whole earth, that hath been ordered by their discipline, or that hath not been ordered by ours, that is to say, by Episcopal regiment since the time of the blessed Apostles were here conversant."Pref. to Eccl. Pol. p. 10. Edit 1666.

See also Lowth's Directions for Reading the Scriptures, chap. 3.

Yet Dr. M'Laine, the learned translator of Mosheim, who admits that Episcopacy "appears to be the most conformable to the practice of the Church, since Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire," says, that "the situation of the primitive Church (oppressed by continual persecutions, and obliged by their sufferings to be contented with a form of government extremely simple, and with a parity of rank for want of ambition to propose, or power to support a subordination) suggested, without doubt, the idea of this latter system," i. e. Presbyterianism; and that Calvin "restored this Presbyterian or republican form of ecclesiastical polity." Note (k) to Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. vol. iv. p. 126. Edit. 1806.

jurisdiction extended over a whole Imperial diocese, as the Bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, &c.-The former term is now used only in the Greek and Eastern Churches; and in the West, the jurisdiction of Archbishops is confined to a single province, in which they have several Suffragan Bishops under them.

These new titles were given, or assumed, soon after Christianity became the religion of the State, and was established by human laws. It then began to assume a new form;-eminence in the Church was no longer the road to more severe persecution, but became an object of ambition;-dioceses were extended;-princes interfered in the nomination and appointment of Bishops;-and, in process of time, the Bishop of Rome rose superior to all other Bishops, and ruled, with a rod of iron, the whole Christian World.

To this usurped authority of the see of Rome, opposition had often been made before the æra of the Reformation, when it received a powerful check from Luther and his followers. And it was then, or soon after, that a change of government first took place in any part of the Church; for while some reformers were careful to reject nothing but what was wrong, others, in their zeal for reformation, overstept the mark, and, together with those errors which had crept into the Church in the dark ages of Popery, laid aside the office and order of Bishops as a corruption, and not from necessity, as some have pretended; for it has been fully proved by Episcopalians, that such necessity never existed in

fact.* At the head of these over-zealous reformers stands Calvin, who, notwithstanding, professes to admire the constitution of the Church of England, and to lament the necessity he was under of breaking the Apostolical succession. But however this may be, it is certain, that neither he nor his followers have ever sought to recover that primitive form of Church Government which he acknowledged and seemed to prefer.†

* See Mr. Skinner's Eccles. Hist. of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 129, &c. where an account is given of no fewer than ten Bishops, who, in the beginning of the Reformation, renounced the coinmunion of the Church of Rome, and could have been the means of preserving the Episcopal order in any Protestant society that chose to accept of it.

An able Episcopalian observes, that Calvin, Beza, and their followers, could not at first "lie under the imputation of throwing off the primitive Episcopacy, which had continued without interruption through the whole Christian world, from the days of the Apostles down to their time. Therefore they justified it in the highest terms, and pleaded only necessity for their not having it, which they called their great misfortune. But afterwards they found a greater necessity, which may be at first they thought not of, which was, to eat their own words, to stifle them as much as they could, and carry on the war against Episcopacy itself. Thus Hazael said to the prophet, Is thy servant a dog, that I should do such things?""-Preface to Mr. Leslie's Rehearsals.

† See his Answer to Mr. Cartwright's representation of his opinion of Archbishops and Bishops.-See also his Inst. lib. iv. c. 4. s. 1. 2. passim.

Yet many of Calvin's followers have displayed no little zeal against Episcopacy and Episcopalians; but may not

VOL. II.