"and took to themselves the name of bishops, the apostolic form "and discipline was abolished; then the bishops began to be dis"tinguished even from those presbyters that preached the word; "and to these bishops, contrary to God's word, the whole dignity "was ascribed; scarcely any part thereof being left to the presby"ters; which thing, and the ambition of the bishops, did in time "ruin the whole church, as the fact of the papacy itself proclaims: "And so the apostolic episcopacy was abolished, and a human "episcopacy began, from which sprang the satanic episcopacy, as "it now is in the papacy.-The distinction of a bishop from a "preaching presbyter is juris pontificii, of pontifician and positive ❝right, being brought in after the foundations of the tyranny of the "bishops were laid; but is not of divine right."*

The celebrated Bochart, a French protestant divine of great learning and authority, has often been quoted by episcopal writers, as having expressed himself in favour of prelacy. The following declarations from his pen are found in a letter which he wrote to Dr. Morley, an English bishop, who had requested his opinion on the subject. "In the office of Overseer or bishop, there are three "things which we must not mix together, the geßuregiov, i. e. "the eldership or pastoral office, which scripture ascribes to the "overseer or bishop ;-the uregoxiv, i. e. the pre-eminence above "other pastors, which the ancient church added to the bishops; "and the lordship over God's heritage which some in these last "times have strenuously advocated. The first of these is of "divine authority, the second of ecclesiastical authority; and the "third of neither, but a mere abuse. The first, the church cannot "dispense with; the second may be borne; but the third ought "at once to be rooted out."-In answer to Bishop Morley's question, whether it was better for the English church to be governed "by presbyters than by bishops, Bochart replies-" The episco"pal government was not of divine, but ecclesiastical appoint"ment; but since the English church has hitherto been governed "by bishops, that form of government may and can with propriety "be borne. For every where men live; but men cannot live every " where in the same way. As in political society some prefer "being governed by one, and others by many; so it is in ecclesi

* DANEI. Controv. 5. Lib. 1. Cap. 14.

"astical society. In England they are so accustomed to episcopal "government, that though of no divine or apostolic authority, it "cannot be dispensed with. In other places, government by over"seers, or ministers, or presbyters, is preferred. But in churches "which have never been governed by bishops, they may be dis"pensed with, even though the civil government be monarchical; "since this new institution of human origin, sprung merely from "pride and ambition, and has never been of the least advantage to "the church, which in every change of things ought always to be ❝contemplated. And since it will neither diminish nor increase "the glory of a prince, whether he receive his own crown from a "bishop or pastor.”—In another part of the same letter, he says

"If you ask for the opinions of the ancients, I entirely agree "with Jerome, that, in the apostolic times, there was no difference "between bishops and presbyters, or elders, and that the church "was governed by a common council of presbyters."*

In this manner did Bochart, unquestionably one of the most learned men of his day, speak on the subject under consideration, when his opinion was formally requested. And when it is considered that he communicated this opinion to a respectable prelate; and, of course, had every inducement to speak as favourably of the English hierarchy as possible, the quotation carries with it peculiar weight.

But none of the writers of the reformed churches have been quoted, by our episcopal brethren, with more confidence, as a witness in their favour, than the very learned and celebrated M. Claude. The following quotation leaves no room to doubt what were his real sentiments on the subject in dispute.

"The apostles have left no successors in their office, which was "unique. It was an extraordinary office; and they continue to "teach and instruct the church in all ages, by their writings. The

apostles first collected churches by their preaching. These "churches, when assembled, with their advice and assistance, ap"pointed their own presbyters or elders, overseers or bishops; and "they received the symbol, or ceremonial investiture of office, by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery or eldership: The

+ See Outhof's Verklaringe over denbrief aan Titus. p. 294. § 210, and p. 297, 298. § 620.

"office itself being conferred, and the vocation made by the elec❝tion of the church. And so scrupulous were the apostles in ap66 pointing this order of things, which was to remain in the church, "that, even in their presence, the ordination rite was performed "by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."*

66

Again, he says, "As to ordinations of this kind, (by presbyters,) can the author be ignorant that the distinction of bishop "and presbyter, as expressive of different offices, is a distinction "which not only cannot be proved by the scriptures; but which "contradicts their express language, in which it is plain that bi"shop and presbyter are only different names expressive of the same office? Can this author be ignorant of the opinion of St. "Jerome, of Hilary, the deacon, and, after them, of Hincmar, "which they have so explicitly given, concerning the unity or "identity of the office of bishop and presbyter, in the earliest ages "of the church; and concerning the origin of that distinction "which afterwards took place between them? Can he be ignorant "that St. Augustine himself, writing to St. Jerome, refers that ❝distinction, not to the primitive institution of the ministry, but "merely to an ecclesiastical custom, which had since grown up? "Can he be ignorant that some of the fathers have taught us, that "the ordination of a presbyter and a bishop are strictly one and "the same, and not different kinds of acts, sufficiently expressing "to us the identity of the offices? And as to the right of ordain"ing, can this author deny that St. Paul speaks of the laying on "of the hands of the presbytery? Can he deny that presbyters "anciently ordained equally with bishops "+ Further, "The ?" "right of ordination, therefore, is one that naturally belongs to "presbyters. And since they have been deprived of it by rules "and constitutions which are merely of human authority, the " right still remains essentially attached to their office, and they may justly reclaim it, whenever the state of the church will per"mit. And that I may declare my opinion with freedom, it ap"pears to me that the haughty and insolent opinion, which main"tains the absolute necessity of episcopal ordinations, and, with

* Historical Defence of the Reformation, 4to. ed. 1673. P. iv. C. 3. p. 342. † Histor. Def. p. 372, 373.

❝out them, annihilates the church, the ministry, and the sacraments, "however pure the faith, the doctrine, and the piety of the church "may be ;-thus making religion depend on a form, and that form "of mere human invention;-I repeat it, it appears to me that this ❝ insolent opinion carries on it the character of a shameful corrup"tion; it bears the mark of profound hypocrisy, of a pure pha"risaism, which strains at a gnat, while it swallows a camel. I "cannot help having, at least, a deep contempt for such opinions, "and compassion for those who are thus obstinate and headstrong "in maintaining them."*

In 1680, when Owen, Baxter, Alsop, Clarkson, Howe, and other eminent English Presbyterians, had written largely and ably in defence of their principles; the episcopal writers, feeling themselves deficient in argument, made an attempt to support their cause, by soliciting some of the foreign Presbyterians to speak in their favour. For this purpose the bishop of London, in that year, wrote to M. Claude, requesting him to give his opinion of English Presbyterianism. Claude returned a complaisant answer, expressing great respect for the English church; gently blaming the nonconformists for separating from it merely on a question of government; and explicitly conceding that salvation might be obtained, and every spiritual advantage received under the episcopal regimen. Messieurs L'Angle and Le Moyne, being addressed in the same manner, wrote in a similar strain. These letters Bishop Stilling fleet subjoined to a work of his own, on The Unreasonableness of Separation, and pompously published as suffrages for episcopacy; and ever since, they have been confidently quoted for the same purpose.

M. Claude complained that his letter was published without his permission; that a construction was put upon it, which he never intended; and that a use was made of it contrary to his wishes. These complaints were contained in letters addressed to the bishop of London, and to a lady of his acquaintance, in the year 1681; which, however, the Episcopalians of England took care never to publish; and which were never given to the world until after the death of Claude, when they were brought to light by his

* Histor. Def. p. 374.

son. The following extracts from these letters will be sufficient to place the sentiments of the excellent writer in a just point of light.

"I have received the letter which you were pleased to send "me from the bishop of London, with the book which accompa"nied it. I shall have the honour to reply to the bishop, and to "thank him for the present which he hath sent me. Neverthe"less, Madam, as I learn from different places, that many persons "have not entirely understood my sentiments and expressions, "touching the present state of the English church, I have believed "that, it would not be improper to explain myself more particu"larly to you, and to let you know the innocence of my thoughts "and intentions. First: I can conscientiously declare that when "I wrote on the subject to the bishop of London, it was not with "the intention that my letter should be printed, or rendered pub"lic; and that I have even been surprised and astonished to see "it as well in French as in English, at the end of the book which "you have sent me, with two others, one of Mons. M. and another "of Mons. A.-But besides this, be assured, Madam, that, in "what I have written, I have had two things only in view; viz. "to justify us from a calumny which some persons imputed to us, "of believing that salvation could not be obtained under the "episcopal government; and of aiding as much as my weakness "was capable of, a good and holy union of the two parties. "With respect to the first, I believe I have, with sufficient just"ness, explained the sentiments of all the protestants of this king"dom, and in particular, of all those who are honoured with our "character, (the clergy.) And I am even assured that the "English Presbyterians would not go so far as to contest the "possibility of salvation under the ministry of bishops. They "have, for that, too much light, wisdom, and christian charity. "With respect to the second, I have endeavoured to keep all the

measures which ought to be kept in so great and important an "affair as this. I have explained myself only in the form of a "wish, and in showing what I desired that the Presbyterians "might attentively consider. I have not been silent with regard "to the Episcopalians. I have condemned the excesses into which "some of both parties have gone; and I have shown, as far as