convinced that the fact is as I wish it to be, that I shall not scruple to state it.” This, then, is not, after all, an historical fact, but merely the opinion of our author. It is clear to Mr. Waddington that at the time when St. Clement wrote (which he states to be A. D. 95) the episcopal government was not yet established in Corinth. But what is clear to him is not equally clear to every one who examines the subject. For, says Dr. Burton, (Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 3,) "If we turn to the western churches we shall see reason to think that those of Athens and Corinth had a regular succession of bishops from the time of their being founded by St. Paul." To impartiality Dr. Burton has quite as just a claim as Mr. Waddington, and he is certainly not a partizan in this respect, since, in the preface to his sermons, he disclaims the character of a high-churchman. Be this, however, as it may, my only object in referring to his admirable and learned lectures, is to shew, that what our author states as a clear fact, is, after all, not quite so clear to others as to himself.

In Tertullian I meet with the following passage :— « Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuæ; percurre ecclesias apostolicas: apud quas ipsæ adhuc cathedræ apostolorum suis locis precedent; apud quas ipsæ authenticæ literæ coram recitantur, sonantes vocem, et repræsentantes faciem unius cujusque. Proxima est tibi Achaia. Habes CORINTHUM. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses, si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum."Tertull. de Præscript. Hær. cap. xxxvi.

Now, it is clear to my mind that Tertullian would not have written thus if, almost within the memory of man, the apostolical church of Corinth had differed so essentially from the other churches as Mr. Waddington would have us believe.

But let us look to the epistle itself of St. Clement, which, according to our author, so clearly proves that the church of Corinth was not episcopal. Let us open it at section xlii., and there we read the following words: “ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῖν εὐηγγελίσθησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ἐξεπέμφθη ὁ Χριστὸς οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Ἐγενοντο οὖν ἀμφότερα εὐτάκτως ἐκ θελήματος Θεοῦ. Παραγγελίας οὖν λαβόντες, καὶ πληροφορηθέντες διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ πιστευθέντες τῳ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, μετὰ πληροφορίας Πνεύματος ̔Αγίου ἐξῆλθον εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ μέλλειν ἐρχεσθαι. Κατὰ χώρας οὖν καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες, καθίστανον τὰς ἀπαρχᾶς αὐτῶν δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους των μελλόντων πιστεύειν. Again, in section xliv., it is thus written :-" Kaì oi àñóστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν, κατέστησαν τοὺς προειρημένους καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν δεδώκασιν, ὅπως ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες, τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν.

From these passages, it is clear that the doctrine of the ministerial succession was fully understood at the time when this the earliest uninspired document of Christianity was written, and that those only who were successors of the apostles were permitted to minister in

sacred things. This entirely overthrows an assertion made by Mr. Waddington at p. 200, that the elements of the independent system are to be found in the primitive government of the church. At the same time, I admit that they do not prove that this succession was necessarily confined to the episcopal order. St. Clement mentions only bishops and deacons, and our author assumes, that, therefore, by bishops he meant presbyters.* He may be right, but he ought to notice that this is only conjecture. Others there are who will conjecture too, and who think that St. Clement meant bishops, and those ministers, whether presbyters or deacons, who were appointed to act under them. This seems to have been the opinion of Archbishop Wake. If the dispute is to be about words, the ambiguity may rest on the diakóvo as well as with the ToкоTOL. St. Clement himself was indisputably a bishop, in the restricted and proper sense of the word; nor, if we believe Irenæus, was he the first bishop of Rome after the inspired apostles. It may, therefore, be fairly surmised, that by his time the title of bishop had already been appropriated to those who were at first styled apostles; and if such were the case, we can hardly suppose that he would, in this place, use the term indiscriminately to signify merely presbyters. But without deciding as to which of these two conjectures may be right, and admitting, for the sake of argument, that St. Clement meant Presbyters when he wrote Bishops; yet even this would no more prove the non-existence of a higher order than the circumstance of our praying in one of our collects for "Bishops and Curates," without mention of any other of the clergy, would prove, if all the rest of the liturgy were destroyed, that there were no deans and archdeacons in the church of England. The objection is more valid which is urged from his speaking of bishops in the plural number. But this will vanish if we consider to whom it was that St. Clement wrote. He tells us himself that he addressed those to whom the epistle of St. Paul was sent: and St. Paul wrote unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia.+ Now, although there may have been but one bishop in Corinth, yet there may have been many in all Achaia, and against these the republican spirit may have been roused. And let it be further observed, that in the second century there were many who felt themselves aggrieved by the exercise of the

The argument in favour of the anti-episcopalian system from the state of the primo-primitive church of Corinth, was strongly urged in the seventeenth century by Blondell, and refuted, with his usual learning and ability, by Dr. Hammond. See his Latin Works, Dissertatio V., where he shews that ELOKоot, in the epistle of St. Clement, were bishops, and not presbyters.

+ Mr. Waddington, by not distinguishing between the errors of individuals and the authorized practices of the church, has given a very incorrect view of the Cyprianic age. As miracles had by that time become very infrequent, if they had not wholly ceased, and as the church had become much enlarged, we may expect to hear more of individual error and crime than in the preceding century. But as scarcely 150 years had elapsed between the death of St. John and the episcopate of St. Cyprian, no very great innovations can have taken place in the authorized principles and practices of the church. This, therefore, is a period of much interest to the ecclesiastic. It was the period when Christians were first left entirely to themselves, and placed under circumstances somewhat similar to our own. 2 R

VOL. IV-Sept. 1833.

episcopal authority. Is it not strange then, that none of these persons, when wishing to humble these prelates, should have referred to the original condition of the church of Corinth? I think our author decidedly incorrect in supposing that any great accession to the episcopal power took place in the Cyprianic age, for the assertion is made in direct opposition to the testimony afforded by the epistles of St. Cyprian, whose custom it was, instead of striving to increase his power, to consult with his presbyters even on the least important subjects, and who, in the exercise of his authority, often appeals to the precedent set him by his predecessors. But supposing it to be, as our author represents it, supposing that the bishops of the third century took upon themselves more than was right, is it not strange that no one opposed to this aggression should have appealed to the condition of the primo-primitive church of Corinth? Nor can it be pretended that there were none prepared to take such a step, for in the case of St. Cyprian, he was opposed during the greater part of his episcopate by a party among his clergy. At all events, was Novatus a man to leave such a circumstance unnoticed? Is it not, also, strange, that Irenæus, who flourished within sixty-seven years after the death of St. John, who had conversed with apostolical Polycarp, who mentions the sedition at Corinth, and who is a strenuous asserter of the ministerial succession from the apostles,-is it not, I ask, strange that he should have passed over so singular a circumstance in the church of Corinth, especially when his work would naturally lead him to animadvert on what, to a man of his principles, would appear as a mark of heresy? Is it likely, that, living so near the apostolic age, he would speak of the episcopal order in the terms he has on all occasions adopted, if he could have been thus easily silenced by a reference to the Corinthian church? Not less strange is it, that the non-episcopacy of the church of Corinth should have escaped the researches of Eusebius. And when we reflect that it would have furnished an overwhelming argument to St. Jerome, when it suited his purpose to elevate the presbyterate at the expense of episcopacy, but that, nevertheless, it was not made use of by this very learned and very irritable Father,-when we reflect on this we shall be inclined to think that it is not quite so clear that episcopacy was not established from the very beginning in the church of Corinth.

You will observe, that I have not been endeavouring to prove that the primo-primitive church of Corinth was episcopal, but that it is not clear that the episcopal government was not here established in the time of St. Clement, and that, consequently, Mr. Waddington has in this instance given us conjecture for fact.

And now let us observe the use he makes of this assumption. In his thirteenth chapter-the most objectionable chapter in his bookwhen taking a general view of the anti-Nicene church, he remarks at p. 200: "Over two, at least, among the original churches, presidents were apostolically appointed under the name of bishops; and presently, as the apostles were gradually withdrawn, it is certain that all the principal churches, with one or TWO exceptions, elected for themselves a president under the same name." Now we will not stay to ob

serve, that so far were the principal churches from electing presidents to themselves, that these presidents, called apostles, angels, or bishops, were, if there be any truth in history, appointed by the original apostles themselves; and down to the beginning of the second century we hear of St. John as employed in thus appointing bishops to the Asiatic churches. Passing over this, however, I beg you to remark, that our author has not shewn that any one of the primitive churches was not episcopal. We have seen that, in the case of the church of Corinth, he has given conjecture for fact; but, even admitting that fact to be as clear as he would have us to think it, what right has he, when reasoning upon the subject, to assert, what in the course of his narrative he did not venture to do,—that there were one or two exceptions? He ought, in fairness, to have said, All the great churches, those churches of which we have any detailed account, were undoubtedly episcopal,—the succession of the great sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, were carefully preserved, and can be traced to the inspired apostles themselves, and, no mention being made of any variation from this regimen, we must conclude that the other churches of which we have no detailed account. were episcopal also: but no, this would be illiberal; it would condemn the practice of dissenters-it would lead to the conclusion at which, within sixty-seven years after the death of St. John, Irenæus arrived: "reliquos qui absistunt a principali successione et quocunque loco colliguntur, suspectos habere et quasi hæreticos et malæ sententiæ; vel quasi scindentes et elatos et sibi placentes; aut rursus ut Hypocritas, et vanæ gloriæ hoc operantes."-(Adversus Hæresis, xliii.) A hard sentence this, and therefore, in order to escape it, our author claims one or two exceptions. One or two exceptions he feels sure that those half-and-half episcopalians, who perceive not that by these means the whole system of episcopacy may be overthrown, will not refuse to grant, while these one or two exceptions will suffice for the anti-episcopalians. In behalf of those communions which have not retained episcopacy, we may plead either the necessity of the case, as in some foreign communions, or ignorance; but never let us dare to tamper with historical truth, for fear of arriving at a conclusion contrary to our wishes, or to reject the various but concurrent testimony of all the ancient writers, because they condemn certain modern and popular practices.

In making these observations, I am far from wishing to insinuate that Mr. Waddington has wilfully perverted the truth; I only wish to point out the bias of his mind, and to shew how unconsciously he has become an advocate, although not the advocate of that party which, as a churchman, he might be expected to espouse. A dread of partiality has made him partial. Let then the reader remember constantly the bias of this author's mind, and not take for undoubted or indisputable fact his assertions respecting church-government-the ancient use of liturgies-the conduct of the Arians, or the proceedings of the council of Nice. While endeavouring on these and the like questions to be impartial, he will be found invariably to side with our adversaries. In speaking, also, of the frequent intercourse which took place between the different members of the anti-Nicene church, he

forgets that this existed only between Catholic churches, and that it was in a canon of an anti-Nicene council that we find the expression Hæreticorum cœtus non ecclesia sed conciliabulum est. It is important to note this, or the reader might infer that such intercourse between contending sects was tolerated in the anti-Nicene church, as some persons are desirous of establishing in the present age.

I must be permitted to add, in conclusion, that where liberalism has not warped the author's mind, the work is, in my humble opinion, worthy of very high praise. I would particularly call attention to the chapter on the Pontificate of Gregory VII., which is equally philosophical and interesting. The style is vigorous without roughness, and spirited without flippancy. The remarks are often acute, and the author has the happy art of investing with interest subjects the most dry. That this volume will add to Mr. Waddington's reputation for learning and research there can be little doubt; but it is to be regretted, that, with such qualifications, he has not done better. An Ecclesiastical History, to become a кτŋμɑ ɛç ɑɛɩ, must be the result of much study, of profound thought, and of earnest prayer. The present work is too evidently got up for the occasion. At p. 26, he tells us, “we shall probably recur to this subject at some future period, when we shall have stronger light to guide us." Thus, the author's principles seemed scarcely to have been formed at the commencement of the work, and they were subject to alteration during its progress. This is the more to be regretted, since the first few pages of a history of the church must necessarily be the most important of the volume.

I have heard it often expressed as an opinion, that, to counteract the evil which may ensue from this publication, it is to be desired that a History of the Church should be published by the Committee of Literature, appointed by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; and in this opinion I coincide. For may we not, my dear Sir, be certain that the Committee would give us such a history as churchmen have a right to expect, vindicating our practices, and shewing their accordance on all essential points with the practices of the Catholic church until the defection in the east, and the innovations of popery in the west? May we not be certain that the members of a committee appointed by a society which, through evil report, and through good report, has preserved its orthodoxy for more than a century, are all of them among the faithful few who will not fall down and worship the golden image of liberalism, which the rulers of this world have set up? Very truly yours, W. F. H.

REVOLUTIONARY SYMPTOMS, PRESENT AND PAST.

SIR,-It has been justly said of the French, as a national characteristic, "qu'ils n'ont pas de demain ;" and with the experience of years long subsequent to the date of that apophthegm, we might in an equally true, but more melancholy spirit, add, ni d'hier non plus. Of the former stigma, the factious hurry, the headlong improvidence, of our