were and what were not, the writings of the Apostles. Eusebius tells us that certain Epistles and Gospels were universally received. All the Churches had them, they being handed down to them from the Apostles. Others were not; and were excluded, (323.) This decision we confide in. We receive the New Testament from the Fathers and have no better testimony, and want no better, than their declaration, which they maintained unto death and sealed with their blood, that it was written by the Apostles. With their testimony on this subject, we have their equally positive declaration that the Apostles who wrote this book, appointed the Bishops their successors to govern the Church. (See 125, 130, 185, 194, 206, 243, 257, 282, 326, 380 note, 381.)

487. The same kind of evidence is relied on upon every point of Christian Doctrine, Baptism, (106, 107, 231,) the Lord's Supper, and even the Divinity of the Saviour. On the last subject it is well known what plausible arguments are built by infidels upon the doubtful phrases of Scripture, and upon the occasional alterations they take the liberty of making with texts that cannot otherwise be perverted. When this fundamental doctrine was attacked in ancient days, what was the mode of repelling the assault? The language is; "For all our ancestors (predecessors, majores,) say that the Apostles themselves likewise believed and taught what they themselves now say." (Euseb. Ec. Hist. B. v, ch. xxviii.)

488. The very same evidence precisely have we for the Episcopal order of the Church. The Fathers say that the Apostles appointed the Bishops their successors in the government of the Church in their place. (See 130, 185, 194, 206, 243, 326, 380 note, 381.)

489. To revert for a moment to Stillingfleet's opinion, Dr. Miller objects warmly to the plea of immaturity of judgment, although he was but 24 years of age when the work was published, although the subject was very important and extensive, and although he put in the plea himself after deep and attentive consideration for above twenty years additional: while he puts in the same plea for Calvin at the age of 27, about the meaning of a single word, although this author, after repeated revisions and corrections of the work for 23 years more, allowed that signification to stand as quoted. (See 468 to 470.)

490. What moreover does such concession amount to? The very raising the question, with the concession and the pleading of the concession, presupposes a doubt arising out of the innovation upon

the established order of the Church; and the parties concerned iit the innovation needlessly risk the consequences of separation and schism, upon a point at best questionable, and satisfy themselves with the opinion of some of those who continue stedfast, who, variously influenced, have been led to suppose them excusable.

491. Some argue that the success which has attended the ministry of the Churches not Episcopal shows that the blessing of God is with them, and therefore that he approves of what they have done.

492. This is a popular argument and a most singular one. It represents the Divine being as having established a Church, and, when some 1500 years afterwards a party has broken through the established order and devised a plan of their own, as pardoning the irregularity because it turned out well. It would indeed be very strange if the truths of the Gospel should lose their effect when declared by men not ordained. There are recorded instances of worthless men and women having by a strong expression made such an impression on the person addressed, as effectually to awaken him to a sense of the need of conversion. Mimics have even done these things. How much more, men coming in the name of God and believing themselves duly authorized to minister in holy things, upon persons sincerely receiving them as such? We are told to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us. If in so doing we should be enabled to speak with such effect, although in private conversation, as to convince the querist, should we therefore conceive this success as a proof that we are justifiable in ministering in holy things? By no means. Many instances can be produced of both men and women having thus been the means of converting friends. But what was the ancient practice in such cases?

493. Frumentius was taken prisoner by some inhabitants of India when very young. He obtained by degrees great favour with them, and high office. He then sought among the Roman traders for some Christians, and having found some, met with them to pray. Some of the inhabitants of the country joined them. When the number of Christians had considerably increased and they had built a house for prayer, Frumentius determined to return to his own country; but on arriving in a Christian country he made it his first business to see a Bishop and beg him to send some one to take charge of the rising Church in India. This was the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, Athanasius; who thinking no one more suitable for

the office than Frumentius himself, insisted that he should take the charge and ordained him Bishop; and he returned to India. (Ec. Hist. Socrat. B. i, ch. xix; Ruffin. B. i, ch. ix; Theod. B. i, ch. xxii; Sozomen. B. ii, ch. xxiv.)

If this man had acted upon the principle above mentioned, he would have proceeded to officiate, and to ordain ministers as they might be wanted. And he would have had the same right; for all men stand upon the same footing with regard to doing that which they are not authorized to do.

494. This passage, in Socrates, confirms the view given above. (453) of the meaning of the expression, Episcopi et Cleri. Frumentius begged Athanasius to send Episcopum et Clerum, a Bishop, to India. Athanasius conferred the Episcopate on him, says the author, and he returned to India. This was likewise another instance of a layman being made a Bishop at one step. (See 484.)

Moreover Sozomen and Ruffin in stating the application of Frumentius, use the word Episcopum alone, and Theodoret uses language equivalent to it. They all say Frumentius was ordained Bishop, and returned to India, and neither of them mentions any person accompanying him.

495. Let these suffice for a specimen of the concessions of Episcopalians, some of which have been misrepresented, some partially stated, some founded on misapprehended statements and opinions of Jerome, and some influenced by fear or affection, and which, after all, are mere opinions.

The influence of these political and religious considerations is strongly expressed by Bishop Taylor, a man of very great reputation. The following extract is from his works vol. vii, p. 138. "But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by mere Presbyters, without a Bishop? What think we of the Reformed Churches?

"For my part I know not what to think. The question hath been so often asked, with so much violence and prejudice, and we are so bound, by public interest, to approve all that they do, that we have disabled ourselves to justify our own. For we were glad, at first, of abettors against the errors of the Roman Church; we found these men zealous in it; we thanked God for it, as we had cause; and we were willing to make them recompense, by endeavouring to justify their ordinations; not thinking what would follow upon ourselves. But now it is come to that issue, that our own

Episcopacy is thought not necessary, because we did not condemn the ordination of their Presbytery.

"Why is not the question rather, what we think of the Primitive Church, than what we think of the Reformed Churches? Did the Primitive Councils and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by mere Presbyters? If they did well, what was a virtue in them, is no sin in us."

496. Let us now turn our attention, for a moment to the concessions of Presbyterian writers, which, instead of being mere opinions, upon a question, at best doubtful, how far a departure from the established order of the Church may be deemed excusable; consist of admissions of the fact that Episcopacy was established by the Apostles. Some of those now to be mentioned admit this fully and explicitly; others make admissions equivalent to it.

497. Blondel's concession has been already mentioned, (162:) viz. that the Church was Episcopal in Alexandria, Rome, and Jerusalem in the year 140, eight years before the death of Polycarp, who was appointed by John, Bishop of Smyrna; and consequently must have been so in the days of the Apostles, (357.)

498. "Peter Moulin, an eminent French theologian, in a book purposely written in defence of the Presbyterian government, expressly says, '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; and the very learned and pious Bausobre, another French Protestant divine, admits that forty years after the Apostolick era, the government by Bishops prevailed in the Church." (Episc. Magazine for 1821, Philad. p. 12.)

499. The same writer also quotes the concession of Mosheim, who was opposed to Episcopacy, in the original: the translation is given literally, in section 113, from the same passage in another book. (Ibid. p. 13.)

500. "Baxter, as quoted by Bishop Hoadley, acknowledges that there were fixed Bishops in the time of St. John. Doddridge, as quoted by Chandler, (Appeal p. 20; Lectures p. 498,) admits that the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter has been as ancient as the time of St. Ignatius;" (who was contemporary with the Apostle John, 356) "and Le Clerc, a divine of the Church of Holland, (as quoted by the Bishop of Lincoln) says, 'I have always professed to believe that Episcopacy is of Apostolical institution, and consequently very good; and that man had no manner of right to change it in any place, unless it was impossible otherwise to reform the abuses that crept into Christianity.' Grotius also was of the same opinion with Le Clerc, as appears from his Annotations on the Consultations of Cassander; Acts xiv; and from testimonies

Y

concerning him annexed to his book De veritate, &c.* (Bowden's Let. 1, 159, 160.)

501. Grotius, in his note on Acts xxi, 18, (And the day following Paul went in with us unto James, and all the Elders were present,) makes the following observation: "He of the Apostles who was at Jerusalem, performed the office which afterwards the Bishops did, and therefore called together the Presbyters: unless perhaps this James was the brother of the Lord, not the Apostle, but the Bishop."*

Here is a complete admission that the Bishops were over the Presbyters, that the Apostles performed the Episcopal office; and that James the brother of our Lord, who was not one of the twelve, was Bishop of Jerusalem; agreeing with the declarations of the ancients that the Apostles ordained this James Bishop of Jerusalem. (See 243, 326, 380.)

502. This celebrated man was an active member of the Church of Holland, was publicly employed by it in promoting the Reformation in that country, and wrote largely on Religion. Although a Presbyterian, his work on Church Government (entitled De Imperio Summarum Potestatum Circa Sacra Commentarius Posthumus,) has many passages in which are plainly conceded the substance of the argument; or rather the argument itself. The following extracts are translated from that work.

503. Speaking of choosing those who should attend Councils, het says the Brethren at Antioch sent certain of their number with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, and in turn the Presbyters and Church of Jerusalem together with the Apostles sent persons chosen out of their company to Antioch. "But in every following age I find no example of an election made by the Church. For all the Presbyters came together at the Diocesan Councils, all the Bishops at the Metropolitan, except those whom pressing necessity detained. Therefore there was here no election, except that the Bishops seem to have taken, at their own pleasure, Presbyters and Deacons to the Metropolitan." (Chap. vii, sect. ix, x.)

504. "But ordination was never performed except by Pastors, and indeed anciently by the Bishops alone. Hence Paul, writing to the first Bishop of the Ephesians, admonishes him, (I. Tim. v, 22,) Lay hands suddenly on no man. And the most ancient Canons, which are called Apostolical, command that a Presbyter be ordained by a Bishop, but that a Bishop be not (ordained,) except by two or three Bishops." (Ch. x, sect. ii.)

504. "But let us likewise see about the election of Bishops, which is of so much greater importance, as greater care of the Church was conceded to Bishops than to mere Presbyters." (Ib. sect. xi.

506. "And the ancient Church thought otherwise, which permitted the election of Presbyters to the Bishop, but that of the Bishop to the other Bishops of the province." (Ib. sect. xiii.)

* "Qui Apostolorum Hierosolymis erat, is munere fungebatur qno postea Episcopi, ideoque Presbyteros convocabat: nisi forte Jacobus hic fuit frater Domini, non Apostolus, sed Episcopus.