104

TESTIMONY OF EUSEBIUS.

chapter the first of the English translation as published at Cambridge in 1683)-one great object was, "TO PRESERVE FROM OBLIVION THE SUCCESSIONS, although not of all, yet of the most famous apostles of our Saviour, &c. &c." Now surely such a man, so ancient, with such an avowed object so important, and with such facilities and talents as he possessed, he will make the whole matter "evident to any one who wishes to investigate the subject." But be not too much elated with hopes. Even Eusebius may disappoint our sanguine expectations. Now hear, in his own words, the certainty he possessed, as to early apostolic history. He tells us, in that first chapter of his history, that he had to tread a solitary and untrodden way, and could no where find so much as the bare steps of any men who had passed the same path before; excepting only some shows, and tokens divers here and there had left, particularly declaring of the times they lived in, holding forth torches as it were afar off, and lifting up their voices from on high, and calling as out of a watch tower, what way we ought to go, and how, without error or danger, to order our discourse." Alas! poor bewildered, way-worn Eusebius! Thy path seemed labyrinthine, not certain-beclouded, and not luminous. Speaking of Paul and Peter, and the churches founded

EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, DOUBtful.

105

by them, and the presbyters, or ministers or elders ordained to be over them, he says, "Now how many, and what sincere followers of them, have been approved, as sufficient to take the charge of those churches by them founded, it is not easy to say except such, and so many, as may be collected from the words of St. Paul." What! Eusebius, does it at length come to this, that a poor peasant who reads the apostle Paul's epistles, knows as much about the pretended successors of the apostles as thee? Yes, this is all the certainty he can arrive at! For he even chronicles report, seeing he cannot give assurance; for in another place he says, "Timothy is reported to have been the first bishop of Ephesus." If Eusebius could not rise higher than conjecture, and feel bewildered with doubts and difficulties even at the early period, so near the apostolic times as the third century, how can the Tractarian party so confidently boast of arriving at certainty, at the remote distance of the nineteenth century? Yet we are referred to" catalogues of bishops," notwithstanding that Bishop Pearson positively declared that even Eusebius had no archives to go by; for he says "the supposition that he had catalogues of the Roman bishops is 'conjecturam vanissimam esse' UTTERLY VAIN."

But on purpose just to supply a peg or a hook

106

IRRECONCILABLE STATEMENTS.

on which to attempt to hang this chain of successors, we will concede what all history leaves doubtful-viz., that Peter WAS the first Bishop of Rome. Then we ask, "Who can with certainty tell us who succeeded Peter ?" We ask to see made evident the first link after Peter in the chain. No man on earth can tell. Some Fathers say one man, and other Fathers mention another, so that confusion becomes worse and worse confounded the more we "investigate the subject." Tertullian says that "Clement succeeded Peter." Jerome declares that "most of the Latin authors supposed the order to be, Clement." Supposedmind it was conjectural. But Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine contradict the others, and say that Linus succeeded Peter. But Bishop Pearson has given a death blow to these authorities, by proving that Linus died before Peter ceased to be Bishop of Rome. Even a Catholic writer, (and such are not the most forward to make concessions) Cabassute, the learned popish historian of the councils, says, "it is a very doubtful question concerning Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, as to which of them succeeded Peter." And Dr. Comber, a very learned divine of the Church of England, says, "upon the whole matter there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the apostles; and therefore the Romanists, [yes, and we join their

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.

107

brethren, all the Puseyites with the Romanists] they build upon an ill bottom, when they lay so great a weight on their personal succession."

Thus, at the very commencement, tried by history, their empty boast is, vox præterea nihil -mere sound; besides which, there is nothing!

But, if the reader be not fatigued with this war of conflicting opinions, it might be asked who was the third bishop in the chain? for of the second there is no actual certainty. Here the cloud thickens more and more-the fog gets denser. Some say Cletus, others say Anacletus -yet Bishop Pearson goes to prove that they were only two names for one person. Then as to the fourth Bishop of Rome. The Papists, Dr. Hook and many others, say that Clemens was. Yet Jerome says "most of the Latin authors" supposed him to be the second, and therefore the immediate successor to Peter. Howel, a thorough churchman and a learned writer, after going at great length into what he calls the stupidity and fables of the Romanists on this point, thus concludes :- "Here it is evident how very doubtful and uncertain is the present succession of the Roman bishops." And Dr. Comber concludes his arguments and illustrations in much the same way, by saying here are a sufficient proof that there is neither TRUTH nor CERTAINTY in the pretended

108

THE CHAIN-BROKEN.

personal succession of the first popes." Similar, or rather increased confusion appears as you float further and further down the muddy, turbid, sea of ecclesiastical history. For what are the details which are given to us in reference to the proceedings of ecclesiastics through all the dark ages? It tells us of popes and anti-popes, and bishops and anti-bishops, who have set up rival claims one against another, and thus mystified the matter of supposed "true succession" to an inexplicable degree. It is an incontrovertible fact, which authentic church history will support in a thousand ways, despite all the insane and reiterated boastings which continue to be made, that these supposed fountains of apostolical and true ministerial authority have been made and unmade, set up and hurled down. At other times the church had no acknowledged head of authority at all, seeing that Bellarmine says: "For about eighty years together the Church, for want of a lawful Pope, had no other Head than what was in heaven!" and that meanwhile these spurious popes and these unauthorized bishops, with invalid powers, arising from notorious simoniacal practices and other causes, have ordained others, and thus vitiated, in ten thousand untraceable directions, the supposed legitimacy of the men who have vainly arrogated to themselves the titles of