and my Saviour?" In short, can all the pious Fathers that succeeded these, be supposed to have co-operated in perfecting the atrocious work which they had begun? These things will not be credited.

"But even supposing that these pious men, whose meek and unaspiring temper renders it altogether incredible that they made any such sacrilegious attempt, were inclined to obtain this pre-eminence in the church; can it be imagined, that the remaining Presbyters would have witnessed these daring usurpations with indifference? Would they have made no effort to save themselves and their brethren from the control of so undue and illegitimate an authority? Could none be found amongst them possessed of so much zeal in the service of their divine master, so ardently attached to his holy institutions, as to induce them to resist such a bold and impious attempt? In short, would not such an attempt by a few Presbyters, according to the uniform course of things, necessarily have agitated and convulsed the church? Would not the period of such an innovation have become a marked and peculiar era in her existence? Can the advocates of parity show any thing in the history of man analagous to their supposed change in ecclesiastical government at this time? Could ever such a radical and important alteration have been produced in any government, civil or ecclesiastical, without being accompanied by violence and convulsion? We find that the congregations, at this time, were extremely jealous of the authority that was exercised over them. This jealousy made its appearance even during the times of the Apostles. Some took it upon themselves to call in question the authority of St. Paul, others that of St. John. From the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, it would seem as if some disorders had arisen amongst them from a similar source. Is it to be supposed then that any number of Presbyters would have dared, would have proved successful had they dared, to endeavour to accumulate in their hands such undue authority as that which was

claimed by Bishops? And even if we should allow that a few Presbyters might in some places have had the talents and address to elevate themselves to this superiority over their brethren, is it probable, is it possible, that this took place at the same time over the universal church? Can such a singular coincidence of circumstances be reasonably imagined? The church had, at this time, widely extended herself over the Roman empire. Did, then, the churches of Africa, of Asia, of Europe, by a miraculous unanimity of opinion, enter at the same moment into the determination to change their form of government from the Presbyterial to the Episcopal? I will not do so much discredit to the understanding of any reader as to imagine that he does not at once perceive the inadmissibility and the absurdity of such a supposition.

"Let us, however, suppose the most that our adversaries can desire. Let us suppose that the primitive rulers of the church were destitute of principle. Let us suppose them devoid of attachment to the institutions of Christ. Let us sup

pose that they waited every opportunity to promote their own aggrandizement. Let us suppose the difficulties removed that opposed them in their ascent towards the chair of Episcopal authority. What was there, at this period, in the office of Bishop to excite their desires, or to invite their exertions to obtain it? The veneration attached to it, as yet, extended no farther than to the family of the faithful. The church was on all hands encountered by the bitterest enemies. By elevating themselves, therefore, to the pre-eminence of Bishops, they only raised themselves to pre-eminence in difficulties, in dangers, in deaths. Their blood was always the first that was drunk by the sword of persecution. Their station only exposed them to more certain and more horrid deaths. Was an office of this kind an object of cupidity? Is it to be supposed that great exertions would be made, many difficulties encountered, to obtain it? But I need say no more on this part of the subject.

"The idea that an alteration took place at this time in the form of government originally established in the church of Christ, is altogether unsupported by any proof.

"It is proved to be unfounded by unnumbered considerations."*

After hearing the bishop and the priest, let us hear also the Layman:

"Calvin found the whole Christian world in possession of the Episcopal form of government. The most learned supporters of the opposite doctrine scruple not to admit that Bishops existed, universally, in the church, as distinct from, and superior to, Presbyters, within forty or fifty years after the last of the Apostles. Such is the concession of Blondel, of Salmasius, of Bochartus, of Baxter, of Doddridge. Some of them, indeed, carry it up to a much earlier period; Salmasius going so far as to admit that Episcopacy prevailed shortly after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, and long before the death of St. John.

"It is surely incumbent on those who advocate a form of government admitted to be thus new, and thus opposed to the early, universal, and uninterrupted practice of the church, to give us the most convincing and unequivocal proof of the divinity of their system. More especially when it is recollected that they can produce no record of a change; but are obliged to imagine one, in opposition to the uniform testimony of the primitive fathers of the church. The age in which they suppose a change to have taken place was a learned age, abounding in authors of the first eminence. The most minute events are recorded, and yet not a word is said of the revolution, which some men talk of, so fundamental in its nature, and so interesting in its consequences. The change, too, which they imagine, must have been both instantaneous and universal; and this at a time when there were no Christian princes to

* CYPRIAN, No. V. Collec. p. 144-147.

promote it; when no general council had met, or could meet to establish it; and when the fury of persecution cut off all intercourse between distant churches; leaving their Clergy, also, something else to attend to than projects of usurpation. Such are the strange and almost incredible absurdities into which men will run, rather than give up a system to which they have become wedded by educaton and by habit."*

The sum of the foregoing argument is this: "Immediately after the death of the apostles, the whole Christian world was Episcopal, and remained so, without interruption, or question, for fifteen hundred years-that no cause short of Apostolic institution, can, with any show of reason, be assigned for such an effect-that it is absurd to suppose a sudden, universal, and successful conspiracy, to change the primitive order of the church—and therefore, that Episcopacy is, at least, of apostolic origin.”

Contracted into a more regular form, the argument stands thus:

That order which the church universal possessed at, or shortly after, the death of the apostles, is the order which they established and left:

But the order of the church universal, at, or shortly after the death of the apostles, was Episcopal :

Therefore, Episcopacy is the order established by the Apostles.

This reasoning appears, at first sight, to be conclusive. It certainly ought to be so, considering *LAYMAN, NO. VII. Collec. p. 99.

the interests which depend upon it, and the triumph with which it is brought forward. Nevertheless, we more than suspect a fallacy in the reasoning itself, and an errour in the assumption upon which it confessedly relies.

Supposing the fact to have been, as our Episcopal friends say it was, viz. that the accounts of the state of the Christian church after the death of the apostles, represent her, without an exception, as under Episcopal organization, we should still impeach the conclusion that Episcopacy was established by the apostles. We acknowledge, that, upon our principles, the phenomenon would be extraordinary, and the difficulty great So great, that did there exist no other records of the first constitution of the church, than the testimony of the primitive fathers; and did this testimony declare her to have been Episcopal, as that term is now understood, there could be, in our apprehension, no dispute about the matter. Common sense would instruct us to decide according to the best evidence we could get that evidence would be altogether in favour of the Episcopal claim, which, therefore, no man in his senses, would think of disputing. We say, such would be the result were the testimony of the fathers correctly stated by the Y hierarchy; and had we no other documents or records to consult. But we have other and better testimony than that of the Fathers. We have the testimony of the Apostles themselves: We have