has no divine right. At first they were made merely by the election of their fellow-presbyters, as in the church of Alexandria, for nearly two hundred years. Then it seems some ceremony was used in placing them in the higher chair or throne, as it was called; so the term for it came to be ENTHRONIZATION. Yet so far was it from impressing any indelible character, as they call it; or conferring, as an act, extraordinary powers, forming a distinct order, that this enthronization or consecration was frequently repeated, when an individual was removed from one bishopric to another. So, for instance, Socrates,* speaking of Miletius, who first had been bishop of Sebastia, afterward of Beræa, but after this was sent for by the inhabitants of Antioch to be their bishop, says that here, at Antioch, another, a third enthronization, was performed. Many cases of a similar character might be given. And, indeed, that the consecration of bishops was not considered at the Reformation to be, like ordination, incapable of repetition, will be evident from the fact, that many bishops were then consecrated anew when translated to other bishoprics; as may be seen by the instances and the words given from the registers, in Courayer on English Ordinations. The Oxford Tract-men have a little outwitted themselves in publishing Archbishop Cranmer's translation of Justice Jonas's "Sermon on Apostolical Succession and the Power of the Keys," as containing the "mature and deliberate judgment" of Cranmer on these subjects. For, after speaking of ordination as performed by the apostles upon others for "the ministration of God's word," he adds, "And THIS was the consecration, orders, and unction of the apostles, whereby they, at the beginning, made bishops and priests, and this shall continue in the church even to the world's end. And whatsoever rite or ceremony hath been added more than this, cometh of man's ordinance and policy, and is not commanded by God's word." Now Cranmer, we shall see, in the next section, distinctly maintained that bishops and priests were, by the law of God, the same. Here he says that that consecration, orders, and unction whereby the apostles appointed individuals to the ministration of God's word, was the only real ordination they * Eccles. Hist., part ii, chap. 44.

† Page 65, English translation, London, 1725, 8vo.

had; for "whatsoever rite or ceremony had been added more than this, cometh of man's ordinance and policy, and is not commanded by God's word." "Cranmer and Barlow," says Courayer, "affirm that the consecration [of a bishop] is not necessary, and that the designation [or appointing to the office] is sufficient."*

We wish to study brevity; otherwise it would be easy to show at length the same point, viz., that the ordination or consecration of bishops, as distinct from their ordination as presbyters, has nothing in it but a mere human ceremony of appointing an individual to some specific duties in the church. The word of God has not a syllable upon it: therefore it is utterly void of DIVINE authority. There is not a particle of genuine evidence upon it for the first hundred years after Christ. It never had, in any age, any thing that essentially distinguished it from the ordination of a presbyter. This is abundantly evident from Morinus's celebrated work on Ordinations. There it is shown, that in every thing but imposition of hands, different churches and different ages have varied from each other; and, in most of the matters, have varied without end. Now that cannot be essential to a thing which sometimes does not exist with it at all; and this is the case with every thing belonging to the consecration of bishops, excepting imposition of hands; and even this, in some cases, was not used. Imposition of hands is common to the ordination of a presbyter as well as to that of a bishop; it cannot be common to both, and yet essentially DISTINGUISH the one from the other; there is nothing, therefore, in the consecration of a bishop, nor ever was, that essentially distinguished it from the ordination of a presbyter. If it be pleaded that the church has appointed words to be used at this consecration to distinguish it from that of a presbyter; we grant it. But then the church never had any authority from Scripture to do more in this than to make it a prudential ecclesiastical arrangement. The reformers of the Church of England did not even appoint any words for the act of consecration to distinguish the office of a bishop from that of a presbyter: the words that now distinguish them were added in later times.

* P. 147; and see Burnet's Ref., vol. i, Record, No. 21.

If, then, the consecration of bishops is a mere human ceremony, it is impossible that the act of bishops, as bishops, in ordination, can have any divine efficacy or authority above that of presbyters. Bishops may ordain one another for ever, but this would never change the matter. A cipher multiplied by a cipher always produces a cipher. All the authority, then, that bishops have to ordain men to the ministration of God's word and sacraments, arises from their authority as presbyters, and from THIS ALONE. Scores of bishops in the Romish Church never were presbyters: yet these men have ordained presbyters and bishops in the church without number. Through these our high Churchmen have received their boasted orders. Such is their vaunted "unbroken series of VALID ordinations," and apostolical succession!

The tenacity of high Churchmen to their exclusive and intolerant scheme must be my apology to the reader for the length of this section. We will now state the result of the inquiry:

1. No clear evidence appears that any of the fathers of the first three centuries, or any council, ever maintained this high Church doctrine of the divine, right of bishops ALONE to be successors of the apostles, and to ORDAIN and GOVERN pastors as well as people.

2. NO DISTINCTION appears between the office of presbyter and bishop in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, nor in the Epistle of Polycarp, the most ancient and genuine pieces we have in the first century.

3. In the second and following centuries, a CUSTOM GRADUALLY becomes established for one presbyter to be placed over the others; and the term bishop, or superintendent, becomes appropriated to him alone.

4. The ancients assign, as the REASON for this arrangement, the honour of the church-the peace of the churchthe prevention of schisms or divisions-and the unity of the whole. So Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary or Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome.

5. PRESBYTERS PRESIDED Over the church; in some places it would seem chiefly: but even where a superintendency had taken place, they appear with the bishop, as sitting to rule in common with him; and without them he could not do any thing of importance in the church.

So

Ignatius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen, Cyprian, Cornelius, Firmilian, and Jerome.

6. PRESBYTERS ORDAINED. This is, as to the fact, proved by Firmilian, the celebrated bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia; by the custom of the church of Alexandria for the first two hundred years after Christ; by the testimony of Jerome and Eutychius; and by the council of Ancyra, and the council of Nice. The right of power also necessarily follows from their being the same order as bishops.

7. Presbyters are the SUCCESSORS of the apostles; this is distinctly stated by Ignatius, Irenæus, and Jerome. We have not yet given a most striking passage of Jerome on this point. Hear him then: "Do you approach to the CLERGY?-God forbid that I should speak disparagingly of the CLERGY: they are SUCCESSORS to the DEGREE OF APOSTLES, qui apostolico gradui succedentes." And, after mentioning the difficulties and dangers of their station, he says, "Non est facile stare loco Pauli; tenere gradum Petri."—"It is no easy matter to stand in the place of Paul, nor in the degree of Peter."*

8. The ONLY true and indispensable succession to the apostles is the succession of FAITH, and not of persons: Irenæus, Tertullian, and Ambrose. This last bishop says, They have not the succession of Peter, who have not the faith of Peter."†

66.

The conclusion is, then, that in the purest Christian antiquity, bishops and presbyters were, by divine right, THE SAME; "all the difference which existed, in fact, between them was almost nothing;" and was merely by custom, or the use of the church, as a prudential measure, to promote order, peace, and unity. Ordination by presbyters, and all other acts of presbyters, are, by divine right, EQUALLY VALID with those of bishops: the succession of FAITH is the only true succession. Ministers and churches who do not hold this-who adulterate it-are to be FORSAKEN; and those ALONE received as TRULY apostolical successors, ministers, ordinances, and churches, where this FAITH is preached as the apostles preached it, and as they left it to us in the SACRED SCRIPTURES as their last will and testament, sealed as with their oath, and their blood. Let the

* Epist. ad Heliodorum de Vita Eremetica. † De Penitentia.

semi-popish divines, allowed improperly in the Church of England, and the thorough-going Papists of our country, look about them.

Their succession is NOT the succession of the apostles, NOR of the EARLIEST FATHERS; but a fabrication of their own, based upon false assumptions, and built up by bigotry and intolerance, out of human traditions, forged authorities, and abominable idolatries. See section x of this Essay.

APPENDIX TO SECTION VI.

ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES MENTIONED IN THE REVELATION; AND ON THE SUPPOSED DIFFICULTY OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EPISCOPACY AT SO EARLY AN AGE OF THE CHURCH.

THERE are two points which Episcopal writers consider of much importance in this controversy, and which we have not yet introduced. They might chronologically have been introduced sooner; but the reader will here examine them with greater advantage, after the preceding discussion: they are,

1. As to what are called the bishops of the seven churches of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of St. John: and,

2. The supposed difficulty of accounting for the existence of episcopacy at so early an age of the church, except on the principle that it is jure divino, established by divine right.

First, then, as to what are called the bishops of the seven churches of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of St. John. As most of the difficulty upon both these points arises from the ambiguity of the words bishop or episcopus, and episcopacy, let it be premised that there are three different senses in which these words are used in this controversy. As to the word bishop:-this word is used in the New Testament, 1. As synonymous with the word presbyter; "the names are common;' see pages 83-86 of this Essay; 2. Somewhere in the second or third century the word bishop was applied to distinguish the primus presbyter, appointed by the suffrages of the other presbyters, and by ecclesiastical arrangement, as superintendent