testimony of Scripture. I have preferred the latter course, because it appears to be equally convenient for general purposes, and to possess this particular advantage-that it places in a clearer light the comparative strength of the positions of the advocates and of the opponents of episcopacy, and also the nature of that testimony which our position (antecedently to the Scriptural evidences we adduce) entitles us to challenge on their part before we can be shaken.

So sensible of our decided advantage, with respect to the testimony of the Church, are those who would decry our apostolical polity', that they have endeavoured to diminish its force by a taunt. They tell us, that in laying great stress upon this testimony, we give a sanction to the Romanist, and fall into his error of setting the testimony of the Church above Scripture, and making tradition the rule of faith. But the language of our Articles, and of our standard writers', is too explicit and guarded to be confounded by a mere taunt. We maintain, clearly and undeniably, the paramount authority of God's word, and that no testimony of

1 Archdeacon Balguy, Disc. VI. VII., has some very sensible remarks on the absurdity of confining the evidence of this question to the Scriptures only, and rejecting entirely the evidence of the Church.

2 Jer. Taylor, in his dedication to his "Episcopacy Asserted," has pointed out the distinctions in this case with his usual felicity.

the Church could establish any doctrine or practice contrary to the letter or the spirit of Scripture'. And because the Romanist has attached an undue and excessive authority to the testimony of the Church, we are not therefore to rush into the opposite extreme, and ascribe to it no weight at all. The Church, though not infallible, is a most valuable and a most venerable witness. By its practice, and the writings of the early fathers, we have been enabled to confirm our faith in many points of great importance—such, for example, as the canon of Scripture, the observance of the Lord's day, and the practice of infant baptism. The present case is one of which the very circumstances would lead us to anticipate the usefulness, not to say necessity, of our looking for illustration of Scripture principles in subsequent practice. Even in faith and morals, the Gospel generally lays down only principles, with few and incidental illustrations of their application to the innumerable and ever-changing combinations and contingencies of human life. Have we not even greater reason to expect this peculiarity to prevail with respect to the principles of Church polity? We can, at first, look for nothing more than the model and principles to be laid down. Their application to the various positions in which the Churches may be placed by external circumstances could be only partially

Art. VI. XX. XXXIV.

developed, because the positions themselves could be only partially encountered. In both the above cases, but especially in that of discipline and polity, the voice of the universal Church is entitled to great weight. But, in the primitive Church, the notices of the details are less precise, and the recognition of the general principle often, indeed usually, only incidental.

General exhortations to faith and holiness, seldom adverting to the form of Church government, and then referring only to universally-acknowledged principles rather than controversial distinctions or the details of official practice, characterize the writings of the early fathers, and are such as we should look for in addresses of an infant and progressive Church. This may be illustrated by the analogous case of the different creeds of the Church, in which the increasing precision of the Church's testimony may be traced from the few words and first principles addressed to the early converts by St. Peter'-the larger form of that creed called the Apostles'-the increasing distinctions of the Nicene-to the elaborate definitions of the Athanasian-each retaining the fundamental doctrines, but developing their application to particular points, as occasion arose, and innovations were attempted.

From these observations on the nature of the

evidence we might expect, let us proceed to a cursory examination of that which actually presents itself. From the second century to the Reformation, the ground is uncontested1. Not a tittle of evidence is adduced by our opponents to gainsay the universal establishment of episcopacy: no council acknowledges any other polity. In all Churches, however remote, and however at variance in other points, episcopacy, with its exclusive power of conferring orders and its pre-eminence in authority, is recognized. Even in our

Our learned Stillingfleet, in his "Irenicum," (a work of which he lived to change his opinion,) cites the case of Scotland, that it was governed only by Presbyters from A.D. 263 to the coming of Palladius, A.D. 430. It can only excite a smile when this instance is so pompously brought forward, to find it resting on the authority of John de Fordun, an historian of no general repute, much less in the dark and remote events of that age and country, and writing himself in the sixteenth century. If the case rested on good authority, it would be a solitary exception, proving the rule. The case of the Gothic Church, and more occasional interruptions of two or three episcopacies for a few years, are merely cases in which accident or violence cause a temporary suspension of the episcopal functions from necessity. But no attempt is made to adduce a case of any Church voluntarily and formally setting up any other than episcopacy as the polity of Christian community.

2 The Council of Carthage ordains that Presbyters may assist the Pope in ordaining ministers, by placing their hands near his ; but no authority can be found, in either the Church or Scripture, for a mere Presbyter ordaining.—Vide Bingham.

3 The case of Erius, who was condemned as an heretic, and

then unfrequented island, though it is supposed by some to have received Christianity from St. Paul himself, and certainly, from a very early period, episcopacy came with Christianity; and notwithstanding all the intervening barbarism and vicissitudes, was found flourishing at the coming of Augustine in the sixth century.

Eusebius, who has been truly styled the father of ecclesiastical history, speaks of episcopacy in his time as a matter on which no doubt existed, and even gives the order of the succession of many Bishops of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, and Alex

never formed a Church upon his own principles, is no exception. Jerome, who has been the great authority in contending for primitive equality in dignity of the Presbyters with the Bishop, yet asserts, in direct terms, that the Bishop had the exclusive privilege of ordaining, and implies, in other respects, his superiority of office. He admits, too, that superiority of the Bishop was established in the time of the Apostles. The utmost point to which our opponents pretend to carry his testimony is, that, during a considerable part of the time that the Apostles exercised episcopal authority over the Churches, there were no Bishops, but only Presbyters, and those, of course, equal in each Church. But those Presbyters were not thereby Bishops, nor the episcopal office and authority, because exercised by the Apostles themselves, not in existence. This would prove nothing, even though we gave up other and earlier testimonies to his, and allowed this to be the correct interpretation of his views, which we do not. See Bilson, 221.

66

"This," says Archbishop Potter, was the rise of episcopacy, according to Eusebius: and in the following parts of his history he has given us such exact and authentic catalogues of

13