that from the sixteenth century, up to within one hundred and fifty years of the last of the apostles, the whole church, in all lands, was under such jurisdiction. We go higher, and say that the most eminent non-episcopal writers acknowledge, that within sixty years of the death of St John, such was the government of the church. And within this short period, we have shown you the testimony of writers who then lived, asserting that bishops were then exercising the jurisdiction of the churches, and were considered, without the moving of a question, as having succeeded to the office of the apostles. Now, suppose this were a mere mistake. Then the mistake must have arisen within the lifetime of men who had conversed with the contemporaries of the apostles, for after their death it was in full operation; and this a mistake, not concerning a trivial circumstance of the church, but a main and fundamental feature in its constitution, government, and discipline; and this immensely important mistake must have spread so rapidly and powerfully as to have revolutionised the government of the church of all lands, in the course of some sixty years after the death of St John,-and so silently, that history has preserved not the slightest trace of its beginning and progress, and so perfectly and universally, that though the Scriptures were daily read in the churches, and presbyters and laity were made of the same materials as they now are, none perceived the usurpation, but all took it for granted, without a question, that such had been the government of the church from the beginning, and was to be to the end of the world; and this mistake so permanent, that without a dream of its being else than the most unquestionable truth, it continued till the sixteenth century entirely unsuspected. Now, if we can believe this, what vital mistakes may we not suppose to have been made, just as easily, and just as silently, in other great interests of Christianity? If the whole church, so near its first ages, was capable of such an egregious blunder, in a plain matter of fact and of daily observation; if the whole form and principle of her primitive government could be so silently, and suddenly, and universally subverted, and the very opposite be so silently, and suddenly, and universally inaugurated in its stead, as that no one was conscious of the process of change; and no part of the Christian

* Blondel acknowledges that Episcopacy was introduced before Tertullian wrote his work on baptism, which he dates A.D. 197. He thinks the change was made at Jerusalem about 135 or 136; at Alexandria about 143; at Rome about 140. In the appendix to the work on the ministry, issued by the Presbyterian Provincial Assembly of London, in 1654, we read thus, "Dr Blondel, a man of great learning and reading, undertakes, in a large discourse, to make out that before the year 140 there was not a bishop set over presbyters; to whose elaborate writings we refer the reader for further satisfaction in this particular." We might say, then, that leading non-episcopal writers virtually acknowledge the introduction of Episcopacy as early as forty years after St John. Sixty will answer our purpose.

community, even in the most distant regions, continued as they had been originally constituted; and none rose up to vindicate the claims of the primitive government as abandoned, and to complain of its intrusive substitute;-if such a complete revolution can be believed to have taken place in the priesthood of the Christian temple, and so secretly that neither friend nor foe, advocate nor complainant, heathen, heretic, nor Jew, is known to have observed it, what change may not as well be supposed to have occurred, quite as easily, quite as silently, and quite as unobserved, in the precious oracles, the books of Holy Scripture, deposited in the temple, and specially entrusted to the guardianship of that priesthood? I know not that it is any easier to revolutionise, unnoticed, the whole form and character of a government, than it is to change, unnoticed, its very statute books. If the former has been done, how do we know that the latter has not been also? We know it has not, by the testimony, unbroken, of the church, from century to century. But why is not that testimony as valid in the one case as the other? Why not believe it as well when it proves the unbroken descent of the apostolic office, as when it witnesses to the canonical books of Holy Scripture? How can we suspect the fathers of the church when they testify of the former, without rendering their testimony suspicious when they speak of the latter, yea, without casting entire doubtfulness into the whole region of historic testimony? The care of the church to preserve the Scriptures inviolate is no more manifest in the history of Christianity, than her watchful care, in all ages and countries, and now even among the long-wasted and oppressed Christians of oriental nations, to guard the descent of the apostolic office. This unsleeping watch over the preservation in each diocese of an original, independent Episcopacy, wanting and allowing no common and infallible head, but "the chief Shepherd and Bishop of souls," "who is God over all," has been the chief barrier that has prevented, in the ancient churches of the east and elsewhere, the entire ascendancy of the Papal usurpation. As the system of our several state governments, united in one civil confederacy, each having its own chief governor, is the real protection of our liberties, and of our union, against the entire consolidation of the whole nation into one exclusive jurisdiction under one supreme ruler, and he mounting the higher in power as his footing should become the more consolidated and extended, till at last such an expedient for more unity proves itself the very fountain-head of the wildest and most destructive divisions: so have been the several diocesan governments of the universal church; each with its own spiritual head; each a government within

itself, though in harmonious confederacy with others; each watching with sacred care the valid descent of its episcopate from the only source of all spiritual authority: so has been always this primitive constitution of the Church, where it has been faithfully maintained, not only the wisest and strongest protection of her unity, but everywhere in proportion as it has been jealously guarded, has it held up the ensign of stern and victorious resistance to the usurping claims of him whom the prophecy of the scriptures describes as "sitting as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."* The grand scheme of that singular potentate has always been, while graciously permitting the name and show of bishops and dioceses, to reduce all into abject dependence on his own infallible will; he taking the place, as he calls himself the alone vicegerent, of Christ, the invisible Head; and thus seeking to reduce all office and citizenship, in the universal Church, into one consolidated mass of united confusion. It was this boasted expedient for the greater unity which produced on one part the revolt of Protestantism, and on all others is fast sinking the mass, by dead weight, as recently in atheistical France, into the gulf of an infidel and raging anarchy. Such is the scheme of Satan against which the Protestant ensign of our parent Church was lifted up, and the old dioceses of oriental Christendom have been for centuries contending. This it was that kindled the persecutions of the English Reformation, and burned to death those venerable bishops of Christ, Cranmer, and Latimer, and Ridley, and Hooper; not to mention the many confessors of lower place, but of equal faith and constancy. Had they only acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope, they might have died in their beds.t

2 Thess. ii. 4.

+It is very commonly supposed that because an Episcopal church has bishops, and the Romish church also has bishops, and the bishop of Rome is the Pope, therefore an Episcopal church, though Protestant, must be a handmaid to Popery. It would be quite as legitimate to say, that whereas the Pope relies upon presbyters, such as those of the monastic orders and of the society of Jesuits, as the main supporters of his claims of supremacy against the claims of diocesan bishops; and whereas presbyters are the only ministers of non-episcopal communions, therefore non-episcopal communions are handmaids to Popery. The truth is, that a primitive Episcopacy and the claims of Popery are absolutely irreconcilable. Nothing does the Pope more labour to destroy than an independent Episcopacy. No barrier stands so much in his way as the Protestant Episcopacy of England. In the famous Romish Council of Trent, the question was warmly debated whether bishops were of a distinct order from presbyters. The legates of the Pope did all they could to stop the debate. They wanted the question to be considered as undecided, lest it should bring bishops into unpleasant equality with him of Rome, whom they wished to be considered as the only bishop by distinction of order. It was long debated in the same council whether bishops held their office "de jure divino" or "de jure pontificio," from Christ or the Pope, through the apostles in general,-or only St Peter, as Christ's sole vicar on earth. The latter was strenuously maintained by the regulars or monastic orders, by the Jesuits, (the Pope's body guards), and the cardinal-legates of his holiness. Their doctrine may be seen from the following extracts from the speech of Laynez, general of the Jesuits. He said, "the apostles were made bishops, not by Christ, but by St Peter;" that bishops" held their office and authority of St Peter's successor." He advised the council to beware," lest, by making the institution of bishops of divine VOL. V.-NO. XVI.

ន

Such is the argument which we desire to commend to the attention of Professor Hodge. Between him and us there are many points in this question which we hold in common. He believes as well as we that Christ did establish a particular ministry, and promised to be with that ministry, then and thus established, until the end of the world.

The question between us, and the only question, is, how that ministry was constituted? Was there an order of men who, after the apostles, and superior to the presbyters, were, through all time, to exercise the chief ministry of the Church? It is not at all a question of opinion or speculation. It is not a question whether one form of ministry seems to us more expedient than another; it is simply a question of fact. For ourselves, we do not believe there is room for the shadow of a doubt as to how that question must be decided. Neither do we doubt what the verdict of Professor Hodge himself will be, if he will give to the discussion that thorough examination of which we believe him capable.

We write the more earnestly because we see, in that portion of the Presbyterian body which Professor Hodge represents, a laying aside of prejudice even on points once regarded by them as of great importance, and a gradual return to the usages of the Catholic church. Liturgies they are already striving to introduce, and the growing evils of self-will and right, they should take away the hierarchy and bring an oligarchy, or rather an anarchy." He censured those who held there is any power in bishops received from Christ, because it would take away the privilege of the Roman church, that the Pope is the head of the church and vicar of Christ." "He said it was a mere contradiction, to say the Pope is head of the church, and the government monarchical, and then say there is a power or jurisdiction not derived from him, but received from others."

The discourse of the learned Jesuit was exceedingly extolled by the special advocates of the popedom. "The Papalins," says an historian of the council," said it was most learned and substantial." The strenuous admirers of its doctrines were among the regulars, the Jesuits, the legates and cardinals. But who were the strenuous opponents of such doctrines? Bishops, and the divines whom they brought with them to the council. Of the former several spoke in defence of such doctrines as the follow ing, from the speech of the Archbishop of Grenada: "Wheresoever a bishop shall be, whether in Rome or in Angubium, all are of the same merit, and of the same priesthood, and all successors of the apostles." "He inveighed against those who said St Peter had ordained the other apostles, bishops. He admonished the council to study the Scriptures, and observe that power to teach throughout the world, to administer the sacraments, and to govern the church, is equally given to all. And therefore as the apostles had authority, not from Peter, but from Christ, so the successors of the apostles have not power from l'eter, but from Christ himself.”

We see from the above that opposition to the divine institution of an independent diocesan Episcopacy did not originate with Protestants. It began long before the Reformation. It was the monastic doctrine in the 11th century, the Jesuit doctrine in the 16th. The inferior clergy maintained it in support of the high claims of the papal throne. The bishops opposed it in resistance of those claims. Then, as now, the shortest way to favour despotism was to preach levelism. It is curious to see in the debates of the Council of Trent how the special "Papalists," as the historian calls them, in trying to elevate the Pope by depressing the bishops, contended for parity of order between them and presbyters, with many of the same arguments which are now used for the same parity by Protestants, under the idea that in contending against diocesan Episcopacy they are really warring against Popery.

schism they are learning by sad experience to lament. As to Episcopacy, we are sure it can be shown to be apostolic; and the Professor must be constrained to confess, that in this country it is guarded by constitutional checks from those evils with which it stands reproached in the old world.

And yet, alas! we are reminded by past observation that with the great mass of men neither Scripture, history, nor sound reason, has a feather's weight in the scale against the force of whim, caprice, prejudice, or preconceived opinion.

ART. II. The Church Review and Register for October 1855. Art. VI. "Professor Hodge on the Permanency of the Apostolic Office."

As even the more important periodical publications of one denomination circulate only to a limited extent within the bounds of other churches, we may, without offence, state, for the information of some of our readers, that the Church Review is an Episcopal Quarterly, published in New Haven, Connecticut. It is ably conducted, and seems to represent the HighChurch party in the Episcopal Church, as distinguished on the one hand from the Puseyites, and on the other from the Evangelicals.

In the last number of the Review there is an article on an address delivered in May last before the Presbyterian Historical Society. The object of the article is to present an argument, from the pen of Bishop M'Ilvaine, in favour of the permanency of the apostolic office. This argument the reviewer commends to our special notice. He pronounces it perfectly unanswerable; saying that a man might as well question one of the demonstrations in Euclid, as contest either its 'premises or conclusions. He predicts, with confidence, that the author of the address himself will be convinced, if he will give the argument a thorough examination.

We have never felt any inclination to engage in the Episcopal controversy, for two reasons. First, Because so far as the Scriptures are concerned, there does not seem to us to be any room for controversy; and secondly, Because when we go be yond the Scriptures, and get into the field of historical testimony, there is no end to controversy. The discussion cannot by possibility be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, not only