That this was also the opinion of a large portion of the early English church was made apparent. See Lecture iii. p. 71.

It was our design to have pursued the illustration of this subject to a much greater length, and as it regards various other points of disagreement. We will however desist, and refer the reader to the following sources of information on this subject.

Dr. Mason's Wks. vol. iii. pp. 71, 143, 144, 150; Anderson's Defence of Presbyterian Church Government, pp. 30, 31, 110; Plea for Presbytery, Glasgow, 1840, p. 290; Dr. Mitchell's Letters to Bishop Skinner, p. 36, &c.; Dr. Ayton's Constitution of the Primitive Church, Appendix; Well's Vindic. of Presb. Ordin. p. 35; also The Sum of the Episcopal Controversy, &c., by William Jameson; Lect. of History in the University of Glasgow, Glasg. 1713, pp. 78, 126, in the Old South Church Library.

And now we may fairly say, as Dr. Bowen has taught us to say,-"This makes the notion ridiculous. Pray sirs agree among yourselves, and then you may with more decency contradict us.' Wks. on Episc. vol. ii. p. 127.

NOTE B.

"

THUS also speaks the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel: "This" (Matt. xvi.) we are told, (see Romanists and Protestants, p. 8,) gives to the church its authority, 'The gates of hell shall not prevail against it;' and limits this authority to the successors of Peter in the Roman church. "Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church.' To the second of these conclusions that the Roman church is intended, a man of plain sense might demur on these considerations:

"First, That the rock may not be Peter, but that doctrine which Peter had just before professed,-the divinity of the Lord Jesus, on which the universal church is unquestionably built.

"Secondly, That if the church is built on Peter, it is equally built on the other inspired writers. 'Ye are built,' says Paul, 'on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets.' (Eph. ii. 20.)

"Thirdly, That, in point of fact, several churches, as those of Greece and Macedonia, were built on Paul; having no more connexion (that we know of) with Peter than with any other of the twelve apostles.

"Fourthly, That it is very improbable that Peter was ever bishop of Rome, the prevalent tradition being that he was bishop of Antioch.

"Fifthly, That though Peter be allowed (which he cannot) to have been the great founder of the universal church, there is no mention here of his successors at Rome; and the promise, therefore, if it belong to any particular visible church, may belong to his Greek successors, rather than to the church of Rome.

"And now, what is the promise itself, whether it belong to the Greek or Roman catholic church? Where is a word of infallibility? If any visible christian church, with a pure faith and wholesome discipline, with faithful pastors and pious congregations, maintains its ground against the devil and the world; even though it does not grow in numbers, or send the gospel to the heathen; though it want infallibility, and err in matters of subordinate importance; yet surely it has not yielded to the gates of hell.

"But, lastly, though the Greek and Roman churches, and all the visible churches of nominal christians, with the greater number of ecclesiastics who preside over them, should degenerate into a corrupt practice and a false belief, still, if there be found amongst them some faithful pastors, through whose ministry a few real christians are preserved unharmed by the plague of superstition, to maintain the doctrines of the gospel and exhibit its morality, then is there the church of Christ still subsisting; and the promise still holds good; for the gates of hell have not prevailed against it; and this is the real meaning of the promise."

NOTE C.

"IT is certain," says one, "that those who ordained others in the primitive church were presbyters, but it is doubtful whether they were bishops. I suppose every one will grant, that it was the practice from the times of the apostles for ministers to ordain ministers; but all who have read any thing of this controversy, know that it is disputed whether there were in the first ages of the church any such thing as bishops in the modern sense of the word. Now this dispute very much weakens the evidence of a succession in a line of bishops, but does not at all affect the evidence of a presbyterian succession; for these persons certainly were presbyters, or ordinary ministers of the gospel, whether they had any higher character or no. "There is no accounting for the succession, in the catalogue, which prelatists present, without supposing that some of the first persons named in it were presbyters, or such officers whereof there were a number in the same church, who governed it jointly. Here I shall use the words of the author of An Historical and Rational Inquiry into the Necessity of an Uninterrupted Succession of Diocesan Bishops, page 31. Supposing there should have been such a succession of persons from St. Peter as are mentioned, yet those that are mentioned as his next successors might not be a succession of diocesan bishops superior in office to presbyters, but rather a number of presbyters that governed the church in common. Presbyters they are called by Irenæus, (Fragment of the Epistle to Victor, about the Easter Controversies,) who having occasion to mention the practice of the church of Rome before Soter, he calls them the presbyters that governed the church, which he now presided over. And when we consider the uncertainty of the accounts, concerning the order in which they succeeded, sometimes one, sometimes another being mentioned as the immediate successor of St. Peter and Paul, and so the like variation in the account of the second and third successors; it is not improbable, that they might govern the church together in common as presbyters, (for such Irenæus calls them,) and that their governing the church in common, is no improbable conjecture. I find it espoused by the learned Vossius, and maintained by him, (vols. 2, Ep. and fin. Cla. Cotellerii,) where he lays down this as the form of government in the Roman church: 1. Linus, Cletus, Anacletus. 2. Cletus, Anacletus, and Clemens. 3. Cletus, Anacletus. 4. Anacletus, Solus. 5. Evaristus, who began a succession of single persons, whereas before there used to be two or three. The reasons by which he enforceth this order, are the acts of Pope Damasus, who saith expressly, that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, to govern the people, while he gave himself to prayer and preaching. And he observes, this passage is not in the printed books, but in the written copy, and so quoted by Marianus Scotus. Linus being taken away by martyrdom, Clemens is put in his place with Cletus. And this he proves thus: Cletus is said to sit from anno 76 to 83. Clemens is said to sit from 68 to 79. Therefore these two persons coincide; but the former quotation from Damasus shows that Cletus was made pastor before 76, yea, by the apostle himself; and then he shows, that though Clement was sent into banishment about 79, yet Cletus was not alone, but Anacletus with him, who survived all these, and suffered martyrdom about 95. He observes, that Eusebius was the first who assigned to the distinct persons certain years, one succeeding another, who did very ill, because, according to him, Clement succeeded Anacletus, anno 93, whereas the epistle written in his name was writ during the standing of the temple, that is, before the year 71. But see the epistle itself. By all this it appears that these several persons, Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, were not so many diocesan bishops that governed the church of Rome, one succeeding another; but so many presbyters (as Irenæus calls them) that governed that church, sometimes two, and sometimes three together.' Thus far this author: to which I shall only add, that I know of no other scheme on which the difficulties that occur in the succession of these persons can be solved; and if this be admitted, it destroys the succession in a line of bishops, and establishes that in the line of presbyters.

"The objection made against particular persons, through whom the line

must run, do generally, if not universally, relate to their character as bishops, and not as presbyters. Thus, for instance, none dispute Dr. Parker's ordination as a presbyter: but many question, for the reasons that have been mentioned, whether his consecration as a bishop was regular or even valid. Now, though our ordinations are derived from him, as well as yours, yet they are not at all affected, according to our principles, by the dispute about his consecration; for we believe that he had power to ordain as a presbyter: whereas, according to your own principles, all your ordinations do absolutely depend on the validity of his disputed consecration. If his consecration was invalid, all your ordinations are likewise invalid: and as his consecration is, at best, much disputed, and very doubtful, 't is impossible that your ordinations, which depend upon it, should be clear and indisputable.

"Upon the whole, if I was now to be ordained, and thought it my duty to seek ordination where there was the fairest probability of being within the uninterrupted succession, I should think myself much safer in taking presbyterian ordination, than episcopal orders. But, after all, as the gospel has not by express and positive prescription, made an uninterrupted succession of regular ordinations, in any line whatever, absolutely essential to the ministerial character, I conceive we have no right to make it so; and since God has not in his providence kept up clear and certain evidence of the fact, I can't but think it is very dangerous for us to pretend to it; and that it is in effect giving up the cause of christianity to make the lawfulness of the ministry, and the validity and effect of gospel ordinances, absolutely to depend upon it."

So in the Sketch of Hist. and Princ. of Presb. in Eng. p. 38: "And no scripture can be adduced to prove that the twelve apostles, either received a commission to ordain, or did ordain, or gave authority to ordain; while it is quite clear that others ordained who were not apostles, (Acts xiii. 1, 3;) or, if the apostles ordained successors, it was simply successors in the ministry of the gospel, not in the apostleship. Indeed, not one single passage of scripture can be adduced to show that consecration and ordination are two distinct things,-that there is one way of appointing prelates, and another way of appointing priests or presbyters, the former of which is transmissible, and the latter not transmissible."

Baxter uses another argument to show the unscripturality of prelacy. "I prove," says he, (Five Disputations on Chr. Gov. 1658, Disp. 1, Arg. 10, P. 51; see also p. 67,) "the minor according to their own interpretation of Titus i. 5, and other texts. Every city should have a bishop and it may be a presbytery, (and so, many councils have determined; only, when they grew greater, they except cities that were too small; but so did not Paul.) But the episcopacy of England is contrary to this; for one bishop only is over many cities. If therefore they will needs have episcopacy, they should at least have had a bishop in every city. Now, when the apostle formed new churches with officers over them, he gave them no authority to institute any different kind of churches, or any different order of ministers, but only such as he had appointed to succeed them in the same office."

"Now, if the apostles," says Mr. Baynes, (Diocesan's Tryall, p. 66,) "had done this with reference to a further and more eminent pastor and governor, they would have intimated somewhere this their intention; but this they do not; yea, the contrary purpose is by them declared. For Peter so biddeth his presbyters feed their flocks, as that he doth insinuate them subject to no other but Christ, the arch-shepherd of them all. Again, the apostles could not make the presbyters pastors without power of government. There may be governors without pastoral power; but not a pastor without power of governing. For the power of the pedum, or shepherd's staff, doth intrinsically follow the pastoral office."

NOTE D.

I WILL here give another illustration from the Old Testament, taken from a very rare treatise of Matthew Henry, not found among his published works, and preserved by the Rev. Shepard Kollock. It is "A Brief Enquiry into the Nature of Schism." (Lond. 1717, pp. 5, 6, 7.) "Only one scripture

occurs in the Old Testament, which perhaps will help to rectify some mistake about schism. It is the instance of Eldad and Medad, who prophesied in the camp. The case, in short, is this: Eldad and Medad were persons upon whom the spirit rested, i. e. who were by the extraordinary working of the spirit endued with gifts equal to the rest of the seventy elders, and were written, i. e. had a call to the work, but they went not out unto the tabernacle as the rest did, though God himself had appointed that they should, v. 16. And they prophesied in the camp, i. e. exercised their gifts in private among their neighbors, in some common tent. Upon what inducements they did this, doth not appear; but it is evident that it was their weakness and infirmity thus to separate from the rest of their brethren. If any think they prophesied by a necessitating and irresistible impulse, they may remember, that the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets. "Now, if some of the schismaticating doctors that the church has known had but had the censuring of Eldad and Medad, we should soon have had a judgment given against them much more severe, than would have been awarded to him that gathered sticks on the sabbath day.

"And 't is confessed, all the circumstances considered, it looks like a very great irregularity, especially as an infringement of the authority of Moses, which they who prophesied in the tabernacle under his presidency manifestly owned and submitted to.

"Well, an information was presently brought in against them, v. 27. Eldad and Medad prophesy in the camp, that is, to speak in the invidious language of the times, there's a conventicle at such a place, and Eldad and Medad are holding forth at it.

"Joshua, in his zeal for that which he fancied to be the church's unity, and out of a concern for the authority of Moses, brings in a bill to silence them; for, as hot as he was, he would not have them fined and laid in the jail for this disorder neither; only, my lord Moses, forbid them: not compel them to come to the tabernacle if they be not satisfied to come, only for the future prohibit their schismatical preaching in the camp. This seemed a very good motion.

"But hold, Joshua, thou knowest not what manner of spirit thou art of. Discerning Moses sees him acted by a spirit of envy, and doth not only deny, but severely reprove, the motion, v. 29. Enviest thou for my sake? Would to God that all the Lord's people were prophets, provided the Lord will but put his spirit upon them. He is so far from looking upon it as a schism, that he doth not only tolerate but encourage it. And O that all those who sit in Moses' chair, were but clothed with this spirit of Moses."

LECTURE VII.

THE PRACTICAL DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION TESTED

BY SCRIPTURE.

THE SUBJECT CONCLUDED.

We have already brought this prelatic doctrine of apostolical succession to the balances of the sanctuary. We have shown first, that when thus tested, it is found to be contrary to the spirit and teaching of the scriptures-secondly, to that one ministerial commission upon which the christian ministry rests its entire authority, and which recognizes only one orderand thirdly, to the divine promises, as contained in scripture and which cannot, without the greatest violence and arrogance, be exclusively appropriated by the clergy of any denomination or by any particular or self-styled Catholic church.1

1) As a further exhibition of the importance attached by its advocates to this doctrine, take the following: "Such, therefore, as have laid aside ordination by the highest grade of the ministry, and substituted in its place ordination by the second grade, have lost the sacerdotal office; and this office being essential to the very existence of the church, they can no longer be regarded as in a church state." Dr. How's Vind. of the Prot. Ep. Ch., p. 123.

Baxter, in his True and Only Way of Concord, (Lond., 1680, Pt. iii., p. 90, 91,) gives the following abstract of Dodwell's doctrine on this subject, whose book he professes to answer:

"1. That the ordinary means of salvation, are, in respect of every particular person, confined to the episcopal communion to the place he lives in, as long as he believes

"2. That we cannot be assured that God will do for us what is necessary for salvation on his part, otherwise than by his express promises that he will do it.

"3. Therefore we must have interest in his covenant.

"4. Therefore we must have the sacraments, by which the covenant is transacted.

"5. These, as legally valid, are to be had only in the external communion of the visible church.

"6. This is only the episcopal communion of the place we live in. "7. The validity of the sacraments depends on the authority of the persons, by whom they are administered.

"8. No ministers have authority of administering sacraments, but only they that have their orders in the episcopal communion.

"9. This cannot be from God, but