to ourselves the gracious promises he hath made to his churchthat is, we must have them according to his own commission and authority exercised in his church."

2

So, also, in the Pastoral Letter of the recent provincial council of Roman catholic prelates, held in Baltimore, "united for the purpose of consulting how to discharge the weighty obligations of their APOSTLESHIP," after a similar exhibition of the doctrine of the one church, which is, of course, that of which they are in possession, and of the doctrine of the apostolical succession, we are informed, that "it is plain, that as the commission of the ministry was lodged with the whole body, (i. e. the Roman catholic church,) united to its head, (i. e. the pope,) no minority, (i. e. the episcopal, presbyterian, or other churches,) however respectable, especially when opposed to the majority, and separated from the head, could lawfully claim to act under that commission; nor could any individual, (as Luther, or Calvin,) or voluntary association, (e. g. the English church, or our own,) reasonably arrogate to itself the power of performing the functions of that commissioned tribunal,”which is "regularly commissioned, (in St. Peter,) and also regularly perpetuated," (in the Romish hierarchical succession.) That we are bound to worship God in this special manner, is, we are told, one of the first principles of the church,* of which church, "the innumerable separatists that have gone out from the great body," can be no part.5

You thus perceive, my brethren, by another illustration, the great practical importance which attaches to a proper understanding of the subject in whose investigation we are engaged. These claims to universal spiritual "dominion over our faith," and of "lordship over God's heritage," and "to be called masters on earth," and to hold the keys of death, hell, and heaven, are rested upon the doctrine of a lineal succession of prelates,

terminating in Christ, and to whom are given in perpetuity the promises and gifts of heaven. From this claim the Romish hierarchy excludes the English, and the English the Romish, both in England and in this country, as having forfeited by invalidity or separation, the privilege of ordination-while both agree in severing from all semblance of pretence to any right in this inheritance, the remaining mass of protestant and reformed christendom.

Now this claim we have already largely considered. We have heard, from these prelates themselves, the rules by which, in forming a judgment on this subject, we should be guided, and the tests to which they would have it brought, and which, very plainly, never can be possibly met. We have also examined it by the test of scripture and of historical fact, and are we not justified in saying that it has been fairly pronounced, Tekel? This claim to supernatural and exclusive authority wants only one thing (for there is no lack of bold and confident averment,) and that one thing is, it is without any credentials whatever, either original or delegated-either in the record of scripture or in the record of history, either in the book of divine Providence or of man's foresight and industry. Not that such credentials are unpretended. They are, on the contrary, loudly boasted as in the hands of all their clergy, and evident to every one who will duly examine. But then the volume which contains them,

as well scripture as history, must, we are told, be "read, as it lies open in the hands of the church, under the guidance of her eye, and with the support of her testimony." She must be arbitress of her own claims, interpret for herself the laws, examine the witnesses, and pronounce the verdict, without a jury, by her own authority. For if, in the exercise of self-willed obstinacy, we will attempt to come to any decision for ourselves, and, instead of yielding to her authority," "snatch the testimony out of her hands, and run with it into a corner," these evidences, wisely withdrawn, in just judgment, from our perception, will "vanish from the word of God, and from the written page" of history."

That, in fact, this is true, we have personal experience to attest. For, as we have profanely ventured on this investigation, not under the church's eye or rule, we have in vain searched for the evidences of a "regularly perpetuated tribunal" of prelatic functionaries "of the first order," with exclusive possession of divine gifts, in the word of God, or in the page of history.

1) Palmer, vol. ii. Oxford Tracts, vol. i.

2) Lond. Quart. Rev. March, 1840,
p. 274.
3) Ibid.

We have sought for Peter at Rome, and we could not ascertain whether he was ever in Rome at all. We have diligently inquired after his episcopal residence, and were thoroughly satisfied that Peter never was bishop of Rome. We then sought for his successor in office, but could not be even satisfied as to the fact whether he ever ordained a successor at all, or, if he did, who that successor was. And when we attempted to trace this line through its successive links, we were plunged into unfathomable darkness, and while depending on its assistance, found it broken and disrupted at every turn. There is no such thing to be found or proved. It is a nonentity, or existent only in the implicit faith or the imagination of its vain pretenders.1

This conclusion will be strengthened, if we bring this doctrine, in the next place, to the test of facts.

Since, as these writers teach, it should be our “chief care and study to maintain the unity which was delivered by our Lord and his apostles to (the prelates) his successors," is it, we ask, a fact, that these prelates are the successors of the apostles, not in the sense of succeeding them in time, but for inheriting their office, their jurisdiction, and their plenitude of grace and gifts? This, Cyprian2 and Firmilian, we believe, first distinctly affirmed. This title the hierarchy has ever since monopolized, like the Roman patricians, who, by the establishment of hereditary names, devised an easy and certain distinction, and thus secured to themselves the idea of a hereditary nobility. But is there, in all this confident assumption, anything more than the name? We answer, it is vox et praeterea nihil.

Prelates are not, as we affirm, successors even to the name of apostles. Its adoption by them is an usurpation. It is the hollow pretext of an upstart family, who would conceal their own novelty in the mystery or antiquity of some more noble name. "We will approve our claim," says Bishop Onderdonk, "by the test of scripture." And how does he prove it? "It was," says he, "AFTER THE APOSTOLIC AGE, that the name bishop was TAKEN FROM the second order and appropriated to the first, as we learn from Theodoret, one of the fathers," who wrote in the fifth cen

1) See Letters of the Martyrs, p. 93.

"The Pope of Rome," says Bishop Hooper, "is neither head nor member of the church, but a very enemy, as the word of God, and all ancient writers do record."

2) Cyprian, xxxiii.

principio

Epist.

3) Though not to the exclusion of presbyters. See Ausgusti's Antip. of the Ch. by Coleman, p. 100, et alike, and Dr. Willet, Syn. Pap. pp. 274, 275.

4) Wks. on Episcop. p. 42.

tury!! "They thought it not decent," says Ambrose, "to assume to themselves the name of apostles."1

Now from this very evidence, thus adduced by our opponents, it is, we think, clearly manifest, in the first place, that this name was not given to bishops, either by Christ or by his apostles; for Ambrose distinctly says, "the holy apostles being dead, they that were ordained after them," were thus denominated. "Those now called bishops (i. e. in the fifth century) were then (i. e. anciently) called apostles." So teaches Theodoret. This title of apostles, as applied to bishops, is of ancient, but it is not of apostolic origin. It was given, not while the apostles lived, but after they were dead. It is, therefore, human, and not divine. Secondly, it is apparent, from these very writers, that anciently, presbyters were called bishops, and that they were, in truth, bishops; for this Theodoret says expressly, that "the same persons were anciently called promiscuously both bishops and presbyters." Even in ancient times, which were, of course, subsequent to apostolic times, the titles of bishop and presbyter were promiscuously applied “To THE SAME PERSONS."

1) See in Bingham's Works, vol. i. The following is the testimony of Theodoret and Ambrose, as it is presented by Mr. Bingham, (Eccl. Antiq. vol. i. p. 50, Lond., 1834 :) "The same persons were anciently called promiscuously, (Theodoret, Comment. in Phil. i. 1,) BOTH bishops and presbyters, whilst those who are now called bishops, were called apostles. But shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated to such only as were apostles indeed; and then the name, bishop, was given to those, who were before called apostles."

"The author asserts the same thing," (Ambrose, Comm. in Eph. iv. Amalarius, de Offic. Eccl. lib. ii. C. 13,) "that ALL BISHOPS were called apostles at first. They who are now called bishops were originally called apostles; but the holy apostles being dead, they who were ordained after them to govern the churches, could not arrive to the excellency of those first; nor had they the testimony of miracles, but were in MANY OTHER respects inferior to them. Therefore they thought it not decent to assume to themselves the name of apostles; but dividing the names, they left to presbyters the name of the presby

tery, and they themselves were called bishops.'

"Theodoret observes, they (the bishops) were called apostles, till in process of time, for distinction's sake, the name of apostle came only to be given to the apostles, especially so called." (Daubeny's Guide to the Ch. app. vol. ii. p. 63, 1804.) This writer also speaks of "the reservation of the apostolic title, by the general consent of the primitive church, to the blessed twelve." Ibid, p. 64. Hear also Dr. Hook: "The officer whom we now call a bishop was at first called an apostle, though afterwards it was thought BETTER to confine the title of apostle to THOSE WHO HAD SEEN THE LORD JESUS, while their successors, exercising the same rights and authority, though unendowed with miraculous powers, CONTENTED THEMSELVES WITH the DESIGNATION OF BISHOPS." Two Sermons on the Church.

Now if we altogether reject the authority of Theodoret in a matter of such importance as the present, will not Dr. Bowden himself sanction its repudiation, since "it rests the point contended for upon incompetent evidence-upon a single evidence?" Wks. on Episcop. vol. i. P. 154.

Thirdly, it appears from these writers, that the persons called bishops in the fifth century differed essentially from those called bishops "anciently," or "after the apostles were dead." "Those now called bishops (in the fifth century) were (anciently) called apostles." Either, therefore, presbyters, bishops, and apostles, were titles which, in ancient times, were promiscuously given "to the same persons," or otherwise the ancient order of apostles was distinct and different from the order of bishops in the fifth century.

And lastly, it is most clear, from these writers, that the prelates of the fifth century were a new order of ministers-for they were not "truly apostles." "Shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated," says Theodoret, "to such only as were APOSTLES INDEED, and then the name bishop was given to those who were (then) CALLED apostles," (but were not apostles indeed.) That is, the prelates usurped to themselves the exclusive use of the title of bishop, until "in process of time," under the lordly Cyprian and his baronial successors, the name, style, authority, prerogatives, and powers of the "true apostles" were arrogantly assumed by those who "say they are apostles and are not." For any order of men now to appropriate to themselves such a title, and thus lord it over the true bishops of Christ's church, is, to use the language of Ambrose, and to speak of it in the very mildest terms, "not decent." It was deemed immodest in ancient times, and it is certainly not warranted by God's word.

On this subject prelatists are completely posed. Their mouths are shut, by their own rule of the previous question, with which they are ever attempting to silence the arguments of presbyterians. We now demand, who withdrew the title of apostles from the order of bishops-supposing it to have been continued? By whose authority was the title of bishop-which was given to presbyters by the Holy Ghost and divine scripture -taken from them and appropriated to prelates? Name the time -the causes—the authors—within the first three centuries, or on their own principles, let prelatists ever after hold their peace. Alas! alas! all that can be said is, "it (i. e. the title, bishop) PROBABLY continued to be given to the immediate successors of the apostles, till about the ciose of the first century, when the appellative bishop was appropriated to them."

Bishops are not, then, the successors of the apostles in the titular use of that phrase. There is not a particle of authority, either from scripture or ecclesiastical antiquity, to prove that

1) Wks. on Episcop. vol. ii. p. 123.