entire strangers to the doctrine of Episcopacy, in the sense of our opponents, than the consideration of what they omitted to say, that alone would be sufficient to banish all remains of doubt. If they were honest men, and really believed prelacy to be so important a matter as modern high-churchmen would persuade us, they could never have written on the subject as they have, nor left it under so questionable an aspect as the most sanguine and confident prelatists must acknowledge them to have done. To suppose that, under such circumstances, they could have done so, is one of the most incredible of all suppositions.

CHAPTER VI.

EARLY RISE OF PRELACY.

ONE of the most plausible arguments in favour of prelacy, is drawn by Episcopalians from the early rise of the prelatical system. The argument is thus stated-"Bishops, as an order superior to presbyters, are freely acknowledged by Presbyterians to have existed toward the close of the third, and, beyond all doubt, early in the fourth century. Now, in what manner shall we account for the introduction of such

an order? Can any man believe that it was an innovation, brought in by human ambition within the first three hundred years? Is it supposable that men of such eminent piety, self-denial, and zeal as the ministers of the first two hundred and fifty, or three hundred years are represented to have been, could have been disposed to usurp unscriptural authority? But, even if they had been wicked enough to be so disposed, can we believe that any temptation to do so then existed, when it is known that, by gaining ecclesiastical pre-eminence, they only became more prominent objects to their pagan enemies, and, of course, more exposed to the fury of persecution? But, even supposing them to have been so ambitious and unprincipled as to attempt encroachment on the rights of others, and to have had ever so strong a temptation to do it, can we imagine that such an attempt could have been successful? would the rest of the

clergy have quietly submitted to such an usurpation: would the people have endured it? In a word; even supposing the clergy of that period to have been unprincipled enough to aspire to unauthorized honours, and to encroach on the rights of their brethren; and to have had the strongest inducements thus to act; is it credible that so great a change in the constitution of the church could have taken place without oppo.. sition, without much conflict and noise? And if any such conflict and noise had occurred, should we not now find some record of it? Could such an encroachment possibly have taken place without convulsion; without leaving on the records of antiquity some traces of the steps by which it was accomplished? No, say the Episcopal advocates, it is not credible; nay, it is impossible. The unavoidable inference, then, is that no such alteration ever took place; that prelates, as an order superior to presbyters, have existed in the church from the beginning; and, consequently, were of apostolical origin."

This is the substance of an argument which eminent Episcopal writers have ventured to call "demonstration," and on which great stress has been laid by them all. And, indeed, I am free to confess, that I think it is the most plausible argument they have. Their scriptural testimony amounts to nothing-absolutely nothing. Their testimony from the fathers, we have seen to be a failure. But the argument which I am about to examine, has, at first view, something like cogency. I am persuaded, however, that a very slight examination will suffice to show that this cogency is only apparent, and that it can boast of nothing more than mere plausibility.

And the first remark which I shall make on this

argument is, that it is the very same which the Papists have been accustomed, ever since the time of Bellarmine, to employ against the Protestants, and, among the rest, against Protestant Episcopalians. The Papists argue thus-"Every one grants," say they, "that the bishop of Rome claimed a certain pre-eminence over all other bishops, before the close of the third century; and in the fourth century some pre-eminence seems to have been extensively conceded to him." Now, they ask-"How could this happen? The bishops of that day were all too pious to be suspected of an attempt to encroach on the rights of their brethren. But if it were not so; if the prelate of Rome had been wicked enough to make the attempt, what inducement had he to desire such pre-eminence, since it would only expose him to more certain and severe persecution? Even supposing,

however, that he was proud and selfish enough to attempt to gain such pre-eminence, and had had the strongest temptation to seek it, could he have accom. plished any usurpation of that kind, without many struggles, and much opposition? What were the other bishops about? Is it credible that men of sense, with their eyes open, and of like passions with other men,' should be willing to surrender their rights to an ambitious individual? And even if an ambitious individual had attempted thus to usurp authority, and had succeeded in the attempt, would there not have been resistance-warm resistance-much couflict in the unhallowed struggle for pre-eminence? And among all the records of antiquity, should we not be able to find some traces of the conflict and noise occasioned by this ambitious and fraudulent encroachment? Now, since we find," say they, "no distinct

account of any such conflict and noise; since we are wholly unable to trace the various steps by which the bishop of Rome is alleged to have gained the ecclesi astical throne on which he has been sitting for ages— we infer that he was never guilty of any such usurpation; that his pre-eminence existed from the days of the apostles; and, of course, is an institution of Christ."

It is perfectly manifest that the argument of the Papists and which they too call "demonstration"is of the very same character with that of modern Episcopalians. It is, in fact, mutatis mutandisthe very same argument; and every intelligent reader will see that it is quite as potent in popish as in Protestant hands. But, as was pronounced in the former case, it is, in regard to both, plausible-simply plausible-and nothing more. A few plain statements, and especially a few indubitable facts, will be quite sufficient to destroy its force in the estimation of all intelligent and impartial readers.

The first assumption in this argument is, that the clergy, during the first three hundred years, had too much piety, zeal, gospel simplicity, and disinterestedness, to admit of their engaging in any scheme for usurping a power in the church which Christ never gave them.

We are accustomed to look back to the early church with a veneration nearly bordering on superstition. It is one of the common artifices of Popery to refer all their corruptions to primitive times, and, in concurrence with this, to represent those times as exhibiting the models of all excellence. But every representation of this kind ought to be received with much distrust. The Christian church during the