might be taken away;" and that "by little and little, that all the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one.'

In consequence of the controversies among the episcopal order, and the practice of holding provincial councils, the bishop in the metropolis acquired a certain ascendancy. His preeminence and authority were established in this century, and he was called a metropolitan. "It is remarkable, that the very same powers, which the bishops had claimed and acquired over the presbyters, were now first claimed and acquired by the metropolitans over the bishops and soon after by the patriarchs over the metropolitans." The patriarchs were the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. of these perpetually struggled for superiority till the supremacy of the Roman pontiff was eventually acknowledged, and he was clothed with infallibility as the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of JESUS CHRIST. The mystery of iniquity continued to work from the Apostles' days, till that man of sin was revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called GoD, or that is worshipped; so that he as GOD sitteth in the temple of GoD, shewing himself that he is GOD.f

Some

If the occasion had required it, my brethren, we might have pursued, to a much greater extent, our inquiries into the testimony and authority of the

*If our limits would permit, the representation of Jerome might be confirmed from the Commentaries of his cotemporary, the celebrated Hilary.

+2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 7.

Fathers. We might have noticed several other spu rious or corrupt writings besides the epistles of Ig natius. But it was unnecessary. They have been generally given up by the modern advocates of prelacy. In this they have discovered more good sense than some of their predecessors. Some of the

champions in this cause, formerly, have not hesitated to produce certain pretended Apostolic constitutions and canons to prove the Divine institution of Episcopacy. But it is now universally admitted, that these spurious productions were composed long after the Apostolic age. They were apparently fabricated with the design of inducing a belief, that this was an original institution of Christianity. But it has been for a long time acknowledged by the most zealous advocates of prelacy, that they were not in existence till two or three hundred years af ter the Apostles' days. And several of the most eminent critics have maintained, that they were not introduced till a much later period.

But the manner, in which some of the most dis tinguished and popular advocates of prelacy manage this argument, deserves more particular attention. They begin in the fourth or fifth century, and labor to carry back the system of prelacy through the preceding ages. For this purpose, they endeavor to press into their service every ambiguous expression of the Fathers. In this process, they almost invariably extend their conclusion, at every step, far beyond their premises. When they find, for instance, Cyprian, in the third century, claiming or exercising some degree of superiority to presbyt crs, they immediately ascribe to him all the pro

answer in the words of an eminent prelate of the church of England. He could find no evidence that Episcopacy, though he considered it expedient, was more than a human institution. After reviewing some of the most plausible arguments in favor of its Divine origin, he concludes: "I hope my reader will now see what weak proofs are brought for this distinction and superiority of order. No scripture; no primitive general Council; no general consent of primitive Doctors and Fathers; no not one primitive Father of note, speaking particu larly and home to their purpose.'

*Bishop Croft's Naked Truth, page 47,.

SERMON VIII.

ISAIAH viii. 20.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

WHEN any people assume the exclusive character of the visible church of CHRIST, and call in question the ministry, the ordinances, and the service, which others have believed to be scriptural, they must expect that the foundation of their claims will be examined. They challenge investigation, and have no reason to complain when it is instituted. They cannot surely imagine, that men of reflection will admit their pretensions without inquiry. Nor can it be denied that those, who have any tolerable acquaintance with human character, will be liable to suspect their claims. These will appear too elevated to be well founded. And from this circumstance, a doubt may unavoidably arise in a well informed mind, whether they are the people, and wisdom shall die with them * But every prepossession of this kind must if possible be laid aside, and the decision must be made solely by the infallible standard of truth. We must appeal "to the law and to, the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

By this rule then, my brethren, let us proceed,

2. To inquire into some other parts of the Epis copal system.

*Job xii. 2+

rogatives assumed by bishops in the succeeding cen -turies. Or, if they find him sometimes attempting to defend his claim by some equivocal appeal to Apostolic authority, they do not hesitate to infer, that diocesan Episcopacy is of Divine institution. But who does not perceive the fallacy of this kind of reasoning? How does it appear, because Cyprian had some superiority to the presbyters, that he possessed all the prerogatives afterwards arrogated by the bishops? Or, how does it follow, because Cyprian may sometimes pretend to appeal to the authority of the Apostles, that even his superiority was in fact derived from their institution? Who made his pretensions the infallible criterion of truth? Do we not know that prelacy, from this incipient state to its highest maturity in the hierarchy of Rome, has been equally defended by some kind of pretensions to Apostolic authority? And what could have been more natural than the adoption of this course, as soon as it could be done with the least appearance of plausibility, when the patrons of prelacy were conscious that it ought to have had this foundation to give it any validity?

When they have made their way into the second century, they bring forward the pretended epistles of Ignatius. The genuineness and authenticity of these productions they pledge themselves to maintain, as much as if the fate of Episcopacy depended upon the result. And though these epistles may be shown to be incompatible with the sentiments of the age, and inconsistent with the character and dishonorable to the reputation of that primitive martyr, yet they will not allow their spuriousnesą