have been under the necessity of wandering into periods when the simplicity of the gospel had, in a considerable degree, given place to the devices of men; and when the man of sin had commenced that system of unhallowed usurpation, which for so many centuries corrupted and degraded the church of God.

"Such is the result of the appeal to the early fathers. They are so far from giving even a semblance of support to the Episcopal claim, that, like the Scriptures, they every where speak a language wholly inconsistent with it, and favorable only to the doctrine of ministerial parity. What then shall we say of the assertions so often and so confidently made, that the doctrine of a superior order of bishops has been maintained in the church, from the earliest ages,' in 'the ages immediately succeeding the apostles,' and 'by all the fathers from the beginning?'. What shall we say of the assertion, that the Scriptures, interpreted by the writings of the early fathers, decidedly support the same doctrine? I will only say, that those who find themselves able to justify such assertions, must have been much more successful in discovering early authorities in aid of their cause, than the most diligent, learned, and keen-sighted of their predecessors."99

We have even high Episcopal authority for presbyterian ordination. Repugnant as this view of ordination is to the modern advocates of Episcopacy, the sentiments of Archbishop Cranmer, and the first protestant bishops of the church of England, were not widely different. The following extract from a highly interesting document contains the answer of the venerable prelate himself, to certain questions propounded to a select assembly at Windsor Castle, in the reign of Edward the sixth.

"A bishop may make a priest by the Scriptures, and so

99 Miller's Letters, pp. 108, 109.

may princes and governors alsoe, and that by the auctority of God committed to them, and the people alsoe by their election. For as we reade that bishops have done it, so Christian emperors and princes usually have done it. And the people before Christian princes were, commonly did elect their bishops and priests. In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a bishop or a priest, needeth no consecration by the Scripture; for election or appointing thereto is sufficient." 100

A volume might be filled with authorities from the English church alone, in which both her most distinguished prelates and her most eminent scholars concede to presbyters a virtual equality with bishops, and a right to ordain.

The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, drawn up with great care, approved by both houses of Parliament in 1543, and prefaced by an epistle from the king himself, declares, that "priests [presbyters] and bishops are, by God's law, one and the same; and that the powers of ordination and excommunication belong equally to both." Under Elizabeth it was enacted by parliament, "that the ordination of foreign churches should be held valid.”

The learned Whittaker, of Cambridge, declares the doctrine of the reformers to be, that "presbyters, being by divine right the same as bishops, they might warrantably set other presbyters over the churches."

Archbishop Usher, one of the brightest ornaments of the Episcopal church, on being asked by Charles I, in the Isle

100 See transcript of the whole of the original, which was subscribed with Cranmer's own hand, in Bishop Stillingfleet's Irenicum, Part II, c. 7, § 2. See, also, Burnet's History of the Reformation, P. 1, pp. 318, 321. Cited from Conder's Nonconformity. Many other authorities from English writers are given in S. Mather's Apology for the Liberty of the Churches, Chap. 2, p. 51. They have also been collected, and collated with great industry and research, by Rev. Dr. Smyth, in his Apostolical Succession, and his Presbytery not Prelacy. So, also, in an article in the Christian Spectator, New Series, Vol. II, p. 720, from whence several of the authorities given below are taken.

of Wight, whether he found in antiquity that "presbyters alone did ordain? answered, "yes," and that he would show his Majesty more —even where presbyters alone successively ordained bishops; and brought us an instance of this, the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own bishop, from the days of Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius.

Bishop Stillingfleet says, "It is acknowledged by the stoutest champions of Episcopacy, before these late unhappy divisions, that ordination performed by presbyters in case of necessity is valid."

Bishop Forbes. "Presbyters have by divine right the power of ordaining as well as of preaching and baptizing."

Sir Peter King, Lord Chancellor of England, after asserting the equality of bishops and presbyters, and showing at length, that the latter had full authority to administer the ordinances, adds, "As for ordination, I find clearer proofs of presbyters ordaining, than of their administering the Lord's supper.'

The first reformers, under the reign of King Edward, according to Neal, in his history of the Puritans, "believed but two orders of churchmen, in holy Scripture-bishops and deacons; and, consequently, that bishops and priests [presbyters] were but different ranks or degrees of the same order." Acting in this principle, "they gave the right hand of fellowship to foreign churches, and to ministers who had not been ordained by bishops."

Even at the present time the validity of presbyterian ordination is acknowledged by many in the Episcopal church. Not twenty years since, one of the principal conductors of the Christian Observer said to an American gentleman, "I have not for ten years seen the man who was so utterly foolish, as to claim any exclusive divine right for our ordination, or ordinances; or who hesitated to acknowledge other communions as churches of Christ."

And Goode also, who has written from Cambridge, with great ability against the Tractarians, says: -"I admit that for the latter point [ordination by bishops alone, as successors of the apostles], there is not any Scripture proof; but we shall find here, as in other cases, that as the proof is not to be found in Scripture, so antiquity also is divided with respect to it; and moreover, that though it is the doctrine of our church, yet that it is held by her with an allowance for those who may differ from her on the point, and not as if the observance of it was requisite by divine command, and essential to the validity of all ordinations; though, for the preservation of the full ecclesiastical regularity of her own orders, she has made it essential to the ministers of her own communion." 101 In support of this opinion he proceeds to enumerate many of the authorities of the fathers given above.

Finally, we add the following extract, not again an "irreverent dissenter," in the flippant cant of one of the Tractarians, but a devoted son of their own church, a distinguished layman of England, who has written with great ability and good effect, against the doctrines of Puseyism and High Church.

"It is no part of my plan to trace the origin or course of departure from the system of church government in the apostolical times, as it lies before us in all its simplicity. I admit-indeed, as the lawyers say, it is a part of my case—that some change was unavoidable; and I see nothing in the present constitution of the church of England that is inconsistent with the principle of the apostles. But to say that they are identical, is a mere abuse of words. Still less is it to be heard say without some impatience, that there is safety in her communion only as she has descended from the apostles, through all the changes and abominations that have intervened." 102

101 Divine Rule, Vol. II, pp. 57, 58. 102 Bowdler's Letters, pp. 32, 33.

After going through with a sketch of the historicalargument in defence of his sentiments and citing many of the authorities given above, he proceeds: -"I am aware that in St. Jerome's time there existed generally, though by no means universally, this difference between the bishop and the presbyters, viz., that to the former was then confided the power of ordination. The transition from perfect equality to absolute superiority was not suddenly effected: it was the growth of time; not of years, but of centuries; the distinction of authority or office preceding that of order or degree in the church, and being introductory to it. With the former I have no concern, it being sufficient to show, that as a distinct and superior order in the church, Episcopacy, in the modern acceptation of the term, did not exist in the time of the apostles; and that, however expedient and desirable such an institution might be, it cannot plead the sanction of apostolic appointment or example. It may be difficult to fix the period exactly when the Episcopate was first recognized as a distinct order in the church, and when the consecration of bishops, as such, came to be in general use. Clearly not, I think, when St. Jerome wrote. Thus much at least is certain, viz., that the government of each church, including the ordination of ministers, was at first in the hands of the presbytery: that when one of that body was raised to the office of president, and on whom the title of bishop was conferred, it was simply by the election (co-optatio) of the other presbyters, whose appointment was final, requiring no confirmation or consecration at the hands of any other prelates; and that each church was essentially independent of every other.

"If then all this be so, there seems to be an end to the question; for under whatever circumstances the privilege of ordaining was afterwards committed to the bishop, he could of necessity receive no more than it was in their power to bestow, from whom he received it, who were co