that some of the Pastors of the churches, within an hundred years after the Apostolic age, should succeed in gradually encroaching on the rights of their equals, and in appropriating to themselves titles and honours which originally belonged to every pastor. Nor is it wonderful that we find so little said concerning these usurpations in the early records of antiquity. There was probably but little written on the subject; since those who were most ambitious to shine as writers, were most likely to be forward in making unscriptural claims themselves ; and, of course, would be little disposed to record their own shame. It is likewise probable, that the little that was written on such a subject, would be lost; because the art of printing being unknown, and the trouble and expense of multiplying copies being only incurred for the sake of possessing interesting and popular works, it was not to be expected, that writings so hostile to the ambition and vices of the clergy, would be much read, if it were possible to suppress them.' And when to these circumstances we add, that literature, after the fourth century, was chiefly in the hands of ecclesiastics; that many important works written within the first three centuries are known to be lost; and that of the few which remain, some are acknowledged on all hands, to have been grossly corrupted, and radically mutilated, we cannot wonder that so little in explanation of the various steps of clerical usurpation has reached our times. I have now shown, that a change in the character and powers of some of the primitive Bishops was possible, and even probable. I have shown that I changes quite as likely to be vigorously resisted, and to occupy a large space in the early history of the church, were in fact early introduced, without any proof of such resistance being found in the scanty and mutilated records of antiquity. We are under no obligation to go further. What has been said is abundantly sufficient to refute the Episcopal argument. If prelatical Bishops are no where to be found in Scripture, but are found in the records of the fourth century; then to show that their introduction, within the first three hundred years was practicable, is all that a reasonable Episcopalian can demand. But this, though sufficient to silence our opponents, may not satisfy an inquisitive antiquarian. It remains, then, to take one step further, and to show, that the change which has been proved to be practicable, and even probable, did actually take place; that it is not a mere hypothesis, adopted without evidence, but a matter of fact, which the historian ought not to overlook, even if it were wholly unconnected with modern controversies. The proof of this fact shall be drawn from the following sources: First; From a comparison of the general language of Scripture, and the writers of the first two centuries, concerning Bishops, with the general language used on the same subject in the fourth century. We have before shown, that in the NewTestament, the titles Bishop and Presbyter are in discriminately applied to the same persons; and ' that no style of expression is employed by the Spirit of God, which gives the least intimation that Bishops were an order distinct from, and superior tru, Presbyters in the Apostolic age. We have also shown, that the same indiscriminate application of scriptural titles, and the same language expressive of ministerial parity, are found, with scarcely any exception, in all the authentic writings of the first two hundred years. It is not necessary here to repeat the proof of these positions. They will therefore be assumed as established points. But in the writings of the third century, we begin to perceive a style of expression indicating the commencement of a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters; and in the fourth and fifth centuries, we find this distinction strongly and generally marked. In short, that, in the course of the first three hundred years after Christ, there was gradually introduced a remarkable change of language, in speaking of the titles and powers of Christian ministers, is admitted, not only by a great majority of ecclesiastical historians, and of other learned men, but also by many of the besť informed, and most impartial Episcopalians themselves. Now whence did this change in the current language of that period arise ? Not from accident, nor from the caprice of a few individuals. Neither of these would be sufficient to account for a change so important and extensive. It arose evidently from a change in the nature of the offices expressed by this language. It arose from the fact, that in the Apostolic age, and for more than a hundred years afterwards, prelatical Bishops had no existence; and that in ;; the fourth century, this class of officers, as a distinct order, had been introduced, and of course, required new distinctions, or a new use of terms and titles to designate their character. Secondly; That Bishops, as an order of clergy superior to Presbyters, were introduced after the Apostolic age, and without any divine warrant, may also be established by the declarations of several approved writers, who lived near the time when this change occurred, and who expressly assert that it took place. The quotations from Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom, &c. detailed in the fifth letter, are equally clear and decisive on this subject. The declarations of ferome, in particular, are so pointed and unquestionable, so formally stated, and repeated in such a variety of forms, that they must silence even prejudice and sophistry themselves. Were not these learned men as likely to understand the subject on which they wrote as any of the present day? Is it credible that they should be totally deceived concerning a fact, which, if it did not fall under their own observation, must have been personally witnessed by their immediate predecessors ? It is not credible. Yet unless we suppose these writers to have been either deceived or dishonest, the Presbyterian or Apostolic form of church government, was gradually set aside and gave place to Prelacy, within three hundred and fifty years after Christ. Thirdly; On the supposition that diocesan Episcopacy was a mere human invention, introduced long after the Apostolic age, we might expect to find this form of ecclesiastical government first embraced in populous and wealthy cities, and making its way more slowly in the remote and obscure parts of the church. And accordingly we find this to have been precisely the fact. Prelacy was first introduced and organized in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, &c. From these, as from so many centres, it spread into the neighbouring countries, and finally became general. But in the parts of the church which were placed at the greatest distance from these seats of corruption, the reception of Prelacy was considerably later. Hilary and others declare, that many of the African Presbyters continued to exercise the ordaining power until the middle of the fourth century. The churches in Scotland remained Presbyterian in their government, from the introduction of Christianity into that country, in the second century, until the fifth century, when Palladius succeeded in intró. ducing diocesan Bishops *. It also appears, from the most authentic history, that the country churche's generally maintained the primitive plan of government much longer than those of the cities, and were from one to two centuries later in receiving * This fact is ascertained by the writings of Major, Fordon, Boethius, and Archbishop Usher. |