Scripture, and interpret it in favour of this distinction; scarce less than demonstrating it constituted by the Apostles; for how otherwise is it imaginable, that all the Churches, founded by the Apostles, in several most distant, and disjoined places (at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Alexandria, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Rome,) should presently conspire in acknowledgment and use of it? how could it otherwise, without apparent confederacy, be formed? how could it creep in without notable clatter? how could it be admitted without considerable opposition, if it were not in the foundation of those Churches laid by the Apostles? How is it likely, that in those times of grievous persecution, falling chiefly upon the Bishops (when to be eminent among Christians yielded slender reward, and exposed to extreme hazard; when to seeke preeminence was in effect to court danger and trouble, torture and ruine,) an ambition of irregularly advancing themselves above their brethren should so generally prevail among the ablest and best Christians? How could those famous martyrs for the Christian truth be some of them so unconscionable as to affect, others so irresolute as to yield, to such injurious encroachments? and how could all the Holy Fathers (persons of so renowned, so approved wisedom and integrity,) be so blind as not to discern such a corruption, or so bad as to abet it? How, indeed, could all God's Church be so weak as to consent in judgment, so base as to comply in practice with it? In fine, how can we conceive, that all the best monuments of antiquity down from the beginning, (the Acts, the Epistles, the Histories, the Commentaries, the Writings of all sorts coming from the blessed martyrs, and most holy confessors of our faith,) should conspire to abuse us; the which do speak nothing but bishops; long catalogues and rows of bishops succeeding in this and that city; bishops contesting for the faith against Pagan idolaters, and Heretical corrupters of Christian doctrine; bishops here teaching, and planting our religion by their labours, there suffering and watering it with their blood.'

Jeremy Taylor argues this point with his usual eloquence, in his 23rd section of Episcopacy asserted. 'For, consider we, is it imaginable that all the world should, immediately after the death of the Apostles, conspire together to seek themselves and not "ea quæ sunt Jesu Christi," to erect a government of their own devising, not ordained by Christ, not delivered by his Apostles, and to relinquish a divine foundation and the apostolical superstructure, which, if it was at all, was a part of our Master's will, "which whosoever knew and observed not, was to be beaten with many stripes ?" Is it imaginable that those gallant men who could not be brought off from the prescription of Gentilism to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity, without evidence of miracle and clarity of demonstration on agreed principles, should all, upon their first adhesion to Christianity, make an universal dereliction of so considerable a part of their Maker's will, and leave Gentilism to destroy Christianity? For he that erects another economy than what the Master of the family hath ordained, destroys all those relations of mutual dependence which Christ had made for the coadunation of all the parts of it, and so destroys it in the formality of a Christian congregation or family.'

The same point is examined at great length by Hoadley, in his Brief Defence, &c. Ch. i. p. 65, and following: one passage is worth extracting, (p. 69.) Let any one but consider the regards of the first Christians towards things of the smallest importance which they imagined to be of apostolical institution; that they proceeded so far as to excommunicate one another for the sake of a supposed neglect in so insignificant a matter as the time of observing Easter; nay, that they were ready to die rather than voluntarily and designedly depart from any thing apostolical; and then judge whether any considerations could induce either Presbyters or people to carry forward and acquiesce in such a material alteration, or ever to believe that the form of

government in which the Apostles left the Churches was not as good, and as capable of preventing all things evil amongst Christians, as any other that could possibly be thought of in after ages. I grant that many matters of small importance which might plead apostolical custom or prescription might be dropped and diffused by degrees in after ages; but that the almost immediate successors of the Apostles should professedly meet to alter what they knew to be the Apostles' institution in such a matter as the government of the Church is incredible.'

The reasoning is indeed all on our side here; besides which the onus probandi lies on the adversary, who has not one single fact to allege. This point is urged also by Chillingworth in his remarks on Episcopacy at the end of his great work1; and by Daubeny in the Guide to the Church, p. 25. (third edition) and his Appendix, p. 29.

But if the change did not take place in or near the time of the Apostles, no one will venture, in the face of all history, to say that it took place later. And this seems conclusive as to the fate of the question. If any one wishes to see the miserable arguments resorted to by the opposite party, I would recommend him to look at Turretinus, T. iii. loc. xviii. § 21.

I may refer, for the same positions as those maintained by Bishop Hobart, to the Postscript to Law's Second Letter to Bishop Hoadley. They are there admirably urged in a passage beginning The great objection to this doctrine is,' p. 73. fourth edit. 1737. But I do not extract it, as these three letters are indispensable to every Episcopal student in divinity. As specimens of controversial style they are almost unrivalled; cool, clear, and keen to a degree quite astonishing; and written in that pure mother English which is the peculiar boast of this great writer in his earlier works. But it is not as specimens of

1 See Appendix, No. IV.

controversy, but as master-pieces of argument that they are

here recommended to the student.

Works, Vol. ix. p. 599-601.

See too Bishop Hall's

No. IV.

Chillingworth on Episcopacy'.

If we abstract from episcopal government all accidentals, and consider only what is essential and necessary to it, we shall find in it no more but this; an appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency to have the care of all the churches, within a certain precinct or diocess, and furnishing him with authority, (not absolute or arbitrary, but regulated and bounded by laws, and moderated by joining to him a convenient number of assistants) to the intent, that all the churches under him may be provided of good and able pastors: and that both of pastors and people, conformity to laws, and performance of their duties, may be required, under penalties not left to discretion, but by law appointed.

To this kind of government, I am not, by any particular interest, so devoted, as to think it ought to be maintained, either in opposition to apostolic institution, or to the much-desired reformation of men's lives, and restoration of primitive discipline, or to any law or precept of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; for that were to maintain a means contrary to the end; for obedience to our Saviour is the end for which Church government is appointed. But if it may be demonstrated, (or made much more probable than the contrary) as I verily think it may: 1. That it is not repugnant to the government settled in and for the church by the Apostles: 2. That it is as compliable with the reformation of any evil, which we desire to reform, either in

1 Chillingworth's Works, Vol. ii. p. 531. 8vo. ed. 1820.

Church or State, or the introduction of any good, which we desire to introduce, as any kind of government: and, 3. That there is no law, no record of our Saviour against it: then I hope, it will not be thought an unreasonable motion, if we humbly desire those that are in authority, especially the high court of parliament, that it may not be sacrificed to clamour, or overborne by violence: and though (which God forbid) the greater part of the multitude should cry, Crucify, crucify, yet our governors would be so full of justice and courage, as not to give it up, until they perfectly understand concerning episcopacy itself, quid mali fecit ?

'I shall speak at this time only of the first of these three points; that episcopacy is not repugnant to the government settled in the Church for perpetuity by the Apostles. Whereof I conceive this which follows is as clear a demonstration any thing of this nature is capable of:

'That this government was received universally in the Church, either in the Apostles' time, or presently after, is so evident and unquestionable, that the most learned adversaries of this government do themselves confess it. 'Petrus Molinæus, in his book, "De Munere Pastorali," purposely written in defence of the presbyterial government, acknowledgeth, that presently after the Apostles' times, or even in their time, (as ecclesiastical story witnesseth) it was ordained, that in every city one of the presbytery should be called a bishop, who should have pre-eminence over his colleagues, to avoid confusion, which ofttimes ariseth out of equality. And truly this form of government all churches every where received.

'Theodorus Beza, in his tract, "De triplici Episcopatus genere," confesseth in effect the same thing. For, having distinguished episcopacy into three kinds, Divine, human, and Satanical, and attributing to the second (which he calls human, but we maintain and conceive to be apostolical) not only a priority of order,