being asked by Charles I. in the Isle of Wight, "whether he found in antiquity that Presbyters "alone ordained any ?" answered, "Yes; and that “he could show his Majesty more, even where "Presbyters alone successively ordained Bishops; "and brought as an instance of this, the Presbyters "of Alexandria choosing and making their own

Bishops, from the days of Mark, tili Heraclas and "Dionysius." The following declaration of the same learned dignitary, is also full to our purpose. It having been reported of him, that he had expressed an uncharitable opinion concerning the church of Holland, as no true church, because she was without diocesan Bishops, when they were within her reach, if she had chosen to accept them, he thus repels the calumny :-" I have ever declared "my opinion to be, that Bishop and Presbyter dif"fer only in degree, and not in order; and conse"quently, that in places where Bishops cannot be "had, the ordination by Presbyters standeth valid. "Yet, on the other side, holding, as I do, that a "Bishop hath superiority in degree over a Pres"byter, you may easily judge, that the ordination 66 made by such Presbyters, as have severed them"selves from those Bishops unto whom they had "sworn canonical obedience, cannot possibly by me. "be excused from being schismatical. And howso(6 ever, I must needs think, that the churches which "have no Bishops, are thereby become very much "defective in their government, and that the "churches in France, who, living under a Popish

power, cannot do what they would, are more ex“cusable in this defect, than the Low Countries, “ who live under a free state ; yet, for the testifying " of my communion with these churches, (which I “ do love and honour as true members of the church

universal,) I do profess, that with like affection I " should receive the blessed sacrament at the hands “ of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I "should do at the hands of the French ministers, if I were in Charentcn*.”,

Bishop Forbes, a zealous Episcopalian, in his Irenicum, explicitly acknowledges, that“ Presbyters “have, by divine right, the power of ordaining, as W well as of preaching and baptizing.” Lib. II. cap. 11. And again, in the same chapter, he declares, “ that those churches which have not the

Episcopal regimen, by no means forfeit the cha"racter of true churches on that account, nor lose “their ecclesiastical rights."

The concessions of Dr. Stilling fleet, (afterwards Bishop of Worcester) on this subject are well known. The avowed object of his Irenicum, one of the most learned works of the age in which it appeared, was to show, that no form of church government is prescribed in the word of God; that the church is at liberty to modify the details of her external order, both with respect to officers and func. tions, as well as discipline, at pleasure ; and of

* See the Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, 110 ---123.

course, that ordinations and government by Presbyters are equally valid with those administered by diocesan Bishops. He seems to acknowledge, indeed, that Presbyterian parity, is on the whole, more agreeable to scripture, and to the practice of the primitive church, than Prelacy; but, at the same time, denies that this ought to be considered as establishing the divine right of Presbytery. In the course of this work the learned author exhibits a mass of evidence from scripture and primitive antiquity against the Episcopal claims, and quotes declarations made by some of the most distinguished divines of different ages and denominations, which will doubtless be read with surprise by those who have been accustomed to believe that the whole Christian world, with very little exception, has always been Episcopal.

To destroy the force of Dr. Stilling fleet's concessions, it is urged, that he afterwards became dissatisfied with this work, and retracted the leading opinion which it maintains* To this suggestion I will re

.

于

* The Irenicum has been stigmatized by some high-toned Episcopalians, as an hasty, indigested work, written at an early period of the author's life, and soon repented of. The following facts will show how far this representation is correct. After having been several years engaged in the composition of this work, the author published it in 1659, at the age of twenty-four. Three years afterwards, viz. in 1662, he published a second edition ; and the same year, he gave to the world his Origines Sacre. Soon after these publications, he met his diocesan, the celebrated Bishop Saunderson, at a

ply, by a quotation from Bishop White of Pennsylvania, who, in a pamphlet published a few years since, having occasion to adduce the Irenicum as an authority against high-church notions, speaks of the performance and its author in the following terms: " As that learned Prelate was afterwards dissatis“ fied with his work, (though most probably not " with that part of it which would have been to our

purpose,) it might seem uncandid to cite the authority of his opinion. Bishop Burnet, his cotem

porary and friend, says, ( History of his own “ Times, anno 1661,) To avoid the imputation that "book brought on him, he went into the humours " of an high sort of people, beyond what became “ him, perhaps beyond his own sense of things.” “ The book, however,” Bishop White adds, “ was, " it seems, easier retracted than refuted; for though

visitation. The Bishop seeing so young a man, could hardly believe it was Stilling fleet, whom he had hitherto known only by his writings ; and, after having embraced him, said, He much rather expected to have seen one as considerable for his age, as he had already shown himself for his learning. See the Life of Bishop Stilling fleet, p. 12–16. When a divine of acknowledged talents and learning, (whatever máy be his age,) after spending several years in a composition of moderate length, deliberately commits it to the press; when, after re. flecting on the subject, and hearing the remarks of his friends for three years longer, he publishes it a second time; and when, after this second publication, he is complimented for his great erudition, by one of the most able and learned dig. nitaries of the age, there seems little room for a charge of haste or want of digestion.

“ offensive to many of both parties, it was managed,

(says the same author) with so much learning " and skill, that none of either side ever undertook

to answer it.”

The truth seems to be, that Dr. Stillingficet, finding that the opinions of a number of influential men in the church were different from those which he had advanced in this work; and finding also that a fixed adherence to them might be adverse to the interests of the established church, in which he sought preferment, he made a kind of vague and feeble recantation ; and wrote in favor of the apostolical origin of Episcopacy. It is remarkable, however, that this Prelate, in answer to an accusation of inconsistency between his early and his latter writings on this subject, assigned another reason besides a change of opinion, viz. that the former were written " before the laws were established.” But in whatever degree his opinion may have been altered, his reasonings and authorities have undergone no change. They remain in all their force, and have never been refuted, either by himself, or by others.

The concessions of Bishop Burnet on this subject, are numerous and unequivocal. Several have been already mentioned. Out of many more which might be presented, I select the following declaration-“ I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be

one and the same office, and so plead for no new " office-bearer in the church. The first branch " of their power is their authority to publish the