was a matter left to the discretion of each national Church; that is, he held the doctrine of the Church of England in opposition to that of the Puritans.

I am sorry to say this is not the only place in which I have to complain of the unfairness of Mr. Fitzgerald's quotations. He says, "some of our greatest divines went a still more startling length, and seemed very ready to admit that Presbyterianism was the primitive form of Church government. See for instance Jewell's Defence of the Apology, p. 202, and Dr. Fulke, who passed in his time for a high churchman, in his Answer to the Rhemish Testament upon Tit. i. 8." Now as to Jewell, the passage about Priests and Bishops in page 202, does not at all prove the point. If it does, it certainly is extraordinary to bring forward Chrysostom as the advocate of a Presbyterian form of government. It must be acknowledged that Bishop Jewell does sometimes appear to speak slightingly of Apostolic succession, but on examination it will be found that his disregard was expressed only for a succession unaccompanied with right faith. That this is a right view of his sentiments one passage will be sufficient to prove. "Therefore the antient Father Irenæus giveth good counsel; Eis qui sunt in Ecclesia Presbyteria, obaudire oportet, qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum beneplacitum Patris accipiunt :' it becometh us to obey those Priests in the Church which have their succession from the Apostles, and together with the succession of their Bishoprics, according to the good will of God the Father, have received the undoubted gift of the truth." Defence of Apology, Part ii. chap. 5.

As to Fulke, the passage quoted only asserts what is the practice in our ordination service, that the Priests present lay on their hands along with the Bishop. But the line before his quotation says, "among whom (the clergy) for order and seemly government there was always one principal, to whom, by long use of the Church, the name of Bishop or Superintendent hath been applied, which roome Titus exercised in Crete, Timothy in Ephesus, and others in other places." And the line after his quotation, "which most ancient form of govern

ment when Aerius would take away, it was noted among his other errors."

If Mr. Fitzgerald had been more careful to read the works of those who defended episcopacy, he would not have quoted Fulke, or Reynolds, or many others. These writers were quoted as op. ponents of episcopacy, in the old controversies on this subject, and Archbishop Bramhall is not very complimentary to the writers who have done so." I see it lately published to the world, in print, that Dr. Whitakers, Dr. Fulkes, and Dr. Reynolds were all oppugners of episcopacy. Perhaps of Popish episcopacy, that is, the abuse, not the thing; or of an absolute necessity, by divine right, of such and such an episcopacy, endowed with such and such degrees of power or pre-eminence, or of such an episcopacy as is held to differ from presbyterate, in the very power of the order; but surely not of episcopacy itself. I wonder at the impudence of the man. It is a bad cause which stands in need to be underpropped with such pious impious frauds, and is only fortified with hideous and palpable lies; if he fables in this, let him have the just reward of a liar, not to be trusted in other matters." The Serpent Salve, Works, vol. ii. page 596.

The passage quoted from Chillingworth does not prove any thing; indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald only puts it forward as probable. But the probability is not a little diminished by one of the preceding queries: "whether the power of consecrating and ordaining by imposition of hands may not reside in the Bishops, and be derived unto them, not from the King, but God?" In another place, he says of the Church of Rome, "and so we might receive from you lawful ordination and true Scriptures: though you were a false Church and receiving the Scriptures from you, (though not for you alone,) I hope you cannot hinder us, neither need we ask you leave to believe and obey them; and this, though you be a false Church, is enough to make us a true one." What Chillingworth denied, was a succession of men that held with us in all points; "it is a thing," says he, "which we need not, and you

have as little as we." Page 270.

That Chillingworth held the apostolical institution of episcopacy, there can be no doubt. He concludes his argument upon

the subject, thus" Episco,overnment is acknowledged to have been universally received in the Church, presently after the Apostles' times. Between the Apostles' times, and this presently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of so great an alteration, and therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended; and therefore, episcop icy being confessed to be so antient and Catholick, must be granted also to be Apostolick. Quod erat demonstrandum." Page 300.

How Bishop Andrews could have been quoted as maintaining the original residence of all spiritual authority in the body corporate of the Church, I cannot understand. In his Sermon on Acts ii. 42. Touching the frame of which government many imaginations have lately been bred, a these our daies specially. At the writing of this verse it is certain that the government of Christian people consisted in two degrees only, (of both which our Saviour Christ himself was the author,) 1 of the twelve, 2 of the seventy: both which were over the people in things pertaining to God. These two were one superior to another and not equal: and that the Apostles established an equality in the clergy is (I take it) an imagination; of these two orders the Apostles have ever been reckoned the superior to the other, till our times. Now in the place of the twelve succeeded bishops, and in the place of the seventy presbyterie priests or ministers, and that by the judgment of Irenæus, who lived immediately upon the Apostles age, of Tertullian, of St. Augustine; and this, till of late, was thought the forme of that fellowship, and never other imagined." See also his Sermon on John, xx. 22.

But we are told that even the University of Oxford, in the formal judgment upon the solemn league and covenant, declines absolutely determining upon the strict jus divinum episcopatus. The University of Oxford did express a sort of doubt as to the use of the word jus divinum, but a doubt which will not much serve the opponents of apostolical succession. Their doubt was merely as to the strict propriety of giving that name to an institution formed by the Apostles under the direction of Christ. Concerning which government we think we have reason to be

66

lieve that it is (if not jure divino ir ''. e strictest sense, that is to say, expressly commanded by Goa in his Word, yet) of apostolical institution; that is to say, was established in the Churches by the Apostles, according to the mind and after the example of their master Jesus Christ, and that by virtue of their ordinary power and authority derived from hia, as deputed by him governors of the Church; or at least that episcopal aristocracy hath a fairer pretension, and may lay a juster title and claim to a divine institution than any of the other forms of Church government can do, viz. that of the Papal monarchy, that of the Presbyterian democracy, and that of the Independent, by particular congregations of gathered Churches."

THE END.