APPENDIX A.

Page 102.

In the question of tradition is involved the succession of bishops, by which the handing down of the Scriptures and of all Christian truth is said to be made sure. Let us try the boasted fortress of the succession, that of the bishops of Rome. Irenæus says, "But as it would be a long affair to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we will give that of the greatest and most ancient, and best known to all; the church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, and which has, from the apostles, the tradition and the faith announced, coming to us by the succession of bishops. For, to this church, on account of the more powerful principality, (not on account of Peter's chair, but Cæsar's throne,) it is necessary for every church to come, that is, those believers who are in every place, in which has always been preserved by those who are everywhere the tradition from the apostles. Founding, therefore, and instructing the church, the blessed apostles delivered to Linus* the episcopate, or the oversight of the administration of the church. To him succeeded Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement obtained the lot of the episcopate, who also saw the apostles themselves, and conversed with them, while as yet he had the preaching of the apostles sounding (in his ears) and the tradition before his eyes.

*2 Tim. iv. 21.

"For he was not alone; many yet surviving who were taught by the apostles. To this Clement succeeded Euaristus; and to Euaristus, Alexander; and afterwards, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; and from this, Telesphorus, who endured martyrdom most gloriously; and then Hyginus; afterwards Pius; after whom (was) Anicetus. But when to Anicetus Soter had succeeded, now, in the twelfth place, Eleutherius holds the episcopate from the apostles. By this ordination and succession, that tradition which is from the apostles in the church, and the preaching of the truth, has come even to us. And this is a most full display, that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles, and has been delivered in truth."*

All this seems very plain and sure; but "he that is first in his own cause seems right, till his neighbour cometh and searcheth him out." It must be recollected, then, that Eleutherius, who is said to be bishop while Irenæus was writing, is assigned to the period between, A.D. 177 and 192, so that from the apostles a century had elapsed, and we know what uncertainty comes over names and dates in the course of a hundred years, even with all the advantages we derive from increased civilization and the press. All this boasted perspicuous order is strange confusion. In the notes to the Paris edition of Irenæus, a most zealous, not to say furious, Romanist makes the cool observation, that "It signifies little, though all do not agree who was the first that succeeded to the blessed Peter, in the Roman see."+ How silently and unceremoniously this writer drops saint Paul, whom Irenæus had mentioned along with Peter! Yet, if either of them is to be omitted, it should certainly be Peter, who was the apostle of the circumcision, or Jews; while Paul, as the apostle of the uncircumcision, we know from the Scriptures preached and wrote to the Romans, the head of the Gentile world. Irenæus expressly asserts that Linus was the first bishop, appointed by the apostles themselves,

*Advers. Heres., lib. iii. c. 3.

† Page 239.

Galatians.

and with him agree, as the annotator says, "Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Dorotheus, Optatus, Augustin, and Eusebius. Clement himself, however, claims to be Peter's successor,* to which Ruffinus, his Latin translator, above a thousand years ago, consents, and with him agree, Epiphanius, Damasus, Marianus, and Sabellicus." It will strike the attentive reader that this zealous Romanist places Epiphanius as a witness on both sides. What is such testimony worth? How can the advocate of Rome extricate her from the embarrassment? By the following words, "I am best pleased with the reconciliation of the most learned theologian, Saunders; that Peter, indeed, ordained Clement; but before him, Linus and Cletus are placed in the catalogue of the Roman bishops; because Peter had taken them as his coadjutors." What! Is it come to this, that we are indebted to the lucky guess of Saunders for the solution of this grand difficulty who was the immediate successor to St. Peter at Rome ? Cannot we guess, too, as well as "the most learned theologian, Saunders"? But while we are told, with equal gravity and truth, that it signifies little whom we make the first bishop at Rome; should we ever have heard this confession, if the advocates for apostolical succession had not found themselves at fault in the very first step? The primary link that should fasten all others to the apostolic chair being broken, or wanting, of what value is the rest of the chain of bishops or popes? Yet this is only one of the difficulties of the boasted apostolic line; new contradictions meeting us at each step, and new guesses being employed to extricate us from our embarrassment; for of certainty there is not an atom. Tillemont introduces the Babel of contradictory authorities by observing, that it is difficult to reconcile them, and still more difficult to find anything certain. This confession from a zealous and rather credulous catholic is more than we should have expected, though his piety and candour inspire us with the highest respect.†

*For this, the Romanist appeals to the Apostolical Constitutions, 45. † Vol. ii. pt. i. p. 272-4, and p. 480.

G G

APPENDIX B.

Page 273.

WITH regard to ministerial robes, the Alexandrian Clement, who mentions the stole of the Jewish priests, merely compares it with our Lord's putting on humanity, and our putting on Christ.

Tertullian speaks of the habit of prayer, with reference, not to ministers, but to all the faithful: "As we touch some one instance of vain observance, it will not be amiss to notice other things also, in which folly will deservedly be reproved; for things of this kind are not to be ascribed to religion, but to superstition; and are of a curious rather than rational obedience; indeed, even for this reason, to be restrained, because they put us on a level with the Gentiles. As it is the custom of some to lay aside their cloaks in order to offer prayer for so the nations come to their idols. Which, however, if it ought to have been done, the apostles, who teach concerning the habit of prayer, would have included, unless there are any who think that Paul left his cloak in prayer with Carpus. Truly he who heard the three saints in the furnace of the king of Babylon, praying "in their coats, their hose, and their hats," would not hear those who wear their cloaks -De Orat.

All that Tertullian says of the habit of prayer applies to the whole church, and censures the affectation of laying aside the cloak; for of putting on any particular dress he seems to know nothing. He declares that Paul, who teaches concerning the mode of prayer, would have prescribed what was necessary for prayer; and, therefore, all that he has not prescribed is vain, curious, and heathenish superstition, rather than rational Christian religion.