divers Bishops, who neglected their high trust, and were intent on their own secular pursuits, instead of devoting themselves to the care of their flocks, and the promotion of piety in themselves and others. He also laments the degeneracy of some of the other orders of the clergy, and many of the laity. This is a lamentable fact. But still the great body of the clergy and laity were stedfast in the faith, and ornaments to the religion which they professed. Converts to Christianity had multiplied to a prodigious degree. We may, therefore, reasonably suppose, that there was an increase of corrupt members iu the Church of that age; but there would also be an increase of pure and worthy Christians. This great increase of converts, rationally accounts for a greater degree of corruption in the third, than in the second century. The clergy, also, in consequence of this great accession of numbers, were exceedingly multiplied; and, consequently, there would be a greater number of deviations among that order from a strict and holy life, than in the second century. Still, on comparison, in this respect there might have been, and probably was, as much virtue and piety in the one age in the other. There was no change of circumstances in the Church to induce us to suppose that it was otherwise. Persecution still continued as hot and as fierce as ever. This has a powerful tendency to purify both priests and people. The discipline of the Church also was very strict; much more so than I believe is to be found in any Church upon earth in our day. The revenues of the Church, too, arose as in the former age, from the voluntary offerings of the people, and were divided, as usual, among the clergy and the poor. It is true, the offerings were put into the hands of the Bishop for distribution; but "to avoid suspicion and prevent mismanagement, he was obliged to give an account of his administration in a provincial synod; as also at his election to exhibit a list of his own goods and estate, that such things as belonged to him might be distinguished from those that belonged to GOD and the Church." There were also in that age regular provincial councils, in which doctrines were discussed, and excellent canons enacted. Heresies were cried down, schisms were marked with general disapprobation, and vice, both in clergy and people, was severely punished. These circumstances, which no one can deny, afford a strong argument a priori, that the Church would be pure. And, in fact, we find it was generally so, notwithstanding the complaints of Origen, Cyprian, and Eusebius, of many instances of depravity. Amidst millions of professing Christians, thousands of Bishops, and tens of thousands of Presbyters and Deacons, who would not look for many instances of unchristian living? But all this while, the great body of the clergy and people were sound in doctrine and holy in life. The crowds of martyrs in that age throughout the Roman empire, go a great way to establish the fact. Numerous are the

d BINGHAM'S Antiquities, Vol. II. p. 285, 8vo.

testimonies which might be produced. Origen, whom you quote as lamenting the increase of vice, bears his testimony to the virtues of the clergy. He represents them as "traversing every corner of the world, and making converts to godliness, both in cities and villages; and that they were so far from making a gain thereof, that many of them took nothing for their service; and those that did, took only what was necessary for their present subsistence."e The writings of Cyprian, who was a severe censor of the manners of Christians, bear ample testimony to the virtues of the Bishops and clergy in Africa; and Eusebius, in his history of the Church in the third century, bears a similar testimony. In the fourth, there was a considerable falling off, as was to be expected when the Church was freed from persecution, and basking in the sunshine of royal favour. But still the great body of the clergy were pure, as appears from the testimony of both friends and foes. Julian, the apostate, in his letter to Arsacius, High Priest of Galatia, (as recorded by Sozomen1) tells him that the cause of the increase of Christianity was the holy lives of Christians; and, therefore he charges him to take care that the priests under him live according to their character. Ammianus Marcellinus, another Heathen writer, commends the virtues of the Christian Bishops in the same age. St. Austin gives an excellent character of the Bishops and clergy of his own time (the fourth century.) "He makes them the chief ornament of the Catholic Church, and extols their virtues above those of a monastic life." Lactantius bears the same testimony; so does Gregory Nazianzen. Tertullian, also, in the third century, speaks the same language; and they all triumph over the Heathen philosophers on this ground in particular, which would argue impudence or stupidity, if the fact were not notorious.

Nothing can be more deceptive than your manner of treating this subject. The question simply is, Did episcopacy take its rise in the third century? Instead of proving that it actually did, you endeavour to show, that there was so much corruption in the Church at that time, as to admit of its taking place. Supposing that you had proved this, what would you gain by it? Surely it does not follow that it did take place. After I had given you abundance of proof, that episcopacy was universally the regimen of the Church, your proving the moral possibility of a change from parity to imparity contributes nothing to your view. Still my proofs are a dead weight upon you, which you have not so much as attempted to remove.

In answer to my observation, that if episcopacy was a human invention, we should be able to name the century in which it made its appearance; you say that we do not know the century in which Metropolitans originated; and this, you maintain, is a set off to the difficulty I suggested with respect to episcopacy,

e BINGHAM, Vol. II. BINGHAM, Vol. II.

p. 294.

P. 294.

f Lib. V. e. 16. h Ibid

To this I replied, we do know the century in which Metropolitans originated; but if we did not, it is nothing to the purpose, as there is no parallel between the cases.

I do not see that you have said any thing to my observations on this point worth mentioning. You set aside Cave's testimony because he wrote in the eighteenth century. Bingham's is treated as cavalierly. But you forgot that this writer gives you fact for the existence of Metropolitans, or primi inter pares, in the second century; and as we have no evidence that they existed in the first, the consequence is, that they began in the second. This is the opinion of Mosheim also. He says, the effect of councils was "the gradual abolition of that perfect equality which reigned among all Bishops in the primitive times. For the order and decency of these assemblies required, that some one of the provincial Bishops met in council should be invested with a superior degree of power and authority; and hence the rights of the Metropolitans derive their origin." And he observes, that "before the middle of the second century, there is not the least trace of councils."i This appears to me to be proof sufficient, that Metropolitans, under different names, originated in the second century; but you think that I am contented with very slender proof,' and that my account is ludicrous. I believe it would puzzle any one but a man of your keen penetration, and delicate sensibility, to discover any thing ludicrous in it, whatever else he may discover. I give pretty clear evidence that Metropolitans began in the second century; but you do not give the least proof that episcopacy began in the second or third century. You appear to be afraid to commit yourself on this point. All you can discover is a 'kind of imparity' in the third century. Here, then, is a material difference between the two cases.

Further: You want me to show how Metropolitans were introduced, and by what means, and whether with or without opposition. These were sufficiently shown in my eighteenth Letter. The councils which began to meet about the middle of the second century, would necessarily prove the foundation of a primacy; and what naturally resulted from the meetings of numerous Bishops, could meet with no opposition.

6

But were the origin of Metropolitans involved in midnight darkness, there would be no parallel between the two cases. To this you reply thus: Why no parallel? The office of Metropolitan was a grade of ecclesiastical pre-eminence, as well as that of ordinary Bishop. Now, if it be granted, that the former office was introduced by human contrivance; that it was gradually brought in; that it was introduced without any known opposition and noise; why might not the same facts have occurred with respect to prelacy? Because the supposition would be too unreasonable to be admitted. Provincial councils would neces

i Eccles. Hist. Vol. I. p. 178, 179.

sarily choose a president for the sake of order; and the choice would naturally fall, cæteris paribus, [circumstances in other respects being the same] either on the Bishop of the metropolis, or on the oldest Bishop. The latter was the general practice in Africa, and accordingly the Primates in that country, were frequently styled patres [fathers,] and senes [elders.] But the first was the practice in most other parts, and the titles also were different in different places. Now, these reasons operating to produce repeated elections of the Bishop of the metropolis, or of the senior Bishop, would naturally produce a fixed presidency by common consent; and in the council of Nice the whole was subjected to ecclesiastical law by the Bishops themselves. Thus it is evident, that from first to last, the Bishops of the province were at the bottom of the primacy, and of every thing relating to it. There was no usurpation; no rights were wrested from the Bishops, but every thing was freely granted. This was the natural course of things; and, so far as we have records, they confirm these particulars.

Now consider the course of episcopacy on your hypothesis. At first, towards the close of the apostolic age, Moderators were chosen by the Presbyters for the sake of order. This you represent as a temporary_Moderatorship; but, according to Blondel, and many others, a Presidency for life, by apostolic example. Your disagreement, however, on this point, is nothing to me. But what next? Why, all at once, we see this Moderator, who, as such, had no relation whatever to the Church, styled Bishop of the Church, or Bishop of the city where he lived. We see him claiming the obedience of the Presbyters in spiritual things, and this both in and out of the Presbytery. We see him claiming the supreme power of the keys, the right of ordaining, and a negative power in the whole jurisdiction of the Church; and this we find to be the case every where at a very early period, and no complaint was made against it, nor any hint given that it was either a usurpation, or that the Church conferred these powers for the purpose of creating a higher order of ecclesiastics. Now is this any thing like the case of Metropolitans? The mind which cannot see such striking traits of disparity, must be either incurably prejudiced, or subject to a strange oliquity of thinking.

Every document which we possess on the subject of Metropolitical distinction implies, that the distinction was founded on common consent; nor have you produced one syllable to the contrary. But with respect to episcopacy, all the testimonies that I have produced (and they are very abundant) either expressly declare, or necessarily imply, that episcopacy is an apostolic institution. Such is the immense distance between your misnamed parallel cases.

The next point which you retouch is, the question when Christianity was introduced into Scotland. You pitch upon the beginning of the third century; I upon the beginning of the fifth;

and you pronounce that I follow blind guides in what I have said. If such men as Usher, Lloyd, and Stillingfleet, are blind guides on a point of antiquity, I believe we shall be very much at a loss for luminous guides. But if these will not do, you shall have more. Let us first, however, attend to what you say.

Your first testimony to prove that you are right, is a passage from Tertullian. He says, "The places of Britain to which the Romans could have no access are, notwithstanding, subject to CHRIST." This was written, probably, in the early part of the third century.

To this Stillingfleet thus replies. "This proves that Christianity was then received beyond the wall, but not by the Scots, who were not yet settled in those parts; but by the old Britains, who were driven thither, as appears by the account given by Xiphilin out of Dio, who saith, that the Britains were divided into two sorts, the Mætæ and the Caledonii. The former dwelt by the wall, and the latter beyond them. These were the extra provincial Britains, and were distinct both from the Picts and Scots, saith John Fordon, who carefully distinguishes these three nations, when he speaks of their wars with the Romans."*

Stillingfleet also quotes the Scotch historian, Dempster, asserting, that "there were no Christians in Scotland before Palladius, but such as fled thither out of Britain because of persecution." -Tertullian's testimony, it is evident, will do you no good.

Your next testimony is from Fordon, the Monk, who lived twelve hundred years after the event, and quotes nobody. He says, "Before the coming of Palladius, the Scots, following the custom of the primitive Church, had teachers of the faith, and dispensers of the sacraments, who were only Presbyters or Monks."

"Fordon the Monk," says Bishop Lloyd, "seems to have had no more knowledge of antiquity than others had that lived in his age." The Bishop proves this by numerous instances, but particularly by showing that Monkery did not exist in the third century. Fordon's object undoubtedly was, to give it as high an origin as he well could.

"This dreaming Monk," says the Bishop, was pleased to discover (for the honour of his order) that before the coming of Palladius, &c. (as quoted.) Now, there were no monks in the world at that time. Monkery began in the east, in the time of Dioclesian's persecution. (An. 303.) From thence it was long ere it came over into Europe, saith Sozomen. It was first brought to Rome by Athanasius, saith Baronius; that is, Athanasius first gave them at Rome the relation of St. Anthony, and of the other Egyptian Monks."m

k Antiquities of the British Churches, p. 33.-XIPHILIN, in Severo.-Scoti chron. Lib. III.

1 Prof. Brit. Antiq. p. 40.

m Church Government in Scotland by Culdees, p. 153, 154.