2

cannot,' he says, deduce a lineal succession of bishops, as they could in other churches, where writings were preserved. By the loss of records of the British churches, we cannot draw down the succession of bishops from the apostles' time. Although, therefore,' adds this most modest of all writers, when prelacy is in danger, by the loss of records of the British churches, we cannot draw down the succession of bishops from the apostles time, (for that of the bishops of London, by Jocelin, of Furnes, is not worth mentioning,) yet we have great reason to presume such a succession.'3

Similar is the manifest awkwardness with which Mr. Palmer, by the aid of that sophistry, in the use of which he is such on adept, has recently endeavoured to obscure the plainest of facts. Usher, in his great work, De Britanicarum Ecclesiarum Primordiis, only gives the catalogue of bishops from A.D. 433,5 nor does he tell us whether, even then, they were properly to be regarded as prelatical or parochial, that is, presbyterian bishops, which is a very important question. That there were bishops in Britain from its first conversion, we do not doubt, but that they were any other than presbyterian pastors, we have, as yet, seen no reasonable ground for believing. And yet, upon the single fact, that there were in the British churches, bishops, and that in the fourth century these appeared in councils, does Mr. Ledwich DEMONSTRATE their original prelacy!! So utterly ignorant are prelatists of the very first principles of our ecclesiastical polity, or of the truth, that both in Scripture and presbyterianism, bishop means pastor, presbyter, or minister."

To our minds the presumption is entirely the other way, that is, against the prelatic and in favour of the presbyterian polity of the primitive British churches. This presumption we build, in the first place, upon the acknowledged probability, that they were established by the apostle Paul. Now, it has been already shown, that Paul was, avowedly, a presbyter; that he was ordained as an example to all future ages, by a presbytery; that he himself ordained presbyters, and, as far as we know, only presbyters, in all the churches organised by him; that he expressly delegated to the Ephesian presbyters the entire rule, government, and jurisdiction of the episcopate; that he sanctioned the ordination of Timothy by a presbytery; and that we are, therefore, required to believe, that, in constituting a church in Britain, he would not give to it a prelacy, when, to the

1 Fol. ed. pp. 77, 81, 83.

4 On the Church, vol. ii, p. 180. Antiq. of Ireland, pp. 54, 57.

pp. 499, etc.

2 Irenicum.

3 Ibid., p. 77.

5 See also Broughton's Eccl. Dict. fol. i, 161. 7 See also Prynne's Eng. Prel. vol. ii,

Roman, Ephesian, Philippian, and other churches, he had given only the simpler model of a presbytery. Another ground on which we rest this presumption, is the connection between the British and Gallic churches. It was from Gaul the Christian religion first spread into Britain.1 The forms, doctrines, and opinions, of the British and the Gallic churches were similar wherein they were both discordant with those of the Romish church. Now that, in the first ages, prelacy was unknown to the Gallic churches, is very clear, as we have already proved. And, therefore, the strong presumption is, that the polity of the British churches, also, was not prelatic. A third ground on which we rest this presumption is the entire absence of any proof of a prelatical succession, which is, nevertheless, essential to the establishment of the prelatical character of the early British churches. On this point Stillingfleet, Collier, and Palmer, are reluctantly candid." The first traces of bishops in Britain are found in the fourth century,+ when three were present at the Council of Arles, held A.D. 314. But that these were diocesan prelates, or of the same essential character as modern prelates, there is no evidence whatever. As to their sitting in synod, we know, that even presbyters were anciently entitled to this privilege, until ejected by the encroaching despotism, of the prelates; and after this period Columba, who was but a presbyter, when he appeared as the representative of the clergy in Albanian Scotia, was received with the greatest attention and respect.5

4

A fourth argument for the presbyterian polity of the primitive British Christianity is deducible from the fact, that on the arrival of Austin the Monk, the ancient clergy who had retired to Wales on the Saxon invasion, refused to submit to the authority of the pope, and many of them endured death rather than abandon their liberty, and their pure and uncorrupted faith. It is evident, from the testimony of the old Chronicle, quoted by bishop Davies in his letter to archbishop Parker, that the Britons not only rejected the authority of Austin, but the doctrines and usages of his church. The Chronicle says, that they would hold no communication with the Saxons, when converted by Austin, because They corrupted with superstition, images, and idol

1 Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. b. i, cent. ii, pt. i, c. i, vol. i, 121. 2 Ledwich's Antiq. p. 112. Jameson's Hist. of Culdees, p. 214. Usher's Relig, of the Anc. Irish and Brit. ch. iv. At the Synod of Streoneshalch, (now Whitby,) A.D. 662, bishop Coleman, and the Culdee presbyters, reasoned upon the equal authority of the apostle John, while the Romanists urged that of Peter. [See Jameson, pp. 222, 223, and Stuart's Hist. of Armagh, App. xiii, p. 627.] See also Palmer's Origines Liturgicæ, vol. i, pp. 144, 153, 157. 176, 180, etc. Henry's Britain, vol. i, 201. Mackintosh's Hist of England, and Stillingfleet's Antiq. of the Brit. Ch., p. 135. b. i, cent. iv, fol. ed. vol. i, p. 26.

5 Adam vita Columb. in Stuart, p. 624.

3 See Collier's Eccl. Hist.

4 Gieseler's Eccl. Hist. vol. i, p. 123, sec. 56, 6 Burgess's Tracts, p. 102.

Ꭱ

atry, the true religion of Christ.' The length to which they carried their protestantism is very remarkable. The Britons,' says Bede, would no more communicate with the anglo-Saxons than with pagans.' The Irish had exactly the same sentiments. The British priests, that is presbyters,' complains Aldhelm, puffed up with a conceit of their own purity, do exceedingly abhor communion with us, insomuch that they neither will join in prayers with us in the church, nor in communion, nor will they enter into society with us at table; the fragments we leave after refection, they throw to the dogs. The cups, also, out of which we have drank, they will not use until they have cleansed them with sand and ashes. They refuse all civil salutations, and will not give us the kiss of pious fraternity. Moreover, if any of us go to take an abode among them, they will not vouchsafe to admit us, till we are compelled to spend forty days in penance.'1 The British Christians, when the customs of Rome were made known to them, found them to be so contrary to their own simple and primitive rights, that when they met Augustine at the celebrated conference with him, Dinoth the abbot of Bangor, and who was, therefore, a presbyter, in the name of his brethren entered a solemn protest, and declared themselves independent of all Romish interference. The British churches,' said he, owe the deference of brotherly kindness and charity to the pope of Rome, and to all Christians. But other obedience than this, they did not know to be due to him whom they called pope; and for their parts, they were under the jurisdiction of the bishop, (that is, presbyter,) of Caerleon upon Usk, who, under God, was their spiritual overseer and director. At a later period, in the seventh century, the king and clergy of Northumberland, treated with contempt the papal mandate to restore his deposed bishop.' Now be it remembered, that one of the very articles for which these British churches declared themselves protestant was, the multiplication of bishops, since, on their plan, every church had its own bishop, whether in the country or in cities.' 4

6

A still further source of presumptive proof against the supposed prelatic constitution of the British churches is found in the fact, that of the six nations or tribes into which, in the sixth century, Britain was divided, at least five of them received their knowledge of the gospel and its institutions from the Culdees, or the Scotch-Irish Christians, or from Gaul. This was the case as it regards the Scots or

1 Ledwich's Antiq. p. 63. 2 Collier's Eccl. Hist. of Britain, vol. i, p. 178, ed. 1840. 3 Spelman's Concilia, i, pp. 162, 203, in Orig. of Com. Pr. B. p. 76. 4 Ledwich's Antiq. of Ireland, pp. 56, 84, etc.

6

Irish; the Picts; the Angles; the Saxons; and the Jutes.1 Their polity must have been the same, therefore, as that found at the same time among the Culdees, which we shall prove was essentially presbyterian. Gildas also, in the sixth century, as Stillingfleet teaches, ascribes to ALL ministers a succession, even to St. Peter. He calls the British churches 2 Sedem Petri, the see of St. Peter. I confess,' says Usher, Gildas hath these words, but in quite another sense [than the Romish]; for in the beginning of his invective against the clergy, among other things he charges them, that they did sedem Petri apostoli immundis pedibus usurpare. Doth he mean, that they defiled St. Peter's chair at Rome? No, certainly; but he takes St. Peter's chair for that which all the clergy possessed, and implies in it no more than their ecclesiastical function; and so he opposes it to the chair of Judas, into which, he saith, such wicked men fell.'

Gildas, therefore, may be regarded in accordance with the views of the Culdees, as ascribing apostolical succession to all true ministers of Christ.

That the forms and orders of the Romish hierarchy came afterwards to be established in Britain, no one disputes. But even then the sentiments derived from a recollection of her primitive presbyterianism continued to prevail. Of this we have a remarkable proof. Amongst the canons and decrees of the British and Anglo-Saxon churches, are found the Canons of Elfric to bishop Wulfin. Howell thinks they were both bishops. Fox, the Matyrologist, says, that Elfric is supposed by Capgrave, and William of Malmsbury, to have been archbishop of Canterbury, about 996; and Wulfinus, or Wulfin, to have been bishop of Scyrbune or Sherborn. Elfric's two epistles, in the Saxon canons and constitutions, were given by Wulfstane, bishop of Worcester, as a great jewel to the church of Worcester.+ In the tenth canon, Elfric numbers seven decrees, or orders, as follows 1. Oslliarius, or door-keeper; 2. Reader; 3. Exorcist; 4. Alolyth; 5. Sub-deacon; 6. Deacon; 7. Presbyter.' These are all the orders he mentions in the church. He does not mention the bishops as either degree or order. But, under the order of presbyter, he says, there is no more difference between the mass-presbyter and the bishop than this, that the bishop is appointed to confer ordinations, and to see to the execution of the laws of God, which, if every presbyter should do it, would be committed to too many. Both, indeed, are one and the same order, although the part of the bishop is the more honourable. In further proof

6

1 See Origin and Compilation of the Prayer Book, pp. 128-132. the Br. Ch., fol. ed., p. 363.

3 Powell on the Ap. Succ. pp. 44, 45.

4 Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. ii, p. 376, fol. ed. London, 1684.

:

2 Antiq. of

5 Canons, etc., a Laur. Howel, A.M., pp. 66, 67. fol. Londoni, 1708; Spelmani, Concil., tom, i, 576, 586; Prynne's English Prelacy, vol, ii, 315.

of this point, we refer to the declarations made by Colman, bishop of Lindisfern, at a conference held at Whitby, in A.D. 661, to determine whether the ancient or the Romish customs should be retained. The easter I keep,' said Colman, I received from my presbyters, WHO SENT me bishop hither; the which all our forefathers, men beloved of God, are known to have kept after the same manner; and that the same may not seem to any contemptible, or worthy to be rejected, it is the same which St. John the Evangelist, and the churches over which he presided, observed.'

In further confirmation of these views, we might adduce the testimony of many writers. That of Coelus Sedulius Scotus, about 390, has been given, and is very strong. To him,' says Prynne, I might annex our famous Gildas, in his Acris Correptio Cleri Angliæ, our venerable Bede, in his Acta Apostolorum, cap. 20, tom. v, col. 657, and Alcuinus, de diviuus officiis, cap. 35, 36, epistola 108, ad Sparatum, and Comment. in Evang. Ioannis, 1. 5 to 25, col. 547-549, who maintain the self-same doctrine of the parity of bishops and presbyters; declaim much against the pride, lordliness, ambition, domineering power, and other vices of prelates; and conclude, that a bishopric is nomen operis, non honoris; a name of labour, not of honour; a work, not a dignity; a toil, not a delight. But I rather pass to Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, a man without exception, and the greatest scholar in his age, who, near six hundred years since, in his Enarration on the epistle to the Philippians, cap. i, ver. 1, resolves thus. With the bishops, that is, with the presbyters and deacons, for he hath put bishops for elders, after his custom. It is therefore MANIFEST, BY APOSTOLIC INSTITUTION, THAT ALL PRESBYTERS ARE

BISHOPS, albeit NOW those greater ones have obtained that title. For, a bishop is called an overseer; and every presbyter ought to attend the cure over the flock committed to him.' In his commentary on the first chapter of Titus, verses 5, 7, he hath the self-same words that Hierome and Sedulius used before him, concluding from Acts, xx, 17, 28, and Phil. i, 1, that, AMONG THE ANCIENTS, PRESBYTERS WERE THE VERY SAME THAT BISHOPS WERE. 'I read, also,' says Mr. Prynne, in our rare historian, Matthew Paris, Thomas Walsingham, Ypodigma Neustriæ, Anno 1166, p. 36; and John Bale, centur. 2, Script. Britan. sec, 96, 97, pp. 206, 207. That in the year of our Lord, 1166, certain sowers abroad of wicked doctrine at Oxford, were brought into judgment before the king, and the bishops of

3

1 Bede, 1, 3, c. xxv; Ledwich, 55. pp. 314, 315. 3 English Prelacy, 2, 256.

2 In his English Lordly Prelacy, vol. ii,