The office of a bishop was now held fuperior to that of Prefbyters; but it is not demonftrable, that the bithops of Rome had titles of honour fuperior to other bishops, or a right to controul the conduct of other churches +.

+ Concerning the names of Papa, Epifcopus, Epifcoparum, and Pontifax Maximus, faid to have been given by Juftin Martyr and Ter ullian, to the bishop of Rome, fee Walch's Hift. Ecclef.

Chillingworth, the proteftant champion, befides many other divines, has wrote largely in defence of epifcopacy; and all, in general, agree in this point, that it was not introduced in the first century, or by the apostles, though they unquestionably prove, that this office, or fuperior dignity in the church, was inftituted, or generally in ufe, as early as the fecond century.

Mr. Chillingworth defines epifcopacy, to be the choice of one man of eminent fanctity and fufficiency to have the care of all the churches within a certain precinct or diocese, and furnishing him with authority, not abfolute or abitrary; but under the regulation of laws, to the intent, that all churches under him may be provided with good. and able paftors. This he apprehends, 1ft, is not repugnant to the government fettled in, and for the church, by the apoitles; 2d, That it is as well calculated for the reformation of any evil in the church, or the introduction of any good which we defire to introduce, as any other form of government; and 3d, That there is no law upon record of our Saviour against it. He quotes Petrus Molinæus, who, in his Defence of Prefbyterial Government, acknowledgeth, that presently after the apoftles times, it was ordained, that in every city, one of the prefbytery fhould be called a bishop, who fhould have preeminence over his colleagues, to avoid that confufion which ofttimes arifeth out of equality, &c. He likewife quotes Theodorus Beza, to the fame purport (a).

The late bishop Hoadly (6) fays, We think we can demonftrate, that in the primitive times, the adminiftration of ecclefiaftical affairs was in the hands of bishops, who had prefbyters fubject to them, that as the apostles maintained a fuperiority over the prefbyters of the churches they conftituted, fo, upon occafion of their abfence, they fettled others in this fuperiority; that as thefe, thus fucceed ing the apoftles, had the power of ordination committed to them, fo their fucceffors, in the following ages, claimed this power as their right, and looked upon ordination to be their office in the regular courfe of things.

Bingham (c) treats more largely of the antiquity, authority, and dignity of epifcopacy, their honorary titles, and venerable character.

(a) Chilingworth of Epifcopacy, annexed to his other works, from p. 1, to 5, inclufive.

(b) Hoadly's Reasonableness of Conformity, p. 3.

(c) Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church abridged, from p. 50 to 100.

Again,

[Second Again the perfonal characters of the bifhops and fathers in this century, give them no fuperiority or advantage over other churches, or their fucceffors, fince it is apparent they were less learned and more credulous, and in many respects more defective, than fome of later time for there was never any period of time in all ecclefiafticak history, in which fo many rank herefies were publickly profeffed, nor in which fo many fpurious books were published under the names of Chrift and his apoftles, and apoftolic writers*. However, a variety of opinions prevailed in this century, infomuch that the bishops begant to compofe formularies or creeds for their. refpective churches, or in oppofition to fome principal errors; and this feems to be the earliest period when part of what is called the apostles creed was introduced §.

Apoftles creed firft introduced.

A fuper

*Archbishop Wake, in his Preliminary Difcourfe to the Genuine Epiftles of the Apoftolic Fathers, p. 89, Where he has given us a lift of a great part of thofe fpurious pieces, with a fhort account of each-In which he tells us it would be endlefs, to infift on all the fpurious pieces, which were only attributed to St. Paul; but that the fuperftitious books afcribed to St. Peter his Acts, his Gofpel, his Revelation, were in much greater authority, even to the time of Eufebius, (fect. xviii. xix.) ; he obferves alfo, that the book called the Recognitions of St. Clement, which he takes to be the most learned, as well as the most ancient of any of those pieces, was not fet forth till about the middle of the fecond century, and is rejected by Eufebius as one of thofe many impoftures, which were even then published under the name of that faint, fect. xxviii.

§ Having mentioned the apoftles creed, it may be proper to give a general account thereof. The learned author of the Critical Hiftory of this creed very juftly acknowledges, that this creed was not the work of one man, or of a day, (he might have faid, nor of one century). The ancient fathers never indeed called it by the name of the apoftles creed, but fay it was agreeable to what they taught. Most of the articles are indifputably fo; fome of them are faid to be derived from Philip's requiring of the eunuch a profeffion of his faith in Chrift, as the Son of God, as a pre-requifite to his being baprized and, for a confiderable time, the chriftian bishops contented themselves with fome fuch general form of words, without any particular explication of the nature and action of God, or the ftate of the Son. The reason of the additional articles feems to be this:

not

A fuperftitious veneration for utenfils and veffels belonging to the church took place, so that none but the priests:

not long after the apostles time, feveral herefies fprung up in the church, fubverfive of the fundamentals of Christianity, and even of all religion. Thus the firft article, I believe in God the Father, was introduced in oppofition to the Manichæans, who afferted two independent deities, A.D. 276. The word Almighty was alfo added to this article, againft fome Manichæans, who afferted, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, were but one perfon. The fecond article, and in Jefus Christ our Lord, was introduced about the fame time, in oppofition to Sabellianifm, who made the Son and Holy Spirit to be only virtues or emanations of the deity. The words, he defcended into bell, were neither in the Roman nor oriental creeds. The phrafe, communion of faints, was not in any creed till above 400 years after Chrift, and then not immediately received in all. The claufe of life everlafting was omitted in feveral; and whoever hall compare the Grecian or the French creed, recorded by Iræneus, thofe of Carthage cited by Tertullian, that of Aquila, Hippo, Ravenna, or Turin, will find them all to vary; which, with other confiderations, fufficiently evidence the apoftles could not be the authors of the creed that paffes in their name (6). The repetition of the creed at every affembly was appointed in the eastern church by Timothy, archbishop of Conftantinople, about the year 500 (c); about which time the bishop of Antioch likewife prefcribed the reading of it at the public adminiftration of divine fervice. In the western churches, at a fynod of thirty-five bifhops, it was appointed to be read and explained to the Catechumens, who were afterwards to be admitted to baptifm; but the general and conftant reading thereof feems not to have prevailed in the western churches, till five hundred years after Chrift: by the decree of the third council of Toledo, it was enjoined to be read throughout all the chorches of Spain and Gallicia (d).

Mr. Whifton afferts, that the Eufebian or Arian doctrine was, for the main, the doctrine of the church for the two first centuries (e). This doctrine was differently understood and represented at that time by Alexander; and, in like manner, the doctrine of Alexander, mifreprefented by Arius. Arius exprefsly afferts, in a letter to Eufebius, his intimate friend, "This is what we have and do profefs, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any manner a part of the unbegotten God, nor from any part of the material world; but that, by the will and council of the Father, he existed before all time and ages, perfect God, the Only-begotten

1

(a) Critical Hiftory, p. 32, 33.

(b) Ibid. p. 29.

(c) Ibid. p. 42, 43..

(d) Theodor. Lector. Ecclef. Hift. I. ii. p. 563.

(e) Memoirs of Dr. Clarke, p. 10. .

and

Laws were

priests were permitted to handle them*. made for fafting on particular days, and followed with many fuperftitious obfervances t. Great controverfies arofe about the lawfulness of baptizing infants, which have ever fince continued a dispute in the Christian church. Others were for limiting baptifin to the time of Easter and Whitfuntide, while others held that all times were alike §. Others practifed a trine immerfion, and Tertullian mentions it as a common practice. But others immerfed the body only once, and adult believers made up the main body of the baptized +. Baptifm was then accompanied with the impofition of hands, which was looked upon as the completion of baptifm, generally performed by a trine immerfion of the Catechumen, at the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost **.

The third perfecution of the Chriftians, under Trajan the emperor, commenced A. D. 107. The fourth, began under the emperor Adrian, 125; the fifth under Marcus Aurelius, A. C. 166.

CENTURY THE THIRD.

In the third century the bishops exalted themselves highly above other paftors, and drew many dangerous confequences from the doctrine of one catholic church. Some bishops even claimed a fuperiority to others, but

and Unchangeable; and that, therefore, before he was begotten or formed, he was not; but that there never was a time when he was not (f).

*

History of Popery, vol. II. p. 100.

+ Ibid.

See Dr. Wall's Hiftory of Infant Baptifm, and Dr. Gale's Anfwer.

Cave's Primitive Christianity, p. 307.

Tertullian adv. Marcion, lib. iii. p. 226.

+Cave's Primitive Christianity, p. 305. Compare' Cave, Wall, Toogood, with Grantham, Gale, Gill, &c.

***See Lawrence R. of Yelvertoft's Christian Morals, p. 192 to 196.

(f) Theod. C. H. l. i. c. 5, cited by Dr. Chandler in his Introduction to Limberch's Hift. of the Inquifition, p. 24.

they

they were at the fame time jealous of each other, and the doctrine of the equality of bifhops admitted of no fuperiority §; they confidered the bishop of Rome as one of their brethren, and were offended at Stephen for pretending to preferibe laws to them, though they willingly allowed the Roman church to be one of the principal.

It is therefore impoffible that the other bishops fhould acknowledge him as their judge. Advice given in friendship and confidence implies no jurisdiction. It is admitted, however, that in the third century, a more immediate foundation was laid for that authority and pre-eminence which was afterwards affumed; but that neither the bishops of Rome pretended to be infallible, nor others thought them fo, is the more clear and demonftrable they themselves giving proof of the contrary, both by their example, and by the ftrefs they laid

on councils.

The church of Rome confifted at firft of teachers, and hearers; the firft were either elders or deacons, but fo early as this century their offices were greatly increased, viz. bishops, prefbyters, deacons, fub-deacons, agolothift, readers, &c. but no mention was then made of the office or privilege of cardinals. In the most important concerns, the affent of the people was required, and the ufual circular letters were fent to them‡.

The bishop ufually obtained his office by election, in which the laity alfo voted. The impofition of hands was occafionally performed by bishops in different places, of whom fome attended on that occafion.

The priests, deacons, and other clergy, fays father Paul, were also prefented by the people, and ordained by the bishop; or elfe nominated by the bishop, and, with the confent of the people, ordained by him. No perfon that was unknown was admitted, nor did the bishop ordain any but fuch as were approved, or indeed

See the Tranflation of Walch's Hiftory, p. 42.

See Cornelius's Letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, in Conftant. Epiftol. Pontific,

Vol. I. No. II.

D

propofed