Hence arises the presumption, that, for some time after the death of these apostles, the authority to ordain was not limited to any particular order of ministers, but was exercised in each church by the ruling minister or ministers, whether bishop or elders.

2. There is no evidence for the hypothesis, that, after episcopacy was introduced into a church, the succession of bishops was from the first kept on foot by each successive bishop receiving ordination to the episcopate from the bishop of some other church who had been ordained in like manner. The preponderance of evidence is against this hypothesis. It clearly was not so kept on foot in the church of Alexandria, whose bishops or patriarchs (from its foundation by the evangelist Mark till after the Council of Nice) were not set apart to their office by the laying on of episcopal hands.

3. As to the church of Rome, there is ground to conclude, that it had no bishop till several years after the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul; and that, for some time after the introduction of episcopacy into it, no settled custom prevailed as to the appointment of its bishops, or their being set apart to their office.

I now leave it to the reader to form his own judgment of the bold assertion-" As to the fact of the Apostolical Succession, i. e. that our present Bishops are the heirs and representatives of the Apostles by successive transmission of the prerogative of being so, this is too notorious to require proof. Every link in the chain is

known, from St. Peter to our present Metropolitans." 1 I leave the reader to form his own judgment, whether "this Succession has been preserved, all over the world, amid many revolutions, through many centuries."2

To me the conclusion resulting from the evidence of the early fathers is clear, that the alleged "fact of apostolical succession" is "the baseless fabric of a vision:" while, as was shown in the early part of this work,3 the doctrine, in support of which it is asserted, is unscriptural; and " the fact," therefore, of no value even if it were a fact established in evidence.

What then is the practical result to be drawn from the whole inquiry? Let the advocates of either this or the other ecclesiastical platform beware, how they assign to their own views an importance not founded in Scripture. Let them beware, how they rest ecclesiastical authority on an unscriptural foundation, or carry it beyond its scriptural limits. Let those churches, which hold fast "the faith once delivered to the saints," hold it in "the bond of peace; " exercise towards each other Christian love and brotherly intercourse; and not deny to each other the character of a true church of Christ merely on account of a difference in their constitution or in their orders of the ministry.

1 Tracts for the Times, No. 7,

p. 2.

3 See part i. ch. viii.

2 Ibid. pp. 2, 3.

APPENDIX.

I.

ON THE DATE OF ST. PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE

CORINTHIANS.

THE date of this epistle is fixed by Paley (Horæ Paulinæ cap. iii. No. 2, 3, 4, and 5,) towards the close of the apostle's two years residence at Ephesus, recorded in the 19th chapter of Acts. It was clearly written at Ephesus, or he writes : "I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost" (1 Cor. xvi. 8.); it was written after several churches had been established in that part of Asia, for he sends salutations from "the churches of Asia" (ib. 19.); it was written after the gospel had made considerable progress at Ephesus, for he says: A great door and effectual is opened unto me (ib. 9.); and consequently it was written, we may reasonably infer, after those remarkable events, the narrative of which St. Luke concludes with the observation-" so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." (Acts xix. 20.) It seems to have been written just after he had sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia (ib. 22.), having himself formed a plan (ib. 21.) of passing through Macedonia and

د,

66

Achaia to Jerusalem, for he writes to the Corinthians

I

have "sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord. . . . Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will." (1 Cor. iv. 17-19.) The epistle indeed does not notice Timothy as having been sent into Macedonia on his way to Corinth; but the apostle says: "If Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear." (1 Cor. xvi. 10.) He expected, therefore, his letter, though written after Timothy's departure, to reach Corinth before him; an expectation easily accounted for by the circuitous route which Timothy took, especially as he had probably to spend some time in visiting the churches of Macedonia.