office which can denominate a prince? For what is a prince but the chief ruler of a society, that hath authority over the rest to make laws for it, to challenge the obedience of all the members, and all ranks of men in it, and power to coerce them, if they will not obey? And now, Sir, I pray you attend to what follows, and then tell me, if the office of a Bishop contains not every thing that is in the definition of a chief or a prince. St. Ignatius, who was St. John's disciple, writes of the Bishop in his Epistle, &c.

LAW.-Second letter to the Bishop of Bangor.

"The priests of the sons of Levi shall come near; for them hath the LORD thy God chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in the name of the Lord." (Deut. xxi. 5.) Now, my LORD, this is what we mean by the authoritative administration of the Christian clergy whether they be by way of benediction, or of any other kind. We take them to be persons whom God has chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name. We imagine that Our SAVIOUR was a greater priest and mediator than Aaron, or any of God's former ministers. We are assured that CHRIST sent His Apostles, as His FATHER had sent Him; and that, therefore, they were His true successors; and since they did commission others to succeed them in their office by the imposition of hands, as Moses commissioned Joshua to succeed him, the clergy who have succeeded the Apostles, have as divine a call and commission to their work, as those who were called by our SAVIOUR; and are as truly His successors as the Apostles themselves were.

IBID.-Postscript.

The third objection against this uninterrupted succession is this that it is a popish doctrine, and "gives Papists advantage over us." The objection proceeds thus: "We must not assert the necessity of this succession, because the Papists say it is only to be found in them." I might add, because some mighty zealous Protestants say so too.

But if this be good argumentation, we ought not to tell the Jews, or Deists, &c., that there is any necessity of embracing Christ

ianity, because the Papists say, Christians can only be saved in their Church. Again, we ought not to insist upon a true faith, because the Papists say, that a true faith is only in their communion. So that there is just as much Popery in teaching this doctrine, as in asserting the necessity of Christianity to a Jew, or the necessity of a right faith to a Socinian, &c.

JOHNSON, PRESBYTER.-Unbloody Sacrifice, Part II. Chap. 3. The Eucharist is one, as offered by priests, who are one by their commission. It is very evident that it was not only our SAVIOUR'S intention, but His most passionate desire, that, as all His Apostles received their commission from Him, so they might execute it with such a harmony and consent of mind, that there might not be the least jarring between them; for thus He prays for them; "Keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are." And the foundation of our SAVIOUR'S wishes and expectations for so perfect an union between His Apostles was this, as is expressed by Himself, "I have given them the Words which Thou gavest Me,” that is, He had committed to them the same treasures of Divine truth which the FATHER had before committed to him, &c. . . . .After His resurrection, He does, with great solemnity, tell them, "As My FATHER Sent Me, even so send I you;" from which words it is evident, that the commission of all the Apostles was one and the same; that it was such a commission as CHRIST Himself in His human nature, had received from His FATHER; and even they who were not of the same order with the Apostles, but only inferior Presbyters under them, yet by deriving their authority from the same fountainhead, and exercising it in conformity to the instructions which they received from them, they still kept the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." . . It was upon this account that Ignatius, Cyprian, and others, represent the whole college of Bishops throughout the whole world as one person, sitting in one chair, attending one altar; and that, therefore, is the one Eucharist which is celebrated by this one priesthood: and St. Clement of Rome allows nothing to be offered without the inspection of the high priest; and, therefore, when a new altar is erected, a new

Bishop ordained in opposition to the former, then there is just occasion to ask that question, as St. Paul did, "IS CHRIST divided?" When two several pastors assume to themselves the privilege of offering and consecrating the Sacrament not only in two distinct places, but in contradiction to each other, and by two several inconsistent claims; then it is evident, that one of them acts by no commission, for if the true Eucharist can be had in two opposite assemblies, then CHRIST's flesh ceases to be one. DODWELL, CONFESSOR.-Discourse on the one Priesthood, one Altar. Ch. 12.

I observe that the Hierophanta, in their mysteries represented a Divine Person. The same, in all probability, were the thoughts of the primitive Christians, concerning their Bishops. This I take to be the true design of that description of the Majestatic Presence in the Revelations, to represent the Divine Presence, and assistance in the Church, in as lively a way as possible, according to the ways of Mystical Representation received in those times. . . .St. John being particularly to affect the Churches he writes to, those of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, with a very feeling sense of the Divine presence among them, (which might add the greater authority to his several exhortations respectively,) he represents our SAVIOUR in a human visible shape; and that the rest of the scene might be suitable, (that is, sensible also as well as Himself,) he personates the Angels by their visible Bishops, that so CHRIST might be apprehended as present with the Bishops, as GoD was supposed to be wherever these Seven Spirits were, which were peculiarly deputed to represent the Majestatic Presence. This I take to be the reason why he confines his number, not that by any geographical distinction those seven cities were incorporated into a body, more than others of that province, but that he had a particular regard to that number of those Angels of the presence. Therefore he makes seven candlesticks, alluding, as I have said, to the like number of those in the tabernacle, as emblems of those seven Churches. Therefore seven stars, alluding to the number of the Planets and the Angels who presided over them, as emblems of the Bishops of those Churches. . . . Thus it appears

plainly, that the Bishops are here represented in a mystical way; and how particularly suitable it was, in this way, to personate them by the name of Angels. They were, indeed, to perform the same office under CHRIST, as a visible human person, which the Angels were under Him as the Logos, in reference to the restitution of souls to their original dignity. . .

....

But because even His human nature, though visible in itself, is yet invisible to us, therefore another way was thought of for copying out that heavenly TEλETǹ, even in the ordinary external visible government of the Church. And here the Bishop was to personate CHRIST Himself, as the High Priest had, formerly, represented the Logos. The seven deacons were to represent the Seven Mystical Angels, as I am very apt to think, they were designed from the very original. I cannot think it casual that the number first pitched on was exactly seven. But, that which more confirms me in this opinion is the real suitableness of the office of the Deacon to the Bishops, as representing the Logos in a visible way, with that of those Angels to the same Logos, as He was invisible. The office of the Angels in general is thus described, by the Author of the Hebrews, that they are ["ministering spirits, sent out for a diaconate."] These are exactly the very terms by which the Church would have expressed the office of these Deacons, if she had been to have described the same office as vested in mortal men. . . . . They (the Angels) were to stand before the presence of GOD, in a posture of readiness to be sent on messages by Him; and so were the Deacons to stand before the Bishop, to be sent by him on his messages. They were the eyes of the LORD which ran to and fro through the whole earth." So also the Deacons are, in the language of the Ancient Church, called the Oculi Episcopi, for the same reason.... Now we may not wonder why the Bishops are called Angels, in the forementioned mystical immediate relation to our SAVIOUR Himself as the chief" Bishop of our souls ;" because, indeed, in regard of Him, they bear no higher office than that of Deacons. . . . Accordingly the Primitive Church were extremely rigorous in insisting on this very number of their Deacons, in all places, as I

....

....

have elsewhere showed. The council of Neocæsarea imposed it as a universal rule, how great soever the Church were to which the Deacons were to serve; a canon, which, though it were at first designed only for their own province of Cappadocia, was, notwithstanding, afterwards extended, first, to the Eastern Empire. . . . afterwards to the Western. . . . Therefore, even then it is much more probable that this number was already received in more Churches than otherwise.

And now the comparisons of the Bishops in Ignatius cannot seem so strange, these things being considered, as they did to Blondell, who had considered none of them. They are generally designed to express the sacredness and excellency of the persons which the clergy bore in these mystical performances. Nor is there any thing in them that is really affected or strained, much less blasphemous, no, nor any extravagant flights of fancy. . . . If he were to compare them with the first invisible archetypes of unity, (as that is, indeed, his great design in those epistles, in opposition to the schisms then rising,) then it was very proper for him to take notice only of the two orders which were then immediately concerned in the office of ministration, and then to compare them with God the Father, and the Logos; because as this unity consists in the unity of the Head, and the Scripture tells us that the Head of every man is CHRIST, SO also the same Scripture tells us that the Head of CHRIST is GOD... These things, therefore, being thus solidly laid down by the first fathers, in their disputes against their contemporary Heretics and Schismatics, all the inferences thence deduced against them, will follow naturally and undeniably... It will follow, that disunion from the Bishop was a disunion from CHRIST and the FATHER, and from all the invisible heavenly Priesthood, and sacrifice, and intercession. It will follow that disunion from any one ordinary, must consequently be a disunion from the whole Catholic Church, seeing it is impossible for any to continue a member of CHRIST's mystical body, who is disunited from the mystical head of it. It will follow that visible disunion from the external sacraments of the Bishop, is in the consequence a disunion from the Bishop, and