LIBRARY 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 No. Oase,^ ■ PJ««Wi ./......t... 
 
 1 S:-*^----™^ 
 
 .■ W #1 .... ....J ill *» ■■■■■■■ 
 
 F 
 
 BV 670 .H61 
 
 An apology for apostolic 
 order and its advocates 
 
AH 
 
 APOLOGY 
 
 FOR 
 
 APOSTOLIC ORDER 
 
 AND ITS 
 
 ADVOCATES. 
 
 IN A SERIES OF LETTERS, 
 
 ADDRESSED 
 
 TO THE REV. JOHN M. MASON, D. D. 
 
 THE REV. JOHN HENRY HOBART, 
 
 AN ASSISTANT MINISTER OF TRINITY CHURCH- 
 
 Judge righteous judgment. 
 
 John viii. 34. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 WITH NOTES AND AN INDEX. 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 STANFORD & SWORDS, 139 BROADWAY. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 GEO. S. APPLETON, 148 CHESNUT ST. 
 
 MDCCCXLIV. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the Year 1844, 
 
 By STANFORD & SWORDS, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District 
 
 of New- York. 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY VINCENT L. DILL, 
 No. 128 Fulton Street, New- York. 
 
EDITOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 No words are here needed to justify the republica- 
 tion of a book, so vahiable in itself, so urgently de- 
 manded by the exigences of the time, as the ^'Apolo- 
 gy " for the one Catholic Church, from the able pen 
 of the late Bishop of New-York, which first appeared 
 in 1807. The republication has been delayed in the 
 hope that some skilful hand might be found to divest 
 it somewhat of its personalities without diminishing its 
 force ; a task, which, upon examination, has proved 
 impracticable. The circumstance, however, is hardly 
 to be regretted, as the "strictures and denunciations" 
 which called forth this triumphant defence of the truth, 
 have recently been given to the public, in all the 
 offensiveness of their original forms. No alteration, 
 therefore, has been made in this second edition of the 
 "Apology;" and no other addition than a few notes 
 and an index by the Editor. 
 
 Kew-York, JYov. 8th. 1843. L. S. I. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The writer of the following- letters and his opinions 
 having been pointedly and violently assailed in the 
 Christian's Magazine, he is reluctantly compelled to 
 obtrude himself upon the public attention. He thinks 
 he has a particular claim upon all those who have 
 taken up unfavourable views of those opinions which 
 that Magazine assails, for a candid perusal of his de- 
 fence. In that work he has been solemnly arraigned 
 ^^at the bar of public criticism." The readers of that 
 publication cannot, therefore, he conceives, consist- 
 ently with their regard to justice, their love of truth, 
 or the claims of duty, refuse to hear himSn his defence. 
 It is the first dictate of justice, to give an accused per- 
 son a patient and candid hearing before judgment is 
 passed on him. The impartial pursuit of truth cannot 
 be compatible with an examination of only one side 
 of a disputed question. And they who will place 
 themselves for a moment in the situation of the indi- 
 vidual whom that Magazine denounces as holding 
 opinions of ^'deep-toned horror," will at once feel it 
 a sacred duty to admit him to repel the accusation. 
 They are required so to do by that law of supreme ob- 
 ligation, '^ Do unto others as ye would that they should 
 do unto you." 
 
 The writer of these letters disclaims from the heart 
 all feelings of hostility to the many pious and respect- 
 able individuals, some of whose religious principles 
 may differ from his own. Difference of opinion on 
 important religious topics ought not to break the ties 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 of harmony between children of the same common 
 Parent, and subjects of the grace df the same Redeem- 
 er. On political questions men divide, who on other 
 occasions meet on terms of friendly intercourse. And 
 surely no Christian ought to esteem his brother his 
 enemy because he '' tells him the truth." 
 
 He is doubtful whether he ought to claim any indul- 
 gence for the imperfections of this performance, from 
 the peculiar circumstances under which it was written. 
 It was his wish to lay it by for frequent and careful 
 revision. But the violence of the assault upon him 
 seemed to require an immediate defence. He was, 
 therefore, compelled to go rapidly on, amidst constant 
 interruptions, amidst the calls of his usual professional 
 duties, and often under the pressure of bodily langour. 
 He candidly states these circumstances, because defer- 
 ence to the public requires that no immature or incor- 
 rect production should, if possible, be exposed to its 
 view. But he is writing idly. The performance wields 
 the weapon of controversy. He concludes, therefore, 
 that it can claim no quarter. He leaves it to its fate. 
 His chief solicitude ought to be, that its imperfections 
 should not injure the cause which it advocates. 
 
 JVew-York, June, 1807. 
 
LETTER I, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 The Christian's Magazine, which the newspapers lately- 
 announced to the public, and the responsibihty of which, as 
 proprietor and editor, you take upon yourself, I have pe- 
 rused, and the determination is instantly formed to address 
 you on the subject. 
 
 The tendency of the system of denunciation which you 
 have adopted leaves me no alternative. This denunciation 
 is so injurious to my character, and aims at the same time so 
 deadly a blow at the principles of the Episcopal Church, 
 that a moment's delay in repelling it would be traitorous to 
 my sacred office. My soul must be palsied by cowardice, 
 or by apathy more criminal and disgraceful than cowardice, 
 if I could witness my writings denounced, my reputation and 
 usefulness fundamentally assailed, and the principles of my 
 Church held up to scorn and execration, without lifting the 
 honest and ardent voice of remonstrance. 
 
 As editor of the Christian's Magazine, you are responsible 
 for its contents. The editor of a miscellany may sometimes 
 think himself compelled, by motives of delicacy or impar- 
 tiality, to admit observations of which he is not the writer, 
 and which in sentiment or in language he may deem liable 
 to censure. To even the smallest indulgence on this plea 
 you have renounced all claim. You assert, that "you will 
 feel yourself not only at liberty, but under obligation to 
 make such alterations in the pieces which may be offered for 
 insertion, as you shall judge expedient." But this matter is 
 well understood. For the triumphs with which taste, deli- 
 cacy, and truth will doubtless crown the first number of the 
 Christian's Magazine, you have no competitor — alone you 
 stand rexj magnus Apollo. You intend to claim the honour 
 
HOBART'S APOLOGY 
 
 of having made the first breach in the towering fortress of 
 Episcopacy. Your illustrious compeers have only to ad- 
 vance and raze it to the ground ! All the original produc- 
 tions in the number of the magazine before me, with the 
 exception of the essay on the visible Church, point with re- 
 sistless evidence to you as their author. And even if I had 
 not been long taught to expect from your appalling arm 
 chastisement for my temerity in advocating the principles of 
 my Church, the style and spirit of the review of the Essays on 
 Episcopacy would leave me at no loss to whom to tender my 
 most profound acknowledgments for the very honourable 
 notice which that review has condescended to bestow on me. 
 
 I behold and address you only as Editor and Reviewer. 
 " For your personal character I entertain unfeigned respect." 
 We have often met, and I trust we shall often meet again, 
 on terms of friendly intercourse. " My criticisms are intend- 
 ed to apply to you solely as an author." " Nor can I be justly 
 charged with violating " my " respect" for you, " though I 
 examine" your animadversions "with as little ceremony as" 
 you " have brought them forward." I heartily subscribe to 
 the noble maxim of the " imperial stoic." And in "aiming 
 at truth, by which no man was ever injured," regardless of 
 the dictates of a temporising policy, or of the fear or favour 
 of man, I am swayed by the injunction of one infinitely 
 greater than this " imperial" philosopher. " Whosoever 
 loveth father or mother more than me" and my truth, " is 
 not worthy of me." 
 
 Paradoxical as it may appear, I confess I am gratified at 
 the appearance of the Christian's Magazine. Present 
 calamity may be measured by the mind. Its magnitude is 
 accurately surveyed. Its dreaded terrors diminish by the 
 habit of contemplation ; and the mind, summoning resolu- 
 tion, proudly surmounts them. But threatened calamity is 
 often clothed with a thousand " nameless" horrors by the 
 magnifying and exaggerating power of a panic-struck ima- 
 gination. With the apprehension of a portentous calamity 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 9 
 
 I have long been tortured. My " Companion for the 
 Altar," as innocent in its design as it is in its consequences 
 to all the sincere inquirers after truth, had scarcely found its 
 way among those to whom some of its principles were 
 obnoxious, before vengeance was threatened. Prudence, 
 however, which in charity must certainly be imputed to that 
 mild and tender forbearance which knows not how to pour 
 from its soft-flowing tongue one harsh, one unkind, one 
 criminating expression, for near a year repressed this ire. 
 But before the expiration of a year a " speck of war" ap- 
 peared in the horizon. The prospectus of the Christian's 
 Magazine, in the spring or summer of 1805, threatened to 
 disturb the " relations of amity," and to engage Episcopa- 
 lians and their fellow Christians in " the unprofitable contest 
 of trying who could do one another the most harm." The 
 opponents of Episcopacy, however, resolved to exhaust 
 forbearance ! The Christian's Magazine was delayed, and 
 delayed, and delayed. Were I uncharitable, I would suspect 
 that an aversion to enter the " bloody arena," on which 
 Episcopacy had so often laid prostrate its antagonists, had 
 full as much influence on this delay as the spirit of forbear- 
 ance to which I feel the most cordial disposition to ascribe 
 it. A hero, however, no less renowned than the Rev. Dr. 
 Linn, not taught wisdom by the salutary lessons which he 
 had received some years ago from the " Right Rev. Prelate 
 of New-York," in a theological contest, felt all the vigour 
 and ardour of his youthful days renewed. Indignant at this 
 delay, and spurning the restraints of his compeers, he rush- 
 ed forward to spread dismay among Episcopalians, and 
 single-handed cover them with defeat. In his numbers 
 styled " Miscellanies," published in the Albany Centinel, 
 he attacked the principles of Episcopalians. He was in- 
 stantly met — met, and vanquished by striplings^ inferior to 
 this venerable giant of literature and theology in every thing 
 but the goodness of their cause, and judgment to defend it. 
 Did these striplings or their friends presume ever to triumph, 
 
10 hobart's apology 
 
 that, clothed with the armour which scripture and antiquity 
 furnished them, they had withstood the shock of the cham- 
 pion of Presbytery, and laid low both him and his cause ? 
 They were instantly humbled by the declarations, — The 
 author of Miscellanies has been rash and indiscreet — he 
 knows not the strength of his own cause — he has never read 
 extensively on the subject — he did not " take the question 
 by the proper handle" — But the Christian's Magazine ! this 
 will retrieve the laurels which have been lost — this will 
 flash such transcendent light, that the cause of Episcopacy 
 will not be able for a moment to bear up against its over- 
 powering effulgence. Yes, sir, my soul has often startled 
 at the threat, that you would rise in your might, and pouring 
 the awful majesty of indignant truth on the rash and adven- 
 turous advocates of Episcopacy, would " chase them before 
 you as the chaff before the wind." The thunder has at 
 length shot from your arm. But — I yet survive ! and, 
 astonishing as it may seem, I can summon resolution to 
 maintain my principles, and to expose your denunciations to 
 the world. I thank you, sir — you have kindly released me 
 from all fear of " the Christian's Magazine." 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Sir, 
 When 1 understood that a " Society of Gentlemen" had 
 formed the resolution to expose the '' fallacious reasonings" 
 of the assertors of Episcopacy, and to defend Presbytery 
 as the institution of Christ and his Apostles, I could not 
 avoid cherishing the hope that a mild and dispassionate 
 course would be pursued. I could not avoid cherishing the 
 hope (for it was flattering to my cause and to my feelings) 
 that, disdaining a system of denunciation, which is calcu- 
 lated, by awakening prejudice and passion, to prostrate reason 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 11 
 
 at the very thi^eshold of inquiry, and thus to prejudge the 
 cause, yourself and your coadjutors would bring the Epis- 
 copal pretensions to their only proper test, scripture and 
 ANTIQUITY. I did hope that you would not only acknow- 
 ledge " the right of an Episcopalian to publish his peculiar 
 sentiments," but would feel the force of the corresponding 
 obligation, to respect, and to treat with decency and candour, 
 the exercise of this right. From the character and profes- 
 sions of some of the gentlemen who were to conduct the 
 Christian's Magazine, I did flatter myself, that, as my prin- 
 ciples, unfounded as they might appear, were yet couched in 
 decent language, they would be tested in the spirit of decency 
 and candour. I did hope, that principles maintained by an 
 host of the most eminent men that ever defended Christianity 
 by talents, or adorned it by piety, would not, with rash and 
 impetuous hand, be " urged over the precipice" into the 
 gulph of infamy, till their fallacy had been " detected " by 
 the impartial eye of dispassionate reason. My imagination 
 sometimes deluded me with the hope, that a discussion would 
 arise firm and manly, yet temperate and honourable ; a dis- 
 cussion which would rescue polemic theology from the charge 
 of that virulence which has hitherto often subjected it to 
 merited reproach. My feelings sometimes hailed the pros- 
 pect of a discussion which, releasing Christians from the 
 disgraceful chains of prejudice and passion, and guiding them 
 only by the mild lights of reason, scripture, and antiquity, 
 would lead them to form just views of the ministry and 
 ordinances of the Church, the sacred fold of salvation, very 
 properly styled by you, '' the nursery of the Church in 
 Heaven." 
 
 But sober reflection soon dissipated these pleasing hopes, 
 I was satisfied that the cause of the opponents of Episco- 
 pacy was weali. It had ever shrunk before the touch of 
 dispassionate and impartial inquiry. Its advocates had sel- 
 dom disdained to shield it from the wand of truth, by the 
 weapons of low ridicule, of harsh invective, of virulent and 
 
12 hobart's apology 
 
 unfounded denunciation. I reflected too that while but few 
 men reason^ all men feel ; that where one man follows the 
 guidance of reason^ thousands bow under the sceptre of 
 passion; that where mild and modest argument lights one 
 man to truth, bold and imposing declamation rivets on thou- 
 sands the chains of error. The opponents of Episcopacy I 
 knew would carry with them the resistless spirit of the times. 
 Palsied by morbid indifference, this spirit I feared would not 
 rouse itself to patient inquiry on religious topics. Throwing 
 down the enclosures of truth, I feared it would frown on all 
 pretensions which, however scriptural, and however recon- 
 cilable on candid construction with all the reasonable claims 
 of charity, appeared to be exclusive. Impressed with these 
 reflections, I confess I did fear that the opponents of Episco- 
 pacy would avail themselves of the weakness of human 
 nature, and of the spirit of the times, so propitious to their 
 cause. I did fear that prejudice and passion, seated on the 
 throne of judgment, would be roused to condemn the cause 
 of Episcopacy, previously even to an investigation of its 
 merits. Investigation might fail — denunciation would be 
 sure of success — for who would listen for a moment to these 
 presumptuous, arrogant, and impious lords over the under- 
 standing, the consciences, the eternal destiny of men } Who 
 could be induced even to contemplate " extravagant and 
 arrogant pretensions" — pretensions which '^ unchurched, with 
 a dash of the pen, all the non-Episcopal denominations under 
 heaven ;" which laid them under the ban of an " excommu- 
 nication," " as criminal as it is dreadful !" Where the 
 bosom so steeled to the feelings of humanity as not, in the 
 burst of righteous indignation, to " urge over the precipice" 
 the monsters who advanced " positions of such deep-toned 
 horror," as might " well make the hair stand up like quills 
 upon the fretful porcupine, and freeze the warm blood at its 
 fountain .^"* 
 
 This appeal to prejudice and passion, those tyrants of our 
 * This is the language in which you denounce me. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 13 
 
 nature — ^this appeal, as unjust as it is ungenerous and cruel — 
 this appeal, precluding all candid and dispassionate inquiry, 
 even an honest political declaimer, in the mad fervour ot 
 party zeal, would not use without a blush. The man ot 
 letters, the Christian, the divine should frown it from him 
 with righteous disdain. You, sir, have condescended to 
 enlist it in your cause. Examine the review of the Essays 
 on Episcopacy. Every sentence rests for triumph on the 
 success of its appeal to the prejudices and passions of the 
 reader. Urge not, in extenuation, that effervescence of in- 
 dignation which, at the first view of obnoxious opmions, 
 m,ay overpower the cool judgment, the mild charities of even 
 the honest and amiable heart. More than two years have 
 elapsed since these obnoxious opinions must have tirst met 
 your eye. During this period the plan of the Christian's 
 Magazine has been arranging, materials collecting, and the 
 matter preparing that was to enrich its pages. There has 
 been full time for chastening the indignant and passionate 
 review of the Essays on Episcopacy^ by the gentle dictates 
 of judgment and charity. The intemperate spirit which it 
 breathes is left without even the excuse of precipitancy and 
 rashness. 
 
 Your endeavour to enlist the prejudices and passions of 
 Christians to condemn, without an impartial hearmg, the 
 cause of Episcopacy, may obtain a triumph ; but it is a 
 triumph which I shall not contest with you. It is a triumph, 
 the full honours of which I shall not seek to wrest from 
 your brow. Yes, sir, you may succeed in inducing non- 
 Episcopalians to reject a candid examination of opinions on 
 which you have fixed the seal of blasphemy, impiety and 
 horror. You may even rouse those Episcopalians who are 
 " ignorant of the foundation and reasons of that church order 
 to which they adhere," and who, " when any thing is done 
 which, though strictly proper, does not coincide with their 
 convenience or their habits, are both startled and displeased ;" 
 you may rouse those Episcopalians who " have thrown the 
 
 2 
 
4r4 hobabt's apology 
 
 reins on the neck of their charity," " who are carried 
 away by the current of a spurious Uberality ;"* you may 
 rouse them to join with you in sinking under the charges 
 of rashness, imprudence, and iUiberal zeal, those guardians 
 of the Church who presume to discharge their solemn vows 
 of ordination ; — to " drive away from the fold those erro- 
 neous and strange doctrines " concerning the constitution and 
 ministry of the Church, which, within these late ages, have 
 rent her into numberless schisms. Be it so. They who 
 summon courage to attack the monster error in the den where 
 he has long reposed, must not expect him to yield without a 
 struggle, nor until he has exhausted upon them the venom 
 and fire of his rage. But the sceptre of truth, wielded by 
 patient and persevering courage, will at length paralize his 
 efforts, and lay him prostrate. If non-Episcopalians have 
 any regard to the sacred claims of truth and justice, they 
 will indignantly spurn every attempt to enlist their prejudices 
 and passions against opinions which it is their solemn duty 
 seriously and dispassionately to examine. As men of can- 
 dour and justice, who consider their judgment and conscience 
 as their guides ; as honest inquirers after truth ; as Christians 
 who are to answer at the dread tribunal of God, whether 
 they have earnestly and honestly sought to subdue prejudice 
 and passion, I trust they will feel it their sacred duty to dis- 
 regard your denunciations, to read and judge for themselves. "f 
 Episcopalians, I trust, will all soon be ashamed of that timid 
 and false liberality which, by concealing the distinctive prin- 
 ciples of their Church, is levelling the barriers with which 
 
 * 1 mark as quotations your own language. 
 
 t Every principle of candour and justice loudly calls on them to peruse 
 the Collection of Essays on the subject of Episcopacy. To form a judg- 
 ment on this important subject from the partial representations of the 
 Christian's Magazine would be treason against truth and conscience. 
 The advocates of Episcopacy demand only candid inquiry, impartial in- 
 vestigation. Let it be remembered, the Collection of Essays on the sub- 
 ject of Episcopacy contains not only the arguments in favour of it, but 
 those of the Rev. Dr Linn against it. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 15 
 
 the sacred wisdom of ages hath fenced her round ; and laying 
 open that celestial " vine which the right hand of the Lord 
 hath planted," to the destructive assaults of heresy and 
 schism, "to be rooted up by the boar out of the wood, and 
 devoured by the wild beast of the forest." 
 
 My own determination is unalterably formed — in that firm 
 language which conscious truth inspires, but in " that meek- 
 ness of celestial wisdom " which the gospel enjoins, to defend 
 the Apostolic Church, at whose altar I minister, against 
 " every weapon that is formed against her " — to maintain 
 that sacred institution of Episcopacy, which, committed to 
 the Church by her divine Head, no unhallowed hand for 
 fifteen centuries dared to touch ; which has been the sacred 
 channel through which the ministerial commission has flowed 
 from him who is " the Head and Saviour of the body," to 
 whom " all power is given in heaven and in earth." I shall 
 respect, I have always respected, the conscientious opiniqps 
 of others. I shall resist the arm of violence, whether lifted 
 up against their religious rights or my own. I shall not de- 
 nounce, I have never denounced, the honest inquirers after 
 truth, by whatever name distinguished. No difference of 
 opinion, no ire of controversy shall lead me to cut asunder 
 the sacred ties of friendship ; shall ever prevent me from 
 regarding, with sincere affection, every one who bears the 
 holy impress of Jesus as the subject of his mercy and grace. 
 But while mindful of my ow^n infirmity and liability to error, 
 I presume not to wield the thunders of that tribunal where 
 I must myself, through my Saviour's intercession, plead for 
 mercy, I shall discharge the sacred duty of maintaining and 
 enforcing that order of the Church which, it is my conscien- 
 tious conviction, bears the seal of divine authority. As " a 
 messenger, a watchman, and steward of the Lord," bearing 
 on my soul the solemn obligation " to teach and to premonish, 
 to feed and to provide for the Lord's family," I shall not 
 " cease my labour, my care and diligence,"* in warning the 
 * Ordination service. 
 
 Ij'^yMj* ^^. 
 
16 hobart's apology 
 
 members of Christ's fold of the guilt and danger of schism, 
 of separating from that " priesthood who derive their autho- 
 rity by regular transmission from Christ, the divine Head of 
 the Church, and the source of all power in it."* This exer- 
 cise of a common right, even in the most unexceptionable 
 mode, in addresses to persons of the Episcopal communion 
 (and this is the mode in which I originally exercised it,) this 
 discharge of a sacred duty may subject me to odium and 
 denunciation. The destiny still more to be deprecated may 
 await me, of being " wounded" (where I ought to find en- 
 couragement and support) " in the house of my friends." I 
 shall still have the consolation of having faithfully borne my 
 testimony to the principles of the Apostolic and primitive 
 Church; to principles which." the noble army of martyrs" 
 confessed in their writings, in their lives, in the agonies of 
 those cruel deaths to which their persecutors hunted them ; 
 t# principles which in every age have ranked among their 
 advocates some of the brightest ornaments of science, and 
 intrepid champions of divine truth. I shall still have the 
 consolation of having defended the cause of Episcopacy, with 
 inferior strength indeed, but with equal zeal, in the same 
 ranks with the " incomparable Hooker," the eminent and 
 revered Bishops Hall, Andrews, Sanderson, Taylor, 
 Beveridge, Potter, Wake, Wilson, Horne, Horseley ; 
 the learned and pious divines Chillingworth, Hammond, 
 Leslie, Jones ; and " a legion more," illustrious for talents, 
 for learning and piety. I shall still have the consolation of 
 having " studied to approve myself" unto my divine Master 
 as " a workman rightly dividing the word of truth." These 
 are consolations with which " no stranger intermeddleth," 
 which even the rude hand of violence cannot disturb. The 
 system of denunciation which you pursue is calculated to 
 awaken a persecution more poignant to the feeling mind than 
 even the flame and sword that torture the body. I have no 
 hesitation to say that I deprecate it ; and I must pray, there- 
 * Preface to tlie Companion for the Altar. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 17 
 
 fore, that neither my faith be shaken, my resolution weak- 
 ened, nor my charity extinguished. I must pray that, amidst 
 the denunciation of foes and the desertion of friends, my soul 
 may be raised in holy hope above this misjudging world ; 
 may soar on vigorous wing to that celestial scene where the 
 mists of error shall be dissipated by the radiant beams of 
 truth, and its faithful and honest advocates find a refuge from 
 the scorn of the world in the eternal plaudits of their Re- 
 deemer and Judge. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 The Christian's Magazine comes forth in a proud and 
 imposing attitude, demanding instant submission to its autho- 
 ritative decrees ; and, in the spirit which inflames every sen- 
 tence, denouncing immolation on the altar of its wrath, 
 against all who shall refuse to bend the knee to its dogmas. 
 Little disposed to yield my understanding or my conscience 
 to the keeping of any man, whatever may be his talents, his 
 learning, or his worth, you must excuse me if I refuse to pay 
 divine honours to this idol of party, or to submit without re- 
 sistance to its unjust denunciations. Marked indeed it is 
 with all that bitterness of controversy, and justifying to the 
 full extent that high spirit of polemic warfare, to chastise 
 which, 1 have supposed, was to constitute one of its proudest 
 triumphs. The sin which marked my conscience with a 
 stain black as midnight darkness, and for which I have been 
 pursued with indignant invective, is, that I scattered the fire- 
 brands of discord through the peaceful seats of Zion. The 
 sin for which the charge of " illiberal bigot" has flashed on 
 my devoted head from a thousand tongues, is, that I arro- 
 gantly denounced all denominations but my own. To crush 
 this baneful fiend of controversy, the parent of " endless 
 
IS hobart's apology 
 
 strife and every evil work ;" to cover with confusion the 
 arrogant upstarts who hurled the bolts of denunciation through 
 the Lord's heritage, the Christian's Magazine was to rear its 
 arm, formidable with the concentered genius, talents, and 
 learning of a constellation of divines. When, lo ! we are 
 assailed not by a firm, yet temperate, a decided, yet decent 
 defence of divine truth and exposure of error, but by a sys- 
 tem of intemperate denunciation. Come, sir, I put this 
 matter " upon the trial before the bar of public criticism." I 
 must insist on your accompanying me through the pages of 
 your magazine. A tour through the majestic forest which 
 owes its vigorous foliage, its towering strength to your ner- 
 vous cultivation, must surely raise in your bosom the emo- 
 tions of exultation, whatever may be the effect of the survey 
 on my feelings or those of the public. 
 
 I assert, sir, that your magazine presents not a firm^ yet 
 temperate^ a decided^ yet decent defence of divine truth and 
 exposure of error, but an unrelenting system of intemperate 
 DENUNCIATION. Let US opcu your introduction. The dif- 
 ferent sects and parties of Christians present themselves 
 before you. " Some," you say, " excluding the hght of un- 
 derstanding, place their religion in fervour of feeling." Here 
 your battery first opens on the sect of enthusiasts. We are 
 accustomed to consider the Methodists as distinguished for 
 placing their religion in fervour of feeling. " Some clamour 
 incessantly for doctrine, as if the heart had nothing to do in 
 the service of God, or as if practical holiness were a neces- 
 sary fruit of speculative orthodoxy." Here I must acquit 
 you of all design of denouncing Episcopalians ; for you know 
 they are charged with undervaluing doctrinal preaching. But 
 if they escape here, it is evidently your intention in the next 
 sentence to make them smart under the lash ; for you ob- 
 serve — " Some, like the self-justifiers of old, ' tithe mint and 
 anise and cummin' — little concerned about ^ either receiving 
 the Lord Jesus, or walking in him,' provided they be exact 
 in their routine of ceremonies," From the Episcopalians you 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 19 
 
 turn your wrathful frown to a sect in this city, I believe, of 
 Baptists, who contend that they are consistent Calvinists. 
 They maintain that as, according to the Calvinistic system, 
 Christ is the Redeemer of the elect only, as he shed his 
 blood for them alone, and will in due time convert them by 
 his irresistible grace, they who are not thus converted, and 
 are therefore not of the number of the elect, have no concern 
 in the offers of salvation. And as, according to the Calvinis- 
 tic system, the elect are justified by the unconditional impu- 
 tation of Christ's righteousness, it is absurd, they contend, to 
 maintain that the elect are subject to any law of works ; since 
 this would be making their salvation conditional, would be 
 derogating from the all-sufficiency of the righteousness of 
 Christ, and from the glory of God's free and sovereign grace. 
 These persons, who maintain that they are consistent Calvi- 
 nists, you accuse of " poisoning the Gospel at the fountain 
 head" — of '*" annihilating the authority of God with the same 
 blow which fells the hope of the sinner." High Churchmen, 
 nearly crushed by your first blow, are now laid prostrate. 
 For you accuse them of laying •' as much stress upon their 
 external order, as if the key which opens the door of their 
 communion opened, at the same moment, the doors of Para- 
 dise ; although," you continue to remark, '' upon that sup- 
 position, it is evident that the '■ gate' and ' way' which ' lead 
 unto life' are no longer straight and narrow." Tremendous 
 denunciation ! for if the " gate" and " way" of high Church- 
 men be not that " straight gate and narrow way" which 
 "lead unto life," they must be the " wide gate and broad 
 way" which " lead to destruction !" Low Churchmen next 
 sink beneath your ire. Because they " account the external 
 order of the house of God a matter of no importance," you 
 charge them with " countenancing, at least indirectly, viola- 
 tion of their Lord's commandment, invasion of his preroga- 
 tive, and assault upon his truth." " And as although all this 
 were not enough," as if the triumphs gained over these pros- 
 trate sects could not satisfy you, you scorn not to erect an- 
 
20 hobart's apology 
 
 other trophy on the neck of the humble Methodist and 
 harmless Quaker. As they endeavour " to set aside the dis- 
 tinctive character, and the authentic call of the gospel minis- 
 try," you accuse them of a deadly blow at Christianity itself, 
 of "laying the axe at the root of entire Christianity." And 
 the instruments v^^hich they so honourably employ in this de- 
 testable service, and by vi^hich they draw many after " their 
 pernicious ways," are " the avarice of one class, the conceit 
 of another, the credulity of a third, and the ignorance of all !" 
 *' A jealousy for the glory o^ divine teaching ^^^ their " avowed" 
 motive for " proscribing from the ministry all learning, taste, 
 and talents," is only a " mask ;" and " it will be well," you 
 observe, " if the mask shall be found to have concealed the 
 tendency of their principles from their own view ;" that is, 
 it will be well if they should not be found designing hypo- 
 crites, who are wilfully " laying the axe at the root of entire 
 Christianity !" Now, if all this be not an unrelenting system 
 of violent and unqualified denunciation^ I suppose I must ac- 
 knowledge myself guilty of having wilfully converted " the 
 gentle dews of instruction and consolation to friends," into 
 " thunderbolts hurled at the heads of opponents." 
 
 There is scarcely a page of your magazine which does not 
 palpably violate those judicious rules for the conducting of 
 religious discussion which you profess to take as your guide. 
 Even the essay " on religious controversy," the design of 
 which I certainly commend, and which more than justifies 
 me in all my publications, breathes ^.^ spirit as relentless 
 against all who even doubt the policy '*t utility of religious 
 controversy, as ever disgraced the most violent polemic. 
 Hitherto theological combatants have persecuted each other. 
 You summon them to shake hands, and to turn wrathfully 
 upon those who, as mediators, would persuade them to lay 
 down the weapons of theological warfare. One would have 
 thought that this essay at least should have exhibited a spe- 
 cimen of that cool, that decorous manner, that charitable 
 allowance for human prejudice and passion (which enthral, 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 21 
 
 alas ! the best of men) by which controversy might be made 
 to subserve the holy interests of truth. No ; the " pretence 
 that religion is a concern too solemn and sacred for the pas- 
 sions of controversy," you pronounce not only an "error" 
 (which every considerate person will acknowledge,) but an 
 " error without excuse^'''' like the profane " pretence with 
 which some justify their restraining prayer before God."* 
 Nay, " no medium can be assigned between receiving and 
 rejecting the truth. If rejected, we seal our perdition "j" — 
 Involuntary errm is no palliation — perdition is the certain 
 doom ! And yet the Christian's Magazine was to chastise 
 my arrogant and uncharitable pretensions ! 
 
 In your essay on " liberality in religion," the liberal 
 Christian is " pursued, hunted, and urged over the preci- 
 pice "J with an overbearing and intemperate violence, which 
 must tend to divert from him that sentence of just censure 
 which sober reason would otherwise pronounce on him. 
 This spurious liberality, injurious as it certainly is to the 
 cause of truth, proceeds not always from a culpable indiffer- 
 ence, but frequently from an excessive mildness of disposi- 
 tion, and from an abuse of that charity which " hopeth all 
 things." It might surely, therefore, claim some little com- 
 miseration, especially from the ministers of him who " is not 
 strict to mark what," through unavoidable infirmity, " may 
 be done amiss." But no, sir, your inexorable voice seals, 
 without hope of mercy, its doom. " They who enlist under 
 the banner of the prevailing liberality" — they who even 
 " profess their charity " not for certain " detestable " hereti- 
 cal " opinions^'''' but only for those who hold them .'" — they 
 who do not, therefore, with papal intolerance, sweep into 
 irremediable perdition every heretic, " are leagued in a con- 
 spiracy against the glorious gospel " of the " great God our 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 21, 22. 
 
 f Christian's Magazine, p. 20. 
 
 X I have often occasion to use your language. 
 
22 hobart's apology 
 
 Saviour !"* Gracious Jehovah! is it then for a worm of the 
 dust, who derives all his hopes from thy unmerited mercy, 
 to wrest from thee thy thunder, and wield it against his fel- 
 low worms ! Thou, gracious Father of our spirits ! is it 
 then for us to pronounce that there are in our fallen nature 
 no infirmities, — in this evil world no unavoidable sources of 
 prejudice, which can possibly render even fundamental error 
 venial in thy sight, and wash it away in that blood which was 
 shed for " the sins of the world ?" Or is it not enough that 
 he who errs through involuntary and unavoidable weakness, 
 will be condemned at thy sovereign tribunal ; but must his 
 doom be anticipated by the lips of those who should pity 
 and pray for him ? 
 
 Deplorable indeed, in its fairest colours, is the present state 
 of the Christian Church. But your pencil seems to delight 
 to deepen its shades. Not a ray of light shoots through the 
 tremendous gloom. " Gross ignorance of the gospel thickens 
 apace in a clime that is illuminated by its broadest sunshine. 
 The barriers which ought to divide the Church from the 
 world are swept away, and every trait of discrimination 
 effaced," "In a land of Bibles, which cannot be opened 
 without the lightning of God's reprobation of their folly 
 flashing in their faces, miserable sinners, unjustified, unwash- 
 ed, unsanctified, are praising each other's Christianity !" 
 And to dash from the picture every ray of consolation, " the 
 delusion is often fostered by the very men whose office should 
 impel them to counteract and destroy it !"■[ 
 
 That a spirit of denunciation so severe on bodies and com- 
 munities should not relax its harsh features when individuals 
 encounter its criticism, was certainly to be expected. That 
 I should be made to '* drink of the dregs of the cup" of 
 your displeasure has long been threatened. And I shall soon 
 have occasion to show, that the vials of your wrath have 
 been emptied upon me. Even Mr. M^Leod, your friend 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 36. 
 I Christian's Magazine, p. 36, 37. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 23 
 
 and coadjutor, sometimes trembles before your chair of cen- 
 sorship. But Mr. M'Leod had written a good Presbyterian 
 catechism. Mr. M'Leod is a good Calvinist. He is not, 
 therefore, to be too harshly handled. The aged censor ac- 
 cordingly relaxes the rigid frown, and, patting him on the 
 cheek, as if he were a school-boy exhibiting the first hard- 
 drawn efforts of invention, brightens up his sorrowful coun- 
 tenance by the kind assurance, that the many imperfections 
 of his style " will wear away by the liberal use of his pen !"* 
 No less a personage than the Rev. Dr. Nott, the President 
 of Union College, is summoned to pass your rigorous ordeal. 
 Liable as the charge of the Rev. President may be in many 
 respects to the censure of a just and correct taste, you 
 " detect, pursue, hunt, and urge over the precipice " its errors, 
 with an overbearing and impetuous spirit, which is as inju- 
 rious to his public character as it is revolting to taste, truth 
 and feeling. Qualified by no real commendation, and softened 
 by no delicacy, the denunciations issue from your high tribu- 
 nal, that Dr. Nott's imagination is '' unequal, erratic, and 
 uncontrolled by the laws of correct criticism." In the style 
 of his charge " we look in vain for that precision, that 
 strength, that chastened and firm and commanding dignity 
 which befitted the occasion." You wrest figures from their 
 proper place and connection, where alone a correct judgment 
 is to be formed on their justness and propriety, and exhibit 
 
 * In your note at page 107, you aim a side blow at the learned Drs. 
 Mitchill and Miller, the Editors of the " Medical Repository." These 
 gentlemen had presumed, without consulting you, to speak in terms of 
 some commendation of " Dufief's Nature Displayed," &c. This book, 
 like " Mr. Marshall's Life," you very concisely consign to the " cook- 
 maid and the vender of snufF," by branding it as " vapouring folly ;" and 
 then remark, " that people who are unacquainted with the science of 
 language should be duped, is nothing strange ; but that the deception 
 should be upheld by names which ought to be sacred to the patronage of 
 sound literature, is both surprising and humiliating ! !" Nay, sir, the 
 President of the United States, and the learned President of Princeton 
 College, and other literary characters who recommended Dufief's work, 
 are branded as giving their sanction to " vapouring folly." 
 
24 hobart's apology 
 
 them in immediate contrast to ridicule and scorn. In the 
 parting charge of a President of a college to his students, 
 limited as it necessarily must be, and deriving no small por- 
 tion of its interest from its being supposed to flow in some 
 measure spontaneously from the heart, no one can reasonably 
 expect the arrangement and developement of a laboured and 
 systematic discourse. But because in this single charge the 
 extensive sphere of instruction is not exhausted, and every 
 subject enforced which can be interesting to the studies, the 
 pursuits, and the happiness of youth, the charge is denounced 
 as " throwing out" merely " useful hints," " without which 
 it would be absolutely worthless !" Nay, Dr. Nott has "led 
 his pupils along the confines of the infected region," which 
 nourished " old Celsus," and still fattens '' Thomas Paine." 
 Tell me not that he has done this " undesignedly ;" this 
 aggravates " crime," by the guilt of inexcusable ignorance. 
 What ! a respectable Divine, whose business it is to attack 
 and conquer the strong holds of infidelity — a President of a 
 college, awfully responsible for the moral principles of those 
 whose minds he cultures, and yet " undesignedly leads them 
 along the confines of that infected region " which taints with 
 the pollution of death ! Nay, sir, you assert that " every 
 thing which Dr. Nott has said might be said by a sober deist !" 
 " It is only blank atheism which Dr. N. rebukes !" A minis- 
 ter devoted by the most solemn vows to the cross of Christ, 
 and yet in effect denying him — ^what can he be but a perjured 
 hypocrite ! If your denunciations be well founded, would 
 not Dr. Nott's pupils be justified in wresting from his chair 
 the monster who, under the smiles of affectionate solicitude, 
 is secretly infusing into their souls the poison that will pollute 
 and blast them for ever } And what authorizes these tremen- 
 dous denunciations — denunciations against a minister of the 
 gospel, who, if general report can be relied on (for you, sir, 
 are silent on this point,) is not more beloved for his amiable 
 temper, than respected and admired for the evangelical ardour 
 of his public ministrations .' What, I say, has occasioned 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. Q5 
 
 these tremendous denunciations ? Dr. Nott " placed the 
 character of Jesus Christ before his pupils as the perfect 
 model, in the imitation of which would consist their happiness 
 and glory " — and did not think it necessary to obtrude upon 
 his pupils on a literary occasion, a sermon — such a sermon 
 as would be able to stand the ordeal of the Pastor of the 
 first Associate Reformed Church in the city of New-York ! 
 But I forbear ; Dr. Nott, if he deem it necessary, can vindi- 
 cate himself ; my design in these remarks has simply been 
 to establish my general position, that your magazine presents 
 not a firm, yet temperate, a decided, yet decent defence of divine 
 truth and exposure of error, hut an unrelenting system of intem- 
 perate denunciation. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 From the review which I took in my last letter of 
 your magazine, I think I am authorized to say, that I look in 
 vain through its pages for that delicacy of feeling, that refine- 
 ment of taste, that modest recollection of human infirmity, 
 that tender regard for the character and feelings of others, 
 which are strictly compatible with the sternest devotion to 
 the cause of truth, and which make us feel the justice while 
 they soothe the severity of criticism. The radiance of mercy 
 which invites sinful mortals to the throne of the Eternal, and 
 which even their crimson sins could not extinguish, is banish- 
 ed from the stern seat of judgment in which you are enthroned. 
 Bolt succeeding bolt is hurled on the hapless culprit, and 
 down he sinks the victim of execration and scorn. 
 
 Writers whose intentions, whatever may be their errors, 
 are evidently honest, have a claim upon the public for de- 
 cency and civility of treatment. Authoritative judgment 
 upon their writings belongs to the public alone. And when 
 
 3 
 
)36 hobart's apology 
 
 any individual, self-elevated to the throne of criticism, impe- 
 riously deals around him the arbitrary sentence of condem- 
 nation, mollified neither by politeness of manner, nor by 
 delicacy and refinement of style, the public I conceive are 
 insulted in this violent and unjust exercise of their prero- 
 gative. 
 
 Perhaps you claim from your office as reviewer a right to 
 pursue this system of denunciation. But does your elevation 
 to the chair of criticism throw at your feet every writer who 
 presumes to address the public, and authorize you to de- 
 nounce his errors and imperfections, as if they were sins that 
 should consign him to eternal infamy ? It is the tendency of 
 literature to polish the taste ; to soften the asperities of our 
 nature ; and to substitute the language of cultivated and 
 polished gentlemen for the boorish, but, no doubt, frequently 
 nervous language of the vulgar. But the style of your criti- 
 cal remarks is calculated to change the hall of the Lyceum 
 into the arena of the Amphitheatre, and the dignity and de- 
 corum which should characterise the discussion of truth into 
 the virulence and animosity which disgrace even personal 
 combats. 
 
 Are we to admit as an excuse for this bold and imperious 
 denunciation, your zeal for God and his holy truth ? And is 
 it thus, sir, our blessed Master has taught us to " contend 
 earnestly for the faith .?" In " detecting," in " pursuing," 
 in *' hunting error," has he commanded us to " urge it over 
 the precipice," regardless of the dictates of that charity 
 which " hopeth all things, believeth all things, is not puffed 
 up, and vaunteth not itself.^" Is our ardent zeal to rush on 
 its desolating career, contemning that celestial "wisdom" 
 which is ''gentle, easy to be intreated, and full of mercy.'*" 
 
 Can a system of intemperate denunciation find an apology 
 in the strength and ardour of genius ? There is, indeed, a 
 glow of soul which lights on truth with almost intuitive 
 keenness ; which seizes it with impetuous ardour ; and bears 
 it forward to victory, unappalled by obstacles, quickened to 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 27 
 
 higher intrepidity by dangers and defeats. This glow of soul, 
 this vis fervida mentis, towering above the pusillanimous 
 efforts of weak and inferior minds, commands my homage. 
 It is the illustrious mark of exalted genius — it is the lofty 
 attendant of the noble spirit — it is the spring of whatever is 
 great in thought, of whatever is magnanimous in action. 
 When it is controlled by correct judgment ; when it is chas- 
 tened by polished taste ; when the divine spirit of Christian 
 charity mitigates its boldness and impetuosity, it shines like 
 the lustre of the sun-beam ; carrying the light of conviction 
 to the bosom of error, through the deep folds in which she 
 has enwrapped herself; and shedding, on the mild form of 
 truth, celestial and resistless charms. But when this ardour 
 of soul contemns the guidance of judgment, disdains the 
 polish of taste, and frowns on the suggestions of Christian 
 charity, how appalling and devastating its course ! Raging 
 like the " northern blast," the charms of intellectual nature 
 are withered ; delicacy, sentiment, taste and feeling, bound 
 in icy chains ; and all the mild and tender charities of the 
 heart swept as with the " besom " of death. 
 
 Sir, I cannot avoid suggesting to you — (pardon my pre- 
 sumption) — whether, with all your profound attainments, 
 you have yet acquired that essential constituent in a great and 
 useful character, a knowledge of human nature. Had the 
 human heart been laid open before you, you would have 
 found that pride is its governing principle ; and that a senti- 
 ment of just and honest pride revolts against oppression, 
 whether the despot lay his yoke on the body or the mind. 
 He whose understanding is perverted by error must be 
 treated with mildness, with decency, with respect ; or you fix 
 him irreclaimably in his errors — you rouse him to vigorous 
 resistance. Persecute error, and you surround it with an host 
 of friends, who will throw their shields before it, and dare 
 your assaults. Had you known, or regarded this palpable 
 fact in the history of human nature, you would not have 
 attempted, by lofty denunciation and virulent declamation, to 
 
28 hobart's apology 
 
 compel the judgments and consciences of men to bow impli- 
 citly to your dogmas. The iron sceptre which you have 
 wielded against the sacred sanctuary of the mind, would have 
 crumbled from your hand, or fastened its wrath only on the 
 incorrigibly wicked. You would have sought from your 
 divine Master the " rod" of celestial wisdom. By its mild 
 and powerful sway, you would have sought to reclaim from 
 the paths of error the unhappy wanderer, and gently to lead 
 him, pouring forth blessings on his compassionate Shepherd, 
 beside the peaceful " waters" of truth and salvation. 
 
 It would be arrogance in me to expect that you should 
 feel the justice of the preceding strictures. I can assure you 
 they are not congenial with my taste or feelings. Had the 
 Christian's Magazine come forward to discuss dispassionately 
 and respectfully the important topics of literature and 
 taste ; to institute a fair, candid, and respectful comparison 
 between the "conflicting claims " of theological opinions; 
 to throw the light of truth on the dark retreats of error, by 
 perspicuous and forcible, yet temperate and decorous argu- 
 ment, I should have respected its claims ; I should have 
 hailed it as a fair candidate for public support. What I might 
 have deemed its errors, if temperately maintained ; what I 
 might have deemed its false criticisms on my writings, if de- 
 cently urged, I should have delighted, I should have been 
 emulous to meet with equal temper and decency. In a con- 
 test where only the love of truth sways the bosom, and 
 politeness, taste, and candour wield the weapons of warfare, 
 I should be proud in being ranked as a combatant, nor should 
 I deem it dishonourable to bow to a victor. But, judging 
 from the first number of the Christian's Magazine, what is 
 its design } Evidently to pronounce decrees concerning 
 every topic of taste, literature and religion with oracular 
 confidence; and to "pursue "and " hunt " dissent from its 
 dogmas as an offence deep as that of questioning holy writ. 
 Renouncing fair, candid, temperate inquiry, it disdains not to 
 torture opinions into the most detestable consequences, and 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER, 29 
 
 then to hold up those who maintain them to execration and 
 scorn ; — closing its pages against the language of defence 
 and remonstrance. What, sir, is evidently the design of its 
 editor — a design in the success of which some of his friends 
 are already triumphing ? Not merely to browbeat and intimi- 
 date the advocates of Episcopacy, but to denounce all who 
 question the infallibility of his standard of taste and criti- 
 cism ; all who shall presume to shake off, as equally unrea- 
 sonable and unscriptural, the peculiarities of Calvinism; 
 when it is apparent that these are the designs of the maga- 
 2dne and its editor, I take the liberty of inquiring what 
 claims have they to forbearance or indulgence ? When the 
 sacred rights of judgment, of conscience, of free inquiry are 
 violated, can tame submission consist either with indepen- 
 dence or virtue ? When in the republic of literature, a dic- 
 tator usurps the throne, are we to cast down the spear and 
 shield, and kiss the rod ? When in the sacred concerns of 
 religion, a divine injunction binds it on the conscience to 
 " call no man master on earth," can it weaken the solemn 
 duty of resistance that the bull of infallibility issues, not 
 from the Pope of Rome, but from the Pastor of an Associate- 
 Reformed Church ? If, therefore, you should attempt to ride 
 over the necks of your own people ; if you should aim at 
 compelling the very complaisant Clergy who bear with you 
 the common name of Presbyterian, implicitly to obey all 
 your caprices and decrees,* it is no concern of mine. But 
 when you claim despotic authority over me, there is a spirit 
 within me which instantly says. No. And though the powers 
 of my mind may not rise equal to the proud independence of 
 my heart, that heart resolutely determines to shake off the 
 yoke of a dictator — One is its Lord and master, even Christ, 
 and it will not ''bow the knee to Baal." You leave me no 
 alternative. I must either turn and resolutely stem the flood 
 
 * It seems they have transferred the magazine to you as editor and pro- 
 prietor, and from the sentence you pronounce on their communications 
 there is no appeal. 
 
 3* 
 
30 hobart's apology 
 
 of denunciation, or sink beneath its surges. When the gentle 
 breeze fans the plain, the humble lily of the valley may rest 
 secure in its lowliness and simplicity. But when winds and 
 tempests bear along the raging torrent, even the venerable 
 oak of the forest, whose roots sinking deep for ages have 
 seized the foundations of the earth, finds its safety only in 
 bearing up unyielding to the blast. Happy may I esteem 
 myself if I can summon strength and resolution to conflict 
 with the storm whose black clouds have long rolled, and at 
 length emptied upon me the floods of wrath. 
 
 If any persons are not satisfied, from the view already 
 taken of your magazine, that it calculates for success on 
 confident assertion, bold declamation, and virulent denuncia- 
 tion, let them candidly consider your " review of the Collec- 
 tion of Essays on Episcopacy." There, quahfied only by 
 one single expression of " unfeigned respect" for " personal 
 character," the advocates of Episcopacy, among whom I am 
 honoured with a conspicuous place, are held up to public 
 view in colours that must efiectually destroy all their claims 
 to respect and even to toleration. They are represented as 
 advancing "extravagant," "offensive" and "arrogant" 
 "pretensions;"* as " hurling thunderbolts at the heads of 
 opponents ;"! as involving non-Episcopalians indiscriminately 
 in the charges of being " schismatics, usurpers, rebels ;"J 
 as charging, in effect, " all clergymen not Episcopally or- 
 dained with being impostors, their commissions forgeries, and 
 their sacraments blasphemy ;"§ as repeating " aspersions " 
 which " violate all the rules of prudence and charity ;"|| as 
 asserting that all " non-Episcopalians " are " children of 
 wrath," whose religion is " marred and rendered stark 
 naught " by " separation from the Episcopal priesthood,"!! 
 and softening this "sweeping sentence of proscription " by 
 a " relief not worth accepting "** as imposing the awful 
 " alternative. Episcopacy of perdition ! !"|| as pronouncing 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 87 and 104. f p. 90. J p. 90- 
 
 § p. 92. II p. 92. IT p. 94. ** p. 94. ft P- 95. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER'. 31 
 
 " upon millions of the dead and living " an excommunication 
 as criminal as it is dreadful ;* as deliberately holding " posi- 
 tions of such deep-toned horror as may well make the hair 
 stand up ' like quills upon the fretful porcupine,' and ' freeze 
 the warm blood at its fountain ;"| as having " done much 
 towards misleading men's minds as to the foundation of eter- 
 nal hope ;"J as guilty of the horrible blasphemy of "placing 
 the external order of the Church upon a level with the merits 
 of the Lord Jesus," and of holding opinions which make all 
 " non-Episcopalians, of necessity, infidels ;"§ as " virtually 
 delivering unto Satan hundreds of churches "|| pure in doc- 
 trine, discipline, worship, resplendent in piety and godhness, 
 while comparatively the church which they advocate and its 
 ministers are deficient in " evangelical preaching," regard- 
 less of " pure communion," negligent in feeding " the sheep 
 of Christ and his lambs with the bread of God," attracting 
 the " thoughtless gay," but holding out little to " allure 
 those who become seriously concerned about their eternal 
 salvation " — " Verily " if this is not a denunciation of the 
 JEpiscopal Church and her advocates, calculated to consign 
 them to indignation and scorn — if this is not a violent denun- 
 ciation of Episcopalians, " it is so like one, that we need a 
 shrewd interpreter at our elbow to prevent our mistaking it. 
 ^ I never,' said Jack of Lord Peter's brown bread, ' saw a 
 piece of mutton in my life so nearly resembling a twelve- 
 penny loaf ! !"'ir And this denunciation is hurled against us, 
 
 * p. 96 and 97. • f Christian's Magazine, p. 96. 
 
 I p. 98. § p. 99, 100. II p. 102. 
 
 IT I am indebted for this apt retort to you, and you to Swift's Tale of a 
 Tub. You quote as authority this celebrated satire. I shall certainly be 
 excusable in quoting it after you. What think you of the following, 
 taken from that pai-t of the « Tale of a Tub" where Martin and Jack are 
 represented as stripping their coats (their respective churches) of the 
 superfluous ornaments with which Lord Peter had decorated them. 
 " Zeal is never so highly obliged as when you set it a tearing; and Jack, 
 who doated on this quality in himself, allowed it its full swing. Thus 
 it happened, that stripping down a parcel of gold lace a little too hastily, 
 he rent the main body of his coat from top to bottom; and, wheriea'^ Rfs 
 
32 hobart's apology 
 
 though we disclaim repeatedly and solemnly all the deduc- 
 tions upon which it is founded, and hold them in utter detes- 
 tation. Let the reader reflect on this conduct, and then turn 
 to the introduction of your magazine — " No abuse nor viru- 
 lence shall pollute its pages."* Let him turn to the conclu- 
 sion of the essay " on Religious Controversy" — " No con- 
 sequence of an opinion should be attributed to those by whom 
 it is disowned."! And then let him turn to "his account 
 current with human imperfection. "J 
 
 What, sir, let me seriously ask you, would you think of 
 this system of denunciation were it aimed against yourself ? 
 What would you think of a man who, while he would not 
 " dispute your right to publish your peculiar sentiments, "§ 
 should knock you down the first word you uttered ? In 
 what light would you regard a religious instructor who, 
 while he enforced the duty of " contending earnestly for the 
 faith," should argue and write as if it were utterly impossi- 
 ble that the faith could exist but in the dogmas of his own 
 bosom ? What would you think of a writer whose publica- 
 tions should breathe in every page the language, " I am the 
 man, and wisdom shall die with me !" What would you 
 think of a religious zealot who, with one hand, should smite 
 that idol of modern worship, " liberality of opinion," and, 
 
 talent was not of the happiest in taking up a stitch, he knew no better 
 way than to darn it again vfith pack-thread and a skewer. But the mat- 
 ter was yet infinitely worse (I record it with tears) when he proceeded 
 to the embroidery : For being clumsy by nature, and of temper impa- 
 tient; withal, beholding millions of stitches that required the nicest 
 hand, and sedatest constitution to extricate, in a great rage he tore off the 
 whole piece, cloth and all, and flung it into the kennel, and furiously 
 thus continued his career : — " Ah ! good brother Martin," said he, " do 
 *' as I do, for the love of God ; strip, tear, pull, rend, flay off all, that we 
 " may appear as unlike the rogue Peter as it is possible ; I would not for 
 " an hundred pounds carry the least mark about me that might give 
 « occasion to the neighbours of suspecting that I was related to such a 
 « rascal !" 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 14. f p. 25. t See concluding 
 
 sentence of Essay on " Religious Controversy," p. 26. § p. 93. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 33 
 
 with the other, should seize the throne of " the Vicar of 
 Christ ;" who, thundering bull after bull from the Vatican, 
 should require every person, without appealing to his senses 
 or understanding, instantly to receive their decrees, or be 
 stretched on the rack of inquisitorial despotism ?* Pardon 
 me, sir, your enforcing with firmness and decency your own 
 opinions, your attacking with plainness and warmth obnoxious 
 errors, constitute no just ground of crimination. It is your 
 attempt, by a system of violent denunciation, to excite against 
 me the prejudices and passions of your readers, which impe- 
 riously demands the most pointed resistance. Your candid 
 criticisms I do not fear. Your temperate reasonings I do not 
 deprecate. I contest not your right even to " detect," 
 " hunt," and " pursue " my " errors ;" — only let reason and 
 candour, not prejudice and passion, be my pursuers. " Urge 
 me not over the precipice " until dispassionate and charitable 
 judgment has decided that my opinions, with all their quali- 
 fications, are " extravagant," " arrogant," and of " deep- 
 toned horror." But you do not inquire into the abstract 
 truth or falsehood of my opinions ; you torture them to ex- 
 treme consequences, as unjust as they are repugnant to my 
 assertions and feelings. It is your determination to " leave 
 me no shelter from crime but the thickets of contradiction ;" 
 — a contradiction not on some topics of taste, literature, or 
 polities, but on the infinitely momentous concerns of eternity: 
 a contradiction, therefore, which, considering my responsi- 
 bility as a guide of the souls of men, holds me up to more 
 than scorn and contempt. This conduct constitutes the 
 ground of my complaining. Against this I protest. I have 
 a right to resist it, and the dearest principles of self-defence 
 justify the exercise of this right. 
 
 * Your quere may be easily answered — " How many bow-shots is such 
 a writer oft' from the territory of our sovereign lord the Pope ?" He did 
 not wait for the hat of a Cardinal, but with one leap mounted the papal 
 chair—" We ne'er shall look upon his like again." 
 
34 hobart's apology 
 
 LETTER V. 
 Sir, 
 
 I SHALL now more particularly take up your " review 
 of the Essays on Episcopacy." I pledge myself to prove that 
 it is one continued strain of confident assertion, intemperate 
 declamation, and uncandid views of my opinions. I pledge 
 myself to make every weapon which you have aimed against 
 me recoil upon yourself. 
 
 Your illustrious predecessor, the author of '^ Miscellanies," 
 had taken no small pains to fix on me the odium of having 
 made a violent and unprovoked attack upon non-Episcopa- 
 lians. This charge exactly suited your plan of denunciation. 
 It would enable you to rouse, at the very " threshold," the 
 prejudices and passions of your readers. The work you 
 purposed to review would be condemned before one argu- 
 ment had been offered to expose its fallacy. It would have 
 been requiring too much of you, therefore, to disdain to dress 
 up in more glaring colours the unfounded aspersion, that I 
 was a wanton and unprovoked aggressor. The author of 
 Miscellanies was immediately met by my friend the " Lay- 
 man." In his third and fourth number* this gentleman de- 
 fended these publications from the charge of aggression. He 
 proved that they only contained what the writer deemed the 
 principles of the Episcopal Church, stated in an unexcep- 
 tionable style — that this statement of their peculiar opinions 
 was a right exercised by all denominations, and never before 
 considered as a just cause of offence — that the consequences 
 of these opinions, unavoidably affecting other denominations, 
 were qualified by every allowance for the erroneous conclu- 
 sions of the sincere and honest inquirers after truth which 
 the most unbounded charity could demand. The unjust charge 
 of aggression was thus refuted and exposed. The weapon 
 which the author of Miscellanies aimed against me dropt 
 * Collection of Essays on Episcopacy, p. 30, &c. and 40, &c. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 35 
 
 from his arm. In the burst of mortified indignation you have 
 rushed forward, and condescended to take it up. Wielded 
 by you, it comes winged with destruction. You quote ob- 
 noxious passages.* You turn them over and over. You 
 sift them till nothing is left but some hard names. These 
 you represent me as ungraciously dealing against non-Epis- 
 copalians. Your triumph seems now almost complete ; and 
 a keen stroke of satire lays me prostrate at your feet. But 
 " I cry you mercy " — I have had a little time to breathe — 
 And humbly beg you to permit me, by a simple story, to de- 
 fend myself. It pains me to be compelled by your denun- 
 ciations, to occupy so much of these letters with personal 
 remarks. 
 
 My opinions on the subject of Episcopacy cannot be ranked 
 among the prejudices of education. I bless God that I was 
 baptized, in infancy, in the Episcopal Church. That part 
 of my life, however, during which my religious principles 
 became a subject of my anxious investigation, was passed at 
 a Presbyterian college. Respect and veneration for my in- 
 structors and guides in the paths of science — esteem and 
 affection for many valued friends, to whom I knew certain 
 opinions on the subject of Episcopacy would be obnoxious, 
 excited in my bosom ^a painful struggle between the most 
 amiable impulses of feeling and the strong demands of duty. 
 But when after as honest and faithful examination as I was 
 able to make, I became fully satisfied that it was '* evident 
 from scripture and ancient authors, that there have been from 
 the Apostles' times three orders of ministers. Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons in Christ's Church ;" and that the Episcopal 
 Church considered no man as " a lawful Bishop, Priest, or 
 Deacon who hath not had Episcopal consecration or ordina- 
 tion,"! ^^ surely became my duty to maintain and inculcate 
 what the Church had thus solemnly declared. Perhaps also 
 I had cause to apprehend that Episcopalians in many places 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 90. 
 
 t Preface to the Ordination Services. 
 
36 hobart's apology 
 
 were losing sight of these important truths ; that many of 
 them made no distinction as to authority between ministers 
 Episcopally ordained, whom the Episcopal Church considers 
 as alone " lawful ministers," and those who had not received 
 Episcopal ordination ; and through the want of correct in- 
 formation I myself had been led, in some cases, to violate 
 the principles of my church. It surely cannot, therefore, be 
 a matter of surprise that I should feel a solicitude to arrest, 
 by my efforts, however humble, the progress of an indifference 
 and laxity of opinion which threatened destruction to the dis- 
 tinctive principles of the Episcopal Church. Had I been 
 disposed to invite controversy, I would have advocated and 
 enforced Episcopacy in books inviting general perusal. Had 
 I been disposed to attack non-Episcopalians, I would have 
 made a pointed address to them. But my single object was 
 the instruction of Episcopalians. I was, therefore, desirous 
 to avoid controversy, and particularly all reasonable cause of 
 offence to others. The doctrine of the Church, on the sub- 
 ject of Episcopacy, was published in Manuals of Devotion 
 and Instruction, addressed to Episcopalians, and calculated 
 for them alone. Now, sir, what was this but the " peaceful 
 exercise of a common right .?"* In what more unexception- 
 able mode could I have attempted to instruct Episcopalians 
 in the principles of their church } In what more unexcep- 
 tionable mode could I have admonished them of the danger 
 and guilt of separating from that ministry which only their 
 church declared lawful 1 If the terms in which this admo- 
 nition was couched unavoidably affected other denominations, 
 the fault was in the nature of the subject, not in the monitor. 
 And as you declare that you " shall neither dispute the right 
 of an Episcopalian to publish his own sentiments, nor when 
 they happen to bear hard upon others, shall cry out against 
 their uncharitableness," permit me to inquire, why you brand 
 the exercise of this right with the most harsh and opprobrious 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 90. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 37 
 
 epithets ? Think you that " uncharitable pretensions " (an 
 epithet which you condemn the author of " Miscellanies " 
 for using) sounds harsher in my ears than " arrogant," 
 '' extravagant " pretensions, " positions of deep-toned hor- 
 ror?" Compared with these denunciations, the decla- 
 mations of the author of " Miscellanies " against " bigo- 
 try and superstition," are as the " gentle dew " to the angry 
 " thunderbolt." To concede in the most unqualified terms 
 the " right of an Episcopalian to publish his peculiar senti- 
 ments," and yet to denounce him as an aggressor upon other 
 denominations the moment he decently exercises this right, 
 is an outrage upon common sense. 
 
 The author of " Miscellanies " was censured by the 
 "Layman" and "Cyprian" as an aggressor, because he 
 bitterly inveighed against an Episcopalian for exercising, in 
 the most unexceptionable mode, the right which you concede 
 to him, " to publish his peculiar sentiments." The author 
 of Miscellanies was deemed an unjustifiable aggressor, be- 
 cause, in a stj^le of invective and ridicule, he attacked the 
 principles of the Episcopal Church in the newspapers. 
 
 When a writer publishes animadversions on the erroneous 
 principles of any religious denomination, in pointed addresses 
 to them, or in pamphlets inviting general perusal, he may be 
 considered as courting controversy. Yet if his reasoning be 
 candid, and his style temperate and decent, he cannot on your 
 principles be deemed censurable. You maintain, in the 
 strongest language, the duty of earnestly contending for the 
 faith. You maintain, that in this world of error and sin, 
 religious controversy, or a comparison between the " con- 
 flicting claims " to that truth which "if we reject, we seal 
 our perdition," becomes an imperious duty. You concede 
 also to all denominations the right to defend their peculiar 
 tenets. Yet the moment any denomination publishes a book 
 in illustration or defence of its peculiar principles, it is to be 
 considered, according to your reasoning, as a wanton aggres- 
 sion on the peaceful domains of others ! This doctrine 
 
 4 
 
38 hobart's apology 
 
 changes even public confessions of faith, and formulas of re- 
 ligious instruction and devotion, into the darts and spears of 
 contention. Mutual aggression and attack among Christians 
 unavoidably result from the maintenance of their respective 
 principles. If your reasoning be just, the Episcopal Churchwas 
 long since atttacked, and mj^ publications were strictly defensive. 
 The " Constitution and Standards of the Associate-Reformed 
 church in North- America," of which church you are a dis- 
 tinguished minister, was published several years before my 
 books, under your most solemn sanction and superintendence. 
 In this constitution,* "the distinction of superior and inferior 
 clergy," a distinction which prevails among Episcopalians, 
 and which lies at the foundation of their church, is styled 
 " highly unscriptural and anti-Christian. "t Will not your 
 reasoning against me, which you advance with so much con- 
 fidence, and which you seem to think is for ever to silence 
 me, recoil upon yourself? You assert, " it is the dictate of 
 common sense, that if an author print and publish severe re- 
 flections upon an}^ body of men, he not only attacks them, 
 but does it in the most open manner possible. "J Now, you 
 sir, and the Associate-Reformed Synod, have " printed and 
 published severe reflections " upon Episcopalians. You have 
 styled their ministry " unscriptural and anti-Christian." 
 What apology can you make but the one which you put in 
 my mouth ? " You have no right, sir, to be offended with 
 any part of my book. It is true, I have called your ^ minis- 
 try unscriptural and anti-Christian,' but you should not con- 
 strue these epithets into an attack upon you ; for the least 
 candour will enable you to perceive that this book was pub- 
 
 * Art. Church Government, book i. chap. 2. sec. 2, 5. 
 
 t It is very well knovv^n that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, 
 who drew up the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, denounced and ab- 
 jured Episcopacy ; as did also the General Assembly of the Church of 
 Scotland, who, in various acts, at different times, solemnly condemned it 
 as unfounded in scripture, as a popish and wicked hierarchy. ^ 
 
 X Christian's Magazine, p. 91. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. "39 
 
 lished for the use of our own connections." No, sir, this 
 apology will not do. For, to apply still your own language, 
 Episcopalians will not be " sent home perfectly satisfied to 
 b*e denounced as having an ' unscriptural and anti-Christian ' 
 ministr}'^, so often as the zealous " Dr. Mason, or the Asso- 
 ciate-Reformed Synod, may " judge it conducive to the 
 edification of their own particular friends." Do not misun- 
 derstand me. It is not my design to charge you with an 
 attack upon Episcopalians in the publication of that book ; 
 but I have promised to make the weapons which joxa have 
 aimed at me recoil upon yourself, and you must excuse me 
 if I neither forget nor violate my promise. I appeal to our 
 candid readers, whether the reasoning which proves that my 
 books for the use of Episcopalians are an attack upon other 
 denominations, does not also prove that the constitution and 
 standards of your own church were an attack upon Episco- 
 palians, This " constitution " (it may be said) is not the 
 work of an individual, but of the Synod. But the number 
 and respectability of the persons who published the book 
 only aggravate the attack, which, according to your mode of 
 reasoning, is contained in it. This work, however, was cer- 
 tainly published under your superintendence. At any rate, 
 I am under no apprehension that you will disclaim any posi- 
 tions advanced in it. 
 
 But I hold in my hand a series of '^ Letters " which yoxi 
 published on " Frequent Communion." From these letters 
 (page 89) I extract the following : " We reject in a mass the 
 corruptions of popery, and of her ape, prelacy."^ We re- 
 nounce the religious observance of Christmas^ Epiphany^ 
 Easter^ Ascension^ &c. and the festivals in honour of a troop 
 of saints and saintesses, as superstitious and inconsistent with 
 gospel worship, how graceful soever to the anti-Christian 
 Calendar." Is it possible to speak of the institutions of the 
 Episcopal Church in terms of greater contempt } Now, this 
 
 * Prelacy is the term by which Presbyterian writers frequently desig- 
 nate Episcopacy. 
 
40 hobart's apology 
 
 language you proclaimed to the public in your Letters pub- 
 lished in 1798. And my Companions " for the Altar," and 
 for the " Festivals and Fasts," were published in 1804. 
 Should you not blush at your attempt to fix on me the charge 
 of aggression .'' 
 
 I have also perused a missionary sermon, entitled, '' The 
 Triumph of the Gospel," preached some years ago before 
 the New-York Missionary Society. In this sermon I find 
 (at page 21) the following passage: ^'Ecclesiastical digni- 
 taries ^ spiritual lords, and all the pageantry of the hierarchy 
 in its various modifications^ which have debased the gospel, 
 and metamorphosed the kingdom of Christ to a kingdom of 
 this world, will be finally trampled in the dustj and despised 
 by Christians.''^ Now, sir, this sermon was preached before 
 the appearance of my " Companion for the Altar." And 
 what is the purport of the sentence above quoted ? Among 
 " ecclesiastical dignitaries " bishops are evidently included. 
 A dignitary is " a clergyman advanced above the rank of a 
 parochial yjries^."* A bishop ranks above a priest, and is, 
 therefore, a dignitary. If by the hierarchy was meant only 
 the papacy, why does the sentence run — '' the hierarchy in 
 its various modifications?^^ Episcopacy is surely a modifica- 
 tion of the hierarchy. By this name you distinguish it."! 
 Bishops and Episcopacy then, " which have debased the 
 gospelj will be finally trampled in the dust., and despised by 
 Christians !" Let us apply to this passage your reasoning : 
 " It is the dictate of common sense," you saj^, " that if an 
 autlior print and publish severe reflections upon any body of 
 men, he not only attacks them, but does it in the most open 
 manner possible !" Now, a venerable divine of this city 
 preached and published a sermon containing severe reflections 
 upon Episcopalians, stating, in terms too evident to be mis- 
 
 * Johnson. 
 
 f Christian's Magazine, p. 101. When the adversaries of Episcopacy 
 mean to express their contempt for it, they call it the hierarchy, the 
 prelacy. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 41 
 
 taken, that bishops and Episcopacy (" ecclesiastical dignita- 
 ries," " the hierarchy in its various modifications,") " had 
 debased the gospel," and " would be finally trampled in the 
 dust, and despised by Christians." And the Missionary So- 
 ciety of New- York requested and sanctioned the publication 
 of this sermon. Here, then, according to your principle, was 
 an "■ attack in the most open manner possible " upon Epis- 
 copalians, by a venerable divine, and by the New- York Mis- 
 sionary Society, consisting of Presbyterian divines and lay- 
 men. I pray not to be misunderstood. I mean no reflection 
 nor censure on the New-York Missionarj^ Society. The 
 clergyman who preached the sermon to which I have alluded, 
 for his learning and talents, his exemplary piety, commands 
 my veneration : For his uniformly kind deportment to me, 
 my gratitude is due to him. If he deemed the sentiment 
 which I have quoted just, and the publication of it neces- 
 sary to the edification of Christians, he possessed the right, 
 it was his duty to preach and publish it. It is farthest from 
 my intention to censure him for doing so, or the Missionary 
 Society for sanctioning the publication. In order to resist, 
 however, the charge of aggression, I am compelled, reluc- 
 tantly, to prove, that if your principle he correct^ Episcopa- 
 lians were attacked before the appearance of my " Com- 
 panion for the Altar." 
 
 You complain very bitterly of the conduct of an Episco- 
 pal clergyman, who, in a sermon preached several years 
 since at a public ordination, denounced, as you conceive, the 
 non-Episcopal clergy. It is with the deepest regret I am 
 compelled to maintain, that, if you and yo\n brethren have 
 just cause of complaint against the sermon of the Episcopal 
 clergyman, we have the same cause of complaint against the 
 sermon which I have just quoted. When a person wishes to 
 vent his indignation against any object, and to sink it into 
 contempt, he says that it should be " trampled in the dust," 
 it "should be despisedy And this is the sentence pro- 
 nounced on Episcopacy, which is a modification of the hier- 
 
 4* 
 
42 hobart's apology 
 
 archy, by a non-Episcopal clergyman, in a printed discourse. 
 But (you say) the non-Episcopal clergy were invited to hear 
 the sermon which gave them so much offence, and this cir- 
 cumstance rendered the attack an outrage ! There is no 
 recollection of any such invitation having been given. But 
 there was notice given in the newspapers of the preaching 
 of the missionary sermon to which I allude ; and surely 
 Episcopalians as well as others were at least indirectly in- 
 vited to attend. Where, then, the difference in the two 
 cases } But I disclaim all wish or intention of fixing on the 
 worth}'- and venerable preacher of the missionary sermon any 
 design either to " attack" or to " outrage" Episcopalians. 
 He honestly believed the sentiments he uttered. I do not 
 presume to censure him for inculcating what he doubtless 
 esteemed an important truth, and a subject of congratula- 
 tion to all who looked for the purity and glory of the mil- 
 lennial church. But it really appears to me that the two 
 cases above referred to are exactly parallel. The latter is 
 rather the stronger case. For the missionary sermon re- 
 flecting on Episcopalians was not only preached, but publish- 
 ed. And, therefore, according to you, as these " severe 
 reflections" were '' printed and published," they were not 
 only an " attack," but an attack " in the most open manner 
 possible." The deductions which bear hard upon the 
 preacher of the missionary sermon come from yourself. 
 
 Ill-fated Episcopalians ! your Episcopacy may be branded 
 as '' unscriptural and anti-Christian ;" your bishops held up 
 to detestation, as "lords in God's heritage."* Your hier- 
 archy, charged with having " debased the gospel," with 
 being "the ape of popery," maybe consigned to infamy and 
 destruction, "to be trampled in the dust, and despised b}'- 
 Christians." All this ye must bear patiently and silently. 
 For the moment any one of you lifts up his voice in lan- 
 guage however decent, to defend your hierarchy, to show to 
 
 * So styled in the Confession of Faith of a Calvinistic Church 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 43 
 
 his brethren the guilt and danger of separating from it, of 
 despising it, and trampling it in the dust — a hue and cry is 
 raised against him — to break his spirit — to crush his resolu- 
 tion — to blast his influence — to drown for ever his remon- 
 strances ! 
 
 Believe me, sir, I shall still escape " the unpopularity of 
 being the aggressor." And I am principally anxious to es- 
 cape it, because I do not deserve it, and am deeply conscious 
 that the least idea of aggression was farthest from my 
 thoughts or wishes. At the same time, I freely declare, 
 that I can see no impropriety in any individual remarking 
 with freedom, plainness, and force, on what he maj^ deem 
 the erroneous tenets of any body of men. If his strictures be 
 decent and candid, it would, in my judgment, be unjust to 
 affix any odium upon him for the exercise of that right of 
 investigation which, on all subjects, is the hand-maid and the 
 nurse of truth. I certainly deem the books I published fair 
 objects of remark and animadversion. I concede the right 
 of animadversion in its full extent, restrained only by decen- 
 cy and candour. But I solemnly protest against being con- 
 demned, even before my opinions are examined, by being 
 denounced as a wanton and unprovoked aggressor. 
 
 But the inquiry has sometimes been made, and not by 
 non-Episcopalians only — " Why, in order to the defence of 
 the principles of your own church, should you deem it 
 necessary to animadvert on the principles of others .'' Con- 
 cede to you the right and the duty of proving the divine 
 authority of the Episcopal ministry ; why should you insist 
 that non-Episcopalians have not a valid ministry .^" Now, 
 against such reasoning I can shelter myself under a principle 
 which you kindly furnish me, that ^' truth can admit of no 
 compromise with error ^ nor does charity require it." In 
 maintaining certain principles of the Episcopal Church, there 
 can be, there ought to be, no compromise with the errors 
 that are opposed to these principles. I could not maintain 
 the divine authority of the Episcopal ministry, without de- 
 
44 
 
 nying the validity of a non-Episcopal ministry ; for it is an 
 essential principle in the Episcopal ministr}" that Bishops, as 
 an order superior to Presbyters, have alone the power of 
 ordination. Of course a ministry not Episcopally ordained 
 cannot be a valid ministry. In several of the prayers in the 
 Offices of Ordination of the Episcopal Church, it is asserted, 
 that God, by " his divine providence and by his Holy Spirit, 
 appointed divers orders of ministers in his Church ;" and 
 ^' Bishops," " Priests," and ^' Deacons" are ranked among 
 the orders thus divinely appointed. That she acknowledges 
 only Episcopal ordination as valid, is evident also from her 
 uniform and inviolate practice. She does not receive any 
 persons into standing as ministers who have not been Episco- 
 pally ordained. Whence this restriction if ordination by 
 Presbyters is valid ? What is ordination } Not the mere 
 mode of admission to the privilege of officiating among some 
 particular denomination of Christians. It is the conferring of 
 the ministerial commission generally. Who confers this com- 
 mission among Presbyterians .^ The Presbyters. Does the 
 Church of England, or the Episcopal Church in America, 
 acknowledge this ordination ? No ; for these churches 
 never receive a Presbyterian minister until he has been 
 Episcopally ordained.* If they considered that his ordina- 
 tion by Presbyters had conferred on him a valid ministerial 
 
 * Some few instances to the contrary in the Church of England, at the 
 outset of the Reformation, cannot invalidate a general and uniform prac- 
 tice since that period. During the contentions and troubles of the Re- 
 formation, that some few irregularities occurred, is surely not surprising. 
 If the few instances of some Presbyterian divines creeping into livings, 
 by the aid and support o{ polilical leaders, would prove that the Church 
 of England at the Reformation did not insist on Episcopal ordination, the 
 instances that occurred during the same period of some laymen holding 
 livings, would prove that the Church did not insist on any ordination at 
 all ! Long and uniform practice has settled it into a principle in the 
 Church of England (and it is a principle which the Episcopal Church in 
 America has never violated) that none are received as ministers but those 
 who " have had Episcopal consecration or ordination." In regard, there 
 fore, to the present principles of these churches there can be no dispute 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 45 
 
 commission, would it not be absurd, would it not be a solemn 
 mockery for the Bishop to treat him as if he had never re- 
 ceived a ministerial commission, as if he were a lajTuan who 
 was a candidate for orders, and proceed to ordain him ? 
 These principles with respect to ordination, the Episcopal 
 Church has the same right to maintain which other denomi- 
 nations have to maintain various principles offensive to her. 
 If any person will point out to me b}'^ what method I can 
 maintain that Bishops alone have the power of ordination, 
 and at the same time concede this power to Presbyters, he 
 shall have my warmest thanks. He will save me from the 
 painful necessity of holding opinions offensive to many per- 
 sons for whose talents, piety and zeal I cherish the highest 
 veneration. 
 
 But further. It is the solemn duty of every minister to 
 explain to his people the sin of schism , and to guard them 
 against it. It is considered by the Apostle as a " carnal" 
 sin (1 Cor. iii. 3, &c.) Episcopalians pray in their Liturgy 
 to be delivered from it. Their ministers, therefore, are 
 surely bound to explain to them in what the sin consists. 
 Now, the guilt of the sin of schism may in various ways be 
 incurred. But, I presume there can be no doubt that when 
 Vv^e separate from the duly authorized ministry, and com- 
 mune with those who are not lawful ministers, we are guilty 
 of this sin. On Episcopal principles, lawful ministers are 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Bishops alone possess the 
 power of ordination. Of course it necessarily results, that 
 none can be esteemed " lawful ministers" who " have not 
 had Episcopal consecration or ordination."* Communing 
 with ministers not thus duly authorized is, therefore, on 
 Episcopal principles, to commit the sin of schism. And I 
 would ask the liberal Episcopalian, or any other advocate 
 for that modern liberality which startles at the very idea of 
 opposing error, in what wa};^ an Episcopal minister is to 
 explain to his people the sin of schism, and to guard them 
 * Preface to the Ordination Offices of the Episcopal Church. 
 
46 hobart's apology 
 
 against it, without warning them against separating from 
 their " lawful" pastors, and communing with those who 
 have not received " Episcopal consecration or ordination."* 
 All that in this case can reasonably be required of the Epis- 
 copal minister is, that he should convey his warnings in a 
 decent style, and through a channel the least calculated to 
 irritate or offend. Now, sir, will you assert that the style 
 of my admonitions was either intemperate or indecent ? And 
 if a manual of instruction and devotion designed for Episco- 
 palians be an improper channel through which to address 
 them on their peculiar principles, will you be so good as to 
 inform me what is a proper channel ? You affect to ex- 
 press your surprise that a form of preparation for the holy 
 communion should be made the vehicle of these sentiments. 
 But on the principles of all the Presbyterian churches, the 
 sacraments may not be " dispensed by any but b}^ a minister 
 of the word, lawfully ordained. "| Was it not then neces- 
 sary, that a work on the holy communion should declare 
 who are ministers "lawfully ordained" to dispense this 
 sacrament ; that it should warn Christians from receiving it 
 from those who were not " lawfully ordained .?" 
 
 You express also, though in an indirect manner, your 
 surprise, that " the wholesome admonition" concerning 
 those who are lawfully ordained to dispense the Lord's sup- 
 per should be contained in a meditation for the evening 
 before receiving that holy ordinance. It was my intention 
 to comprise this " admonition" in the meditation for Satur- 
 
 * The Episcopal Minister does no more than every consistent Presby- 
 terian is compelled to do. For if, as the Westminster Divines and the 
 Constitution and Standards of your Church assert, " Presbyterian govern- 
 ment is the true and only one v^hich the Lord Jesus Christ hath pre- 
 scribed in his word,"* and the orders of the Episcopal ministry " un- 
 scriptural and anti- Christian;" they who hear the word or receive the 
 ordinances from this " unscriptural and anti-Christian" ministry, must 
 be guilty of schism. 
 
 t Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. sect. 4. Larger Catechism, 176. 
 
 * Constitution of the Associate-Reformed Church, p. 47.'5. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 47 
 
 day morning. I found, however, that this would have 
 extended that meditation to an unusual and very dispropor- 
 tionate length. And as the preceding part of the work was 
 printed off, I was compelled to place this " admonition" in 
 the meditation for Saturday evening. Though, in the order 
 of the meditations, it might have probabty filled a more judi- 
 cious place, yet I cannot admit that its present situation is 
 wholly improper. It cannot be improper for a communicant, 
 even on the very point of approaching the communion, to 
 pause and inquire — Am I about to receive it from ^' a minis- 
 ter of the word, lawfully ordained" to dispense it ? In the 
 prayer annexed to this meditation for Saturday evening, the 
 communicant prays that " in the exercise of lively penitence 
 and faith he may humbly and thankfully partake of the ordi- 
 nances of the church ; and thus maintaining communion 
 with it, derive from Jesus, its divine head, pardon, grace, 
 consolation, triumph, everlasting glory."* He who sincere- 
 ly offers up this supplication, will not be in an unfit temper 
 to rise in the morning and prepare for receiving the sacred 
 pledges of his Saviour's love. 
 
 What relation has the story of Mr. Wright to the present 
 discussion ? or how does it affect its merits ^ The direct 
 assertion, that our defence of Episcopacy had been indecent 
 or intemperate, could be met and immediately refuted. f 
 Indirect assertion would be equally effectual in exciting 
 clamour against us, and would in some measure shelter our 
 accuser from the charge of aspersion. Your representation 
 of what you conceive was very intemperate conduct in this 
 Episcopal clergyman, tends to crush the innocent with the 
 
 * Companion for the Altar, p. 206. 
 
 t The appeal may be made to every candid person, whether in the 
 " Companion for the Altar," and in the " Festivals and Fasts," obnox- 
 ious as may be the opinions, there is any intemperance or indecency of 
 style. If in the " Episcopal controversy" a higher tone of remonstrance 
 has been assumed, it is fully justified by the flood of invective, sarcasm, 
 and ridicule poured forth by the opponent of Episcopacy in that contro- 
 versy ? 
 
48 hobart's apology 
 
 guilty — to fix on myself and other recent advocates of Epis- 
 copacy, an odium which we do not merit ; and to rouse 
 against us an indignant clamour, which will not listen to the 
 voice of sober argument and remonstrance. You state that 
 this Mr. Wright " declared to the faces of some of the most 
 venerable ministers in this city, that all clergymen not Epis- 
 copally ordained, are imposters ; their commissions forgeries ; 
 and their sacraments blasphemy." But is it not possible that 
 the indignant feelings of those who heard Mr. Wright deliver 
 sentiments obnoxious to them may have somewhat exagge- 
 rated his language ; or that at this distance of time it may 
 be unintentionally misstated ? I can only assert that the 
 Episcopal clergy who heard him cannot recollect that he 
 used the very strong expressions which you impute to him. 
 It seems, as you assert, my books are a continuance of this 
 same system of attack; the same " asj9e?-^ons "* are "re- 
 peated" by me, " though in a more decent language" — that 
 is, I am still a calumniator, though rather more decent in my 
 " aspersions " than Mr. Wright ! Sir, I protest against this 
 conduct as unjust, uncandid, and, I may add, (from its inju- 
 rious tendency on my own reputation and feelings) cruel. 
 The sermon of Mr. Wright must have been preached several 
 years before I was in orders — and though some slight rumours 
 of it recently reached me, yet you are the first person from 
 whom I have received a statement of its contents, or of the 
 circumstances attending its delivery. How, then, could I be 
 guilty of wilfully continuing an " attack," which I was 
 ignorant had ever been made } How can I be justly an- 
 swerable for the intemperate conduct and language of a 
 person whom I never knew, and with whom I never had any 
 kind of intercourse t 
 
 If, sir, as you insinuate, there has been any system of 
 
 attack organized against non-Episcopalians, I have not been 
 
 privy to it. M}^ books have no share in it. I have the 
 
 satisfaction to know that my Diocesan approves of the senti- 
 
 * Observe, sir, " aspersions" are calumnies. 
 
\ 
 
 FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 49 
 
 ments contained in those books ; but neither he nor my 
 ^brethren knew anj^ thing of them until they saw them in 
 print ; nor are they privy to the contents of these letters. 
 And yet I can see no impropriety, when the church is 
 assailed, in her friends uniting to defend her. I repeat the 
 solemn declaration which I have made in the preface to the 
 " Collection of Essays " which you are now reviewing, that 
 " it never occurred to me that the publication of those books 
 would be the cause of offence to others."* They only con- 
 tain principles which have been maintained and repeatedly 
 published by eminent divines. 
 
 If, sir, you would honour with a perusal the Life of Dr. 
 Johnson, the first President of King's, now Columbia Col- 
 lege, you would find perhaps some facts that would probably 
 hold you " in suspense between the gaze of astonishment 
 and the swell of indignation!" Dr. Cutler, the President 
 of Yale College, Dr. Johnson, and several of the most emi- 
 nent clergy in Connecticut, were induced, at a period when 
 the Episcopal Church was scarcely known in the state, to 
 examine the subject of Episcopacy ; and finally, in opposi- 
 tion to the most powerful influence, embraced the principles 
 for which j^ou denounce me, and went to England for Epis- 
 copal ordination. And yet, from the style of your address 
 to me, one would suppose that I was the first who in this 
 country ever had the presumption to urge such " extravagant 
 and arrogant pretensions." These principles always have 
 had their advocates, and will continue to be defended, any 
 
 * My republishing the « Essays on Episcopacy" which appeared in the 
 Albany- Centinel in a separate volume, with notes and comments, was a 
 defensive measure. The Author of Miscellanies had attacked Episcopal 
 principles in the newspapers. As his essays were a continued series of 
 bold and concise assertions, completely to detect and to answer them by 
 any thing like reasoning, required his opponents to enter on an extensive 
 field. And as the printers at length closed their papers to the discus- 
 sion, many of the assertions of the Author of Miscellanies remained 
 unanswered, which it was necessary, therefore, to notice in a separate 
 publication. 
 
 5 
 
50 hobart's apology 
 
 thing you or others can say to the contrary nothwithstanding. 
 But the most extraordinary declaration relative to this 
 " attack," as you are pleased to term it, is the following : 
 "A circumstance which rendered this attack an outrage, was 
 the care of the Episcopal clergy to circulate notice of the 
 ordination, and their solicitude for the attendance of their 
 non-Episcopal brethren !" Now, sir, before you hazarded 
 this most serious charge against the Episcopal clergy — a 
 charge which, fixing on them an " outrage," would prove 
 that they possessed neither the mild forbearance of Chris- 
 tians, the dignity of clergymen, nor the manners of gentlemen, 
 should you not have paused, and ascertained, beyond the 
 possibility of mistake, several important particulars ? Are 
 you satisfied on good authority that " the Episcopal clergy 
 expressed a solicitude for the attendance of their non-Epis- 
 copal brethren ?" I have ascertained from the officiating 
 Bishop and the only two Episcopal clergy now resident in 
 this city who attended the ordination, that they knew nothing 
 of any invitation having been given to the non-Episcopal 
 clergy, or of any solicitude having been expressed for their 
 attendance. But admit the fact : are you able to prove, 
 have you any satisfactory reason to believe, that the Episco- 
 pal clergy w^re previously acquainted with the nature of Mr. 
 Wright's sermon, or with the obnoxious passages to which 
 you refer ? You can neither prove, nor have you any satis- 
 factory reason to believe this circumstance — and the truth of 
 this only can authorize you in the serious charge you have 
 brought against the Episcopal clergy, and rescue it from the 
 imputation of being more unjust and indecorous than the 
 conduct which you ascribe to them. I am authorized to 
 assert, that the Episcopal clergy were wholly ignorant what 
 would be the contents of Mr. Wright's sermon, and the style 
 in which he would deem it proper to convey his observa- 
 tions. — " Alas — alas " — " Pudet — ^pudet "* — Were I disposed 
 to retort, might I not lament, that persons who make such 
 * Your favourite expressions. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 51 
 
 pretensions to extraordinary piety, who claim to themselves 
 the exclusive title of " evangelical," should forget the first 
 dictate of a truly evangelical spirit, and inconsiderately ren- 
 der themselves liable to the charge of committing an outrage 
 against the very individuals on whom they attempt to fix this 
 crime ? No, sir ; no — I make no such retort. I cast no 
 imputation of wilful misrepresentation or perversion. There 
 has been some misapprehension — some want of recollection 
 — and more inconsiderate zeal in this business — Let it be 
 covered with the mantle of charity. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 Sir, 
 
 The charge of aggression I have thus proved utterly 
 unfounded. 
 
 Your other charges may be thus summed up. 
 
 That I maintain, that communion with the Episcopal 
 priesthood is a condition of salvation which is not only indis- 
 pensable on the part of man (in which sense I apply the word 
 indispensable,) but which God himself will not dispense 
 with ; and that " the simple fact of separation from the 
 Episcopal priesthood " renders all repentance and faith una- 
 vailing^ " mars the religion of non-Episcopalians, and renders 
 it stark naught !" — and that thus I make the " only alterna- 
 tive. Episcopacy or Perdition ! ! "* 
 
 That I " make particular views of external order the 
 hinging point of salvation "j* — that I " place the external 
 order of the Church upon a level with the merits of our 
 Lord Jesus, in the article of acceptance before God ;"J 
 that " with respect to non-Episcopalians I make Episco- 
 pacy of primary^ and faith in the Redeemer of secondary 
 importance ;";]; and that I maintain that '■'■ faith in Christ is 
 impossible where there is no communion with the Bishop. "!|] 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 94, 95. f p. 98. X p. 99. 
 
52 hobart's apology 
 
 Now, sir, before you can be " justified in uttering a sylla- 
 ble which only looks towards conclusions " which hold me 
 up as a monster of arrogance and impiety, unfit to be tole- 
 rated among Christians, you ought to be not only "perfectly 
 certain of your premises," but that your conclusions also are 
 fairly and legitimately drawn. 
 
 I utterly disclaim the sentiments you impute to me. 
 
 I utterly deny the truth of your charges. 
 
 I pledge myself to prove that you support them by partial 
 and false views of my opinions — by uncandidly torturing 
 them to an extreme — and by illogical deductions which a just 
 reasoner should blush to make, and a candid reasoner should 
 scorn to enlist into his service. 
 
 I pledge myself to prove that the same uncandid methods 
 would attach the same odium to your own principles ; and 
 that I lay no greater stress on external order j on communion 
 with the church through its ministry and ordinances^ than the 
 standards and confessions of faith of the Presbyterian churches 
 will warrant. 
 
 To prove these points, I pledge myself. Is there a can- 
 did reader of your review in which these charges against 
 me are contained, who will refuse to accompany me in my 
 vindication .'* 
 
 I utterly disclaim the sentiments j^ou impute to me. I 
 utterly deny the truth of your charges. 
 
 Do I maintain that God will not dispense with communion 
 with the Episcopal priesthood, when I express my belief that 
 he will dispense with it in the cases of all those who do not 
 " negligently or wilfully continue in a state of separation from 
 it ;"* who do not, through criminal negligence or wilful 
 obstinacy, contemn the means of arriving at the truth, and 
 resist the light of conviction } Or do I maintain that " sepa- 
 ration from the Episcopal priesthood renders faith and repen- 
 tance unavailing, and mars the religion of non-Episcopalians," 
 when I express my belief that the " humble, the penitent, 
 * Companion for the Altar, p. 203. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 53 
 
 and obedient," who reject the authorized ministry, not 
 " negligently or wilfully, ^^ but through " involuntary error," will 
 still have " mercy" extended to them ?* Am I guilty then 
 of making the " only alternative. Episcopacy or Perdition ?" 
 When my principles thus extend mercy to many who reject 
 that '' external order" which I believe has the sanction of 
 divine authority, do I make " external order the hinging 
 point of salvation ?" Do I " place this order on a level 
 with the merits of Christ," when the principle which I lay 
 at the foundation of my work is, " that we are saved from 
 the guilt and dominion of sin by the divine merits and grace 
 of a crucified Redeemer ?"! Is my making (according to 
 you) " faith in Christ of secondary, and Episcopacy of pri- 
 mary importance," consistent with your own declaration of 
 the " evangelical strain " of many parts of the book ? And 
 while I expressly acknowledge that the " humble, the peni- 
 tent, and obedient," even though they should, through " in- 
 voluntary error," reject the authorized ministry, and of 
 course the Bishop, will enjoy the " blessings of God's 
 favour" — is your assertion correct, that I "make faith in 
 Christ impossible but through communion with the Bishop ?" 
 You may say indeed, that I " flinch from the consequences of 
 my own doctrine." By and by, I shall consider this point, 
 and show that you are as incorrect and uncandid in deducing 
 consequences as you are in stating opinions. My simple 
 object now is to show that I do not hold the obnoxious opinions 
 which you impute to me. For, to use your own language, 
 I " am sure that the drift, and have little doubt that the 
 design,"*^ of your review " is to force plain people into the 
 conclusion," that I really maintain the opinions which, by 
 most unfair deduction from my writings, you fix upon me. 
 
 What, according to your representations, is the amount of 
 my reasonings } That all are consigned to " perdition" 
 who are not within the pale of my own church. No per- 
 * Companion for the Altar, p. 203. 
 
 t Preface to the Companion for the Altar, p. 5. 
 
 5* 
 
64 hobart's apology 
 
 sons will believe that I am capable of pronouncing this most 
 impious judgment, when they read the following, contained 
 in the very books on which you animadvert : " The judge 
 of the whole earth will do right. The grace of God quick- 
 ens and animates all the degenerate children of Adam. The 
 mercy of the Saviour is co-extensive with the ruin into 
 which sin hath plunged mankind. And in every nation he 
 that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted of 
 him."* '^ We presume to judge no man^ leaving all judg- 
 ment to that Being who is alone qualified to make allow- 
 ance for the ignorance^ invhicible prejudices^ i?nperfect reason- 
 iiigsj and mistaken judgments of his frail creatures." "f " All 
 men are in the hands of an infinitely merciful and righteous 
 God, who will judge them according to their works. '^''X 
 " Though the institutions of the Almighty are indispensably 
 binding upon men, he is not himself restricted by them. 
 Every benevolent heart, therefore, ardently cherishes the 
 delightful belief that mercy will at length be extended to all 
 who humbly and earnestly seek to know and to do the will of 
 their heavenly Master. "§ Episcopalians maintain, that "in 
 conformity to the order handed down from the beginning, 
 Bishops only have the power of ordination, and as a general 
 proposition they maintain that Episcopal ministrations only 
 are valid. At the same time they are disposed to believe, 
 that when any church cannot obtain the lawful succession, 
 God, who '- is not a hard master, reaping where he has not 
 sown, and gathering where he has not strawed,' will merci- 
 fully dispense with it. Nay, that he will graciously accept 
 and bless the ministrations of those who have not a lawful 
 call ; when the error is not chargeable to wilful neglect of 
 the means of information, nor to obstinate resistance to the 
 light of conviction. In this way does the author of the 
 
 * Companion for the Altar, p. 202. 
 
 t Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, p. 60. 
 
 X Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, p. 204. 
 
 § Preface to the Collection of Essays on Episcopacy, p. 7. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 55 
 
 ' Companion for the Altar' reconcile truth with charity : in 
 this way does he embrace in the arms of fraternal 
 benevolence all who, according to the talents bestowed on 
 them by their gracious Maker, seek to know and to do his 
 will."* 
 
 Will you hold sentiments equally charitable with those 
 which I have advanced in the foregoing extracts } Will 
 you, " in the sincerity of your soul," cherish the delightful 
 hope of that "glorious consummation — when the same gene- 
 rous zeal for God and truth, which too often, in this world 
 of folly and confusion, sets those at widest variance whom the 
 similitude of virtuous feelings should the most unite, shall be 
 the cement of an indissoluble friendship ; when the innume- 
 rable multitude of all nations, kindreds, and people (why 
 should I not add of all sects and parties }) assembled round 
 the throne, shall, like the first Christians, be of one soul, and 
 one mind ; giving praise with one consent to him that sitteth 
 on the throne, and to the Lamb that was slain to redeem 
 them by his blood .?"| No, sir, I will venture to say that 
 you will not meet me on this broad ground of charity, which 
 extends the favour of God to all his sincere servants, what- 
 ever may be their unintentional and involuntary errors. I 
 will venture to pledge myself that anxious as you are to 
 represent me as hurling to perdition all who are not within 
 the pale of my own church, your charity will not take this 
 wide range. For, referring to some of the charitable opin- 
 ions which are above expressed, you intimate, " that in 
 maintaining them, if a little pressed, I might perhaps find I 
 had no ingenuity to spare." J Come, sir, press me on these 
 assertions. The public will soon see who it is that main- 
 tains positions " arrogant, extravagant," and revolting to 
 common sense and reason. 
 
 But you will say, I "flinch from the consequences of my 
 
 * Collection of Essays on Episcopacy, p. 208. 
 
 t Preface to the Collection of Essays on Episcopacy, p. 8. 
 
 J Christian's Magazine, p. 87. 
 
56 hobart's apology 
 
 own doctrines" — " my concessions are in diametrical repug- 
 nance to my arguments."* 
 
 I proceed, therefore, to prove that you support your 
 charges by partial and false views of my opinions ; by un- 
 candidly torturing them to an extreme ; and by illogical 
 deductions unworthy of a just and candid reasoner. I shall 
 show that the same uncandid methods would attach the same 
 odium to many of your own principles on the subject of 
 church communion ; and that I lay no greater stress on exter- 
 nal order, on communion with the church through its minis- 
 try and ordinances, than the standards and confessions of 
 faith of the Presbyterian churches will warrant. 
 
 From the criminality of rejecting that ministry which has 
 alone the seal of divine authority, I expressly and repeatedly 
 except all who labour under "involuntary error." But this 
 " rehef," you say, " is not worth accepting," because " the 
 instances in which it would be substantiated, would be rare 
 indeed."! And this position you establish by falsely repre- 
 senting me as confounding together what are totally distinct, 
 ^^unavoidable error," and ^involuntary error." Unavoid- 
 able error can only be committed where there is no " access 
 to the means of instruction." But involuntary error may be 
 committed even where instruction sheds the full blaze of 
 light. They fall within the exception of unavoidable errors 
 who have not access to the means of infoi-mation. And they 
 fall within the exception of involuntary error, who, possess- 
 ing the means of investigating truth, do not neglect these 
 means, nor wilfully resist the light of conviction. These two 
 excusable kinds of error will include all the sincere inquirers 
 after truth ; who, I expressly admit, will not be condemned 
 for rejecting the divinely authorized priesthood. Separation 
 from this priesthood I make excusable, whenever " it pro- 
 ceeds from involuntary and unavoidable ignorance or en-or.'^ 
 Now, sir, what is the construction which common sense and 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 101. f p. 94 
 
 X Companion for the Altar, p. 203. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 67 
 
 common candour would put upon my language ? Certainly 
 that in my judgment they are excusable for rejecting the 
 authorized ministry of the church, who either do not possess 
 the means of information, or are prevented from availing 
 themselves of these means — for their ignorance is unavoidable 
 and involuntary. That they are excusable who remain in 
 error on the subject, through the imperfect means of infor- 
 mation in their power — for their error is evidently unavoida- 
 ble. That THEY are excusable who, neither neglecting the 
 means of information, nor wilfully resisting the light of con- 
 viction, remain still in error — for their error is involuntary., is 
 neither negligent nor wilful ; and must be referred to that 
 power of prejudice, to that force of early prepossessions, or 
 to some of those inscrutable causes which, we know, often 
 blind the understandings and pervert the judgments of the 
 greatest and best of men. You were bound in common jus- 
 tice and candour, as well as by the obvious meaning of terms, 
 to place the above construction on my language. In the 
 very passage of my writings which you have quoted,* I fix 
 the imputation of "great guilt" and "imminent danger" 
 on those only " who negligently or wilfully continue in a state 
 of separation from the duly authorized ministry of the 
 church " — negligently ., through inattention to the subject — 
 wilfully., through resistance to the honest conviction of their 
 minds. 
 
 Whom then do I exempt from what you are pleased to 
 term my " sweeping sentence of proscription .^" I exempt 
 from the guilt of rejecting the authorized ministry of the 
 church, the thousands who do not possess the means of in- 
 vestigating the subject ; or are prevented by their situation 
 and peculiar circumstances from pursuing the investigation 
 — their ignorance is unavoidable and involuntary. I exempt 
 the thousands of " humble, penitent, and obedient "| Chris- 
 tians, who, possessing only imperfect means of information, 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 86 and 87. 
 t Companion for the Altar, p. 203. 
 
68 hoeart's apology 
 
 or after an honest and diligent examination, continue still in a 
 state of "separation from the authorized ministry" — their 
 error is not occasioned by negligence — it is not loilful — it is 
 involuntary ; and, therefore, in the eye of a just and merciful 
 Judge, excusable. What chanty, I demand, can be more ex- 
 tensive ? To your ingenuity in distorting my opinions, and 
 placing a false construction on my language, I am willing to 
 do homage. And did not the subject concern the infinitely 
 momentous truths of religion, I might be disposed to allow 
 you the gratification of displaying, in the arts of distortion 
 and false deduction, talents, which I confess, in my opinion, 
 are unrivalled. But when the object of these arts is to fix 
 on me the execrable and impious imputation of rendering, in 
 regard to non-Episcopalians, " repentance towards God, faith 
 towards our Lord Jesus Christ, conformit}' to his image, and 
 zeal for his glory, of no avail ;" when it is the object of these 
 arts to represent me as holding opinions which " mar the 
 religion of non-Episcopalians, and render it stark naught," 
 and which make the " only alternative. Episcopacy or Per- 
 dition ! ! "* — when by these arts of distortion and false de- 
 duction you brand me with the odious criminality of main- 
 taining " positions of deep-toned horror " — I am justified, 
 I am compelled, by the most sacred principles of duty, to 
 resist and expose these arts, as in the extreme ungenerous 
 and cruel. 
 
 In admitting that involuntary error absolves from guilt, I 
 have prepared a broad shield of charity which will cover 
 all the sincere inquirers after truth. Involuntary error arises 
 from mistaken judgment^ and leaves the heart sincerely desi- 
 rous to embrace the truth. It is, therefore, compatible with 
 the most sincere attachment to truth, and the most diligent 
 investigation of it. And unless you will maintain the per- 
 fectibility of human reason ; unless you will disdain the sup- 
 position that in any corner of your heart lurks some dominant 
 prejudice or passion which may obscure or mislead your re- 
 
 * These imputations you fix on me. Christian's Magazine, p. 94, 95. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 59 
 
 searches, permit me to observe, that distinguished as may be 
 your attainments, and soaring as may be your powers, you 
 too must take refuge under that shield of involuntary error 
 which you so contemptuously reject. When the humiliating 
 conviction of the weakness of the human mind, and the 
 power of prejudice, overwhelms me with doubt and appre- 
 hension, the firm persuasion, that my merciful Judge will not 
 impute involuntary error to me as a crime, is my hope and 
 solace. The contrary supposition, revolting to every princi- 
 ple of justice, is instantly repelled by every view which rea- 
 son or scripture affords us of the goodness, mercy, and justice 
 of that almighty Being who " knoweth whereof we are 
 made, and remembereth that we are but dust." " He is not 
 a hard master, reaping where he has not sown, and gathering 
 where he has not strawed." " And where a man has a wil- 
 ling mind, he is accepted according to what he has, and not 
 according to what he has not." " The charity then of Mr. 
 H. and his brethren," is not without "warrant." The mercy 
 which rests on this charity is not " precarious." 
 
 You place a false construction on the following passage : 
 " But where the gospel is proclaimed, communion with the 
 church by the participation of its ordinances at the hands of 
 the duly authorized priesthood, is the indispensable condition 
 of salvation.''^ You surely are not ignorant that a condition 
 of salvation may be considered as indispensable, either with 
 respect to God, who imposes the condition, or with respect 
 to MAN, on whom the condition is imposed. There are cer- 
 tain conditions of salvation which the Almighty himself will 
 not dispense ivith. He will not, for instance, dispense with 
 holiness — For " without holiness no man shall see the Lord." 
 There are other conditions of salvation, in regard to which, 
 though man does not possess the right of dispensation, we 
 may be assured, that in certain cases, a merciful and sove- 
 reign God will exercise this right. Of this description are 
 all the positive institutions of religion ; among which are the 
 church, its ministry and ordinances. When, therefore, in the 
 
60 hobart's apology 
 
 sentence above quoted, I rank " communion with the church 
 through its duly authorized ministry," as an " indispensable 
 condition of salvation," my meaning evidently is, that man 
 has no authority to dispense with this condition, to fulfil it or 
 not as he pleases ; for, in the very next sentence, which is 
 in connection with the former, I express the belief, that God 
 will^ in certain cases, dispense with this condition. And I 
 applied the term indispensable to communion with the autho- 
 rized ministry, in order to oppose the opinion too commonly 
 entertained, that the ministry of the church may be dispensed 
 with, or altered, as man may please ; and that, of course, com- 
 munion with the ministry originally constituted by Christ and 
 his Apostles, is a matter of no moment. Nor was the term 
 improperly applied in this sense. Suppose an unbeliever 
 should solemnly profess to you his penitence and faith. You 
 become satisfied of his sincerity. But he denies the necessity 
 of communion with the visible church the " nursery of the 
 church in heaven,"* and of baptism and the Lord's supper. 
 Would you not be justified in the following address to him .'' 
 " Sir, it is your indispensable duty to commune with the visible 
 church by baptism and the Lord's supper. The standards of 
 faith of the Presbyterian churches maintain, on the authority 
 of scripture, that ' out of the church there is ordinarily no 
 possibility of salvation. 'f Into this church baptism is the 
 mode of admission.^ By this sacrament and by the Lord's 
 supper, which are ' signs and seals of the covenant of grace, '§ 
 your * ingrafting into Christ,' and all the '• benefits of Christ's 
 death,' are sealed to you as a true believer. || With the 
 necessity of communion with the visible church, and with 
 these sacraments, man has no right to dispense. Though in 
 the cases of penitent and true believers, who do not negligent- 
 ly or mlfully contemn these institutions, a merciful God will 
 
 * So styled by you. Christian's Magazine, introduction, p. 9. 
 t Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Churches, chap. xxv. sec. 2. 
 j Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Churches, chap, xxviii. 1. 
 § Chap.xxvii. 1. 11 Chap. xxix. 1. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 61 
 
 dispense with them ; yet as far as respects my authority, and 
 your duty, they are indispensable conditions of salvation." I 
 see not where would be the inaccuracy of such language. 
 You justify it in your " Letters on Frequent Communion." 
 It is one principal object of these letters (p. 6, &c.) to prove 
 your position, that " frequent communion is an indispensable 
 duty." Were I to deal with this assertion in the same 
 uncandid manner by which you attempt to fix " crime or 
 contradiction" upon me, you would be placed in a very 
 awkward predicament. I might argue thus — If the duty be 
 indispensable, no possible excuses can justify the neglect of 
 it. And if they who neglect it are justifiable in this neglect, 
 it is not indispensable : otherwise, the definition might run 
 thus — an indispensable duty is that lohich may be dispensed 
 with. The only alternative then is frequent communion, or 
 crime in violating an indispensable duty. How then will 
 you answer for your conduct, in refusing the communion to 
 a person confined for months, and perhaps years, to a sick 
 room, and thus involving him in the awful guilt of violating 
 the indispensable duty of frequent communion ! No, sir, I 
 presume your acceptation of the word indispensable is the 
 same in this case as when I apply it to communion with the 
 authorized priesthood. There are certain cases in which 
 you will acknowledge that Christians are absolved from the 
 duty of frequent communion. And there are also cases in 
 which I maintain that they are absolved, in the sight of God, 
 from the guilt of rejecting the authorized ministry. It would 
 indeed be absurd to say, that " an indispensable condition may 
 be dispensed with " — if the terms be applied in one and the 
 same sense. But surely "a condition indispensable,^^ as it 
 respects man^s authority or right, may yet be ^' dispensed 
 with'''' by that God who is supreme in authority and power. 
 What now, sir, becomes of your attempt to make mj^ only 
 alternative " contradiction or crime .^" What becomes of 
 your attempt, by perverting my language to a meaning differ- 
 ent from that in which my explicit declarations should have 
 
 6 
 
62 hobart's apology 
 
 led you to understand it, to fix on me the odious and impious 
 imputation of ^' making the only alternative, Episcopacy or 
 Perdition tr* 
 
 You charge me with " placing the external order of the 
 church upon a level with the merits of our Lord Jesus in the 
 article of acceptance with God." It is the least of the crimi- 
 nality of such a tenet, that it " wounds the bosom of tender 
 piety," In imputing it to me, you overwhelm me with the 
 awful guilt of derogating from the supreme efficacy of that 
 precious blood which alone shields the sinner from the 
 wrath of an offended God. In the sense in which yow under- 
 stand the term '•'■ indispensable^'''' I would not apply it to 
 either /ai/A or external order. Where the gospel is proclaim- 
 ed, faith in Christ, and communion with that visible body of 
 which he is the head, and which he redeems and sanctifies, 
 are conditions with which man has no authority to dispense. 
 As, however, I have tepeatedl}" expressed the belief that 
 God will dispense^ in cases of involuntary error, with what 
 I consider regular and valid communion with the church, it 
 is evident that I do not place " external order and faith in 
 Christ" upon a level. But grant that I make them in the 
 same sense indispensable : does it follow that I " place exter- 
 nal order on a level with the merits of our Lord Jesus .?" 
 May I not consistently maintain that these all-sufficient merits 
 are the only grounds of the acceptance of our faith, and also 
 of our obedience to that external order which God has pre- 
 scribed ? In your zeal to fix on me the blasphemous doc- 
 trine, that obedience to external order is of as much avail to 
 salvation, as " the merits of our Lord Jesus," you evidently 
 place "/az7A" on a level with these merits. On the suppo- 
 sition that I make " soundness in external order " an indis- 
 
 * By the same disingenuous statement of the sense in which I apply 
 the term " indispensable," your friend and co-adjutor, Mr. M'Leod, re- 
 presents me in his ecclesiastical catechism (p. 113,) as "excluding from 
 the hopes of happiness hereafter all who are not EpiscopSdians^ and even 
 all Episcopalians who do not receive the Lord's supper." 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 63 
 
 pensable condition of salvation, I am guilty, according to 
 you, of placing external order on a level with the merits of 
 Christ. Therefore, as you make faith an indispensable con- 
 dition, na}^ "the hinging point of salvation,"* by your own 
 reasoning it follows, that you place faith " on a level with 
 the merits of our Lord Jesus in the article of acceptance with 
 God" — that is, faith., which (though it be formed in the 
 soul by divine grace) is an act of the understanding and the 
 will, and therefore a human performance ^ as much so as 
 " soundness in external order,'''' has as great influence towards 
 our salvation as "the merits of the Lord Jesus! P^'f I mean 
 not, however, to impute this position to you. But you must 
 take your choice — either acknowledge that your reasoning 
 against me is fallacious, or incur the censure of placing 
 human performances on a level with the merits of Christ. 
 Whether these performances be faith, or soundness in exter- 
 nal order, is of no consequence. God forbid that I should 
 depreciate faith as a Christian grace, or attempt to lower its 
 rank among the conditions of salvation. But it is surely 
 impious to place any qualifications in the creature, even 
 though they may be wrought in him (as faith certainly is) 
 through the agency of the Holy Spirit, upon a " level 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 98. 
 
 t It really appears to me, that in what you say of faith, you are in 
 danger of running from the popish absurdity of the 77ierit of works into 
 the equally great absurdity of the 77i€rit of faith. In fact, I think, this 
 •is an error to which Calvinistic writers in general expose themselves. 
 The instrumentality of faith in our justification is concisely and clearly 
 stated by Bishop Horsely, whom I quote with the more pleasure, be- 
 cause he has been supposed by some (in my judgment unjustly) to be 
 favourable to the peculiarities of Calvinism. " It is not by the merit of 
 our faith more than by the merit of our works that we are justified : 
 there is indeed no hope for any merit of our own, but through the efficacy 
 of our Lord's atonement. For that we ' are justified by faith' is not 
 on account of any merit in our faith ; but because faith is the first princi- 
 ple of that communion between the believer's soul and the divine Spirit, 
 on which the whole of our spiritual life depends." Bishop Horsely's 
 Charge to his Clergy, 1790. 
 
64 hobart's apology 
 
 with the merits of Christ in the article of acceptance with 
 God." 
 
 I complain, that in your attempt to fix on me the imputa- 
 tion of making " Episcopacy of primary, and faith of second- 
 ary importance," * you haA^e materially misstated a passage in 
 my writings. This passage you thus introduce : '^ We are 
 told again, that * whoever is in communion with the bishop, 
 the supreme governor of the church upon earth, is in com- 
 munion with Christ the head of it ; and whoever is not in 
 communion with the bishop, is thereby cut off from commu- 
 nion with Christ,' and this is said to be a ^general conclu- 
 sion' * established ' by Hhe uniform testimony of all the 
 apostolic and primitive writers." Now, the passage which 
 you dissever and alter ^ and the parts of which you arrange to 
 suit your own purposes, is as follows : " The uniform testi- 
 mony of all the apostolic and primitive writers establishes the 
 general conclusion, that whoever was in communion with 
 the bishop, the supreme governor of the church upon earth, 
 WAS in communion with Christ the head of it ; and whoever 
 WAS not in communion with the bishop, was thereby cut off 
 from communion with Christ." "f The difference is striking 
 and material. According to your quotation of this passage, 
 3"ou make me state a doctrine of my own, in terms of my own 
 choice. Whereas, the passage as it stands in the Festivals 
 and Fasts, and in Daubeny, from which it is taken, states an 
 historical fact ^ that such was the opinion of the Apostolic 
 and PRIMITIVE WRITERS. The difference, I say, is strik- 
 ing and material. For in the passage as yo\i state it, I 
 am answerable not merely for the doctrine intended to be 
 convej^ed, but for the language also ; which, in such ingeni- 
 ous hands as yours, may be twisted and perverted to a dan- 
 gerous and erroneous construction. But in the passage, as it 
 appears in Daubeny, and in the Festivals and Fasts, the 
 Apostolic and primitive writers alone are answerable for the 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 99, 100. 
 t Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, p. 59. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 65 
 
 terms in which they convey their doctrine. And as it was 
 your object, from this passage, to raise in your readers that 
 " gaze of astonishment or swell of indignation " which held 
 you "in suspense," " after perusing it " — it was unwarrant- 
 able in you to distort and alter the passage, and change the 
 arrangement of the parts. 
 
 The primitive fathers believed what the Presbyterian con- 
 fessions of faith assert, that " out of the visible church there 
 is no ordinary possibility of salvation."* And as thej^ knew 
 no church without a bishop at the head of it,! of course they 
 were compelled to conclude, that there was no " ordinary 
 possibility of salvation" but through the bishop. The only 
 difference between you and them is, that they believed there 
 could be no visible church but where there was a bishop ; 
 and you believe a " perfect equality in the ministry "to be 
 the principle of church unity. J You both agree that visible 
 communion with Christ is maintained by communion with the 
 churchy through baptism and the Lord's supper. For, ac- 
 cording to the Presbyterian confessions of faith, these ordi- 
 nances were instituted "to put a visible difference between 
 those who belong unto the church and the rest of the wmldy^ 
 Your confounding this visible communion with Christ 
 through his church, with that spintaal communion which 
 commences in true faith, but which must be " sealed " and 
 '* nourished " by the ordinances of the Church, has led you 
 to represent me as maintaming that " there is no access to 
 communion with Christ but through the bishop ;" and that 
 " faith in Christ is impossible where there is no communion 
 with the bishop. "II That there can be no visible communion 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. xxv. 
 
 t " It was the general received opinion of the ancient Christian 
 world, that Ecclesia est in Episcopo, the outward being of a church, 
 consisted in the having of a bishop." Hooker, book vii. sec. 5. 
 
 X Christian's Magazine, introduction, p. 12, 13. 
 
 § Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. 
 
 II Christian's Magazine, p. 99. 
 
 6* 
 
66 hobart's apology 
 
 with Christ but through the bishop, I undoubtedly maintain. 
 For, on Episcopal principles, none but a bishop can give a 
 valid commission to administer those ordinances on which 
 this visible communion depends. But spiritual communion 
 with Christ, that communion whereby we spiritually discern 
 his gracious offices, and apply them to our souls, depends 
 upon the exercise of genuine faith. While, therefore, I 
 maintain that " true faith vitallj^ unites its possessor to 
 Christ," I can consistently maintain, that this communion 
 must be " sealed," must be " confirmed," by communion 
 with the church through its duly authorized ministers ; and 
 that he who ivilfully rejects this communion with the visible 
 church, " out of which there is no ordinary possibility of 
 salvation," will forfeit those blessings to which his commu- 
 nion with Christ by faith would otherwise entitle him. What 
 God hath joined together let not man put asunder. Baptism, 
 and the Lordh supper are, on Presbyterian principles, tike 
 " seals of the covenant."* And can he lay any claim to the 
 blessings of this covenant who wilfully rejects its " holy 
 seals .^" If he can, to what purpose serve these seals } And 
 if he cannot, as these " seals" are, on Presbyterian princi- 
 ples, " not to be dispensed by any but a minister of the word, 
 lawfully ordainedj^^'\ does not communion with Christy through 
 the "seals" of the covenant, depend, yourself being judge, 
 on communion with lawful ministers? The only difference 
 between us then is on the question. Who are lawful ministers ? 
 We both agree that by true faith the believer becomes inte- 
 rested in the blessings of the covenant ; but that to these 
 blessings (cases of unavoidable ignorance and involuntary 
 error excepted) he can have no regular title before they are 
 sealed and confirmed to him in those divine ordinances which 
 Christ instituted to be the " means whereby we receive " 
 these blessings, " and a pledge to assure us thereof. "J 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. xxviii. xxix. 
 t Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. 4. 
 X Church Catechism. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 67 
 
 Nor is your charge just, that I lessen the importance of 
 faith. On my principles, without true faith all external 
 communion with Christ through his church can be of no 
 avail, and will only tend to our greater condemnation. I 
 assert, that to the "believer" only are "the merits and 
 grace of the Redeemer applied, in the devout and humble 
 participation of the ordinances of the church, administered 
 by a priesthood, who derive their authority, bj" regular trans- 
 mission, from Christ."* " Pardon, salvation, and grace, 
 the inestimable blessings of this sacred ordinance (the Lord's 
 supper) are conveyed only to the true believer. "| " Com- 
 munion with the church is the appointed mode by which the 
 faith and obedience of Christians is to be quickened and pre- 
 served, and made acceptable unto God. But unless their 
 communion with the church conduces to this end, and ad- 
 vances them into a conformity to Christ their holy and divine 
 head, it is not sincere, and will not be effectual to their sal- 
 vation. Those who, admitted into the church, live in a 
 course of sin and disobedience, will incur the heavy con- 
 demnation of having resisted God^s grace, of having done 
 despite unto his spirit, of having contemned the offers of di- 
 vine mercy, and counted the blood of the covenant an unholy 
 thing. ^^"j^. So far then from your accusation being just, that 
 I " hold up Episcopacy as of primary, and faith in Christ 
 as of secondary importance ;"§ on the contrary", I make all 
 effectual or beneficial communion with the bishop to depend 
 on faith ; and, agreeably to your own conclusion, " that the 
 one upon which the existence of the other depends must be 
 the more important of the two,"|| I make, of course, faith in 
 Christ of more importance than communion with the bishop. 
 This communion with the bishop can take placQ^only through 
 baptism and the Lord's supper, dispensed by ministers Epis- 
 
 * Preface to the Companion for the Altar, p. 5. 
 
 t Companion for the Altar, p. HI. 
 
 X Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, p. 203. 
 
 § Christian's Magazine, p. 100. || p. 100. 
 
copally ordained. And for baptism in the case of adults, and 
 for the Lord's supper, faith is a preparatory, an essential 
 qualification. As, therefore, on my principles, faith precedes 
 communion Avith the bishop, it is distinct from this commu- 
 nion, and independent of it.* How then can I be accused of 
 making " faith impossible where there is no communion with 
 the bishop," and of holding principles which make " all non- 
 Episcopalians, of necessity, infidels ?"| All 3'our ingenious 
 reasoning, which appears to have cost you so much labour, 
 and by which you attempt to justify your odious charges 
 against me, is founded on an unpandid construction of my 
 language, on consequences unfairly deduced from my prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 Really, sir, it pains me to be compelled to charge you 
 with having, in my judgment, wielded the pen of contro- 
 versy with so little candour and moderation. It is impos- 
 sible for any person to write in such a manner as to prevent 
 insulated passages and expressions from being tortured into 
 a meaning utterly foreign to his sentiments and intentions, 
 and to the general strain of his reasoning. Hence no rule 
 is more universally acknowledged ; no rule more sacredly 
 regarded by all candid critics, than that which determines 
 the sentiments of a writer from the general tenor of his re- 
 marks, and pennits the various parts of his writings mutually 
 to explain and qualify each other. Did I possess your inge- 
 nuity and vigour of remark, and were disposed to violate 
 this rule of candid criticism, I could deduce from detached 
 parts of the sacred oracles themselves, the most contradic- 
 tory and even blasphemous opinions. This obvious and ne- 
 
 * This is doubtless in a certain sense true. But if, through " commu- 
 nion with the bishop," we enjoy the highest feUowfihip with Christ ; 
 and if this fellowship be designed to exalt and perfect within us the 
 essential graces of the Christian character, may it not be questionable 
 how far or how lon^ we can haye gospel faith without " communion 
 with the bishop," or through him'**^with Christ the divine head of the 
 Church, which the gospel enjoins as so important a means of grace ? — Ed. 
 
 t Christian's Magazine, p. 99. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 69 
 
 cessary rule, which should be sacred with every just reasoner, 
 is, in your hands, no more than a straw in the hands of a 
 giant. Rarely, rarely indeed, have you the candour and 
 justice to extend it to my writings. It is your invariable 
 practice to take particular expressions, and without consider- 
 ing their connection with other passages which qualify their 
 application, and determine the meaning in which I use them, 
 to force them into whatever sense it may suit your purpose. 
 And you act thus unfairly, not to convict me of venial errors, 
 but to fix on me ^' positions of deep-toned horror !" Is this 
 to " do to others as you would that they should do to j^ou .^" 
 Honestly ask your own heart. Appeal to your own conscience. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I AM justified, therefore, in disclaiming as uncandid 
 and illegitimate the consequences which you deduce from my 
 opinions. I expressly guarded against these consequences. 
 Without involving myself in any contradictions, I can dis- 
 claim them. I shall now prove that the same uncandid and 
 unfair arts would involve many of your principles in odium, 
 and fix on you consequences of your opinions which you 
 will doubtless abhor and disclaim. 
 
 You take insulated sentences from my books ; and without 
 permitting other passages to explain or modify them, deduce 
 obnoxious consequences from them. 
 
 Let this method be applied to many of your own prmci- 
 ples and assertions. Let us suppose some ingenious sophist 
 resolves to dispute Dr. Mason's pretensions to superiority in 
 the arts of plausible but false deduction, of blackening opin- 
 ions that they may be "urged over the precipice." He 
 opens the Christian's Magazine, and thus breaks a lance 
 with its giant editor. 
 
 According to Dr. M. the visible church on earth is the 
 
70 hobart's apology 
 
 "nursery of the church in heaven."* Now, the ministry 
 and wdinances are the only external means by which the 
 visible church " nurses" men for heaven. Therefore the 
 ministry and ordinances of the visible church " nurse" men 
 for heaven. And as divine grace " can do no more," it fol- 
 lows, that Dr. M. places the ministry and ordinances on a 
 level with divine grace in the " article " of " nursing " men 
 for heaven. 
 
 Again. Dr. M. being judge, "habitual disobedience to 
 any of the known commands of Christ," to any law of 
 God, to any thing which he hath prescribed, " excludes 
 from the kingdom of heaven." "f" But according to Dr. M. 
 " Presbyterial government," in which there is " perfect 
 equality of rank among ministers," is the "law of God's 
 house;" J it is the "^rwe and only government which the 
 Lord Jesus Christ hath prescribed in his word."§ There- 
 fore habitual disobedience to Presbyteiian government excludes 
 from the kingdom of heaven ! ! And, of course. Dr. M. makes 
 obedience to Presbyterian^ government " the hinging point of 
 salvation." He rushes, with his eyes open, into the very 
 crime for which he denounces " Mr. H. and his compeers." 
 Unless he " flinch from the consequences of his own doc- 
 trine," he cannot even take his choice between " contradic- 
 tion and crime.'''' For, if habitual disobedience to Presbyte- 
 rian government excludes from the kingdom of heaven, obe- 
 dience to this government is made by Dr. M. " the hinging 
 point of salvation ;" and thus he contradicts his own declara- 
 tion, that this point is " faith in the Lord Jesus." || And as 
 Dr. M. maintains that habitual disobedience to Presbyterian 
 government (which, according to him, is a " known com- 
 mand" of Christ) " excludes from the kingdom of heaven ;" 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, introduction, p. 9. 
 t Christian's Magazine, p. 100. 
 X Christian's Magazine, introduction, p. 12, 13. 
 
 § Constitution and Standards of the Associate-Reformed Church, p. 
 475. 
 
 II Christian's Magazine, p. 9S. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 71 
 
 and as rejection of Christ can do more, therefore Dr. M. 
 makes disobedience to Presbyterian government equally criminal 
 with rejection of the Lord Jesus ! ! He is guilty of the crime 
 of degrading the merits of the Lord Jesus to a level with a 
 point of external order, obedience to Presbyterian government ; 
 for he annexes the same penalty to the rejection of both — 
 exclusion from the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 And, further, as according to Dr. M. " habitual disobedi- 
 ence " to Presbyterial government — which he maintains is a 
 " known command of Christ " — " excludes from the kingdom 
 of heaven;" therefore he excludes from heaven Episcopa- 
 lians, Congregationalists, Independents, Methodists, Baptists, 
 Quakers, all of whom habitually disobey Presbyterian govern- 
 ment!! " The alternative, then, is " Presbyterianism "or 
 Perdition ! !" No, no, Dr. M will indignantly exclaim, I 
 allow that " there are sins both of ignorance and infirmity, 
 which consist with a gracious state." And pray, did not 
 Mr. H. make the same concession when he declared that 
 sins of" unavoidable ignorance and involuntary error ^^ would 
 not be punished, and, of course, consist with a gracious state ? 
 What is involuntary error but a sin of infirmity ? " Mea- 
 suring," therefore, to Dr. M.'s assertions the same measure 
 which he meted to the assertions of Mr. H. and his " fel- 
 lows ;" it results that Episcopalians and others who renounce 
 the divine institution of Presbyterian government, are ex- 
 cluded from the kingdom of heaven. Dr. M. indeed, " soft- 
 ens this sweeping sentence of proscription, by representing it 
 as not inconsistent with that charity which extends mercy to 
 all " who sin through ignorance or infirmity. But " as there 
 are few districts where this question can be agitated " with- 
 out Presbyterians, or their ministers, or their writings, "the 
 error" in rejecting Presbyterian government " must almost 
 always be wilful.'''' And, besides. Episcopalians and others 
 " have no ground for this very precarious mercy but the 
 charity" of Dr. M. " and his brethren." And surely " he 
 is a fool " who would run the risk of being excluded from 
 
72 hoeart's apology 
 
 the kingdom of heaven by rejecting Presbyterian government 
 " on the credit of the charity" of Dr. M. and the Christian's 
 Magazine. The very reasoning, the very language by 
 which Dr. M. endeavours* to render odious Mr. H.'s princi- 
 ples, blackens his own. 
 
 Far be it from me to impute to j^ou the conclusions to 
 which your able competitor in the arts of sophistical reason- 
 ing would drag you. But I must declare, that the above 
 obnoxious consequences are deduced from insulated expres- 
 sions and sentences of your writings, by reasoning equally 
 fair and legitimate with that by which you deduce, from 
 insulated expressions and sentences of my books, the obnox- 
 ious opinions which you impute to me. The weapons which 
 you have aimed against me recoil upon yourself. 
 
 It will require the exercise of much more moderation and 
 candour than you have displayed, to reduce your principles 
 and reasonings into an harmonious system. The object of 
 the essay on "the visible church," is to impress on Chris- 
 tians the important doctrines — that there is an "external 
 visible church ;" that this church is " the house of the 
 Lord;"! that this church has a ^^ visible ministry, visible 
 worship, visible sacraments ;''''X that to this visible church 
 (and of course through its visible ministry and sacraments) 
 " the Lord added such as are saved ;"§ for in this " public 
 visible society which God has appropriated to himself — his 
 name is known, and his mercies vouchsafed :" || in the words 
 of the Presbyterian confession of faith, there is "ordinarily 
 out of this church no possibility of salvation." Now, it 
 would be difficult to prove that I have laid greater stress on 
 external order than the foregoing language will warrant. Yet, 
 when I turn to your " review of the Essays on Episcopacy," 
 I find that I am condemned for laying greater stress upon 
 external order than is laid upon it in the word of God. And 
 all the divine institutions you involve in one single principle, 
 faith. 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 94, 95. f p. 54. t P- 71. § p. 62. || p. 72. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 73 
 
 Again. In the essay on the visible church we are repeat- 
 edly told that this church is but one.* Its visible unity is 
 particularly insisted on. It is spoken of in the language of 
 scripture as the " body of Christ ;" to which, of course, we 
 must conclude, that, " ordinarily^'''' all must be united, who 
 would partake of the saving influence of its divine head. 
 Nay, we are told that to the church " God hath given his 
 ordinances" — ^' the means of salvation."! And, conse- 
 quently, there is indeed very good cause why the writers of 
 the New Testament should "argue against schism.''^ "I 
 Whereas, on the principles advanced in the "review of the 
 Essays on Episcopacy," schism is only a name, " vox et pre- 
 terea nihil, mere noise," a scare-crow to " disquiet timid 
 consciences." On your principles the single act of faith 
 unites the Christian so effectually to Christ, that he can never 
 finally fall away. Of what consequence then is " the visible 
 church," its "external ordinances," its "means of salva- 
 tion .''" For Dr. M. being judge, faith in the testimony of 
 God does not depend on " going through the gate of Episco- 
 pacy," nor, for the same reason, through any other gate of 
 external order ; and faith alone infallibly saves us. Where 
 then is the guilt or danger of schism, of separation from the 
 " external ordinances " and the " visible ministry " of the 
 church ? While true believers have faith, they are united to 
 Christ. And they may, therefore, divide and divide the 
 " body of Christ " without end; may split into innumerable 
 sects and parties ; may, in fact, lay aside the " ministry and 
 ordinances " appointed and commanded by Christ himself as 
 " means of salvation ;" and yet, if they only have faith — all 
 is well — ^for faith is " the hinging point of salvation :" the 
 inquiry, " whether a man shall go to heaven or to hell," is 
 "fixed to this point" only, " whether he was a believer in 
 the Lord Jesus !" On your principles faith is entirely 
 unconnected with " external order," and faith alone is essen- 
 tial to salvation. You argue indeed precisely as one who 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. G3, 70. f p. 71. :f p. 61. 
 
 7 
 
74 hobart's apology 
 
 insists that there is no visible church would wish you to 
 argue. For if a correct definition of the church be, that it 
 is " the whole body of believers ;" and if, in order to become 
 a believer, it is not necessary to go through any gate of 
 external order ; if, of course, faith simply and alone admits 
 into the church, a visible ministry and sacraments are not 
 necessarily connected with the church. It follows, there is 
 no visible church. A single " dash of your pen" has thus 
 demolished the visible churchy consigned to contempt its. min- 
 istry, its ordinances, its visible unity, and made that heinous 
 crime schismhut an " empty name." 
 
 The reasoning in the " essay on the visible church," is 
 founded on the principle, that the '' visible church is in sub- 
 stance the same under both Testaments. The New Testa- 
 ment Church is the very same great society which God for- 
 merly erected for the praise of his glory, and has caused to 
 pass under a new form of dispensation."* Of course, we 
 may conclude that the " visible ministry " and " visible 
 sacraments "I of this weiyand more perfect dispensation, are 
 not less glorious, nor less important, nor less obligatory than 
 those of the old dispensation. Under the Old Testament 
 dispensation they " perished," who, like " Korah," " gain- 
 sayed," rebelled against the Jewish priesthood. But under 
 the new dispensation, though the Apostle still speaks of those 
 who perish " in the gainsaying of Korah, "J your reasoning 
 will sanction the conclusion, that " rejection of the ministry " 
 does not affect the eternal destiny of the offender — for ^^ faith 
 alone is the hinging point of salvation." Communion with 
 the church under the Old Testament was the inean and pledge 
 to the believing Jews of their being in a covenant state ; and 
 this communion was maintained by communion with the 
 priesthood. And yet under the New Testament dispensation 
 it would appear, according to your principles, that faith alone, 
 effectually, and finally, and unchangeably, and independently 
 of all external order, brings men into covenant with God. For 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 72. f p. 71. J Jude. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 75 
 
 faith alone, as opposed to external order, you declare, is 
 " the hinging point of salvation." Of course, if a man be 
 united to Christ by faith, it does not affect his salvation 
 whether he be in the church or out of it ; whether he sub- 
 mit to a ministry of divine appointment, or one only of 
 human invention ; or whether in fact he submit to " the 
 visible ministry and ordinances of Christ," or reject them all 
 as mere " beggarly elements," unnecessary to genuine faith, 
 or the saving operations of the spirit. Your principle is 
 indeed that corner-stone of Calvinism, that the salvation of 
 believers depends solely on the unconditional decree of God; 
 of an interest in which decree, faith is the sole and unfailing 
 assurance. And this principle, I am bold to say, will drive 
 its defenders, " if closely followed up," through the Fanati- 
 cal and Antinomian "camps," into fatalism itself; into 
 making God the author of sin, and seating a blind and cruel 
 destiny on that throne which now beams forth unutterable 
 holiness and mercy.* 
 
 I am aware that you qualify your position, that faith alone 
 is essential to salvation, by the assertion, that " habitual 
 disobedience to any of the divine commands excludes from 
 the kingdom of heaven." But how is this to be reconciled 
 with the doctrine that " faith is the hinging point of salva- 
 tion ?" For surely whatever excludes from the kingdom of 
 heaven, is the hinging point of salvation. And whatever 
 falls under the denomination of " habitual disobedience to a 
 divine command," let that command respect external order, 
 or matters of doctrine, becomes then as much the hinging 
 point of salvation as faith is. I shrewdly suspect, sir, that 
 the more you " stir these troubled waters," " confusion will 
 become worse confounded." If j^ou undervalue external 
 order, j^ou are frowned upon by the palpable declarations of 
 the Bible, and of all the standards of doctrine of the Pres- 
 
 * The language which I here use is justified by your's, p. 25 of the 
 Christian*s Magazine. 
 
76 hobart's apology 
 
 byterian churches. And if you consider obedience to exter- 
 nal order (though it be commanded by God) as a condition 
 of salvation, you are in danger of encroaching on the Cal- 
 vinistic principle, that faith, as the infallible testimony of our 
 being the objects of the decree of everlasting election, is 
 the point on which our salvation turns. 
 
 The truth is, the divine commands are all obligatory. All 
 comparison of the relative importance or obligation of these 
 commands, in order to determine vv^hich we may with impu- 
 nity neglect or violate, is criminal and impious. Let me 
 direct your attention to the language of one, who, though a 
 prelate of the Church of England, is, I suspect, a favourite 
 writer with you. Bishop Butler, in his " Analogy,"* thus 
 settles the point of the comparative obligation of the com- 
 mands of God. " Our obligations to obey all God's com- 
 mands whatever are absolute and indispensable^'^ and commands 
 merely positive, admitted to be from him, lay us under a 
 moral obligation to obey them — an obligation moral in the 
 strictest and most proper sense." Yes, sir, " he who keep- 
 eth the whole law, and yet " habitually and wilfully " offends 
 in one point, he is guilty of all." And were the " whole 
 world " laid at my feet, it should not tempt me to run the 
 hazard of that believer, however much he may boast of the 
 assurance of his faith, who habitually and wilfully violates 
 " one of the least commandments " of his divine Lord ; even 
 though it be that external order which you are so confident is 
 not the hinging point of salvation. 
 
 * p. 208, Boston edition. 
 
 t Observe, sir, this acute and accurate reasoner uses the term indis- 
 pensable in the same sense in which I apply it in the Companion for the 
 Altar. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 77 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 Sir, 
 
 It is a most grievous offence to you that the advocates 
 of Episcopacy " unchurch " those who reject it, and leave 
 them to *' uncovenanted mercy." This "dreadful excom- 
 munication" produces the most awful effects. Your imagi- 
 nation fires — ^your bosom swells — the voice of thunder pro- 
 claims — Mr. H. and his compeers make " the only alterna- 
 tive, EpiscoPAcy or Perdition " — " The hair stands up like 
 quills upon the fretful porcupine " — " The warm blood is 
 frozen at its fountain." I am persuaded that the candid 
 reader, who has impartially considered my defence against 
 these charges, in the preceding pages, will smile when he 
 sees you so violently agitated at a phantom which possesses 
 no terrors but what your vivid imagination has thrown around 
 it. In fact, sir, I deny that in an unqualified sense, I have 
 unchurched non-Episcopalians. What says the " Companion 
 for the Altar .?" " To experience the full and exalted efficacy 
 of the sacraments, we must receive them from a valid autho- 
 rity."* What says the Companion for the Festivals and 
 Fasts ? " The Church of Christ is a visible institution. It 
 is to be known by its priesthood, which, as we have seen, 
 was established by Christ and his apostles under the three 
 orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons ; by its doctrine^ 
 and by its sacraments. Where these are as Christ ordained 
 them, there is the Church of Christ ; where these, or any of 
 them, are wanting, there the church is not ; at least, not in a 
 sound and perfect state.'^^'\ As far as any particular church 
 corrupts the doctrine and sacraments, or renounces the duly 
 authorized ministry of Christ's Church, so far she ceases to 
 be the church "in a sound and perfect state." Nor do I 
 
 * Companion for the Altar, p. 203. 
 
 t Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, p. 56 and 57. 
 
 7# 
 
78 hobart's apology 
 
 leave non-Episcopalians in any other sense to " uncovenanted 
 mercy," than you do those who, though they have faith in 
 Christ, do not deem it necessary to be baptized, or to receive 
 the Lord's supper. For as they reject those sacraments 
 which (yourself being judge) are not merely the " signs," 
 but the " seals of the covenant of grace," of '' ingrafting 
 into Christ," of all the " benefits of Christ's sacrifice,"* they 
 surely cannot be said to be regularly and fully " within the 
 covenant," " ingrafted into Christ," or entitled to the "bene- 
 fits of his sacrifice." 
 
 My business now shall be to show that I do not proceed 
 as far in this business of unchurching as my accuser. You 
 warmly recommend Mr. M'Leod's Catechism. It would be 
 an affront to suppose that you have not attentively weighed 
 the principles in that book ; and after this solemn examina- 
 tion, to recommend them as reviewer, ex cathedra, is to 
 make them your own. Let us now see/how far your princi- 
 ples " unchurch " Christians, and lejive them to " uncove- 
 nanted mercy." 
 
 1. Mr. M'L. and yourself unchurch the Quakers. For 
 you make " a legitimate ministry " one of the characteristics 
 of the TRUE church ; " "f and as the Quakers certainly have 
 not what you consider a legitimate ministry, they are not of 
 the true church. 
 
 2. Mr. M'L. and yourself wwcAwrc^ Episcopalians. You 
 call a legitimate ministry "ecclesiastical officers ordained 
 according to Christ's appointment." J Now, as yon con- 
 sider the power of the Bishop in ordination an " usurpation " 
 of course, those ministers who are Episcopally ordained are 
 not " ordained according to Christ's appointment ;" conse- 
 quently, are not legitimate ministers: and as " a legitimate 
 ministry is one of the characteristics of the true church," 
 you make the Episcopal Church not the true church. 
 
 * Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Churches, chap. xxv. sec. 
 1. 28, 1. 29. 
 t Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 8, Q. 18. % p. 8, 20. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 79 
 
 Mr. M^L. and yourself maintain, (Eccles. Catec. p. 29. 
 Q. 67) " that a person who is not ordained by a Presbytery 
 has no right to be received as a minister of Clirist : his 
 administration of ordinances is invalid : no divine blessing is 
 promised upon his labours : it is rebellion against the head 
 of the church to support him in his pretensions : Christ has 
 excluded him in his providence from admission through the 
 ordinary door: and if he has no evidence of miraculous 
 power to testify his extraordinarj^ mission, he is an impos- 
 tor." What is this but to unchurch Episcopalians, to pro- 
 nounce their ministers " impostors," and their ordinances 
 " invaHd .?" For Deacons, one of the orders of Episcopal 
 ministers, are not " ordained by a Presbytery," but by the 
 Bishop, who alone lays on his hands. An Episcopal Dea- 
 con, therefore, (according to yourself and Mr. M'L.) is 
 "an impostor" — his administration of baptism "invalid" — 
 " no divine blessing is promised on his labours " of preach- 
 ing : and Episcopalians are guilty of " rebellion against the 
 head of the church in supporting him in his pretensions !" 
 In the same predicament stand Episcopal Presbyters : for 
 they are ordained by the Bishop. The associating of the 
 Presbyters with him in the laying on of hands is only an 
 ecclesiastical regulation, to denote the concurrence of the 
 Presbyters, and to guard the exercise of the Episcopal 
 power of ordination.* This regulation was introduced into 
 
 * " Doth it hereupon follow that the power of ordination was not prin- 
 cipally and originally in the Bishop .' Our Saviour hath said unto his 
 Apostles, With me ye shall sit and judge the twelve tribes of Israel ; 
 yet we know that to him alone it belongeth to judge the world, and that 
 to him all judgment is given. The association of Presbyters is no suffi- 
 cient proof that the power of ordination was in them, but rather that it 
 never was in them we may hereby understand ; for that no man is able 
 to show either Deacon or Presbyter ordained by Presbyters only, and his 
 ordination accounted lawful in any ancient part of the church ; every- 
 where examples being found both of Deacons and Presbyters ordained by 
 Bishops alone oftentimes, neither even in that respect thought insuffi- 
 cient." Hooker. Ecclesiastical Polity, book vii. sect. 6. 
 
80 hobart's apology 
 
 the Western church only bj'^ a canon of the fourth century ; 
 the Eastern church having to this day uniformly retained the 
 mode which before prevailed, of " the laying on of the 
 hands" of the Bishop alone. An ordination by the laying 
 on of the hands of the Bishop, Episcopalians consider as 
 valid, though not according to ecclesiastical usage. The 
 third order of Episcopal ministers, Bishops, being " not 
 ordained by a Presbytery," but by Bishops , whose powers 
 are expressly called "usurpations," stand in the predica- 
 ment with the other two orders. Thus, then. Episcopal 
 ministers, being " not ordained by a Presbytery j'^ have " no 
 right to be received as ministers of Christ : their administra- 
 tion of ordinances is invalid : no divine blessing is promised 
 upon their labours :" Episcopalians are guilty of " rebellion 
 against the head of the church in supporting them in their 
 pretensions :" and as they have " no evidence of miraculous 
 powers to testify their extraordinary mission, they are 
 
 IMPOSTORS." 
 
 3. Mr. M'L. and yourself unchurch the Roman Catholic 
 and the Greek Church. It would be wasting time to prove 
 that as they have none of your characteristics of the true 
 church J neither " sound doctrine, a legitimate ministry, nor a 
 proper use of the sacraments,"* they are richly deserving of 
 being viewed as " synagogues of Satan ! " 
 
 4. But what is most astonishing (I tremble while I record 
 it,) Mr. M'L. and yourself unchurch the Presbyterian 
 Church of Scotland ! You make " the discharge of the 
 duties of their offices according to Christ's direction," "f an 
 essential characteristic of that " legitimate ministry " which 
 is necessary to " the true church.^"* And it is notorious that 
 the fundamental cause of the separation of the sects of Sece- 
 ders from whom you and Mr. M^L. are descended, (and the 
 principles of which separation you still sacredly maintain) is, 
 that the "ministry," the "ecclesiastical officers" of the 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 8-18.. 
 t Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 8-20. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 81 
 
 Church of Scotland, did not " discharge the duties of their 
 office agreeably to the direction of Christ. "^^ Of course, they 
 are not a legitimate ministr}^ ; and, therefore, the Church of 
 Scotland is not the true church ! 
 
 5. But, alas ! it has fallen to my unhappy lot to record, 
 that "in the beginning of the 19th century,"* two distin- 
 guished divines have " committed to writing," a sentence of 
 excision on the whole visible church ! Mr. M'L. and your- 
 self maintain that " the characteristics of the true church, 
 are sound doctrine, a legitimate ministry, and the proper use 
 of the sacraments." Now there is no church (Mr. M^L. 
 being judge) f which is perfectly '^ sound in doctrine." There 
 is no church, the ministry of which discharge their office in 
 all respects, " agreeably to Christ's direction ;" which it is 
 necessary they should do, in order to be " a legitimate min- 
 istry. "J There is no church, whose ministry administer the 
 sacraments in all respects " in the true spirit of the institu- 
 tion ;" which is necessary to " the proper use of the sacra- 
 ments." § And as all these Mr. M'L. and yourself make 
 necessary to " the true church, it follows, that there is no 
 true church on earth! !! Mr. M'L. and Dr. M. by "a single 
 dash of the pen," blot out that "church," against which its 
 divine founder promised " the gates of hell should not pre- 
 vail." It is true, you soften " this sweeping sentence" by 
 "some reliefs," and some " concessions." || But they are 
 " not worth accepting," for they are " in direct repug- 
 nance" to your definitions of the true church, and only 
 show that " j'^ou flinch from the consequences of your doc- 
 trine." God forbid that I should believe you serious in this 
 " dreadful excommunication." But I insist that a specimen 
 of fairer deduction from acknowledged premises does not 
 grace any page of the " review of the Essays on Episco- 
 pacy." 
 
 * I borrow these words from Mr. M<L. Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 113. 
 t Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 7-15. % p. 8-20. § p. 9-21. 
 
 II I have recourse again to your own language. 
 
82 hobart's apology 
 
 The fact is, that Mr. M'L. applies to the " true church" 
 the characteristics of a sound and perfect church* I really 
 think you should call Mr. M'L. to an account for the 
 dilemma in which he has involved both you and himself 
 through want of precision in the use of terms. I can give 
 you another specimen of this gentleman's accuracy in his 
 definitions. Christians in general have hitherto supposed 
 that baptism was the " sacrament ordained b}" Jesus Christ 
 for the solemn admission of the party baptised into the visible 
 church."! But Mr. M'L. has found out that the sacra- 
 ments are to be administered only " to regularly received 
 members of the church ;"J that is, baptism, which is one of 
 the sacraments, and by which a person becomes a regularly 
 received member of the church," is not to be administered 
 to him until he is a "regularly received member!!" It is 
 really curious to observe Mr. M'L.'s application of scripture. 
 For example, he proves that the " Shorter Catechism, com- 
 piled by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, is the most 
 complete and comprehensive summary of the doctrines of !he 
 gospel," from the text, 2 Tim. i. 13. " Hold fast the form 
 of sound words. "§ He proves that " the form of church 
 government is wisely adapted to every state of the church," 
 from the text. Rev. i. 20. " The mystery of the seven stars, 
 which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden 
 candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven 
 churches ; and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest 
 are the seven churches. "|| He proves that " Presbyterial 
 order is divinely appointed for the perfecting of the saints, 
 and all are bound to submit to it," from the text. Rev. iii. 
 
 * Mr. M'L.'s definition of a true church, which indeed proves there 
 is not a true church on earth, appears not only in his Ecclesiastical Cate- 
 chism, but in the standards of the church of which he is a minister. See 
 " Reformation Principles," part ii. chap. xx. sect. 7. 
 
 t Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxviii. 1. 
 
 \ Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 9. 
 
 § Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. S. || p. 14. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 83 
 
 22. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith 
 unto the churches."* He proves the "reasonableness and 
 excellency of the Presbyterian constitution of church govern- 
 ment," from the text, Ezek. xliii. 12. " The whole limit 
 thereof round about shall be holy. Behold, this is the law 
 of the house. ""f And, wonderful discovery ! he proves that 
 the deacon's office " respects only temporal affairs," from 
 the text, Rom. xii. 8. " He that giveth, let him do it with 
 simplicity."! Really, I should not despair that Mr. M^L. 
 would be able satisfactorily to prove from scripture, what all 
 Lord Peter's bulls have hitherto failed to establish, that " a 
 twelve-penny leaf is a shoulder of mutton !" Yet this is 
 the gentleman who has kindly undertaken to instruct us, 
 poor simple Americans, in the principles of ecclesiastical 
 government ; and who has written in the most contemptuous 
 manner of the principles and institutions of the Episcopal 
 Church. 
 
 You maintain that faith alone is the condition of salvation, 
 and that it is an abominable error to rank participation of the 
 ordinances by the hands of Christ's authorized ministers 
 among the appointed conditions of salvation. 
 
 From the references which I have occasionally made in 
 the preceding pages to the Presbyterian confessions of faith, 
 I think it must be evident that I do not lay any greater stress 
 on external order ^ on communion with the church through its 
 ministry and ordinances, than the standards and confessions 
 of faith of the Presbyterian churches will warrant. 
 
 Do I maintain that (except in cases of unavoidable igno- 
 rance or involuntary error) it is onl}- by communion with the 
 visible church, that we can obtain a title to the blessings of 
 salvation } I open the confessions of faith of the Presbyte- 
 rian churches, and find them maintaining the same doctrine, 
 " The visible church," — is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is 
 
 * p. 31. t P- 87. t P- 35. 
 
84 hobart's apology 
 
 no ordimsixy possibility of salvation.''''* I shield myself under 
 your great master Calvin, who declares, "that departing 
 from the church is a denying of God and Christ. ''''f 
 
 Do I maintain that communion with the visible church 
 can only be maintained by the participation of the sacra- 
 ments from the hands of duly authorized ministers ? I only 
 avow Presbyterian doctrine. On Presbyterian principles a 
 ministry and ordinances are essential to the visible church. 
 "Unto this Catholic visible church (say the Presb}i;erian 
 confessions of faith) Christ hath given the ministry^ oracles 
 and ordinances of God for the gathering and perfecting of the 
 saints in this life, to the end of the world ; and doth by his 
 own presence and spirit, according to his promise, make them 
 effectual thereunto. '''X Baptism and the Lord's supper are 
 " holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace," appointed 
 by Christ for our " solemn admission into the Church," and 
 for " confirming and sealing our interest in him ;" and they 
 are not to be " dispensed by any but by a minister of the 
 word, lawfully ordained. "§ The great reformer, Calvin, 
 holds the same language — " Forgiveness of sins is a benefit 
 so proper to the churchy that we cannot otherwise enjoy it, 
 but if we abide in the communion thereof. It is distributed 
 unto us by the ministers and pastors, either by preaching the 
 gospel, or by ministering of the sacraments. Wherefore let 
 every one of us think this to be his duty, no where else to seek 
 forgiveness of sins, than where the^ Lord hath left it."|| Is it 
 possible to lay greater stress on external order than Calvin 
 does, who declares " neither the light and heat of the sun, 
 nor meat and drink, are so necessary to nourish and sustain 
 this present life, as the office of the apostles and pastors is 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. xxv. 2. 
 
 t Calvin's Institutes, book iv. chap. i. sect. 10. 
 
 X Prysbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. xxv. 3. 
 
 § Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap.xxvii. xxviii. xxix. 
 
 II Calvin's Institutes, book iv. chap. i. sect. 22. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 85 
 
 necessary to preserve the church."* Would any person have 
 believed it possible, that a disciple of Calvin, a minister who 
 holds the sentiments above quoted from the Presbyterian 
 confession of faith, would impeach me with laying an undue 
 stress upon ^' external order V^ Would any person have 
 believed it possible, that a minister who holds these senti- 
 ments, who even makes the comfort which a believer takes 
 in his faith to depend upon "the offer of reconciliation" 
 being " made to him by the mouth of ministers having com- 
 mission to that ejvsc/,"'!' should yet impeach me for insisting 
 on " soundness in external order," as one of the conditions 
 of salvation } Yes, sir, you are the man ! But, would you 
 shield from guilt any of your own people, however warm 
 and strong his faith, who, emboldened by your declamation 
 against me for insisting on the ministry and ordinances as 
 conditions of salvation, should reject them, as derogating 
 from the all-sufficiency of the merits of Christ, and the grace 
 of the Holy Spirit ^ Would you not urge on his conscience 
 that he was hazarding his salvation, by impiously contemning 
 the divine " seals of the covenant," those " ordinances in 
 which the covenant is dispensed,"! and by thus rejecting 
 covenanted mercy } Now, sir, does not this reasoning involve 
 the very principle for which you so bitterly condemn me — 
 confining covenanted mercy to the ministry and ordinances 
 appointed by Chiist ? My confining the ministry and ordi- 
 nances appointed by Christ to the Episcopal ministry and 
 ordinances, makes no difference as to the principle involved, 
 and which you so loudly condemn. This principle is, the 
 making of the blessings of salvation dependent on " external 
 order. ^'^ The criminality of this principle, which, according 
 to you, places " external order on a level with the merits of 
 
 * Calvin's Institutes, book iv. chap. iif. sect. 2. 
 
 t Constitution of the Associate-Reformed Church, p. 603. " Sum and 
 substance of saving knowledge," originally set forth by the Westminster 
 '.'.Assembly of Divines." 
 
 X Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. vii. 6. 
 8 
 
86 hobart's apology 
 
 Christ in the article of acceptance before God,'^ is the same 
 whether this ^' external order " be " Episcopal, or Presby- 
 terian, or Independent."* Really, sir, in my humble judg- 
 ment, candour, consistency, and regard for the sacred princi- 
 ples of your own church, should make you blush whenever 
 you open a page of your " review of the Essays on Episco- 
 pacy." Pardon me if I assert that it is " vox et preterea 
 nihil, mere noise, and need give no disquiet to the most 
 timid "f Churchman, nor shake him a moment from his prin- 
 ciples. I shall be justified in addressing to you remarks 
 similar in spirit to those with which you seek to rouse the 
 conscience of Dr. Nott. Your talents and acquirements, 
 which are certainly of no ordinary kind, and, above all, 
 your sacred character should lead you to spurn the ignoble 
 arts of crushing a cause which you oppose, by blackening 
 it with consequences disclaimed by its advocates, and not 
 fairly deducible from its principles. There is not an obser- 
 vation by which you attempt to prejudge me, which may not 
 be directed with equal force against your own principles. 
 The Quaker, who on your principles does not possess that 
 ministry and those ordinances which are the " seals of the 
 covenant," and by which " it is dispensed," may exclaim — 
 What ! will " no ^repentance toward God ;' no ^ faith toward 
 our Lord Jesus Christ ;' no conformity to his image ; no 
 zeal for his glory, be of any avail .^" { Will the " simple 
 fact of my separation from the authorized, that is to say," 
 Dr. M.'s " priesthood, mar my religion, and render it stark 
 naught .?" Does then Dr. M. make, for every Quaker, how- 
 ever humble, pious, and holy his faith, the only alternative, 
 submission to a hireling priesthood or perdition ! ! " Alas ! 
 alas ! pudet ! pudet ! " The mode j^ou pursue will exalt the 
 triumphs of the infidel ; will enable him to push some insu- 
 lated doctrine of the gospel to the extreme, and then to 
 exclaim. These are "positions of deep-toned horror !" 
 When I see you, instead of dispassionately investigating 
 * Christianas Magazine, p. 98. f P- 10^- X P- 94. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 87 
 
 my principles, urge against me charges which may be all 
 made to recoil upon your own, I am " held in suspense 
 between the gaze of astonishment and the swell of indigna- 
 tion." May not such conduct with great propriety be con- 
 sidered as evidence of the weakness of your cause ? When 
 the most potent champion of a cause resorts to such disin- 
 genuous arts, and, at the outset^ attempts to rouse prejudice 
 and passion, there is at least strong presumption that the 
 cause is a weak one. Let then this system of denunciation^ 
 of illegitimate deduction^ be renounced. Test my principles 
 by SCRIPTURE, as elucidated and supported by antiquity. 
 Wrest from my superstructure this sacred foundation, and I 
 will join with you in chaunting hallelujahs to its downfall. 
 But while the venerable edifice of Episcopacy rests its solid 
 base on the rock of ages, it will proudly defy the tempests 
 of invective and denunciation which roll against its lofty 
 battlements. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 To the law and to the testimony, to the word of God, 
 and to the testimony of the Apostolic and primitive age, let 
 us then bring the claims of Episcopacy. You affect indeed 
 to consider Presbyterianism as coming down to us with the 
 awful and venerable sanction of ages ; while the upstart pre- 
 tensions of Episcopacy are to be " hunted " down as equally 
 novel and " arrogant." This is an assurance which would 
 qualify a man for the task of jDroving that the books of the 
 New Testament are forgeries of recent ages. The very 
 same testimonies, which establish that the books of the New 
 Testament are genuine and authentic, determine-^the fact of 
 the Apostolic institution and universal reception of Episco- 
 pacy.* This is acknowledged by the learned Stilling- 
 
 * This fact is proved by the learned Leslie, the author of that incompa- 
 
88 hobart's apology 
 
 FLEET, the auther of the " Irenicum," to which the Chris- 
 tian's Magazine will probably be indebted for many of its 
 arguments against Episcopacy. This book was written by 
 Stillingfleet as the early age of twenty-four years, in the 
 vain hope of healing the divisions on the subject of church 
 order, by a system of mutual concession. Accordingly he 
 labours to refute the opinion, that there is any precise form 
 of church government, extending to all matters of discipline, 
 rites, and ceremonies, laid down in scripture. He thus 
 bears as hard on those who maintain that Presbyterian gov- 
 ernment^ in all its parts, is established in scripture, as he does 
 on those who maintain the same concerning Episcopal gov- 
 ernment. Presbyterian writers are very fond of employing 
 the arguments which he uses against their opponents, while 
 they pay no respect to those which he urges against them- 
 selves. It is certain that Stillingfleet retracted all those 
 opinions in his ^' Irenicum^'''' which militated against the 
 Apostolic institution of Bishops. He apologizes for this work 
 in his " Preface" to the "Unreasonableness of Separation." 
 " Will you not allow," says he, " one single person who 
 happened to write about these matters when he was very 
 ijoung^ in twenty years time of the most busy and thoughtful 
 part of his life, to see reason to alter his judgment 1 '''' In a 
 sermon which was the result of his most mature judgment 
 and examination, we find him declaring, " I cannot find an}'^ 
 argument of force in the New Testament to prove that ever 
 the Christian churches were under the sole government of 
 Presbyters.'''' " This succession was not in mere presidency 
 of order J but the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in the gov- 
 ernment over those churches." "There is as great reason to 
 believe the Apostolical succession to be of divine institution^ 
 
 rable tract, the "Short Method with the Deists," in his treatises on 
 Episcopacy, published in the " Scholar Armed." And an able writer of 
 our own country, in the Churchman's Monthly Magazine for November, 
 1806, has taken up the primitive evidence for the divine authority of the 
 books of the New Testament, and proved that the very same evidence 
 supports Episcopacy. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 89 
 
 as the canon of scripture^ or the observation of the Lord's 
 day."* 
 
 Episcopacy has the sanction of ancient^ universal usage ; 
 while Presbyterianism sprang up but a few centuries ago. 
 At the period of the Reformation, Episcopacy was the uni- 
 versally acknowledged government. Presbyterianism was 
 looked upon as an upstart, utterly destitute of all pretensions 
 to antiquity ; insomuch that we find Hooker declaring, " A 
 very strange thing, sure it were, that such a discipline (Pres- 
 byterianism) as you speak of, should be taught by Christ 
 and his Apostles in the word of God, and no church have 
 found it out, nor received it, till this present time .'"| Accord- 
 ingly we find Hooker repeating the bold challenge, " We 
 require you to find out but one church upon the face of the 
 whole earth, that hath been ordered bj^ your discipline, or 
 hath not been ordered by ours, that is to say, by JEpiscopal 
 regiment, since the time that the blessed Apostles were here 
 conversant ^X 
 
 What then is the state of the case ? An order of minis- 
 ters, superior to Presbj^ters and Deacons, and styled Bishops, 
 possess the power of ordination, and the supreme power of 
 governing the church. We look back a very few centuries, 
 and find them in universal possession of these powers, of 
 which indeed they have been stripped but in only a ver}^ few 
 Christian churches. They hold their rights therefore by 
 prescription, by long immemorial usage. This is a title which 
 has peculiar claims to the respect and obedience of all friends 
 to institutions sanctioned by the wisdom of ages. You, of 
 all others, are bound to respect it. For you would scorn 
 being ranked among those who are " given to change," and 
 who desire to "remove the ancient landmarks.'^'' — Poh — ^you 
 will say — the Pope of Rome supports his corrupt throne by 
 the same plea, long immemorial usage. But stop, sir, if you 
 please, not so fast. No Protestant will admit this plea of 
 
 * Sermon preached by Stillingfleet at an ordination at St. Paul's, 1684. 
 t Preface to Ecclesiastical Polity, sect. 4. | Sect. 4. 
 
 8* 
 
90 hobart's apology 
 
 popery. We can fix within a certain period the commence- 
 ment of the reign of antichrist. A distinguished divine, 
 whose authority I think you will not dispute, when speaking 
 of the commencement of the reign of antichrist, declares, 
 " The earliest period which can be suggested is the year 
 325."* Yes, sir, prior to that period Protestants are able to 
 disprove, by the most abundant and unequivocal testimonies 
 from primitive writers, the false pretensions of the Papal 
 power. And can you, within this period, produce any testi- 
 mony against Episcopacy ^ No, sir ; the challenge of 
 Hooker may be here repeated — " Produce one church that 
 was not governed by Episcopal regiment," and we give up 
 our cause. Where, then, is the parallel between Episcopacy 
 and Popery ? The Pope of Rome did not arrive to " full 
 stature " until the fourth, and the generality of Protestants 
 maintain, on stronger evidence, until the seventh century. "f" 
 But the opponents of Episcopacy are compelled to trace it 
 back to the Apostolic age ; J and even then to rest the change 
 from Presbj'^terianism to Episcopacy on mere conjecture. In 
 vain they seek for explicit testimony, for express record of 
 so extraordinary a fact. If Episcopacy be an usurpation, 
 how haj)pens it that the discovery has never been made until 
 within a very late period ? 
 
 But against the supposition that the powers which Bishops 
 exercise by long and immemorial usage, were originally an 
 usurpation, there is an argument, which even with every 
 candid Presbyterian must be conclusive. If Episcopacy 
 were an usurpation ; if the power of the Bishops, like that 
 of the Pope, were " anti-Christian and unscriptural," would 
 not the illustrious Reformers have denounced Episcopacy 
 with as much zeal as they did Popery } To suppose that 
 they would not, is to impeach at once their talents and their 
 
 * The Rev. Dr. Livingston, in his Missionary Sermon, p. 58. 
 
 t " The rise of antichrist is to be dated in the sixth year of the seventh 
 century." So says Mr. M'L. in his " Reformation Principles," p. 42. 
 
 X Blondel, one of the most learned opponents of Episcopacy, supposes 
 that it took its rise about the year of our Lord 140. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 91 
 
 sincerity. The hierarchy^ in its various modifications, was an 
 object of jealousy, of close, bold, and unrestrained investiga- 
 tion ; and the primitive writers were faithfully explored in 
 order to test its pretensions. If, under these circumstances, 
 the Reformers,* while they denounced the Pope as " anti- 
 christ," the " man of sin," the " son of perdition," not only 
 refrained from censuring Episcopacy, but spoke of such an 
 Episcopacy as the Church of England possesses in the most 
 respectful terms, I think, the conclusion is irresistible, that 
 Popery and Episcopacy are not equally untenable, and that 
 Bishops may still claim for their power, prescription^ long 
 and immemorial usage. 
 
 The fact is remarkable and indisputable, that the great 
 Reformers, Calvin, Beza, and other divines of the Reformed 
 churches on the continent of Europe, in opposing the hier- 
 archy, opposed only the corrupt hierarchy of the Church of 
 Rome ; approved in the strongest language of a primitive 
 Episcopacy J such as the Church of England possessed; and 
 lamented the imperious circumstances which deprived them 
 of it. Calvin, in his book concerning the " necessity of 
 reforming the church," makes a declaration which- has fre- 
 quently been adduced : " If they would give us such an hier- 
 archy, in which the Bishops should so excel, as that they 
 did not refuse to be subject to Christ," &c. &c. " then I will 
 confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, if any such 
 shall be found, who will not reverence it, and submit them- 
 selves to it with the utmost obedience."! What strong lan- 
 
 * The Bishop here manifestly speaks of the continental " Reformers." 
 — Editor. 
 
 t " Talem nobis hierarchiam si exhibeant, in qua sic emineantEpisco- 
 pi ut Christo subesse non recusent, ut ab illo tanquam unico capite pen- 
 deant, et ad ipsum referantur ; in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem 
 colant, ut non alio nodo quam ejus veritate sint coUigati, tum vero nullo 
 non anathemate dignos fateor, si qui erunt, qui non earn reverentur, sum- 
 maque obedientia observent." This declaration of Calvin has been 
 often quoted. I have examined the tract de necessitate, reformandcB 
 ecclesicB, which is contained in a volume of the works of Calvin, published 
 
92 hobart's apology 
 
 guage is this ? He could not get an Episcopacy but what 
 was subject to the Pope of Rome. But, says he, ''if they 
 would give us an hierarchy subject to Christ alone," he not 
 only professes a willingness to receive it, but denounces an 
 " anathema " against all who should reject it. Na}", so firm 
 appears his conviction, that such an Episcopacy was scrip- 
 tural and primitive, that he expresses a doubt whether "any 
 such should be found !" 
 
 The Episcopacy which Calvin here recommends, could 
 not be a Presbyterian or Parochial Episcopacy, in which all 
 the ministers are on a level, and in which every pastor or 
 bishop has the charge of only one congregation. The dis- 
 tinction of superior and inferior orders of ministers is always 
 connected with a hierarchy, and by this term Calvin distin- 
 guishes the Episcopacy he recommends. He is defending 
 himself from the charge of being guilty of schism in depart- 
 ing from the hierarchy of the Church of Rome. And he 
 does not justify this departure on the ground that the bishops 
 of the Church of Rome were diocesan, or exercised authority 
 over churches consisting of several congregations with their 
 ministers, but that these bishops were not subject to Christ. 
 " If they would give us such an hierarchy, in which the 
 bishops should so excel, as not to refuse to be subject to Christ, ^^ 
 then he denounces an anathema against all who should reject 
 it. The very expression, " in qua sic episcopi emineant,''^ 
 " in which the bishops should so excel,'''' denotes that the 
 bishops meant by Calvin, exercised superior powers over their 
 brethren, and, of course, were not Presbyterian bishops. 
 They were so to excel, so to be superior, as not to refuse 
 subjection to Christ. Calvin also refers with approbation to 
 the state of the church in the time of Cyprian, when the 
 bishops certainly were diocesan, exercised power over clergy 
 and congregations. Cyprian had several presbyters subject 
 
 by Beza, entitled, Joannis Calvini tractatus theologici omnes, in iinum 
 volumen certis classibus congest!, &c. The passage cited above is at the 
 69th page of the volume. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 93 
 
 to him, and Cornelius, his contemporary. Bishop of Rome, 
 had under him in the diocese of Rome, forty-six presb5i;ers 
 and seven deacons. It is incredible, also, that Episcopacy 
 should not have been diocesan in the time of Cyprian ; and 
 yet thatEusEBius, who wrote his ecclesiastical history within 
 less than half a century after the death of Cyprian, should 
 trace the succession of diocesan bishops to the Apostles. 
 
 Surely Presbyterian writers who constantly and invariably 
 apply the term hierarchy, as designating church govern- 
 ment, solely to diocesan Episcopacy, in which there is " rank 
 and subordination " of ministers, cannot consistently plead 
 that Calvin, by this term, meant Presbyterian or Parochial 
 Episcopacy, in which there is a perfect parity of ministers. I 
 believe no instance can be produced where the term is ap- 
 plied to any sacred government or community in which there 
 is not distinction and subordination of sacred orders. 
 
 The divines of the French Protestant Church understood 
 Calvin as applying this term, hierarchy , to the English Epis- 
 copacy. This very passage is so understood and cited by M. 
 De L'Angle, minister of the French Church at Charenton, 
 in a letter addressed to the Bishop of London — " Since the 
 Church of England is a true church of our Lord ; since her 
 worship and doctrines are pure, and have nothing in them 
 contrary to the word of God ; and since that when the Refor- 
 mation was there received, it was received together with 
 Episcopacy, and with the establishment of the Liturgy and 
 Ceremonies, which are there in use at this day ; it is, with- 
 out doubt, the duty of all the reformed in your realm, to keep 
 themselves inseparably united to that church. — This was so 
 much the opinion of our great and excellent Calvin, that in 
 his treatise of the necessity of the Reformation, he makes no dif- 
 ficulty to say, that if there should be any so unreasonable as 
 to refuse the communion of a church that was pure in its 
 worship and doctrine, and not to submit himself with respect 
 to its government, under pretence that it had retained an 
 Episcopacy qualified as yours is; there would be no cen- 
 
94 hobart's apology 
 
 sure nor rigour of discipline that ought not to be exercised 
 upon them."* 
 
 Another divine of the French church, Mons. Daille, un- 
 derstands Calvin to the same effect — " Calvin himself 
 honoured all Bishops that were not subjects of the Pope, 
 &c. such as were the Prelates of England, Cranmer, 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, Hooper, and others. — We con- 
 fess that the foundation of their charge is good and lawful, 
 established by the Apostles, according to the command of 
 Christ, in the churches which they founded. ""f 
 
 Calvin disclaims that equality in the ministry which the 
 Christian's Magazine maintains is the " law of God's house." 
 In his comment on the text in Titus, " For this cause left I 
 thee in Crete, that thou mightest ordain elders in every city," 
 &c. he observes, " Hence we learn, that there was not any 
 equality among the ministers of the church, but that one was 
 placed over the rest in authority and counsel.'''' Calvin here 
 acknowledges what the advocates of Episcopacy maintain, 
 that Titus was the head and supreme governor of the church 
 in Crete. 
 
 Calvin indeed did not pretend that the Presbyterian form 
 of government which he established at Geneva was primi- 
 tive. In his epistle to Cardinal Sadolet, he says, " We deny 
 not that we want a discipline such as the ancient church 
 had ; but can they with justice accuse us of having over- 
 thrown the discipline of the church, who are the only men 
 who have destroyed it from the foundation, and who, when 
 we endeavoured to restore the same, have hitherto opposed 
 that work .? But as for doctrine, we are willing to be tried 
 by the ancient church.'''''^ 
 
 Beza, the colleague, and afterwards the successor of Cal- 
 
 * This letter is annexed to Stillingfleet's " Unreasonableness of Sepa- 
 ration." It was wrritten in IGSO. 
 
 t See Bingham's French Church's Apology for Church of England, 
 annexed to the second volume of his works. 
 
 X Ad Sadoletum Responsio. Joan. Calv. Trac. p. 125. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 95 
 
 vin, in his treatise against Saravia, observes, " If there are 
 any (which you shall hardly persuade me to believe) who 
 reject the whole order of Episcopacy^ God forbid that any man 
 of a sound mind should assent to the madness of such men !" 
 How far removed then, from insanity and madness, in the 
 judgment of Beza, are those men who pronounce the whole 
 order of Episcopacy to be " anti-Christian and unscriptural!" 
 This order of Episcopacy was the Episcopacy possessed by 
 the Church of England : for in the same treatise he styles it 
 a " singular blessing," and prays that it may be " perpetual " 
 to that church. 
 
 ViDELius, a distinguished divine of the Church of Geneva, 
 afterwards Professor of Divinity in the Reformed Church of 
 Holland, who lived in the seventeenth century, maintains the 
 genuineness of the Epistles of Ignatius, which bear such 
 decided testimony to Episcopacy, and asserts, " that after 
 the death of Linus and Cletus, Clemens was left alone ; and 
 retained the name of Bishop, both because he then survived 
 all those who had been assistants of the Apostles ; and also 
 for that the distinction of the names of bishop and presbyter 
 was even then in force.^"^* Videlius here testifies to diocesan 
 Episcopacy, for he makes Clemens to be alone Bishop of 
 Rome ; and surely there must have been more than one con- 
 gregation of Christians in that city. The learned Casaubon, 
 a divine of the Church of Geneva, in the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, observes concerning the Church of England, *' that no 
 church in the world came nearer to the form of the most 
 flourishing primitive church ; having observed a middle way 
 betwixt those churches which have failed either by excess 
 or defect."! 
 
 Let us pass on to the testimony" of the Reformed Church 
 of Holland in favour of Episcopacy, made by the famous 
 Synod of Dort. At this Synod several of the bishops of 
 England attended by invitation. In a tract w^hich these 
 
 * Videl. Exer. 8. in Ign. epist. ad Marium, cap. iii. 
 t See Durel's View of the Reformed Churches, p. 296. 
 
96 hobart's apology 
 
 bishops published, they declare, " in our private converse 
 vrith the most eminent of the ministry, we found many more 
 ready to deplore than to defend their own estate^ and wished 
 rather than hoped to be made like the flourishing Church of 
 England." And when the British delegates " asserted 
 publicly and openly in the Synod the divine right of Episco- 
 pacy^ and appealed therein to the judgment of antiquity,'^^ 
 the members of the Synod replied, ^' that they had a great 
 respect and value for the good order and discipline of the 
 Church of England, and wished with all their hearts that 
 the same order were observed and settled there ; that they 
 durst not, however, hope for such a happiness in the present 
 state of affairs ; but hoped that, though their ability bore no 
 proportion to their will, God would assist them by his grace 
 and favour, and that they would do all in their power towards 
 it."* A famous divine of the same church, Le Moyne, 
 Professor of Divinity at Leyden, in Holland, in a letter ad- 
 dressed to the Bishop of London in 1680, not only defends 
 Episcopacy, but expressly asserts that it had always subsisted 
 throughout the universal church ; " for the Episcopal gov- 
 ernment, what is there in it that is dangerous .'" &c. &c. 
 " For the space of fifteen hundred years, all the other churches 
 of the world had no other kind of government. '''''\ 
 
 Equally decisive in favour of Episcopacy are the senti- 
 ments of divines of the French Protestant Church. They 
 extol Episcopacy, and expressly plead necessity for depar- 
 ture from it. Mons. Le Moyne, a Protestant minister of 
 Roan, in France, in a letter written in the year 1661, and 
 addressed to an English clergyman, thus extols Episcopacy 
 — " Truly I believe not that it is possible to keep either 
 peace or order in your church without preserving the Epis- 
 
 * This fact is also stated by Bishop Hall, who attended the Synod, 
 in his Divine Right of Episcopacy ; by Collier, in his Ecclesiastical 
 History, vol. ii. p. 717, &c. and by Brandt, in his History of the Refor- 
 mation, vol. iii. p. 288. 
 
 t The letter is published at length in the appendix to Still ingfleet's 
 "Unreasonableness of Separation." 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 97 
 
 copal dignity. And I confess that I conceive not by what spirit 
 they are led that oppose that government^ and cry it down with 
 such violence. For I defy any man, whoever he be, to 
 show me, if he can, any other order more suitable with rea- 
 son, yea, or better agreeing with holy scripture.^ and of which 
 God hath made more use for the establishment of his truthy 
 and the amplification of his kingdom.''^* The plea of neces- 
 sity for departing from Episcopacy is expressly urged by 
 another divine of the French Reformed Church, Mons. Du 
 Bosc — " We acknowledge that this order hath signal advan- 
 tages ; and I think not that any of my brethren will contra- 
 dict me, if I say that well-ordered Episcopacy hath most 
 important and considerable utilities which cannot be found in 
 the Presbyterian discipline. If we have followed the last 
 in our churches, it not for any aversion we have to the for- 
 mer ; it is not because we hold Episcopacy to be contrary 
 to the nature of the gospel, or because we think it less con- 
 venient for the good of the church, or less worthy of the 
 condition of the true flocks of our Lord ; but because it is 
 necessity hath obliged us to it ; because Reformation having 
 been begun in this kingdom by the people and by inferior 
 churchmen, the places of Bishops remained filled with men \\ 
 of a contrary religion, so that we are constrained to content ' ' 
 ourselves with ministers and elders as well as we could," 
 &c.| The testimony of Daille and L'Angle, ministers of 
 the same church, has been already adduced, and is well 
 worthy of attention. 
 
 Let us pass on from the Calvinistic to the Lutheran 
 churches. The Lutheran churches of Sweden and Denmark 
 have preserved the Episcopal succession. J And even those 
 
 * The letter is published at length in Durel's "View of the Govern- 
 ment and Worship of the Reformed Churches." 
 
 t The letter is published in Durel's " View," &c. 
 
 X In Sweden and Denmark, the Roman Catholic Bishops were com- 
 pelled to submit to the Reformation ; their temporal power was abolished ; 
 and they retained only the spiritual part of the Episcopal office. 
 
 9 
 
 ^U^ ^.z.^- ^u yW V?< ^^ ^^- 
 
98 hobart's apology 
 
 Lutheran churches of Germany who could not preserve the 
 succession of Bishops, entertained so great a respect for Epis- 
 copacy, and for its ancient and primitive claims, and were 
 also so impressed with its utility , that they adopted and still 
 maintain the forms of Episcopacy ; having distinction of rank 
 in the ministry, and placing over the clergy superintendents, 
 to exercise the general powers of superintendence and gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Now I may confidently appeal to any candid person — If 
 Episcopacy were a novel institution ; if it had been unknown 
 to the apostolic and primitive church ; if it had sprung from 
 that accursed ambition, and desire of " lording it over God's 
 heritage," which nourished and advanced to full stature the 
 " man of sin ;" if Episcopacy were, as you maintain, " un- 
 scriptural and anti-Christian," would the Reformed churches 
 have spoken thus respectfully of it ? Would some of the 
 Lutheran churches, who were unable to obtain the Epis- 
 copal succession, have yet preserved, as far as possible, the 
 forms of Episcopacy ? Would the Calvinistic reformers 
 and divines have commended " a well-ordered Episcopacy,'*^ 
 such an Episcopacy as the Church of England possessed, as 
 both " suitable with reason, and agreeing with holy scrip- 
 ture ?" Would they have pleaded that " necessity obliged 
 them to depart from it ;" that " as the Reformation was 
 begun b}^ the people and inferior churches, the places of the 
 Bishops remained filled by those of a contrary religion ?" 
 Would they have lamented that " the state of aflfairs did not 
 permit them to hope for obtaining it," and have prayed that 
 " God would assist them by his grace and favour, while they 
 did all in their power to obtain it ?" Would the great re- 
 former, Calvin, have expressed his approbation of it, and 
 pronounced an awful anathema on all those who should 
 reject it? Could these illustrious Reformers and divines 
 have been ignorant of the constitution of the primitive 
 church — they who by their talents and learning felled the 
 deep-rooted and towering pretensions of the Pope of Rome ? 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 99 
 
 Could they who beheld in the Bishops who surrounded them 
 the obsequious flatterers and tools of the papal church, have 
 had any inducement to flatter this order as " under any form," 
 primitive and apostolic ? Could they, who boldly defied the 
 papal thunder that rolled over them, have wanted the courage 
 and the zeal to renounce and oppose the order of Bishops, 
 if, with the Presbyterians of later ages, they had believed 
 this order, " under whatever form or pretext adopted, was 
 unscriptural and anti-Christian ?" Ah ! sir, beware how you 
 grossly libel the talents, learning, piety and zeal of these 
 " heroes of the truth, who rescued millions from the man of 
 sin, Hghted up the lamp of pure religion, and left it burning 
 with a pure and steady light to the generation following."* 
 No, their testimony in favour of Episcopacy can only be ac- 
 counted for, consistently with an acknowledgment of their 
 learning and their piety, on the principle laid down by Daille, 
 that '' the foundation of the charge of Bishops is good and 
 lawful, established by the Apostles, according to the com- 
 mand of Christ, in the churches which they founded."! 
 
 Here then me thinks the dispute between us should end. 
 Here then Episcopacy may take her stand, and convict of 
 gross departure from the originalj principles of the Reformed 
 churches, and expose to the anathema of Calvin, all who 
 shall refuse to " reverence her, and submit themselves to 
 her with the utmost obedience. "§ In this view of the sub- 
 ject it is of no importance whether Episcopacy, as the 
 divinely instituted method of conveying the ministerial 
 authority be unalterable, or whether it be only an ancient and 
 primitive practice, instituted for the preservation of peace 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 96. 
 
 t Daille here means such Bishops as the Church of England possessed. 
 See p. 93, 94. 
 
 X I say original ; for it is certain they did not all continue to maintain 
 those sentiments concerning the Episcopacy of the Church of England 
 which they at first expressed. / ., .. > ' 
 
 § See Calvin's Declarations, p. 91 . . / , , 
 
100 hobart's apology 
 
 and unity in the church. Whatever be the authority for it, 
 we find the universal church in possession of it at the Refor- 
 mation. We find by far the greater proportion of the Re- 
 formed churches preserving Episcopacy (purified from Papal 
 corruptions) either in substance or in form* We find those 
 reformers who renounced it acknowledging that it was an 
 ancient and primitive institution ; and lamenting the unfortu- 
 nate circumstances which compelled them to depart from it. 
 They pleaded that they could not get, as Calvin expresses 
 it, " such an hierarchy in which the Bishops did not refuse 
 to be subject to Christ." 
 
 How then should a considerate non-Episcopalian argue .'' 
 " There can surely be nothing ' anti-Christian or unscriptu- 
 ral' in Episcopacy, or those 'faithful ministers, who went 
 away to their Father's house, under the strong consolations 
 of the Holy Ghost, with anticipated heaven in- their hearts, 
 and its hallelujahs on their lips,' "f would not have revered 
 it as a primitive and ancient institution, would not have 
 lamented their want of it, would not have denounced an 
 anathema against all who should wilfully reject it. A well- 
 ordered Episcopacy, free from Papal corruptions, now sub- 
 sists, and is within my embrace. The plea of necessity 
 forsakes me. Bj^ embracing Episcopacy, I shall at any rate 
 be on the safe side. Agreeably to the concessions of all 
 Christians, I shall then enjoy the true ministry and ordi- 
 
 * Presbyterians remain as they were at first, a comparatively sma// sec? 
 among Christians. The Greek and Latin churches are Episcopal. So 
 also are the Lutheran churches of Sweden and Denmark; the Church 
 of the United Brethren, or Moravians ; some Protestant churches in 
 Bohemia; and the churches of England and Ireland; the venerable 
 remains of the ancient Episcopal Church of Scotland; and the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in this country. The Lutheran churches of Germany, 
 though destitute of the Episcopal successio7i, are yet Episcopal in their 
 form of government. The Presbyterians consist of only a few churches 
 on the Continent, some of the dissenting churches in England and Ire- 
 land, the established Church of Scotland, and the Seceding churches, 
 and the Presbyterian churches in this country. 
 
 t Christian's Magazine, p. 96. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 101 
 
 nances of Christ's Church. 1 shall submit to an apostolic 
 and primitive institution, and thus contribute to heal the 
 divisions that corrupt the truth, and cause the enemies of 
 Zion to laugh her to scorn. I shall promote the " peace of 
 Jerusalem," and thus contribute to make her a ^'praise 
 throughout the earth." Yes, sir, what reply v^^ould you 
 make to a considerate non-Episcopalian who should thus 
 address you } You could not say that Episcopacy was 
 " unscriptural and anti-Christian ;" for then he would urge 
 against you the concessions of all the Reformed churches at 
 the outset of the Reformation. He would urge against you 
 the anathema of Calvin^ that illustrious man who is consider- 
 ed as the founder of your churches ; who, according to Mr. 
 M'L. " equalled his contemporaries in piety, accuracy, 
 knowledge, and faithfulness, and surpassed them in the gran- 
 deur of his conceptions."* Nay, sir, he would urge against 
 you your own confession. For you say, " an Episcopal 
 Church we do know, in which there are hundreds of minis- 
 ters and thousands of their people who are ' valiant for the 
 truth,' who exemplify in their own persons the loveliness of 
 the Christian character," &c. &c.| Now, this church 
 which you thus extol, and which is the Calvinistic part of 
 the Church of England, maintains and submits to that very 
 Episcopacy which you are asserting is "unscriptural and 
 anti-Christian." 
 
 Nor could you urge on the non-Episcopalian the duty of 
 remaining separate from the Episcopal Church, by the plea 
 that she imposes, as terms of communion, doctrines sinful 
 and contrary to scripture. This indeed, is the plea by which 
 Protestants justify their separation from the corrupt Church 
 of Rome, and refute all the arguments in favour of commu- 
 nion with it. But this assertion j^ou dare not make. The 
 testimonies of the Reformed churches in favour of the 
 
 * " Reformation Principles," a book drawn up by Mr. M'L. and pub- 
 lished as the standard of doctrine of his church, p. 58. 
 t Christian's Magazine, p. 103. 
 9* 
 
102 hobart's apology 
 
 Church of England would rise in judgment against you. You 
 have yourself commended, in the highest terms, an " Episco- 
 pal Church," which glories in the same articles of faith j the 
 same Episcopacy^ the same worship^ the same rites and cere- 
 monies which the Episcopal Church 2:)0ssesses in this coun- 
 try. Nay, if there is any difference, it is in favour of the 
 latter. For Episcopacy is here divested of those adventi- 
 tious circumstances of temporal power and grandeur which, 
 in the opinion of some of its friends, have not always ope- 
 rated to its benefit. 
 
 By what other argument would 3'ou answer the plea of 
 the non-Episcopalian, that it is safest to join the Episcopal 
 Church, in which, confessedly, there are valid ministrations 
 and ordinances .'' Would you urge that it would be sinful in 
 him to join that church because, in your judgment, its mem- 
 bers do not exhibit the " power of godliness," and its min- 
 isters are not evangelical preachers } Admitting your asser- 
 tion, which I contend is erroneous, to be well founded ; still, 
 none will deny that the articles and prayers of the church 
 are sound and evangelical. The defects of its members, and 
 the want of good preaching, therefore, cannot be admitted as 
 conclusive arguments against union with a church where 
 there is a certainty of a valid ministry and ordinances. The 
 plea of greater edification^ of purer administrations y is the 
 ostensible plea of almost every schism that has rent the 
 church. The admission of it would excite and sanction end- 
 less divisions, and a spirit of disorder, enthusiasm and fanati- 
 cism destructive to sober truth, to sound piety, to the peace 
 and order of Zion. The admission of this plea would exalt 
 preaching above public worship, and those other ordinances 
 which are the ^' signs and seals of the covenant of grace." 
 Such an admission, therefore, would be contrary to the prin- 
 ciples of the Presbyterian Church ; for she justly and wisely 
 declares, '^ one primary design of public ordinances is to pay 
 social acts of homage to the Most High God." " Sermons 
 ought not to be so long as to interfere with the more impor- 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 103 
 
 tant duties oi prayer andy^mi^e."* A defect must he funda- 
 mental; terms of communion must be sinful, absolutely con- 
 trary to the divine word, and incompatible with the para- 
 mount duty of obeying God rather than man,| before a 
 Christian will be justifiable or safe in renouncing a church 
 where, by the concessions of all, there is a certainty of a valid 
 ministry and ordinances, and in joining churches, in which, 
 on the subject of " these signs and seals of the covenant," 
 there is, to say the least, in the estimation of many, consider- 
 able doubt. 
 
 Admirable is the reasoning by which Calvin proves that 
 the plea of purer administrations and greater edification will 
 not justify separation from a church in whose doctrines or 
 ministrations there is nothing fundamentally sinful. " There 
 may some faultiness creep into the church, in the administra- 
 tion either of doctrine or of the sacraments, which ought not 
 to estrange us from the communion of it." J " Among the 
 Corinthians not only a few had gone out of the way, but the 
 infection had in a manner seized the whole body : there was 
 not only one kind of sin, but many : neither were they light 
 offences, but certain horrible outrageous doings ; it was not 
 only corruption of manners , but also of doctrine. What in 
 this case, saith the holy Apostle, the instrument of the Holy 
 Ghost, by whose testimony the church standeth or falleth ? 
 Doth he require a division from them ? Doth he banish them 
 out of the kingdom of Christ ? Doth he strike them by the 
 extremest thunderbolt of his curse ? He not only doeth none 
 of these things, but he both acknowledgeth and proclaimeth it 
 a church of Christ and fellowship of saints.''"'^ 
 
 Calvin refutes the plea for schism and for refusing to 
 commune with a true church, because some of its members 
 are corrupt in their lives and manners. "It is one thing to 
 
 * Directory for Worship, Presbyterian Church, chap. vi. 4. 
 
 t On this ground is separation from the Church of Rome justified. 
 
 X Calvin's Institutes, book iv. chap. i. sect 12. 
 
 § Calvin's Institutes, book iv. chap. i. sect. 14. 
 
, 104 hobart's apology 
 
 flee the company of evil men, and another thing for hatred 
 of them to forsake the communion of the church. But 
 whereas they think it sacrilege to be partakers of the Lord's 
 bread with them, they are therein much more rigorous than 
 Paul is. For where he exhorts us to a holy and pure par- 
 taking, he requireth not that one should examine another^ or 
 every man the whole churchy but that they should each one 
 prove himself. 1 Cor. xi. 18. If it were unlawful to commu- 
 nicate with an unworthy man, then truly Paul would bid us 
 to look circumspectly, whether there were any in the multi- 
 tude by whose uncleanness we might be defiled. Now, 
 when he requireth only of every man the proof of himself, 
 he showeth that it does not in the least injure us if any 
 unworthy persons thrust themselves in among us^* 
 
 Calvin, as a further proof that we ought not to separate 
 from any church whose doctrines are sound and valid, 
 because its members are corrupt, instances the corrupt state 
 of the Jewish church during the times of the Prophets. 
 " Religion was partlj^ despised^ partly defiled. In their man- 
 Tiers are commonly reported thefts, extortions, breaches of 
 faith, murders and hke mischiefs. But therefore the Pro- 
 phets did neither erect to themselves new churches, nor build up 
 new altars on which they might have several sacrifices ; but 
 of whatsoever manner of men they were, they considered that 
 God had left his word with them, and ordained ceremonies 
 whereby he was there worshipped : in the midst of the assem- 
 bly of the wicked they held up pure hands unto him. Truly 
 if they had thought that they did gather any infection there- 
 by, they would rather have died a hundred times than have 
 suffered themselves to be drawn thereunto. Therefore 
 nothing held them from departing, but desire to the keeping 
 of unity. But if the Prophets thought it against conscience 
 to estrange themselves from the church for many and great 
 wicked doings, not of one or two men, but in a manner of the 
 whole people, then we take too much upon us, if immediately 
 
 * Calvin's Institutes, book iv. chap. 1. sect. 15. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 105 
 
 we dare to depart from the communion of that church where 
 not all men's manners do satisfy our judgment, yea, or the 
 Christian profession."* 
 
 Would to God that all those who make greater edification 
 the plea for rending the peace of the church, would hsten to 
 the remonstrances of Calvin ! How clearly does he prove 
 that corruptions in doctrine, unless they be fundamental, or 
 defects in the lives of the ministers or members of a church 
 which is sound in the essential points of doctrine, and which 
 possesses a valid ministry and ordinances, will not justify sepa- 
 ration !| There is, then, a rule by which the plainest Chris- 
 tian may be regulated. He should choose that church which 
 does not prescribe terms of communion fundamentally sinful, 
 and which even her opponents acknowledge possesses a valid 
 ministry and ordinances. 
 
 Sir, a non-Episcopalian may compel you, on your own 
 principles, to admit that it is safest and best to " rush into the 
 arms of an Episcopal church," in which it is possible to be 
 " valiant for the truth," and to " exemplify all the loveliness 
 of the Christian character ;" in which he will be sure of en- 
 joying valid ministrations ; and in which he will enjoy that 
 Episcopacy which is the centre of unity in the church ; which 
 Calvin once commended as ancient and primitive ; and the 
 want of which many divines of the Reformed churches de- 
 plored. 
 
 Your friends in the Church of England, the Wilberforces, 
 the Thorntons y the Grants , and others, will doubtless consider 
 your commendation of them as no more than a just return for 
 
 * Calvin's Institutes, book iv. chap. i. sect. 18. 
 
 t What judgment do you think Calvin would have pronounced on 
 the Secession from the Church of Scotland, the principles of which seces- 
 sion are still maintained by you, and lead you and others to remain 
 separate from the church commonly known as the Presbyterian Church 
 in this country ? What judgment would he have pronounced on Mr. M'L. 
 and his religious society, commonly distinguished as Covenanters, who 
 refuse Church fellowship with all other Christians, and confine thejncre 
 word and ordinances to their own sect, which is scarcely known in the 
 Christian world ? * 
 
 .1: d.U. 
 
106 hobart's apology 
 
 their attention to you, and for the pecuniary favours which 
 the religious society to which you belong received froin them. 
 These commendations may induce them to pass over other parts 
 of your review which bear not very lightly on that " exter- 
 nal order," and that venerable church to which it is their 
 pride to adhere. I shall be the last man to complain of your 
 commendation of them, even though it is accompanied by 
 the unjust, unfounded, and cruel aspersion, that they are 
 " hated, reviled, persecuted " by such ^' high Churchmen as 
 Mr. H. and his friends."* No, Sir, Mr. H. and his friends 
 detest the spirit and the conduct which you indirectly ascribe 
 to them. While they respect the right of other religious de- 
 nominations to profess and maintain their principles. Church- 
 men trust that there is not a system of denunciation and per- 
 secution organized to deter them from the exercise of the 
 same right. They revere, they esteem, they love the Chris- 
 tian spirit, the " power of godliness," by whomsoever mani- 
 fested. And you ought to know that Daubeny, whom you 
 denounce as among these persecuting Churchmen, in all his 
 writings, speaks in the most exalted terms of Wilberforcey 
 and with the utmost moderation and mildness opposes what 
 he deems his errors. " High Churchmen in England hate, 
 revile, persecute" the Calvinistic members of that church ! 
 My impression is directly the reverse. It is well known that 
 these people, whom you so much extol, " hate, revile, perse- 
 cute," all ministers of the church who will not preach the 
 peculiarities of Calvinism^ the doctrines of unconditional elec- 
 tionj irresistible grace^ and final perseverance ; denouncing 
 those who reject these doctrines as not being '^ gospel preach- 
 ers," as strangers to " the power of godliness," and resting 
 merely in its "form." Sir Richard Hill, the leader of the 
 Calvinistic band in the Church of England, in his criticisms 
 on Daubeny's Guide to the Church, remarks, that " few will 
 presume to question the doctrine of particular election" (in 
 the sense in which it is held by Calvinists) — " but they who 
 • Christian's Magazine, p. 103, &c. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER 107 
 
 are strangers to the power of sin in themselves^ or to the riches 
 of grace in God V What is this if it is not " reviling 
 and persecuting ?" And what return does Daubeny give to 
 this harsh treatment ? " As a pious and exemplary Christian, 
 I look up to you, Sir, with respect ; I could almost add, with 
 veneration; for I cannot but venerate a man who, in the 
 midst of great worldly consideration, attends to the first and 
 most important duties of life."*' Does this look like hating, 
 reviling, persecuting ? It pains me to find you involving, in 
 such general and unjust charges, individuals who have the 
 misfortune to incur your displeasure for asserting the claims 
 of Episcopacy. 
 
 Gratified with your strong commendations of "an Episco- 
 pal Church," I shall not inquire how you will reconcile these 
 commendations with the standards of your church, which 
 pronounce Episcopacy to be " unscriptural and anti-Chris- 
 tian." It is not my business to inquire how you will answer 
 the charge of forsaking the principles of the Seceders in Scot- 
 land, from whom your religious society is descended, and 
 with whom you yet preserve some kind of ecclesiastical in- 
 intercourse. Hatred to prelacy ^ to the " hierarchy in its 
 various modifications," first vented in the " solemn league 
 and covenant," has been cherished and displayed in the va- 
 rious religious "testimonies," which the Seceders in Scot- 
 land, and the corresponding sects in this country, have set 
 forth. Yet in the face of those solemn testimonies you extol, 
 in the warmest language, " an Episcopal Church," which 
 submits to a prelacy ; Ministers who compose a part of the 
 hierarchy^ and derive their commission from usurping Bi- 
 shops ; and Laymen who cherish this "hierarchical" church, 
 as the bulwark of Christendom and Christianity. I sincerely 
 wish you may run no risque of being accused of " trimming 
 on the points of faith and duty !" 
 
 * Daubeny's Appendix to his Guide. Introductory letter. 
 
108 hobart's apology 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 One important title, then, by which Bishop's hold 
 their powers, is prescription, the universal and immemorial 
 usage of the Christian Church. The burden of proof is thus 
 placed upon the opponents of Episcopacy. They are bound 
 to ascertain precisely and determinately the period when 
 Presbyters possessed solely the ministerial power, and when 
 the Bishops usurped, throughout the whole Christian Church, 
 their superior prerogatives. If the records of the early ages 
 take no notice of an event so memorable ; if, while they re- 
 cord minutely the heresies and the schisms which distracted 
 the church, they take no notice of a heresy and schism in 
 which Bishops, not in some particular province, but through- 
 out the world, usurped superior powers ; if the early records 
 take no notice of a fact which, shaking the church to its foun- 
 dations, must have been of the most important and public 
 notoriety; the conclusion is certain and irresistible, that no 
 such usurpation took place ; but that the Bishops hold their 
 powers by the same tenure which supports Presbyters in 
 theirs, the institution of Christ and his Apostles.* 
 
 * It has been asserted, that the Waldenses, who separated in the 
 twelfth century from the Church of Rome, were, in " the order of their 
 church," and in their form of government, " strictly Presbyterian." 
 They were, on the contrary, strictly Episcopal. Mosheim, who cer- 
 tainly was not very partial to the Episcopal cause, asserts, " The govern- 
 ment of the church was committed by the Waldenses to Bishops, Pres- 
 byters, and Deacons; for they acknowledged that these three ecclesiastical 
 orders were instituted by Christ himself."* Another historian f asserts, 
 that " the Protestants of Bohemia, who were apprehensive that ordina- 
 tionSi in which Presbyters and not a Bishoj) should create another Pres- 
 byter, would not be lawful — sent deputies to the remains of the ancient 
 Waldenses, upon the confines of Moravia and Austria, by whose Bishops 
 these deputies were consecrated to the Episcopal office, which they have 
 ever since transmitted to their successors." And the learned Dr. Allix, 
 
 * Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, century twelfth, part ii. chap. v. 
 t Commenius, quoted in Dr. Chandler's Appeal defended. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 109 
 
 For an examination of this important question, whether 
 the powers of Bishops are an usurpation, no period could 
 have been more favourable than the Reformation. Bishops 
 were part of the hierarchy of the Church of Rome. Against 
 this corrupt church the indignant zeal of the Reformers was 
 roused. They wanted not motives, and surely they wanted 
 not the talents and learning to test the pretensions of the 
 Bishops, to unmask these usurpers, if such they were, and to 
 consign them to that merited execration with which they re- 
 garded the corrupt hierarchy of the Church of Rome. On 
 examining the sentiments of the Reformers, we find, to our 
 astonishment, that instead of treating a primitive Episcopacy y 
 " such as the Church of England possessed," as an usurpation^ 
 they regarded it with approbation ; expressed the hope, that 
 " the Church of England might long enjoy it ;" and even de- 
 nounced an anathema against all who should reject it. 
 
 That these were the sentiments of Calvin and other emi- 
 nent divines of the Reformed churches concerning the Epis- 
 copacy of the Church of England^ sufficient proof has, I con- 
 ceive, been adduced in my last letter. I cannot avoid, how- 
 ever, calling your attention to the following corroborating 
 evidence, that Calvin and the Reformed divines approved of 
 the Episcopacy of the Church of England, and would have 
 adopted it, had circumstances favoured such a measure. The 
 diligent, learned and accurate historian, Strype, furnishes 
 this evidence. It maybe proper to premise, that the follow- 
 ing quotations from this historian, have been adduced as 
 decisive evidence of the preference of Calvin and other Re- 
 formed divines to the English Episcopac}-, by the Rev. 
 Augustus Toplady, in his " Historic Proof of the Doctrinal 
 Calvinism of the Church of England." Toplady, let it be 
 remembered, was a rigid Calvinist ; a warm admirer and 
 
 in his " Remarks on the ancient Churches of Piedmont," proves, that 
 though the Waldenses opposed the corrupt hierarchy of the Church of 
 Rome, they still held to the three primitive orders of Bishops, Priests . 
 and Deacons. 
 
 10 
 
110 hobart's apology 
 
 panegyrist of Calvin ; and his works rank high in the estima- 
 tion of Calvinists.* 
 
 Strype and Toplady both adduce the passage in which 
 Calvin denounces an anathema against all who should reject 
 a primitive hierarchy as a proof of his approbation of the 
 Episcopacy of the Church of England. Toplady observes, 
 " that great reformer (Calvin) wished for the introduction of 
 Protestant Episcopacy into the Reformed churches ahroad.''^'\ 
 And then he quotes the following passage from Strype — 
 " How Calvin stood affected in the said point of Episcopacy, 
 and how readily and gladly he and other heads of the Reformed 
 churches would have received it, is evident enough from his 
 writings and epistles. In his book of the necessity of reform- 
 ing the church, he hath these words : " Talein nobis hierar- 
 chiam exhibeantj^'' &c. — Let them give us such an hierarchy, 
 &c. J Toplady agrees with Strype in considering the above 
 passage as a proof that " Calvin's opinion was favourable to 
 the English Episcopacy. '^^^ 
 
 Toplady asserts, that " Calvin made a serious motion of 
 uniting Protestants together ;"|| and, in proof of his assertion, 
 quotes again from Strype — " They (the foreign Protestants) 
 took such great joy and satisfaction in this good king (Ed- 
 ward VI.) and liis establishment of religion, that Bullinger, 
 Calvin, and others, in a letter to him, offered to make him 
 their defender, and to have Bishops in their churches, as there 
 ivere in England; with a tender of their service to assist and 
 
 * The accuracy and fidelity of Strype as a historian, has never, I be- 
 lieve, been impeached. We are indebted to his faithful and indefatigable 
 industry for much valuable information relative to the Reformation, in his 
 " Annals," and other works, particularly his " Lives" of the Archbi- 
 shops Cranmer, Parker, and others. He is characterized by Toplady as 
 " an useful and laborious collector,"* and as an " excellent historian ;"t 
 and is frequently quoted as authority by him. 
 
 t Toplady's Works, vol. ii. p. 153. London edition. 
 
 f Strype's Life of Archbishop Parker, p. 69, 70. 
 
 § Toplady's Works, vol. ii. p. 153. || p. 151. 
 
 * Toplady's Works, vol. ii. p. 17, note. f p. 15. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. Ill 
 
 unite together."* Of this scheme of Calvin to unite Pro- 
 testant churches under Bishops, such as the Church of Eng- 
 land enjoyed, Toplady observes, " Nothing could be more 
 wisely or more benevolently planned than this excellent scheme. 
 It was, however, frustrated ; and frustrated by whom ? By 
 the Papists of that time," who, "by dint of collusive manage- 
 ment, disconcerted a measure so formidable to the interests 
 of Rome." For " they verily thought that all the heretics, 
 as they called them, would now unite among themselves, and 
 become one body, receiving the same discipline exercised in 
 England ; which, if it should happen, and they should have 
 heretical Bishops near them in those parts, they concluded 
 that Rome and her clergy loould utterly falL'^^'f Toplady 
 observes on this statement, '^ the restless intrigues of the 
 emissaries of the Church of Rome, who, under various charac- 
 ters and appearances, went about sowing division, and seek- 
 ing to unsettle the minds of the people, doubtless contributed 
 much to impede and dissipate the intended salutary union.'''' 
 Thus then this plan of " embracing into one church all the friends 
 of the Reformation in every country," which Mr. M'Leod 
 considers as an evidence of the " capacious mind" of Calvin, 
 and of the " grandeur of his conceptions, "J contemplated 
 their " receiving the same discipline exercised in England^'''^ 
 their " having Bishops in their churches, as there were in 
 England!" Calvin proposed that Episcopacy — ^yes, such 
 an Episcopacy as the Church of England possessed, should 
 constitute the unity of the church, that " essential principle 
 of Christ's kingdomr"§ 
 
 * Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 207. 
 
 t And yet Episcopalians are sometimes sneeringly impeached with 
 being only a few " bowshots off from the territories of our sovereign lord 
 the Pope." The fact is, that the Church of Rome has always regarded, 
 with the most lively apprehensions, the Church of England, from the 
 persuasion that from her being so nearly conformed to the primitive and 
 purest age of the church, she is the most dangerous enemy to papal usur- 
 pations and corruptions. 
 
 X Reformation principles, p. 58. § p. 55. 
 
112 hobart's apology 
 
 TopLADY adduces from Strype " another very remarkable 
 proof, both of Calvin's regard for Episcopacy^ and of the 
 manner in which a seeming difference arose between the plan 
 of ecclesiastical government adopted by that Reformer, and 
 the plan of Episcopal government adopted by the Church of 
 England. Toplady quotes " a curious paper, in Archbishop 
 Abbot's own hand-writing, found among Archbishop Usher's 
 manuscripts, and pubHshed by Strype ;" and then subjoins — 
 " So wrote that most respectable prelate, Archbishop Abbot, 
 whose evidence may be thus summed up — Calvin's last let- 
 ter concerning Episcopacy ^ sent to the ruling clergy of Eng- 
 land, in the reign of Edward VI. was craftily intercepted by 
 Bonner and Gardiner ; who (to crush Calvin's scheme for 
 episcopising the foieign Protestant churches) forged a surly, 
 snappish answer to Calvin, in the names of the divines to 
 whom his letter had been addressed, but whose hands it had 
 never reached. Calvin, beins; disgusted at the rudeness with 
 which he supposed his overture had been received here, 
 dropt all thoughts of making any further advances on the 
 subject. And thus had not two Popish extinguishers put out 
 the design, Calvin had admitted the discipline of the Church 
 of England^ with as much zeal and heartiness as the Church 
 of England actually adopted Calvin's doctrine."* How far 
 the Church of England ''^ adopted Calvin's doctrine'^'' will be 
 best ascertained by a comparison of her Articles and Liturgy 
 with his Institutes ; by which it will appear, that on all the 
 distinctive points of Calvinism, there is the most marked dif- 
 ference between the language of the Church of EnHand in 
 her Articles and Liturgy, and the Institutes of Calvin. In 
 the above passage, however, we have the decided opinion of 
 an eminent Calvinistic historian and writer, founded on the 
 most satisfactory documents, that Calvin was attached to 
 the Episcopacy of the Church of England, and was desirous 
 to introduce it into all the Reformed churches. 
 
 * Toplady's Works, vol. ii. p. 153, 154, note. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 113 
 
 The same historian, Toplady, asserts — " Nor did Calvin's 
 learned colleague and successor, the illustrious Beza, enter- 
 tain a less respectful idea of our national establishment."* 
 In proof of this, Toplady introduces from Strype an account 
 of a letter from Beza, in answer to one from Archbishop 
 Whitgift, " blaming him for his (supposed) meddling with 
 the church and state of England without any lawful commis- 
 sion." In his defence Beza states that the letter of the 
 Archbishop " indeed troubled both him and Sadeel (another 
 of the ministers of Geneva) in some sort ; as being greatly 
 afraid, lest some sinister rumours were brought to him (to 
 the Archbishop) concerning them ; or lest what they had 
 written, concerning church government, properly against the 
 anti-Christian tyranny (of the Romish Church,) as neces- 
 sity required^ might be taken by some in that sense, as though 
 they ever meant to compel to their order those churches that 
 thought otherwise. That such arrogancy was far from them," 
 &c. &c.t Toplady further remarks — " As to Beza, if he 
 werd afterwards so far wrought upon, by dint of misrepre- 
 sentation, as to countenance, in an}" measure, the forwardness 
 of the more rigid disciplinarians " (the opponents of the 
 Church of England,) ^' it ought, in justice, to be imputed 
 neither to any levity nor duplicity in him (for he was equally 
 incapable of both,) but to the wrong informations that were 
 sent to him, by which a foreigner who resided at so great a 
 distance from England, might, easily enough, be liable to 
 undue impression. "J Toplady also urges the testimony of 
 the famous Synod of Dort in favour of the Episcopacy of 
 the Church of England, as an evidence, " that the affection 
 of the foreign Reformed churches to a Protestant and primi- 
 tive Episcopacy, did not expire with the life of Calvin. "§ 
 
 * Toplady's Works, vol. ii. p. 16. 
 
 t It is worthy of remark, that this letter of Beza to Archbishop 
 Whitgift, containing concessions in favour of the Episcopacy of the 
 Church of England, was written several years after some of his works 
 which contained different sentiments. 
 
 X Toplady's Works, vol. ii. p. 18. § p. 154. 
 
 10* 
 
114 hobart's apology 
 
 After thus adducing evidence of the attachment of the 
 foreign Reformers to the Episcopacy of the Church of Eng- 
 land, this Calvinistic writer and historian, Toplady, observes, 
 " Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Sadeel, Bullinger and Gual- 
 TER, entertained very respectful and affectionate sentiments, 
 concerning the ritual^ decency and order , together with the 
 Episcopal regimen, of our incomparable church. And 
 to the approbation of those most learned persons might be 
 added (if need required) that of many other foreign Calvinists, 
 who are deservedly numbered among the first ornaments of 
 that country."* 
 
 If these testimonies of Calvin, Beza, and other Reformed 
 divines in favour of the Episcopacy of the Church of England, 
 cannot be urged as conclusive evidence that these Reformers 
 advanced it to the rank of a divine institution, they at least 
 show that they approved of it as an ancient and primitive 
 institution, handed down from the apostolic age ; that im- 
 perious circumstances only led ihem to deviate from it, and 
 prevented the execution of a plan to introduce it into alf the 
 Reformed churches. Alas ! that a plan which displayed 
 " the grandeur of the conceptions " of the great Reformer 
 Calvin, should have failed. The Protestant churches, 
 cemented by the ancient^ primitwe and venerable bond of 
 Episcopacy, would have been at unity among themselves ; 
 and thus have set at defiance the insidious arts and open as- 
 saults of popery, the ravages of heresj^ and schism, and the 
 scoffs of infidelity. " Jerusalem would have been as a city that 
 is at unity in itself" The prayer of Jesus for his followers 
 would have been answered — that they all might be one. 
 
 I call then on every candid non-Episcopalian seriously to 
 weigh the sentiments on the subject of Episcopacy of these 
 pious and holy men, who " lighted up the lamp of pure re- 
 ligion." To suppose that, if they had viewed Episcopacy as 
 an usurpation, any " human regards " would have led them 
 not only to disguise their sentiments, but to speak in the 
 
 * Toplady's Works, vol. ii. p. 19. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 115 
 
 most respectful terms of it, and and even to wish its univer- 
 sal adoption as the bond of unity in the churchy would be to 
 fix an indelible stigma on their character ; to impeach that 
 exalted integrity and firmness which it is our glory to claim 
 for the "heroes of the Reformation." To suppose, on the 
 other hand, that they were incapable of examing the claims 
 of Episcopacy J would be an impeachment of their talents, 
 their learning and zeal. The inquisitive^ the jealous, the 
 learned, the pious, the faithful period of the Reformation, 
 applauded and sanctioned the Episcopacy of the Church of 
 England. What that period failed to discover or proclaim 
 has been reserved for the superior jealousy, learning, piety 
 and faithfulness of a later age ! A primitive Episcopacy, 
 such as the Church of England possesses, is noiv denounced 
 as an usurpation, as " anti-Christian, and unscriptural." 
 " Venerable Calvin !" stay thy awful anathema. " Illus- 
 trious Beza !" I hear thee pouring forth the indignant lan- 
 guage — " God forbid that any man of a sound mind should 
 assent to the madness of such men."* 
 
 This title then of ancient usage — a title acknowledged by 
 those eminent Reformers who were led by imperious circum- 
 stances to deviate from Episcopacy, should induce every 
 Christian, when it is in his power, to embrace that church 
 which enjoys the " singular blessing " of a primitive Episco^ 
 pacy, reformed from Papal corruptions. Prudence obviously 
 dictates this choice. Of the validity of Episcopal ministra- 
 tions there never has been, there never can be the least doubt : 
 while the validity of non-Episcopal ministrations, whatever 
 allowance in certain cases may be made by the judgment of 
 charity, remains still, to say the least, a disputed point. 
 
 But Episcopacy claims our reception by a still higher title. 
 Episcopacy rests on divine authority. It is the institution 
 of Christ and his Apostles. 
 
 In discussing any subject, it is essential to the discovery of 
 truth, and to bringing the discussion to a speedy issue, that 
 * See page 95. 
 
 »^lf ^'C //U-tS.^-, /\jL4r-^J^- />-VM^i 
 
116 hobart's apology 
 
 the precise point in dispute should be clearly ascertained, 
 and the proposition to be proved plainly and definitively 
 stated. The opponents of Episcopacy have often connected 
 with it points that are not essential to it ; and when they 
 have demolished these, they triumphantly suppose that the 
 cause of Episcopacy is subverted. 
 
 The essential and characteristic principles of Episcopacy 
 are — That there are three grades of ministers instituted by 
 Christ and his Apostles ; that the first grade, in addition to 
 the ministerial powers, possess the sole power of ordination^ 
 with the right of exercising supreme authority over the con- 
 gregations and ministers who maj^ be subject to them. 
 
 From this statement of the essentials of Episcopacy, the 
 following conclusions result. 
 
 1. It is immatenal by what names these grades of the 
 ministry are distinguished. 
 
 The question concerns merely the distinctive powers 
 which they possess ; and the subordination of the two infe- 
 rior grades to the first. Episcopalians concede that the 
 names of Bishops Presbyter^ and Deacon, are, in scripture, 
 interchangeably applied to the three grades. Still it is 
 apparent, from the different jjowers which they exercised, or 
 which were committed to them, that there was a distinction 
 of authority, and a subordination among them. It would be 
 fallacious and unfair to argue from a community of names, to 
 a community of all ministerial powers ; or to ascertain their 
 appropriate and distinctive powers by the names applied to 
 them. The term Deacon, signifying a minister, may be very 
 properly applied to all the three grades. The term Presby- 
 ter, signifying a church officer, may also be indiscriminately 
 applied. And Bishop, signifying an overseer, may be applied 
 to a Presbyter, who has the oversight of a congregation, as 
 well as to the highest grade of the ministry, who possess the 
 right of overseeing ministers and congregations. The distinc- 
 tion and subordination of their powers is a matter of fact, to 
 be ascertained by an appeal to scripture, illustrated and cor- 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 117 
 
 roborated by the universal practice and testimony of the pri- 
 mitive church. " Mere names are of little real value." * " It 
 is for the thi7ig not the name, we should contend, "f The 
 three grades of the ministry were distinguished at first by 
 the names Apostles; Presbyters, or Elders — called also 
 Bishops, as overseeing a particular flock — and Deacons. And 
 after the death of the Apostles, the term Bishop became 
 appropriate to their successors in the ordinary ecclesiastical 
 powers of ordination and government ; and the two inferior 
 grades were styled Presbyters or Priests, and Deacons. 
 
 Let it then be noted, that the distinction and subordination 
 of the offices of these three grades of the ministry is to be 
 inferred, not from their names, but from their practices, from 
 the powers vested in them, and from their acts of jurisdiction. 
 Desperate indeed must be the cause of the opponents of 
 Episcopacy, when they insist that the grades of ministers 
 now distinguished as Bishops and Presbyters possessed origi- 
 nally the same powers, because these names were originally 
 applied to the same order. Who would think of inferring 
 that our Saviour was no more than an Apostle or a Bishop, 
 because these names are applied to him ^ J Or, who would 
 think of maintaining that the Consuls of the present day are 
 the same with those of the Roman Republic, because they 
 are distinguished by the same names .'' 
 
 2. Episcopalians consider also as merely verbal the dis- 
 pute whether Bishops and Presbyters are distinct orders, or 
 different grades of the same order. 
 
 They conceive indeed that as Presbyters are superior in 
 power to Deacons, and Bishops to Presbyters; and as they 
 are advanced to these superior powers by ordination, the 
 Church of England is justified in declaring,§ that there are 
 three '^orders of ministers in Christ's Church." But still 
 many of the schoolmen, and some few divines even of the 
 Church of England, are of opinion, that though Bishops are 
 * Mr. M'Leod's Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 30. f p. 18. 
 
 X Heb. iii. 1- 1 Pet. ii. 25. § Preface to Ordination Service. 
 
118 hoeart's apology 
 
 superior to Presbyters in the power of ordination, they are, 
 nevertheless, the same order, as having the same pnesthood. 
 It would be absurd to conclude from hence, that these 
 divines believed Bishops are on an equality with Presbyters. 
 They contend, on the contrary, that Bishops are invested by 
 ordination or consecration, with that power of ordaining 
 others which Presbyters have not. The only thing, there- 
 fore, essential is, that Bishops possess, by apostolic institu- 
 tion, certain powers^ distinct from and superior to the ordinary 
 powers of Presbj^ters. This proved, the question in regard 
 to the distinction or community of order becomes a mere dis- 
 pute about words. 
 
 Bishops and Presbyters, with regard to the priesthood com- 
 mon to both, by which they were distinguished from Dea- 
 cons and from the people, might be considered as the same 
 order. Still, in regard to authority and jurisdiction, dignity 
 and power, a Bishop was above a Presbyter. To contend 
 that there were not three grades of ministers in the primitive 
 church, because they were sometimes included in the two 
 names, of Bishops and Deacons^ Presbyters and Deacons^ 
 would be as absurd as to contend that there were not the 
 three orders, of High Priest, Priests, and Levites, among the 
 Jews, because the Jewish priesthood is sometimes included 
 in the two terms. Priests and Levites ; or that there is in the 
 present day only one order of ministers in the Episcopal 
 Church, because the three orders, are often denoted by the sin- 
 gle appellation of Ministers, or Priests, or Clergy. Because 
 Clemens Romanus^ an ancient Father, divides the clergy into 
 two orders, Bishops and Deacons, it is contended that there 
 were in his day only two orders in the church. As well 
 might we contend that there was no High Priest superior to 
 Priests and Levites, because Clemens divides the Jewish min- 
 istry into Priests and Levites. 
 
 3. Nor is it essential to the peculiar and distinctive func- 
 tions of a Bishop, that he should always actually exercise 
 power over ministers and congregations ; but it is essential 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 119 
 
 that he should possess the power, though it be not called into 
 exercise. 
 
 A Bishop may sometimes be deprived of his diocese^ of his 
 ministers and congregations, by the civil authority. In this 
 situation were several Bishops in England and Scotland, 
 who were deprived of their dioceses at the Revolution in 
 1688. But a Bishop either deprived of, or relinquishing his 
 diocese, no more loses his Episcopal functions than a Presby- 
 ter ceases to be a Presbyter when he gives up his congrega- 
 tion, and remains without any pastoral charge. In the early 
 ages of Christianity, a Bishop may have been sometimes 
 placed in a city or village where there was but one congre- 
 gation of Christians. Still the Bishop possessed the power 
 of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, and of exercising au- 
 thority over them. As the number of Christians multiplied, 
 the new congregations, supplied by his Presbyters and Dea- 
 cons, remained subject to him. But the Bishop, while there 
 was but one congregation in his diocese, no more lost his 
 peculiar and superior powers, than the Bishop in the city of 
 Philadelphia or New- York, would lose his Episcopal func- 
 tions, should persecution or any other event diminish his 
 diocese to one single congregation. 
 
 It is the possession of the light to exercise authority over 
 Presbyters and congregations, and not the actual exercise of 
 this right, dependent as this exercise is upon circumstances, 
 which is an essential characteristic of the Episcopal grade 
 of the ministry. Nor does this bring a Bishop of the Epis- 
 copal Church to a levels or identify him, with a Congregational 
 or Presbyterian Bishop^ who oversees only one congregation. 
 This latter can have no Presbyters, possessing the powers of 
 the ministry, subject to him. He is himself the only person 
 in the congregation vested with the power of preaching the 
 word, and administering the sacraments. His Elders are 
 merely aids to him in discipline ; and his Deacons are officers 
 who have the care of the poor and some other temporal func- 
 tions. The right to exercise power over other congregations 
 
120 hobart's apology 
 
 and their pastors, is no part of his office. But a Bishop of 
 the Episcopal Church possesses the right to exercise authority 
 over Presbyters and Deacons^ who have the ministry of the 
 word and sacraments ; and also over the congregations^ in 
 which these Presbyters and Deacons minister. Pecuh'ar 
 circumstances may sometimes prevent the actual exercise of 
 his powers, but cannot divest him of them. 
 
 4. The name or the extent of the Bishop's charge^ or his 
 not being exclusively fixed to any particular district^ does not 
 affect his distinctive and essential powers. 
 
 The charge of a Bishop is now called a Diocese^ and that 
 of a Presbyter a Parish. But to the fourth century the 
 common name of an Episcopal diocese was itaQovula^ answer- 
 ing nearly to the English word parish. This signified not 
 the places or habitations near a church., but a city and the 
 towns and villages near it. These, together with the city, 
 constituted the charge of a Bishop, his naqoixia^ or parish, or, 
 as it is now called, his diocese. But it. would be unfair and 
 absurd to argue from the circumstance of the Bishop's charge 
 being originally called his parish, that it was, what that name 
 now commonly signifies, a single congregation or pastoral 
 care. Arguments drawn from sameness of names , to prove 
 sameness of powers, of persons, or of things, are always liable 
 to be fallacious, and betray the weakness of the cause into 
 the service of which they are pressed. " Names are of little 
 real value."* They are changeable in their signification; 
 and in different places, and at different periods are variously 
 applied. The extent of a Bishop's charge, whether confined 
 to a single congregation, or extending over several congrega- 
 tions, is a matter of fact, to be determined not by the name 
 given to the charge, but by other circumstances. The word 
 naqoiKia, or parish, is applied by Eusebius to a Bishop^s 
 charge, in the fourth century, when by the concessions of all 
 the opponents of Episcopacy this charge included several 
 
 * Mr. M'Leod's language in his Ecclesiastical Catechism. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 121 
 
 congregations. The learned Bingham,* in his Origines Ec- 
 clesiasticcE^'f observes, " The reader may find an hundred 
 passages in Eusebius where he uses the word itaqovMa^ (or 
 parish^) when he speaks of those large and populous cities 
 (Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria) which had many particular 
 churches in them. The city of Alexandria, in the time (the 
 fourth century) of Alexander and Athanasius, was divided 
 into several districts, called Laura, in every one of which 
 there was a church, with a Presbyter fixed upon it : and yet 
 all these were but one nagoi^iicx, as Alexander calls it in his 
 circular Epistle against Arius." Until it can be proved that 
 the word Ttagoixla, in the primitive church, was invariably ap- 
 plied only to a single congregation, the argument drawn from 
 it against a Bishop's charge extending beyond a single con- 
 gregation, can have no weight. We dismiss the name of the 
 Bishop's charge as of no consequence, as no way affecting 
 either the nature or extent of his Episcopal jurisdiction. 
 
 Whether the ministers or congregations subject to a Bishop 
 be more or less numerous ; or whether instead of one Bishop 
 being fixed to a particular diocese, the Bishops of a certain 
 district should govern the church in common as a college of 
 Bishops, are matters of expediency, of human policy, of 
 ecclesiastical regulation ; and do not affect the essential point 
 of the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters in the powers of 
 ordination and government. Timothy and Titus were evi- 
 dently superior to the Elders or Presbyters of Ephesus and 
 Crete ; for the powers of ordination and government were 
 expressly vested in them, and not in the Elders or Presby- 
 ters. And yet when Timothy and Titus, in order to spread 
 the gospel as Evangelists, left the cities of Ephesus and 
 Crete, they surely did not forfeit their superior powers. To 
 
 * I quote this learned Christian antiquarian with the more confidence, 
 because I find you, in your " Letters on Frequent Communion," (p. 27) 
 relying with confidence on his "collection and elucidation" of "autho- 
 rities " with respect to an important practice in the primitive church. 
 
 t Book ix. chap. ii. sect 1. 
 
 11 
 
122 hobart's apology 
 
 make the existence of these powers absolutely dependent on 
 their having been exclusively fixed to a certain district, would 
 be absurd indeed.* 
 
 It was a rule in the primitive church, that the office and 
 characters of Bishops and Presbyters extended over the whole 
 church, and were not confined to any particular place. 
 Wherever a Bishop or Presbyter travelled, he had a right to 
 exercise his function on just and proper occasions. But it 
 was also a rule, that the ordinary exercise of the office of a 
 Bishop was confined to a particular district, and of an inferior 
 minister to a particular congregation. No person will con- 
 tend that a Minister ceases to be a Minister when he does 
 not confine his functions to a particular congregation, but acts 
 as a Missionary through various congregations and districts. 
 And is it not strange that any person should contend that a 
 Bishop ceases to be a Bishop, because the peculiar circum- 
 stances of the church may require his superintending distinct 
 and distant churches ? Who would think, for example, of 
 seriously maintaining that the Roman Catholic Bishop in 
 Maryland forfeits his distinctive Episcopal character, because 
 the circumstance of there being no other Roman Catholic 
 
 * On this subject the opinion of one who has not been considered a 
 high Churchman should have weight — Bishop Hoadly, in his "De- 
 fence of Episcopal Ordination," thus observes: (Chap, i.) "It is of 
 small importance whether Timothy and Titus were fixed Bishops, pro- 
 perly so called, or not. Perhaps at the first plantation of churches there 
 was no such necessity of fixed Bishops as was found afterwards ; or per- 
 haps at first the superintendency of such persons as Timothy and Titus 
 was thought requisite in many different churches, as their several needs 
 required. If so, their office certainly was the same in all churches to 
 which they went ; and ordination reserved to such as they were, persons 
 superior to the settled Presbyters. But as to Ephesiis and Crete, it is 
 manifest that Timothy and Titus were to stay with the churches there 
 as long as their presence was not more wanted at other places. And, 
 besides, if they did leave these churches, there was as good reason that 
 they should return to them, to perform the same office of ordination, 
 when there was again occasion, as there was at first, why they should be 
 sent by St. Paul to that purpose." 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 123 
 
 Bishop in this country requires him frequently to leave his 
 residence and church in Baltimore, and to exercise his Epis- 
 copel functions in Pennsylvania, in New-Y'ork, and Massa- 
 chusetts ? Did circumstances in like manner prevent there 
 being only one Protestant Episcopal Bishop in the United 
 States, who would contend that he could not be a Bishop, 
 because, instead of confining his Episcopal functions to the 
 clergy and congregations of a certain district, he extended 
 his superintendence over distant churches or districts ? Yet, 
 manifestly absurd as such a conclusion would be, the oppo- 
 nents of Episcopacy have founded a serious argument against 
 the superiority of Timothy and Titus, from the circumstance 
 that they were not exclusively fixed to the churches of Ephe- 
 sus and Crete. Admit this argument, and you strip of their 
 ministerial powers the numerous Missionaries who, instead 
 of being exclusively fixed to a particular congregation, itine- 
 rate through the country. 
 
 In like manner circumstances may render it expedient that 
 the Bishops of a particular country, instead of appropriating 
 to each Bishop a particular district, should exercise their 
 powers in common over the whole church. In this situation 
 were the Bishops in Scotland on the abolition of Episcopacy. 
 Deprived of their dioceses by the civil authority, they formed 
 themselves into a college of Bishops, and exercised in com- 
 mon their Episcopal functions among their scattered flocks 
 and ministers. To maintain that, because the arm of civil 
 power stripped them of their dioceses, they forfeited their 
 Episcopal prerogatives, when they still exercised these pre- 
 rogatives (whenever they could do it with safety) among 
 their scattered Presbyters and flocks, is as absurd as it is un- 
 generous. Yet no less a man than Dr. Camphell^ in his 
 Ecclesiastical Lectures^ seriously contends that the Scotch 
 Bishops, when they lost their dioceses, lost their Episcopal 
 character. His able opponent, Bishop Skinner, of Aberdeen, 
 very properly inquires — Did Dr. Campbell lose his ministe- 
 rial character when he gave up his pastoral charge, and be- 
 
124 hobart's apology 
 
 came principal of Marishal College ? And the inquiry may 
 also be made — If persecution should deprive Presbyterian 
 ministers of their congregations, and in this situation they 
 were to constitute themselves into a Presbytery, and with- 
 out particular pastoral charges, to minister, in common, to 
 the spiritual wants of their scattered flocks, would they cease 
 to be Presbyterian ministers ? 
 
 There is an evident distinction between the powers of office^ 
 and the exercise of them. This last is styled jurisdiction. 
 They are not only distinct but independent. The arm of 
 power may deprive a Bishop of his jurisdiction, yet he still 
 retains his Episcopal functions. The ecclesiastical authority 
 may regulate this jurisdiction, may determine its extent ; the 
 particular ministers and congregations which it may include ; 
 the manner in which it may be exercised, whether in a parti- 
 cular district or diocese, or over the church at large. All 
 these matters of jurisdiction are different from the powers of 
 office. The jurisdiction of a Bishop may, from some particu- 
 lar circumstances, be confined to a single congregation, or be 
 extended over an extensive province or country; his seat 
 may be a small village, or a large and populous city ; the 
 civil magistrate may sink him into obscurity, and crush him 
 with the arm of persecution, or may surround him with the 
 splendour of worldly honours ; a Dioclesian may hunt him 
 to the stake, or a Constantine exalt him to the palace. These 
 varying circumstances do not affect the essentials of his office, 
 the power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, and of ruling 
 them and their congregations when they are placed over any. 
 The true point of contest between Episcopalians and their 
 adversaries, is as to the inherent and exclusive right of Bishops 
 to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to rule over them and 
 their congregations ; and not as to the extent or the manner of 
 the exercise of this right, which must depend upon circum- 
 stances, and be matters of ecclesiastical regulation. The 
 powers oi a. Presbyter are the same, whatever be the name or 
 the extent of his pastoral charge. In like manner, " whether 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 125 
 
 the place in which the people reside who are under the Bi- 
 shop^s charge, be called a. parish or a diocese ; or whether his 
 charge be of larger or smaller extent^ can make no difference in 
 the nature of Episcopacy, It is the pre-eminence of office, or 
 the superior authority annexed to the Episcopal character 
 that gives the true criterion of Prelacy."* According to St. 
 Jerome, " Wherever a Bishop is, whether at Rome or at Eu- 
 gubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or 
 at Tani, he has the same merit, and the same priesthood. f 
 Neither the power of riches, nor the humility of poverty 
 makes a Bishop higher or lower, but they are all successors 
 of the Apostles.'^'' Diocesan Bishops, for such confessedly 
 were the Bishops in the time of St. Jerome are all successors 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 5. Nor do Churchmen by any means consider it essential 
 to Episcopacy, that the Bishop should exercise sole and 
 absolute power in the church. 
 
 He alone indeed possesses the power of ordination ; he 
 only conveys, from the divine Head of the Church, the mi- 
 nisterial commission. But the manner and the restrictions, 
 according to which this power is to be exercised, are subjects 
 of ecclesiastical regulation. Accordingly, in the Church of 
 England, as well in the Episcopal Church in this country, the 
 Bishop does not ordain but with the concurrence of his Pres- 
 byters, and with their approbation, and that also of the Laity, 
 to the religious and moral qualifications of the person or- 
 dained. In the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, 
 " the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity^^ exercise jointly 
 
 * Bishop Skinner, of Aberdeen. Primitive Truth and Order, in answer 
 to Dr. Campbell. 
 
 t The term priesthood is here used as an appellative to denote minis- 
 terial function. No argument can be drawn from the use of the term to 
 prove that a Bishop is no more than a Priest. Since, whatever may be 
 St. Jerome's opinion of their being originally the same, in his time they 
 were confessedly distinct, according to the unanimous concession of the 
 opponents of Episcopacy; and the Bishops of Constantinople, and of 
 Rhegium, and of the other places were diocesan Bishops. 
 11* 
 
126 hoeart's apology 
 
 the power of making ecclesiastical laws. And in the Church 
 of England the ecclesiastical laws made by the Bishops and 
 Clergy in convocation^ are not binding until they have received 
 the assent of the Laity., of the King, Lords, and Commons. 
 The rule of ecclesiastical legislation is thus settled by that 
 able defender of Episcopacy, the "judicious" Hooker. 
 " The most natural and religious course in making laws is, 
 that the matter of them be taken from the judgment of the 
 wisest in those things which they are to concern. In matters 
 of God, to set down a form of prayer, a solemn confession of 
 the articles of the Christian faith, and ceremonies meet for 
 the exercise of religion, it were unnatural not to think the 
 Pastors and Bishops of our souls a great deal more fit, than 
 men of secular trades and callings : howbeit, when all, which 
 the wisdom of all sorts can do, is done for the devising of laws 
 in the church, it is the general consent of all that giveth them 
 the form and vigour of laws."* It is thought by some, that 
 this joint association of the three orders, of Bishops, Clergy, 
 and Laity, in making laws, has the sanction of apostolic and 
 primitive usage ; since in the memorable council at Jerusalem, 
 there were the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. And St. 
 Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in the third century, in all eccle- 
 siastical matters acted with the advice of his Clergy and 
 Laity. There may be others, on the contrar}^, among Epis- 
 copalians, who maintain that this mode of ecclesiastical 
 legislation is not strictly apostolic and primitive. But the 
 sense of the church is to be learnt from her acknowledged 
 institutions and practice, and not from the opinions of indivi- 
 duals. 
 
 It is evident that the exercise of the power of ordination, 
 with the approbation of the Presbyters and Laity, to the quali- 
 fications and character of the person ordained ; the concur- 
 rent exercise of the powers of legislation by the Bishops, the 
 Clergy, and the Laity; and the consultation of his Clergy 
 
 * Hooker. Ecclesiastical Polity, book viii. chap. iii. p. 344, Oxford 
 edition. 
 
FOR apostolic; order. 127 
 
 and people, even in the executive and judicial measures of 
 the Bishop, do not violate the essentials of Episcopacy. 
 These essentials are, that the Bishop should have the exclu- 
 sive power of ordination., and the supreme power of governing 
 the church. Neither the Clergy nor the Laity presume to 
 claim the power of ordination, or the supreme power of gov- 
 erning in the church : both which are peculiar to the Bishop. 
 
 6. There is no particular mode of electing or appointing 
 Bishops essential to Episcopacy. 
 
 The election or appointment of a Bishop, and his ordina- 
 tion, or his receiving his Episcopal commission, are entirely 
 distinct. As it is a maxim that the greater cannot be or- 
 dained by the less, nor those confer the power of ordination 
 who have never received it, the ordination of a Bishop, the 
 conferring on him the Episcopal authority, can be performed 
 by Bishops only. But the electing or appointing of the per- 
 son who is to be ordained Bishop is a matter of expediency 
 and ecclesiastical regulation. In the primitive ages the 
 Bishop was elected by the Clergy and people. But after the 
 empire became Christian, the Bishops were generally ap- 
 pointed by the Emperor. Their ordination was always a 
 distinct thing, and was performed hj Bishops. In the 
 Church of England the Bishops are virtually appointed by 
 the King. In this country they are elected by the Clergy, 
 and by the Laity represented by their delegates in conven- 
 tion. This appointment or election does not make them 
 Bishops. Their ordination only, which is performed by 
 Bishops, vests them with the Episcopal office. Obvious as 
 this distinction is, there are found opponents of Episcopacy 
 who seriously maintain, that because Bishops are appointed 
 by the civil magistrate, or by the Clergy and people, their 
 authority is of secular origin. As well might they contend, 
 that because Presbyterian congregations elect or appoint 
 their ministers, this election or appointment, and not ordina- 
 tion by the Presbytery, confers the Ministerial authority. 
 
 7. Episcopalians do not contend that in an extensive and 
 
128 hobart's apology 
 
 unqualified sense there is any form of church government of 
 divine right. 
 
 Church government is often applied by Episcopal writers, 
 in a confined, sense, to the orders of the ministry. And in 
 this confined signification, Episcopal government is of divine 
 right. But in a more extensive sense, church government 
 includes the particular organization by which ecclesiastical 
 power is exercised, and discipline administered ; and the 
 rites and ceremonies by which public worship is conducted. 
 In this extensive signification. Episcopalians maintain, that 
 there is no precise form of church government of divine 
 right. The organization of ecclesiastical authority, the 
 forms of discipline, the rites and ceremonies of public wor- 
 ship, they maintain, are not laid down in scripture ; and, 
 "therefore, by common consent and authority, may be 
 altered, abridged, enlarged, amended or otherwise disposed 
 of, as may seem most convenient for the edification of the 
 people. ^^* The single point for which they contend is, that 
 Episcopacy was instituted by Christ and his Apostles ; that 
 the three grades of ministers. Bishops., Priests, and Deacons, 
 with their appropriate powers, are of " divine and apostolical 
 institution.''^ 
 
 The government of the church, therefore, is evidently not 
 to be identified with its ministry. The former, considered as 
 including discipline, rites and ceremonies, may be altered by 
 human authority : the latter can only be altered by that 
 divine authority which originally instituted it. If we change 
 the distinctive grades and powers of the ministry, and take 
 the power of ordination from that grade of ministers with 
 whom it was originally vested, we make the ministry of 
 human instead of divine authority ; we destroy the connec- 
 tion between the ministry and its divine Head, Jesus Christ, 
 whose commission alone can give it validity. But while 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, with the powers which they 
 
 * Preface to the Book of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 129 
 
 respectively received from Christ and his Apostles, are pre- 
 served inviolate, the church possesses the right, according to 
 Episcopalians, to create new officers ; and to model disci- 
 pline, rites and ceremonies, as may seem best for edification ; 
 provided there be no violation of an}" divine command or 
 institution. 
 
 This principle, that in an extensive sense there is no form 
 of church government in all its parts of divine right, is main- 
 tained by all Episcopalians. It is particularly vindicated by 
 the celebrated Hooker, in his learned '' Ecclesiastical Poli- 
 ty." The Puritans maintained that " God hath delivered in 
 scripture a complete, particular, immutable form of church 
 polity." Of course they opposed the Church of England for 
 including in her discipline and public services many things 
 not expressly commanded by the word of God. In opposi- 
 tion to them. Hooker contended, " to make new articles of 
 faith and doctrine, no man thinketh it lawful ; new laws of 
 government, what commonwealth or church is there which 
 maketh not either at one time or another .?"* He contends, 
 that as " external rites and ceremonies " do not affect the 
 substance of the faith, " in such things, discretion may teach 
 the church what is convenient;" and that in regard to them, 
 " the church is no further tied unto scripture, than that 
 against scripture nothing be admitted in the church. "j* 
 Some Episcopal churches have incorporated in their regimen 
 many ecclesiastical officers not known in other Episcopal 
 churches, nor deemed essential by any. In regard to them 
 Hooker observes, "As for Deans, Prebendaries, Parsons, 
 Vicars, Curates, Archdeacons, Chancellors, Officials, Com- 
 missaries, and such other like names," (he might have 
 added Archbishops) " which being not found in holy scrip- 
 ture, we have been thereby, through some men's error, 
 thought to allow of ecclesiastical degrees not known, nor 
 ever heard of in the better ages of former times ; all these 
 are, in truth, but titles of office^ whereunto partly ecclesiasti- 
 * Ecclesiastical Polity, book iii. sec. 10. f Sec. 3. 
 
130 hobart's apology 
 
 cal persons, and partly others are in sundry forms and condi- 
 tions admitted, as the state of the church doth need ; degrees 
 of order " (by which he means the grades or degrees of the 
 ministry,) " still continuing the same they were from the 
 first beginning y* Whatsoever things the word of God hath 
 neither commanded nor prohibited, the church possesses the 
 right which every other society possesses, to prescribe and 
 enjoin. 
 
 It is, therefore, a principle strictty Episcopal, received by 
 all Churchmen, that the particular organization of church gov- 
 ernment^ matters of discipline^ rites and ceremonies, are not 
 unalterably determined in scripture. In this extensive sense 
 there is no particular form of church government of divine right. 
 But it is unfair and uncandid to charge Hooker, Whitgift, 
 and other eminent divines who advocate and defend this 
 principle, with giving up the claims of Episcopacy to divine 
 institution. What are the essentials of Episcopacy ? The 
 '' degrees of order " — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and 
 their appropriate powers. And these Hooker explicitly 
 traces back to the institution of Christ and his Apostles. 
 Alluding to a certain passage of scripture which he thinks 
 improperly applied to prove the degrees of ecclesiastical order, 
 Hooker observes, " What orders of ecclesiastical persons 
 there ought to be in the Church of Christ — we are not to 
 learn from thence, but out of other parts of holy scripture, 
 WHEREBY it clearly appeareth, that churches apostolic did 
 know but three degrees in the power of ecclesiastical order ; 
 at the first Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons; afterwards, 
 instead of Apostles, Bishops, concerning whose order we are 
 to speak in the seventh book."| And in yet more decisive 
 terms he speaks — "I may secure^, therefore, conclude, 
 that there are in this day in the Church of England, no 
 other than the same degrees of ecclesiastical orders. Bishops, 
 Presbyters, and Deacons, which had their beginning from 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Polity, book v. sec. 78. f Sec. 78. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 131 
 
 Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves.''^* We find Hook- 
 er further declaring — " It was the general received opinion 
 of the ancient Christian world, that Ecclesia est in episcopo, 
 the OUTWARD BEING of a CHURCH, consisted in the having 
 of a Bishop." " That so the ancient Fathers did think 
 of Episcopal regiment ; that they held this order as a thing 
 received from the blessed Apostles themselves^ and autho- 
 rized even from JleaveUyWe may, perhaps, more easily prove, 
 than obtain that they all shall grant it who see it proved." 
 " And shall we think that James was made Bishop of Jeru- 
 salem, Evodius Bishop of the church of Antioch, the Angels 
 in the churches of Asia Bishops ; that Bishops every where 
 were appointed to take away factions, contentions, and 
 schisms, without some like direction and instigation of the 
 Holy Ghost } Wherefore let us not fear to be herein bold 
 and peremptory, that if any thing in the church's government, 
 surely the first institution of Bishops was from Heaven, was 
 even of God; the Holy Ghost was the author of it.''^ f 
 
 * These extracts are taken from the fifth book of Hooker's Ecclesiasti- 
 cal Polity, which was published before his death. Doubts have been 
 raised by some, whether the three last books published after his death 
 are genuine. The following statement appears in substance in the appen- 
 dix to the Life of Hooker. Hooker wrote three books in addition to those 
 published by himself. The rough draught of these books had been much 
 defaced and dismembered by the persons into whose hands they had 
 fallen. In this situation they were delivered by Archbishop Whitgift to 
 Dr. Spencer, " to be made as perfect as they might be, by him, who both 
 knew Mr. Hooker's hand-writing, and was best acquainted with his 
 intentions." It appears improbable that there should be any material 
 corruptions in these books, published by Dr. Spencer, " between whom 
 and Hooker there was so friendly a friendship, that they continually ad- 
 vised together in all their studies, and particularly in what concerned 
 these books of Polity." The omissions and interpolations in some copies 
 of these books do not respect Episcopacy, but some other matter. There 
 could have been no inducement to interpolation on the subject of Episco- 
 pacy. For there is no sentiment advanced concerning it in his seventh 
 book which is not contained in his fifth book, which is undoubtedly 
 genuine; and in which he asserts, that " Bishops, Presbyters, and Dea- 
 ■ "-S had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles." 
 
 ■• Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, book vii. sect. 5. 
 
132 hobart's apology 
 
 In like manner, Whitgift, in confuting the principle of 
 the Puritans, that there ought not to be any thing in the 
 church's government or worship which is not prescribed in 
 the word of God, maintained that " there is no certain kind 
 of government or discipline prescribed to the church, but 
 that the same may be altered as the profit of the churches 
 require." Still he maintained all that is essential to Epis- 
 copacy, the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters and Deacons 
 by divine institution. In a letter to Beza., Archbishop Whit- 
 gift observes — " We make no doubt but that the Episcopal 
 DEGREE which wc bear, is an institution apostolical and 
 divine ; and so hath always been held by a continual course 
 of times from the Apostles'* to this very age of ours." " And 
 what Aaron was to his sons and to the Levites, this the 
 Bishops were to the Priests and Deacons ; and so esteemed 
 of the Fathers to be by divine institution."* 
 
 It is evidently uncandid and unfair, therefore, to urge, that 
 because Hooker and other divines maintain what is, in fact, 
 a church principle^ that in an extensive sense there is no pre- 
 cise form of church government in all its parts prescribed in 
 the word of God ; they, therefore, give up Episcopacy as a 
 divine institution. They expressly maintain, in the strongest 
 language, all that is essential to Episcopacy, that Bishops are 
 superior to Presbyters and Deacons by " divine and apostolical 
 institution." It is equally uncandid and unfair to urge, from 
 particular expressions of some of the Reformers at an early 
 period of the Reformation, that the Church of England was 
 not constituted upon the principle that Episcopacy was insti- 
 tuted by Christ and his Apostles. Such were the arbitrary 
 pretensions of Henry VIII. and such, unhappily, for 50771c 
 /me, the submission of some of the English Reformers to 
 those pretensions, that they were led to submit to Erastian 
 principles, which, viewing the church merely as a creature 
 of the state, tended to subvert entirely her spiritual authority. 
 Happily, however, the Church of England was not founded 
 * Strype's Life of Whitgift, p. 460 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 133 
 
 on these principles, and those of the Reformers who once 
 avowed, finally disclaimed, them. We want no stronger 
 evidence of this, than the fact, that the Church of England, 
 at the Reformation, preserved the Episcopal succession.* 
 She formed all her public offices on the principles that there 
 are the three orders, of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; that 
 
 * The contemptible story of the JVag's head ordination is sometimes 
 urged by the opponents of Episcopacy, to invalidate the Episcopal suc- 
 cession of the Church of England. According to this story. Archbishop 
 Parker, in the reign of Elizabeth, was consecrated privately at the JVag's 
 head tavern, by persons who were not Bishops. It ought, in justice, to 
 be mentioned, that the candid opponents of Episcopacy disdain to press 
 into their cause this story, entirely destitute of proof, and which was 
 invented by the Papists to injure the Church of England. Its falsehood 
 has been exposed by many writers, and especially by Bishop Burnet, 
 who will not be accused of being unduly partial to the Episcopal cause. 
 *« This story was not thought of. Bishop Burnet observes, until forty years 
 after" the period of Bishop Parker's consecration. It was then contra- 
 dicted by " the old Earl of Nottingham, who had been at the consecra- 
 tion, declared it was at Lambeth, and described all the circumstances of 
 it, and satisfied all reasonable men that it was according to the form of 
 the Church of England. The registers, both of the See of Canterbury, 
 and of the Records of the Crown, do all fully agree with his relation. 
 And above all other testimonies, the original instrument of Archbishop 
 Parker's consecration lies still among his other papers in the library of 
 Corpus Christi College, at Cambridge, w^hich I saw and read. It is as 
 manifestly an original writing as any that I have ever had in my hands. 
 I have put it in the collection for the more full discovery of the impu- 
 dence of the fiction." Burnet's History of the Reformation, book ii. p. 
 402. It is indeed incredible, that so important, and at that period, so 
 particularly interesting an event as the consecration of an Archbishop of 
 Canterbury should have been privately and illegally performed, and yet 
 that no discovery of it should be made until forty years after ; and that in 
 the mean time the ordination should be sanctioned as valid by all the 
 public registers, and by various acts of Parliament. If, in opposition to 
 these striking facts, we doubt the regularity of Archbishop Parker's ordi- 
 nation, how easy will it be to throw doubt on the best authenticated 
 events !* 
 
 * The learned Dr. Lingard, the standard historian of the Romish 
 church, admits in his Universal History the Nag's head story to be a 
 fable ; and subsequently, in four letters to a Romanist, defends this ad- 
 mission by the clearest and most incontestible proofs. — Ed. 
 
 12 
 
134 hobart's apology 
 
 these " orders" were " constituted" by Almighty God, by 
 " his divine providence," and by his " Holy Spirit ;"* and 
 that the Bishops alone have the power of ordination. | 
 
 When, therefore, the opponents of Episcopacy urge that 
 the Reformers of the Church of England, and many of her 
 most eminent divines, did not maintain that Episcopacy was 
 the institution of Christ and his Apostles, Episcopalians have 
 only to reply — The sense of the Church of England, as to 
 Episcopacy, is to be learnt from her public offices, and from 
 her practice, and not from the sentiments of individuals. 
 Will you allow that the Church of Scotland is anti-Calvinis- 
 tic in her doctrines, because many of her most eminent 
 divines are confessedly so. The Church of England receives 
 no one as a minister who has not been Episcopally ordained. 
 Some of the Reformers entertained, at a certain period, lax 
 notions on the subject of Episcopacy. But they were, at 
 the same time, equally erroneous in many of their opinions 
 concerning some of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. 
 If Cranmer's sentiments were at one time favourable to the 
 equality of Bishops and Priests, so were they also to tran- 
 substantiation. But he renounced his errors on both these 
 points. You will not dispute Bishop Burnet's authority, 
 who asserts, " In Cranmer's paper some singular opinions 
 of his about the nature of ecclesiastical offices will be found ; 
 but as they are delivered by him with all possible modesty, 
 so they were not established as the doctrine of the churchy but 
 
 * The declarations of the prayers in the ordination offices. 
 
 f The conduct of Archbishop Grindal, who, in the reign of Eliza- 
 beth, granted a license to preach to John Morrison a Presbyterian 
 divine, is often triumphantly adduced as a proof that the Church of 
 England admits the validity of Presbyterian ordination. Is it possible 
 that the irregular conduct of an Archbishop, " who was thought too 
 gentle and remiss in his management, and to whom the privy council 
 wrote to complain of the relaxation of discipline,"* should be urged by 
 men of sense and candour as evidence that the Church of England admits 
 what all her public offices and her general practice disclaim ! 
 
 * Collier's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 571. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 135 
 
 laid aside as particular conceits of his own ; and it seems 
 that afterwards he changed his own opinion. For he sub- 
 scribed the book which was soon after set out, which was 
 directly contrary to those opinions."* He published also a 
 Catechism, in which, according to Bishop Burnet, " he fully 
 owns the divine institution of Bishops and Priests."! 
 
 It is useless then (the Episcopalian may continue to ad- 
 dress his opponents) to dispute, whether some of the divines 
 of the English Church did not acknowledge that there is no 
 precise form of government in all its parts of divine right. 
 This is not bringing the matter to a point ; " it is not taking 
 the question by the proper handle." The only essential 
 question is. Were Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, with their 
 distinctive and subordinate powers, instituted by Christ and 
 his Apostles ? And on this question will you acknowledge 
 with the Church of England, and the Episcopal Church in 
 this country, that " it is evident unto all men diligently read- 
 ing holy scriptures and ancient authors, that, from the Apos- 
 tles' times, there have been these orders of Ministers, Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons .?"J Will you maintain, with these 
 
 * History of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 289. 
 
 t History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 71. An extract from this 
 Catechism appears in Dr. Chandler's " Appeal further defended," (p. 
 63.) In this tract, and in his " Appeal defended," will be found a full 
 vindication of the Reformers from the charge of not maintaining the 
 divine institutions of Episcopacy. 
 
 X The Church of England, and the Protestant Episcopal Church not 
 only assert, that those now called Bishops and Presbyters are distinct, 
 but, in fact, exalt a Bishop above a Presbyter by a solemn ordination- 
 There can be no doubt then that in their judgment the offices are distinct. 
 Why then, it may be asked, do they appoint to be read, in the ordering of 
 Bishops, some portions of scripture which are considered as designating 
 not those who are now strictly called Bishops, but the order of Presby- 
 ters, to whom in the New Testament the title Bishop is often given ? 
 The answer may be — These passages describe the general duties of pas- 
 tors, as overseers of souls ; and may, therefore, as an admonition to duty, 
 be with propriety applied, either to the Presbyter, as the overseer of a 
 particular congregation, or to the Bishop (strictly so called) as an over- 
 seer of the church at large. 
 
136 hobart's apology 
 
 churches, that " Almighty God, by his divine providence and 
 Holy Spirit appointed divers orders of ministers in his church ;" 
 and that these orders are "Bishops, Priests, and Deacons?"* 
 Will 3^ou adopt the practice of those churches, and acknow- 
 ledge none as "lawful ministers" among jou "who have 
 not had Episcopal consecration or ordination ? "f Will you 
 maintain, with Cranmer, who adopted those ordination ser- 
 vices, the " divine institution of Bishops and Priests ! " Will 
 5^ou assert, with Whitgift, " that the Episcopal degree is 
 an institution apostolical and divine ? " Will you allow, 
 with Hooker, that " Bishops, Priests, and Deacons had 
 their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles ? "J 
 And " that besides these last times, which, for insolency, 
 pride, and egregious contempt of all good order are the worst, 
 there are none wherein ye can truly affirm, that the com- 
 plete form of 3^our discipline, or the substance thereof, was 
 practised ?"§ Will j'ou adopt the reasoning of Chilling- 
 worth in his celebrated tract, in which he demonstrates 
 " the apostolical institution of Episcopacy ? " Will you 
 assert, with Stillingfleet, that " they who go about to 
 unbishop Timothy and Titus, may as well unscripture the 
 Epistles that were written to them, and make them only some 
 particular and occasional writings, as make Timothy and 
 Titus to have been only some particular and occasional o&i- 
 cers;"|| and that " we have no greater assurance that these 
 Epistles were written by St. Paul, than that there were Bi- 
 shops to succeed the Apostles in the care and government of 
 churches ?" Will you maintain, with a Bishop of our own coun- 
 try, who has been unjustly considered as aiding your cause, 
 that "there having been an Episcopal power originallj lodged 
 by Jesus Christ with his Apostles, and by them exercised 
 
 * Preface to Ordination Service. f Ibid. 
 
 I Ecclesiastical Polity, book v. sect. 79. 
 
 § Hooker. Preface to Ecclesiastical Polity, sect. 4. 
 
 II Stillingfleet's (the author of the Irenicum) Charge on the duties and 
 Rights of the Clergy, p. 8. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 137 
 
 generally in person, but sometimes by delegation (as in the 
 instances of Timothy and Titus,) the same was conveyed by 
 them before their decease to one pastor in each churchy 
 which generally comprehended all the Christians in a city 
 and a convenient surrounding district ? Thus were created 
 the apostolic successors."* Will you maintain, with the same 
 Bishop, that " it seemed good to the Apostles to appoint 
 some of these with supereminent commission, of which there 
 were instances in Timothy and Titus ; and the persons so 
 appointed have handed down their commission through the 
 different ages of the church? This is the originally constituted 
 order."! 
 
 If the non-Episcopalian will make these concessions, and 
 will hold this language, he fairly gives up his cause. He 
 maintains all that the Episcopalian could wish. And we 
 shall be glad to hear on what grounds he will justify his re- 
 jection of the " originally constituted order," and of degrees 
 of the ministry who had their " beginning from Christ and his 
 blessed Apostles." 
 
 8. The difference of opinion among Episcopalians, with 
 respect to cases of necessity, does not affect the essentials of 
 Episcopacy. 
 
 These essentials are, that by the institution of Christ and 
 his Apostles, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons have distinct 
 powers ; and that ordination, and the supreme power of go- 
 vernment are peculiar to Bishops. But a question arises in 
 respect to cases of necessity. Are Presbyters justified in or- 
 daining, when ordination by Bishops cannot be had? Some 
 
 * Case of the Episcopal churches considered, p. 23. The Episcopal 
 opinion there stated " is to be understood as the author's own." Collec- 
 tion of Essays on Episcopacy, p. 175. In the first named pamphlet the 
 author advocated a " temporary departure" from Episcopacy, on the plea 
 of necessity, on the supposition that "ordination by Bishops could 
 not be had." Whatever may be thought of the validity of this plea, it 
 has been asserted by many who have favoured the highest claims of 
 Episcopacy. 
 
 t Bishop White's Sermon before the General Convention. 
 12* 
 
138 hobakt's apology 
 
 advocates of Episcopacy have maintained, that no case of 
 necessity can justify Presbj^ters in assuming a povrer which 
 they never received from the divine Head of the Church.* 
 While others have maintained, that, provided the general ob- 
 ligation of Episcopacy be acknowledged, God will mercifully 
 accept the ministrations of those Presbyterially ordained, 
 where ordination by Bishops cannot be had. 
 
 However plausible the ple'^j of necessity may have been in 
 some places in the early stages of the Reformation, it would 
 be difficult to find a place where such a plea could now be 
 maintained. The question, therefore, is now more curious 
 than useful. The validity of such a plea may, however, be 
 admitted in perfect consistency with the highest Episcopal 
 claims, on the ground, that as the public exercises of the 
 ministry are essential to the preservation of religion, it may 
 please God, where a duly authorized ministry cannot be had, 
 to accept and bless the ministrations of those who have not 
 received their commission by regular transmission from the 
 divine Head of the Church, through the appointed channel. 
 To assert that the admission of this plea is to give up the 
 point that Episcopal ordination is prescribed by Christ and 
 his Apostles, would be absurd. The plea of necessity essen- 
 tially involves an acknowledgement of the obligation of the 
 institution, which is neglected or violated. Reasons that 
 might vindicate a temporary departure^ would not justify a fina 
 abrogation. vSome of the highest Churchmen, and ablest ad- 
 vocates of Episcopacy, who have maintained that " Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons had their beginning from Christ and his 
 blessed Apostles ; "| that " the power of ordaining hath al- 
 ways been pecidiar unto Bishops ;" that " it hath not been 
 heard of that Presbyters were ever authorized to ordain ;"{ 
 that " the first institution of Bishops was from heaven, was 
 
 * The fallacy of this plea of necessity is very forcibly urged and 
 maintained, by a writer with the signature of "Eusebius," in the 
 Churchman's Magazine, for February, 1807, published in New-Haven, 
 Connecticut. 
 
 t Hooker. Ecclesiastical Polity, book v. sec. 78. X Book vii. sec. 6. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 139 
 
 even of God;^^ have yet maintained that " where the church 
 must needs have some ordained, and neither hath, nor can 
 have possibly a Bishop to ordain ; in case of such necessity, 
 the ordinary institution of God hath given often times, and 
 may give place."* But these cases of inevitable necessity 
 alone excepted, none may ordain but only Bishops. ''^'\ 
 
 On this subject, the remarks of a learned and judicious j 
 
 Commentator on the offices of ordination are well worthy of 
 attention. J 
 
 " But some will object that this" (the universally owned 
 principle, that Bishops only could ordain) " will deprive di- 
 vers foreign churches (where they have no Bishops) of a 
 lawful ministry, because their Ministers have no ordinations 
 but by Presbyters. To which I shall only say, that the 
 first Presbyter who presumed to ordain had no such power 
 given him, and so could not rightly convey that which he never 
 received. There is no precedent in scripture of mere Presby- 
 ters ordaining alone : and such ordinations would have been 
 declared null in the primitive ages ; yea, for 1500 years 
 together no such were allowed. But the fairest plea is, that 
 some of these churches were forced, by dire necessity, to 
 this irregularity, by the obstinate refusal of the Popish 
 Bishops to ordain any that were for Reformation, so that 
 they must either have such a Clergy as they could have, or 
 have none to officiate in the Protestant way. To which I 
 reply, that where this necessity was real, and while it was 
 so (as, perhaps, it might be in some places at first) it will go 
 far to excuse them.'^^ " For those of the foreign reformed 
 churches, who highly value the Episcopal order, wish for 
 Bishops, but are, by persecution and violence, kept from that 
 happiness ; we pity them, and pray for them, and hope God 
 will excuse this defect till they can remedy it.§ But we are 
 thankful to that Providence which allows us to keep up the 
 
 * Book vii. sec. 14. f Sec. 14. 
 
 J Dean Comber, in his Companion to the Temple, vol. ii. p. 190. 
 
 § This was the prayer of the Synod of Dort for themselves. See 
 page 95 and 96. 
 
140 hobart's apology 
 
 primitive orders in a due subordination, and to have a right 
 and truly canonical ministry in this well constituted church, 
 the exact transcript of the primitive, and the glory of the Re- 
 formation." 
 
 9. The difference of opinion among Episcopalians, as to the 
 necessity of repeating all baptisms performed by those who 
 have not received Episcopal ordination, does not affect the 
 essentials of Episcopacy. 
 
 It is a principle in which all Churchmen agree, that none 
 have authority to baptize but those who are lawfully ordain- 
 ed ; and the church receives none as lawfully ordained, but 
 those who have received Episcopal consecration or ordination. 
 Here then is an agreement in the essentials of Episcopacy. 
 A difference of opinion, however, arises as to a subordinate 
 point. The Church of Rome, on the principle that none 
 can be saved who are not baptized, allows, and always has 
 allowed of lay baptism. Are these baptisms, and those per- 
 formed by ministers not Episcopal ly ordained, valid ; or are 
 they to be repeated as being totally invalid ? 
 
 On this question Churchmen divide into two classes. 
 Both classes agree that these baptisms are irregularj per- 
 formed without due authority; and that both the administra- 
 tors and recipients (except on the plea of " unavoidable 
 ignorance or involuntary error") incur great guilt. One 
 class however contend that, as non-Episcopal baptisms, 
 administered with water, in the name of the Trinity, are not 
 deficient in/on« and in matter., but only in regular authority, 
 this deficiency is supplied when the person thus baptized is 
 received into communion with the authorized ministry by 
 confirmation or the Lord's Supper ; and that, therefore, non- 
 Episcopal baptisms are not to be repeated. Fieri non debet — 
 factum valet. It ought not to be done — when done., it is valid. 
 The general practice of the Church of England, it is believ- 
 ed, has been regulated by this opinion, which has been em- 
 braced by many of her most eminent divines, the ablest 
 advocates of Episcopacy. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 141 
 
 Another class of divines contend that the form the name 
 of the Trinity, the matter water, and the authority a regular 
 commission from the divine Head of the Church, are equally 
 essential in the administration of baptism ; and that, of 
 course, where this regular commission is wanting in the 
 administrator, the baptism is invalid. This opinion also has 
 been embraced and defended by many distinguished divines 
 and laymen of the Church of England, particularly by Law- 
 rence, in his treatises, entitled, "Lay Baptism Invalid."* 
 The venerable Episcopal Church of Scotland, it is believed, 
 has regulated her practice by this opinion. 
 
 The difference of opinion on this subject, it is evident, 
 does not affect the essentials of Episcopacy. Both classes 
 of divines agree that no person has regular authority to 
 administer baptism but a lawful Minister, one who has receiv- 
 ed " Episcopal consecration or ordination." The difference 
 of opinion arises on the question — How is the deficiency of 
 authority in non-Episcopal baptisms to be supplied .? The 
 one contend that this deficiency is supplied when the person 
 thus baptized receives Confirmation or the Lord's supper 
 from the Bishop or a lawful Minister : and the other contend, 
 that the person has never received the sacrament of baptism, 
 which he must, therefore, receive from an administrator duly 
 authorized. 
 
 But the assertion has been often triumphantly made, that 
 according to the last of these opinions, there have been 
 Ministers^ and even Bishops in the Episcopal Church, who 
 have never received Christian Baptism. There is an easy 
 and obvious answer, which should instantly silence the tri- 
 umphant ridicule with which this assertion has been gene- 
 rally advanced. The Episcopal Church, and the Church of 
 England have never explicitly sanctioned the opinion on 
 which this assertion is founded. On the contrary, both 
 churches repeatedly have at least admitted the principle, 
 that a non-Episcopal baptism, deficient only in the authority 
 
 * Also Dr. Waterland in his masterly argument vv'ith Kelsal. — Editor. 
 
142 hobart's apology 
 
 of the administrator, and not in the essence of the sacrament, 
 which is, water in the name of the Trinity^ receives the seal 
 of authority, and becomes complete and valid, when the per- 
 son thus baptized receives Confirmation or the Lord's sup- 
 per from those duly authorized. At the same time, these 
 churches do not prevent their ministers and members from 
 acting on the contrary opinion. But admitting this opinion 
 to be well founded ; admitting that a person non-Episcopally 
 baptized has not received regular Christian baptism ; he is 
 not, therefore, absolutely disqualified from holding a minis- 
 terial commission. 
 
 The only thing absolutely essential in the office of a minis- 
 ter, is a valid commission. ^' He must be called of God as 
 was Aaron." Literary, theological, religious and moral 
 qualifications, though necessary to the correct, respectable 
 and successful discharge of the ministry, are not essential to 
 the validity of its acts. Judas was an Apostle, though he 
 was " a traitor and had a devil." " Sacraments received by 
 faith, and rightly, are effectual, because of Christ's institution 
 and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."* 
 The contrary principle would throw the church into perpetu- 
 al disorder, and agitate the breast of Christians with constant 
 uncertainty and fears. No man can penetrate the heart. If 
 genuine piety, therefore, be necessary to the validity of min- 
 isterial acts. Christians can never be absolutely certain that 
 the sacraments they receive are valid. The acts of a wicked 
 magistrate, the decisions of a corrupt judge are valid, because 
 of his commission. The acts of an unholy minister of the 
 church are valid, for the same reason, because of his commis- 
 sion — "because of Christ's institution and promise." If, 
 therefore, the " unworthiness of a minister" does not nul- 
 lify his ministerial acts, neither can his want of regular 
 Christian baptism : for it will not surely be contended that 
 regular Christian baptism is more necessary to the ministry 
 than holiness of heart and life."| 
 
 * Article twenty-sixth of the Church of England. 
 
 t Besides, a person may be ex officio member of a body into which he 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 143 
 
 Presbyterians are as much interested in maintaining this 
 opinion as EpisopaHans. Lay baptism, it is well known, has 
 always been practised in the Church of Rome, and was 
 allowed in the Church of England for some time after the 
 Reformation. Is it not, therefore, highly probable that 
 many of the Reformers, as well as those Presbj'^ters of the 
 Church of England whom the Presbyterian Church acknow- 
 ledges as ministers, and from whom she derives her ministry, 
 had only received lay baptism ? But the Presbyterian 
 Church declares, that '' baptism may not be dispensed by 
 any but a minister of the word lawfully ordained."* She 
 ranks the ^' lawful calling " of the minister, with water and the 
 name of the Trinity^ which are essentials of baptism. "f Many 
 persons, therefore, may have been ministers in Presbyterian 
 churches who have never received regular Christian bap- 
 tism. J Presbyterians are as much interested as Episcopalians 
 in maintaining, that " a lawful calling," a valid commission is 
 alone absolutely essential to the validity of ministerial acts. 
 
 Beware, therefore, sir, how you rashly aim against Episco- 
 palians weapons which may be made to recoil upon yourself. 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I HAVE thus stripped Episcopacy of some of those appen- 
 dages, in the demolition of which its opponents have exerted 
 all their powers, through the vain hope that these demolished, 
 
 has not been introduced in the ordinary way; as in the case of the Pres- 
 dent of the Senate of the United States. — Editok. 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. sect. 4. 
 
 t Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxviii. sect. 2. 
 
 X And more than this, doubts have been suggested, whether Calvin 
 ever received ordination. It is said that Beza, in his life of Calvin, re- 
 gards it as very doubtful. Here then is a knotty point worthy of the ener- 
 gies of the editor of the Christian's Magazine. Alas! if it should appear 
 that the great founder of the Presbyterian churches was only a Layman ! 
 
144 hobart's apology 
 
 Episcopacy itself would fall. The candid reader, however, 
 will perceive that these are only appendages of Episcopacy, 
 and that on some subordinate points Episcopalians may differ, 
 while they agree in all the essentials. 
 
 What now, sir, becomes of the assertion that there are 
 " material differences among Episcopalians on their favourite 
 theme .?"* Do you suppose jonr readers weak enough to 
 believe, that because differences subsist among Episcopalians 
 on some subordinate points, they cannot agree in essential 
 principles ? Are there no common and essential principles 
 of Calvinism, because many important differences subsist 
 among the various sects of Calvinists ; high Calvinists and 
 moderate Calvinists, Supra-lapsarians and Sub-lapsarians, 
 Baxterians, Hopkensians, Antinomians .^ Is Calvinism un- 
 founded in scripture, because there are confusion and mutual 
 contradictions among Calvinists " when they attempt to found 
 their system on the scriptures ?"t Never triumph that some 
 Episcopalians rely, in support of their system, on irrelevant 
 passages of scripture, when Mr. M'Leod, before your eyes, 
 endeavours to prove the divine appointment of " Presbyterial 
 order" from the text, Rev. iii. 22. "He that hath an ear, 
 let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. "J 
 
 The essential and characteristic principles of Episcopacy 
 are — that there are three grades of ministers instituted by 
 Christ and his Apostles ; and that the first grade^ in addition 
 to the common ministerial powers, possess the sole power of 
 ordination, with the right of exercising supreme authority over 
 the congregations and ministers who ma}" be subject to them. 
 
 Let us bring these principles to the test of Scripture. 
 Let any candid man, throwing aside preconceived opinions, 
 open the sacred writings. He finds that from the first, there 
 have been three grades in the ministry. Under the Jewish 
 dispensation there were the High Priest y Priests, and Lemtes.^ 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 100. f p. 101. 
 
 X Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 31. 
 
 § Considerable ingennity and learning has sometimes been displayed in 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 145 
 
 When Christ appeared to establish the gospel dispensation, 
 there were subordinate to him the great High Priest of our 
 profession, the Apostles^"^ and the seventy. '\ After his ascen- 
 sion, we find the ministry constituted under the three grades 
 of Apostles^ Elders., or Presbyter s^ sometimes called Bishops, 
 and Deacons.^ In the churches which the Apostles founded, 
 we still discover three grades. In Ephesus and Crete there 
 were Timothy and Titus y Elders or Presbyters\\ sometimes also 
 called Bishops, and Deacons.^ 
 
 That these grades were distinct and subordinate, and that 
 the power of ordination and the supreme power of governing 
 the church were vested in the first grade, are as plain as 
 scripture facts can make them. It will be conceded that 
 Christ, while on earth, and not the Apostles or the seventy, 
 exercised supreme authority, and conferred the ministerial 
 commission. It will also be conceded that the Apostles, and 
 not the Elders or Deacons, exercised the powers of ordina- 
 tion and government. And the candid inquirer who opens 
 the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, will not hesitate to pro- 
 nounce that they were the supreme governors of those churches, 
 and succeeded the Apostles, not in their miraculous and pecu- 
 liar powers as Apostles, but in the ordinary powers of wdi- 
 nation and government. They are to " ordain elders in every 
 
 proving, that the Christian Church was formed on the model of the syna- 
 gogue and not of the temple ; and that, therefore, there being three orders 
 in the Jewish ministry furnishes no presumption that there would be the 
 same distinction and subordination in the Christian ministry. The chief 
 support of this opinion is a fallacious argument founded on the identity of 
 names between the ministers of the gospel and some officers of the syna- 
 gogue. It is surely highly improbable that Christ would constitute the 
 ministry of his gospel on the model of the synagogue, which was only 
 of ^Mma7t institution, and not on that of the temple, which was of divine 
 appointment — Episcopalians, however, lay no stress on arguments from 
 this source. The constitution of the Christian ministry is to be deter- 
 mined by the evidence of the New Testament only. 
 
 * Luke vi. 12, 13. f Luke x. 1. f Acts xiv. 23. 
 
 § Acts vi. 1 Tim. iii. S. || 1 Tim. v. 1, 19. Titus i. 5. 
 
 IT 1 Tim. iii. 8. 
 
 13 
 
146 hobart's apology 
 
 city ;"* they are " to lay hands suddenly on no man ;"t 
 they are to ^' set in order the things that are wanting ;"J 
 " against an Elder they are not to receive an accusation, but 
 before two or three, witnesses ;"§ "a heretic" they are to 
 " reject after the first and second admonition. "|| Would not 
 every person of candour and common sense conclude from 
 this language, that Timothy and Titus succeeded the Apostles 
 in the powers of ordaining and governing the church ? Would 
 not common sense revolt at the supposition that they were 
 on a level with the Elders or Presbyters, whom they were 
 to ordain, whom they were to rebuke, whom they were to 
 judge and govern ? There must have been Elders at Ephe- 
 sus before Timothy was sent there. At least five years -be- 
 fore St. Paul wrote his Epistles to Timothy, he sent from 
 Miletus to Ephesus for " the elders of the church. "TT Would 
 not common sense then reject the supposition that these 
 Elders possessed the power of ordination } Why should 
 Timothy be sent there vested with this power ; and the direc- 
 tions concerning the exercise of it, and of the power of 
 governing addressed to him, and no mention made of the 
 Elders or Presbyters possessing these powers .'' If they had 
 possessed the powers of ordination and government, what 
 need could there have been that Timothy should be sent 
 there to do what could as well have been done by the Elders 
 themselves .'' In like manner, on the supposition that there 
 were Elders at Crete, possessed of the powers of ordination 
 and government, why should Titus be sent there to exercise 
 these powers .'' And if there were no Elders before St. Paul 
 left Titus there, why did he not ordain Elders, and vest them 
 with the powers of ordination and government, instead of 
 vesting them in Titus ? 
 
 While our Saviour was upon earth, there were subordinate 
 to him the great High Priest of our profession, the Apostles, 
 and the Seventy ; and he alone commissioned to the ministry. 
 
 * Titus i. 5. t 1 Tim. v. 22. J Titus i. 5. 
 
 ^ 1 Tim. V. 19. II Titus iii. 10. IT Acts xx. 17. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 147 
 
 After his ascension three grades of the ministry still subsisted 
 in the Apostles, the Elders or Presbyters, and the Deacons ; 
 and the Apostles alone ordained. These facts would sanc- 
 tion the presumption that three grades of the ministry would 
 still continue, and that the first grade, as before, would exer- 
 cise the power of ordination. And scripture testimony proves 
 that in Ephesus and Crete there were Timothy and Titus 
 the superior officers of those churches, the Elders, and Dea- 
 cons ; and that Timothy and Titus only were commissioned 
 to ordain. 'V-^ ' :. < / k..( jr t,^. '- ,: . ~.r-^ -./:.! • ' 
 
 Here then are palpable facts, level to the comprehension 
 of every one, and on which every candid inquirer may se- 
 curely rest. Ingenuity may obscure or pervert them ; but 
 what is there around which ingenuity cannot cast the shades 
 of perplexity and doubt ? 
 
 The cardinal principles on which Episcopacy rests are not 
 only established by the sacred writings, but are acknowledged 
 and received by the Standards of Doctrine of the Presbyte- 
 rian churches. In the chain of reasoning that supports Epis- 
 copacy, the first principle is, that they who minister in Christ's 
 Church must have an external commission. Christ, the divine 
 Head of the Church, is the source of all power in it. The 
 ministers of his Church, as stewards of the mysteries of God, 
 as dispensers of his word and sacraments, as ambassadors of 
 God, can act only from a divine commission. No human 
 power can authorize a man to act in the name of God — " He 
 must be called of God as was Aaron."* The adorable 
 Saviour of men, the '^ word made flesh," entered not on 
 his priestly office until he was solemnly commissioned 
 from above. If then the Son of God, in whom "dwelt the 
 fulness of the Godhead ;" if he who possessed " the Spirit 
 without measure," " glorified not himself to be made an 
 High Priest, but he that said unto him. Thou art my Son, 
 to-day have I begotten thee ;"| if he refrained from that 
 priestly office to which he was from all eternity called, until 
 * Heb. V. 4. t Heb. v. 5. 
 
148 hobart's apology 
 
 the visible descent of the Holy Ghost, and a voice from 
 heaven conferred on him an external commission^ how impious 
 in a frail mortal presuming on internal gifts and graces to ex- 
 ercise the ministry, until authorized by an external call, by a 
 divine commission ! This principle of the necessitj^ of an 
 external commission to the ministry, you, sir, will not con- 
 trovert. The Standards of the Presbyterian churches declare 
 that none but ministers of the word, lawfully ordained, 
 have authority to dispense the sacraments.* The necessity of 
 an external commission, that a person must be ordained before 
 he can be a lawful minister, is a principle maintained by all 
 sound Presbyterians. And the text of scripture quoted in 
 support of it is that relied on by Episcopalians — " No man 
 taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God as 
 was Aaron." 
 
 This external commission for the ministry must be confer- 
 red by those who have received authority, by regular succes- 
 sion, from Christ, the great Head of the Church. On this 
 point there can be no dispute between Episcopalians and 
 Presbyterians. Both agree that the power of ordination 
 rests with those with whom Christ originally placed it. 
 Christ evidently vested the power of ordination not in the 
 community i)f Christians, but in the Apostles and their suc- 
 cessors. " As my Father sent me, so send I you. Lo, I 
 am with you alway even to the end of the world." This 
 promise of Christ evidently ensures a ministry continued by 
 succession to the end of the world. The Apostles, and not 
 the community of Christians, exercised the power of ordina- 
 tion. None ministered in the church as ordinary officers'^ 
 but those who had been solemnly set apart b}^ the laying on 
 of hands. This power of ordination, of setting apart to the 
 
 * Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap, xxvii. sect. 4, and the scrip- 
 ture proofs. 
 
 f Teaching yfds in the Apostolic age a miraculous gift, and may have 
 been exercised by those who never were ordained. But in the present 
 day this will not justify any Christian in assuming the ministerial func- 
 tion, unless he can display miraculous gifts. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 149 
 
 ministry, of conferring the ministerial commission, must be 
 derived by succession^ from the great head of the Church, 
 the only source of authority. The man who claims, in any 
 other way than by succession ^ this power of ordination, can 
 make good his claim, and justify it from the charge of usur- 
 pation, only by exhibiting miraculous gifts, which alone are 
 the proofs of an immediate commission from heaven. 
 
 This doctrine then, of a regular conveyance of the power 
 of ordination by uninterrupted succession from Christ and his 
 Apostles, is as necessary to the support of Presbyterian as of 
 Episcopal principles. The real difference between Episco- 
 palians and Presbyterians is, not as to the conveyance of the 
 power of ordination by succession, but as to the particular 
 grade of ministers through which the line of succession is to 
 be traced ; whether through Bishops or Presbyters. The 
 doctrine of succession was maintained in England by the 
 Presbyterian divines against the Independents; and is still 
 asserted by all real and consistent Presbyterians* 
 
 Whatever ridicule may be cast on the doctrine of uninter- 
 rupted succession, Presbyterians as well as Episcopalians 
 should cling to it as the sheet anchor that is to prevent the 
 church from being overwhelmed by secular encroachment. 
 It is the only rampart against those assaults of self-consti- 
 tuted teachers, which would strip the church of her divine 
 authority, shake her from her foundation on the Rock of 
 ages, and place her on the tottering basis of popular caprice, 
 of human authority. Equally interested with myself, sir, in 
 
 * It is ably vindicated by the ingenious Dr. Lathrop, of Springfield, 
 (Massachusetts) in two discourses, entitled, " Christ's Warning to the 
 Churches," &c. His reasoning on the subject appears in the " Collec- 
 tion of Essays on Episcopacy," (p. 95.) This doctrine of succession is 
 maintained by Mr. M'Leod, in his Ecclesiastical Catechism, (p. 28.) 
 " Christ has promised his presence with his ministers, continued to the 
 end of the world by succession." And Mr. M'Leod deserves credit for 
 quoting, in proof of this doctrine, a text which is strictly to the point — 
 " Lo I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." Matt, 
 xxviii. 20. 
 
 13* 
 
150 
 
 maintaining this doctrine, I trust you will peruse with satis- 
 faction the pungent and irrefragable reasoning by which the 
 celebrated Law defends it in his '' first letter to the Bishop 
 of Bangor."* "If there be not a succession of persons 
 authorized from Christ to send others to act in his name, 
 then both Episcopal and Presbyterian teachers are equally 
 usurpers, and as mere laymen as an}'' at all. For there can- 
 not be any other difference between the clergy and laity, 
 but as the one hath authority derived from Christ, to per- 
 form offices, which the other hath not. But this authority 
 can be no otherwise had, than by an uninterrupted succes- 
 sion of men from Christ, empowered to qualify others. For 
 if the succession be once broke, people must either go into 
 the ministry of their own accord, or be sent by such as 
 have no more power to send others than to go themselves. 
 And, my Lord, can these be called ministers of Christ, or 
 received as his ambassadors .'' Can they be thought to act 
 in his name, who have no authority from him ? If so, your 
 lordship's servant might ordain and baptize to as much pur- 
 pose as your lordship : for it could only be objected to such 
 actions, that they had no authority from Christ. And if 
 there be no succession of ordainers from hi^, every one is 
 equally qualified to ordain. My Lord, I should think it 
 might be granted me, that the administering of a sacrament 
 is an action we have no right to perform, considered either 
 as men, gentlemen, or scholars, or members of a civil socie- 
 ty : who then can have any authority to interpose, but he 
 that has it from t^hrist ? and how that can be had from him 
 without a succession of men from him, is not easily con- 
 ceived. 
 
 * Law addressed " three letters" to the Bishop of Bangor, in defence 
 of church authority, which are republished in the V Scholar Armed." 
 There is not an objection which ingenuity can raise against church autho- 
 rity in general, and particularly against the various principles of Episco- 
 pacy, which is not refuted in these letters. As a specimen of keen, yet 
 delicate satire, of perspicuous, forcible, and profound reasoning, they 
 stand unrivalled. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 151 
 
 " It is a plain and obvious truth, that no man, or num- 
 ber of men, considered as such, can any more make a priest, 
 or commission a person to officiate in Christ's name, as such, 
 than he can enlarge the means of grace, or add a new sacra- 
 ment for the conveyance of spiritual advantages. The min- 
 isters of Christ are as much positive ordinances as the sacra- 
 ments ; and we might as well think, that sacraments not 
 instituted by him, might be means of grace, as those pass for 
 his ministers who have no authority from him. 
 
 " Once more, all things are either in common in the 
 Church of Christ, or they are not : if they are, then every 
 one may preach, baptize, ordain, &c. If all things are not 
 thus common, but the administering of the sacraments and 
 ordination, &c. are offices appropriated to particular persons ; 
 then I desire to know, how, in this present age, or any other 
 since the Apostles, Christians can know their respective du- 
 ties, or what they may or may not do, with respect to the 
 several acts of church-communion, if there be no uninter- 
 rupted succession of authorized persons from Christ : for till 
 authority from Christ appears, to make a difference between 
 them, we are all alike, and any one may officiate as well 
 as another. To make a jest therefore of the uninterrupted 
 succession, is to make a jest of ordination, to destroy the sa- 
 cred character, and make all pretenders to it as good as 
 those that are sent by Christ. 
 
 " If there be no uninterrupted succession, then there are 
 no authorized ministers from Christ ; if no such ministers, 
 then no Christian sacraments ; if no Christian sacraments, 
 then no Christian covenant, whereof the sacraments are the 
 stated and visible seals. 
 
 " There is an absolute necessity of a strict succession of 
 authorized ordainers from the apostolical times, in order to 
 constitute a Christian priest. For since a commission from 
 the Holy Ghost is necessary for the exercise of this office, no 
 one now can receive it, but from those who have derived 
 their authority in a true succession from the Apostles. 
 
162 hobart's apology 
 
 " The clergy have their commission from the Holy Ghost : 
 the power of conferring this commission of the Holy Ghost 
 was left with the Apostles : therefore the present clergy can- 
 not have the same commission, or call, but from an order of 
 men who have successively conveyed his power from the 
 Apostles to the present time. So that, my lord, I shall beg 
 leave to lay it down as a plain, undeniable. Christian truth, 
 that the order of the clergy is an order of as necessary obli- 
 gation as the sacraments, and as unalterable as the holy scrip- 
 tures ; the same Holy Ghost being as truly the author and 
 founder of the priesthood, as the institutor of the sacraments, 
 or the inspirer of those divine oracles." 
 
 The doctrine then, of " the presence of Christ with his mi- 
 nisters, continued to the end of the world by succession ;" of 
 the power of ordination thus successively transmitted in the 
 church to the end of the world, is a doctrine common to Pres- 
 byterians and Episcopalians, and essential to the existence of 
 the Christian ministry.* The point of difference is, whether 
 all ministers are on a level and empowered by succession to 
 ordain ; or whether there is not a grade of ministers superior 
 to Presbyters, and now called Bishops, who alone receive in 
 succession the power of ordination^ of conveying the ministe- 
 rial commission. Tn other words — Is Episcopal or Presbyte- 
 rian ordination valid } The validity of the former is not com- 
 patible with an acknowledgment of the validity of the latter. 
 For it is evident that if a grade of ministers, now called Bi- 
 shops, and superior to Presbyters, were constituted to convey 
 in succession the ministerial commission, to exercise in suc- 
 cession the power of ordination^ this power must remain 
 exclusively with them, until they are deprived of it by the 
 same divine authority whence they derived it. The people 
 may with the same propriety wrest the power of ordination 
 
 * In the second number of the Christian's Magazine you come forth, 
 as I expected, a consistent Presbyterian ; and maintain that the doctrine 
 of uninterrupted succession is as essential to Presbyterians as Episcopa- 
 lians. We differ on many points. I am happy to find that on some we 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 153 
 
 from the Presbyters with whom you contend it is placed, 
 as the Presbyters may from the Bishops, if originally vested 
 in them. 
 
 With whomsoever then this power of ordination was depo- 
 sited, with Presbyters, or with a superior grade of church 
 officers, with them it must remain, until divine authority 
 changes the deposit, and places it in other hands. That the 
 power of ordination was in the first instance vested in the 
 Apostles, is a position which can occasion no difference of 
 opinion between us. With whom did the Apostles vest this 
 power, is the fundamental point, the hinge on which the 
 whole subject turns. Let us appeal to the Epistles to Timo- 
 thy and Titus, whom the Apostle Paul placed in the churches 
 at Ephesus and Crete. In these churches there were cer- 
 tainly both Elders or Presbyters, and Deacons. In Ephesus 
 there were Elders before St. Paul sent Timothy to that city j* 
 and it is highly improbable that the gospel should have been 
 preached in the extensive island of Crete, and no Elders left 
 there by St. Paul to minister in the churches. Elders and 
 Deacons are frequently named in these Epistles. Now, did 
 these Elders and Deacons possess the power of ordination } 
 We find not the shadow of evidence of their exercising this 
 power, or of its being entrusted to them. On the contrary, 
 Timothy and Titus were sent to the churches for the express 
 purpose of exercising the power of ordination, of " ordaining 
 Elders in every city."| No persons are spoken of as vested 
 with this power but Timothy and Titus ; and to them alone 
 are directions given for the exercise of it. Would special 
 messengers be sent to any place to exercise a power already 
 in the hands of numbers adequate to the purpose } J If the 
 
 * Acts XX. 17. t Titus i. 5. 
 
 X That there were Elders in Ephesus before St. Paul sent Timothy 
 there will not admit of doubt. It is possible there were not Elders in 
 Crete when Titus was sent there. But then the difficulty is, Why did 
 not St. Paul ordain Elders himself when he was in Crete, and vest them 
 with the power of ordination ? His not doing so, and his sending Titus 
 vested with this power, without the most distant hints, that the Elders 
 
154 hobart's apology 
 
 second grade of the ministry, called in scripture Elders, or 
 Presbyters, and sometimes Bishops, had possessed the power 
 of ordination, is it not extraordinary that, in the enumeration 
 of their powers and duties in the Epistles to Timothy and 
 Titus, this power should not have been enumerated ? If 
 Timothy and Titus were not superior to the Elders of Ephe- 
 sus and Crete, is it not extraordinary that the Apostle should 
 address them in language, and vest them with powers, evi- 
 dently denoting a superiority ; that he should give them such 
 directions concerning the ordaining, governing, and judging of 
 the Elders and Deacons, as would lead obviously to the con- 
 clusion that they alone were the depositories of these powers ? 
 Is it not extraordinary that he should expressly vest the 
 power of ordination in Timothy and Titus, and never once 
 hint at the association of the Elders with them in the exercise 
 of it, never once allude to this power as one of the functions 
 of Elders or Presbyters ? 
 
 An attempt has been made to support the claim of Presby- 
 ters to ordain, from the address of St. Paul to Timothy, 
 " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee 
 by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Preshy- 
 tery^ And has then the right of Presbyters to ordain no 
 other support than the contemptible sophistry of names ?* 
 Who knows that the Presbytery referred to by the Apostle 
 was a council of those whom we now call Presbyters ? 
 Presbytery '\ literally signifies an assembly of old men. In an 
 
 possessed it, is conclusive evidence that it was a power peculiar to Titus 
 as a superior officer. 
 
 * I am lost in amazement at finding in the second number of the Chris- 
 tian's Magazine, that you adopt and defend this argument from names. 
 This amazement is excited neither by the novelty nor ingenuity of your 
 remarks, but by your temerity in thus hazarding your cause and your own 
 reputation. I shall pay my respects to you on this subject before I con- 
 clude these letters; and feel myself perfectly secure in the assertion, 
 that I shall be able to prove that even Dr. M. with all his caution, some- 
 times permits his " zeal to outstrip his prudence;" and with all his vigi- 
 lance, sometimes " nods." 
 
 t n/3fi(r/?vTe/)tov, from irpeaPvi, an old man. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 155 
 
 ecclesiastical sense it denotes an assembly of church officers. 
 It cannot, therefore, denote exclusively those whom we now 
 call Presbj^ters ; but may very properly be applied to a coun- 
 cil of Apostles and church""o2icers superior to Elders or Pres- 
 byters. It is undoubted that the Apostles, who certainly 
 were superior to Presbyters, were sometimes denominated 
 Presbyters. Peter called himself an Elder or Presbyter (1 
 Pet. V. 1.) And so does St. John (2 John i. 1. 3 John 1.)* 
 Why then may not the Apostles^ collectiyely, be styled a 
 Presbytery ^ This application of it is maintained by the prin- 
 cipal ancient commentators. It is incredible that the Presby- 
 tery here meant should be a council of the grade of church 
 officers, who are called in these epistles Elders or Presby- 
 ters. For then the absurdity results that Timothy was or- 
 dained by a council of the very men whom he was sent to 
 ordain and to govern ! It is undeniable, however, that who- 
 ever the Presbytery were, St. Paul was himself the chief 
 agent, the actual ordainer of Timothy ; he alone conveyed 
 the ministerial authority. "f For he expressly enjoins Timo- 
 thy, " Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the put- 
 ting on of my hands." The Presbytery, whosoever they 
 were, only associated with him as concurring in the work. J 
 
 * In the original irpecTpvrepos, Presbyter. 
 
 t This is Calvin's opinion. He maintains that Paul alone ordained 
 T Jiothy, and quotes the text 2 Tim. i. 6. "Stir up the gift of God 
 -which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." Cal. Inst. lib. iv. 
 cap. iii. 16. 
 
 X Where the Presbytery is named (1 Tim. iv. 14.,) the preposition of 
 concurrence, ^usra, is used. Where the imposition of the hands of St. 
 Paul is mentioned (2 Tim. i. 6,) the preposition 6ia, denoting the effi- 
 cient or instrumental cause, is used. This distinctive force of the two 
 prepositions, Sia and ^isTa, was denied by the author of Miscellanies. 
 The general and appropriate signification of these prepositions is cer- 
 tainly the following. " Aia, with the genitive, signifies per, denoting 
 a cau»e of almost any kind, particularly the efficient or instrumental 
 cause." " Mcra, with the genitive, denotes with, together with" Now, 
 be it remembered, that where the agency of St. Paul, in the ordination 
 of Timothy, is mentioned, the preposition 6ia is used governing the geni- 
 
166 hobart's apology 
 
 When pressed hard with the evident facts that Timothy 
 and Titus were superior officers vested with the powers of 
 ordination and government, the opponents of Episcopacy 
 urge — Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, they were ex- 
 traordinary officers, and the superior powers vested in them 
 were to cease in their persons ! On this supposition then 
 the power of ordination ceases in them, for there is not the 
 shadow of evidence that the Elders or Presbyters of Ephesus 
 and Crete possessed this power. The Independents, who 
 maintained that there is no power of ordination conveyed by 
 succession to any ministers, but that it is vested in the great 
 body of Christians, availed themselves of this very argument 
 against the Presbyterians. When the Presbyterians con- 
 tended that Presbyters possessed the power of ordination, 
 because Timothy and Titus, whom they considered as no 
 more than Presbyters, exercised this power, the Independents 
 replied, that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists^ were ex- 
 traordinary officers, and no arguments concerning the powers 
 of Presbyters are to be drawn from their case. Let Presby- 
 terians beware then, lest, in demolishing Episcopacy, they 
 furnish the Independents with weapons to destroy Presbytery. 
 Timothy and Titus were indeed Evangelists. But what in- 
 separable connection was there between their duty as Evan- 
 gelists to proclaim the gospel, and the power of ordination 
 vested in them, so that when the former ceased, the latter 
 ceased also } Their being Evangelists was an adventitious 
 circumstance, no way necessary to the existence of their 
 ordinary powers. Prove that the powers of Timothy and 
 
 tive. St. Paulj therefore, was the efficient or instrumental agent in the 
 ordination. When the agency of the Presbytery is mentioned, the prepo- 
 sition fiCTa is used governing the genitive. Of course, the Presbytery, 
 whether a council of Apostles or of Presbyters, properly so called, only 
 concurred with, together with, St. Paul. He actually conveyed ministe- 
 rial authority. They assented, concurred in this act. What now be- 
 comes of Mr. M'Leod's assertion ? " There is not an instance in the 
 whole Bible, of imposition of hands as a token of assent." Eccl. Cat. 
 p. 112. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 157 
 
 Titus ceased, because they were Evangelists, and it will be 
 easy to prove that there are no ministers in the Christian 
 church ; for Presbyters and Deacons were Evangelists as well 
 as Timothy and Titus. 
 
 The book of Revelations affords additional proof that in 
 every church there was a superior officer, corresponding to 
 him whom we now call Bishop, who was vested with supreme 
 power in the church. 
 
 St. John introduces our Lord addressing seven Epistles to 
 the seven Angels of the seven churches of Asia. The Epistles 
 could not have been addressed to the collective body of 
 Christians in the churches ; for they are designated by the 
 seven candlesticks^ which are distinguished from the seven 
 starSy by which the Angels are denoted. The Angels were 
 evidently single persons. They are uniformly addressed as 
 .such. The supposition that by way of^^wre, the whole body 
 of the ministry of these churches is addressed under the de- 
 nomination of an Angel is without foundation.* It is pre- 
 dicated on what cannot be proved, that the ministers in those 
 churches were united into one body, called a Presbytery. 
 The titles of Angels and stars in the book of Revelations are 
 never thus figuratively applied to a collective body of men, 
 but always denote single persons. f And we are confirmed 
 in the natural and obvious opinion that they were single per- 
 sons by the concurring testimony of ecclesiastical writers, 
 that Bishops were settled in these churches about the period 
 that these Epistles were written. The Angels of these 
 churches then were single persons " And it is beyond doubt 
 that they were vested with superior and supreme power in 
 those churches ; for they are commended or reproved for the 
 
 * This hypothesis of Mr. M'Leod, advanced originally by some English 
 Dissenters, called the " Smectymnuan Divines," is disclaimed by many 
 of the most learned advocates of Presbytery, Beza^ Blondel, and others, 
 who agree with Dr. Campbell, that the Angels in the Revelations were 
 single persons, vested with supremacy in those churches. 
 
 t Rev. ii. 28. xii. 1. xxi. 12, 14. 
 
 14 
 
 '^ 7i^ fa^Ly- 
 
158 hobart's apology 
 
 excellencies or the faults of these churches, for which, as 
 supreme governors^ they were responsible. 
 
 But, we are told, there is no express precept in scripture 
 for Episcopacy. The distinction and subordination of the 
 grades of the ministry, and the appropriation of the power 
 of ordination to the first grade, are founded only on Apos- 
 tolical practice 2ind. institution; and these are inferior in obli- 
 gation to divine authority. Express precept alone can be 
 admitted as evidence of divine institution. 
 
 But this argument operates with equal force against Pres- 
 bytery and Episcopacy. The advocates of the divine insti- 
 tution of Presbytery can appeal only to Apostolic practice or 
 institution. Viewing you as a genuine and consistent Pres- 
 byterian, I am persuaded you will candidly confess that Pres- 
 bytery must be maintained by the same species of evidence 
 which is urged in support of Episcopacy. All the advocates 
 of the divine right of Presbytery argue from Apostolic prac- 
 tice; and maintain that on this point. Apostolic practice and 
 institution is evidence of divine right.* 
 
 If the broad principle be admitted, that express precept 
 only, and not Apostolic practice is conclusive evidence of 
 divine right, by what proof shall we establish the divine in- 
 stitution of the first day Sabbath^ and the divine authority of 
 infant baptism ? The Apostles acted under divine inspiration. 
 Those institutions y therefore, which they settled, and which 
 are not obviously of a local and temporary nature, are autho- 
 rized by that divine Spirit under which they acted, and are 
 to be reverenced and obeyed as from God. The contrary 
 
 * Mr. M'Leod, in his Ecclesiastical Catechism (p. 102) expressly as- 
 serts — " That certain external model of government, which was origi- 
 nally adopted for the preservation of the evangelical doctrines and insti- 
 tutions, and for the careful transmission of them to after ages, is of divine 
 authority." And again (p. 17,) " Whatever is supported by opproved 
 examples — is of divine right." In these principles he follows the West- 
 minster Assembly of Divines, who maintained against the Independents 
 the divine right of Presbytery, from scripture examples, from Apostolic 
 practice. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 159 
 
 principle cuts up by the roots evangelical doctrine, and shakes 
 to its foundation the Christian church. 
 
 But are all Apostolic practices equally important and ob- 
 hgatory.^ Certainly not. How then do we distinguish 
 those Apostolic practices which were intended to last and to 
 be unchangeable J from those which were temporary and 
 mutable ? We can determine instantly, from the nature of 
 those practices, whether they were local and temporary, or 
 of general and permanent observance. The love-feasts, the 
 kiss of charity, the Deaconesses who were to attend on 
 women in baptism, were Apostolic practices evidently of 
 inferior moment, proper and necessary only under peculiar 
 circumstances of the church, and laid aside when those cir- 
 cumstances changed. But the practice of the Apostles in 
 settling the Christian ministry is of the first importance, and 
 of permanent obligation. The Christian ministrj' lies at the 
 foundation of the Christian church. The Apostles were to 
 institute a ministry which was to continue by succession " to 
 the end of the world." We have the same right to change 
 the sacraments, and to pretend that they are temporary and 
 mutable, as we have to change the constitution of the Chris- 
 tian ministry as settled by Apostolic practice. Here the 
 institutions of the Apostles must be gathered from their 
 practice, from their authoritative acts. The ministry is of 
 divine authority, and rests solely on a divine commission. * 
 This commission must be derived from Christ, the source of 
 all power in the church, by a succession of persons authorized 
 to transmit it. In no other way can it be derived. Admit 
 that this succession has been interrupted ; admit that the 
 mode of transmitting the ministerial commission may be 
 changed, may be placed in other hands than those in whom 
 the Apostles placed it, and you render null the promise of 
 Christ, " Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the 
 world." You suffer the gates of hell to prevail against the 
 
 * " No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God 
 as was Aaron." Heb. v, 4. 
 
160 hobart's apology 
 
 church : for you wrest from it its divine character ; you 
 make its ministers and its sacraments human officers and 
 human ordinances. Quenched its life-blood, the power of 
 Christ, it becomes a lifeless trunk. You have severed it 
 from its divine Head, from which it derives spiritual growth 
 and nourishment. The connection between the visible church 
 and the " Lord of all," can only be kept up by a visible 
 ministry, administering visible sacraments ; and this ministry 
 can derive its authority from Christ only, in that mode and 
 order originally constituted. 
 
 We contend not then that Episcopacy is unchangeable, 
 merely because it is the original form of government settled 
 by Apostolic practice. The most important ends of govern- 
 ment, some persons maintain, may be answered nearly as 
 well by one form as by another ; and in this point of view 
 they think there may be force in the observation, 
 
 " For forms of government let fools contest, 
 That which is best administered is best." 
 
 But Episcopacy is unchangeable, because it is the origi- 
 nally constituted mode of conveying that commission, with- 
 out which there can be no visible ministry, no visible sacra- 
 ments, no visible church. The power of ordination must 
 remain with the first grade of the ministry, now called Bishops, 
 because with them it was placed by the Apostles divinely 
 commissioned to found the church, to constitute its min- 
 istry, and to provide for the continuance of this ministry 
 " to the end of the world." Change the ministry ; place the 
 power of ordination in other hands — the church is no longer 
 founded " on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ him- 
 self being the chief corner stone." Its constitution and min- 
 istry have no power but what man gives them. It rests on 
 the sandy foundation of human authoiity. When " the floods 
 come, when the rains descend, when the winds blow and beat 
 upon it," it will fall ; for it is not founded on the Rock of 
 
 AGES. ""■^" ■"" ' 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 161 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 The distinction and subordination of the grades of 
 the ministry, and the appropriation of the power of ordina- 
 tion and the supreme government to the first grade, now call- 
 ed Bishops, rest upon divine authority^ displayed in the insti- 
 tution and practice of the Apostles. 
 
 Apostolic institution and practice, thus satisfactorily proved 
 from the writings of the New Testament, affords Episcopacy 
 a support not to be shaken by your reasonings, however 
 plausible, nor by your assertions, however bold and positive. 
 
 It is natural on this subject to inquire, what was the prac- 
 tice of the ages immediately succeeding that part of the 
 Apostolic age, a record of which is given us in the New 
 Testament ? If the testimony of those ages prove the fact 
 of the universal prevalence of Episcopacj", and assign no 
 human origin to it, the conclusion is irresistible that it must 
 have been instituted by the Apostles. It is incredible that 
 the Apostles should have constituted a parity in the ministry, 
 established Presbyterian government, and yet that the primi- 
 tive Christians, before the Apostles were scarcely cold in 
 their graves, should have permitted some ambitious prelates 
 to subvert the Apostolic constitution of the ministry, and to 
 exalt themselves as "lords in God's heritage." Such a 
 change must have wanted motive ; for the place of Bishops 
 in the primitive ages was peculiarly the place of dangers and 
 death. Such a change would have been opposed by every 
 principle of human nature, by the reverence of the Presby- 
 ters and people for Apostolic institutions, by a laudable desire 
 to maintain their own rights, and by that high " spirit of 
 man," which rises up against oppression. Such a change, 
 we may safely assert, would not have been affected without 
 powerful opposition. The records of those ages would have 
 marked it as an extraordinary event in the history of the 
 
 14^ 
 
162 hobart's apology 
 
 church ; would have exhibited the agitations and collisions 
 to which it must have given rise. The comparatively 
 trifling controversy concerning the day on which the festival 
 of Easter was to be observed, threw the primitive church 
 into tumult, and occasioned a schism between the Eastern 
 and Western churches. This controversy is a subject of 
 particular record. Is it then credible that the Apostolic con- 
 stitution of the ministry should have been totally changed 
 soon after the death of the Apostles, and not the most 
 remote hint of such a change to be met with in any eccle- 
 siastical writings for near four hundred years } 
 
 If then the primitive Fathers are not only silent concern- 
 ing this change, but bear explicit testimony to the universal 
 prevalence of Episcopacy, and speak of it as universally re- 
 ceived on the ground of Apostolic institution, the prejudice 
 must be invincible which will still maintain that Presbytery 
 was the original institution, and Episcopacy an usurpation. 
 We use the Fathers merely as credible witnesses to matters 
 of fact, in regard to which they could not have been deceived. 
 We lay no stress on their individual testimony ; we care not 
 for their erroneous and contradictory opinions ; it is only 
 their concurring testimony to a matter of fact ^ to the universal 
 prevalence of Episcopacy, on which we lay stress. He who 
 rejects their testimony on this subject, strikes at the root of 
 all historical evidence, and sweeps with the besom of dark- 
 ness the history of past ages.* 
 
 I mean not to intrude upon you the series of evidence from 
 the writings of the Fathers, which demonstrates the distinc- 
 tion and subordination of the three grades of the ministry, 
 Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. This evidence is to be 
 found in almost every book which has been written upon the 
 subject. It has been exhibited, with admirable perspicuity 
 
 * It should be remarked that he who impugns the testimony of the 
 apostolic fathers to the divine institution of Episcopacy, does by that act 
 destroy the only evidence for the canonical authority of the books of the 
 New Testament — Ed. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 163 
 
 and force, by the eminent divines Potter and Leslie. You 
 will pardon me if I think that whatever may be the preten- 
 sions of those who wish to swell themselves into importance, 
 and to extort homage, by haughty airs and bold assertions, 
 Potter and Leslie were at least equal to Dr Mason in ex- 
 tent and depth of erudition, in critical acumen, in strength 
 of reasoning, and in the knowledge of the primitive Fathers * 
 The weight of the primitive evidence in support of Episco- 
 pacy has been well tried ; its accuracy and bearings have 
 been thoroughly scrutinized. And whatever may be your 
 affectation of originality, were you ten times more " learned " 
 than you are, and the humble writer who addresses you as 
 learned as yourself, (incredibile dictu .') we should neither of 
 us be able to adduce one argument of any importance on this 
 subject, which has not, in some shape or other, been advanced 
 by others. "f 
 
 There are, however, palpable and universally acknowledged 
 facts which demonstrate that the Apostolic and primitive 
 church must have been Episcopal. You cannot open an ec- 
 clesiastical writer, either of the present or primitive age, who 
 does not stare you in the face with the facts that there were 
 Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the primitive church. 
 Yes, sir, such Bishops as we have in modern days, with 
 Presbyters subject to them. That Ignatius was Bishop of 
 Antioch, that Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage, are facts 
 just as well established as that these holy martyrs lived — 
 
 * Archbishop Potter was the author of the learned work on the 
 " Antiquities of Greece ;" and Leslie of that admirable tract entitled, 
 " A Short and easy Method with the Deists." The tract of the latter in 
 support of Episcopacy is republished in " the Scholar Armed ;" and the 
 work of the former is entitled, " A Discourse on Church Government." 
 I mention this for the sake of " unlearned" readers. To attempt to give 
 any information on these points to Dr. Mason, I am aware would be the 
 highest presumption. 
 
 t No person will be at a loss to justify this language, who considers the 
 sneering contempt with which the Christian's Magazine treats all who 
 axe so unfortunate as to incur its displeasure. 
 
164 hobart's apology 
 
 established bj" the testimony of the very same writers who 
 are adduced to prove that the books of the Old and New 
 Testament were received as inspired books. The most 
 superficial reader of ecclesiastical history is familiar with the 
 names of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and Cyprian, Bishop 
 of Carthage. The church in those cities he naturally con- 
 cludes must have consisted of several congregations", in 
 which there_must have been Presbyters to officiate. And 
 as Ignatius and Cyprian are styled by way of eminence and 
 exclusion^ Bishop of Antioch, Bishop of Carthage, he of 
 course concludes that there were no other Bishops in those 
 cities, but that Ignatius and Cyprian superintended the 
 church in them, consisting of Presbyters and their congrega- 
 tions ; in other words, that they were diocesan Bishops. 
 These are the conclusions which every reader of ecclesiasti- 
 cal history, who is not biassed to some preconceived system, 
 would naturally and immediately form. 
 
 It seems, however, that the sense of ecclesiastical history- 
 has been wholly misrepresented. The language of all eccle- 
 siastical historians has been inaccurate. You threaten us 
 that you will be able to prove that the testimony of the pri- 
 mitive Fathers has been misstated, that they give no support 
 to Episcopacy ! This hold language gives me no surprise. 
 Nor should I be at all surprised, were you to go a little 
 further, and assert that no one understands the primitive 
 Fathers but yourself! Very modest indeed! Who can 
 avoid being charmed with this unparalleled humilitj'- } The 
 most learned men that ever adorned the Christian church, 
 the Hookers, the Bulls, the Pearsons, the Beveridges, the 
 Wakes, the Potters, the Chillingworths, the Leslies, 
 and " a legion more," knew nothing of the primitive Fathers ! 
 The glorj" which has hitherto surrounded these luminaries 
 of the church, is to fade away before the resistless lustre of 
 those beams which the superior learning of the Editor of 
 the Christian's Magazine is to shed on the darkness of the 
 primitive age I 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 165 
 
 Over these feeble men, the Hookers, the Bulls, the 
 Pearsons, and their ^' compeers," perhaps you may tri- 
 umph ! But will you raise the arm of rebellion against 
 your great master, Calvin ? Will you assert that he knew 
 nothing of the primitive Fathers, that he has misunderstood 
 or perverted their meaning ? I have nothing to do here with 
 Calvin's form of church government, or with the arguments 
 by which he attempts to support it from scripture. I merely 
 adduce his judgment as to a matter of fact ^ to the constitu- 
 tion of the primitive church as exhibited by the Fathers. 
 Now, Calvin, in the fourth book of his institutions, expressly 
 admits that the primitive church was Episcopal, that there 
 were three grades of the ministry, and that the first grade 
 possessed superior powers. 
 
 We find Calvin asserting the superiority of Bishops to 
 Priests. " Therefore, to whom the office of teaching was 
 enjoined, all these they named Priests. In every city they 
 chose out of their own number one man, to whom they spe- 
 cially gave the title of Bishop ; that dissentions should not 
 grow of equality, as it is wont to come to pass. Yet the 
 Bishop was not so above the rest in honour and dignity, that 
 he had a dominion above his fellows."* I have nothing to do 
 with Calvin's opinion.^ that this superiority or precedence 
 of a Bishop over Priests, was " by men's consent brought 
 in for the necessity of the times ;" or with his authority for 
 this opinion. My object at present is, only to prove that 
 he admits the fact that there was such a superiority in the 
 primitive church. He distinguishes Bishops and Priests 
 as two distinct grades of the ministry. " But so much as 
 belongeth to the office whereof we now speak, as well the 
 Bishops as the Priests., were bound to apply the distributing 
 of the word and sacraments. "| He notices this distinction 
 again when he endeavours to prove that in the primitive 
 church (as in the Episcopal Church in America) the clergy 
 
 * Calvin's Institutes, lib. iv. cap. iv. 1. 
 t Calvin's Institutes, lib. iv. cap. iv. 3. 
 
166 hobart's apology 
 
 and people chose their Bishop. " Let him be chosen (Bishop) 
 whom the clergy and the people, or the greater number shall 
 require."* Here he makes an evident distinction between 
 the Bishop and the clergy. The person thus chosen Bishop 
 by the clergy and the people, Calvin asserts, was, in the pri- 
 mitive church, to be raised to this superior grade hy ordina- 
 tion. " There remaineth of the Nicene Council, that the 
 metropolitan (the chief Bishop of the province) should meet 
 together with all the Bishops of the province, to order him 
 who is chosen."! According to Calvin the Bishops in the 
 privitive church were governors of the clergy. " For this 
 end to every Bishop was committed the government of his own 
 clergy, that the}^ should rule their clerks (their clergy) ac- 
 cording to the canons, and hold them to their duty. "J Nay, 
 that according to the judgment of Calvin there were in the 
 primitive church the three grades of ministers. Bishops^ 
 Priests, and Deacons, and that the Bishop exercised the 
 chief power in ordaining, is indisputable from the following 
 passage: "In the solemn assembly the Bishops had a certain 
 apparel whereby they might be distinctly known from other 
 Priests. They ordered all Priests and Deacons with only 
 laying on of hands. But every Bishop, with the compa- 
 ny of Priests, ordained his own Priest. But although they 
 did all the same thing ; yet because the Bishop went be- 
 fore, and it was all done as it were by his guiding, there- 
 fore the ordering was called his. Whereupon the old 
 writers have oft this saying ; — that a Priest differeth from 
 a Bishop in no other thing, but because he hath not the 
 power of ordering.''"'^ Calvin's testimony in this passage 
 to a matter of fact, that in the primitive church, " every 
 Bishop, with his company of Priests, ordained his own 
 Priest ;" and that, according to the " old writers," " a Priest 
 — hath not the power of ordering," is to be carefully distin- 
 guished from his opinion that " the ordering was called " the 
 
 * Calvin's Institutes, lib. iv. cap. iv. 11. f Cap. iv. 14. t Cap. xii. 22. 
 § Calvin's Institutes, lib. iv. cap. iv. 15. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 167 
 
 Bishop's merely because he ^' went before." This reason 
 is a gloss of Calvin's, for which he brings no authority. Let 
 me appeal to the candid whether the above description of a 
 primitive ordination does not answer exactly to the ordinations 
 in the Episcopal churches of the present day ; and whether 
 it bears the same resemblance to Presbj'^terian ordinations. 
 
 But perhaps Calvin has been describing the constitution 
 of the church after it had become corrupted by the leaven of 
 Popery. No, sir, the above passages are selected from a 
 chapter of his Institutes, the title of which is, " Of the State 
 of the Old Church, and of the Manner of governing that was 
 in use before the Papacy.''^ Nay, in introducing this account 
 of the primitive government, he observes, " It shall be profit- 
 able in those things to consider the /orw of the old church, 
 which shall represent to our minds a certain image of God''s in- 
 stitution. '''' And again, " The Bishops of those times — with such 
 heedfulness framed all their order after the only rule of God^s 
 holy ivord, that a man may easily see that in this point they 
 had in a manner nothing disagreeing from the word of God.* 
 To reconcile Calvin's form of church government with the 
 "form of the old church," as represented in the above ex- 
 tracts, maybe a difficult task. My business is with his testi- 
 mony as above stated, and not with his theories or rea- 
 sonings. 
 
 Now, Sir, if you will undertake to prove that the primi- 
 tive Fathers knew nothing of "the distinction of superior 
 and inferior clergy ;"'[' if you will undertake to prove that 
 this " distinction, under whatever form or pretext adopted, is 
 unscriptural and anti-Christian ;"J if you will undertake to 
 prove that in the primitive ages " the visible unity of the 
 church was preserved by ^^ perfect equality of rank among mi- 
 nisters, "§ I only say you will have serious difficulties to 
 encounter — Hie labor, hoc opus est — Certainly not among the 
 
 * Calvin's Institutes, lib. iv. cap. iv. 1. 
 
 t Constitution of the Associate Reformed Church. % Ibid. 
 
 § Christian's Magazine. Introduction. 
 
168 hobart's apology 
 
 least of these difficulties will be the authoritative judgment 
 of the "great Calvin." I submit to the serious considera- 
 tion of those who embrace the Calvinistic opinions, whether 
 the judgment of Calvin, the great master of theology, or that 
 of Dr. M. be most worthy of credit. I confess the dilemma 
 in which they are placed is not a pleasant one. If they as- 
 sert that the primive church was not Episcopal ; if they re- 
 fuse to submit to a primitive " hierarchy," they oppose the 
 judgment of Calvin, they encounter his awful "anathema." 
 And if they attempt to avoid this anathema, they will be met 
 by the dread denunciations of the Editor of the Christian'^s 
 Magazine! Scylla and Charybdis — " Alas ! alas ! " 
 
 But the triumph of Episcopalians is to be blasted by the 
 bold assertion, that the primitive constitution of the church, 
 as thus delineated by Calvin, was an innovation on the 
 Apostolic form, an innovation which took place soon after the 
 Apostolic age.* Now, to say nothing of the improbability 
 of this fundamental change in the constitution of the Christian 
 church ; to say nothing of the impracticability of a few ambi- 
 tious " prelates," thus sweeping away the institutions of the 
 Apostles, and exalting themselves into the thrones of corrupt 
 power on the ruins of Apostolic authority ; to say nothing of 
 the insuperable difficulties which they must have had to en- 
 counter in the reverence of the primitive Christians for Apos- 
 tolic institutions, in the ardour with which the clergy and 
 people would have maintained their rights and resisted unhal- 
 lowed usurpation ; to say nothing of the humble, holy, and 
 celestial virtues of the primitive Bishops, the martjTS to the 
 faith of Jesus, which forbid the imputing to them motives 
 and objects so dishonourable and criminal, we may at least 
 inquire. Where is the record of this fundamental change .'* 
 Where the irrefragable proof of this unparalleled usurpation, 
 which, stripping Presbyters of those powers which but a few 
 years before they had received from the hands of the Apos- 
 
 * The most learned opponents of Episcopacy, Blondel, Salmasius, 
 Chamier, and others, fix it at this period. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 169 
 
 ties as a sacred deposit, made them bow their necks under 
 the feet of usurping " lords in God's heritage ?" We are at 
 once boldly answered, the record is at hand ! In fearful anx- 
 iety we wait for it. It flashes upon us in " the famous testi- 
 mony of Jerome."* 
 
 And who was Jerome ? Was he one of the early Fathers? 
 Did he live during that period at which the usurpations of 
 Episcopacy were effected ? No, near three hundred years 
 after. The alleged usurpation of Episcopacy took place, ac- jj 
 cording to Blondel, about forty years after the death of the * Jq^ 
 Apostles ; and Jerome flourished near the close of the fourth /u ^ 
 century.t Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertul- 
 LiAN, who lived in the second century, say nothing of this 
 wonderful revolution. Origen and Cyprian, who lived in the 
 third century, had not found out that the superiority of Bi- 
 shops over Presbyters^ to which, with the preceding Fathers, 
 they bear such ample testimony, was an usurpation, an inno- 
 vation on Apostolic order. The learned historian Eusebius, 
 who, in the beginning of the fourth century, drew up his 
 ecclesiastical history from all the writings of the preceding 
 ages that could be procured, while he records many minute 
 events and schisms in the church, is not only utterly silent 
 as to this extraordinary usurpation of Episcopacy, but, on the 
 contrary, gives a list of the Bishops in the principal cities up 
 to the Apostles themselves ! 
 
 Few as may be the ecclesiastical writings of the early 
 ages now extant, in some of them surely we should expect 
 to find a record of this alleged innovation. They narrate 
 minute events. Would they have passed over one that must 
 have entirely changed the features of the visible church ? 
 And on whom is reliance placed for proof, that in the begin- 
 ning of the second century Bishops usurped authority over 
 Presbyters ? On Jerome, who lived at the close of the 
 fourth century ! ^' Alas ! alas !" Desperate is thy cause, 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, No. II. p. 215. 
 t He died A. D. 420. 
 
 15 
 
170 hobart's apology 
 
 Presbytery ! The struggles of death must have siezed thee 
 when thy advocates are thus compelled to outrage the com- 
 mon sense of mankind. What ! we are to believe that a 
 change in ecclesiastical government — an usurpation of eccle- 
 siastical authority, the most extraordinary and fundamental 
 that ever the world witnessed — a change and usurpation, in 
 regard to which contemporarj" and succeeding writers are 
 totally silent — we are to believe that they took place on the 
 authority of a writer who lived near three hundred years 
 after the period when they must have been effected ! What 
 should we think of a man who should start up and maintain, 
 on the authority of Dr. M. that near three hundred years ago, 
 when the government of the whole Christian church was 
 Presbyterian^ it was transformed into Episcopacy, into an 
 usurping hierarchy ; while not a single ecclesiastical writer, 
 from that time to the present, lisps a syllable concerning this 
 most extraordinary revolution ! Really, really, I am ap- 
 prehensive we should think such a person had thrown aside 
 that common sense which is the surest guide of man, and 
 should, with Beza, exclaim, in the emotions of amazement 
 and indignation, " God forbid that any man in his senses 
 should assent to the madness of such a man !" 
 
 Utterly inadmissible, therefore, is the testimony of Jerome 
 to an event which took place centuries before his time, and 
 on which all preceding writers are not merely silent, but 
 bear opposite testimony. But let us scrutinize this "famous 
 testimony," to which the Editor of the Christian's Magazine 
 triumphantly clings as the anchor of his cause. Let us ex- 
 amine the character of the witness, and the nature of his tes- 
 timony. 
 
 Is the witness unbiassed and unprejudiced ! No ! Suspi- 
 cions on this point attach to him, which powerfully tend to 
 weaken the force of his opinion. It is very well known, 
 that, distinguished as were the talents and learning of Je- 
 rome, his imagination was lively, and his disposition warm 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 171 
 
 and impetuous.*' He had been incensed against John, 
 Bishop of Jerusalem, and some other Bishops, for what he 
 considered undue claims of prerogative, and wrote some 
 severe strictures upon them. He was also offended with the 
 Deacons for their attempt to place themselves on a level with 
 Presbyters. Under these impressions he endeavours, in dif- 
 ferent parts of his writings, to exalt his own office of Presby- 
 ter as much as possible, in order to check particularly the 
 aspiring pretensions of the Deacons. We impeach not the 
 veracity of Jerome. We might receive his testimony in 
 regard to any important event which took place in his own 
 day. But when he attempts to state the occurrences of a 
 period prior to his own, and particularly when he founds his 
 statements upon reasoning., and not upon positive testimony, 
 it becomes a matter of opinion. It is then our duty not 
 merely to test the soundness of his reasoning., but to inquire 
 whether there were not circumstances which might give a 
 false bias to his judgment. * 
 
 Are we then to receive implicitly the opinion of a warm 
 and impetuous man as proof of an event which must have 
 
 * The learned and impartial ecclesiastical historian, Dupin, thus cha- 
 racterises Jerome. " His genius was hot and vehement ; he fell upon 
 his adversaries with fierceness, made them ridiculous by his jests, tram- 
 pled on them with terms of contempt, and made them blush with re- 
 proaches. Though he was very learned, yet there is infinitely more liveli- 
 ness and vehemency in his exhortations and polemical works than exact- 
 ness and solidity. He knew a great deal ; but he never argued upon 
 principles, which made him sometimes contradict himself. He often 
 carries his subject too far, being transported with his ordinary heat." 
 " As he indulges his ordinary heat too much, so he falleth into those 
 extremes for which he hath been often blamed." Dupin's Ecclesiastical 
 History, book iii. p. 103, 104. But lest the testimony of Dupin shouldbe 
 impeached because he was an advocate of the hierarchy, let us hear what 
 MosHEiM says of St. Jerome. " His complexion was excessively i^arm 
 and choleric; his bitterness against those who differed from him extremely 
 keen, and his thirst of glory insatiable. He was so prone to censure, that 
 several persons, whose lives were not only irreproachable, but even ex- 
 emplary, became the objects of his unjust accusations." — Mosheim. Ecch 
 Hist. Cent. iv. Part. ii. chap. 2. 
 
172 hobart's apology 
 
 taken place a considerable time before he was born, and in 
 regard to which all preceding writers are silent ? Are we 
 to rest implicitly on the opinion of a man advanced under 
 the influence of feelings of disgust and irritation, which must 
 have tended to pervert his judgment; advanced with the 
 evident aim of depreciating Bishops and Deacons who had 
 offended him ? Is a man considered as an impartial judge in 
 cases in which his feelings, his rights, or his reputation are 
 peculiarly interested ? Yet in this very predicament was 
 Jerome. At various times he was engaged in controversy 
 with some Bishops and Deacons concerning the encroach- 
 ments which he conceived they were disposed to make on 
 his office of Presbyter. Personal and interested feelings 
 must have thus been powerfully called forth. Under the 
 influence of these feelings, Jerome advances an opinion con- 
 cerning a supposed revolution in the church more than two 
 centuries before his time. He gives not a most distant hint 
 of its being a recent occurrence ; but fixes it, according to 
 the opinion of his most learned advocates, near the apostolic 
 age! 
 
 And this is ^' the famous testimony of Jerome," a testi- 
 mony " which cannot be shaken, we are told, by any art 
 that sophistry possesses !" Suppose for a moment, that 
 Euseeius, the ecclesiastical historian at the commencement 
 of the fourth century, and the writers who preceded him, 
 had borne the same testimony to Presbytery which they do 
 to Episcopacy ! Suppose that Euseeius, instead of tracing 
 as he does the succession of Bishops in the principal cities, 
 up to the Apostles themselves, had recorded that in all those 
 cities from the time of the Apostles, Presbyteries had been 
 organized ; and that neither he, nor any writer who preceded 
 him, had given the most distant hint of this Presbyterian 
 government having been an innovation. What should we 
 think of an Episcopalian who should attempt to prove this 
 fact by the opinion of a subsequent Father of the Church, 
 formed under circumstances that tended to give a false bias 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 173 
 
 to his judgment ? Episcopacy ! I should blush, I should 
 tremble for thee, wast thou reduced to this miserable expe- 
 dient. 
 
 We reject then the testimony of Jerome. We reject him 
 as a witness on this subject. We reject him as a reasoner. 
 He lived too long after the event to which he testifies is sup- 
 posed to have occurred to be a credible witness. And there 
 were too many personal considerations that called forth his 
 natural irritability, and influenced his judgment, to permit 
 his being, on this point, an impartial reasoner. But still we 
 will meet his testimony on the ground of its naked merits. 
 We will place it in the face of day. Wonderful ! if the very 
 testimony adduced to prove Episcopacy an usurpation, should 
 favour its apostolic institution ! 
 
 Behold then the testimony of a Father who lived at the 
 close of the fourth century, and which is relied on to prove 
 that " the supremacy of Bishops was a human invention.''^ 
 Jerome adduces instances from scripture, in which Bishop 
 and Presbyter denote the same office, and then reasons from 
 the identity of names, that there was originally a parity in 
 the ministry, but '' that afterwards it was enacted as a remedy 
 for schism, that there should be one elected who should be 
 placed over the rest, lest every man pulling to himself should 
 rend asunder the Church of Christ. For at Alexandria, from 
 Mark the Evangelist even unto the Bishops Heraclas and 
 Dionysius, the Presbyters always named Bishop one chosen 
 from themselves, placed in a higher grade."* Jerome more 
 particularly states his opinion in his commentary on Titus. 
 Arguing still from the identity of names, he concludes, that 
 a Presbyter and Bishop were originally the same, " and be- 
 fore, through the instigation of the devil, contensions arose 
 in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, 
 and I of ApolloSj and I of Cephas, churches were governed 
 by a common council of Presbyters. But afterwards, when 
 every one accounted those whom he had baptized as his own 
 
 * Hieronym. Epist. 85. ad Evag. 
 15* 
 
174 hobart's apology 
 
 disciples, and not Christ's, it was decreed in the whole world, 
 that one chosen from among the Presbyters should be placed 
 over the rest, to whom the care of the church should apper- 
 tain, that hereby the seeds of schism might be taken away. 
 As therefore Presbyters do know, that from the custom of 
 the church they are subject to him who is set over them ; so 
 the Bishops should know that they are greater more by cus- 
 tom than by the truth of any ordinance of our Lord." 
 
 Now, admitting that these passages prove that, in the 
 opinion of Jerome, Episcopacy was a " human invention," 
 it would be sufficient, in order to destroy this testimony, 
 to produce many other passages from his writings, in which 
 he explicitly maintains that the supremacy of Bishops was 
 an institution of the Apostles. A witness who contradicts 
 himself destroys his credibilitj'^. 
 
 It is also of importance to observe, that this opinion of 
 Jerome is not founded on any record of the fact, but on rea- 
 soning from the identity of names. And as this reasoning 
 can be proved to be fallacious, his opinion (improperly styled 
 testimony) falls to the ground. 
 
 I maintain, however, that " this famous testimony of 
 Jerome" will fairly bear a construction in favour of the 
 apostolic institution of Episcopacy ; and such a construction 
 only can render this testimony of Jerome consistent with 
 his other declarations, and with common sense. 
 
 1. It is of importance to observe, that the opinion of 
 Jerome is not explicit to the point in proof of which it is 
 alleged. He does not positively denj^ that the superiority of 
 Bishops over Presbyters was an apostolic institution. He 
 does not positively assert that the change from Presbytery 
 did not take place in the tijnes of the Apostles, and that it 
 was a human invention. To make these assertions he had 
 every possible inducement. Warmly tenacious of his pre- 
 rogatives as Presbyter, and irritated at what he conceived 
 the encroachments of the other orders of the ministry, he 
 sought on all occasions to exalt, as much as possible, the 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. , 175 
 
 oflSce of Presbyters, and to depress the orders of Bishops 
 and Deacons. This favourite object, to which the strongest 
 personal considerations conspiring with the warmth and 
 impetuosit}^ of his temper urged him, would have been 
 effectually accomplished by the express assertion that this 
 alteration was made after the death of the Apostles. Under 
 such circumstances we would naturally expect, not ainhi- 
 guous^ but positwe, unequivocal language. But instead of 
 the explicit assertion that Episcopacy was a " human in- 
 vention," he only maintains, that originally there was a 
 parit}'^ in the ministry, and that (for very substantial reasons) 
 a change took place, and a Bishop was exalted over Pres- 
 byters ; and this change, for any thing Jerome ssljs to the 
 contrary, may have been made by some of the Apostles 
 themselves. It is true, he says. Bishops are superior to 
 Presbyters principally by " the custom of the church." But 
 still this custom may have been founded on the practice of 
 the Apostles^ who changed the original parity of the minis- 
 try when they found it injurious to the church. Let it be 
 observed, that he does not deny that apostolic practice was 
 the foundation of this custom, but is " contented only to 
 deny that our Lord himself made the distinction.'^'' It may be 
 said, indeed, that apostolic practice in settling the ministry 
 is equivalent to divine institution ; and why, therefore, should 
 Jerome oppose them to each other .? Because his object 
 appears to be, to prove merely that by the original constitu- 
 tion of the ministry by our Lord and his Apostles, Bishops 
 and Presbyters were equal, and that the supremacy of 
 Bishops was a change soon found necessary for the welfare 
 of the church. 
 
 Listen, sir, on this point, to the reasoning of one who cer- 
 tainly was not unduly partial to the Episcopal cause.* 
 " Jerome's design evidently was to say all that he thought 
 true against the distinction between Bishops and Presby1;ers. 
 
 * Bishop Hoadley, in his Defence of Episcopal Ordination, chap. i. p. 
 86, 87. 
 
176 hobart's apology 
 
 And yet in all his zeal against this distinction, he saith only 
 that there was a time when this distinction was not in being ; 
 but never intimates that it was not made and settled in the 
 days of the Apostles themselves ; or that Presbyters of after 
 ages altered the design of the Apostles after their deaths : 
 which single thing, if he could have said with any truth, 
 must have done his cause more service than all he hath 
 alleged ; and therefore I conclude, he would certainly have 
 said itj and endeavoured to prove it ^ if he had thought it true.^"* 
 " If his design had been to prove that this alteration was 
 made some time after the death of the Apostles, his business 
 must have been to show, not only that there was a time 
 during the lives of the Apostles^ but also that there was an 
 intermediate space between Bishops and Presbyters ; and this 
 from passages of some writers or records of some churches, 
 in that intermediate space. But this he doth not so much as 
 attempt to do. And from hence I conclude, that it was not 
 his design to affirm or to intimate any such thing. ^^ 
 
 So far, therefore, from there being any thing in the lan- 
 guage of Jerome which forbids the conclusion that this 
 change took place before the death of the Apostles, his ex- 
 pressions rather sanction it. For, 
 
 2. The natural construction of the words of Jerome 
 would lead us to conclude, that this change from Pres- 
 bytery to Episcopacy took place during the times of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 His argument is, that by the original constitution of the 
 ministry, there was no superiority of Bishops, but " the 
 churches were governed by a common council of Presby- 
 ters." But when " the seeds of schism were sown by 
 the people, saying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos," &c. 
 a Bishop was chosen and placed over Presbyters. Now, 
 we know that this language of schism was used during the 
 Apostles^ times, and the declarations of Jerome lead us 
 therefore to conclude, that during the same period the re- 
 medy was applied by exalting Bishops over Presbyters. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 177 
 
 Nor is it a conclusive objection to this construction, that 
 several of the apostolic Epistles on which Jerome founds 
 his reasoning in favour of ministerial parity, were written 
 after the Epistle to the Corinthians, in which Christians are 
 represented as using tliis language of schism — ^' I am of 
 Paul, and I of Apollos," &c. This was the commence- 
 ment of those schisms, which, according to Jerome, were 
 eventually the cause of the change in the Christian minis- 
 try. It is reasonable to conclude they continued till after 
 those apostolic epistles were written on which he founds 
 ministerial parity; and, therefore, the introduction of Episco- 
 pacy may have been by apostolic authority, since some of the 
 Apostles lived after the epistles were written to which 
 Jerome appeals. " It is not necessary to suppose that St. 
 Jerome thought, that immediately upon this disorder in the 
 church of Corinth this alteration was made ; but rather," 
 that it was made " when it appeared that this humour was 
 not so checked by St. FauPs exhortations^ but that it crept into 
 other churches likewise. What I would say, therefore, is 
 this — That we are assured that these remarks agree to the 
 age of the Apostles, and that it is extremely probable that 
 they would not leave it to succeeding Presbyters to provide 
 remedies for the evils which they knew to be in their own 
 times ; that we have no such marks belonging peculiarly to 
 the age after them, and therefore have reason to think that 
 the alteration (if at all) was made before the death of the 
 Apostles.''^* Those schisms, as a remedy for which Jerome 
 supposes Episcopacy was introduced, prevailed in the time 
 of the Apostles. It is absurd to suppose that these inspired 
 rulers of the church would leave it thus rent by schism with- 
 out prescribing a remedy. 
 
 There is nothing in the language of Jerome which forbids 
 the supposition that this alleged revolution took place in the 
 time of the Apostles. On the contrary, he speaks of this 
 change from Presbytery to Episcopacy as the consequence of 
 
 * Bishop Hoadley. Defence of Episcopal Ordination, chap. i. p. 93. 
 
178 hobart's apology 
 
 a decree made throughout the whole world — Toto orbe decretum 
 est — It was decreed in the whole world. These words evi- 
 dently convey the idea that the reception of Episcopacy was 
 universal^ immediate, and without opposition; that it was 
 made by those who had authority over the Christian church 
 in the whole world. To effect such an extraordinary revolu- 
 tion in the early ages, before any general council had met to 
 regulate the government of the church, apostolic authority 
 alone could be adequate. 
 
 Bishop Stillingfleet indeed, in his Irenicum (the armory 
 whence many of the opponents of Episcopacy draw their 
 weapons,) observes, "That the emphasis lies not in decretum 
 estj^^ not in the decree, "but in toto orbe; noting how sud- 
 denly this order met with universal acceptance when it was 
 first brought up in the church after the Apostles' death." 
 But this is mere hypothesis, contrary to the obvious meaning 
 of Jerome's language. Besides, this hypothesis of Bishop 
 Stillingfleet is predicated on what Jerome no where asserts, 
 that the supremacy of Bishops took place " after the Apos- 
 tles' death." This is the very point to be proved. And the 
 very circumstance that Jerome does not expressly make this 
 assertion, when it would have been so much to his purpose, 
 warrants the presumption that he did not believe it. Bishop 
 Stillingfleet himself, in a performance published several 
 years after his Irenicum, with the evident design of retracting 
 his reasoning in that work, acknowledges — " It is hard to 
 conceive how such an alteration should happen without the 
 Apostles'^ act : for if they had left the Presbyters in full power 
 of government, it is not to be imagined they would so univer- 
 sally part with it, without being obliged thereto by those who 
 had authority over them."* And this remark is founded on 
 the strong trait in human nature, that they who have power 
 are not willing to part with it. How is it possible too, that 
 this fundamental alteration in the constitution of the Christian 
 church, divinely established, should have obtained " sudden 
 * Bishop Stillingfleet's Sermon at St. Paul's. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 179 
 
 universal acceptance," if it rested only on human authority, if 
 it were not enforced by a decree of the Apostles ? The very 
 words indeed of Jerome, are those of an authoritative decree. 
 Toto orhe decretum^ — it was decreed over all the world. As 
 Bishop Hoadley observes, " These are not words of voluntary 
 compact and consent among Presbyters ; but agreeable to an 
 authority superior to those Presbyters who were to be re- 
 strained, and whose abuses were to be reformed by this de- 
 cree : and there being, according to the present hypothesis^ 
 no authority before this decree superior to Presbyters, un- 
 less that of the Apostles, or some particular extraordinary 
 church officers appointed by the Apostles, this decree for 
 the establishment of Episcopacy must be understood by 
 St. Jerome to have been in the age of the Apostles them- 
 selves."* 
 
 The introduction of Episcopacy by the Apostles is supposed 
 to be inconsistent with Jerome's language, that ^' by little 
 and little (paulatim) the whole care was devolved upon one 
 (that the seeds of dissention might be plucked up.") Here, 
 as Bishop Stillingfleet supposes in his " Irenicum," Je- 
 rome " notes the gradual obtaining of" Episcopacy. But 
 how does this supposition accord with Jerome's language, 
 that " it was decreed in the whole world ;" which, according 
 even to Bishop Stillingfleet's interpretation, " notes how 
 suddenly this order met with universal acceptance .?" The 
 expression of Jerome, " paulatim," by little and little, must 
 refer therefore to the progress of the conviction that parity in 
 the ministry would produce schism ; which conviction ulti- 
 mately^ led to ''devolving all care upon one." And all this 
 might have taken place before the death of the Apostles. 
 Nor does his assertion that " one chosen out of (or by) the 
 Presbyters should be placed over the rest," prove that the 
 Apostles could not have made this change. For this expres- 
 sion refers to the mode in which the Bishop is elected, and 
 not to the " decree " by which this order was introduced. 
 
 * Bishop Hoadley's Defence of Episcopal Ordination, chap. i. p. 91. 
 
180 hobart's apology 
 
 There is no contradiction in the assertions, that the Apostles 
 decreed that Bishops should be exalted over Presbyters, and 
 yet that the Presbyters elected one of their number to be their 
 Bishop. 
 
 But it has been said again,* "Is it imaginable that a man 
 who had been proving all along the superiority of a Presby- 
 ter above a Deacon, because of his identity with a Bishop in 
 the Apostles'* times ^ should, at the same time, say that a Bi- 
 shop was above a Presbyter by the Apostles' institution, and 
 so directly overthrow all that he had been saying before ?" 
 Yes — it is not only imaginable, but consistent with Jerome's 
 design. All that he asserts, all that he aims to prove is, that 
 originally Bishops and Presbyters were the same, and so con- 
 stituted by the Apostles. But he no where maintains that 
 the change which advanced a Bishop above a Presbyter was 
 not made before the death of the Apostles. The reason he 
 alleges for this change is, that schisms arose, in consequence 
 of parity in the ministry ; and Christians enlisted themselves 
 under the banners of different ministers. Schisms of this 
 kind we know arose during the times of the Apostles. And 
 there is no absurdity, there is no incongruity with Jerome's 
 arguments or design, in supposing that as it gradually became 
 evident that this parity in the ministry would produce schisms, 
 it was decreed by apostolic authority that the order of Bishops 
 should be placed over Presbyters. There was time enough 
 for this change to be produced by apostolic authority. For 
 the Apostle John lived several years after the Epistles 
 were written on which Jerome founds his arguments for 
 parity.! 
 
 I am aware it will be triumphantly urged, Where is 
 the record from scripture that this supremacy of Bishops 
 which Jerome alleges was a change in the original consti- 
 
 * Stillingfleet's Irenicum. 
 
 t St. John died A. D. 101. His Epistles are supposed to have been 
 written about the year 90. Afterwards, A. D. 96, he wrote his Revela- 
 tions, in which, under the denomination of the Angels of the churches, 
 he distinguishes the seven Bishops of the seven churches of Asia. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 181 
 
 tution of the church, was effected before the death of the 
 Apostles ? And, it may be asked. What record does Je- 
 rome produce from scripture or from antiquity that the 
 supremacy of the first grade of the ministry was a change 
 in the original constitution of the church ? Where is his 
 record,, that this supremacy was an innovation, and not the 
 original apostolic institution ? We look for his record — and 
 lo ! it turns out to be an argument from identity of names — 
 from the names Bishop and Presbyter being in scripture 
 applied to the same grade of ministers !* This is a mere 
 fallacy. The real and important question is not whether the 
 names Bishop and Presbyter do not designate in scripture 
 the same grade of ministers ; but whether there was not a 
 grade superior to those called Presbyters and Bishops, in 
 which grade were Timothy and Titus, to whom those after- 
 wards called Bishops succeeded. Let it be remembered 
 then, that as this alleged change is entirely a matter of opinion 
 and reasoning, and as Jerome does not assert that it took 
 place after the death of the Apostles, we are not bound to 
 assign it to this period ; particularly, when by so doing we 
 shall make Jerome contradict his own express declarations, 
 in other parts of his writings, that Episcopacy was an apos- 
 tolic institution. 
 
 There may be some difficulty in making Jerome consistent 
 with himself. But any inconsistency in which he involves 
 himself destroys the weight of his judgment. We certainly 
 cannot prove from the passages of his writings which have 
 been above considered, that he positively asserts the apostolic 
 institution of Episcopacy. On the contrary, there may be 
 some parts of his statement which look a contrary way. All 
 for which I would contend is, that he does not positively 
 deny that his alleged change from Presbytery to Episcopacy 
 did not take place before the death of some of the Apostles, 
 and that his language will bear the construction that it was 
 effected under apostolic authority. And I would contend for 
 * See p. 179. 
 16 
 
182 hobart's apology 
 
 this construction, because it alone will make Jerome consis- 
 tent in his statements. 
 
 3. For he makes many other declarations which import 
 that he believed Episcopacy was an apostolic institution. 
 
 Some of these declarations occur in the passages which 
 constitute what is called his testimony against Episcopacy. 
 When he adduces the Church of Alexandria, he observes, 
 " From Mark the Evangelist^ to Heraclas and Dionysius, 
 Bishops thereof, the Presbyters always named one chosen 
 out of them, and placed in a higher degree. Bishop." Here 
 we may infer that Jerome maintains the apostolic institution 
 of Episcopacy. He asserts that it commenced in the Church 
 at Alexandria "from Mark the Evangelist." Of course it 
 commenced in the apostolic age. It cannot be said that this 
 change was the act of the Presbyters merely. Their business 
 indeed was to choose their Bishop. But as this change in 
 the ministry^ by which a Bishop was exalted above the Pres- 
 byters, commenced from " Mark the Evangelist," it must 
 have had the sanction of apostolic authority. Nor does it 
 follow from the Presbyters choosing their Bishop, that he 
 received his authority from the Presbyters, and was not in- 
 vested with it by Episcopal ordination. The choice of a 
 Bishop, the persons by whom he is appointed, and his ordi- 
 nation and the persons by whom it is performed, may be, and 
 commonly are, in all Episcopal churches, distinct. Jerome 
 notes particularly the custom at Alexandria of the Presby- 
 ters choosing their Bishop, because in his time the choice 
 was generally made by the Emperor, or by the Bishops of 
 the province, by whom they were afterwards ordained. *" 
 Jerome no where states any difference in respect to their or- 
 dination between the Bishops of his day, and those of Alex- 
 andria. We are at liberty to conclude that these last, though 
 
 * It is astonishing that Stillingfleet and Dr. Campbell after him, 
 should quote Eutychius, a patriarch of Alexandria in the tenth century, 
 to prove that the Presbyters of Alexandria themselves ordained the per- 
 son v^hom they had chosen Bishop ! 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 183 
 
 chosen by the Presbyters in like manner "as if an army 
 should choose their general, or Deacons an Archdeacon," 
 were afterwards ordained. " These Bishops must, according 
 to St. Jerome, have been the governors of the churchy and of 
 the Presbyters themselves : for he makes all the care and 
 solicitude concerning ecclesiastical affairs to be devolved upon 
 them as soon as they were constituted. They must be the 
 ordainers of other Presbyters^ even according to Blondel 
 himself, unless he deny to them what he grants to his Prime- 
 Presbyters in each church. So that here are Bishops with 
 distinct powers, after their election^ from those of their elec- 
 tors (as distinct as the powers of a general from those of the 
 army which chooses him, which is one of the similitudes by 
 which he illustrates this matter) immediately succeeding St. 
 Mark in the church of Alexandria : and consequently the like 
 in other churches^ according to St. Jerome, who makes all 
 churches uniform, and the reception of Episcopacy^ whenever 
 it was received, to be universal at the same time."* 
 
 After the instance of the church at Alexandria, Jerome 
 uses this strong expression — " Quid enim facity excepta or- 
 dinatione^ Episcopus, quod Presbyter non facial " — " For what 
 does a Bishop, except ordination, which a Presbyter may not 
 doV Here is an acknowledgment that Presbyters had no 
 original right to ordain. He could not have meant merely to 
 assert that in his time Presbyters did not ordain. He could 
 not have meant — " What does a Bishop which a Presbyter 
 may not do," by ecclesiastical regultaion, " except ordina- 
 tion .^" For in his day, by ecclesiastical law. Bishops had 
 other powers, (as, for instance, the power of judging and 
 governing the clergy,) to which the Presbyters did not 
 pretend. On this construction the question would lose all 
 its force. His aim is to level, as much as possible, Bishops 
 with Presbyters; and yet he never vests Presbyters with 
 the power of ordination. He ascribes to them originally the 
 power of government only. " The churches were governed 
 * Bishop Hoadley. Defence of Episcopal Ordination. 
 
184 
 
 by common councils of Presbyters." The Apostles at this 
 time exercised the power of oi'dination. His aim in level- 
 ling Bishops with Presbyters would have been more effec- 
 tually answered by excluding them expressly from the 
 power of ordination as well as government. On the con- 
 trary, as a writer* (who hath never incurred the impu- 
 tation of carrying very high the Episcopal claims) well 
 observes, " he doth at the same time himself deny to them 
 this right of ordination. This right, I say ; for of that his 
 words must be understood, when he asks, in order to carry 
 their cause as high as he could, Quid enim, excepta ordina- 
 tione^facit Episcopus, quod Presbyter nonfaciat ? A Bishop 
 in his days had many other powers to which Presbyters did 
 not pretend, besides that of ordination; and therefore the 
 question was not at all to his purpose, unless he meant to 
 signify by it, as his opinion, that the Presbyters were never 
 entrusted with the affair of ordination, though they were 
 with that of the government of the churches of Christ by 
 their joint counsels ; by which means he leaves an uninter- 
 rupted succession to church officers superior in this to Pres- 
 byters, and so destroys the supposition of Blondel and 
 others, of their continuing in the exercise of this right near 
 the middle of the second century.'*^ " And that this was his 
 meaning is plain likewise from St. Chrysostom, who follows 
 him in his opinion of the original rights of Presbyters, and 
 owns expressl)^, that Bishops are superior to them in point of 
 ordination, though in that only: and this, when he is examin- 
 ing their original rights, and not the state they were in in his 
 days, in which he knew that Bishops were, in other respects, 
 superior to Presbyters.''^ 
 
 In that very epistle to Evagrius in which Jerome is sup- 
 posed to deny the apostolic institution of Bishops, we have 
 the following passage : " And that we may know that the 
 apostolic traditions are taken out of the Old Testament, 
 what Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the tem- 
 * Bishop Hoadley. Defence of Episcopal Ordination, chap. 1. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 185 
 
 pie, let Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons claim for them- 
 selves in the church." In this passage the superiority of 
 Bishops to Presbyters is called an Apostolic tradition; the 
 obvious meaning of which is, that this superiority was sanc- 
 tioned by the Apostles. Against this construction it is alleged 
 that Jerome elsewhere speaks of this superiority as an " ec- 
 clesiastical custom.'''' But this objection has no force unless 
 it can be proved, that an ecclesiastical custom cannot be also 
 an apostolical tradition, that an ecclesiastical custom cannot 
 be founded on apostolical tradition or authority. But it is 
 said there is decisive proof that Jerome by '^ apostolical tra- 
 dition" meant no more than ecclesiastical usage, from a 
 passage in one of his epistles. ^' Let every province abound 
 in its own sense, and account of the ordinances of their 
 ancestors as of apostolical laws." * But this is only an in- 
 junction to revere some customs confessedly of human insti- 
 tution, as if they were apostolical traditions, and does not 
 prove that there were not other customs which were apos- 
 tohcal traditions. The superiority of Bishops is expressly 
 styled an apostolical tradition. 
 
 And there is surely a wide difference between calling a 
 custom an apostolical tradition, and commanding us to revere 
 as if it were an apostolical tradition. " It is one thing for a 
 writer to say, that for the sake of the peace and good of 
 the church, people should look upon and observe good and 
 innocent customs as if they were apostolical traditions ; and 
 another to call any thing absolutely an apostolical tradition. 
 And again it is very just to call any matter of practice both 
 an ecclesiastical custom, and an apostolical tradition, without 
 meaning the same thing by both those terms."! These differ- 
 ent modes of expression mark determinately and clearly a 
 distinction between those customs which were founded on 
 apostolical authority, and those which were of human origin. 
 
 * Unaquseque provincia abundet in sensu suo, et precepta majorum 
 leges apostolicas arbitretur. Hieron. Epist. 20. ad Lucinum. 
 t Bishop Hoadley. Defence of Episcopal Ordination, chap. i. 
 16^ 
 
186 hobart's apology 
 
 Jerome does not enjoin us to account of the superiority of 
 Bishops as if it were an apostolic tradition. He expressly 
 styles it one ; and it is surely very strange that they who 
 contend so strongly for the veracity of Jerome, should con- 
 tend that he meant that it was not one. 
 
 The force of the above passage, therefore, is, that by apos- 
 tolic authority there is the same distinction and subordina- 
 tion among Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons under the 
 gospel, that there were between the High Priest, Priests, 
 and Levites under the law. Aaron, the High Priest, was 
 superior to the Priests ; so is a Bishop to a Presbyter. An 
 objection to this construction is, that it makes Jerome con- 
 tradict himself ; as it was his design to prove that Bishop 
 and Presbyter were by apostolic institution the same. This 
 objection vanishes when we consider that Jerome only rea- 
 sons concerning the original constitution of the ministry, 
 according to which he maintains the identity of Bishop and 
 Presbyter. He admits that a change took place, and he no 
 where asserts that it was not effected before the death of the 
 Apostles, or that it rests only on human authority. On the 
 contrary, as has been already stated, there are many reasons 
 which favour the opposite opinion. 
 
 But it has been said by Stillingfleet, that Jerome, in 
 this passage, " runs the comparison not between Aaron and 
 his sons under the law, and Bishops and Presbyters under 
 the gospel ; but between Aaron and his sons as one part of 
 the comparison under the law, and the Levites under them 
 as the other ; so under the gospel Bishops and Presbyters 
 make one part of the comparison, answering to Aaron and 
 his sons in that wherein they all agree, viz. the order of the 
 priesthood ; and the other part under the gospel is that of 
 DeaconSj answering to the Levites under the law."* But it 
 happens that Isidore, a Bishop of Seville, whom Stilling- 
 fleet quotes I as maintaining the same opinion with Jerome, 
 runs a comparison between Aaron and his sons the Priests 
 * Stillingfleet's Irenicum, part ii. chap. 6. f Ibid. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 187 
 
 under the law, and Bishops and Presbyters under the gospel. 
 " To the Apostles after their death succeeded the Bishops ; 
 who are appointed throughout the whole world to the seats 
 of the Apostles.'''' " It ought to be noted, that what Aaron 
 the High Priest was, the same was the Bishop ; his sons 
 prefigured the Presbyters."* And in that very chapter in 
 which Stillingfleet represents him as adopting Jerome's 
 opinion, he says, when speaking of the Apostle's including 
 Presbyters under the name Bishops, " The Apostle is silent 
 concerning Presbyters, because he includes them in the name 
 of Bishops ; for the second grade is united with the first. ""I" 
 
 This opinion of Isidore proves that a writer whom Bishop 
 Stillingfleet represents as advocating the sentiments of 
 Jerome, may with Jerome assert the identity of names, and 
 yet maintain that a Bishop was a superior grade of the same 
 order as a Presbyter, and possessed superior powers ; and 
 that this superiority answers to the superiority of the High 
 Priest over the Priests in the legal dispensation. Jerome 
 himself explicitly adopts the same opinion, and runs the com- 
 parison between Aaron and his sons under the law, and 
 Bishops and Presbyters under the gospel. He admonishes 
 the Presbyter Nepotiarij " Be subject to your chief Priest," 
 &c. and soon afterwards enforces it by this reason — ^" Be- 
 cause we ought to know that what Aaron and his sons are^ 
 the same is a Bishop and his Presbyters.''^ "l If it be said, 
 that in this passage Jerome means that Bishops were supe- 
 rior to Presbyters only by the custom of his day, with the 
 same propriety it may be said, that in the former case, when 
 he runs the comparison between Presbyters and Deacons, he 
 meant to assert the superiority of the former to the latter 
 only by the custom of the age ! This is a conclusion which 
 the advocates of Presbytery will not admit. 
 
 The warmest advocate of Episcopacy would not wish to 
 
 * Isidore, de offic. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. 5. f Cap. 7. 
 
 X Hieron. Epist. ad Nepotianum. 
 
188 hobart's apology 
 
 use stronger language concerning it than that which Jerome 
 uses in the following passages. 
 
 In his fifty-fourth Epistle he distinguishes between the 
 orthodox Christians and certain heretics, by saying, " With 
 us the Bishops hold the place of the Apostles^ with them the 
 Bishop is the third degree." Here such Bishops as there 
 were in Jerome's time, when confessedly they were supe- 
 rior to Presbyters, and vested with the power of ordination, 
 "held the place of the Apostles." 
 
 More explicitly still in his catalogue of ecclesiastical 
 writers, he records^ as a matter of fact, " James, immediately 
 after our Lord's ascension, having been ordained Bishop of 
 Jerusalem, undertook the charge of the church at Jerusa- 
 lem. Timothy was ordained Bishop of the Ephesians by 
 Paul, Titus of Crete. Polycarp was by John ordained 
 Bishop of Smyrna." Here then we have Bishops ordained 
 in the churches by the Apostles themselves. 
 
 It is to no purpose to say that Jerome makes these as- 
 sertions on the authority of others. He surely believed 
 these assertions were supported by sufficient historical evi- 
 dence, or he would not have made them. And he cer- 
 tainly was not inclined to give undue weight to testimonies 
 A f that favoured the cause of Bishops. Ah ! but Jerome tes- 
 
 \j^ , tifying in favour of Episcopacy, and Jerome testifying 
 against it, are two different persons ! In the former case 
 his testimon)'^ is triumphantly adduced as " a famous testi- 
 mony not to be erased by any art that sophistry possesses." 
 
 ^ P* /(jfjlnthe latter case we shall doubtless find much ingenuity ex- 
 * ^erted to prove that his testimony is " not worth a straw !" 
 We shall doubtless be told that when Jerome speaks of 
 Bishops as successors to the Apostles , and as ordained by the 
 Apostles, he does not consider them as superior officers, but 
 regards them only as Presbyters. What ! were not Bishops 
 superior to Presbyters in the time of Jerome ? Confessedly 
 so. And when he speaks of Bishops as ordained by the 
 Apostles, and as being their successors, does he intimate that 
 
 h^l 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 189 
 
 he uses the term Bishop in any other than that appropriate 
 sense in which it was applied in his day, when the Bishop 
 was confessedly an officer superior to Presbyters, and vested 
 with the power of ordination ? No such intimation is given. 
 And without such intimation we should be doing violence to 
 language and to common sense to suppose, that in these 
 cases he applied the term Bishop in any other than its appro- .JJ — 
 priate sense. The language of Jerome is conformable to the 
 language of ancient writers, particularly Eusebius, who lived 
 a short time before him, and who gives a list of Bishops as 
 they were in his day (single persons in every church vested 
 with the power of ordination) up to the Apostles themselves. 
 
 But we have Jerome's explicit testimony that by Bishops 
 being successors of the Apostles, and ordained by the Apostles, 
 he does not mean Presbyters, but such Bishops as were 
 superior to Presbyters, and vested with the exclusive power 
 of ordination. 
 
 In his commentary on the 45th Psalm, we find him as- 
 serting, " Now, because the Apostles are departed from 
 the world, thou hast instead of them Bishops, their sons. 
 They are thy fathers, because thou art governed by them." 
 He is evidently speaking of the time present, of his own 
 time (now,) when Bishops were superior to Presbyters, 
 and vested with the power of ordination. These Bishops 
 he represents as the " sons of the Apostles," as succeeding 
 to them when they left the world. 
 
 In his Epistle to Heliodorus, " of not undertaking the 
 office of a Bishop,''^ he observes, " It is not easy to stand in 
 the place of Paul, to hold the degree of Peter. "^"^ In this 
 Epistle he is undoubtedly considering the office 'of a Bishop 
 as it was in his day ; and therefore, in his judgment, the 
 Bishop of his day, an officer distinct from and superior to 
 Presbyters, and exercising the power of ordination, " stood 
 in the place of Paul, and held the grade of Peter." Of the 
 same purport is the passage which has been already adduced,* 
 * Page 187. 
 
 X- -. ,^ 
 
190 hobart's apology 
 
 in which he advises the Presbyter Nepotian, " Be subject to 
 thy chief Priest, and regard him as the parent of thy soul — 
 What Aaron and his sons were, that we should know Bishops 
 and Presbyters are." Here, without doubt, he refers to the 
 Bishops and Presbyters of his day, when these officers were 
 distinct and subordinate, and when Bishops were vested with 
 all the powers which their advocates claim for them. These 
 Bishops and Presbyters, according to Jerome, claim obedience 
 by the same authority under the gospel that Aaron and his 
 sons did under the law ! 
 
 Is it credible that Jerome would have spoken of Bishops 
 in these strong terms — such Bishops as there were in his 
 age, when the opponents of Episcopacj^ acknowledge they 
 possessed the exclusive power of ordination — is it credible 
 that he would have spoken of them as the successors of the 
 Apostles, as ordained by the Apostles, and as holding the 
 place of the Apostles, if their "supremacy" had been of 
 " human invention," if they had not been of apostolic 
 authority .? No ! As Bishop Stillingfleet, not without 
 pungency observes — " If they had come in by usurpation, he 
 would have called them the successors of Simon Magus, of 
 Diotrephes, of Caiaphas, and, according to his warm manner 
 of expression, of Lucifer himself."* 
 
 It may be said, than when Jerome maintains that James, 
 Timothy, Titus, and others were ordained Bishops by the 
 Apostles, and placed over Presbyters, he contradicts him- 
 self; because, at other times he argues from the Epistles to 
 Timothy and Titus, that Bishops and Presbyters were the 
 same. Bishops and Presbyters were, indeed, originally 
 names of the same office. But there was at the same time 
 a superior grade of church officers (in which grade were 
 Timothy and Titus,) first called Apostles, and afterwards 
 Bishops. Still we shall be told, this could not be Jerome's 
 opinion, because he asserts that the church was governed at 
 
 * Stillingfleet's sermon at an ordination at St. Paul's. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 191 
 
 first by a common council of Presbyters. We cannot ac- 
 count for this extraordinary declaration of Jerome, but from 
 the warmth, the impetuosity, and hastiness of his temper. 
 Inflamed with resentment against the Bishops and Deacons, 
 we see him at one time endeavouring to prove from the apos- 
 tolic Epistles, that there was no supremacy of Bishops to 
 Presbyters, At other times, attending only to the strong 
 evidence of historical fact, we find him asserting, that the 
 Apostles themselves ordained Bishops — such Bishops as ex- 
 isted in his own time, when their supremacy was certainly 
 acknowledged. I am no ways interested in clearing up an 
 inconsistency which destroys entirely " the famous testi- 
 mony of Jerome." No person would think of resting his 
 cause on a witness whose declarations, to say the least, are 
 dubious and perplexed, if not contradictory. 
 
 It is, however, of importance to observe, that when 
 Jerome maintains the original parity of the ministry, he does 
 not appeal to anj' record^ to any satisfactory historical evi- 
 dence, but reasons from the identity of the names of Bishop 
 and Presbyter.* The real question is, not whether these 
 names are in scripture applied to the same grade of the minis- 
 try, which is granted ; but whether there was not a superior 
 grade to them to which, after the apostolic times, the term 
 Bishop has been exclusively applied. If we discard an atten- 
 tion to " names^ which are of little real value, "| and attend 
 to '' things for which alone we should contend," it is evident 
 beyond dispute, that Timothy and Titus were vested with 
 the powers of ordination and government ; were authorized 
 to ordain and govern Presbyters (called also, as overseers of 
 the flock. Bishops ;) and of course v/ere superior to them. 
 We can thus get over the reasoning of Jerome ; we can 
 
 * Wherever he asserts the original parity of the ministry, or rather of 
 Bishops and Presbyters, he argues from the identity of names, from the 
 circumstance that in scripture the names, Bishop and Presbyter are applied 
 to the same office. 
 
 t Mr. M'Leod's Ecclesiastical Catechism. 
 
192 hobart's apology 
 
 prove the fallacy of his opinion. His statement concerning 
 the original parity of the ministry is a matter of opinion 
 founded on reasoning which may be proved fallacious. 
 
 But the opponents of Episcopacy who confide in Jerome 
 as a credible witness, cannot consistently reject his testimony. 
 And he expressly asserts, as a matter of fact ^ that " Timothy 
 was ordained Bishop of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, St. James 
 of Jerusalem, and Polycarp of Smyrna, by the Apostles ;" 
 using the term Bishop in the appropriate sense of his own age, 
 to denote a grade of ministers superior to Presbyters. It may 
 be said, that these are facts prior to the time of Jerome, of 
 which he could not have been an eye witness. So was the 
 alleged change from Presbytery to Episcopacy. The oppo- 
 nents of Episcopacy receive Jerome 's reasonings as authority 
 in favour of this change ; they surely cannot reject his testi- 
 mony^ founded on historical evidence, in the former case. But, 
 it is said, the two cases are contradictory ! If, then, two 
 statements of any witness are contradictory, and we wish to 
 preserve his consistency, we must give up that statement which 
 is a matter of opinion and reasoning^ and receive that which 
 he alleges as a matter of fact. Now, Jerome in some parts 
 of his writings asserts that there was originally a parity in 
 the ministry, and reasons in support of his assertion from the 
 identity of the names of Bishop and Presbyter. His state- 
 ment here, then, is a matter of opinion., entitled to no credit 
 with those who believe the reasoning which supports it falla- 
 cious. But when he asserts, that St. James was ordained 
 Bishop of Jerusalem, Timothy of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, 
 and Polycarp of Smyrna, by the Apostles — ^here is his testi- 
 mony to a matter of fact, founded on what must have been to 
 him satisfactory historical evidence. This testimony ought to 
 be conclusive with you, Sir, who rest on Jerome as a credible 
 witness. The common rules of evidence, therefore, will com- 
 pel you to give up Jerome's opinion^ founded on reasoning 
 which may be fallacious, and to receive his testimony to a 
 matter of fact, founded on satisfactory historical evidence, 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. l^S 
 
 that the Apostles ordained Bishops over Presbyters in the 
 churches.* 
 
 I have dwelt thus long on what you are pleased to term 
 " the famous testimony of Jerome," in order to show to what 
 a desperate expedient the advocates of Presbytery are driven 
 to support their cause. The supremacy of Bishops in the 
 fourth century is universally acknowledged. To prove this 
 supremacy an innovation, they rely on a Father who lived at 
 least two centuries after the time when, by their own con- 
 fession, it must have taken place ; while Fathers, and eccle- 
 siastical writers who preceded him, and who narrate minute 
 events and schisms in the church, are silent concerning this 
 most improbable and extraordinar}^ innovation. So far also 
 from being a credible witness, the Father on whom they rely 
 was urged, by personal motives and feelings of resentment, to 
 lower as much as possible the authority of Bishops. His de- 
 claration that their supremacy was a change in the original 
 order of the church, is unworthy of the name of testimony. 
 It is a matter of opinion^ founded on fallacious reasoning. His 
 testimony <f which is founded on historical evidence^ is decisive, 
 that Bishops, as superior to Presbyters, are successors of the 
 Apostles, who themselves ordained Bishops in the churches. 
 There is no way of rendering the statements of Jerome con- 
 sistent, but by supposing that this change, which he fancies, 
 was sanctioned by apostolic authority. If this mode of recon- 
 ciling his declarations be not admitted, still he does not in the 
 least degree favour the cause of parity. His declarations in 
 favour of the apostolic supremacy of Bishops, are at least as 
 
 * It may be said that Jerome rests principally on the historian Euse- 
 Bius, who acknowledges that it is difticult to determine the particular 
 Bishops who succeeded the Apostles. Eusebitts, however, is explicit 
 as to the fact that the supremacy of Bishops is an apostolic institution. 
 And surely if this supremacy had been an innovation or usurpation, there 
 would have been, in his day at least, some tradition of this extraordinary 
 event. The dispute as to the particular order in which some of the 
 apostolic Bishops succeeded each other, incontestibly proves the fact that 
 there were Bishops in the apostolic age. 
 
 17 
 
194 hobart's apology 
 
 numerous and decisive as those against it. On the supposi- 
 tion most unfavorable to Episcopalians, Jerome contradicts 
 himself; and thus his " famous testimony" is " not worth a 
 straw." 
 
 But had the opinion of Jerome been direct and positive, 
 had he asserted in the most explicit terms that Episcopacy 
 was "a human invention," no candid Presbyterian should 
 urge his testimony. He lived at too distant a period from the 
 apostolic age. He was biassed by personal feelings and pre- 
 judices. It is incredible that so important and extraordinary 
 a change as that from Presbytery to Episcopacy should have 
 universally taken place in the church without the most full 
 and positive testimony concerning it. It would not have been 
 left to the single testimony of a Father who wrote at the 
 close of the fourth century. 
 
 The opponents of Episcopacj' gain nothing by relying on 
 Jerome. They lose much. They admit the weakness of 
 their cause, by resting on the judgment of a Father who 
 lived so late as the fourth century, and who cannot be con- 
 sidered as a credible witness^ or an impartial reasoner. They 
 admit that long before his time (for he gives not the most 
 distant hint of its being a recent event) the supremacy of 
 Bishops over Presbyters was established. They thus con- 
 cede to Episcopacy the venerable sanction of primitive and 
 universal usage. They bring on themselves the burden of 
 proving how Episcopacy could have universally prevailed 
 within a few years of the apostolic age, if it had not been 
 sanctioned by apostolic authority. But, most mortifying 
 circumstance, they cast a blot black as midnight on their 
 darling Presbytery ; they pass the highest encomium on 
 this hated Prelacy. In relying on Jerome, they admit 
 that Episcopacy was brought in as " a remedy for schism ;" 
 they admit that Presbytery proved incompetent to pre- 
 serving the unity of the church ; that so lamentable were 
 its defects and inconveniences, that the primitive Christians 
 were obliged to throw it off, and to seek repose for their dis- 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 195 
 
 tracted church, so long tossed on the tempestuous billows of 
 Presbytery, in the peaceful haven of Episcopacy, r Yes — ■ 
 as Dr. Maurice shrewdly and keenly remarks,* " If the 
 Presbyterian parity had any place in the primitive times, 
 as some do imagine, it must needs have been an intolerable 
 kind of government J since all on a sudden it was universally 
 abolished. It must have given strange occasion of offence 
 when all the Christian churches in the world should conspire 
 to abrogate this polity, and to destroy all the memory and foot- 
 steps of it.''"' 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 So palpable is the evidence that the primitive church 
 was Episcopal, that some of the opponents of Episcopacy in 
 modern times have had recourse to a singular hypothesis to 
 overthrow it. The hypothesis to which I allude is that of 
 Congregational Episcopacy. The advocates of this plan allow 
 that there were Bishops in the primitive church, but main- 
 tain that they were only Bishops of a single congregation. 
 They allow that St. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, that 
 Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, that Cyprian was Bishop 
 of Carthage. But they maintain that in those cities, and in 
 all others in which a Bishop was placed for the three first 
 centuries, there was only one congregation ! This scheme 
 carries on its face its refutation ! It is incredible that, at a 
 period when Christianity had spread itself throughout the 
 world, the most large and populous cities should not have 
 contained more Christians than could assemble in one place 
 for worship. In the Apostles' times, the church of Jerusalem 
 consisted at first of " an hundred and twenty .'*'*]' To these were 
 
 * Vindication of the Government of the Primitive Cliurch, in answer 
 to Baxter, p. 363, 369. 
 t Acts i. 15. 
 
196 hobart's apology 
 
 added " about three thousand souls^^^* and afterwards " men 
 to the number oi Jive thousand. ''^^^ " Still the word of God 
 increased, and the number of disciples multiplied greatl}^ in 
 Jerusalem, "J until at length the Elders addressed Paul, 
 "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands (myriads) of 
 Jews there are which believe. "§ It is impossible that these 
 could have assembled in one place for worship. At this pe- 
 riod too Christians held their public service in private. The 
 number of congregations must therefore have been very 
 great. In each of these congregations there must have been 
 a minister to conduct its worship. Here then was a church? 
 over which St. James evidently presided, consisting of seve- 
 ral congregations and ministers. 
 
 In like manner, at Antioch, we are told that a " great 
 number believed and turned unto the Lord ;" || " much peo- 
 ple were added unto the Lord." IT It is incredible that in 
 this large and populous city, the greatest city in the East, 
 where the converts to the Gospel increased so much, that 
 they were there first emboldened to throw off the reproach- 
 ful names with which their adversaries had designated them, 
 and to assume the name of Christians — it is incredible that 
 in this city the number of Christians should not have amount- 
 ed to more than could assemble in one place for worship ! 
 And yet considerable ingenuit}^ has been exercised to prove, 
 by affixing a literal meaning to some expressions in the 
 Epistles of Ignatius, which ought to be understood figura- 
 tively, that Ignatius, who was the Bishop of this city, was 
 only the Pastor of one congregation ! 
 
 It is still more incredible that for three centuries the gos- 
 pel should have made so little progress, that in the city of 
 Carthage and its vicinity there should be but one congrega- 
 tion of Christians. And yet the advocates of Congregational 
 Episcopacy have contended that the venerable Cyprian, the 
 
 * Acts ii. 41. t Acts iv. 4. | Acts vi. 7. § Acts xxi. 20. 
 II Acta xi. 21. 11 Acts xi. 24. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 197 
 
 Bishop of Carthage in the third century, was only the Pastor 
 of a single congregation ! 
 
 To spend time in exposing these monstrous suppositions, 
 which carry with them their own refutation, would be use- 
 less. To this form of government, indeed, neither the Pres- 
 byterian nor Congregational form in the present day bears 
 resemblance. A Presbyterian and Congregational Bishop is 
 the only Pastor in the congregation who has the ministry of 
 the word and sacraments ; whereas a primitive Bishop, who 
 some opponents of Episcopacy contend was only the Pastor 
 of one congregation, had several Presbyters under him, who 
 were vested with all the ministerial powers ! What need 
 could Cyprian have had of several Presbyters ? What need 
 could Cornelius, his cotemporary Bishop of Rome, have 
 had of forty-six Presb3'ters and several Deacons, if he were 
 the Pastor of only a single congregation ? 
 
 This scheme of Congregational Episcopacy, the invention 
 of Cartwright, Clarkson, and Baxter, in the seventeenth 
 century, is as hostile to Presbytery as it is to Diocesan Epis- 
 copacy. It makes every Pastor and his congregation an 
 independent church, subject to no higher church authority. 
 It is, therefore, not only calculated to generate and to nou- 
 rish heresy and schism, but it flies in the face of scripture 
 testimony ; according to which the churches were governed 
 by a council of "Apostles and Elders."* It is therefore 
 opposed with as much zeal by genuine Presbyterians as by 
 Episcopalians. It was opposed by the Westminster Assem- 
 bly of Divines when it was first started, and has ever since 
 been opposed by the advocates of Presbytery. Mr. M^Leod, 
 in his Ecclesiastical Catechism, disclaims it. He conclu- 
 sively proves that the term Church is applied not only to a 
 single Pastor and his congregation, but to a number of Pas- 
 tors and their con2:reo;ations united too-ether in a common 
 church judicatory ; and that this church, in the large cities 
 
 * Acts XV. 6. 
 17* 
 
198 hobart's apology 
 
 of Jerusalem, Ephesus, &c. consisted of Pastors and congre- 
 gations thus united. With him indeed the bond of union is 
 a Presbytery ; but with Churchmen, a superior officer, call- 
 ed after the apostolic age by the appropriate title of Bishop. 
 Such superior officers they contend were St. James at Jeru- 
 salem^ and Timothy and Titus at Ephesus and Crete. 
 
 That the dioceses or seats of jurisdiction of the Bishops in 
 the primitive church embraced several Presbyters and their 
 congregations, has been incontestibl}^ proved by Dr. Mau- 
 rice, in his treatises on Diocesan Episcopacy against Clark- 
 son and Baxter, and by the learned Bingham, in his Ecclesi- 
 astical Antiquities. The former particularly gives an account 
 of the seats of jurisdiction of the Bishops during the first 
 three centuries, and proves from their geographical extent, 
 their population and other circumstances, that they included 
 several congregations with Presbyters over them. 
 
 Grant to the Episcopalian that the supremacy of Bishops 
 prevailed throughout the primitive church in the third or 
 beginning of the fourth century, and he contends that this is 
 sufficient evidence of its being an apostolic institution : and 
 for this obvious reason ; the Apostles certainly constituted a 
 ministry in the church. This supremacy of Bishops there- 
 fore must have been either of apostolic institution, or it must 
 have been an innovation or usurpation. If it had been an 
 innovation or usurpation on apostolic order, it could not have 
 received universal sanction at a period so near the apostolic 
 age, without opposition.^ and without the most explicit and 
 marked record of so extraordinary a change or usurpation. 
 But no such record appears ; no tradition even of any such 
 event is mentioned in any of the writers of the three first 
 centuries. No such change or usurpation, therefore, could 
 have taken place in the constitution of the primitive church. 
 The supremacy of Bishops, therefore, which universally pre- 
 vailed in the third or beginning of the fourth century, could 
 not have been an innovation or usurpation. It must, there- 
 fore, have been an apostolic institution. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 199 
 
 This reasoning is irrefragable. It is worthy of further 
 developement and consideration. 
 
 The concessions of Blondel, Ci-iamier, Bochart, and 
 other Presbyterian writers, would authorize me in assuming 
 the second century as the era of the universal prevalence of 
 the supremac}^ of Bishops in the church. But let the age of 
 Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in the third century, be 
 assumed as the era when Episcopacy universally prevailed in 
 the church. There is, indeed, irrefragable proof of the dis- 
 tinction and subordination of the three grades of the ministry, 
 and of the supremacy of Bishops, with the power of ordina- 
 tion, in the time of Cyprian. In the church of Carthage, of 
 which Cyprian was Bishop, he enumerates at least eight 
 Presbyters. It has been already stated, that Cornelius, the 
 Bishop of Rome, who was cotemporary with Cyprian, had 
 under him forty-six Presbyters, and seven Deacons. The 
 Bishop in the age of Cyprian, was advanced from the degree 
 of Presbyter by a neio ordination* Blondel and Salma- 
 
 * The following proof of this fact is taken from Dr. Bow^^n's first let- 
 ter to Dr. Stiles : " St. Cyprian was first a Presbyter, and then or- 
 dained Bishop of Carthage, according to his Deacon Pontius, Eusebius, 
 and St. JEROME.f Thus, St. Cyprian tells us, that « Cornelius had 
 advanced gradually through all the inferior stations before he was a 
 Bishop ; and when he was promoted to the See of Rome, sixteen Bishops 
 attended his ordination. Ep. Iv. p. 103-112. '" " Nay, the necessity of a 
 new ordination for raising one to the Episcopal dignity was so notorious, 
 that the schismatics themselves believed it indispensable, as appears from 
 the story of Novatian, who was a Presbyter. When he contended with 
 Cornelius for the See of Rome, he got three simple country Bishops to 
 come to the city, and having intoxicated them, forced them to give him 
 the Episcopal mission by an imaginary and vain imposition of hands. 
 (Euseb. 1. 6. c. 43.) Thus also Fortunatus, one of the five Presbyters 
 who joined with the schismatical Felicissimus, and who set himself up 
 as an anti-Bishop at Carthage, was ordained by five false Bishops. (Ep. 
 lix. p. 113.) 
 
 " Now, if a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time was no more than a Presby- 
 ter, what need was there of so much work about him .'' Why, for exam-i 
 pie, convene all the Bishops of the province for the ordination of a Pres- 
 t " Pontius in vita Cyp. — Euseb. Chron. — Hierome Catal." 
 
200 hobart's apology 
 
 sius, two of the most distinguished opponents of Episcopa- 
 cy, acknowledge, that in the " time of Cyprian (and long 
 before it, ever since the distinction was made between 
 Bishops and Presb3^ters,) Bishops and Presbyters were pro- 
 moted by distinct ordinations^ and made distinct colleges. ^^ * It 
 is, however, conceded on all hands, that the supremacy of 
 Bishops universally prevailed in the church in the time of 
 EusEBius and Jerome, who lived in the next century after 
 Cyprian. Had it not also prevailed in the time of Cyprian, 
 we should find in them some record of the fact. 
 
 Take then the third century as the period when Episco- 
 pacy universally prevailed in the church. Its establishment 
 must have been by apostolic institution^ or by innovation and 
 
 byterin Carthage, where there were eight Presbyters at least to have per- 
 formed the business? Why was there a convention of sixteen Bishops to 
 ordain the Presbyter Cornelius Bishop of Rome, when there were forty- 
 six Presbyters in that city .' Further, Were not Cornelius and Nova- 
 TiANUs Presbyters of Rome before Wie former was the true, and the lat- 
 ter the false Bishop of that city? If so, what need of a new election, 
 and a new ordination of Presbyters of a church of which they were Pres- 
 byters already ? How superlatively ridiculous must it have been, to have 
 seen two eminent men, already Presbyters of Rome, making so much 
 work about being made Presbyters of Rome ? And all the clergy and the 
 people of Rome, nay, sooner or later all the Christian world, engaged in 
 the quarrel ? What had this been but the very quintessence of folly and 
 nonsense ?" 
 
 * Bishop Sage, in proof of the above, quotes, in his Vindication of 
 the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, the following passages from Blon- 
 DEL and Salmasius : " Formam a precedente (n. forma, qua promove 
 bantur Episcopi) aliam, analogia eadem semper manente (ex quo dis- 
 tinctis cleri gradibus, diversa Episcoporum et Presbyterorum collegia 
 instituere per ecclesiam visum est) inducere necesse fuit." ApoL p. 162. 
 
 " Ubi distingui ordines et gradus caepti sunt, atque Episcopus major 
 extitit Presbytero, tum ordinatio non potuit esse utriusque communis : 
 Ut enim major ordinat minorem, superior inferiorem, ita e contra- 
 rio, minor ordinare majorem non potest, neque inferior superiorem: 
 Inde igitur postquam minor Episcopo factus est Presbyter, ex ordinum 
 discretione, non potuit minor ordinare majorem, hoc est, Presbyter Epis- 
 copum. Sic Episcopo ordinatio propria facta est, et ad Presbyterum 
 desiit pertinere, quia Presbyter destitit esse Episcopus." Wal. Mess, p- 
 288, 299. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 201 
 
 usurpation. The opponents of Episcopacy assert that Epis- 
 copacy is an innovation or usurpation which took place at 
 some period within the three first centuries. This innovation 
 or usurpation is incredible., for the following reasons. 
 
 The piety of the primitive church forbids the supposition. 
 The Fathers of the three first centuries, whatever were their 
 talents or their learning, were good men. They glorified 
 their Saviour in the midst of flames and tortures ; they laid 
 down their life for the testimony of Jesus. Would these holy 
 martyrs have permitted the ministry instituted by their 
 Lord and his blessed Apostles to be fundamentally altered } 
 Would they have basely violated the institutions of their 
 Saviour } 
 
 There would have been no possible motive to this usur- 
 pation. 
 
 Allowing that the primitive Fathers were bad men ; men 
 swayed solely by inordinate ambition and lust of power. In 
 the primitive church there was no food for these passions. 
 During the first ages persecution stretched his bloody sceptre 
 over the church. Christians served their Saviour with their 
 tears and with their blood. The stations of authority aflforded 
 no attractions of wealth or honour. They were the sure paths 
 to the dungeon, to the rack and to the stake. Those who 
 filled them were marked as the first and most worthy objects 
 of the rage of those tyrants who hoped to drown the church 
 in the blood of her children. It would be the height of folly 
 to suppose, that under such circumstances an}^ Presbyters, 
 however inordinate their ambition, w^ould seek distinction on 
 the rack and at the stake, would usurp stations where relent- 
 less persecution would inevitably assail them. 
 
 There were insuperable difficulties to the eflfecting of this 
 alleged innovation or usurpation. 
 
 Admitting that there were Presbyters in the primitive 
 church wicked enough to form a plan of usurpation, and/oo/- 
 ish enough thus to court dangers and death, how was the 
 usurpation to be effected } By intrigue } Intrigue requires 
 
202 hobart's apology 
 
 concert in planning, and length of time for operation. But this 
 usurpation must have been universally effected at a time when 
 Christianity had extended itself throughout the world. And 
 could that concert^ which is necessary to devising and suc- 
 cessfully prosecuting any plan of difficult intrigue, have 
 taken place among Presbyters scattered through distant re- 
 gions, at a period too when there were no general councils 
 which collected together the deputies of the churches } Was 
 there time for devising and executing a plan of intrigue which 
 subverted the apostolic ministry within a short period after 
 the apostolic age ? 
 
 Could the usurpation have been effected by violence^ or by 
 the force of authority ? But the usurping Presbyters had 
 neither the wealth nor the power of the world to aid them in 
 their ambitious projects ; nor were there any general coun- 
 cils to enforce this usurpation by an authoritative decree. 
 Without any adequate means, these usurpers were to contend 
 against the institutions of Christ and his Apostles, against a 
 ministry endeared to the hearts of Christians as the divinely 
 commissioned servants of their Master. Yes — whether in- 
 trigue or authoritij were the weapons of usurpation, these 
 usurping Presbyters had to contend against the attachment 
 of the great body of Christians to the form of a ministry bear- 
 ing the sacred seal of apostolic authority. Say you the pri- 
 mitive Christians were careless about violating apostolic 
 institutions ! What ! did not a difference of opinion concern- 
 ing the apostolic tradition of the time of observing Easter 
 throw them into the most serious disputes and schisms .'* 
 Must they not have cherished with infinitely greater reve- 
 rence that ministry which, instituted by the Apostles, had 
 embodied itself with their religion, with every service and 
 solemnity of the church, with their dearest hopes ? These 
 usurping Presbyters also had to contend against the love of 
 power in their fellow Presbyters ; against that sacred at- 
 tachment to the authority which they possessed, founded on 
 the conviction that it was a deposit intrusted to them by 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 203 
 
 their divine Master. Would not an usurpation effected un- 
 der such circumstances, not in one particular province but 
 throughout all nations, not advancing gradually in strength 
 and extent through the lapse of several centuries, but rising 
 into full maturity, and stretching its iniquitous sceptre over 
 the whole world in less than two centuries after the apostolic 
 age — would not such an usurpation be without a parallel, 
 contrary to common sense, to every principle of human na- 
 ture, to the voice of universal experience ? 
 
 Nor could this change in the government of the church 
 have been effected hj general consent. 
 
 The supposition of the opponents of Episcopacy is, that the 
 Apostles left the church, under Presbyterian government, 
 subject to common councils of Presbyters, without any higher 
 order. Is it credible then that a government instituted by 
 the inspired Apostles should, in a short time, prove so defect- 
 ive or intolerable as to compel both Presbyters and Laity 
 throughout the Christian world to change this government ? 
 What is the alleged reason of this change ? The divisions 
 among Christians — the people saying, I am of Paul, I of 
 Apollos, and I of Cephas, and every Presbyter ranking as his 
 own disciples those whom he had baptized. Is it credible 
 that the people and the Presbyters should imiversally consent 
 to correct their own inflamed party zeal, and curb their own 
 inordinate ambition } Is it credible '' that the Presbyters, 
 while they were thus fond of raising their own names, met 
 together in order to remedy this which they themselves were 
 fond of, and did unanimously agree upon a method to remedy 
 it ?" Is it credible " that the laity, while they were thus 
 addicted to particular Presbyters, did quietly, and without 
 any opposition acquiesce in what was prescribed for the 
 remedj^ng of an evil which they did not desire should be 
 remedied ? A matter too absurd, one would think, to be 
 believed by any who know any thing about human na- 
 ture."* 
 
 * Bishop HOADLEY. 
 
204 hobart's apology 
 
 Some of the virtuous Presbyters may indeed have formed 
 a plan for checking this ambitious and disorganizing spirit ; 
 and some of the most considerate among the laity may have 
 been disposed to acquiesce in it. But how could this plan 
 have been carried into effect universally ^ in distant and remote 
 parts of the world ? No general council having met, there 
 could not have been any general concert in devising an uni- 
 form system, nor any general authority to enforce what must 
 have been a most unpopular change. Is it credible that the 
 ambitious Presbyters, and schismatic laity who must have 
 been the multitude^ inflamed as they must have been by pride 
 and party zeal, would universally and peaceably acquiesce 
 in measures to curb their power and abridge their liberties, 
 would consent to exalt into a superior station a prime Pres- 
 byter, or Bishop, who, trampling on the equal rights of Pres- 
 byters, would appear on his unhallowed throne as a tjTant 
 and usurper i What reasons, what persuasions, nay, what 
 violence could reach over remote and distant nations, and 
 silence the voice and the arm of Presbyters and people ex- 
 erted in the defence of their power and privileges, exerted 
 in defence of rights secured to them by apostolical institu- 
 tion } What voice mighty enough to say to the tempest of 
 religious phrensy roused in defence of popular right sanc- 
 tioned by apostolic authority — Peace, be still ! Instances 
 indeed there have been of the people, in some one nation 
 long tossed on the billows of anarchy, at length quietly sink- 
 ing into the calm of despotism. But here was an instance 
 of a revolution peaceably acquiesced in throughout the 
 world, by those whose ambition, whose pride, whose just 
 rights it subverted — a revolution so complete and universal 
 as to leave not a vestige of the apostolic institutions, the 
 overthrow of which it had accomplished ! Impossible — that 
 Presbyters and people would part with rights and institutions 
 bearing the seal of apostolic authority, and consecrated by 
 the blood of martyrs ! " Never was any matter of fact 
 parallel to this known in history ; unless it be that there are 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 205 
 
 many persons of later ages who can greedil}'^ believe such an 
 improbable conjecture as certain truth, without one competent 
 express testimony to support it. Let us put any of these 
 persons themselves into the place of the primitive Presbyters^ 
 governing the churches by their common councils ; knowing 
 that they were left in this office, and directed how to perform 
 it by the Apostles themselves ; affecting to have disciples 
 called by their own names — and we may make themselves 
 judges whether they would voluntarily and professedly have 
 met together with a design of remedying their own vanity ; 
 whether they would have done this by divesting themselves 
 of the exercise of powers to which th^y had been called by 
 the Apostles themselves. Nay, whether if they had been 
 outvoted in this matter, they would have silently yielded 
 without so much as alleging for themselves the just plea 
 which they would have had against this alteration," that it 
 was a violation of apostolic institutions. " That this great 
 alteration should be contrived and effected, and universally 
 submitted to, by the very persons whose designs and 
 humours and vain affectation it was ordained to remedy, and 
 put a stop to, is the strangest and most unaccountable thing 
 imaginable."* 
 
 But the advocates of Episcopacy will concede all that can 
 be required of them. They will concede that such a change 
 was practicable ; that it could have been effected by general 
 consent, or by gradual usurpation. 
 
 Still it is incredible that this change or usurpation in the 
 government and ministry of the church was actually effected, 
 because there is no explicit and satisfactory record or account 
 of it. 
 
 Whether effected by violence, by gradual usurpation, or 
 by general consent, it would have been a fundamental 
 change — a change that would have entirely altered the fea- 
 tures of the church. It would have constituted a new and 
 marked era in her history. We would surely expect to find 
 * Bishop Hoadley's Defence of Episcopal Ordination. 
 18 
 
206 hobart's apology 
 
 in cotemporary writers some notices of an event, one of 
 the most extraordinary that could have occurred. But we 
 search the ecclesiastical writers of the tliree first centuries. 
 Not even any faint traces of this change or usurpation is to 
 be found in them. The venerable Ignatius, the disciple of 
 the Apostle St. John ; Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp, 
 the cotemporary of Ignatius ; Clemens of Alexandria ; and 
 the celebrated Tertullian, all of whom flourished in the 
 second century, afford us no light in tracing this change or 
 usurpation, in ascertaining either its gradual advances or the 
 bold and sudden assault by which it subverted apostolic 
 order, and mounted to universal dominion. Equally silent 
 as to this most momentous occurrence are Origen and 
 Cyprian, Fathers of the third century. But perhaps Euse- 
 Bius, the historian of the fourth century, affords irrefragable 
 evidence of it. Alas ! Eusebius, to whom, even if every 
 record of preceding times had been swept away, tradition 
 would have handed down some account of this memorable 
 innovation on apostolic order, is silent concerning it. He 
 gives not the most distant hint that the supremacy of Bishops, 
 which was universal in his day, had any other origin than 
 apostolic institution. The " famous testimony of Jerome " 
 is the *' forlorn hope " of those who impeach Episcopacy as 
 an innovation. And lo ! when we open Jerome, we find his 
 " famous testimony" is a matter of opinion^ and that in many 
 passages he expressly records the apostolic institution of the 
 supremacy of Bishops. But were the testimony of Jerome 
 clear as " the sun shining in his strength," it would not be 
 worthy of a moment's credit, standing as it does single, and 
 unsupported even by any faint hint of those writers who 
 lived nearer to the period of this alleged change, and some 
 of whom must have been cotemporary with it. 
 
 Suppose, sir, that the whole Christian world were now 
 bending under the gentle sway of Presbytery — that the con- 
 viction was universal, that this " is the true and only govern- 
 ment which God has prescribed in his word." By what in- 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 207 
 
 trigue, by what violence, by what magic could Presbyterians 
 throughout the world be induced or compelled to exchange 
 their divinely constituted government for the yoke of an usur- 
 ping Prelacy ? By what intrigue, by what violence, by what 
 magic could the Moderators of Presbyteries wrest from these 
 Presbyteries the power of ordination, and persuade Presby- 
 terians throughout the world to admit, as valid. Episcopal 
 ordination only ? Still greater would be the prodigy that 
 this unparalleled revolution should be effected, and yet find 
 no place in the pages of cotemporary writers ! Say not that 
 we know little of the primitive ages of the church ; that but 
 few of the writings of those ages have survived the ravages 
 of time. We do know all the leading events of the primitive 
 church ; we possess many of the writings of her early Fathers. 
 They narrate comparatively trifling changes and schisms. 
 Would they have been silent concerning one, compared with 
 which all others are but as the petty contentions of an obscure 
 village to a revolution that shakes empires, and changes the 
 destiny of the world ?* 
 
 No, sir, the rise of the monster Prelacy would have been 
 narrowly watched and minutely traced. Envy, jealousy, 
 pride, and the love of power would have conspired to check 
 
 * I am aware that it may be said, that the art of printing having faci- 
 litated the means of communication, Christians could in modern times 
 be more speedily and effectually roused to oppose innovation; and the 
 records of any extraordinary event would be greatly multiplied. But, on 
 the contrary, printing being unknown in the primitive age, any change 
 in apostolic order which took place in one part of the Christian world 
 would be less likely to be speedily known or adopted in other parts dis- 
 tant and remote. There is, therefore, from this circumstance, more dif- 
 ficulty in accounting for the uniformity in this change, and for the sud- 
 denness of its accomplishment through every part of the Christian 
 church. But the fact is, many of the writings of the primitive Fathers 
 are still extant ; and surely there could have been no event which they 
 would have been more likely to record than a change in apostolic order, 
 which, whether gradual or sudden, whether effected by general consent 
 or usurpation, must have impressed them most forcibly, and in some way 
 or other, insinuated itself into their writings. 
 
208 hobart's apology 
 
 his usurpations, and to proclaim them to the world. Piety 
 would have raised a rampart to his unhallowed designs not 
 easily to be surmounted. The period, however, when, ar- 
 rived to full stature, he crushed under his giant arm apostolic 
 Presbytery, would have been marked by every ecclesiastical 
 writer as the most memorable era in the annals of the 
 church. 
 
 Say not that Popery affords a parallel to this alleged usur- 
 pation of Episcopacy. The advances of the " man of sin" 
 are scarcely discernible in the three first centuries. The 
 papal pretensions were not established until long after this 
 period. Secular wealth and power were the ladders by 
 which he mounted to pre-eminence. His pretensions were 
 promoted and enforced by general councils. His usurpa- 
 tions can be traced in the faithful page of history. The oppo- 
 sition to his unfounded pretensions is recorded. And it was 
 only in the Western Church that his claims to supreme pre- 
 rogative were respected. The numerous and extensive 
 Eastern or Greek Church always spurned his authority. 
 
 But by the confession of its opponents. Episcopacy was 
 universally established at the commencement of the fourth 
 century. If the supremacy of Bishops were an innovation 
 or usurpation, it must have been effected without the aid of 
 secular wealth or power, without the authoritative influence 
 of general councils. Episcopacy must have subverted Pres- 
 bj^tery throughout the world, at a time when not more than 
 two generations had passed away since the apostolic age ; 
 when some persons must have been living whose forefathers, 
 at not more than two or three removes, must have witnessed 
 the apostolic institution of Presbytery ! What renders the 
 diflference between the encroachments of Popery and the 
 alleged usurpations of Episcopacy more striking, the former 
 are distinctly traced by cotemporary writers in every period 
 of their gradual progress ; and the pen of history has record- 
 ed the opposition made to them, and the struggles by which 
 they finally triumphed. But of the innovations or usurpa- 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 209 
 
 tions of Episcopacy, cotemporary writers are silent. Even 
 its adversaries are compelled to fix the period of its full 
 growth in the third, or commencement of the fourth century ; 
 and preceding or cotemporary writers afford no light as to its 
 progress, as to the opposition which it must have encoun- 
 tered, or the means by which it marched to universal domi- 
 nion. Striking also is the difference in another respect. 
 While the supremacy of the Pope, triumphing over opposi- 
 tion by intrigue, by secular influence, by authoritative de- 
 crees of councils, has been uniformly rejected by the exten- 
 sive Eastern of Greek Church, Episcopacy^ in three centu- 
 ries after the Apostles, found its apostolic institution univer- 
 sally acknowledged. The heretics in their contests with the 
 orthodox, never thought of returning to this supposed apos 
 tolic Presbytery, but deemed it essential to obtain Bishops. 
 In the unhappy contests that often attended the election of 
 Bishops, no one ever impeached their apostolic supremacy, 
 or suggested, as a remedy for the convulsions which their 
 election occasioned, that primitive Presbytery from which it 
 is supposed Christians had departed. Not one church was 
 to be found which preserved it. Scattered as Christians 
 were through distant regions, they all bowed to the sway of 
 Episcopacy. And an ambitious and disappointed Presbyter,* 
 who, about two hundred years after the times of the Apos- 
 tles by whom it is supposed Presbyterian regimen was insti- 
 tuted, presumed to deny the apostolic supremacy of Bishops, 
 was branded as a madman ! ! 
 
 This then, sir, is a fact which, of itself, demonstrates the 
 apostolic institution of Episcopacy. According to the unani- 
 mous concession of its opponents, it universally prevailed at 
 the commencement of the fourth century."!* It must either 
 have originated in the institution of the Apostles who were 
 
 * Aerius, who, like his predecessor Arius, denied the divinity of 
 Christ. 
 
 t This is the latest period. Many of the most learned Presbyterians 
 acknowledge that Episcopacy prevailed in the second century. 
 
 18* 
 
210 hobart's apology 
 
 divinely commissioned to constitute the church, or it must 
 have been an innovution or usurpation. When, how was 
 this most extraordinary change in the apostolic constitution 
 of the church effected ? What were the wonderful causes 
 that could lead Presbyters and people, throughout the Chris- 
 tian world, to renounce rights and prerogatives vested in 
 them by the Apostles, and to submit to the supremacy of 
 Bishops ? What were the means b}^ which a few ambitious 
 Presbyters in different and distant regions, in an age when 
 they commanded neither wealth, honour, nor power ; when, 
 persecuted by the secular arm, they lived only in the affec- 
 tions of the people — what were the means by which they 
 usurped supreme prerogative and crushed opposition ? How 
 could this usurpation, even if effected in one province, have 
 extended -itself throughout the world, at a period when the 
 secular power would not have enforced it, when there was 
 no general council to establish it ? Above all, where is the 
 explicit and irrefragable record in cotemporary writers of a 
 change, which, if effected by general consent, must have giv- 
 en new features to the visible church, and constituted one of 
 its most memorable eras ? Where the record of a change, 
 which, if effected by usurpation, must have rallied clergy 
 and people around their just rights, consecrated by apostolic 
 authority, and called forth at least from some one degraded 
 Presbyter a solemn protest, which, sounding loud and deep, 
 would have been heard through distant climes to distant 
 ages ? Where the " voice of warning," which, even in 
 this degenerate day, poured forth the alarm in Zion when 
 danger only remotely threatened her sacred cause ? Alas ! 
 the inhabitants of Zion lay locked in deadly slumber. The 
 sentinels on her sacred ramparts were sleeping at their posts. 
 The enemy came. No blast from the gospel trumpet swept 
 over Zion to rouse her members to defend her apostolic 
 order. Presbytery, her revered pride and glory, vanished 
 as " the baseless fabric of a vision." A corrupt "Prelacy" 
 raised its hideous form. Christians throughout the world, 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 211 
 
 who, but a century or two before, had received Presbytery 
 as a sacred deposit from Christ and his Apostles, as if touch- 
 ed by the wand of enchantment, fell down and worshipped 
 the image which the pride and ambition of usurping prelates 
 had set up ! And, more astonishing prodigy still ! the pen 
 of history was palsied, and left to future ages no traces of 
 this memorable event! The man who believes that this 
 astonishing change in apostolic order could have been uni- 
 versally effected within a short period of the apostolic age, 
 without being fully and deeply recorded in the writings of 
 that period which are now extant, is, I think, prepared to 
 say, that all the Presbyteries now in the world may "lie 
 down and sleep, and wake up" under the government 
 of Bishops, and no record appear of the astonishing phe- 
 nomenon ! 
 
 LETTER XIV. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Common sense, then, indignantly rejects the supposi- 
 tion that Episcopacy is an innovation or usurpation ; it must 
 have been an apostolic institution. 
 
 Episcopacy being thus supported by scripture and anti- 
 quity, every Christian is bound to submit to it as the institu- 
 tion of that divine and supreme Lawgiver who vested the 
 Apostles with authority to institute a ministry to be continued 
 by succession to the end of the world. Duty, gratitude, in- 
 terest, all forbid the believer to violate any of the institutions 
 of his blessed Lord and Master. The most solemn oWiga- 
 tions, the most powerful motives, urge him to avoid that 
 " gainsaying of Corah," that rejection of the authorized minis- 
 try of the church, in which crime the Apostle* represents 
 some Christians as " perishing." This crime the believer 
 * Jude, 
 
212 
 
 HOBART S APOLOGY 
 
 with certainty avoids while he communes with that ministry 
 which even its opponents concede is valid ; and which sub- 
 sists in a church freed from papal usurpations, in which it is 
 possible to be " valiant for the truth," and to " exemplify 
 all the loveliness of the Christian character." In commu- 
 nion with this ministry he avoids all those perplexing doubts 
 and apprehensions concerning the validity of those ministra- 
 tions by which the blessings of the covenant are to be sealed 
 to him, which no prudent man would choose to encounter, 
 when it is in his power to avoid them. True believers, when 
 their rejection of the authorized ministry is " unavoidable or 
 involuntary," when they thus sin only through " ignorance 
 or infirmity," will be accepted " in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus," " who bought them with his blood." But as their 
 obedience would be greater, may we not conclude their re- 
 wards in heaven, through the merits of their Saviour, will 
 also be greater, when they receive the " seals of the cove- 
 nant" from those who are "lawfully called" to administer 
 them ?* 
 
 The guilt of schism and the duty of Christian unity are 
 enforced in the strongest terms by our blessed Saviour and 
 his Apostles. It was the prayer of our blessed Lord, that 
 his church might be one-I There is but " one body," of 
 which he is the "head." The Apostle Paul, by the most 
 striking similitudes ,'1 by the most affectionate exhortations ^^ 
 by the most impressive warnings^\\ inculcates and urges 
 the duty of preserving the unity of the church, and of 
 avoiding the guilt of schism. The unity of the church can 
 be preserved, and the guilt of schism avoided, onty hy con- 
 tinuing in the " Apostles' fellowship, "IT by communing with 
 that ministry who derive their power by regular transmission 
 from the Apostles. Such a ministry (even its adversaries 
 
 * See pages 65, 66. f John xvii. 11. 
 
 t 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, 27. Eph. iv. 3-6. 
 
 § 1 Cor. i. 10. Phil. ii. 1, 2. Rom. xv. 6. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. 
 
 II 1 Cor. iii. 3, 4. Gal. v. 19, 20, 21. IT Acts ii. 42. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 213 
 
 being judges) is the Episcopal ministry. It is at least a 
 disputed pointy whether the claims of any other ministry be 
 equally good. By communing then with the Episcopal 
 ministry, the believer certainly avoids that schism so solemnly 
 denounced, and maintains that unit]) so solemnly enjoined, by 
 Christ and his Apostles. He certainly avoids those divisions 
 which often bring in " heresy " and " every evil work ;" 
 which tend to alienate from each other the followers of the 
 same adorable Lord ; w hich furnish the enemies of the gospel 
 and of the Protestant faith with their most plausible and 
 popular arguments ; and which exhibit the spiritual Zion as 
 rent and divided, the scorn of her enemies, instead of being 
 ONE like her divine Head, at unity in herself and the joy of 
 the whole earth.* 
 
 The churchman is satisfied even from the concessions of 
 his adversaries, that he enjoys a valid ministry and ordi- 
 nances, that he maintains Christian unity, and avoids the 
 sin of schism. The doctrines of his church, as contained 
 in the articles and liturgy, even by the confessions of its 
 opponents, are as evangelical as its ministry is apostolic. It 
 is the obvious dictate of prudence to adhere inflexibly to a 
 church which he is assured will be to him a " nursery for 
 the church in heaven," provided he be *' diligent in making 
 his calling and election sure," in '' adorning the doctrine of 
 God his Saviour in all things." 
 
 Where, sir, is the proof of your boast,"!" that the " visible 
 unity of the church" is preserved by Presbyterian regimen, 
 by " perfect equality of rank among her ministers .'" Is this 
 proof to be found in the almost infinite number of sects 
 
 * The above argument would not be good in the mouth of an advo- 
 cate of Popery, because the Papal Church prescribes sinful terms of com- 
 munion* 
 
 t Christian's Magazine, Introduction, p. 12, 13. 
 
 * Besides Popery itself is a departure from the commanded unity of 
 the apostolic church ; and embodies in its corrupt system, as history 
 shows, the most prolific elements of schism — Ed. 
 
214 hobart's apology 
 
 which sprung from Presbytery in the time of Oliver Crom- 
 well ?* Or does this proof exist in the state of the Pres- 
 byterian churches in Scotland or in this country ? In Scotland 
 the Seceders are a numerous body, who separated from the 
 parent churchy charging her with being a corrupt church. We 
 find there that Presbyterian government did not preserve the 
 visible unity of the church. Was unity preserved among 
 these Seceders, who carried with them Presbyterian govern- 
 ment, " perfect equahty of rank among ministers r" In the 
 space of a few years after the Secession they spUt into the 
 two sects of Burghers and Anti-Burghers; the former so 
 called from their submitting to what is called the Burgher 
 oathj which the latter refuses to take, as inconsistent with the 
 principles of the Secession. Here then are three distinct 
 Presbyterian churches, who formally excommunicated one 
 another, and disclaim all church fellowship ! Admirable 
 specimen of the efficacy of Presbyterian government in pre- 
 serving the visible unity of the church ! But this is not all. 
 In Scotland there is a fourth Presbyterian Church, called 
 the Relief Churchy so denominated from their having relieved 
 themselves from the patronage b}' which livings are conferred 
 in the established church: and, last, though not least of all, 
 the Reformed Presbyterian Church, commonly called Cove- 
 nanters, who boast that they alone maintain the genuine 
 Presbyterian principles, and are the purest church on the face 
 of the earth. 
 
 Perhaps these divisions among Presbyterians are merely 
 localy and arise from some peculiar circumstances in Scot- 
 landy which do not operate in America. But nearly the 
 same divisions are found among Presbyterians in this 
 country as subsist in Scotland. In this country there are 
 the Presbyterian Church, corresponding to the established 
 Church of Scotland ; the Presbyterian Associate Church, 
 connected with the Presbyterian Anti-Burgher Church of 
 
 * Edwards, a Presbyterian divine, gives an account of these sects in 
 his Gangrcena. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 216 
 
 Scotland, and which claims at least the merit of consis- 
 tency in adhering strictly to the original principles of the 
 Secession ; the Presbyterian Associate- Reformed Church j'' 
 maintaining ecclesiastical correspondence with the Burgher 
 Church of Scotland ; and the Reformed Presbyterian Church, 
 corresponding to the church of the same name in Scot- 
 land and Ireland. I There are also several Presbyterian 
 
 * This church, of which you, sir, are a minister, sprung up in this 
 country about thirty years ago, by the union of some of the ministers and 
 congregations of the Associate and Reformed churches, 
 
 f Of this church, (whose members are commonly called Coveanters, 
 it is presumed from their adhering literally to " the solemn league and 
 covEJN-ANT " by which Papacy and Prelacy were solemnly abjured in Scot- 
 land) Mr. M'Leod is a distinguished minister and advocate. They pro- 
 fess to maintain, in greater purity than other sects, the Calvinistic doc- 
 trines, and the divinely instituted form of Presbyterian regimen. And 
 they hold the singular opinion, on the subject of civil government, that 
 only " Christian rulers, appointed to office according to a righteous civil 
 constitution, have authority from God to rule in subserviency to the king- 
 dom of Christ, and are to be conscientiously supported."* They solemnly 
 declare in their standards, that " Presbyterian Covenanters perceiving 
 immorality interwoven vjith the general and states' constitution of go- 
 vernment in America, have uniformly dissented from the civil establish- 
 ments."! Again : " There are moral evils essential to the constitution 
 of the United States, which render it necessary to refuse allegiance to 
 the whole system. This constitution is, notwithstanding its numerous 
 excellences, in many instances inconsistent, oppressive and impious."X 
 Persons who hold these sentiments, " if inconsistent with themselves 
 doctrinally, would be justified in rebelling against every government on 
 the face of the earth. In fact, in this country they go so far in what I 
 have not the least doubt is a conscientious profession of these principles, 
 as uniformly " to refuse to serve in any office which implies an appro- 
 bation of the constitution — to abstain from giving their votes at elections 
 for legislators or officers who must be qualified to act by an oath of alle- 
 giance to this hninoral system. They cannot consistently swear allegiance 
 to that government in the constitution of which there is so much immo- 
 rality."?^ They are " absolutely prohibited from serving on juries," and 
 even from, taking an oath in a court of justice, unless " the men in 
 power" will admit that " this oath is performed voluntarily to the Supreme 
 
 * Reformation Principles, Part ii. p. 106. f Part i. p. 134. 
 X p. 13G. § p. 137. 
 
216 hobart's apology 
 
 congregations in East-Jersey and New- York, associated un- 
 der a Presbj'tery called the Morris Presbytery, and who are 
 independent of the authority- of the Presbyterian Church ; as 
 also are the numerous churches in New-England, who, 
 though Congregational in their form of government, are at 
 present Presbyterian in their mode of ordination. Here now 
 are several denominations of Presbyterians, professing subjec- 
 tion to distinct ecclesiastical judicatories, and some of them 
 refusing church fellowship with the others ! When the Se- 
 cession took place in Scotland, the Seceders were solemnly 
 excommunicated by the Established Church ; and when the 
 Seceders split into the two sects of Burghers and Anti- 
 
 Being, and by no means a recog:nition of the magistrate's authority !"* 
 It is but justice, however, to observe, that, " for the sake of peace and 
 good order — from a spirit of resignation to the divine providence, and in 
 order to make legitimate provision for themselves or their relations," they 
 acknowledge that " so much conformity to the prevailing system as is 
 consistent with the oath of their allegiance to the Messiah, is a duty con- 
 scientiously to be practised, although very distinct from that obedience 
 for conscience sake which they would render to the government of their 
 choice, to the authority which has the sanction of the divine appro-^ 
 bation."t 
 
 I mention all these particulars not for your information, sir, but for 
 the sake of " unlearned" readers. And I am sorry to be compelled to 
 observe, that a more unjust philippic against the civil governments, 
 against all denominations of Christians, and particularly against Episco- 
 palians, never came from the pen of an ignorant religious zealot in the 
 most ignorant tinges, than that drawn up, it is presumed, by Mr. M'Leod, 
 a scholar and a gentleman, and a Christian clergyman " in the beginning 
 of the nineteenth century," and published by the Presbytery of his church 
 under the sacred title of an Historical View. The attacks made in that 
 work, and in his Ecclesiastical Catechism, on the Episcopal Church in 
 this country, and on the venerable Church of England, extolled by the 
 Reformers as the bulwark of the Reformation, and now " standing be- 
 tween the dead and the living," and, through the grace of God, *' staying 
 the plague" of infidelity which threatened to sweep the earth, warrant 
 and invite an unrestrained examination of his own principles. 
 
 * Reformation Principles, Part ii. p. 135, 136 
 
 t Mr. M'Leod's sermon, entitled, " Messiah, Governor of the Nations 
 of the Earth," p 43 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 217 
 
 BurgherSjthey excommunicated each other. In like manner, 
 when, in this country, some of the ministers of the Associate 
 Presbytery, consisting chiefly of Anti-Burghers, seceded from 
 that Presbytery, and, in conjunction with some of the minis- 
 ters of the Reformed Presbytery , formed a new church under 
 the denomination of the Associate-Reformed Church (of 
 which you are a minister,) sentences of excommunication 
 were formerly passed. The ministers of the Reformed Pres- 
 bytery who joined (what for the sake of conciseness I may be 
 suffered to call) your church, were considered by those whom 
 they left, by Mr. M'Leod and his brethren, as '' guilty of 
 apostacy ;"* as having " under pretence of repairing a breach 
 which they had no hand in making, in spite of their profes- 
 sion and their vows, made anew schismhy their own volun- 
 tary act. "I And your church is accused by Mr. M'Leod 
 and his brethren with having ^^ forsaken the secession testi- 
 mony in very important principles." Of the constitution of 
 the very respectable body commonly called the " Pres- 
 byterian Church" in this country, Mr. M'Leod and his 
 brethren thus speak : " In this constitution were laid those 
 seeds of discordant principles and general debility which have 
 since characterized the Presbyterian Church in this country, 
 under the direction of a General Assembly. '^^t Alas, Sir, the 
 Associate Churchy your own church called the Associate- 
 Reformed Churchy Mr. M'Leod's church styled the Re- 
 formed Presbyterian Church or Covenanters^ though all good 
 Presbyterians, do not hold fellowship with one another 
 in "sealing ordinances," nor with the Presbyterian Church 
 commonly so called. Far be it from me to dispute your light 
 of dissent. God forbid that it should be wrested from you, 
 or that I should doubt your being conscientious in the exer- 
 cise of it. But let me ask, am I to find in these schisms 
 proof that Presbyterian government preserves church unity ? 
 
 * Reformation Principles, Part i. p. 119. 
 t Reformation Principles, Part i. p. 119. 
 X Reformation Principles, Part i. p. 103. 
 19 
 
218 hobart's apology 
 
 Or do they afford evidence that this " ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment combines the visible unity of the church Catholic with 
 perfect equality of rank among her ministers ? "* 
 
 Are such divisions to be found among Episcopalians ? Is 
 this detested " Prelacy" the parent of such endless schisms ? 
 When any Episcopal Presbyters are desirous to erect a new 
 communion, they cease to be Episcopalians when they be- 
 come schismatics, and unless they can get a Bishop to head 
 their schism, necessarily have recourse to Presbyterian ordi- 
 nation. With Episcopal schismatics, the difficulty will be to 
 perpetuate the Episcopal succession. I do not pretend that 
 Episcopacy is an infallible security against schism ; that it 
 would be impracticable for schismatic Episcopal Presbyters 
 to procure a Bishop and to devise means of perpetuating the 
 Episcopal succession. But I contend that there would be 
 greater obstacles in their Avay than under the Presbyterian 
 regimen. For when three or four Presbyterian ministers 
 deem it proper to establish a new church, they have only 
 to constitute themselves a Presbyter}', and they instantly be- 
 come as good Presbyterians as those they leave, perhaps 
 even more pure, more refined, more zealous. Candidly, Sir, 
 I am at a loss to see in what way Presbyterian government 
 tends to preserve " the visible unity of the church Catholic ;" 
 and why, on the contrary, it is not perfectly compatible 
 " with rending the body of Christ at pleasure," with schisms 
 and divisions without end.| 
 
 Episcopacy then, as the instituted mode by which the mi- 
 nisterial commission is conveyed from the great Head of the 
 church, and as the bond of Christian unity, claims the obe- 
 dience of all Christians. Considered as a /orwi of government y 
 it has at least equal claims with Presbytery. The essentials 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, Introduction, p. 12, 13. 
 
 t After this view of Presbyterian unity, we must surely be amused 
 to hear Mr. M'Leod seriously declaring that "the universal prevalence 
 of real Presbyterianism can alone render Jerusalem a quiet habita- 
 tion:'* 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 129. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 319 
 
 of Episcopacy being only the preservation of the three grades 
 of the ministry with their appropriate powers, it admits in the 
 structure of its government of such modifications as may 
 adapt it to the different circumstances of the church, and to 
 the varying forms of civil policy. The insinuation sometimes 
 made, that there is a peculiar connection between Episcopacy 
 and monarch])^ is as false as its design is uncandid and unge- 
 nerous. In Great-Britain, Episcopacy and Presbytery are 
 both established by law in different parts of the nation; and 
 1 never heard that the Presbyterians of Scotland were less 
 loyal than the Episcopalians of England. - 
 
 In this country there is a striking resemblance between 
 the structure of Episcopal government and that of the civil 
 polity. In every diocese the Bishop presiding over it cor- 
 responds to the Governor or supreme executive officer of 
 each state. Though he receives his Episcopal commission 
 from the Bishops who ordained him, he is elected by the 
 clergy and laity, who thus possess the security that no per- 
 son shall be exalted over them as Bishop who is obnoxious 
 to them. In the discharge of his executiv^e functions, and in 
 the administration of discipline, the Presbj-ters are considered 
 as his Council ; corresponding to the Councils in some of the 
 states, or to the Senate in the general government, who are 
 associated with the chief magistrate in the exercise of the 
 executive authority. Though he alone confers the ministe- 
 rial commission, yet he can ordain no one who has not been 
 previously approved and recommended by some of the clergy 
 and laity. The convention, (consisting of the clergy and 
 delegates from each congregation) in which the Bishop pre- 
 sides, and in which the local concerns of each diocese are 
 regulated, answers to the legislative bodj^ of each state. The 
 general convention, or supreme ecclesiastical authority of the 
 church, has been organized upon that judicious principle of 
 dividing power ^ and placing it in different houses, upon which 
 the civil constitutions are founded. In this convention there 
 are two houses, the Bishops composing one, and the clerical 
 
220 hobart's apology 
 
 and lay deputies the other ; answering to the two houses in 
 
 the civil legislatures. And the Bishops, and the clerical and 
 lay deputies have a reciprocal check upon each other in the 
 enacting of laws. Thus, the power of making laws in the 
 Episcopal Church in America, is regulated by that sound 
 principle of ecclesiastical polity laid down by the judicious 
 Hooker — " In matters of God — it were unnatural not to 
 think the Pastors and Bishops of our souls a great deal more 
 fit than men of secular trades and callings : howbeit, when 
 all which the wisdom of all sorts can do, is done for the de- 
 vising laws in the «hurch, it is the general consent of all that 
 giveth them iheform and vigour of laws."* 
 
 * This passage of Hooker is quoted at p. 12S of these letters. The 
 same principle is thus stated by a Bishop who has always taken a leading 
 part in the concerns of the American Episcopal Church.* " Reason and 
 propriety require that those persons are to have a pre-eminence in the 
 business " of regulating ecclesiastical affairs, " whose stations in the 
 church invest them with the greatest share of responsibility " — for to the 
 Bishops and clergy " the oversight of the flock" is committed by autho- 
 rity transmitted from the divine Head of the church, and to him they are 
 to " give an account of their stewardship." *' But yet (as the Bishop 
 goes on to observe) the more fully the things determined carry with 
 them the sanction of all the orders to be governed by them," the laity 
 as well as the Bishops and clergy, "the nearer they conform to the true 
 principles of legislation, whether it be ecclesiastical or civil ; and the 
 more likely they are to be wisely done, and to be peaceably and profitably 
 executed. In all this, however, there is room for considerable variety, ac- 
 cording as human prudence shall direct." Obvious and indispensable is 
 the principle which the Bishop further states : " Regulations thus made, 
 are binding on persons of all orders in the church ; and on the contrary 
 supposition, there can be no order or social government, but every one is 
 left to his own humour or opinion." 
 
 Order, social government. Christian unity so sacredly enjoined by 
 Christ and his Apostles, would be subverted, if any individual or inferior 
 judicatory of the church were at liberty to resist the acts of the supreme 
 ecclesiastical authority. Dissensions and schisms without number would 
 rend and subvert the church. The injunction of Christ is express, that 
 we are to hear the church in all things not contrary to the law of God. 
 
 * Bishop White, in a Consecration Sermon preached before the Gene- 
 ral Convention, 1804. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 221 
 
 Mr. M'Leod is pleased to observe, that the general con- 
 vention of the Episcopal Church is a mere "human contri- 
 vance."* What! is it a human invention that the Bishops 
 and clergy, who are the divinely commissioned governors of 
 the church, should meet to legislate for it ? But it seems 
 "they share theiv power with, unauthorized laymen V '\ And 
 vi'hat power do they thus share } Not the ministry of the 
 word and sacraments ; for these none can exercise but they 
 
 *' If any man refuse to hear the church, let him be unto you as a heathen- 
 man and a publican." The command too is explicit, " obey them that 
 have the ride over you, and submit yourselves : for they watch for your 
 souls, as they that must give account :" * and the sentence of the council 
 at Jerusalem t was definitive and binding on all the churches. The ex- 
 ercise of the supreme authority in the Episcopal Church is carefully 
 guarded from abuse. The concurrence of the three orders being neces- 
 sary to any act of the general convention, no one order can encroach upon 
 the other. The clergy and laity are represented by their delegates : and 
 the Bishops are not only liable to impeachment, but hold stations of such 
 great responsibility, and so conspicuous in the church, that thei-e is no 
 danger of their erring through excess of authority. Abuses of Episcopal 
 prerogative took place either in the ages of darkness or superstition, or 
 when the Bishops were independent, and armed with secular authority 
 " Power becomes dangerous, not from the precedency of one man, but 
 from his being independent. Had Rome been governed by a Presbytery 
 instead of a Bishop ; and had that Presbytery been invested with the 
 independent riches of the Papal See ; it is easy to conceive of their ac- 
 quiring as much power over the Christian world as was ever known in a 
 Gregory or a Paul." 
 
 The only case " in which private conscience and not public law be- 
 comes the rule of conduct," is when the ecclesiastical authority attempts 
 to " change the revealed will of God." When any ecclesiastical acts 
 are deemed unjust or impolitic, common sense and propriety obviously 
 suggest the obtaining, by remonstrance or by the exercise of those nume- 
 rous checks possessed by the church at large, of a change in those obnox- 
 ious measures, rather than by resistance to violate the first principles of 
 order and government, and church unity, and thus throw the church into 
 disorder and endanger her existence. 
 
 The above principles are essential to the preservation of all govern- 
 ment; of Presbyterian as well as Episcopal. 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 129. f Ibid. 
 
 * Heb. xiii. 17. f Acts xv. 
 
 19* 
 
222 hobart's apology 
 
 who are " called of God, as was Aaron." Not the power 
 of ordination ; for this is necessarily exclusive^ and must flow 
 " to the end of the world," in the channel in which it was 
 at first placed. While this power and the ministry of the 
 word and sacraments are preserved inviolate^ every thing else 
 in the constitution of the church is a matter of human regula- 
 tion and expedie7icy. There is nothing in scripture forbid- 
 ding the associating of the laity with the clergy in making 
 ecclesiastical laws. It is a principle of sound legislation, 
 sanctioned by reason and good policy, to obtain, as far as 
 may be practicable and consistent with the order and strength 
 of government, the consent of all those to the laws who are 
 to be governed by them. The requiring of every thing in the 
 church's government to be oi divine institution , is an error of 
 puiitanism. It never has been, and it never can be carried 
 completely into effect. In the church many things must be 
 regulated by the dictates of reason and common sense, and 
 by the principles of sound policy. This error of puritanism 
 is admirably exposed by Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity. 
 Let Mr. M'Leod take up Hooker and answer him. He 
 will do what has never yet been done, and will gain infinite- 
 ly more honour than by torturing texts of scripture to sup- 
 port principles most remote from their obvious meaning. 
 
 The superintending influence and authority of the Bishop, 
 increased as it generally is by age and experience, will tend 
 to give unity of design and promptness of execution to eccle- 
 siastical measures. By his charges and admonitions to his 
 clergy, he may successfully excite them to prudent anima- 
 tion and firmness in defending the holy faith and authority 
 of the church ; to tender faithfulness and zeal in proclaiming 
 the truths of salvation ; and to diligence and perseverance in 
 the discharge of all their sacred functions. By his instruc- 
 tions, his counsels, his affectionate sympathy, he ma}^ direct, 
 inspirit and console them under the pressure of the difficul- 
 ties and trials to which they are exposed. By his frequent 
 and faithful administration of the rite of confirmation^ he may 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 223 
 
 impress on the young the awful importance of their spiritual 
 interests, place them under the guidance of divine grace, 
 and lead them in that knowledge which will make them wise 
 unto salvation. By his visitations to his churches, by his 
 pastoral letters and admonitions, he may contribute to arrest 
 the baneful spirit of intidelity, and the insidious advances 
 of heretical opinions, to prevent and heal divisions and 
 schisms, to strengthen the ties of harmony, to excite and pro- 
 mote primitive pietj^, lively and sober zeal for the interests 
 of the kingdom of the Redeemer. 
 
 But, Sir, you have found out a compendious way of de- 
 molishing all the arguments in favour of Episcopacy and 
 the Episcopal Church. Her members are corrupt — her 
 clergy are unfaithful — in regard to practical religion^ and 
 what you deem the essentials of a church of Christ, she is 
 not worthy to be compared with the non-Episcopal churches. 
 The following very modest challenge decorates the pages of 
 the Christian's Magazine. 
 
 " For assuredly, if there is not within this church much 
 more of '- power and love, and of a sound mind ;' much more 
 of the fear of God ; of ' receiving Christ Jesus the Lord' and 
 * walking in him ;' of reverential attendance upon his worship ; 
 of domestic and personal godliness ; in one word, much more 
 of the spiritual life, and of that holiness without which no 
 man shall see the Lord ; if much more of these things be not 
 found within his church than without it, ' what doth it profit.?' 
 Will Mr. H. meet the ordeal } Will he accompany us from 
 temple to temple, from pulpit to pulpit, from house to house, 
 from closet to closet, and agree, that in proportion as there 
 is little or much of '• pure and undefiled religion' in them, 
 their grade in the Christian churches shall be low or high } 
 Is it, then, a fact, that in the church which boasts of the only 
 valid ministrations, and the exclusive prerogative of being in 
 covenant with God, there is more evangelical preaching ; 
 more of Christ crucified ; more plain, close, decisive dealing 
 with the consciences of men, upon the things which belong 
 
224 hobart's apology 
 
 to their peace, than in .many of the churches which she 
 
 affects to despise ? Is it a fact, that her ' authorized priest- 
 hood' are more scrupulous about the preservation of pure 
 communion ; that they object more strongly to the admission 
 of mere men of the world ; and are more active in excluding 
 from their fellowship the openly irreligious, than are others ? 
 Is it a fact, that they adopt more prompt and vigorous mea- 
 sures to expel from their pulpits doctrine which flies in the 
 face of their avowed principles, and is acknowledged by 
 themselves to be subversive of the Christian system ? Is it 
 a fact, that in this ' primitive apostolic' church, the sheep of 
 Christ and his lambs are more plentifull}^ fed with * the bread of 
 God which came down from heaven ? ' Or that she has less to 
 attract the thoughtless gay, and more to allure those who be- 
 come seriously concerned about their eternal salvation, than 
 is to be found in hundreds of churches which she virtually 
 delivers unto Satan ? Are these facts ? We appeal to them 
 who have eyes to see and ears to hear ; especially to them 
 who ' have tasted that the Lord is gracious." 
 
 Now, sir, had 1 taken up one of the musty chronicles of 
 the " true church mihtant " of the seventeenth century, when 
 " godly zeal for reformation" 
 
 ** — Made all cries about the town 
 Join throats to cry the Bishops down" — 
 
 and found in it this violent declamation against the Episcopal 
 Church, this display of superior holiness and zeal, it would 
 have occasioned me no surprise. I should instantly have 
 ascribed it to some fiery religious zealot, some 
 
 " — Fierce inquisitor who has chief 
 
 Dominion over men's belief 
 
 And manners ; can pronounce a saint 
 
 Idolatrous or ignorant. 
 
 When superciliously he sifts 
 
 Through coarsest boulter others' gifts ; 
 
 For all men live and judge amiss 
 
 Whose talents jump not just with his." 
 
 But I can scarcely believe that I have found it in the 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER, 225 
 
 Christianas Magazine^ and that it comes from the pen of Dr. 
 
 Mason. 
 
 And yet, Sir, I might have expected all this, and more. 
 Your precursor, Mr. M'Leod, had spoken of the Episcopal 
 Church in his Ecclesiastical Catechism," in a style and spirit 
 that ought to have prevented my being surprised at any thing 
 that came from the same quarter. What admirable speci- 
 mens of humility and Christian candour are the following ! 
 The highest commendation I can pass upon them is, that they 
 will not yield the palm to the foregoing extract from the 
 Christian's Magazine. 
 
 " Those who do not ' like to retain God in their know- 
 ledge,' are given over to ' strong delusions.' Such also as 
 invent forms of worship, not satisfied with the simplicity of 
 the scripture modes, are often, by the judgment of a just God, 
 given over to their own idols."* Mark this Episcopalians. 
 You have invented a form of worship, and the judgment of a 
 just God has given you over to your own idols ; that is, you 
 know " little of" the true God or his worship ! Is there any 
 doubt that this is Mr. M'Leod's meaning } Read what he 
 immediately subjoins to the foregoing : " Let any man of 
 piety consider the state of religion in the Popish and Episco- 
 pal Churches — Let a man of spiritual discernment inquire 
 into the state of vital godliness in them, and he will find that 
 little of it is left. They groan under a load of superstition 
 which has been accumulating for ages. Let their experience 
 warn others to abstain from every act of will worship, "f 
 
 Again : " As the spirit of prayer departs from men the 
 practice of prayer will be relinquished, or mere forms adopt- 
 ed. "J So then, we cannot have the spirit of prayer when we 
 use the prayer indited by our blessed Lord himself, and 
 which to us is a mere form. " The superstition of Rome, and 
 the tyranny of Henry the Eighth is the true foundation of 
 the Episcopal Liturgy.''''^ What! is Mr. M'L. ignorant that 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Catechism by Mr. M'Leod, p. 125. f p. 125. % p. 126. 
 § Ecclesiastical Catechism, by Mr. M'Leod, p. 125. 
 
226 hobart's apology 
 
 many parts of the Liturgy are taken from the liturgies of the 
 primitive church ; that the whole of it was compiled by vene- 
 rable Reformers, who consecrated it with their blood ; and 
 that it has since been improved by men whose fame for piety 
 will ever be in the churches ? — " Obliged to conform to this 
 measure, attempts have been made to justify it. Arguments 
 which at first tended to palliate an evil which the Bishops 
 had not power to remedy, are at last thought sufficient to 
 establish a divine right. Such are the gradations of human 
 FOLLY."* Thank you, Mr. M'Leod. Long may Episcopa- 
 lians glory in that folly which prizes the Liturgy as the 
 finest, purest, and most elevated strain of devotion that ever 
 fell from uninspired lips. Recollect, the gospel itself was 
 *^ foolishness " to the self-righteous Pharisee, and to the 
 " vain disputer," puffed up with false philosophy. 
 
 Mark again : " Preaching is the meanest service in the Po- 
 pish and Episcopal Churches. It is merely subservient to the 
 government of Bishops and Popes. The Bishops exalt the 
 mean above the end. Government is with them the principal 
 part of religion. To be in power is more dignified than to edi- 
 fy."! " The Evangelists have been transformed into prelates 
 by the Churches of Rome and England. These churches can 
 canonize Saints and consecrate Bishops at pleasure. It is re- 
 markable that they are always for increasing the power, but 
 never for appreciating the labour of the teacher. "J What ! does 
 Mr. M'L. mean to advance preaching above the duties of pray- 
 er and praise } Let him profit by the very just admonition of the 
 " Presbyterian Church." She declares, " As one primary de- 
 sign of public ordinances is to pay social acts of homage to 
 the Most High God, ministers ought to be careful not to make 
 their sermons so long as to interfere with, or exclude the 
 more important duties of prayer and praise.''''^ Would to God 
 that this principle of regarding " prayer and praise as the 
 more important duties^'''' was impressed on the heart of every 
 * Ecclesiastical Catechism by Mr. M'Leod, p. 126. f p. 106. % p. 107. 
 
 § Directory for Worship, chap. vi. sect. 4. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 227 
 
 Christian. The prevailing rage to make religion consist in 
 hearing sermons^ and in running " from Dan to Beersheba " 
 after popular preacherSy threatens serious injury to the inte- 
 rests of enlightened and substantial piety and devotion. This 
 is the more inexcusable in Episcopalians, because ihey pos- 
 sess a service in vi^hich they may always worship God in 
 spirit and in truth. Whatever may be the defects of the 
 preacher y they can find in the liturgy the " bread of life " to 
 nourish, and to comfort the soul.* Just are the remarks, 
 that " Christians are united to God by being brought into 
 covenant with him by baptism ; and are united to one another 
 by being members of his church. This union, which has 
 been cemented by the blood of Christ, is to be preserved by 
 the ordinances of the church ; and consequently joint prayers, 
 or social worship and communion in the sacraments, are as ne- 
 cessary to eternal life as hearing the word of God preached : 
 and, it may be added, much more so than hearing the word 
 of God preached without them." 
 
 But, do the Episcopal Churches account " preaching a 
 mean service," or " make government the principal part of 
 religion .?" Is not preaching a part of the public service not 
 merely on the Lord's day, but on all the greater festivals and 
 fasts consecrated to the commemoration of the leading events 
 in the history of Christ, and of the great truths of Redemp- 
 tion } Are not the principal churches in England opened 
 daily, and in this country several times a week, for the pur- 
 pose of offering prayer and praises to God, and hearing his 
 holy word } Does all this look as if they did not " appre- 
 ciate the labour of the teacher" — as if to " edify" were a 
 subordinate object in Episcopal Churches ; unless indeed Mr. 
 M'L. supposes that " prayer and praise, and hearing the 
 
 * Thus observes the celebrated Calvinistic divine, Toplady, " Let a 
 parish minister be ever so spiritually blind and dead, the liturgy remains 
 the same. Blessed be God, the clergy are forced to read it, and to admi- 
 nister the Lord's supper and other offices according to its adinirable and 
 animating form of sound words." Toplady's Works, vol. vi. p. 295. 
 
228 
 
 word of God," do not tend to " edify" when not connected 
 with preaching ? Does not Mr. M'L. know that the sermons 
 of English Bishops that have been publislied compose nume- 
 rous volumes ; and that the sermons of Bishop Andrews, 
 Bishop Sanderson, Bishop Taylor, Bishop Bull, Bishop 
 Beveridge, and in later times of the Bishops Secker, Wil- 
 son, HoRNE, Hurd, and Porteus, and " a legion more," will 
 bear a comparison with any sermons extant, for depth of 
 erudition, critical research, just and impressive elucidation of 
 divine truth, apostolic simplicity, and pious fervour ? Ex- 
 empted as some of the English Bishops are from the duty of 
 constant parochial preaching, the sermons that they have pub- 
 lished are proofs that, though on them lies " the care of the 
 churches," they have not neglected this duty. And when 
 we also consider that some of the most profound and able 
 works in defence of Christianity and its doctrines have come 
 from the bench of English Bishops, we shall be able to ap- 
 preciate the justice of the charge, that with Bishops, " to 
 be in power is more dignified than to edify. ''^ When Mr. 
 M'L. talks of the power oi Bishops, let him try to recollect 
 whether there are not historical facts which prove that " the 
 little finger of Presbytery can be thicker than the loins of 
 Prelacy.''^ 
 
 " Bishops and Popes " — " Popish and Episcopal Churches " 
 — These are the ungenerous arts constantly used to excite 
 vulgar prejudices against Episcopal Churches, that have been 
 the most determined opponents of the corruptions of the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 Further still : " The convocations and conventions of the 
 Episcopalians are no more than very disorderly Presbyterian 
 Synods.'''^* Sorry, very sorry that Episcopalians have got 
 into bad company, and have had their good manners cor- 
 rupted by evil examples. Again : " The boast of Episco- 
 pac}^ — the number of her sons — is proof of her own con- 
 nection with Antichrist — all the world wondered after the 
 * Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 129. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 229 
 
 beast."* So then, when all the nations of the earth become 
 the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, the reign of 
 Antichrist will be at its height ! Really, sir, you ought not 
 to thank Mr. M'L. for this remark; for, according to it, 
 Presbyterians in this country, as they are the most numerous, 
 are connecting themselves with Antichrist, beginning to court 
 the "mystical Babylon," and to "be drunk with the cup of 
 her abominations." But here comes the climax of this 
 highly wrought description of Episcopal corruption. " Some 
 Episcopalians consider baptism as synonymous with regene- 
 ration. This is more absurd than the Anabaptist conceit. 
 There are, however, masters in Israel who know as little about 
 the NEW BIRTH as Nicodemus did.^^'f 
 
 Episcopalians ! all this is from the pen of persons who 
 apply to themselves the exclusive title of evangelical, and 
 brand you and your ministers with having " little of vital 
 godliness !" And yet we are to be silent, hear our venera- 
 ble church and her apostolic worship abused, our title even 
 to the " power of godliness " questioned, without defending 
 ourselves — for fear of giving offence ! And do the opponents 
 of the church act on this principle ? No, I commend them 
 for a more manly policy, for a determined resistance to what 
 they deem error and corruption, unawed by any " human 
 regards." 
 
 " Masters in Israel^'''' says Mr. M'Leod, " who know as 
 little about the new birth as Nicodemus did.'''' Here, Episco- 
 palians, allusion is particularly made to one of your Bishops, 
 who has ably vindicated the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
 tion. " Who art thou, O man, that thus judgest another .^" 
 Who gave thee the right and power to sit in judgment on the 
 heart, and to pronounce a venerable Clergyman, and an ex- 
 emplary Christian, a stranger to that " new birth," without 
 which no man can enter the kingdom of God } 
 
 That the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in New- York 
 
 was here particularly aimed at, is evident from the circum- 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 129. f p. 127. 
 
 20 
 
230 hobart's apology 
 
 stance that he published a defence of baptismal regeneration : 
 and Mr. M'L. a few sentences after the one above quoted, 
 observes concerning this doctrine, "Miserable Episcopalians! 
 if this be all your regeneration ! But I reject the ungenerous, 
 the infamous thought. No, I Vi^ould not believe it on the 
 authority of one of your own Bishops.''^ Grant, however, 
 that there is no particular allusion. So much the worse. 
 For then all the Episcopal clergy who believe this doctrine 
 of their church are involved in this charge. " There are 
 masters in Israel who know as little about the new birth as 
 Nicodemus did !" 
 
 The opponents of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration 
 either do not, or will not know that there is a distinction 
 made in the language of the Episcopal Church as well as of 
 scripture, between regeneration and renovation. " He 
 saved us," saith the Apostle,* " by the washing of regenera- 
 tion^ and the renewing of the Holy Ghost ^^ — the former ex- 
 pression evidently denoting baptism. The same distinction 
 is observed by the church in her baptismal service, and par- 
 ticularly in one of her Collects. I " Grant that we, being 
 regenerate^ may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit." Epis- 
 copalians maintain baptismal regeneration in this sense, that 
 the baptized person is born again, not in the affections of his 
 soul, but into a new state, in which he receives conditionally 
 a title to the blessings of the gospel covenant. But do Epis- 
 copalians, therefore, deny the necessity of the " renewing 
 of the mind .?" God forbid ! No ; they maintain, that unless 
 in the baptized person, by the power of that Holy Spirit a 
 title to which is conferred in baptism, the " old man be buried 
 and the new man raised up ;" unless " all sinful affections 
 die in him, and all things belonging to the Spirit do live and 
 grow in him ;" unless the " old man be crucified, and the 
 whole body of sin abolished ;" unless he " die from sin, and 
 rise again unto righteousness,"! unless he thus be " renewed 
 by the Holy Ghost," his baptismal regeneration will only 
 
 * Titus iii. 5. f For Christmas day. t Baptismal Service. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 231 
 
 aggravate his guilt and increase his condemnation. The 
 advocate of baptismal regeneration may, therefore, consist- 
 ently maintain the necessity of the new birth in its strongest 
 spiritual sense. 
 
 To vindicate the institutions of the Episcopal Church from 
 all these charges, I might appeal to the testimony of the 
 divines of the Reformed churches, some of whom I have 
 already adduced. I might urge a long list of Calvinistic 
 divines of the Church of England, the " Herveys, the Ro- 
 MAiNES, the Newtons, the Scotts," all of whom gloried in 
 their being sons of that church which Mr. M'L. says is 
 "connected with Antichrist," and ''groans under a load 
 of superstition ;" all of whom offered up the devotions of 
 the congregation in those " mere forms " which Mr. M'L. 
 says are only " adopted " " as the spirit of prayer departs 
 from men." 
 
 The celebrated Toplady, who stands high in the estima- 
 tion of Calvinists, forbids any person's forsaking the Church 
 of England (as reasonably he might) through " love for the 
 gospel of grace." " It should rather bind him more closely 
 and firmly to a church whose doctrines and sacraments are 
 holy, harmless, undefiled ; and alike remote from error, super- 
 stition^ and licentiousness."* In consistency with this prin- 
 ciple, Toplady " constantly and strictly communicated in the 
 church onhjj^^ (and he enjoins the same conduct on others) 
 even though " the clergymen from whom he received the 
 memorials of Christ's dying love knew no more of the gos- 
 pel " (strange assertion for a humble Christian) " than so 
 many stocks or stones."! 
 
 I take some pride, however, in a testimony in favour of 
 the Church of England from a different quarter, from one 
 whose panegyric is thus drawn by a periodical writer, who, 
 I am told, stands high in your esteem. " As a poet, a scho- 
 lar, as one endowed with wit and genius, a philosopher, and 
 a good moral man" (and the public voice will add also, 
 
 * Toplady's Works, vol. vi. p. 294. f Ibid. vol. vi. p. 295. 
 
232 hobart's apology 
 
 as a good Christian) " neither Britain nor any other country 
 can boast of such a bright example as Dr. Beattie." The 
 following is from the pen of his biographer : " Although Dr. 
 Beattie had been brought up a member of the Presbyterian 
 Church of Scotland, and regularly attended her worship and 
 ordinances when at Aberdeen, he yet gave the most decided 
 preference to the Church of England, generally attending the 
 service of that church when any where from home, and con- 
 stantly when at Peterhead. He spoke with enthusiasm of the 
 beauty ^ simplicity^ and energy of the English Liturgy, espe- 
 cially of the litany^ which he declared to be the finest piece 
 of uninspired composition in any language."* This cele- 
 brated philosopher and amiable man entertained the same 
 opinion of the Church of England with a distinguished pre- 
 late, (Dr. Drummond, Archbishop of York) who was his 
 friend and correspondent. " The Church of England is the 
 most agreeable to Christian discipline ; equally distant from 
 wild conceit and impUcit faith ; free, manly, and benevolent; 
 conducive to the cause of truth and virtue, to the happiness 
 of society, and of every individual in it. And it is the estab- 
 lishment that seems to carry the fairest aspect with it towards 
 promoting pure Christianity and civil order, without overhear- 
 ing^ or artful^ or abject means." | Great as may be my re- 
 spect for the talents and piety of Dr. M. and Mr. M'L. I 
 certainly should not be disposed, as far as opinion goes, to 
 rely more on theirs than on that of Dr. Drummond and Dr. 
 Beattie. 
 
 But, sir, it seems the Episcopal Church is deficient in 
 "vital godhness," and in "pure and undefiled rehgion." 
 You will not find me the apologist of the lukewarmness or 
 defects of Christians because they are of my " own house- 
 
 * Life of Beattie, by Sir William Forbes, American edition, p. 4, 98. 
 There are some reviewers and writers who affect to depreciate Dr. Beattie 
 and his biographer. The cause of this is apparent : Dr. Beattie gave " a 
 decided preference to the Church of England." 
 
 t Life of Beattie, p. 165, American edition. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER, 233 
 
 hold." In common with my clerical brethren, it is a source 
 of bitter regret to me, and the painful subject on which I 
 trust we often pour out our hearts before the Father of mer- 
 cies, that an inordinate attachment to the world and its plea 
 sures seems to have eaten up the piety and zeal of too many 
 who call themselves Churchmen. And perhaps, sir, we are 
 not disposed to boast that we are entirely ^' guiltless in this 
 matter ;" or that our zeal, faithfulness and diligence in incul 
 eating those doctrines of the cross which have ever proved 
 the ^' power of God unto salvation," could not have been 
 greater. " Our trust, O Lord, is not in our own merits, but 
 in thy manifold and great mercies." 
 
 But you surely are sensible that spiritual pride^ arrogance^ 
 and censorlousness, are vices as hateful in the sight of God, 
 and as inconsistent with the " power of godliness " and the 
 Christian temper, as are indifference, lukewarmness and 
 attachment to worldly pleasure. You surely are sufficiently 
 acquainted with human nature to know, that spiritual pride, 
 arrogance, and censoriousness often exist in those who are 
 loudest in their calls for evangelical preaching , and who have 
 " the Lord Jesus " most frequently on their lips.* It is 
 much more easy and pleasant with bold faith to call the 
 Redeemer Lord, Lord^ and to listen to glowing descriptions 
 of his GRACE (and if they be sober, I am far from insinuat- 
 ing that they can be too glowing) than it is faithfully and 
 constantly" to apply this grace to "crucif^'ing the flesh" with 
 its evil tempers, to bringing dow^n the " high and lofty ima- 
 ginations" of the heart. The Christian, like his divine 
 master, is meek and lowly, not merely in profession. Alas ! 
 professions are easily supported by those cant phrases that 
 are often transmitted from one religionist to another, and 
 
 * The perversity of human nature, and the deceitfulness of the human 
 heart, are in nothing more apparent than in the disposition of men to 
 make a commutation of vices. 
 
 " Compound for sins they are inclined to, 
 By damning those they have no mind to." 
 20* 
 
234 
 
 repeated by rote, as the school-boy would con over his les- 
 son. But the Christian is " meek and lowly in heart ;^^ in a 
 life uniformly gentle, in a deportment habitually unassuming, 
 kind, humble and peaceable. " Meekness, gentleness, and 
 humility" are among the principal "fruits of the spirit." 
 And perhaps if you take these as the standard of the " power 
 of godliness," you may be induced to abate somewhat of 
 your censures of Episcopalians, and somewhat of your high 
 commendations of those whom you triumphantly contrast 
 with them. Far be it from me proudly to seat myself in 
 the throne of judgment, and to wield the bolts of censure. 
 Many, it gratifies me to say, very many are there among 
 non-Episcopal Christians, who, by their meek, their humble, 
 and holy virtues, evidence that they " have been with Jesus," 
 and are "taught by his spirit." But sure I am, sir, that in 
 the "Right Rev. Prelates,"* to whom I am sorry to say 
 you allude in your wonted contemptuous manner, there 
 appear the graces of humility, meekness, and unaffected 
 piety, shining with a lustre that would not have disgraced 
 the apostolic age, and which, really sir, it will be happy for 
 us both if we can display. But I dismiss an odious compa- 
 rison, on which I deeply regret you have thought it necessa- 
 ry to enlarge. 
 
 But in your triumphant enumeration of the Christian 
 graces of non-Episcopalians, 3'ou have forgotten to inquire 
 whether they possess that most important one — Christian 
 unity J " the keeping of the unity of the spirit in the bond of 
 peace." Whether this unity be compatible with those divi- 
 sions which, since their departure from Episcopacy, they are 
 multiplying without end, is surely worthy of their serious 
 consideration.'!' 
 
 In my judgment the comparison was unnecessary and 
 
 * Bishop Moore of New- York, and Bishop White of Pennsylvania. 
 
 t The Roman Catholics reproach the Protestant Episcopal Churches 
 with a breach of Christian unity. The answer is at hand — The Church 
 of Rome prescribes sinful terms of communioti. This plea for separation 
 from Protestant Episcopal Churches cannot be urged. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 235 
 
 irrelevant. The defects and corruptions in the Episcopal 
 Church, were they as great as you represent them, do not 
 arise from her doctrines or institutions, both of which are 
 pure and spiritual, and calculated to nurse men for the 
 church triumphant in heaven. By what rule of justice are 
 doctrines or institutions to be made accountable for the mis- 
 conduct of those who neglect or pervert them } Was not the 
 Jewish Church of divine origin .'' And yet there was a time 
 when there were only " seven thousand" among the people 
 of God " who had not bowed the knee to Baal." Your rea- 
 soning would justify us in considering the idolatry and cor- 
 ruptions of the Jews as proofs that the Church of God was 
 not among them, that " the statutes and ordinances of the 
 Most High" were unnecessary, because they were ineffectual. 
 Causes, for which neither her doctrines nor institutions are ac- 
 countable, there have been, in abundance, to produce what- 
 ever laxity or faults may be discoverable in the American 
 Episcopal Church. For a long, long period she was a de- 
 pressed church. Destitute of Bishops, which those in power, 
 listening to the representations of her opponents, refused to 
 allow her to enjoy, the orders of her ministry were incom- 
 plete, and her " candidates were forced to seek for ordina- 
 tion in another hemisphere, at a great expense ; which many 
 of them were but ill able to bear. From the same defect she 
 was without union, without government. But her unhappy 
 situation in this respect was, by the late revolutionary war, 
 much aggravated. Many of her clergy were attached on 
 principle to the church and monarchy of Britain ; and not 
 caring to concur in the measures which were taking to effect 
 a separation from her, abandoned their cures, and returned 
 for refuge to what had till then been termed the mother 
 country. Death removed others. Great numbers of parishes 
 became vacant ; and the service of the church therein utterly 
 suspended." Even the smiles of the civil power in the 
 Southern States proved the bane of the church. The civil 
 authority " secured to the clergy their salaries during life, 
 
236 hobart's apology 
 
 independently of good behaviour.'^'' There were no Bishops 
 to advise, to admonish the clergy, or to exercise discipline 
 over them. The dangers and difficulties attending the ob- 
 taining of a foreign ordination discouraged natives from 
 entering into the ministr5^ And thus the independent sala- 
 ries of the clergy were only a lure to foreign clergymen, who, 
 with some honourable exceptions^ were generally adventurers 
 destitute of talents, of piety, or of zeal.* 
 
 Flourishing as other denominations were under discipline 
 completely organized, the Episcopal Church, at the close of 
 the American war, stripped of some of her best clergy, of 
 numbers of her laity, of the accustomed means of support, 
 without government, without discipline, was left a depressed, 
 and, alas ! from various causes, a divided church. It is a 
 matter of astonishment and gratitude that she did not sink 
 under the difficulties, the distractions and divisions which 
 assailed her. But she was that " vine which the right hand 
 of the Lord had planted," which he beheld with compassion, 
 and resolved to "visit." Adversity had not extinguished 
 that evangelical liturgy which, like a sacred fire, kindled at 
 the altar of heaven, shed the light of truth amidst the dark 
 night of error, und diffused warmth amidst the chilling damps 
 of lukewarmness. Yes ! to this liturgy, under the blessing 
 of God upon the exertions of those who in her adversity did 
 not forsake her, she in a great measure owes her preserva- 
 tion. Ma}^ the daughter of Zion shake herself from the dust, 
 and shine forth in the garments of "glory and beauty !" 
 
 Your arguments against the Episcopal Church from the 
 supposed defects of her ministers and members, are founded 
 on a principle contrar}" to daily, universal, and uniform ex- 
 perience, that the profession of truth is always connected with 
 corresponding /rwi/5 of holiness and virtue. This principle fur- 
 nishes the infidel with a weapon with which, at one blow, he 
 
 * The above statement is taken in substance from an ordination ser- 
 mon preached by the Rev. Dr. Andrews, of Philadelphia, whom I re- 
 vere as one of my earliest and most affectionate guides and preceptors. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 237 
 
 may demolish the Christian system. He has only to prove 
 that the lives of many Christian professors are disgraced by 
 numerous follies and vices ; and, according to your reason- 
 ing, it follows, that the system of Christianity cannot be true. 
 A system of divine origin and power would produce in its 
 professors more holy fruits ! This reasoning overlooks the 
 obvious and universally admitted distinction between a cause 
 and its advocates^ between principles and the conduct of those 
 who profess them, between the theory and institutions of a 
 church and the practice of its members. To contend from 
 the defects and vices of the latter^ that the pretensions of the 
 former are unfounded, outrages common sense and justice ; 
 and is a mode of reasoning which, w^hen wielded by the infi- 
 del, proves that Christianity itself is founded in error. 
 
 Consider the tendency of your reasoning in the mouth of 
 one of the society of Friends or Quakers. Whatever may be 
 the failings of individuals of this sect, yet as a society they 
 certainly exhibit, in no ordinarj" degree, the fruits of love to 
 God and benevolence to man. And what ! may the Qua- 
 kers exclaim, are all these in the estimation of an arrogant 
 Priest to pass for nothing, and are w^e to be accused of " lay- 
 ing the axe at the root of entire Christianity," because we 
 "set aside the distinctive character and authentic call of the 
 gospel ministry ? "* Can this ministry and the sacraments 
 administered by them be so essential in the Christian church, 
 that the rejection of them " lays the axe at the root of en- 
 tire Christianity," when we who discard them, evidence 
 among us as much of pure and undefiled religion^ as they do 
 who connect the ministry and sacraments with the system 
 of " entire Christianity .'" Can these sacraments and minis- 
 tiy be indeed of God } Would then he who is the " Author 
 of every good and perfect gift," and "• without whom we 
 can do nothing," enable us who reject his institutions, to ex- 
 hibit any of "the fruits of the spirit." No, says the Quaker, 
 we put these " champions" of a hireling piesthood " upon 
 * Christian's Magazine, Introduction, p. 5. 
 
238 hobart's apology 
 
 their trial before the bar of scripture, of conscience, and of 
 public criticism. We demand the evidence of the superiority 
 of their practical religion, both in quantity and quality. If 
 they cannot nor will not answer, no rational man will be at 
 a loss for the reason."* Truly, Sir, I must insist on your 
 settling this important point with the Quaker, before I can 
 allow you to assail Episcopalians with the weapons which 
 he successfully wields against yourself. 
 
 Again, Sir : Place your reasoning against Episcopalians in 
 the mouth of the Methodist, or lay preacher. Them you 
 denounce,! not only for " endeavouring to set aside the dis- 
 tinctive character, and the authentic call of the gospel minis- 
 try," but for " proscribing from the ministry all talents" — 
 and " for drawing many after their pernicious ways," by ad- 
 dressing themselves to the avarice of one class, to the conceit 
 of another, to the credulity of a third, and to the ignorance 
 of all." What! may the Methodist and Imj preacher ex- 
 claim, does this arrogant " lettered gownsman " pretend that 
 " learning " or an external commission is necessary to " di- 
 vine teaching .^" We put him on " his trial before the bar 
 of scripture, of conscience, and of public criticism." Let him 
 produce the " seals of his ministry ;" and let us see whether 
 his learned labours have been more blessed to the conversion 
 of souls than have been the labours of hundreds who, desti- 
 titute of what he considers an " authentic call," destitute of 
 " human learning," have relied only on the call of the spirit^ 
 on divine teaching. 
 
 Alas, sir ! alas, sir ! Your reasoning against the principles 
 of Episcopalians from the deficiency of vital godliness among 
 them, is a two-edged sword as destructive to jo\xr own cause 
 as to theirs ! In the hands of the infidel, the Quaker, and 
 the Methodist, or lay preacher, it may be wielded to pros- 
 trate Christianity, to subvert all positive institutions, and to 
 
 * This is the language of your boastful challenge to Episcopalians. 
 Christian's Magazine, p. 103. 
 t Christian's Magazine, p. 4. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 239 
 
 cut up by the roots the Christian ministry and the visible 
 church. 
 
 Every thing good in man proceeds from the efficacious in- 
 fluence of the Holy Spirit. We shall, therefore, be com- 
 pelled to acknowledge, that this Holy Spirit, evidenced by 
 some of its fruits, dwells with many who maintain great and 
 fundamental errors ; nay, with many who by " endeavouring 
 to set aside the distinctive character and the authentic call of 
 the gospel ministry," " lay their axe at the root of entire 
 Christianity."* Do we, therefore, make void the positive 
 institutions of the Almighty ? God forbid ! He who " work- 
 eth all things according to the counsel of his own will," may 
 dispense with his own institutions, and depart from the settled 
 order of the economy of grace. It may please him to bless 
 the sincere and even the hypocritical exertions and labours of 
 those who reject the positive institutions and laws of his house. 
 " He giveth not to man an account of his doings." The in- 
 efficacy of these institutions on the lives of many, and the 
 piety and holiness which others exhibit who reject them, may 
 be trials of our humility and submission ; tests whether under 
 these inauspicious appearances we may not arrogantly ex- 
 claim, " To what purpose are these positive ordinances .'' 
 We may be pious and virtuous without them !" Ah ! let 
 not the humble believer be seduced by this specious but 
 arrogant reasoning from the " ways of God's appointment." 
 It was this proud spirit which urged our first parents to vio- 
 late a positive institution of the Almighty ; which lost them 
 paradise, and the fallen angels the glory of their ^' first estate." 
 
 * Introduction, p, 5. 
 
S40 hobart's apology 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 Sir, 
 
 The second number of the Christian's Msgazine dis- 
 plays the same arrogant ostentation of superior learning, the 
 same contempt of the talents of the advocates of Episcopacy, 
 the same confident assertion on which the first number relied 
 for success. It seems it was unpardonable arrogance for Mr. 
 H, to assert that the " Author of Miscellanies has with great 
 industry collected together all the arguments against Episco- 
 pacy." What ! to pretend to be acquainted with all the 
 arguments " on either side of a question," without having 
 perused the profound and luminous elucidations of the Editor 
 of the Christian's Magazine ! Verily — this was a presump- 
 tion which merited chastisement. Now, sir, I still am dis- 
 posed to suspect, that you will not have adduced a single 
 argument to which the Author of Miscellanies has not 
 directly or indirectly alluded — so that I shall be justified in 
 saying in a loose and general sense (and really I did not ex- 
 pect the Editor of the Christian's Magazine would conde- 
 scend to quibbling on words) that he had " collected together 
 all the arguments against Episcopacy." That he has traced 
 them in all their bearings on the subject, and placed them 
 in their most formidable array, I have no where asserted. 
 And yet, sir, at present there is no prospect that your attack 
 will obtain for you greater honours than those which he has 
 merited. 
 
 " Mr. H. has taken some pains to invite an examination 
 ► of his scholarship"* — "We entirely acquit Cyprian of the 
 charge of sinning against knowledge."! Mr. H. the Lay- 
 man, and Cyprian are the " unlearned advocates of the 
 hierarchy. "J Presumptuous men! luckless was the hour 
 when ye provoked the wrath of the learned Dr. M. that 
 paragon of talents, who, glowing with intuitive knowledge, 
 
 * Christian's Maajazine. No. II. p. 188. f P- 203. X p. 205. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 241 
 
 can exhaust any subject without reading a page or consulting 
 an author ! 
 
 But, sir, (I am almost afraid to expostulate with you lest 
 I should provoke your heavier vengeance) it was not quite 
 /air, it was not quite generous and manly (modesty I know is 
 an unfashionable virtue) to overwhelm by your dazzling 
 talents three humble individuals who have reached only the 
 first steps of the temple of science, whose vestibule you 
 have long since passed, whose sacred recesses you have 
 already explored. At our period of life, eight or ten years 
 may make an important difference in the sum of attainments. 
 And, through the good providence of God, we can look for- 
 ward to at least as many years before we shall equal the pre- 
 sent age of our giant censor. When as many suns have 
 rolled over our heads as have shed their collected glories 
 upon him, perhaps (alas ! is not the hope presumptuous }) — 
 perhaps (despair almost arrests my pen) — perhaps we may 
 equal in erudition the profoundly learned Dr. M. At present 
 we lay claim to sufficient learning and talents to defend the 
 Episcopal Church against any adversary. Even the sneers, 
 and frowns, and haughty airs of the Editor of the Christian's 
 Magazine, we can ^mmon resolution to smile at, and to 
 disregard. 
 
 Is it then come to this .? Is the cause of Presbytery to 
 rest on '' mere names which are of little real value .^"* 
 What is the Episcopal argument from scripture } Episcopa- 
 lians contend that from the first there have been three grades 
 of the ministry. Christ, the Apostles, and the seventy ; then 
 the Apostles, Bishops Presbyters or Elders, and Deacons ; 
 then Timothy and Titus, and others who succeeded the 
 Apostles in the powers of ordination and government. Pres- 
 byters and Elders called also Bishops, and Deacons. Your 
 assertion is manifestly incorrect, that there are in scripture only 
 two grades. But how does the Episcopalian prove that there 
 was a grade of the ministry superior to those called in scrip- 
 
 * Mr. M'Leod's Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 30. 
 21 
 
242 
 
 tnre Presbyters or Bishops ? By a simple and unerring rule. 
 The powers vested in them and their acts of jurisdiction. 
 Timothy and Titus had the powers of ordaining and govern- 
 ing the clergy vested in them ; they had jurisdiction over 
 Presbyters. There is no proof that the Presbyters possessed 
 these powers or exercised this jurisdiction. To a man who 
 contends " for the thing and not for the name,"* " who has 
 no turn to serve, "f one would think that when we prove 
 that certain ministers, by apostolic institution, possessed pow- 
 ers and exercised a jurisdiction which we have no proof 
 that another set of ministers possessed or exercised, there is 
 the most satisfactory evidence that these last have no claim 
 to these powers. 
 
 To this first grade of the ministry, ecclesiastical usage has 
 applied the title of Bishops. And hence it is contended by 
 the opponents of Episcopacy, that the grade of ministers now 
 called Bishops, cannot be superior to Presbyters, because in 
 scripture these titles are applied to the same office ! Epis- 
 copalians prove that there is a grade of ministers superior to 
 those styled Presbyters or Bishops in scripture ; and because 
 to this superior grade a title was afterwards applied usually 
 given in scripture to the second grade, it is contended by the 
 opponents of Episcopacj^, that these two grades are the same ! 
 Are not Episcopalians justifiable in styling this " miserable 
 sophistry V Do you not admit the justice of this appella- 
 tion, when, after a laboured argument of several pages to 
 prove the identity of those now called Bishops and Presbyters, 
 from the indiscriminate application of these titles in scripture, 
 you acknowledge that " if the Episcopalian establish his 
 claim " of a superior grade " hy scriptural facfSj^^ " the 
 choice between victory or defeat " '' in the contest about 
 scriptural titles," " would not be worth a straw to either 
 party ?"J You applied your ingenuity and j'our learning 
 thi;ough several pages, to prove that there could not be a 
 
 * Mr. M'Leod's Ecclesiastical Catechism, p. 18. 
 
 t Christian's Magazine, p. 191. % p. 106, 107. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 243 
 
 superior grade to Presbyters, because the title bestowed by 
 Episcopalians on this grade is used in scripture indiscrimi- 
 nately with Presbyter. And yet you concede, '' abstractly 
 considered, there is no inconsistency between our doctrine of 
 the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and the Episcopal 
 doctrine of a superior grade."* What is this then but ac- 
 knowledging that you have been insulting the understandings 
 of your readers, by endeavouring to blind them with " mise- 
 rable sophistry .?" You demolish by the above concession 
 your own superstructure. You give up as untenable an argu- 
 ment which you tell us " men of singular learning, candour, 
 penetration, and force of mind, have considered as altogether 
 unanswerable."! And so have men of singular learning, 
 candour, penetration and force of mind, considered as alto- 
 gether unanswerable the arguments in favour of transubstan- 
 tiation and the supremacy of the Pope. 
 
 I might scorn, therefore, to notice any further an argument 
 which you have yourself laid in the dust. But " some amuse- 
 ment may be derived from remarking" how just and lucid 
 are your views of it. 
 
 The Layman and his colleagues never contended that the 
 titles Bishop and Presbyter were not generally applied in 
 scripture to denote the second grade of the ministry. But 
 they contended, what is plain as " the sun shining in his 
 strength," that these words, whether considered as terms 
 denoting authority, or titles affixed to particular officers, were 
 capable of general application, and were not inseparably and 
 immutably fixed to any particular officer ; and that hence we 
 could not infer, merely from their application., that the per- 
 sons to whom they were applied, either at the same period 
 or at different periods, were the same officers. For example 
 — The title Bishop., as denoting an overseer., is applied both 
 as a term of authority and a title of office to " Jesus Christ 
 the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls," denoting his autho- 
 rity and office as spiritual overseer of the souls of his people. 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, No. II. p. 207. f p. 189. 
 
244 hobart's apology 
 
 But it would surely be madness to conclude that Jesus Christ 
 was on a level with overseers^ or Bishops of churches. In 
 like manner the term Presbyter, in its general and official 
 signification as a rw/er, may be and has been applied to 
 the Apostles, who were divinely inspired governors of the 
 church, as well as to inferior officers. The term Deacon, in 
 its signification as a minister^ may be and has been applied to 
 Jesus Christ and his Apostles as well as to inferior ministers. 
 
 " But when have these terms a particular and when a 
 general signification .'*" They have a particular signification 
 when they are applied to officers vested with peculiar and 
 distinct powers and jurisdiction. The distinction of officers 
 is to be known with certainty not from their names, but 
 from their powers and jurisdiction. This was the position 
 of the Layman and his associates ; a position which all your 
 ingenuity cannot subvert. It is not true, as you assert, that 
 objects are correctly distinguished from one another by their 
 names. The titles of officers alone will not accurately dis- 
 tinguish them. The distinction can be assertained only by 
 determining their powers and jurisdiction. For example — 
 A man may hear the people at New-Haven and Princeton 
 talk of the President. But from the name, from the official 
 title only, he would be at a loss to know whether they meant 
 a civil or a literary officer. Nor would his doubt be wholly 
 removed (were he a stranger in our country) if they should 
 name President Jefferson, President Dwight, or President 
 Smith ; for the official titles only would not determine the pre- 
 cise nature of their offices. He must be informed of their re- 
 spective powers and jurisdiction before he can understand pre- 
 cisely the difference between them. 
 
 Let us take one of your own words. " The Assembly,^^ 
 according to you, is an official title. But the title alone, ap- 
 plied to any body of people, would not accurately distinguish 
 them. The Assembly may be applied to a collection of per- 
 sons at Albany, from the different counties ; to a collection 
 of Presbyterian ministers at Philadelphia, from the different 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 245 
 
 Presbyteries ; or to a collection of people at any place for 
 the purpose of enjoying the amusement of dancing. Now, 
 had a stranger to your sacred character been told last winter 
 that Dr. Mason had gone to " the Assembly," he might as 
 well have concluded, from the name alone, that you had gone 
 to '' the Assembly" in the city of New- York, to partake of 
 the amusement of dancing, as that you had gone to " the 
 Assembly" at Albany, to obtain an act of incorporation for 
 the Associate-Reformed Church. I make this remark on one 
 of your examples, merely for the sake of illustration. The 
 application of the official term, " the Assembly," to different 
 collections of people,- would not enable a stranger to form an 
 accurate idea of their nature. This he cannot know until 
 he is informed of their respective powers, jurisdiction and 
 objects. 
 
 In like manner " the Bishop " is an official title ; but when 
 applied to ministers it will not designate them accurately and 
 precisely. For example — We have Dr. Moore, the Bishop^ 
 and Dr. Mason, the Bishop. Now, a stranger would con- 
 clude you were both the same officer. But I presume you 
 would be soon anxious to satisfy him that your powers and 
 jurisdiction were very different ; that you were the scriptural 
 Bishop of a single congregation, and he was the " unscriptural 
 and anti-Christian" Bishop of a diocese. In like manner, the 
 titles Elders and Deacons, applied to officers in the Episcopal 
 and Presbyterian Churches, would not accurately designate 
 them. For in the Episcopal Church an Elder has the minis- 
 try of the word and sacraments ; but in the Presbyterian he 
 is only a help to the minister in the administration of disci- 
 pline. A Deacon in the Episcopal Church, like the Deacons 
 in scripture, both preaches and baptizes ;* but in the Presby- 
 terian his sole business is to look after the poor. " The sum 
 of the whole is," that we are to ascertain the distinction and 
 
 * Philip the Deacon, converted and baptized the Samaritans (Acts 
 viii. 6.) And the Deacons were set apart to this office by a solemn ordi- 
 nation. 
 
 21* 
 
246 hobart's apology 
 
 precise nature of officers not by their official titles, but by 
 their powers and jurisdiction. Applying this plain proposi- 
 tion to the officers of the Christian church, we find that there 
 is one grade of officers, in which were Timothy and Titus ^ 
 who possessed the powers of ordination ; and another grade 
 of officers who did not possess these powers, but only the 
 ministry of the word and sacraments. We concede that this 
 second grade are commonly called Elders, Presbyters, or 
 Bishops :* yet we contend that from comparing their powers 
 and jurisdiction with those of Timothy and Titus, it is appa- 
 rent that they were of an inferior grade, and did not possess 
 the powers of ordaining and governing church officers. We 
 contend that the title Bishop^ applied to them as overseers of 
 their respective flocks, is not so incommunicably and insepa- 
 rably fixed to them, as that it cannot be applied, as it has been, 
 by ecclesiastical usage, to the superior grade who succeeded 
 Timothy and Titus in their powers of ordination and govern- 
 ment, and who are overseers over the clergy and congrega- 
 tions. As Mr. M'Leod very justly observes, "-names are 
 of little real value." " It is for the thing., not the name we 
 contend." We prove from their respective powers and juris- 
 diction, that there is a grade of ministers with the powers of 
 ordination and government superior to ordinary ministers of 
 the word. To contend that, because a title of general appli- 
 cation is transferred from the second grade, to whom it is 
 usually applied in scripture, to the first, they must originally 
 have been the same office, is too absurd, one would think, to 
 be advanced by any man of common sense. Suppose it 
 
 * On this point you avail yourself very liberally of Dr. Hammond's 
 singular opinions. Dr. H. was confessedly a very learned and distin- 
 guished divine. But great learning is no security against hypothetical 
 systems. Dr. H. it is well known, maintained some singular opinions on 
 other subjects besides that of F.piscopacy. No cause or system is respon- 
 sible for every defence which its advocates may choose to set up. Remem- 
 ber, you chide (and astonishing too that you should gently chide) Mr. 
 M'Leod for not selecting his proofs from scrijtture with equal care.* 
 * Christian's Magazine, No. I. p. 108, 109. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 247 
 
 should be found expedient, without altering the powers of 
 those now called Bishops in Episcopal Churches, to alter 
 their titles, and to call them superintendents^ and to give the 
 term Bishop to the second order as overseers of congregations ; 
 would any man in his senses contend, contrary to fact, that 
 because Presbyters are called Bishops, they originally pos- 
 sessed the powers which those formerly called Bishops in 
 Episcopal Churches possessed ? This possible case proves 
 the fallacy of your position, that " change of names presup- 
 poses change of things.''''* This is not necessarily true in 
 theory; nor is it so in fact. Various circumstances may 
 render expedient a change of names while the things them- 
 selves remain the same. There are now three grades of 
 ministers in Episcopal churches, with appropriate powers, 
 called Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. Might not the 
 church change the names of these officers without in any 
 degree changing their powers } 
 
 " Change of names presupposes change of things !" This 
 is not true in fact. The original name of the second order 
 of the ministry was Elder or Presbyter. Yet these names 
 in the Church of England, and in the Episcopal Church in 
 America, have grown into disuse, and the official title of 
 those orignally called Presbj^ter is now Priests. Here is a 
 change of name without any change in the office. | As the 
 names of things are often changed while the things remain 
 the same, so, on the contrary, things are often changed and 
 not their names. Of this one single familiar instance shall 
 suffice. The supreme legislative assembly of the United 
 States bears now the same name, Congress^ which it did 
 before the adoption of the present constitution. And yet 
 under the old confederation, the Congress consisted of but 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, No. II. p. 211. 
 
 f A familiar instance of change of names without change of things 
 may be given which will strike every person. The names of certain 
 streets in the city of New- York have been changed since the Revolution, 
 while the streets have remained the same. 
 
248 hobart's apology 
 
 V 
 
 one house of delegates elected by the legislatures of the 
 States, and possessed but few general powers. Under the 
 new form of government, the Congress consists of two 
 houses, one of them chosen by the legislatures and the other 
 by the people of the several States, and their powers are 
 much enlarged. Here was a material change of the thing 
 and no change of the name. Before you indulge in positive 
 and dogmatic assertions, it will be well for you to reflect 
 ' whether they are supported by facts. Your laboured rea- 
 soning about names is almost entirely fallacious. 
 
 There was an adequate reason for the change of the titles 
 of the first grade of the ministry. They succeeded the 
 Apostles in their ordinary apostolic powers of ordination 
 and government ; but in order that the name Apostles might 
 be applied by way of pre-eminence to the twelve, it was 
 natural and proper that the first grade of the ministry should 
 assume some other title. And the title Bishop is applied 
 with as much propriety to them who are overseers of the 
 clergy and congregations, as to Presbyters who were over- 
 seers of a smaller portion of the flock. 
 
 Yes, sir, you grant all that Episcopalians can wish when 
 you concede that, " there is no inconsistency between the 
 v.^ doctrine of the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and the 
 Episcopal doctrine of a superior grade." And how are we 
 to determine whether there is a superior grade to those call- 
 ed Bishops and Presbyters in scripture .'' Surely, by ascer- 
 taining that there is a distinct grade of officers with superior 
 powers and jurisdiction. But you assert that there could be 
 no such superior grade, because there is no official title de- 
 terminately applied to them in scripture. Strange indeed ! 
 We prove that Timothy and Titus and others possessed the 
 power of ordination, which we do not find the other minis- 
 ters possessed, and the power of jurisdiction over the min- 
 isters and people ; and yet we are not to believe these 
 palpable facts because we do not find any names determi- 
 nately applied to these ofiicers. What ! could not the 
 
 > 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 249 
 
 Apostles institute officers and leave their title to be fixed by 
 ecclesiastical usage ? It is not improbable (as many of the 
 Fathers assert, your favourite Jerome among the number) 
 that this first grade of the ministry were called Apostles, as 
 succeeding to the ordinary powers of the apostolic office. 
 As the chosen companions of our Lord, and witnesses of his 
 resurrection, the Apostles were extraordinary officers, and 
 could have no successors. But in their ordinary powers of 
 ordination and government (powers necessary in all periods 
 of the church,) they were to have successors even, accord- 
 ing to the promise of their Lord, "to the end of the world." 
 Your sneers at Cyprian for considering Epaphroditus as an 
 Apostle, might have been spared, had you considered that 
 your favourite and learned Jerome considers him as one of 
 the superior grade of ministers, afterwards called Bishops, 
 and founds his assertion on the text to the Philippians, in 
 which he is called their " Apostle."* 
 
 It is not necessary, however, for the advocates of Episco- 
 pacy to prove that the title Apostles was given to the first 
 grade of the ministry. For your argument that there can be 
 no grade of ministers in scripture answering to those now 
 called Bishops in Episcopal Churches, because there is no 
 title annexed to them in scripture, like many of your other 
 arguments, may be made to recoil upon yourself. You 
 assert '' that Presbyterian government is the true and only 
 one which the Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed in his 
 word." I "Congregational Assemblies or Sessions," and 
 " particular and general Synods," are constituent parts of 
 Presbyterian government, and of course prescribed by God 
 in his word. But on searching the scriptures we cannot 
 find in them any such titles of ecclesiastical bodies as " Ses- 
 sions," or " general or particular Synods ;" and indeed 
 
 * Jerome observes (Com. Gal. i. 19,) " By degrees, in process of time, 
 others were ordained Apostles by those whom our Lord had chosen, as 
 that passage to the Philippians shows, " I supposed it necessary to send 
 you Epaphroditus your Apostle." 
 
 t Constitution of the Associate-Reformed Church, p. 475. 
 
1 ^ 
 
 r ^ ^ ^ 
 
 250 ^ O^- HOBART'S APOLOGY 
 
 V, '\ 
 there are no titles whatever annexed to ecclesiastical bodies 
 
 supposed to correspond with the Sessions and Synods of 
 
 Presbyterians. Of course, according to your argument, there 
 
 can be no such bodies of divine institution — and, therefore, 
 
 . the constituent parts of Presbyterian government must be of 
 
 human invention. Really, sir, (to use the language you 
 
 apply to us) I am afraid " drowsiness " is not peculiar to 
 
 the advocates of Episcopacy, and that even the vigorous Dr. 
 
 Mason sometimes claims "the indulgence of a nap." 
 
 But further, sir, that fundamental doctrine of the Christian 
 church, the existence of three persons in one God, has no 
 name applied to it in scripture. s-Therefore, according to 
 your reasoning, it cannot be revealed in the word of God ; it 
 is of human invention. Here you side with " those great 
 luminaries of wisdom. Dr. Priestley and his compeers." 
 They urge exactly the same reasoning against the doctrine of 
 the Trinity that you do against Bishops. That such a funda- 
 mental doctrine should have no name affixed to it in scripture 
 (they contend,) " so far surpasses all the powers of belief, that 
 the proof of its existence is almost if not altogether impossi- 
 ble." No, sir, we prove the doctrine of the Trinity in the 
 same way that we prove the existence of the first grade of 
 the ministry. From the acts and the powers of the Son and 
 the Holy Ghost, we are justifiable in concluding that they are 
 equal with God the Father ; and to this doctrine of three 
 persons in one God, we give the name of Trinity, which is 
 no where found in scripture. From the acts and powers of 
 Timothy and Titus we conclude, that they are a superior 
 grade of the ministry, and to them and their successors we 
 give the title of Bishops. 
 
 The truth is — the distinction and the nature of scripture 
 officers are to be laiown certainly from their powers and ju- 
 risdiction, and not from their names merely. And for these 
 obvious reasons, which Mr. M'Leod has assigned with equal 
 justice and candour : " Names are of little real value." " It 
 is for the thing, not the name we should contend." 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 251" 
 
 " Truly, sir, should you go on as you have commenced, 
 I do not think that the Christian's Magazine is "likely to 
 fill the" advocates of Episcopacy '^with any very great 
 alarm." 
 
 LETTER XVI. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 To disprove bold charges requires many more words 
 than to make them. On the score of conciseness, therefore, 
 you certainly have the advantage over me. It has been my 
 object minutely to expose the injustice of your charges, and 
 to exhibit a general view of the principles of Episcopacy, and 
 of the arguments in favour of it. 
 
 The obnoxious colours in which j^ou represented my prin- 
 ciples in the first number of the Christian's Magazine, jus- 
 tify me in contrasting your religious system with my own, 
 that the public may judge whether your principles or mine 
 most merit the charge of being "arrogant" and of " deep- 
 toned horror." 
 
 You observe, " Whether a man shall go to heaven or to 
 hell, will be decided by another inquiry than whether he was 
 an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, or an Independent." On 
 3'our principles the inquiry is fixed to this point, " whether 
 he is one of the elect." On your principles the decree of 
 God sends some to heaven, and others to hell. Take the 
 words of the Westminster Confession of Faith: " By the de- 
 cree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and 
 angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore- 
 ordained to everlasting death;"* and this predestination, 
 having no respect to their use or abuse of the means of grace, 
 is absolute and unconditional. On your principles guilt is 
 brought on all mankind, not merely (as anti-Calvinists main- 
 
 * Confession of Faith, chap. iii. sect. 3. The Westminster Confession 
 of Faith is the standard of doctrine of all the Presbyterian Churches. 
 
252 hobart's apology 
 
 tain) by those sins which, through divine grace, it was in 
 their power to avoid, but for a sin which they never com- 
 mitted, for the sin of their forefather Adam ; 'and for this sin 
 they are doomed to everlasting woe.* From this everlasting 
 woe none are, none can be saved, but a certain portion, se- 
 lected in a sovereign manner, from this condemned mass of 
 mankind. While all mankind in their fallen state must have 
 been the objects of the compassion of the Father of mercies, 
 yet (according to your system) for a select number only did 
 he provide a Saviour. For them, and for them only, did his 
 eternal Son sojourn in the veil of flesh, travail in agony of 
 spirit, and pour out his soul unto death. They only in God's 
 sovereign time are seized by irresistible grace, justified, sanc- 
 tified, saved, without the possibility by any misconduct of 
 forfeiting a salvation which a divine decree ensures to them, 
 to which irresistible grace infallibly conducts them."f" The' 
 " hinging point" on which their salvation turns, is the ever- 
 lasting decree of God. 
 
 As for the rest of mankind, the " many" who go " the 
 broad way to destruction," according to the Calvinistic sys- 
 tem, they remain for ever under the curse of Adam's sin. 
 Equally helpless, equally related, as the creatures of his 
 hand, to the Father of mercies, with the elect objects of his 
 • favour, yet on them the Redeemer never cast one look of 
 compassion ; for them he never shed one drop of blood ; to 
 them he never dispenses one spark of effectual grace. J And 
 
 * Confession of Faith, chap. vi. sect. 6. 
 
 t " As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the 
 eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means 
 thereunto." Confession of Faith, chap. iii. 6. " Those whom God hath 
 accepted in his beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his spirit, can 
 neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace ; but shall cer- 
 ' tainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved." Confession 
 C^ of Faith, chap. xvii. 1. 
 
 ^' X " Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justi- 
 ^ fied, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." Confession of 
 ^ Paith, chap. iii. 6. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 253 
 
 yet in this state, without a Redeemer, without any interest 
 in his atonement, any participation of his grace, of course 
 without the possibility of being saved, they are to receive the 
 offers of salvation ! Mockery of their wretchedness ! ! Ac- 
 cording to this system, thousands, millions, myriads of hap- 
 less mortals will clank the chains of everlasting torment, will 
 roll in the fires that never will be quenched, and will be 
 gnawed by the worm that never dies, for the sin of another, 
 for the sin of Adam ; from the imputed guilt of which, left as 
 they were by the decree of God, without the atonement, 
 without the grace of the Redeemer, they possessed no 
 means of escape.* According to this system, the sinner dies, 
 the anticipated torments of hell racking his soul, and its 
 groans bursting from his lips, because God, for the " mani- 
 festation of his glory," shut him out, by a decree of reproba- 
 tion, from the number of the elect.! According to your sys- 
 
 * " The guilt of this sin" (the sin of Adam) " was imputed — to all 
 their posterity." Confession of Faith, chap. vi. 3 and 6. From this 
 guilt of Adam's sin, from this eternal death to which all mankind are 
 doomed in consequence of it, " none are redeemed by Christ, &c. but the 
 elect only." Confession of Faith, chap. iii. 6. For "the rest of man- 
 kind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own 
 will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the 
 glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain 
 them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious 
 justice." Confession of Faith, chap. iii. 7. " Every sin, both original 
 and actual, doth in its mere nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby 
 he is bound over to the wrath of God, &c. and so made subject to death 
 with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal." Confession of Faith, 
 chap. vi. 6. For the sin of Adam then those whom God " passed by" 
 were ordained to dishonour and wrath. 
 
 f " Quos Deus preterit, reprobat" — says Calvin. Institutes, lib. iii. 
 xxiii. 1. " Whom God jsasses %, he reprobates." And Calvin further 
 says, " But those whom he appointeth to damnation, to them we say by 
 his just and irreprehensible, but also incomprehensible judgment, the 
 entry of life is blocked up." Calvin's Institutes, lib. iii. xxi. 7. Calvin 
 styles the decree of God, by which " the fall of Adam did wrap up in 
 eternal death so many nations with their children being infants, with- 
 out remedy" — horribile decretum, horrible decree. And well he might. 
 Any school-boy who can turn over his dictionary knows that horribilis 
 
 22 
 
254 hobart's apology 
 
 tem, '•^ elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and 
 saved ;"* and as " none are saved but the elect only,"! 
 those infants dying in infancy who are not of the elect, 
 are not saved. J Alas ! then, even those endearing in- 
 fants, blessed by our Lord himself as the emblems of inno- 
 cence, are perhaps destined to be torn from the cherishing 
 bosom of their mothers, and to be sent to people the regions 
 of the damned ! Ye mothers ! does not the bare possibihty 
 that the engaging prattlings of your lovely babes, may to- 
 morrow be changed into the groans of fiends, plant a dagger 
 in your bosoms more agonizing than the vengeful dart that 
 drinks up the current of life !— My heart shudders ! Right- 
 eous God ! who ever delightest in mercy ! shall man trans- 
 form thee into a demon like an insatiate Moloch, delighting in 
 the perdition of the creatures of thy hand ? No, thou holy, 
 thou just, thou merciful Parent of the universe ! the system 
 
 has the signification of awful as well as horrible, and as I understand 
 that it is your intention to take me to task for translating it horrible, and 
 to overwhelm your readers with a flood of learning to prove that this is 
 not its most common acceptation, I think it proper to state that Topladt 
 has anticipated you on this subject. He adduces many examples in which 
 horribilis is used in the acceptation, awful, mysterious, wonderful, and 
 contends that Calvin used it in this acceptation in the sentence referred 
 to. I take the liberty, however, of contending, that the plain, fair con- 
 struction of the whole passage implies, that Calvin deemed this decree 
 horrible, abhorrent to the reason and feelings of man : but this is very 
 different from believing that the decree was so in itself, to the divine 
 mind. However horrible the decree might appear to human reason, 
 Calvin, believing it to be from God, would also believe it to be just and 
 good. In a translation of the Institutes of Calvin, made and published 
 under the sanction of Presbyterian divines at Glasgow (1762,) I find the 
 words horribile decretum, translated terrible decree. I have no objection 
 that my translation should ba-so corrected, and instead of calling this de- 
 cree a horrible decree, let it be styled a terrible decree ! 
 
 * Confession of Faith, chap. x. 3. f Chap. iii. 6. 
 
 X Had it been the intention of the Confession of Faith to include all 
 infants dying in infancy among the number of the elect, the section 
 would have run in some such form as the following : " All infants dying 
 in infancy, as they are of the number of the elect, are regenerated and 
 saved," &c. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 255 
 
 which clothes thee with these terrors is disclaimed by reason 
 and by thy holy word. 
 
 I am no more compelled to account for many pious and 
 learned persons having embraced this system, among whom, 
 it is not to be denied, have ranked some eminent divines of 
 the Church of England, than to account for many pious and 
 learned persons having embraced the doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation. Many doctrines maybe, must be incomprehensible: 
 but the divine Author of our senses and our reason will 
 never require us to believe what palpablj^ contradicts them. 
 I pretend not to judge for others, or to measure, by my own, 
 the capacity of their minds. But for myself I must confess, 
 that I could more readily be brought to believe that a being 
 of infinite power could change bread and wine into the body 
 and blood of a man, and their properties and sensible quah- 
 ties still remain the same ; than that an infinitely just and 
 merciful God would bring men into existence, and without 
 any regard to the use or abuse of the talents and means of 
 grace entrusted to them, doom them by an absolute decree to 
 everlasting perdition. With respect to the moral aspect of 
 these doctrines on the attributes and character of God, there 
 is no kind of comparison. Transubstantiation violates none 
 of the moral attributes of the Deity ; absolute predestination 
 strips him of every attribute that can render him the object 
 of admiration and love. 
 
 View now, sir, the system of religious truth embraced hy 
 those whom you denounce for holding positions of " deep- 
 toned horror." The sin of Adam has entailed on his pos- 
 terity a corrupt and depraved nature. Though this corrup- 
 tion or original sin in " every man,'" " deserves God's 
 wrath and damnation,"* yet none will be condemned for it 
 but those who refuse the means of redemption from its domi- 
 nion, and from the guilt of their actual sins. For the adora- 
 ble Son of God has made an atonement for the " sins of the 
 world," " has tasted death for every man."t " He came to 
 
 * Art. IX. of the Church. f Heb. ii. 9. 
 
256 hobart's apology 
 
 be a lamb without spot, who should take away the sins of 
 the world.'''' "^ " He made a full, perfect, and sufficient obla- 
 tion and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." | 
 Thus all men, redeemed by Christ, are placed in a state of 
 salvation, in which their eternal destiny will depend only on 
 "the things done in the body." The grace of God alone 
 begins, carries on, and perfects the spiritual life. God's p-e- 
 venting "grace is given to every man to profit withal" J — 
 given to every man in sufficient degree to enable him to work 
 out his salvation. But the scripture has told us that we 
 may "resist this grace," "do despite unto it," " quench it," 
 and provoke God to take "it from us." While, therefore, 
 we believe that God worketh in us by his spirit, that " we 
 may have a good will, and worketh with us when we have 
 that good will," § we are also to " work out our own salva- 
 tion with fear and trembling." The condemnation, there- 
 fore, of the impenitent will be, that they "resisted and 
 grieved God's holy spirit," that they " would not come 
 unto him and receive life."|| Where the name of Christ is 
 not proclaimed, his atonement extends, his grace operates, 
 and leads to his everlasting favour those " who having not 
 the law, yet do the things contained in the law." Where 
 the glad tidings of salvation are proclaimed, men must be 
 
 * Art. XV. of the Church. f Communion Service. 
 
 t 1 Cor. xii. 7. § Art. X. of the Church. 
 
 II From the above view it appears that the Articles of the Church do 
 not maintain the peculiarities of Calvinism ; that they do not maintain that 
 all but the elect will be damned for Adam's sin, as well as their actual 
 sins ; and that Christ died for the elect only. They do not maintain that 
 the grace of God works irresistibly, that man is passive in conversion^ 
 and that the elect can never finally fall away from grace. The article 
 concerning predestination merely decrees the determination of God to 
 bring "those whom he hath chosen in Christ" "to everlasting salva- 
 tion." But it does not assert, as the Calvinistic Confessions of Faith do, 
 that this choice was made without any " foreknov^ledge" of the use which 
 they would make of the means of grace and salvation. It is also entire- 
 ly silent on that important article of Calvinism, that God passed by the 
 rest of mankind, and ordained them to dishonour and wrath. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 257 
 
 united to him by a lively and holy faith. The blessings of 
 his salvation are visibly sealed to believers by the ordinances 
 of the church ; and these ordinances are to be administered 
 only by those who are " called of God, as was Aaron," by 
 a valid external commission. On these principles all are 
 saved through the power of the Redeemer's blood, who, 
 through his grace, seek to know and to do the will of their 
 heavenly Master. Can a system more charitable be required 
 of me } Let the public judge. Let candour and justice 
 look on your system and on mine, and pronounce sentence. 
 Let them say which of us holds positions of " deep-toned 
 horror." 
 
 It may be said that there is the same difficulty in the anti- 
 Calvinistic as in the Calvinistic system : that, on the anti- 
 Calvinistic system, as the Almighty foresaw that numbers of 
 the human race would finally perish, with this foreknowledge 
 creating them, he decreed their perdition. But, on the Cal- 
 vinistic scheme, he decreed this perdition, not because he 
 foresaw they would incur or deserve it ; he decreed it with- 
 out any respect to his foreknowledge of the use which they 
 would make of the means of grace.* He provided for them 
 no Saviour, no atonement, no effectual grace, without which 
 they could not be saved. On the anti-Calvinistic scheme, 
 he provided for them a Saviour, an atonement, and the influ- 
 ences of divine grace ; and, therefore, the ground of their 
 perdition is, that with the most powerful motives and ade- 
 quate means they freely " chose darkness rather than light." 
 On the Calvinistic system, as no atonement was made for 
 them, and no grace given to them, they could not be saved. 
 It is the decree, and consequently the will of God, that they 
 should not be saved. On the anti-Calvinistic system, as 
 both an atonement and means of grace were provided, they 
 would have been saved if they had not resisted this grace 
 and contemned this atonement. The difficulties in the anti- 
 Calvinistic system arise only when we attempt to investi- 
 
 * Confession of Faith, chap. iii. 5. 
 
 22* 
 
268 hobart's apology 
 
 gate the incomprehensible subject of the divine foreknow- 
 ledge. It is of importance to observe, that thej^ do not arise 
 from the system itself. Every thing in it is luminous, lovely 
 and benevolent — the Deity providing a Saviour for all his 
 fallen creatures, conferring his grace on them all, so that if 
 they perish, it is because they " would not come unto him, 
 that they might have life." But the difficulties in the Cal- 
 vinistic scheme are essential to the system itself. For in it 
 we find no Saviour, no mercy, no grace provided for any but 
 the elect^ absolutely, unconditionally elected. 
 
 The temple of Calvinism, dark and dismaying, rears its 
 gloomy spire amidst perpetual clouds, rolling in blackness. 
 From their lowering bosom burst forth, with frightful glare, 
 the awful peals — unconditional salvation to the elect — 
 PERDITION to the REST OF MANKIND. From its dreary 
 courts, traversed with fearful step by crowds of hapless 
 sinners, is" excluded the light of hope. Only the elect 
 are admitted into its holy place; where reigns, not the 
 Father of mercies, the God of lovCy whose throne is goodness, 
 whose sceptre is mercy; but an arbitrary sovereign, 
 whose throne is power, whose sceptre is vengeance, and the 
 arm that wields it, caprice. For while a few select favour- 
 ites are exalted to his favour, the great mass of mortals, 
 *' not more sinful than they," are consigned to perdition. 
 Ah ! how appalling the " confused noises " that burst from 
 this frightful dome. The proud triumphs of the favourites of 
 a resistless sovereign, who are made, in spite of themselves, 
 the subjects of his favour, mingling with the groans of the 
 reprobate — groans embittered by the reflection that the Sa- 
 viour died not for them, that the grace " without which they 
 could do nothing " was never extended to them — O my soul, 
 into the secret of this council come thou not ; unto this as- 
 sembly, mine honour, be not thou united. 
 
 I state the views under which Calvinism appears to my 
 mind. I mean no injurious reflections on those who main- 
 tain its peculiar doctrines, and who of course do not view 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 259 
 
 them in the same light with myself. Many persons who 
 profess the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, are my particular 
 friends ; endeared to me by their piety, their worth and 
 talents. But of these doctrines, by whomsoever maintained, 
 I must say — let them perish. In my humble judgment, 
 they are hostile to the spirit of the Christian system, to rea- 
 son, and every amiable feeling of the heart. They cherish 
 the prejudices of the infidel against a religion which contains 
 doctrines so gloomy and terrible. They often sweep with 
 the tempests of despair, the bosom of the timid and humble 
 Christian ; while they buoy up with presumptuous triumph 
 many who, above all others, ought not to " be high-minded, 
 but to fear." Do they ascribe all the work of man's salva- 
 tion to God ? " Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be 
 the praise," should indeed be the language of every Christian 
 before his Creator and Saviour, from whom alone he derives 
 his being, the means of grace and forgiveness, and the hope 
 of glory. But God cannot be honoured by the service of 
 those whom, by an irresistible decree, he compels into his 
 service. Man, through divine grace, is free to accept or to 
 reject the mercy offered to him. And, therefore, he is com- 
 manded to "work out his salvation, for it is God who work- 
 eth in him to will and to do." By a voluntary service through 
 grace, he glorifies God; and not by a service to which a 
 sovereign decree devotes him, to which irresistible grace 
 impels him. 
 
 An imperious principle of self-defence has called forth 
 these letters. I had hoped to have been permitted to enforce 
 on ^Episcopalians the principles of their church without pro- 
 voking the censure of others ; while I left to them the same 
 right which I claimed to myself. In confining originally my 
 remarks on Episcopal principles to books addressed to Epis- 
 copalians and calculated for their use, I surely observed the 
 dictates of prudence and decorum. The errors which you 
 and others conceived to be contained in these books, might 
 have been sufficiently counteracted by private conversation, 
 
260 
 
 HOBART'S APOLOGY 
 
 by instructions from the pulpit, by manuals of faith and order 
 published for your own people, of which, if there had been 
 no personal reference to me, I should not have felt myself 
 compelled to take notice. But another course has been 
 chosen. My principles have been attacked in the newspa- 
 pers. My name has been bandied on the tongues of the 
 thoughtless, in disgraceful alliance with /oo/ and bigot. And 
 to sink me yet lower in the pit of infamy, you represent me 
 as holding principles which consign to perdition the brightest 
 saints that ever adorned the church on earth, or will chant 
 forth the hallelujahs of heaven. I am denounced, con- 
 demned, and stretched on the rack of proud and overbearing 
 criticism, in a periodical publication, from the privilege of 
 defending myself in which I am proscribed ; for the circula- 
 tion of which unexampled pains have been taken ; and which 
 hundreds will peruse who will never see my vindication, or 
 who will turn with horror from any production of one who 
 makes the only alternative " Episcopacy or Perdition." 
 
 But all this and more will not intimidate me from defend- 
 ing the principles of my church. I mean not indeed to dis- 
 dain the opinion of the world. I boast not of that insensibi- 
 lity which never glows at the soothing voice of merited com- 
 mendation, nor sinks under the frown of just censure. Pre- 
 cious to my soul have ever been the friendship and the love 
 of the virtuous. I view the chief happiness of this world 
 as consisting, next to the joys of religion, in the delightful 
 intercourse of friendship and affection. My feelings are par- 
 ticularly wounded b}^ your system of denunciation, because 
 it tends to close against me the bosoms of many in whose 
 hearts I should wish to find a place. But there are princi- 
 ples which I should ever desire to be paramount in mj^ soul — 
 the love of truth, the love of duty. God grant that Imay ever 
 feel that sacred independence which will never sacrifice these 
 principles to considerations of personal interest or feeling. 
 I strike out into no new paths. I advocate no new princi- 
 ples. I arrogate no new discoveries. The good old path 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 261 
 
 in which the Fathers of the primitive church followed their 
 blessed Master to martyrdom and glory ; in which the vene- 
 rable Fathers of the Church of England found rest to their 
 souls — is the path in which I would wish to lead, to a " rest 
 eternal in the heavens," myself and those that hear me. 
 
 In the remarks which I have addressed to you, I have 
 considered you only as the Editor of the Christian's Maga- 
 zine. And in this character only, my principles compel me 
 to be hostile to j^ou. I should despise myself did I not 
 cherish the sentiments of sincere respect for a Scholar of 
 distinguished attainments, for -a Divine eloquent, zealous 
 and exemjDlary in the discharge of his high functions. Con- 
 test like that to which the Christian's Magazine calls me, 
 suits not the temper of my soul. I think it should have been 
 " made of sterner stuff." Were I not supported by that con- 
 sciousness of rectitude ; above all, by that sacred zeal for 
 the cause of truth, which case the soul as with adamant, I 
 would lament the hour, when, in the innocence of my heart, 
 I ushered to the world a performance, concerning which I 
 only indulged the humble hope that it might tend to revive 
 in some degree, among Episcopalians, the spirit of primitive 
 piety, truth and order. That performance, though addressed 
 to Episcopalians, and designed for them, has excited in others 
 an ire which no explanations can moderate or appease. It 
 has excited an ire which repels with disdain, that charity 
 which embraces in her wide-extended arms the sincere in- 
 quirers after truth, by whatever name distinguished. Until 
 that performance brought me forward, a mark for the arrows 
 of the vengeful polemic, I had passed the " noiseless tenour 
 of my way." The seats of a college, from which I had but 
 a few years emerged, had cherished in my soul a love of 
 science, an ardent thirst for truth, but had not furnished me 
 with that breast-plate of apathy which defends the bosom 
 from those keen darts of scorn, invective and denunciation, 
 that are hurled on the combatant in the field of controversy. 
 The bosom of friendship on which I had there reclined ; 
 
2^ hobart's apology 
 
 " the sweet converse of friends," among whom it is my pride 
 to number the writers who, under the signatures of a Lay- 
 man and Cyprian,* defended the Episcopal cause, among 
 whom it is my pride to rank one who bears a Christian name 
 different from my own,| had not prepared me to smother that 
 sensibihty which, leaping over every dissonance of opinion, 
 fixes with ardour and tenderness on the virtuous and kindred 
 spirit. But my feelings have beguiled me into a strain which 
 some persons may deem idle, at which others will perhaps 
 raise the sneer of scorn. I stop. It were folly, as the con- 
 scientious advocate for truth, it were disgraceful to mourn, 
 that her holy interests have urged me into the field of con- 
 troversy. My banner is, evangelical truth, apostolic 
 ORDER. Firm and undaunted, though the spear raised against 
 me be tremendous as that with which Goliath of Gath threat- 
 ened to crush the stripling David, I must summon to the de- 
 fence of my sacred cause whatever powers nature (alas ! as 
 yet indeed too little cultivated by the laborious hand of 
 study) has bestowed upon me ; whatever ardour, whatever 
 zeal nature has enkindled in my bosom. It were vain to 
 rest here. I must arm mj^self by imploring the grace of him 
 whose glory it is to make often the humblest instrument the 
 victorious champion of his truth. 
 
 Pro ecclesid Dei, pro ecclesid Dei. Like the venerable 
 prelate J who chose these words as the standard of his wishes, 
 his duties, his labours, his dying prayers, every minister 
 should be supremely devoted to the Church of God. 
 When you. Sir, survey the heresies that deform the fair 
 face of the Zion of the Lord, the schisms that distract and 
 rend asunder her members, I feel confident that from the 
 heart you will join with me in the following prayer of one § 
 who, having sung in the church on earth its sweetest strains, 
 now rests in hope of chaunting forth from the highest 
 
 * T. Y. H. Esq. and the Rev. Mr. B. f Rev. Dr. K. 
 
 X Archbishop Whitgift. § Bishop HoRira:. 
 
FOR APOSTOLIC ORDER. 263 
 
 seats of the church triumphant " the praises of God and of 
 the Lamb." 
 
 *' Come, O thou divine Spirit of peace and love, who didst 
 reside in the soul of the holy Jesus, descend into his mysti- 
 cal body ; and fill us, who compose it, with all his heavenly 
 tempers ; put an end to heresies, heal all schisms, cause bit- 
 ter contention to cease, abolish every enmity, and make us 
 to be of one mind in thy holy city ; that so, ' peace being 
 within her walls,' her citizens may give themselves to every 
 profitable employment, and ' plenteousness' of grace, wisdom 
 and truth, as well as of earthly blessings, may be in all her 
 ^ palaces.' Thus will she become a lively portrait of that 
 place which is prepared for them that love one another, 
 where, with one heart, and one voice, they shall ascribe 
 ^ salvation and glory to God and to the Lamb." 
 
 In offering this prayer, I trust we can meet at the footstool 
 of the throne of grace ; and in the spirit of peace and amity 
 which it inspires, I subscribe myself 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 J. H. HOBART. 
 
 June^ 1807. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Page 
 Absurdity of supposed change from Presbyterianism to Episco- 
 pacy in the early Church, 200-210 
 
 Adverse circumstances of Protestant Episcopal Church in this 
 
 country, 235 
 
 Aerius — an early heretic — denied Episcopacy, - - - - 209 
 ^ra of universal establishment of Episcopacy — different views, 200-208 
 
 Aggression, charge of, repelled, 34, 38 
 
 Alexandria, Church of, 121, 182 
 
 Alleged deficiencies in the Protestant Episcopal Church, 223, 232 
 
 Antioch, Church at, - - 196 
 
 Angels in Revelations, Bishops, - - - - 157 
 
 Apostolic Practice — when binding on the Church, - - 158, 159 
 
 — — when temporary, . . _ 159 
 
 — Succession — its necessity, - - . - 138,148,150 
 
 — — acknowledged by Presbyterians, - - 149 
 
 — — defended by Rev. W. Law, 1st letter, - 150-153 
 Appointment of Bishops, 127, 219 
 
 B 
 Baptismal Regeneration, -.-.-.-- 230 
 Beattie, Dr. quoted, 231 
 
 Beza — approves Episcopacy, 94, 113 
 
 Bingham, Origines Eccles., quoted - * 121 
 
 Bishops, whether different order from Presbyters, - . - 117 
 
 — possess distinct powers, - - - - 118, 136, 166, 242 
 
 — need not actually exercise them, - - - - 119, 124 
 
 — not affected by extent of their charge, - - 120, 125 
 
 — • rule in primitive Church, 122 
 
 — in Scotland — when deprived, 123 
 
 — exercise of power, of ecclesiastical regulation, 121,125,130,219 
 
 — so also their election or appointment, - - - 127, 219 
 
 — ordination alone vests the office, - - - - 127, 219 
 
 — necessary to outward being of a Church, - . . 131 
 
 — of Divine Institution, - ' 132, 136 
 
 — acknowledged by Church of England, - - 133, 135 n. 
 
 — successors of the Apostles, 136, 137 
 
 — powers of, in this country, - - ■• - - - 219 
 
 — scriptural use of the term, 116,243 
 
 ( See Episcopacy. ) 
 
 Blondel, quoted, 169, 200 «. 
 
 23 
 
266 INDEX. 
 
 Page 
 Bowden (Rev. Dr.) letter to Dr. Stiles, quoted, - - - - 199 
 Butler, Bishop, on the Divine commands, - . - _ 76 
 
 Burden of proof on the opponents of Episcopacy, - - - - 108 
 
 C 
 Calvin, on the forgiveness of sins, - 84 
 
 — — necessity of the ministerial office, - - - - 84 
 
 — in favour of Episcopacy, - - - 91, 92, 99, 111, 114, 165 
 
 — disclaims parity of ministers, 94, 165 
 
 — — antiquitj' for Presbyterianism, - - - -94,166 
 
 — denounces separation from the Church when not fundamen- 
 tally sinful, 103-105 
 
 — letter to Edward VI. 110 
 
 — applied for Episcopal orders, 112 
 
 — his ordination doubtful, -.-_-> 143 n. 
 
 — — view of 1 Tim. iv. 14, 155 n. 
 
 Calvinism delineated, - 251-259 
 
 Casaubon on the Church of England, 95 
 
 Change of name from Apostle to Bishop, ----- 248 
 
 — — names does not presuppose a change of things, - - 247 
 
 — from Presbyterianism to Episcopacy incredible, 201-205, 210 
 
 No record of it, 205-207 
 
 Charity exemplified, 223,225,228,229 
 
 Christian's Magazine — Its editor's intemperate denunciations, 7, 18-25, 33 
 
 — — — despotism and arrogance, - - 25-30, 240 
 
 — — — exhibition of the advocates of Episcopa- 
 cy, 30,31 
 
 — — — review of Essays on Episcopacy, 13, 30, 73 
 
 — — — charge of aggression repelled, - 34, 38 
 
 — — — — that commmunion with Episcopal 
 priesthood is made essential to salvation, - - - - 51, 59 
 
 — — — — that particular views of external 
 order are made the hinging point of salvation, - - - - 51 
 
 refuted, 52-54, 67, 85 
 
 — — — unfair representations, - - - 56, 58, 59 
 
 — — — charge that external order is put on a level 
 with Christ's merits, refuted, 62 
 
 applies equally to Presbyterians, - - - - 70, 83 
 
 — — — misquotations, 64 
 
 — — — principles and assertions examined 69-72 
 
 — — — inconsistencies demonstrated, - 72, 84, 107 
 
 — — — pleas for separation, their futility, 101, 102 
 — — alone understands ancient history, - 164 
 
 — — — contradicts Calvin, . - . . 165 
 
 — — — claim of superior piety, - - 223, 224 
 
 — — — — for Presbyterianism refuted, - - 249 
 
 Church, The, a visible institution, 77 
 
 Church communion, an indispensable duty, - - - - 47, 68 
 
 — — ordinarily essential to salvation, - - 64, 65 
 
 — — to be maintained through the Bishops, - 65, 68, 77 
 
 — — its benefits applied only to the believer, - 65, 67 
 
 — — by means of the sacraments, - - - 68, 77 
 Church of England, uniform practice as to ordination, - 44 n. 134 
 
INDEX. 267 
 
 Page 
 Church of England, its doctrine on this point, - - 133, 135 n. 
 
 Church government, in what sense of Divine right, - - 128, 130 
 
 — — not to be identified with the Ministry, - - Jbid. 
 
 — — in the United States resembles the civil polity, 219 
 Church order, its defence an imperative duty, - - - - 16 
 Churchmen, to be warned against schism, - - - . 45 
 
 Chrysostom (St.) quoted, 184 
 
 Claim of superior piety examined, 223, 224 
 
 Congregational Episcopacy, its absurdity, - - - - 195, 196 
 
 — — a modern invention, - - - 197 
 
 Comber's (Dean) Companion to Temple, quoted, - - - - 139 
 Conventions of the Protestant Episcopal Church, their nature, 
 
 powers, &c. 219, 221 n. 
 
 Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, his clergy, - - - - 93, 199 
 
 Covenanters, sect of, their tenets, ------ 215 n. 
 
 Cranmer's views, not consistent, ------- 134 
 
 Cyprian, (St.) Bishop of Carthage, 93, 126, 199 
 
 — — his Epistles quoted, ----- 199 n. 
 Confession of Faith, (see Presbyterian.) 
 
 D 
 Daille, quoted, 94 
 
 Daubeny, Guide to the Church, quoted, - - - - 64, 107 
 
 De L' Angle, quoted, 93, 97 
 
 Difficulty of schism in the Protestant Episcopal Church, - - 218 
 
 Diocese, what, - - - - 120 
 
 Diocesan Conventions, - - - - - - - -219 
 
 Discipline and rites alterable by human authority, - - 129, 130 
 
 Discipline, ecclesiastical, want of, before the Revolution, - - 235 
 Distinction of grades in the ministry to be proved from their powers, 
 
 not names, 241-250 
 
 Examples of this given, 244, 245, 247 
 
 Distinctive principles of Episcopacy, - . - -116,137,144 
 
 Divine commands all obligatory, 76 
 
 Divine decrees, --75, 251 
 
 Doctrine of the Trinity, how proved, 250 
 
 Doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church stated, - 255-258 
 
 Dort, Synod of, quoted, 95 
 
 Du Bosc, quoted, - - - - , 97 
 
 Dupin's character of St. Jerome, 170 n. 
 
 Duty of submitting to Episcopacy, - - - - 211, 218, 220 w. 
 
 E 
 
 Ecclesiastical usage fixed the names of the Church officers, - - 246 
 Encroachments of Popery easily traced ----- 208 
 Episcopacy, tests of, are Scripture and Antiquity, - - 11, 87 
 
 — assailed by passion and prejudice, - - - 11,12,87 
 
 — its distinctive principles, why advocated, 15, 16, 35, 36, 43 
 
 — maintenance of its Divine authority denies the validity of 
 non-Episcopal ordinations, 44, 45, 54, 152 
 
 — early defenders in Connecticut, - - - - 49 
 
 — " indispensable to salvation " — meaning of the phrase, 52, 
 
 59, 62 
 
268 INDEX. 
 
 Page 
 Episcopacy, prescription in its favour, . . - - 89, 108 
 
 — not parallel with Popery, 90, 208 
 
 — Reformers approved of it— {see Testimonies) 91, 98, 109, 114 
 
 — retained by Sweden and Denmark, - - - - 97 
 
 — the "Form" preserved in Germany, . - - 98 
 
 — Its Divine Authority, 115, 128 
 
 — — distinctive principles, . - - - 116, 137, 144 
 
 — names of the three grades immaterial, - - 116, 241 
 
 — scripture usage with respect to them, - - 116, 243 
 
 — immaterial whether Bishops and Presbyters are the same 
 
 order, - - , 117 
 
 — powers of the Bishop superior, - - - 118, 138, 246 
 
 — their possession distinct from their exercise, 119, 121, 124 
 
 — not affected by the extent of their charge, - 120, 125 
 
 — rule in the primitive Church, 122 
 
 — power of the Bishop need not be sole and absolute - 125 
 
 — their election and appointment, 127 
 
 — ordination alone vests the office, . - - - 127 
 alleged differences of opinion examined, 
 
 on ecclesiastical legislation, - - - 126, 219, 220 w. 
 on the Divine right of Church government, - 128 
 
 on the three orders in the ministry, - - 130, 132 
 on the practice of the Church of England, - 132,134 
 
 on cases of necessity, 137 
 
 on lay baptisms, - - - - - - 140 
 
 — none of these affect the essentials of Episcopacy, - - 144 
 
 — not founded on model of the synagogue, - - - 144 n. 
 
 — Scripture testimony for three grades, - - - - 144 
 
 — Jewish dispensation, 118, 144 
 
 — Institution of Christ, 145, 146 
 
 — Churches founded by the Apostles, - - - Snd. 
 
 — Timothy and Titus, Epistles to, - - - 146, 153 
 
 — Church at Ephesus, ------ Jlnd. 
 
 — necessity of an external commission, . - - 147, 159 
 
 — received from Christ by succession, - - 148, 150 
 
 — ordination belonged to the Apostles only, - - 148, 152 
 
 — transmitted to Bishops exclusively, - _ - 152 
 
 — 1 Tim. iv. 14, alleged by Presbyterians, examined, - 154 
 
 — angels of Seven Churches of Asia, - - - - 157 
 •— want of express precept alleged, . - - - 158 
 
 — Apostolic practice, when binding, - - - 158, 159 
 
 — why unchangeable in case of Episcopacy, - - - 160 
 
 — unanimity of primitive Church, - . - - 162 
 
 — St. Ignatius — St. Cyprian, 163 
 
 — Calvin's testimony, 94, 165, 166 
 
 — not an innovation, 168, 198 
 
 — no trace of any controversy, - - - -169,198,205 
 
 — St. Jerome contra, it is said, ----- 169 
 
 — his testimony, value of it, - . - 173, &c. 
 (See St. Jerome.) 
 
 — he puts Bishops in the place of the Apostles, - 188-189 
 
 — universally prevalent in third century by confession of 
 
 Presbyterians, 200,209 
 
INDEX. 269 
 
 Episcopacy, Duty of submission to it, - . . 211, 218, 220 n. 
 
 — favourable to unity, 218 
 
 — similarity of C hurch government to that of the civil polity 
 
 in the United States, 219 
 
 — Its beneficial tendency, ------ 222 
 
 Ephesus, Church of, 146, 153 
 
 " Essays on Episcopacy," - 14, 49 w. 
 
 " Essay on the Visible Church " examined, - - - - 72 
 
 Eusebius, quoted, 93, 120, 169, 189, 193 n. 
 
 Eutychius — 10th century — favourite authority with Presbyterians, 182 n. 
 Evangelists, what, 156 
 
 F 
 
 Fathers of the second and third centuries, their unanimity, 162, 169, 198 
 
 Freedom of investigation, allowable, 34, 43 
 
 Final perseverance, doctrine of, 73, 252 
 
 " Faith alone" the hinging point of salvation, - - - 63, 74, 75 
 Full records of the early Church preserved, - - - . 207 
 
 H 
 
 Hammond, Rev. Dr., quoted, 246/1. 
 
 Hoadley, Bishop, quoted, 122, 205 
 
 _ — on St. Jerome's testimony, - 175, 177, 179, 183-155 
 
 Hooker's Eccles. Polity, quoted, - 65, 79, 89, 126, 129, 130, 131, 220 
 
 Horsley, Bishop, on Justification by Faith, - - - - 63 n. 
 
 J 
 
 Jerome, St., quoted, 125, 174, 181, 249 w. 
 
 — his character, 170, 171 
 
 — — " famous testimony," its value, - - - 173, &c. 
 
 opposed to his other statements, 174, 181, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 
 
 — does not say when alleged change took place, - - 174 
 
 may have meant in the time of the Apostles, 176 
 
 — Bz.ys it vfz.s universal 2irv& immediate, - - - 179 
 
 — his assertion of this change unwarranted "by scripture, 181 
 
 — — statements in favour of Episcopacy, - - 182-188 
 
 — denies Presbyters the power of ordination, - - 183 
 
 — calls superiority of Bishops to Presbyters an Apostolic 
 
 tradition, 185 
 
 — true meaning of this passage, 186 
 
 — puts Bishops in place of the Apostles, - - 188,189 
 
 — uses not history, but reasonings, - - - 191 
 
 — says Timothy, Titus, &c. were ordained Bishops, - 192 
 
 — weakness of relying on this passage, - - 193, 194 
 
 Jerusalem, Church of, 195 
 
 Ignatius (St.) Bishop of Antioch, 163, 195 
 
 Imputation of Adam's sin, 252 
 
 Indispensableness of Church communion to salvation, - 52, 59, 60, 62 
 Innovation, charge of, repelled, ... - 161, 168, 201, &c. 
 
 Isidore, Bishop of Seville, quoted, 187 
 
 Invalidity of non-Episcopal ordinations, - - - - 44,152,242 
 
 — — — baptisms, 142 
 
 Involuntary and unavoidable error, 56, 58 
 
 23* 
 
270 INDEX. 
 
 Page 
 
 Johnson, Rev. Dr., life of, referred to, 49 
 
 Jurisdiction of Bishops, 124, 219 
 
 Justification by faith, 63 
 
 L 
 
 Laity, their power in ecclesiastical legislation, ... 126, 221 n. 
 
 Lay baptism, discussed, 140-143 
 
 — does not vitiate the ministerial commission, - - 142 
 
 Lathrop, Dr., his sermon quoted, 149 w. 
 
 Law's, Rev. W., 1st letter, quoted, on Apostolical succession, 150-153 
 
 Le Moyne, quoted, 96 
 
 " Letters on Frequent Communion," quoted, - - - - 39, 61 
 Linn, Dr., author of the " Miscellanies," - - - 9, 34, 37, 49 n. 
 Liturgy, The, assailed and defended, 225 
 
 M 
 
 Marks of the visible Church, 77 
 
 Mason, Dr. J., {see Christian's Magazine.) 
 
 M'Leod — principles of his Catechism, 78, &c. 
 
 — requires ordination by a Presbytery, - - - - 79 
 
 — unchurches Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland, - - 80 
 
 and the whole visible Church, 81 
 
 — inaccurate definitions, 82 
 
 — misapplication of Scripture, - - - - 82, 83 
 
 — maintains Apostolical succession, - - - - 149 
 
 — — — practice, - - . . 158 n. 
 
 — disclaims Congregational Episcopacy, " - ,- 19'^ 
 
 — his account of the Covenanters, - - - - ' 215 n. 
 
 — denounces the Presbyterians, 217 
 
 — assails the Protestant Episcopal Church, - - 216 n. 225 
 
 — remarks on forms of prayer, 225 
 
 — representation of preaching, 226 
 
 — — — Church conventions, - - - 228 
 
 — on baptismal regeneration, 229 
 
 Maurice, Rev. Dr., quoted, 195, 198 
 
 Ministerial commission not vitiated by lay baptism, ... 142 
 Miraculous gifts necessary to prove ministerial commission, when 
 
 not received by succession, 149 
 
 N 
 
 Nag's head ordination exploded, 133 n. 
 
 JVames of three grades of the clergy immaterial, - - 116, 241 
 
 — — — — in Scripture indeterminate, - 116, 243-248 
 
 this no advantage to Presbyterians, - - - 249 
 
 Necessity, plea of, considered, 138 
 
 — of an external commission, - - - - 142,148 
 
 — of the new birth maintained, - - - - - 230 
 
 O 
 Ordination, right of, peculiar to Bishops, - - - 44, 125, 152, 242 
 
 — service quoted, 44, 134 
 
 — scripture testimony, as to - - - - 145, 146 
 
 — of Presbyterians invalid, - - - . 44, 152, 242 
 
 — — Timothy by St. Paul only, 155 
 
INDEX. 271 
 
 £ 
 Preaching, its value, 102, 226 
 
 — provided for by the Protestant Episcopal Church, - 227 
 Predestination, ---------- 251 
 
 Presbyterian Confession of Faith requires lawful ordination, and 
 union with the visible Church, - - - 46, 60, 65, 72, 83, 147 
 
 — — — — declares ministry and ordinances 
 essential, 60,84 
 
 — — — — sacraments, by whom to be admin- 
 istered, -_--. JSnd. 
 
 — — — — prayer and praise more important 
 than preaching, 102, 226 
 
 — — — — condemns lay baptism, - - 143 
 
 — — — — on Predestination, - - - 252 n. 
 
 — — — imputation of Adam's sin, - 252 
 
 Presbyterian ordination invalid, 44, 152, 242 
 
 Presbyterians — their modern origin, ------ 89 
 
 — smallness of the sect, ----- 100 n. 
 
 — allow the Apostolic succession, - - - - 149 
 
 — — early establishment of Episcopacy, 200, 208 
 
 — their system unfavourable to unity, - - 213-217 
 
 — — discussions in Scotland, - - - - 214 
 
 — — — — America, - - - 214-217 
 " Presbytery," (1 Tim. iv. 14,) meaning of the word, - 154, &c. 
 Primitive Chm-ch — unanimous for Episcopacy, - - - 162, 169 
 
 — — reverence for Apostolic usages, . - - 202 
 Profession of faith not always attended with corresponding fruits, - 236 
 
 — — danger of arguing from their want, - 237-239 
 Puritanism — its erroneous principle ----- 129, 222 
 
 R 
 Regeneration and Renovation distinguished, - - - - 230 
 Reprobation, ---- 252 
 
 S 
 Salmasius, quoted, --. 200 n. 
 
 Safety of being in the Episcopal Church, - - 100, 115, 211, 213 
 
 Schism, its nature and guilt, 45, 212 
 
 Scotch Bishops, - . . 123 
 
 Sermons of English Bishops, their excellence, - - - 228 
 
 Sinful terms of communion prescribed by Rome, - - 213 n. 234 n. 
 Spiritual communion with Christ explained, - - - - 66 
 
 — pride, its wickedness, 233 
 
 Spurious liberality, -13, 14 
 
 Stillingfleet, Bishop, his Irenicum, its character, - - - - 88 
 
 contradicted by his subsequent writings, - 88, 136, 178 
 
 — on the testimony of St. Jerome, - 178, 179, 180, 186 
 Succession in the Christian ministry necessary, - - . 150 
 Superiority of Bishops to Presbyters an Apostolic tradition, - - 185 
 
 T 
 
 Testimonies in favour of Episcopacy. 
 
 Fathers— Cyprian (St.) 3d century, . - - - 169, 206 
 
BOOKSEIiLiERS & P U B L. I S H E R S, 
 
 No. 139 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. 
 
 (Late SWORDS, STANFORD, & CO.,) the oldest Episcopal Bookstore 
 in the United States. Established in 1787. 
 
 S. & S. beg leave to inform their friends and the public, 
 that they continue to keep on hand, as in former years, a 
 general assortment of Religious Works, suitable for individ- 
 uals, for Parish and Family Libraries, and for the Clergy, 
 which they will dispose of on the most reasonable terms. 
 
 Bibles and Frayer-Books, 
 
 Of every size and description of binding. Also, the Church Lessons in 
 convenient forms. 
 
 Among the Books published by them in aid of Christian 
 knowledge and piety, are the following : 
 
 THE NEW MANUAL OF DEVOTIONS— Edited by the Rt. Rev. 
 Bishop Ives, of North Carolina. 1 vol. 12mo. Price $1. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN'S MANUAL Of Faith and Devotion— Edited by the 
 late Rt. Rev. Bishop Hob art. 1 vol. 62i cents. 
 
 THORNTON'S FAMILY PRAYERS, with a Commentary on our Lord's 
 Sermon on the Mount. Edited by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Eastbttrx. 
 1 vol. 12mo. Price 75 cents. 
 
 BICKERSTETH'S TREATISE On the Lord's Supper. Enlarged and 
 improved by the author, and edited by the Rev. L. P. W. Balch, 
 Rector of St. Bartholomew's Church, New York. 1 vol. 12mo. 75 cts. 
 
 THE COMPANION FOR THE ALTAR: Or Week's Preparation for 
 the Holy Companion. By the late Right Rev. Bishop Hobart. 1 vol. 
 Price 50 cents. 
 
 THE COMMUNICANT'S MANUAL. By the same. A neat pocket 
 volume. Price 18| cents. Morocco gilt, 37i cents. 
 
 THE LIFE AND POSTHUMOUS WORKS of the late Right Rev. Bishop 
 Hobart. Edited by the Rev. Wm. Berrian, D. D. 3 vols. 8vo. 
 $4 50. 
 
 THE LIFE AND SERMONS of the late Right Rev. Nathaniel Bow- 
 en, D. D., of South Carolina, and formerly of Grace Church, New- 
 York. 2 vols. 8vo. $i. 
 
MELVILL'S SERMONS, Edited by Bishop McIlvaine. 3d edition, 
 
 in one large 8vo. volume. Price ^3. 
 
 SERMONS— By the late Right Rev. Ben-jamin Moore, D. D., Bishop 
 
 of New- York. 2 vols. 8vo. Price $2 50. 
 
 SERMONS — By the Rev. J. W. Cunningham, Vicar of Harrow, author 
 of " The Velvet Cushion," « World without Souls," &c. &c. 1 vol. 
 
 8vo. $1. 
 
 SERMONS— By the late Rev. C. R. Duffie, first Rector of St. Thomas's 
 Church, New- York. 2 vols. Svo. ^2 50. 
 
 PALMER'S HISTORY of the Church of Christ. Edited by the Right 
 Rev. Bishop Whittingham, with questions annexed ; adapting the 
 work for Schools and Parishes. In cloth, 62i cents; in boards, 50 cts. 
 
 THE LASTS DAYS OF BISHOP HEBER, By the Rev. Archdeacon 
 Robinson. A most interesting work to all who venerate the memory 
 of this departed prelate. In 1 vol. 12mo. 50 cents. 
 
 A TRIBUTE OF SYMPATHY.— Addressed to Mourners. By Newn- 
 HAM. 12mo. 50 cents. 
 
 BARROW'S TREATISE on the Pope's Supremacy. Svo. ^1 50. 
 
 VILLAGE SERMONS, On the Relative Duties. To which is appended 
 Sermons to Young Men. By the Rev. Edward Berens. 75 cents. 
 
 THE CHURCHMAN'S MANUAL.— By the Rev. Benjamin Dorr, 
 D. D. 75 cents. 
 
 AIDS TO REFLECTION.— By Samuel Taylor Coleridge. With 
 the author's last corrections. Edited by H. N. Coleridge, Esq., 
 M. A. To which is prefixed a Preliminary Essay, by the Rev. J. 
 McViCKAR, D. D. 75 cents. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION AND CANONS of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States af America : the whole being chronologi- 
 cally arranged, with Notes and Remarks, Historical and Explanatory. 
 By Francis L. Hawkes, D. D. $1 25. 
 
 BERRIAN'S PRAYERS— Family and Private Prayers. By the Rev. 
 Wm. Berrian, D. D. 62| cents. 
 
 PRAYERS AND OFFICES of Devotion for Families, and for Particular 
 Persons upon most occasions. By Benjamin Jenks. Altered and 
 improved by the late Rev. Charles Simeon, Fellow of King's Col- 
 lege, Cambridge. 50 cents. 
 
 JERRAM AND WALL'S Conversations on Infant Baptism. 37| cents. 
 
 NELSON'S Practice of True Devotion. 37 1 cents. 
 
 HOLY LIVING AND DYING.— By the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, 
 
 D. D. ^1. 
 
 HOBART'S apology.— An Apology for Apostolic Order and its Ad- 
 vocates. By the late Right Rev. Bishop Hobart. With Notes, and 
 a valuable Index to subjects. 50 cents. 
 
 FESTIVALS AND FASTS.— A Companion to the Festivals and Fasts 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America 
 By the late Bishop Hobart. 62| cents. 
 
 2 
 
CHURCH MUSIC— The following valuable works of Church Music, 
 adapted for the Organ or Piano: — The Church Choir; The Harp of 
 David; The Music of the Church. All $1 each. 
 
 DYER ON EPISCOPACY.— Testimonies for Episcopacy from the ear- 
 lier Christian Writers. By the Rev. Pai^mer Dyer. 25 cents. 
 
 DEMON ON CONFIRMATION.— Sermons on Confirmation, and an 
 Address. By the late Bishop Dehon, of South Carolina. 10 cents. 
 ^1 per dozen. 
 
 BISHOP IVES'S CATECHISM— A Catechism to be taught orally. By 
 a Bishop of the Church. 10 cents, $1 per dozen. 
 
 KEITH. — Evidence of Prophecy. By the Rev. Alexander Keith, 
 D. D. 75 cents. Demonstration of the Truth of the Christian Reli- 
 gion. By the same. ^1 50. 
 
 HENRY MARTYN.— A Memoir of the Rev. Henry Martyn. By the 
 Rev. John Sargent. In 1 vol. $1. 
 
 JEREMY TAYLOR.— The Life of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, D. D. 
 By Bishop Heber. 1 vol. 75 cents. 
 
 BISHOP HOPKINS.— Christianity Vindicated, in Seven Discourses on 
 the Evidences of the New Testament. By Jorn Henry Hopkins, 
 D. D., Bishop of Vermont. 1 vol. 50 cents. The Primitive Creed 
 Examined and Explained. By the same. 1 vol. ^1. The Primitive 
 Church Compared with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States. By the same. ^1. The Church of Rome in her Primitive 
 Purity, compared with the Church of Rome at the present day. By 
 the same. $1. 
 
 FABER. — The Difficulties of Romanism. By George Stanley Fa- 
 BER, B. D. Edited by the Rev. John Coleman, D. D. ^1. The Diffi- 
 culties of Infidelity. By the same. 50 cents. 
 
 BISHOP McILVAINE. — A Series of Evangelical Discourses, selected 
 for the Use of Families and Destitute Congregations. By the Right 
 Rev. Bishop McIlvaine. 2 vols. $4 50. Lectures on the Evidences 
 of Christianity. By the same. 8vo. $1 25. 
 
 WORKS ON EPISCOPACY.— Containing the Rev. Dr. Bowden's Let- 
 ters to the Rev. Dr. Miller ; and also Dr. Cooke's Essay on the In- 
 validity of Presbyterian Ordination ; and Bishop Onderdonk's Episco- 
 pacy tested by Scripture. 2 vols. ^1 25. 
 
 WILBERFORCE. — The Life of William Wilberforce, Esq. 2 vols. 
 ^. The Correspondence of the same. 2 vols. $2. 
 
 CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE. By Caroline Fry. 75 cents. A Word 
 to Women. By the same. 75 cents. Table of the Lord. By the same. 
 75 cents. 
 
 CATECHISM.— Lectures on the Church Catechism. By Archbishop 
 Secker. 75 cents, 
 
 SERMONS— By the Right Rev. Bishop Horsley. Two volumes in 
 one. 8vo. ^1 50. 
 
 ROBERT SOUTHEY.— The Book of the Church. By Robert Soitth- 
 EY, L .L. D. Abridged and adapted for the Young, 62| cents. 
 
 3 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ga0i0^'^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN USA. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 11012011865941