BX 8915 .M37 v. 3-4 
 Mason, John M. 1770-1829 
 The writings of the late 
 John M. Mason, D.D 
 
 ■a-' 'f?:^'*' 
 
THE 
 
 WRITINGS 
 
 OF THE LATE 
 
 JOHN M.^^l ASON, D.D 
 
 CONSISTING OF 
 
 SERMONS, ESSAYS, AND MISCELLANIES, 
 
 INCLUDING ESSAYS ALREADY PUBLISHED IN THE "CHRISTIAN MAGAZINE." 
 
 IN FOUR VOLUMES. 
 
 SELECTED AND ARRANGED B 
 
 7 
 
 REV. EBENEZER MASON. 
 
 VOL. III. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 PIIBLI.SHEP BY THE EDITOR. 
 1832. 
 
" KnUTMl, or.nrrfiiig ii. ar>) of rongrpse, in the VfHr lf<32, l.y Rev. Kbt-nezpi Mnson, 
 ill tlie clerk's office „!' iIk! mjiilliern dinirlrt of New Yoik." 
 
 'LCIOHI AND ROBINSON, PHINTTRS. 
 
CONTENTS OF VOLUME III. 
 
 On Religious Controversy, being introduction to 
 " Christian Magazine," ...... 1 
 
 REVIEW. 
 
 ESSAYS ON EPISCOPACY. 
 
 The Essays reviewed, 15 
 
 Diocesan Episcopacy not sustained by an examination of 
 Scriptural titles, ....... 37 
 
 Nor by Jewish Priesthood, . 
 
 Church in our Lord's time, 
 
 New Testament facts, 
 
 Official character of James, 
 
 Epistles to the seven churches, 
 
 Official character of Timothy and Titus, . 163 
 
 Testimony of the Fathers, . . 208 
 
 . 66 
 . 86 
 . 104 
 . 122 
 . 133 
 
IV 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS ON LOTS 
 
 The nature of a lot, 
 
 No 
 
 I, 
 
 . 266 
 
 lis scriptural use, 
 
 
 11. 
 
 . 275 
 
 Its abuses, 
 
 
 III. 
 
 . 287 
 
 Continued, 
 
 
 IV. 
 
 , ' .296 
 
 Evils incident to its abuses, 
 
 
 V. 
 
 . 306 
 
 Faith and Justification, 
 
 
 
 . 317 
 
 CONTRAST BETWEEN THE DEATH OF 
 HUME AND FINLEY. 
 
 David Hume's last sickness, . 
 Last words of Samuel Finley, D. D., 
 Remarks upon the preceding, 
 Conversation with a young traveler, 
 Insufficiency of the light of nature. 
 
 349 
 359 
 366 
 387 
 403 
 
ON RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY. 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE CHRISTIAN'S .MAGAZINE. 
 
 As one of the avowed designs of this work is 
 to assert the truth and refute error, it has to 
 combat in the outset a fashionable and imposing 
 prejudice. It seems to be taken for granted, 
 that how perfect soever the right of judging 
 and professing for ourselves, there exists no 
 right of inquiry into the judgment or profession 
 of others. In religion, at least, this maxim is 
 held to be incontrovertible by many who never 
 think of applying it to any other subject. To 
 disquisitions on topics in which all denomina- 
 tions agree, they can listen with pleasure ; they 
 can even permit the peculiarities of each to be 
 detailed in succession ; but from every thing 
 which wears the form of controversy thev turn 
 away with spontaneous cOntempt. Their aver- 
 sion is so fixed that hardly any plea of excel- 
 
 VOL. III. 1 
 
2 Introduction. 
 
 lence will be allowed in behalf of a work which 
 stands convicted on the charge of being contro- 
 versial. The fact is sufficient to preclude every 
 other trial, and to infer condemnation as a mat- 
 ter of course. 
 
 That these summary and oftentimes injurious 
 decisions have been unprovoked on the part of 
 disputants, I shall not affirm. On the contrary, 
 I will freely concede that the unfairness, the 
 heat, and the rudeness, which too frequently 
 occur in polemical writings, are most offensive 
 to the discreet reader, and make him shy of au- 
 thors from w horn he may expect such entertain- 
 ment. 
 
 But while there can be no apology for conduct 
 which offers equal violence to the rules of good 
 breeding and the precepts of Christianity, there 
 is ground to suspect that more is attributed to its 
 influence in producing the prevalent dislike to 
 controversy than it can justly claim. For as our 
 age must not arrogate to itself the praise of all 
 the meekness and candor wiiich have been in 
 the world, so it is certain that men great and 
 good, pacific and modest, have studied the most 
 controverted themes in an age when harshness 
 and incivility were more common than they are 
 now. In accounting, then, for that prejudice 
 which we are considering, much must be de- 
 ducted from the current professions of courtesy 
 
Tntroduction. 3 
 
 and candor, and transferred to that indifference 
 which will not be at the pains to examine on 
 which side lies the right of a question concern- 
 ing eternal hope ! For such a morbid state of 
 feeling we can suggest no remedy, and can only- 
 pour out our most fervent prayer that the first 
 admonition which it shall be compelled to regard 
 may not be that awful voice, '' Son, remember 
 that thou in thy lifetime hadst thy good things !" 
 The prejudice itself, unlike those lessons with 
 which truth and wisdom preoccupy the heart, 
 will appear, upon a close inspection, to be as 
 destitute of solidity as it is assuming in manner ; 
 for, in the 
 
 1st place, It admits not of dispute that the 
 holy scriptures point out an opposite course. 
 Their injunction is, to buy the truth and sell it not. 
 To cease from the instruction that causeth to err 
 from the loords of knowledge — earnestly to contend 
 for the- faith once delivered to the saints — to try 
 the sjnrits whether they arc of God. All these 
 directions imply, not that men are to spend their 
 lives in laying the foundations of their faith, but 
 that they are to employ their opportunities and 
 faculties in selecting the true from the false; 
 that they are to prize it when selected ; to en- 
 rich it with fresh acquisitions ; and to defend it 
 with their utmost skill. How this can be done 
 without controversy, so long as there are '' de- 
 
4 Tnlrodxullon. 
 
 ceivers in the world," it is incumbent on them 
 to show who Avould suffer tlie truths of the gos- 
 pel to be sacrificed, one after another, by men 
 of " corru|)t minds," rather than raise a finger or 
 press an argument for their protection. It is 
 indeed not more lamentable than true, that a 
 host of candidates beset the inquirer. Every 
 sect cries out, we are the j^cople, and tJce law of 
 the Lord is v-itli us ; every partisan enforces the 
 pretensions of his sect. But this, though fre- 
 quently urged, is the weakest of all reasons for 
 keeping aloof from investigation. The amount 
 is, " the danger of going astray is great, the con- 
 sequences fatal ; therefore I will shut my eyes." 
 Good sense would say, " the danger of error is 
 great, the consequences fatal ; therefore I will 
 use all my diligence that 1 may not be misled ;" 
 for certainly, if " straight be the gate and narrow 
 the way which leadeth imto life," we have the 
 strongest inducement possible to search out and 
 embrace the " few who find it." We are, there- 
 fore, reduced to this alternative, either that there 
 is no truth at all, or that we are bound to seek 
 it through every peril, to distinguish its voice 
 amid all clamors, and to possess it at any price. 
 If this condition seem hard, let it be remembered, 
 2. That it is not left to our discretion whether 
 we shall choose or not. 
 
Introdacdoii. 5 
 
 The determination to clioose notkiiig is a de- 
 termination not to clioose the truth, and this 
 draws after it the condemnation of those who 
 love darkness rather than light. Tlie mos*t high 
 God having given us his word as the rule of our 
 faith and duty, a neglect to seek its counsel be- 
 cause men wrangle about its meaning, is to make 
 the hazard of going wrong a reason for never 
 being anxious to go right. It would be like the 
 excuse of a servant, who, having in common 
 with others received his master's orders to re- 
 pair to a certain place, should resolve not to stir 
 because his fellow-servants quarreled about the 
 road. Their disobedience could never justify 
 his. Nor is there a man upon earth who would 
 not pronounce it to be the plea of a fool, that out 
 of his pure love of peace he had never been at 
 the trouble to ascertain the import of his ma.s- 
 ter's instructions ! The fact is, that no medium 
 can be assigned between receiving and rejecting 
 the truth. If rejected, we seal our own perdi- 
 tion — if received, we must reject whatever is 
 hostile to it ; that is, we must institute a com- 
 parison between conflicting claims, which is pre- 
 cisely the object of controversy. 
 
 Pursuing the argument a little farther, we 
 shall perceive, in the 
 
 3d place, That in disclaiming all controversy, 
 we set out with a principle wliich it is impossible 
 to carry through. 
 
(3 Introduction. 
 
 In what department of society, or on what 
 subject of discourse, do the thoughts of men 
 accord 7 The law has long been celebrated for 
 its fertility in litigation. Medicine is hardly 
 inferior to the bar ; agriculture keeps up a sharp 
 debate with commerce ; and the politician has 
 always to navigate a " tempestuous sea." Not 
 a project, a character, nor an incident, can be 
 introduced into common conversation without 
 calling forth different strictures, according to the 
 views, habits, relations, and tempers of the 
 company. And it is by no means unusual for 
 some, who abhor controversy in religion, to be 
 both talkative and disputatious, if not dogmatic 
 and bitter, on other matters. The world is a 
 vast scene of strife. A man must either take it 
 as he finds it, and bear his part in the general 
 collision, or else go out of it altogether. It is 
 the inevitable consequence of imperfect know- 
 ledge and depraved appetite, of that confusion 
 of intellect and corruption of heart which jflow 
 from sin. When, therefore, we are under the 
 necessity of either being exiled from society, or 
 of giving and receiving contradiction ; and when 
 we submit to this necessity without murmuring 
 in all cases but those which concern religion, 
 what is it but to declare that principles affecting 
 our duty toward God, the highest happiness of 
 onr nature, and our responsibility for a future 
 
Inlrodiiciion. 7 
 
 state, are the only things not worth contending 
 for? 
 
 The pretense, that religion is a concern too 
 solemn and sacred for the passions of contro- 
 versy, is like the pretense with which some 
 justify their ''restraining prayer before God;" 
 that he is too high and holy to be approached 
 by such beings as they are. And thus, to dis- 
 play their reverence, they become profane, and 
 live like atheists from pure devotion ! Both are 
 cases of error without excuse ; we may neither 
 be light in prayer nor wrathful in debate. 
 
 If it be alledged that religion loses more than 
 she gains by controversy, this, with an allowance 
 for the mismanagement of unskillful advocates; 
 is a direct censure of her champions, and a sur- 
 render of her cause. Are they who espouse 
 such an opinion prepared for its consequences 7 
 Are they willing to say, that when the world 
 was lying in ignorance, in wickedness, and in 
 wo, the introduction of light from above pro- 
 duced more evil than good ? That the gospel 
 is a plague and not a blessing, because, through 
 the malignity of its foes, it has often brought a 
 sword instead of peace? That it had been 
 better for men never to have '' known the way 
 of righteousness," than risk opposition in fol- 
 lowing if? That the reformation of religion 
 was a senseless scheme ; that the martyrs died 
 
S lutrodacUon. 
 
 like fools ; and that all the heroes who have 
 been " valiant for the truth " — all the '' ministers 
 of grace " who have explained and established 
 it— all the " apostles, and prophets, and wise 
 men," whom the wisdom of God commissioned 
 to reveal it — and that wisdom itself in the per- 
 son of Jesus Christ — were disturbers of human 
 tranquillity, and spent their time in no better 
 labor than that of " turning the world upside 
 down?" If you start at these things, what do 
 you mean by asserting that "religion suffers 
 from controversy V For all, prophets, apostles, 
 wise men, and the Redeemer himself, fought her 
 battles, and yielded their latest breath in her 
 defense ! 
 
 You cannot stop even here. Religion, you 
 say, suffers from controversy. Then it cannot 
 endure investigation. It shrinks from the touch 
 of reason, for controversy is reasoning ; and, of 
 course, it cannot be true, for truth never yet de- 
 clined the test, nor sustained the slightest harm 
 from the most fiery ordeal. On the assumption, 
 therefore, that religion has truth on her side, 
 you can hardly do her a greater injury than to 
 forbid her entering into the lists with her anta- 
 gonists. They will represent, and argue, and 
 declaim. They will solicit, and soothe, and flat- 
 ter, and sneer, till they pervert the judgment of 
 many, and seduce the affections of more; and 
 
Introduction. 9 
 
 religion, betrayed and insulted, her banner 
 thrown down, her weapons shivered, her lips 
 sealed, her limbs bound " in affliction and iron," 
 is to be laid at their feet and left to their mercy, 
 in testimony of the respect and attachment of 
 her friends ! It was not in this way that they 
 formerly treated her, nor is it to this treatment 
 that we owe our privileges. Her enemies, po- 
 tent, subtle, and persevering, were encountered 
 by her sons, and defeated as often as they ven- 
 tured into the field. Those masterly defenses of 
 revelation, those profound researches into its 
 sense, that flood of light which has been poured 
 upon its peculiar doctrines and its benign insti- 
 tutions, are the recompense of the war which 
 Christian zeal and talent have waged in its 
 cause. Had apathy like ours enthralled the 
 spirit of our fathers, we should hardly have been 
 able, at this day, to distinguish in religion be- 
 tween our right hand and our left. 
 
 The prejudice, therefore, against religious 
 controversy, is irrational and hurtful. It is a 
 prejudice against the progress and victories of 
 truth. The misconduct of opponents to each 
 other, is a personal concern. It disgraces them- 
 selves, but belongs not to the nature or merits 
 of any controversy. This, in itself considered, 
 is but the comparison of jarring opinions ; with 
 a reference, in matters of religion, to the scrip- 
 
 VoL. III. 2 
 
10 Introduction. 
 
 tural standard. There is no more necessity for 
 falling into a rage when demonstrating a propo- 
 sition in Christianity, than when demonstrating 
 a proposition in mathematics : although the infi- 
 nitely interesting quality of the one above the 
 other, will involve a deeper feeling ; will furnish 
 an explanation of the warmth which is apt to 
 accompany it ; and will draw from candor an 
 allowance for our common frailty. 
 
 Controversy then b.eing unavoidable, as truth 
 and falsehood often meet, and never agree, it 
 must occasionally occupy every one who wishes 
 to have a good conscience. But as great evils 
 result from an iniproioer manner of conducting it, 
 the remarks in this paper are to be understood 
 as contemplating it under the following restric- 
 tions : 
 
 1. There should be no personal asperity. The 
 greater part of feuds arises from the rash use of 
 names and epithets. If one is obliged to expose 
 weakness or disingenousness, let not the expo- 
 sure separate decorum from strength ; nor forfeit 
 respect in the act of forcing conviction. 
 
 2. There should be no impeachment of mo- 
 tives, where facts to justify such a censure are 
 not too palpable to be set aside. The bosom is 
 a sacred retreat : God alone can explore it with- 
 out the aid of external evidence. And, there- 
 fore, a man must be his own betrayer, before his 
 
Introduction. 11 
 
 fellow-man may presume to judge of what passes 
 in his heart. Bad as the condition of the world 
 is, it would be unutterably worse, if men al- 
 ways meant whatever their words convey, or 
 even their actions indicate. Many persons have 
 said and done, with the utmost integrity of mo- 
 tive, things which could not have been said or 
 done by some others without an absolute sacri- 
 fice of principle — though it is not hence to be 
 inferred that the things were right. 
 
 3. No consequence of an opinion should be 
 attributed to those by whom it is disowned. 
 
 As the number of correct reasoners is compa- 
 ratively few, positions are often advanced, of 
 which their authors are far from perceiving the 
 real tendency. This observation solves a diffi- 
 culty that otherwise would be very embarrass- 
 ing. Many a one whose piety it would be inso- 
 lent to question, has held tenets Avhich lead to^ 
 the most impious conclusions. What then? 
 must we say that these conclusions form a part 
 of his creed, and arraign him when he denies 
 them, as being at once both a blasphemer and a 
 hypocrite 7 For example : because we are per- 
 suaded that opposition to the imputed righteous- 
 ness of the Lord Jesus, and to the doctrine 
 of the reformed churches concerning the divine 
 decrees, will drive the opposers, if closely fol- 
 lowed up, through the Socinian and deistical 
 
12 Introduction. 
 
 camps, into atheism itself; are we, therefore, 
 to brand them as Socinians, deists, or atheists ? 
 God forbid ! It is our consolation to know that 
 multitudes of them w^ould, with horror, abjure 
 their views on these points, could they see them 
 to be connected with such results ; and to believe 
 that they renounce in words, things, which, with- 
 out being aware of it, they love in their hearts. 
 It is ignorance of this sort which, in some cases, 
 reconciles with the existence of grace, a notion 
 subversive of the gospel. Let me not, however, 
 be supposed to favor in the slightest degree, that 
 monster of modern philosophy — the innocence 
 of error. Detect it ; pursue it ; hunt it down ; 
 urge it over the precipice : but permit those who 
 started with it to disengage themselves in sea- 
 son, and save their lives. In plain words : charge 
 home upon error its most tremendous conse- 
 quences ; but charge them not, when solemnly 
 disavowed, upon the man whom it has misled. 
 If you reason fairly, he must either quit his 
 ground, or maintain it feebly ; and while your 
 triumph will be complete, neither mercy nor 
 justice will forbid you to let him shelter himself 
 from crime amid the thickets of contradiction. 
 
 The reader will doubtless apply the foregoing 
 rules, without abatement, to the disquisitions in 
 the present work. And his right to do so is un- 
 questionable. That he shall never, in perusing 
 
Introduction. 13 
 
 it, meet with an instance of transgression, it 
 would savor of boasting to affirm. But that it 
 shall not be often repeated, nor long continued, 
 he may reasonably demand. Care shall certainly 
 be employed that the Christian's Magazine be 
 not unworthy of its name ; but if, unhappily, any 
 thing of a different mark should steal into its 
 pages, let the Christian critic remember that he 
 owes to its Avriters the same indulgence which 
 they ow^e to him : and he will enter an occa- 
 sional trespass into his account current with 
 human imperfection. 
 
ESSAYS ON EPISCOPACY. 
 
PEIHCBTQH 
 
 THBOLOGICiLL 
 REVIEW. 
 
 J^ Collection of Essays on the subject of Episcopacy, 
 which originally appeared in the Albany Centinel, 
 and which are principally ascribed to the Rev. Dr. 
 Linn., the Rev. JVLr. Beasley, and Thomas Y. How, 
 Esq. With additional notes and remarks. 8vo. p. p. 
 210. New-York, T. & J. Swords, 1806. 
 
 Early in the summer of 1804, the Rev. John 
 Henry Hobart, an assistant minister of Trinity 
 Church, New-York, pubhshed a work, entitled, 
 " A Companion for the Altar : consisting of a short 
 explanation of the Lord'^s Supper ; and meditations and 
 prayers, proper to be used before, and during the receiv- 
 ing of the Holy Communion, according to the form 
 prescribed by the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the 
 United States of America.^'' This was followed, in 
 the fall of the same year, by another compilation, 
 from the pen of the same gentleman, entitled, " A 
 Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 Amfrica.'''* 
 
16 1 Review. 
 
 These volumes, especially the former, appear- 
 ed, at the time of their publication, not only to the 
 non-episcopal reader, but, if we are correctly in- 
 formed, to discreet Episcopalians themselves, to 
 advance claims which it is extremely difficult to 
 substantiate. 
 
 Of the nature of these claims, the following ex- 
 tract from the Companion for the Altar^ will give 
 a general idea. 
 
 " The Judge of the whole earth indeed will do 
 right. The grace of God quickens and animates 
 all the degenerate children of Adam. The mercy 
 of the Saviour is co-extensive with the ruin into 
 which sin has plunged mankind. And ' in every 
 nation, he that feareth God and worketh right- 
 eousness is accepted of him.' But where the Gos- 
 pel is proclaimed, communion with the church by 
 the participation of its ordinances, at the hands of 
 the duly authorized priesthood, is the indispensa- 
 ble condition of salvation. Separation from the 
 prescribed government and regular pristhood of 
 the church, when it proceeds from involuntary arid 
 unavoidable ignorance or error, we have reason to 
 trust, will not intercept from the humble, the peni- 
 tent, and obedient, the blessings of God's favour. 
 But when we humbly submit to that priesthood 
 which Christ ^and his apostles constituted ; when, 
 in the lively exercise of penitence and faith, we 
 partake of the ordinances administered by them, 
 we maintain our communion with that church 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 17 
 
 which the Redeemer purifies by his blood, which 
 he quickens by his Spirit, and whose faithful mem- 
 bers ,4ie will finally crown with the most exalted 
 glories of his heavenly kingdom. The important 
 truth which the universal church has uniformly 
 maintained, that, to experience the full and exalt- 
 ed efficacy of the sacraments, we must receive 
 them from a valid authority, is not inconsistent 
 with that charity which extends mercy to all who 
 labour under involuntary error. But great is the 
 guilt, and imminent the danger, of those who, pos- 
 sessing the means of arriving at the knowledge of 
 the truth, negligently or wilfully continue in a state 
 of separation from the authorized ministry of the 
 church, and participate of ordinances administer- 
 ed by an irregular and invalid authority. Wilful- 
 ly rending the peace and unity of the church, by 
 separating from the ministrations of its authorized 
 priesthood; obstinately contemning the means 
 which God in his sovereign pleasure, hath pre- 
 scribed for their salvation, they are guilty of re- 
 bellion against their Almighty Law-giver, and 
 Judge ; they expose themselves to the awful dis- 
 pleasure of that Almighty Jehovah, who will not 
 permit his institutions to be condemned, or his 
 authority violated, with impunity." This from 
 the " Meditation" for " Saturday evening." p. 
 202—204. 
 
 As we have quoted the passage, rather in order 
 
 to connect the circumstances which gave rise to 
 Vol. III. 3 
 
1 8 Review 
 
 the " collection" immediately under review, than 
 to subject it to rigid criticism ; we forbear com- 
 menting on several assertions, in maintaining 
 which the reverend writer, if a little pressed, might 
 perhaps find that he has no ingenuity to spare. 
 We now consider it in reference to the subject of 
 the " Essays." 
 
 Extravagant as such pretensions must seem to 
 those whose convictions are of a different sort, 
 and offensive as they were to individuals whose 
 predilections are certainly not anti-episcopal, no 
 notice, so far as we know, was taken of Mr. 
 Hobart's productions, nor any thing published on 
 the other side, till the summer of 1805. Then a 
 writer, generally supposed to be the Rev. Dr. 
 Linn, introduced into "the Albany Centinel," un- 
 der the head of "Miscellanies, No. ix." some free 
 strictures on the Episcopal claims. He imme- 
 diately met with an antagonist of no mean pow- 
 ers, under the signature of a Layman of the Epis- 
 copal Churchy who is understood to be Thomas Y. 
 How, Esq. To the aid of the latter came the 
 Rev. Frederick Beasley, Rector of St. Peter's 
 Church, Albany, with the venerable name of Cy- 
 prian. Clemens^ or Dr. L. himself, shortly appear- 
 ed in favour of the Miscellanist ; as the battle 
 waxed sore, the band of the hierarchy was joined 
 by two right reverend prelates, the one from this 
 state, as Cornelius ; the other from Pennsylvania, 
 as an Episcopalian ; together with Mr. (now Dr.) 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 19 
 
 HoBART himself, in the twofold form of Detector 
 and Vindex ; while the Miscellanist re-appeared in 
 the characters of Umpire and an Inquirer. By the 
 forces thus marshalled, five against one, the war- 
 fare was protracted till the public grew weary, 
 and the printer interposed to effect an armistice. 
 However, that the record and the fruits of so me- 
 morable a campaign might not be lost, the Rev 
 Mr. HoBART did not think it a misapplication of 
 his time, nor a disservice to his church, to gather 
 the pieces of both parties, and republish them in 
 a separate volume with a preface, annotations, 
 and comments of his own. We, accordingly, 
 take up the " collection" as it came from his 
 hands. 
 
 We have heard a suggestion of unfairness in 
 this transaction. We do not see how the charge 
 can be supported, unless the writers on the Epis- 
 copal side have been permitted to alter and amend 
 their essays without extending the same privilege 
 to their opponents. The modification of a single 
 paragraph may cover with ridicule the most for- 
 cible argument which was directed against it 
 befoi^e the modification, and would insult the reader 
 by imposing upon him something which was not 
 the subject of remark. Of so degrading an 
 artifice no reputable man ought to be lightly sus- 
 pected. As we have no such suspicion, and as 
 this alone could justify a charge of unfairness, we 
 do not see that Mr. H. is at all reprehensible for 
 
20 Review. 
 
 republishing a set of essays which had been thrown 
 upon the world without any pecuniary restriction, 
 and accompanying them with such criticism as 
 he deemed just. 
 
 Mr. H. observes in his preface, that " the friends 
 of the church and of Episcopacy, however reluct- 
 ant to discuss an important religious topic in a 
 public paper, were compelled to resort to the 
 same mode, for defence, which the author ot 
 Miscellanies had chosen for his attack." We la 
 ment, as sincerely as themselves, that a JYewspa- 
 per was selected for such a discussion. We la- 
 mented it from the first. We never flattered our- 
 selves that it would operate with a favourable 
 influence either on the cause of truth, or on the 
 social feeling of the community. 
 
 But when Mr. H. and the Layman^ and Cyprian, 
 all complain of being assaulted in the peaceful 
 exercise of a common right, and thus endeavour 
 to throw the odium of aggression upon the author 
 of "Miscellanies," it is rather over-acting. To 
 exclude all non-episcopalians from " the church 
 which the Redeemer purifies by his blood, and 
 quickens by his Spirit," — to pronounce all their 
 ministrations « irregular and invahd," — to charge 
 them with « great guilt" and threaten them with 
 " imminent danger," for " neghgently or wilfully 
 continuing in a state of separation" from the 
 episcopal church — to represent them as " wilfully 
 Tending the peace and unity of the church ; as 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 21 
 
 obstinately contemning the means which God 
 hath appointed for their salvation ;" as " guilty of 
 rebelUon against their Almighty Law-giver, and 
 Judge," — to publish all this to the world; and 
 then most gravely to tell these same non-episco- 
 palians, that there is no attack upon them ; but 
 only a little wholesome admonition for the edifi- 
 cation of devout episcopalians on the evening be- 
 fore the Holy Communion ! and, moreover, to put 
 on a lofty air, and break out into angry rebuke, 
 toward those who are not satisfied with their ex- 
 planation, is really an improvement in polemical 
 finesse. But hold ! let us look again at these 
 pretty figures of rhetoric, by which thunderbolts, 
 hurled at the heads of opponents, are converted 
 into the gentle dews of instruction and consola- 
 tion to friends — Schismatics, usurpers, renders of 
 the church's unity, rebels against their Almighty 
 Law-giver ! — Verily, if this is no attack upon non- 
 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 Pe- 
 ter's brown bread, " saw a piece of mutton in my 
 fife, so nearly resembhng a slice from a twelve- 
 penny loaf ! !" 
 
 If Mr. H. had intended an attack upon the an- 
 ti-episcopal denominations, in what manner could 
 he have made it ? Not by assailing them individ- 
 ually in the street : not by entering their houses 
 and reading them a lecture on schism : not even 
 
22 Review. 
 
 by preaching against them in his own place of 
 worship : for this would be " instructing his own 
 people ;" and if any others should happen to stroll 
 in, he could not help that, more than he could 
 hinder their buying and reading his books ;* which, 
 according his own account, he neither desired 
 nor expected. It is the dictate of common sense 
 that if an author print and publish severe reflec- 
 tions upon any body of men, he not only attacks 
 them, but does it in the most open manner possi- 
 ble. If one of our citizens should write and ad- 
 vertise in the Gazettes, a pamphlet, calling all the 
 members of the community, but those of his own 
 sect, traitors and rebels to the government, would 
 Mr. H. or any body else, comprehended in the 
 charge, be satisfied with such an apology as this ; 
 « You, have no right, sir, to be offended with any 
 part of my pamphlet. It is true, I have called you 
 a rebel and a traitor, but you should not construe 
 these epithets into an attack upon you ; for the 
 least candour will enable you to perceive that I 
 published my pamphlet for the exclusive use of 
 my own connexions .^" Would this, we ask, con- 
 vince Mr. H. or any one else, and send him home 
 perfectly satisfied to be denounced, as a rebel 
 and a traitor, so often as a zealous partisan might 
 judge it conducive to the edification of his own 
 particular friends.'^ We believe not. Neither 
 will the non-episcopalians be satisfied with Mr. 
 H's. apology for himself They will probably 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 23 
 
 view it as a stratagem, and not a very deep one, 
 to avoid the unpopularity of appearing as the ag- 
 gressor. Some of them, too, may consider Mr. 
 H's. books as the continuance of a system of at- 
 tack which commenced several years ago, when 
 a certain preacher declared to the faces of some 
 of the most venerable ministers in this city, that 
 all clergymen not episcopally ordained, are im- 
 postors ; their commissions, forgeries ; and their 
 sacraments, blasphemy.* 
 
 These aspersions raised a great clamour at the 
 time ; and the repetition of them by Mr. H. and 
 
 * The preacher was Mr. Wright ; the place, St. Paul's church ; 
 the occasion, a deacon's ordination ; and the text, of which, to 
 use his own words, he " took leave," in order to give the poor 
 non-episcopalians a hit, that injunction of our Lord, "5e ye ivise 
 as serpents, and harmless as doves." That the orator was right in 
 taking this " leave," will hardly be questioned, as he immediately 
 broke through the second precept of his text ; and the consequences 
 proved that he had but little skill in the first. The effusion had 
 more of every thing in the serpent, than his wisdom *, and more 
 of every thing in the dove, than her innocence. 
 
 A circumstance which rendered the 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! One of the latter, who was present, remarked, at the 
 close of the service, with the pith and point of indignant feeling, 
 that "Mr. W. possessed a large stock of confidence, to tell his 
 bishop to his face, that he was an unregenerated man, and no 
 member of the Christian church !" It being well known that the 
 Right Reverend Father in God, Samuel, bishop of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, had been baptized 
 by the Rev. Mr. Dubois, one of the ministers of the Reformed 
 Dutch Church. Therefore,— &c. Alas ! Alas ! 
 
24 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 others, though in more decent language, has been 
 loudly censured, as a violation of all the rules of 
 prudence and charity. Of their prudence we say 
 nothing. And the offence against charity is not 
 the point of difficulty with us. Nor do we think 
 that the author of " Miscellanies," in declaiming 
 against episcopal " bigotry and superstition," has 
 taken the question by the proper handle. These 
 are, at best, ungracious compliments, which, 
 though they may vent the ire of the writer, contri- 
 bute little to the emolument of the reader; and 
 are generally repaid with good will, and with large 
 interest. Truth, can admit of no compromise 
 with error, nor does charity require it. They are 
 the truly charitable who point out the way of life, 
 and warn their fellow men of dangerous mistake. 
 Therefore we shall neither dispute the right of an 
 Episcopahan to publish his peculiar sentiments, 
 nor when they happen to bear hard upon others, 
 shall we cry out against their uncharitableness. 
 Our concern is with their truth or falsehood. 
 And as we are far from impeaching the sincerity 
 of Mr. H. and his coadjutors, whatever we may 
 think of their discretion ; so our criticisms are 
 intended to apply to them solely as authors. For 
 their personal characters, we entertain unfeigned 
 respect. Nor can we be justly charged with vio- 
 lating that respect, though we examine their claim 
 with as little ceremony as they have brought it 
 forward. If the errour be ours, let them overwhelm 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 25 
 
 our darkness with the effulgence of their hght — if 
 the error be theirs, God forbid that any human 
 regards should prevail with us to pass it gently 
 by. With the imperial Stoick, we " aim at truths 
 by which no man was ever injured."* 
 
 They tell us then, that their " priesthood" is 
 the only " authorized ministry" — that the church 
 in which it officiates, is the only one in covenant 
 with God — that where the gospel is proclaimed, 
 communion with this church, by the participation 
 of its ordinances at the hands of the duly autho- 
 rized priesthood, is the indispensable condition of 
 salvation — that whatever mercy may be extended 
 to those who labour under involuntary errour, such 
 as negligently or wilfully continue in a state of se- 
 paration from the authorized ministry of the 
 church, and participate of ordinances administer- 
 ed by an irregular and invalid authority, are guilty 
 not only of schism, but of contempt of God's in- 
 stitutions ; of rebellion against his government, 
 and of exposing themselves to his awful displea- 
 sure. In fewer words, their doctrine is, that non- 
 episcopalians are no part of the Christian church; 
 but are " children of wrath," and without a single 
 hope founded on covenanted mercy. No " re- 
 pentance toward God;" no " faith toward our 
 Lord Jesus Christ ;" no conformity to his image ; 
 no zeal for his glory, can be of any avail. The 
 
 ZriTW Tv/v aXrfii\a\i btp' rig mhzii <n'uitoTS l/SXSjSr). — Mar. Anton. 
 Lib. I. c. 21. p, 50. ed. Gatakeri. 
 Vol. III. 4 
 
26 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 simple fact of their separation from the " autho- 
 rized," that is to say, from the episcopal " priest- 
 hood," mars their religion, and renders it stark 
 naught ! 
 
 This sweeping sentence of proscription is soft- 
 ened by representing it as " not inconsistent 
 with that charity which extends mercy to all who 
 labour under involuntary errour." But the relief 
 is not worth accepting. For in the^r^^ place, so 
 much is necessary to constitute " involuntary^^'' or 
 as it is elsewhere called, " unavoidable,'''' errour, 
 that the instances in which the plea should be sub- 
 stantiated would be rare indeed. Access to means 
 of instruction precludes it effectually. And as 
 there are few districts where this question can be 
 agitated, without episcopalians, or their priests, or 
 their writings, the errour must almost always be 
 wilful ; in which case the retreat is cut off — and 
 secondly, we have no ground to expect even this 
 very precarious mercy, but the charity of Mr. H. 
 and his brethren ! Warrant from the word of God 
 they have produced none, and have none to pro- 
 duce. If communion with the authorized, or Epis- 
 copal priesthood, be to those among whom the 
 Gospel is proclaimed, an indispensable condition 
 of salvation, what possible escape can be left for 
 those who reject it? The very idea of such an 
 escape, however to be effected, is repugnant to 
 that of an indispensable condition. No : if the con- 
 dition be indispensable, they who reject it must 
 
Kssays on Episcopacy. 27 
 
 perish. And if they who reject it may still be 
 saved, it is not indispensable : otherwise, the defi- 
 nition might run thus, aw indispensable condition is 
 that which may be dispensed with ! The alternative 
 then is, Episcopacy or perdition ! ! Prove this, 
 and there is but one way for us : rush into the 
 arms of the Episcopal Church, and the sooner the 
 better ! Prove this, and for our part, httle as we 
 are inclined to such a transition at present, we 
 will take refuge immediately in her communion ! 
 He is a fool who would put his soul in jeopardy 
 for a single moment, by rejecting an " indispen- 
 sable condition of salvation ;" and risk the loss of 
 Heaven upon the credit of the charity of Mr. H. 
 and Bishop Horsley ! ! We are sure that the 
 drift, and have little doubt that the design, of a 
 number of Episcopal publications is to force plain 
 people into such a conclusion. 
 
 But before the authors can be justified in utter- 
 ing a syllable which only looks toward such a con- 
 clusion, they ought to be perfectly certain of their 
 premises. To unchurch, with a dash of the pen, 
 all the non-episcopal denominations under Hea- 
 ven ; and cast their members, indiscriminately, 
 into a condition worse than that of the very Hea- 
 then, is, to say the least of it, a most dreadful ex- 
 communication; and if not clearly enjoined by the 
 authority of God, as criminal as it is dreadful. 
 That all those glorious churches which have 
 flourished in Geneva, Holland, France, Scotland, 
 
28 Revieiv. 
 
 England, Ireland, &c. since the reformation ; and 
 all which have spread, and are spreading through 
 this vast continent — that those heroes of the truth, 
 who, though they bowed not to the mitre, rescued 
 millions from the man of sin, lighted up the lamp 
 of genuine religion, and left it, burning with a pure 
 and steady flame to the generation follov/ing — 
 that all those faithful ministers, and all those pri- 
 vate christians, who, though not of the hierarchy, 
 adorned the doctrine of God their Saviour, living 
 in faith, dying in faith ; scores, hundreds, thousands 
 of them going away to their father's house under 
 the strong consolations of the Holy Ghost, with 
 anticipated heaven in their hearts, and its hallelu- 
 jahs on their lips — that all, all were without the 
 pale of the visible church ; were destitute of cove- 
 nanted grace; and left the world without any 
 chance for eternal life, but that unpledged, unpro- 
 mised mercy which their accusers charitably hope 
 may be extended to such as labour under involun- 
 tary or unavoidable errour ; and this merely be- 
 cause they renounced Episcopacy — are positions 
 of such deep-toned horrour as may well make our 
 hair stand up, "like quills upon the fretful por- 
 cupine ;" and freeze the warm blood at its foun- 
 tain. We say this sentance has been pronounced 
 upon milhons of the dead and of the living, merely 
 because they were not, or are not. Episcopal. For 
 Mr. H. and his friends have declared in substance, 
 what their famous Dodwell has declared in form. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 29 
 
 that, " the alone want of communion with the bishop, 
 makes persoris aliens from God and Christ, and strang- 
 ers from the covenants of promise^ and the common- 
 wealth of Israel r* '' 
 
 We shall hardly be accused;of transgressing the 
 bounds of moderation, when we demand for such 
 assertions, proof which demolishes cavil, and shuts 
 the mouth of reply. And if their authors cannot 
 produce it ; if they be not ready with demonstra- 
 tion, such as shall make " assurance double sure," 
 they must abide the consequences of their te- 
 merity. 
 
 What the nature of their proof is, and how it 
 will bear them out, we shall enable the reader to 
 judge before we finish this review. We pause to 
 make two observations. 
 
 1. The writers with whom we have to do, lay 
 upon the form of church government a stress 
 which is not laid upon it in the word of God. We 
 are far from insinuating that the question is of 
 small moment; we are persuaded, on the contrary, 
 that it is of great moment ; and that Christians 
 are chargeable with much sin for the indifference 
 which prevails among them concerning it. We 
 can never grant that the appointments of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ may be innocently neglected; nor 
 
 * That M. H. treads closely after Dodwell, see " Comjmnion 
 for the Festivals and Fasts,^' p. 59. And that the author of " me- 
 raorial of the late Bishop Hobart," if a judgment may be drawn from 
 his remerks upon these Essays, treads equally close. See " me- 
 morial." 
 
30 Review. 
 
 that any one is excusable for not endeavouring to 
 satisfy himself what these appointments are. But 
 we are very sure that particular views of external 
 church-order, are not the hinging point of salva- 
 tion. Whether a man shall go to heaven or to 
 hell, will be decided by another inquiry than whe- 
 ther he was an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, or 
 an Independent. The scriptures have fixed that 
 inquiry to this point, whether he was a believer 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ or not } He that believeth 
 and is baptized., shall be saved : and he that believeth 
 not., shall be damned. Again. Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ.^ and thou shalt be saved. The reverse 
 is, he that believeth not is condemned already, because 
 he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten 
 son of God. According to these passages, faith 
 in the Lord Jesus as he is exhibited in the Gospel, 
 is "the indispensable condition of salvation." — 
 According to Mr. H. and his compeers, partici- 
 pation of Christian ordinances at the hands of the 
 Episcopal priesthood, is the indispensable condi- 
 tion of salvation. We are not ignorant that in 
 other sections of his book, Mr. li. dwells with in- 
 terest and force, on the necessity of a living and 
 productive faith. We are glad to see so many 
 things in a strain much more evangelical than 
 pervades most of the ministrations in his church. 
 But this inspires us with the deeper regret on ac- 
 count of the " dead flies" among the precious 
 " ointment." Nor can we suppress our convic- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 31 
 
 tion, that in representing an adherence to Episco- 
 pacy as " the indispensable condition of salvation," 
 himself, and Daubeny, and a legion more, have 
 done much toward misleading men's niinds as to 
 the foundation of eternal hope. That which 
 wounds the bosom of tender piety, and of which 
 we utterly deny the correctness, is their placing 
 the external order of the church upon a level with 
 the merits of our Lord Jesus, in the article of ac- 
 ceptance before God. We are positively told that 
 soundness in the former is " the indispensable 
 condition of salvation ;" and faith in the latter 
 cannot possibly be any more. Nay, with respect 
 to non-episcopalians. Episcopacy is. o^ primary, 
 and faith in the Redeemer of secondary, impor- 
 tance : for we are told again, that " whoever is in 
 communion with the bishop, the supreme Governor 
 of the church upon earth, is in communion with 
 Christ the head of it ; and whoever is not in com- 
 munion with the bishop, is thereby cut off from 
 communion with Christ :" and this is said to be a 
 " general conclusion" " established" by " the imi- 
 /orm testimony of ALL the apostolic and primitive 
 writers."* After perusing the paragraph, we were 
 held in suspense between the gaze of astonish- 
 ment and the swell of indignation. Why, he who 
 is acquainted with facts well knows; these gen- 
 
 * Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, p. 59. from Daubeny. 
 Qiiere. How many bow-shots are such writers off from the terri- 
 tory of " our sovereign Lord the Pope ?" 
 
32 Review. 
 
 tlemen ought to know j and, in due season, others 
 whom it concerns shall know. The meaning is 
 not obscure. There is no access to communion 
 with Christ, but through communion with the 
 bishop. Yet, Mr. H. himself being judge, true 
 faith vitally unites its possessor to the Redeemer ;* 
 and in this " vital union" originates all commu- 
 nion with him. If, therefore, faith in Christ pro- 
 duces communion with him, and this communion 
 is inaccessible but through the medium of the 
 bishop, it follows that faith in Christ is impossible 
 where there is no communion with the bishop : 
 and that all non-episcopalians are, of necessity, 
 infidels. And thus our position is proved, that 
 Episcopacy is held up as of primary, and faith in 
 Christ as of secondary, importance. For as both 
 are " indispensable conditions of salvation," that 
 one upon which the existence of the other de- 
 pends, must be the more important of the two. 
 And this is not an example of that sort of priority 
 which obtains in the relation of means to ends ; the 
 use of the former preceding the attainment of the 
 latter ; so that the end, which is the greater, pre- 
 supposes and follows the means, which are the 
 less. The case before us, we say, is not of this 
 sort : because we have access to the testimony of 
 God, which must be believed in order to salva- 
 tion, without going through the gate of Episco- 
 
 * Companion for the Altar ; meditation for Thursday. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 33 
 
 pacy. It may be urged, that faith in Christ in- 
 cludes the principle of obedience to his institu- 
 tions ; and therefore to resist them, is to show the 
 want of that obedience which flows from faith. 
 Doubtless the faith of Christ does include such a 
 principle. But this no more proves particular 
 views of church order, than it proves particular 
 views of any thing else which is regulated by 
 Christ's authority, to be the " indispensable con- 
 dition of salvation." Habitual disobedience to 
 any of his known commands will exclude from 
 his kingdom. Yet there are sins both of ignorance 
 and infirmity which consist with a gracious state. 
 And why an errour about church-government is 
 not to be classed among these, the Bible has as- 
 signed no reason. And if the high church-men 
 will push their own doctrine, it will compel them 
 to excommunicate each other in their turn. For 
 it is no secret that there have been material dif- 
 ferences among them on their favourite theme : 
 and nothing can exceed their confusion and mu- 
 tual contradiction, when they attempt to found 
 their hierarchy on the scriptures. 
 
 At times, we acknowledge, they concede the 
 possibility of " penitence" and a " true faith" out 
 of their church, for it is upon this concession that 
 they rest their charity for the non-episcopalian. 
 But as their concession is in diametrical repug- 
 nance to their argument, it only lets us see that 
 
 Vol. III. 3 
 
34 Revieiv^ 
 
 they flinch from, the consequences of their own 
 doctrine. 
 
 Upon the wliole, we have the best evidence 
 that they lay an unwarrantable stress upon the 
 form of ecclesiastical order, by erecting commu- 
 nion with their priesthood into an " indispensable 
 condition of salvation." The alarm which they 
 have sounded on this subject, is vox ct pneierea 
 nihil, mere noise ; and need give no disquiet to the 
 most timid conscience. 
 
 2. Our next observation is, that as Mr. H. and 
 his fellows have denied all communion with 
 Christ, to non-episcopalians they are bound to 
 show, that there is at least, more of the truth and 
 efficacy of the gospel in the Episcopal church 
 than in all other connexions. This is not draw- 
 ing invidious comparisons between Christian de- 
 nominations, but on their own principles, a per- 
 fectly fair comparison between the church of 
 Christ and a set of associations which do not be- 
 long to it. We shall account it no hard task to 
 prove as much of the church of Christ according 
 to our views ; nor ought they. For assuredly, if 
 there is not within his 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^ rever- 
 ential attendance upon his worship; of domestic 
 and personal godliness ; in one word, much more 
 of the spiritual hfe, and of that " holiness without 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 35 
 
 which no man shall see the Lord;" if much more 
 of these things be not found imthin 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 
 scale of Christian churches shall be low or high ? 
 Is it, then, a fact, that in the church Avhich 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 to their peace, than in many of the chur- 
 ches which she affects to despise ? Is it a fact, 
 that her " authorized priesthood" are more scru- 
 pulous 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 irre- 
 ligious, than are others ? Is it a fact, that they 
 adopt more prompt and vigorous measures to 
 expel from their pulpits doctrine which flies in the 
 face of their avowed principles, and is acknowl- 
 edged by themselves to be subversive of the Chris- 
 tian system ? Is it a fact, that in this " primitive 
 Apostohc" church, the sheep of Christ and his 
 iambs are more plentifully fed with " the bread of 
 
36 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 God which came down from heaven ?" Or that 
 she has less to attract the thoughtless gay, and 
 more to allure those who become seriously con- 
 cerned 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." The interrogatories and 
 the appeal are extremely painful : but we are driven 
 to them by the champions of the hierarchy, who 
 appropriate communion with Christ to their own 
 connexions. We, therefore, put them upon their 
 trial before the bar of scripture, of conscience, 
 and of public criticism. We demand the evidence 
 of their exclusive fellowship with the Redeemer ; 
 we demand it for our own sakes -, we insist upon 
 their showing, according to his word, the superi- 
 ority of their practical rehgion both in quantity 
 and quality. If they cannot or will not answer, no 
 rational man will be at a loss for the reason. 
 
 An Episcopal church we do know, in which 
 there are hundreds of ministers, and thousands of 
 their people, who are "valiant for the truth j" 
 who exemplify in their own persons the loveliness 
 of the Christian character, and who, with respect 
 to themselves, will never shrink from the strictest 
 investigation. Would to God, we could say as 
 much for all non-episcopalians ! But these mem- 
 bers of that church who give, in " the fruits of 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 37 
 
 righteousness," unequivocal proof that the " Spirit 
 of Christ is in them," are not the persons who 
 advance or defend such claims as are set up by 
 Messrs. Daubeny and Hobart.^"* On the contrary, 
 they most cordially welcome to their bosoms, as 
 heirs with themselves of the grace of life, all those 
 " who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity :" 
 and they are hated, reviled, persecuted, by those 
 very same high churchmen, who, hke Mr. H. and 
 his friends are for confining the covenant of sal- 
 vation to their own precincts. 
 
 We have reached only the threshold of the 
 work which we proposed to enter and examine. 
 But if we have detained the reader with prelimi- 
 nary matter, it is because we could not do justice 
 to the subject without it. He fs now in posses- 
 sion of facts and reasonings to show that the 
 actual discussions relative to Episcopacy, are not 
 to be classed with those wrangles of party which 
 amuse ignorant zealots, and -disgrace sober in- 
 quiry. Nothing less is agitated than the question 
 whether as non-episcopalians, we are to walk in 
 the "faith of the gospel," in "joy of the Holy 
 Ghost," and with a " hope that maketh not 
 ashamed;" or be shut up under condemnation, 
 reprobated by God and man ? As we did not be- 
 gin the controversy ; nor engage in it till after 
 long forbearance under multiphed provocation ; 
 and not even then, till we felt ourselves called 
 upon, by an imperious sense of duty, to vindicate 
 
38 Review. 
 
 the perverted truth, and the absurd ordinances, 
 of our master in Heaven; so, having begun, we 
 shall not desist until we shall have exposed those 
 arrogant pretensions, and fallacious reasonings, 
 which are calculated to distress and deceive the 
 hearts of the simple. 
 
 Mr. H. in his preface to this collection, assures 
 the reader that, 
 
 " The author of Miscellanies has, with great industry, col- 
 lected together all the ai'guments against Episcopacy." p. iv. 
 
 We apprehend that Mr. H's zeal, in this para- 
 graph, has outstripped his caution. A man pro- 
 fesses to have a very extensive and accurate ac- 
 quaintance with a subject, when he pledges him- 
 self to the public, that " all the arguments" on 
 either side of a^estion relating to it, arc con- 
 tained in a work which he has written or edited. 
 And if the work be defective, especially in mate- 
 rial points, he subjects himself to comments jnost 
 mortifying to his own feelings, most painful to his 
 friends, and not desirable even to his opponents. 
 We, therefore, think, and others may think with 
 us before we shall have done, that Mr. H. ought 
 not to have committed his reputation to the con- 
 sequences of such an assertion. His reserve ought 
 to have been the greater, as he has taken some 
 pains to invite an examination of his scholarship. 
 This en passant. To the book itself 
 
 " The question of Episcopacy," says the Lay- 
 man in his 9th number, " is a question of fact, to 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 30 
 
 be determined by a sound interpretation of the 
 sacred volume." We join issue with him ; and 
 not only consent, but insist, that the question shall 
 be decided by the scripture alone. We detract 
 not from the respect due to the primitive fathers, 
 nor decline to meet their testimony, as we shall 
 show in proper season. But in fixing the sense of 
 the scripture, their authority is of no more weight 
 with us than the authority of other uninspired 
 men ; that is, we regard not their opinion any 
 further than as it is supported by the stren'gth of 
 their reasonings. The written word is ^le perfect 
 and exclusive rule of our faith. It would be so, 
 had not a shred of Christian antiquity survived 
 the ravages of time. And if all the fathers from 
 Barnabas to Bernard, had agr*d in reckoning 
 among the institutions of Christ, any thing which 
 is not to be found in the statute book of his own 
 kingdom, it should be no article of our creed ; and 
 should have no more sway in our conscience than 
 an assertion of the Layman hMnsetf, or of his cle- 
 rical friends. This being understood, let us see 
 how the lines of evidence run. 
 
 The author of " miscellanies" had, in No. X. 
 argued the identity of presbyters and bishops 
 from the indiscriminate use which the scripture 
 makes of these official terms. His antagonists 
 flout at this argument, with all imaginable con- 
 tempt, through every part of the discussion. It is 
 " hterally," say they, " good for nothing :" '• too 
 
40 Review. 
 
 feeble to merit a serious reply." It is " wretched 
 sophistry" — " the old and miserable sophistry of 
 names." But wherein does the sophistry con- 
 sist } Why Paul is called an " elder ;" therefore 
 the Presbyterian argument would prove that Paul 
 was no more than a presbyter. Christ himself is 
 called (Jiaxovos^ diaconos, which is translated a " mi- 
 nister," a " deacon ;" therefore the Presbyterian 
 argument would prove, that Christ was no higher 
 than a deacon. 
 
 " Fresbuteros" ('n'^sgQvrs ^og) " signifies an elder man; whence 
 comes the term Alderman. By this new species of logic," 
 (which, hy tite icay, is at least inore than 1400 years old,) " it 
 might be proved," saith the Layman, " that the apostles were, 
 to all intents and purposes, Aldermen, in the civil acceptation 
 of the term ; and that every Alderman is really and truly an 
 Apostle." p. 52, 534^ 
 
 If this argument is correct, the Presbyterians 
 show very small, no doubt. And the Layman is 
 not to blame for stigmatizing it as " wretched 
 sophistry." " The miserable sophistry of names." 
 Yet the reader may be induced to pause, when he 
 is told that men of singular acuteness, learning, 
 candour, penetration, and force of mind, have 
 considered this self-same argument, when fairly 
 stated, as altogether unanswerable. There may 
 perhaps, be some policy in trying to run it down 
 with hard words ; for the Layman acknowledges, 
 that the " Episcopalians would give up their cause 
 at once^ if reduced to the necessity of placing it 
 on such a basis." p. 56. Here the secret is dis- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 41 
 
 closed ; if the argument from the scriptural use 
 of official titles is valid, down goes the Hierarchy! 
 Hinc nice lacrymcB ! No wonder that the attempts 
 are so incessant to scowl, and scoff, and laugh it 
 out of countenance. It will not, however, be 
 parted with so easily ; and in Ustening to a good 
 word for it, the reader may begin to think it pos- 
 sible for a little sophistry to trill from other than 
 Presbyterian pens. 
 
 In examining the records of the New Testa- 
 ment, we find that the conversion of a number of 
 individuals to the Christian faith, was followed by 
 their organization into a public society under their 
 proper officers. These officers, without a single 
 exception^ are distributed into the two general 
 classes of presbyters or bishops^ gfhd deacons : the 
 former presiding over the spiritual, and the latter 
 over the temporal, interests of their respective 
 charges. This distinction is marked in the strong- 
 est manner, and is never confounded. Thus to the 
 saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi with the 
 BISHOPS and deacons — a bishop must be blameless — 
 likewise must the deacons be grave, ^c. 
 
 And that the terms bishop ^n^ presbyter in their 
 application to the first class of officers are per- 
 fectly convertible, the one pointing out the very 
 same class of rulers with the other, is as evident as 
 the sun " shining in his strength." Timothy was 
 instructed by the apostle Paul in the quahties 
 
 which were to be required in those who desired the 
 Vol. III. 6 
 
42 Revi 
 
 etc. 
 
 office of a BISHOP.* Paul and Barnabas ordained 
 PRESBYTERS in evcvy churck\ which they had found- 
 ed. Titus is directed to ordain in every city pres- 
 byters who are to be blameless, the husband of one 
 wife. And the reason of so strict a scrutiny into 
 character is thus rendered, for a bishop must be 
 blameless.^ If this does not identify the bishop with 
 \he presbyter, in the name of common sense, what 
 can do it .'* Suppose a law, pointing out the quali- 
 fications of a sheriff were to say, a sheriff must be 
 a man of pure character, of great activity, and re- 
 solute spirit ; for it is highly necessary that a go- 
 vernour be of unspotted reputation, &c. the bench 
 and bar would be rather puzzled for a construc- 
 tion, and would be compelled to conclude, either 
 that something had been left out in transcribing 
 the law ; or that governour and sheriff meant the 
 same sort of officer ; or that their honours of the 
 legislature had taken leave of their wits. The 
 case is not a whit stronger than the case of pres- 
 byter and bishop in the Epistle to Titus. Again : 
 Paul, when on his last journey to Jerusalem, sends 
 for the presbyters of Ephesus to meet him at 
 Miletum ; and there enjoins these presbyters to 
 feed the church of God over which the Holy Ghost had 
 made them bishops. || It appears, then, that the 
 bishops to whom Paul refers in his instructions to 
 Timothy, were neither more nor less than plain 
 
 * 1 Tim. iii. 1. f Acts. xiv. 23. % Tit. i. 5. || Act. xx. 17. 28. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 43 
 
 presbyters. To a man who has no turn to serve ; 
 no mterest in perverting the obvious meaning of 
 words ; one would think that a mathematical de- 
 monstration could not carry more satisfactory 
 evidence. But conclusive as it would be in every 
 other case, it is in this case, the advocate of the 
 Hierarchy tells us, " good for nothing," because 
 Paul is called an " elder," and Christ a " deacon" 
 as well as a " bishop," and, therefore, if the argu- 
 ment proves any thing, it proves that neither the 
 apostles nor their Lord, were any higher in au- 
 thority than our elders and deacons. 
 
 May we ask whether " bishop," " presbyter," 
 " deacon," signify any thing at all as terms of of- 
 fice, or not ? If they do not, then the scripture has 
 used a parcel of words and names relative to 
 church government, which are absolutely without 
 meaning. This will not be said. Something, there- 
 fore, and something official too, they must mean. 
 We ask again, whether or not they designate pre- 
 cisely any particular officers, as mayor., alderman., 
 recorder., do in the commonwealth } Or whether, 
 like the term magistrate., they merely express au- 
 thority in general ; so that no judgment can be 
 formed from them as to the grade, or functions of 
 the offices to which they are annexed .'' If the for- 
 mer, the assailant of the Hierarchy, its own friends 
 being judges, is invincible, and their citadel is laid 
 in the dust. Of course, they prefer the latter ; 
 and insist that the official title occurring in the 
 
44 Review. 
 
 New Testament, can afford no aid in ascertaining 
 what offices Christ hath instituted in his church. 
 If this is their hope, we much fear that it is a for- 
 lorn hope indeed. 
 
 If our question be not troublesome, we would 
 ask, what is the use of names ? Is it not to distin- 
 guish objects from each other ? To prevent the 
 confusion which must pervade conversation about 
 nameless things } And to facilitate the intercourse 
 of speech, by compressing into a single term, 
 ideas which, without that expedient, would be 
 protracted through descriptions of intolerable 
 length } Now if there are not in the New Testa- 
 ment appropriate titles of office which distinguish 
 the several officers from each other, there could 
 have been no such titles in use at the time when 
 that book was written } For it would surpass the 
 credulity of infidels themselves, to imagine that 
 the writers, by purposely omitting the particular^ 
 and employing only the general, terms of office, 
 would throw both their history and their readers 
 into utter confusion. There can be no possible 
 reason for omitting terms characteristic of the 
 several offices, but the fact that no such terms ex- 
 isted. A marvellous phenomenon this ! That an 
 immense society as the Christian church is, should 
 be organized under its proper officers; should 
 ramify itself through all the nations of the earth ; 
 should have every one of its branches regularly of- 
 ficered ; and yet be destitute of names by which 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 45 
 
 the officers might be correctly known; so that 
 when an official term was mentioned, no ingenui- 
 ty could guess whether an officer inspired or un- 
 inspired, ordinary or extraordinary, highest or 
 lowest in the church, was intended ! ! ! Did any 
 thing like this ever happen in the affairs of men, 
 from father Adam, down to this present A. D. 
 1807 ? Is such a fact consistent with the nature 
 and use of human language ? Is it consistent with 
 the operations or the being of any society what- 
 ever ? If the state of the primitive church with 
 respect to terms of office, were such as the Epis- 
 copal argument represents it, she would indeed, 
 have been 
 
 Mostrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum ; 
 
 a perfectly unnatural and monstrous production j 
 dark and confused as " Chaos and old Night." 
 
 This demonstration that the representation on 
 the part of the Hierarchy cann.ot be true, accords 
 precisely with scriptural facts. From these, there- 
 fore, we shall prove that it is not true. A contro- 
 versy of moment was referred by the church at 
 Antioch, to the apostles and elders of Jerusalem. 
 Now, if apostle and elder are not specific terms of 
 office, where is the propriety of the distinction } 
 And to whom was the reference made ^ Would 
 the description have answered as well if the as- 
 sembly had been composed entirely of apostles; 
 entirely of elders ; or entirely of deacons } Paul and 
 
46 Review 
 
 Barnabas ordained elders (presbyters) in every 
 city. Cannot an Episcopalian tell, even from the 
 na?7ie, whether they ordained bishops, priests, or 
 "deacons ? Titus was commissioned by Paul to 
 ordain elders in every city : and Timothy received 
 his instructions pointing out the qualifications of 
 men who were to be made bishops and deacons. 
 Pray, if the ojicer was not precisely designated by 
 the 7iame, what sense was there in giving particu- 
 lar instructions relative to each ? How were 
 Titus and Timothy to find out what sort of offi- 
 cers the apostle meant ? Would any Episcopalian 
 affirm, that under cover of the indefinite terms 
 elder, bishop, and deacon, the good evangelists might 
 have settled down a dozen diocesans in every city ? 
 or created a score of new apostles ? Why not ? 
 if apostle, bishop, presbyter, deacon, are only general 
 terms of office, but are not appropriated to any 
 particular orders of officers. Nay, if the Episco- 
 pal assertion on this subject is correct, a broad 
 line of absurdity runs through the apostolic wri- 
 tings, and through the whole transactions of the 
 apostolic church. 
 
 The simple truth is, that all these terms, apostle, 
 bishop, and jjresbyter, and deacon, were as distinc- 
 tive, and were annexed to certain officers with 
 as much regularity and exactness, as any official 
 terms can be at this hour. The first was given 
 by our Lord Jesus Christ, to ofl^icers commission- 
 ed immediately by himself, for the purpose of car- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 47 
 
 rying his name and establishing his church among 
 the nations. The last, viz. deacon, was given to 
 officers ordained by the apostles to look after the 
 poor. The other, viz. elder, or presbyter, had long 
 been in use as a specific term of office. It signi- 
 fied a ruler ; but a ruler whose power was well 
 defined, and was perfectly familiar to the Jews. 
 Presbyters were to be found in every synagogue ; 
 and every man in the nation was acquainted with 
 their functions. If ever there was a term which 
 conveyed precise ideas of a particular office, and 
 was too notorious to be mistaken, presbyter was 
 that term. By transferring it to rulers in the 
 Christian church, the greatest caution was taken 
 both to prevent misconception of their authority, 
 and to facilitate the organization of Christian so- 
 cieties. As there were Jews every where, and 
 converts every where gathered from among them, 
 there were every where a number prepared to 
 fall, without difficulty, into a regular church con- 
 nexion, and to train the Gentile believers, to whom 
 the whole system was perfectly new. But they 
 would have talked of elders to the day of their 
 death, without the most distant notion of such a 
 ruler as a diocesan bishop. These ChristicLn pi-esby- 
 ters were also bishops (sflricxo^oi.) The former word 
 denoting their authority ; the latter, the functions 
 growing out of it. They were, according to the 
 form in which the master had distributed their 
 duties, to execute the office of presbyters, by taking 
 
48 Review. 
 
 the episcopate or oversight of the flock. So charges 
 Paul the presbyters of Ephesus : Feed the flock of 
 God^ over ivhichthe Holy Ghost hath made you bishops 
 i. e. overseers.) or inspectors. So charges Peter the 
 presbyters of the dispersion : Feed the flock of God — 
 taking the oversight thereof: the word is s^iCxoirouvTs?, 
 which signifies, " exercising the Episcopal office^'' 
 
 If, then, the term presbyter or elder^ had been so 
 long settled ; if it denoted an officer as unlike a 
 modern bishop as can well be conceived : and if 
 it was admitted universally into the Christian 
 church, as thus understood, (for there is no inti- 
 mation of its sense having been changed,) then 
 the allegation of the Hierarchy, that it is an inde- 
 finite term, signifying merely a ruler, without re- 
 ference to his station, is altogether false, and the 
 objection founded upon this allegation is altoge- 
 ther frivolous. On the other hand, the argument 
 founded upon it for the identity of the scriptural 
 bishops and presbyters as rulers in the church, to 
 the exclusion of prelates, issohd and strong; the 
 flings of " good for nothing," and " miserable so- 
 phistry," to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 We have derived some amusement from re- 
 marking, that while our Episcopal friends perti- 
 naciously deny that any official name in the New 
 Testament is so appropriated to a particular of- 
 fice as to designate the kind of officer, they can- 
 not render their own reasoning intelligible with- 
 out the aid of the very principle which they reject. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 49 
 
 " The apostles," saijs the Layman, " are called presbyters. 
 This proves conclusively that no argument can be drawn, by 
 the advocate of parity, from the promiscuous use of the terms 
 presbyter, bishop, in the sacred writings. If it proves that 
 there is now but one order in the ministry, it proves equally 
 that Paul was upon a perfect level with the elders of Ephe- 
 sus."* Again, 
 
 " Christ is called diaconos, which is translated deacon, or 
 minister. Therefore Christ was on a level with the deacons 
 of Jerusalem." 
 
 Does not every reader perceive, at the first 
 glance, that the whole force of this objection, 
 which is to put down the advocates of ministeri- 
 al parity, depends upon the supposition, that pres- 
 byter and deacon are titles appropriated to par- 
 ticular grades of office } For if they are not, if 
 they denote only office in general; what will the 
 objection say .^ To try it fairly — substitute officers, 
 in the room of elders; and the proposition will 
 stand thus : the apostles are called elders ; there- 
 fore, the apostles are on a level with officers in the 
 church. This is not likely to' fill the " advocates 
 of parity," with any great alarm. Again, 
 
 " The apostle addresses Timothy and him alone, as the 
 supreme governor of the church, [of Ephesus] calling upon 
 him to see that his presbyters preach no strange doctrine."! 
 
 Here the Layman uses presbyter as a precise 
 term, for a particular grade of officers ; and so 
 does the apostle in the epistle referred to, or else 
 the Layman's argument, to quote his own words, 
 " is literally good for nothing." Nay, he even con- 
 
 * No. 1. Collec. p. 8. f Layman, No. v. Colkc. p. 55. 
 Vol. III. 7 
 
50 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 cedes that the term presbiiteros, elder, is " ordina- 
 rily appropriated in the New Testament, to the 
 second grade of ministers ;" although, " it is ca- 
 pable of being applied to all the grades."* But 
 how we are to discover when it is applied in one 
 way, and when in the other ; i. e. when it has a 
 particular, and when a general signification, nei- 
 ther this gentleman nor his reverend associates 
 have been pleased to tell us. If we are to judge 
 from facts, which they recommend as an excellent 
 way of judging, and if we collect facts from their 
 own conduct in the debate, the rule is this. Pres- 
 byter is always a definite term of office when it makes 
 FOR the prelates.^ and always an indefinite owe, when 
 it makes against them. For example : When 
 Timothy is to be proved a bishop, in the genuine 
 prelatical sense of the word, presbyter infallibly 
 signifies the second grade of ministers. This is 
 sober, solid logic, which no man who can put a 
 syllogism together must venture to dispute. On 
 the other side, when Paul, addressing these same 
 presbyters, seems to identify them with bishops ; 
 then presbyter is nothing more than a general 
 term of office : and the argument drawn from its 
 being convertible with episcopos, or bishop, is 
 " literally good for nothing," " the old and mise- 
 rable sophistry of names !" 
 
 All this, to be sure, is vastly ingenious, and in- 
 finitely removed from sophistry and quibble ! But 
 
 « No. 1. Collec. p. 7. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 51 
 
 as imagination is apt now and then to be unruly, 
 we fancied that it is not unlike the Socinian me- 
 thod of defending the inspiration of the scriptures. 
 Let those great himinaries of wisdom, Dr. Priestley 
 and his compeers, patch up the " lame accounts" 
 of Moses ; refute the " inconclusive" reasonings 
 of Paul; and otherwise alter and amend the Bible, 
 as their philosophy shall dictate ; and, then, the 
 sacred writings will be inspired to some purpose ! 
 Let the abettors of prelacy interpret terms now 
 one way, and then the contrary way, as it shall suit 
 their convenience, and they will, no doubt, convert 
 the New Testament into a forge for the Hierar- 
 chy, and swear in an apostle to superintend the 
 manufacture. 
 
 But still, how are we to repel the consequence 
 with which they press us ? If presbyter and dea- 
 con are definite terms of office, and the apostles 
 are called presbyters, and their Lord a deacon, 
 (^^laxovos) we certainly, by our argument, confound 
 all distinctions : and put the apostles, and their 
 master too, on a level with the ordinary and even 
 lowest officers in the church. 
 
 No such thing. The conclusion is vain, because 
 the premises are false. The objection overlooks 
 a distinction which its authors themselves are 
 compelled to observe every hour of their fives ; 
 and that is, the distinction between the absolute 
 and relative use of terms. By the absolute use of 
 terms, we mean their being applied to certain 
 
52 Review. 
 
 subjects in such a manner as to sink their gene- 
 ral sense in a particular one. By their relative use, 
 we mean their being coupled with other terms 
 which permit them to be understood in their ge- 
 neral sense only. To the former class belong all 
 names which, however general in their primary 
 ideas, have become appropriated to particular ob- 
 jects. To the latter belong the innumerable ap- 
 phcations which may be made of the very same 
 terms, when not thus appropriated. Examples 
 will best illustrate the distinction. Congress,judg€, 
 assembly., are terms of great latitude, and their ap- 
 plications may be varied without end. When we 
 say a congress of bodies, of waters, of people — a 
 judge of music, of sculpture, of painting — an as- 
 sembly of citizens, of clergy, of delegates ; all the 
 world perceives that these terms are used in their 
 general sense, and can be used in no other. But 
 when we speak of the United States, and say, the 
 congress., the judges ; or of the state of New-York, 
 and say, the judges., the assembly., all the world per- 
 ceives that the terms are used in a particular 
 sense, and designate precisely certain public of- 
 ficers to whom, and to whom alone, every man, 
 woman, and child, in the country will refer them. 
 Now supposing that certain individuals should re- 
 mit a litigated point to one of the judges., and we 
 should insist that this may mean the Lieut. Gover- 
 nour, because the term judge may be applied to 
 him, when he sits in the court of errours : and 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 53 
 
 suppose an opponent to urge that " judge" is an 
 official term appropriated to known officers ; and 
 us to reply, your argument is « literally good for 
 nothino-," " the miserable sophistry of names ; 
 judcre Ts a generic term; and by this same mode 
 of reasoning you might prove that every justice of 
 the peace is on a level with the chief justice of 
 the United States, or with God himself, because 
 "judge" is a name given to them all ! ! Would 
 not this pass for most sage ratiocination, and 
 persuade the public, that whoever should not bow 
 to it, must be either a " miserable" sophist, or an 
 incorrigible dunce? And wherein it would yield 
 the praise of acuteness, closeness, or strength, to 
 the Episcopal objection to the argument drawn by 
 the advocates of parity from the use of #««/ terms 
 in the New Testament, we are unable to discern. 
 The mistake in both cases is the same, viz. the 
 confounding the absolute and relative, or as we 
 have explained it, the official and unofficial use of 
 the same term. Make this plain distinction, and 
 the reply of the Hierarchy is ruined. The Lord 
 Jesus is emphatically the sext of God; and there- 
 fore he is called, the apostle of our profession.* 
 He is also called the minister (diaconos) ofruE cir- 
 cumcision :t but never, absolutely, " an apostle," 
 " a deacon." Paul and his fellow apostles are 
 often called Jmconoz, ministers ; in such form as 
 this, ministers of god, ministers of the new testa- 
 
 *Heb. iii. 1. fRom. XV. 8. 
 
54 Review. 
 
 MENT :* but never, absolutely, " deacons." They 
 are also called elders^ or presbyters ; and for this 
 very good reason, that possessing ordinary as well 
 as extraordinary powers, .they frequently partici- 
 pated in the councils, and exercised only the au- 
 thority, of presbyters.t 
 
 Reverse the order : begin with the lowest and 
 go up to the highest officer in the church, and you 
 will not find an instance in which the official name 
 of the superiour is apphed to the inferiour. Dea- 
 cons are no where called presbyters, nor presby- 
 ters, apostles. Cyprian does, indeed, assert, that 
 " the apostolic authority was manifestly commu- 
 nicated to Epaphroditus." Where is the proof .^ 
 
 " St. Paul," says he, " in his epistle to the Philippians, ii. 
 25, calls him the apostle to the Philippians." " But I sup- 
 posed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother 
 and companion in labour and fellow-soldier, but your apos- 
 tle," (in our version, your messenger.) Accordingly St. Je- 
 rome observes, " 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 ne- 
 cessary to send unto you " Epaphroditus, your apostle." And 
 Theodoret, upon this place, gives this reason why Epaphro- 
 ditus is called the apostle to the Philippians. " He was in- 
 trusted with the Episcopal government, " as being their 
 bishop." But these are parts of scripture on which the advo- 
 cates of Episcopacy place the least reliance."! 
 
 In this paragraph, as in many others, the asser- 
 
 2 Cor. vi. 4. 
 f This matter shall be more fully explained hereafter. 
 X Cyprian, No. iii. CoUec. p. 72. 
 
Kssays on Episcopacy. 55 
 
 tions of Cyprian, applauded and adopted by Mr. 
 H. display more haste than inquiry, and more ar- 
 dour than discretion. To force a testimony in 
 favour of Episcopacy, he has contrived, by a false 
 translation of two words, to put into the mouth of 
 the apostle Paul a speech which he never uttered. 
 " St. Paul," says he, " calls Epaphroditus, the apos- 
 tle to the Philippians." Paul does no such thing; 
 he would not have spoken truth, if he had. No 
 person, as shall be proved in its place, could be 
 vested with apostolic authority, but by the imme- 
 diate appointment of Christ himself Such an ap- 
 pointment Epaphroditus had not ; and, therefore, 
 Paul did not, could not, call him " an apostle," 
 in the official sense of that term ; much less " the 
 apostle to the Phihppians ;" because a permanent 
 connexion with any particular church, hke that 
 which subsists between a presbyter and his con- 
 gregation, or between a prelate and his diocese, 
 was essentially incompatible with the apostolic 
 character. We wonder that Cyprian^ while his 
 hand was in, did not fix down Paul himself as the 
 diocesan of Corinth and its dependencies. For 
 his own words to the Christians of that city are, 
 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am 
 TO YOU : for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the 
 Lord.* Here occurs, in a fair and honest trans- 
 lation, the very phrase of " an apostle to a peo- 
 ple," which Cyprian fabricated by a gross mis- 
 
 • 1 Cor. ix. 2. 
 
36 Review. 
 
 rendering of a passage in the epistle to the Phihp- 
 pians. And considering the anxiety with which 
 the New Testament has been searched for prelates, 
 there can be no doubt that if stubborn, most stub- 
 born facts did not stand in the way, Paul would 
 have been made up into a diocesan long ago: 
 and introduced to our acquaintance, with the 
 mitre on his brow, as the bishop of Corinth. But 
 if the declaration, " 1 am an apostle unto you," is 
 no proof whatever, that Paul filled an Episcopal 
 see among the Corinthians ; how can the expres- 
 sion, " an apostle to you," even admitting it to be 
 correct, prove that Epaphroditus was bishop of 
 Philippi ? But the words, mangled by Cyprian into 
 an " apostle to you,"* signify just what our com- 
 mon version represents them to signify, " your 
 messenger." The Phihppians had sent him with 
 a contribution to the relief of the apostle's wants ; 
 as he himself tells us in the fourth chapter. Ihave 
 all and abound : I am full; having received of Epa- 
 phroditus the things tvhich were sent from you — v. 18. 
 This is the reason why he is called their messen- 
 ger. The coupling of the term apostolos with 
 " your," takes it out of the predicament of official 
 names, and requires that it be understood in its 
 general sense, which is, " a messenger." It has 
 nothing to do with Episcopal relations, or clerical 
 functions of any sort; say Theodoret what he 
 pleases. It was hardly just to found the title of a 
 
 * u/xwv aifogoXos . 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 57 
 
 bishop in the murder of a text. But whatever 
 sentence be pronounced on Tiieodoret, we entire- 
 ly acquit Cyprian from the charge of sinning 
 against knowledge. 
 
 Cyprian seems also to labour under the incon- 
 venience of a bad memory. For after agree- 
 ing with his friend the Layman to reprobate all 
 reasoning from words to things ; he lays the whole 
 stress of an argument for the prelatical dignity of 
 Epaphroditus upon a single word. And so mighty 
 is the force of this word in his eyes, that on the 
 strength thereof, he says that the " Apostolic au- 
 thority was manifestly communicated to Epaphro- 
 ditus." When the fact turns out to be, that even 
 the word which is to manifest this " communica- 
 tion," has nothing to do with the subject ! And 
 then, to finish neatly, he informs us in the close 
 of the paragraph, that " these are parts of scrip- 
 ture on which the advocates of Episcopacy place 
 the least reliance.'''' They are wise to let the this- 
 tle alone after feeling its prickles — But it is rather 
 incongruous to place only " the least reliance^'' up- 
 on " parts of scripture" which " manifestly'''' prove 
 the very point they would be at. And no less so, 
 to build their " manifest" proof upon an argument 
 which they themselves have pronounced to be 
 " miserable sophistry," and " literally good for 
 nothing !"* 
 
 * These geutleiueu are hardly civil to their favourite Theodo- 
 ret, from whom, througli Whitby and Potter, they borrowed this 
 Vol. III. 8 
 
 V 
 
58 Reviciv 
 
 Verum operi lo?igo fas est ohrepere somnum : 
 
 the right to be drowsy, in protracted toil, has be- 
 come prescriptive. Homer occasionally nodded ; 
 and we shall not refuse to Cyprian and his col- 
 leagues the indulgence of a nap. 
 
 The sum is, that the terms ajwstle^ bishop, pres- 
 byter, deacon, designate, with precision, officers 
 known and established in the apostolic church — 
 That no two of these terms are used interchange- 
 ably, excepting " presbyter" and " bishop." We 
 mean that apostle and bishop ; apostle and pres- 
 byter ; apostle and deacon ; bishop and deacon ; 
 presbyter and deacon, are never put promiscuous- 
 ly the one for the other ; And the reason is, that 
 they do not signify the same thing. But that " bish- 
 op" and " presbyter" are used interchangeably ; 
 so that you may put the one for the other at 
 pleasure, without destroying or obscuring the 
 sense of the sacred writers : and the reason is, and 
 must be, that they do signify the same thing; that 
 is, they mark one and the same grade of ecclesi- 
 astical rulers. This last proposition, Theodoret, 
 fierce as he was for prelacy, has himself advanced. 
 He probably did not observe how fatal it is to the 
 hierarchy, as the discussions on that subject were 
 not, in his day, very deep nor general. But so 
 sensible was Dr. Hammond, the most learned, 
 
 "manifest" communicatiou of the apostolic authority — to hold 
 him up with one hand as a venerable defender of their cause ; and 
 with the other to lash him as a miserable sophist. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 59 
 
 perhaps, of all the episcopal champions, that the 
 argument drawn by presbyterians from the iden- 
 tity of the scriptural bishop and presbyter, is con- 
 clusive against prelacy, that he boldly denied the 
 existence of such officers as are now called pres- 
 byters, till about or after the death of the apos- 
 tles.* In supporting this paradoxical opinion, he 
 
 * " Although this title of n^srf/SuTs'^oijJSWer*, have been extend- 
 ed to a second order in the church, and is now only in use for them, 
 under the names of Presbyters, yet in the scripture-times it belong- 
 ed principally, if not alone, to bishops, there being no evidence 
 that any of that second order were then instituted, though soon 
 after, before the writing of Ignatius' epistles, there were such in- 
 stituted in all the churches." — Hammond, on Act xi. 30. p. 380. 
 
 How irrecoucileably all this is at war with the assertions and 
 reasonings of other learned advocates of the hierarchy, from whom 
 the unlearned ones necessarily copy, we may amuse ourselves with 
 showing in a more convenient place. One or two remarks we 
 cannot suppress. Dr. Hammond does not tell us how these pres- 
 byters came into the church, but is pretty sure that they were in- 
 troduced after " the scripture times," that is, after the canon of the 
 scripture was completed, and " before the writing of Ignatius'' epis- 
 tles." TheDr. then confesses that the order of presbyters asinferiour 
 to the bishop, is not of divine right ; there being no evidence that 
 any of that second order were instituted in scripture times : con- 
 sequently, that as Christ had regulated his church, bishops or pres- 
 byters, and deacons, had no intermediate officer between them. 
 This is exactly what the presbyterians maintain, and they are 
 much his debtor. But as he saw that their argument would ruin 
 him, as he was utterly unable to controvert its principle, viz. the 
 identity of the bishop and presbyter ; and as he was determined 
 not to give up the hierarchy, he had recourse to the extravagant 
 fiction of transforming all the presbyters into Diocesans. But as 
 Diocesans with only deacons, would constitute rather a bald 
 hierarchy, it was requisite, to give eclat to their dignity, to foist in 
 
60 Review. 
 
 metamorphoses every presbyter of the apostoHc 
 church into a diocesan bishop ! The meaning of 
 language shall be inverted : the testimony of the 
 scripture shall be dislocated : the presbyters of 
 the city of Ephesus shall be an assemblage of dio- 
 cesan bishops collected from all Asia! Truth, 
 probability, and common sense, shall be set at 
 naught — but the object is worth the price; the 
 sacrifice is amply compensated, provided presby- 
 ters be banished from the New Testament, and 
 no ruler be seen there unless in the shape of a 
 diocesan bishop ! Had only the Layman and Cy- 
 prian^ and their friends, been troubled, there had 
 been less cause of surprise. But that an argument 
 " good for nothing ;" a bit of " miserable sophis- 
 try," should put Dr. Hammond^ the o "^a^, the very 
 Gohath of " the church," into such a fright as 
 nearly to turn his brain, is strange indeed ! 
 
 But should the episcopalian be worsted in the 
 contest about the scriptural titles^ what will be to 
 
 another order for which three is no scriptural warrant. And thus 
 at one stroke he has levelled with the ground the whole fabric which 
 the other episcopal workmen have been rearing. For if Timothy 
 and Tilus were not Diocesan bishops, as the latter affirm and the 
 Dr. denies ; and if they were not metropolitans, as the Dr. affirms, 
 the others deny, and no man living can prove ; then one of their 
 famous three orders has vanished away. Of the Dr's supposition 
 that the presbyters were instituted before the writings of Ignatius' 
 epistles, the reason is, that they must be found prior to that date, or 
 else poor Ignatius must be hung up for forgery. — A notable man- 
 cpuvre this to save the credit of the principal witness for the Hie- 
 rarchy. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 61 
 
 us the advantage of victory, or to him the injury 
 of defeat, if he shall, nevertheless, establish his 
 claim by scriptural /ac^5 ? So very little, that the 
 choice between victory and defeat, on the first 
 ground, would not be worth a straw to either. 
 Abstractly considered, there is no inconsistency 
 between our own doctrine of the identity of bishops 
 and presbyters, and the episcopal doctrine of a 
 superiour grade; For certainly it does not follow, 
 from the nature of the thing, that because bishop 
 and presbyter mean the same officer, therefore 
 there is no other officer above him. But as the 
 facts stand, the case is widely different ; and the 
 value of the argument from the scriptural titles 
 lies here, that this superiour order must be found 
 among the bishops and presbyters, or not at all ; 
 because, with the exception of deacons, these were 
 the only ordinary officers in the apostoHc church. 
 If, then, " bishop" is the same with " presbyter," 
 the superiour or prelatical order is absolutely un- 
 known to the official language of the New Testa- 
 ment. Presbyters and deacons we meet with in 
 abundance, but not the shadow of a prelate ever 
 crosses our path. Now, that official titles should 
 be conferred upon every grade of officers in the 
 church except the highest ; that this officer should 
 have no place in the official catalogue ; that he 
 should wander up and down among the churches 
 without so much as a name ; that while his subal- 
 terns are mentioned particularly and repeatedly. 
 
62 Review. 
 
 his own existence and dignity should be a matter 
 of mere inference from his acts^ so far surpasses 
 ail the powers of belief, that the proof of his exist- 
 ence is almost, if not altogether, impossible. This 
 leads to a very short refutation of a plea on which 
 no small " reliance" has been placed by episco- 
 pal writers, from Theodoret down to the Layman ; 
 viz. that names of office, like other words, change 
 their signification ; and become, in process of time, 
 signs of ideas quite different from those which 
 they originally expressed. 
 
 " In Roman history," says the Layman, " we find the term 
 Imperator at one period appUed to designate a general of an 
 army ; at another, a magistrate clothed with unlimited civil 
 and military authority. Suppose we should be told that every 
 general of an army was Emperor of Rome ; and that the 
 Emperor of Rome was merely general of an army ; what 
 would be the reply ? That the term Imperator had changed 
 its signification. And how would this be proved 1 By the 
 Roman history, which shows us that the Emperors had gene- 
 rals under them, over whom they exercised authority. Apply 
 this reasoning to the case under consideration. The tei'ms 
 bishop, presbyter, are used promiscuously in the New Testa- 
 ment. Therefore, say the advocates of parity, they designa- 
 ted the same office in the ages subsequent to the apostles. Is 
 this a logical conclusion ? Surely not. Names change their 
 signification. Ecclesiastical history tells us, and the most 
 learned advocates of parity have admitted the fact, that the 
 order of bishops existed in the church as distinct from, and 
 superiour to, the order of presbyters, within forty or fifty years 
 after the last of the apostles. The bishops then had presbyters 
 under them, over whom they exercised authority. The offices 
 were distinct from the beginning, bishops being the successors, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 63 
 
 not of those who are promiscuously called bishops, presbyters, 
 elders, in the New Testament, but of the apostles themselves. 
 Theodoret tells us expressly, " that in the process of time those 
 who succeeded to the apostoUc office, left the name of apostle 
 to the apostles, strictly so called, and gave the name of bishop 
 to those who succeeded to the apostolic office." No argument, 
 then, can be founded on the promiscuous use of names."* 
 
 We hardly expected to find the Layman ad- 
 vancing and retracting a doctrine in the compass 
 of a single page. Yet, assuredly, if bishops are 
 not the successors of those who are promiscuous- 
 ly called bishops and presbyters, then these names 
 do designate a precise order of officers, which was 
 the very thing the Layman had denied in the pre- 
 ceding paragraph. That names change their sig- 
 nification is no new discovery. But can this either 
 help the hierarchy, or hurt the advocates of pari- 
 ty "? Things are before names -, and the changes 
 in things before changes in names. If, therefore, a 
 change has passed upon the signification of official 
 names in the church, since the days of the apos- 
 tles, that alone proves to a demonstration, that a 
 change has also passed upon the offices them- 
 selves; which consequently are not as the apostles 
 left them. This is exactly what the presbyterians 
 maintain ; and so the episcopal plea returns with 
 all its force upon its authors, and fastens upon their 
 hierarchy the charge of having departed from, 
 and corrupted, the order which Christ appointed 
 for his church, and which the death of his apostles 
 
 * Layman, No. 1. Collec. p. 8. 9. 
 
64 Review. 
 
 sealed up for permanency. We are not ignorant 
 that the prelatical writers attribute this change of 
 names to a very different cause. The celebrated 
 Dr. Bentley, who, in critical learning, in spirit, 
 and fire, surpasses the most of them, and falls short 
 of none, thinks it was the modesty of the prelates* 
 which induced them to relinquish the name of 
 apostle, and to assume that of bishop. It is hard 
 to estimate the degree of modesty which pervaded 
 an immensely numerous body of prelatest at a 
 period of which we have scarcely any records. 
 The epistles of their tutelar saint, Ignatius^ do not 
 abound with that lovely virtue ; and all the world 
 is witness, that in matters relating to their titles 
 and power, the order has been entirely innocent 
 of such an imputation for fourteen centuries at 
 least. The apostles themselves decorated the 
 prelates, we arc told, with their own name and or- 
 dinary dignity ; they exercised the authority and 
 wore the name, during the life, and in the pre- 
 sence of the apostles ; and after their death retain- 
 ed the dignity^ but renounced the appellation out of 
 pure modesty ! Dr. Hammond has more regard to 
 consistency. He first creates, after the death of 
 the apostles, an inferiour order of clergy ; and as 
 they could not well do without a name, he very 
 ingeniously splits up the designation of the pre-ex- 
 
 * Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, p. 186. 
 
 f Dr. Hammond says there were t wenty- four, hesidGS the me- 
 tropolitau, iu Judca aloue. Annot. ou Rev. iv. 4. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 65 
 
 isting order, giving one half to the prelates, and 
 the other to his new race of officers ! 
 
 We repeat, that change of names pre-supposes 
 change of thimrs. This is the natural and neces- 
 sary course of language. The contrary would 
 reverse the operations of the human mind. When 
 the change was introduced, is perfectly immateri- 
 al to the argument. When the last of the apos- 
 tles breathed out his spirit, the authority of the 
 living God " bound up the testimony, and sealed 
 the law among his disciples." No additions nor 
 diminutions now. xVnd whether the alteration in 
 the government of the church, which produced a 
 corresponding alteration in the names of her of- 
 ficers, took place " forty years," or forty score of 
 years, or forty hours after the decease of the 
 apostles, is not, with regard to the rule of con- 
 science, worth. the trouble of a question. The 
 advocates of parity, do not, as the Layman af- 
 firms, infer from the promiscuous use of the terms 
 bishop and presbyter in the New Testament, 
 " that they designated the same office in the ages 
 subsequent to the apostles." It is of no impor- 
 tance to them, what these terms signified in after 
 ages. They prove that these terms signify in the 
 New Testament, one and the same order of ru- 
 lers ; and therefore insist, that, as the rule of faith 
 and the sense of the scripture are immutable, the 
 same terms must mean, at this hour, the very same 
 
 thing which they meant as they dropped from the 
 
 Vol. Ill, 9 
 
66 JF?( 
 
 evtew. 
 
 pen of an apostle. This is enough for them, as 
 they entertain no fear of being unable to demon- 
 strate that the scriptural presbyters are not dio- 
 cesan bishops ; and are the only ordinary rulers 
 which the New Testament, the statute book of 
 Christ's kingdom, recognizes as of his institution. 
 The subsequent change of sense in the scriptural 
 titles, as we have more than once observed, proves 
 decisively a change in the original order of the 
 church : for upon no other principle can the other 
 change be explained. The Layman has been pe- 
 culiarly unhappy, in forcing it upon the notice of 
 his readers. He has only turned " king's evi- 
 dence," against his party ; and, in attempting to 
 parry a Presbyterian thrust, has unwittingly smit- 
 ten his own bishop under the fifth rib. 
 
 The advocates for the Hierarchy labour hard to 
 show that any argument from official names to the 
 offices designated in the New Testament, is in- 
 conclusive. They even pronounce it " good for 
 nothing." Their hope is to render the scripture, 
 thus far, neutral; that if it bear no testimony /or 
 them, it shall bear none against them. Whether 
 they have succeeded in this attempt or not, we 
 leave to the dispassionate judgment of the reader, 
 who, with a desire of perceiving and embracing 
 the truth, has deliberately considered what we 
 have already written. 
 
 We now follow them to their argument from the 
 
Essays on Kpiscopacy. 67 
 
 scriptural /«c^^, upon which they avowedly rest the 
 weight of their cause. 
 
 1l\\q first of these facts is the triple order of the 
 priesthood among the Jews. 
 
 " We find," says the Layman, " three orders of officers in 
 the Jewish church ; and, in the Christian, there have always 
 been three orders answering to these. What Aaron, his 
 sons, and the Levites were in the temple, that bishops, priests, 
 and deacons are in the Church. Such is the concurring tes- 
 timony of the primitive fathers. Take that of St. Jerome, 
 whom the advocates of parity are fond of quoting, and to 
 whom, therefore, it is presumed, they will not object. " That 
 we may Tcnoiv the apostolical economy to be taken from the pat- 
 tern of the Old Testament, the same that Aaron, and his sons, 
 and the Levites, were in the temple, the bishops, presbyters, 
 and deacons, are in the church of Christ.'''' It is too absurd 
 to attempt to turn this parallel into ridicule. By the very 
 same mode of proceeding you may destroy the whole Chris- 
 tian dispensation. In all that he has said upon this point, 
 the miscellaneous writer has contributed much more to the 
 support of infidelity than of any other cause. 
 
 " How far, then, do we carry this argument ? 
 
 " We say, simply, that the law being' figurative of the gos- 
 pel, in all its important parts, the Jewish priesthood was, of 
 course, typical of the Christian. For this we have the ex- 
 press declaration of the apostle Paul, and the advocates of 
 parity will not pretend to controvert the position. Well, then, 
 the priest of the law serving as " the example and shadow of 
 heavenly things," the circumstance of there being three orders 
 in the Jewish ministry, furnishes a strong presumption against 
 the doctrine of parity. We do not rely upon this as proof . 
 We merely state it as presumptive evidence, entitled to real 
 attention. It gives us, we contend, possession of the ground, 
 and throws the burden of proof upon our opponents. 
 
68 Review. 
 
 •• Now, what says the miscellaneous writer in reply to all 
 this ? He talks to us of the dress of the Jewish high priests ; 
 asking, very sagaciously, where are the golden, ephod, the 
 breast plate, the embroidered girdle, in which Aaron and his 
 successors were clad. I call upon him here to lay his hand 
 upon his heart, and say, whether this is just reasoning. He 
 knows it is not. What, the Jewish priesthood not figurative 
 of the Christian, because of a variety in dress ! Is it neces- 
 sary, in order that one thing be typical of another, that there 
 should be no points of difference between themi No more 
 than it is necessary that we should be able to rise to the per- 
 fection of the character of Christ, because we are called upon 
 to propose him as the model for imitation, and to become holy 
 as he is holy. 
 
 " Is the miscellaneous writer aware of the conclusion to 
 which his mode of reasoning conducts'? If he has proved 
 that the Jewish priesthood was not typical of the Christian, 
 he has proved, equally, that the law was not a shadow of the 
 gospel ; thus destroying, effectually, all connexion between 
 the Old and New Testament. Is there no difference between 
 our Saviour and the Paschal Lamb by which he was prefigur- 
 ed 1 Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, were all types of 
 Christ ; but were there no points of distinction between these 
 men and the Saviour of the world ? Give to the infidel the 
 weapons of this writer, and how easily will he demolish, with 
 them, the whole fabric of Christianity ! If the points of dif- 
 ference which have been mentioned, between the priesthood 
 of the law, and of the gospel, prove that the one was not 
 typical of the other, they equally prove that our Saviour was 
 never prefigured, and that that intimate connexion, between 
 the Jewish and Christian dispensations, which has been so 
 much relied upon by the defenders of the faith, never existed 
 but in the imagination of men. But I feel as if I were in- 
 sulting the understanding of the reader, in dwelling on this 
 point. I dismiss it, therefore, especially as I have not been 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 69 
 
 able to bring myself to believe that the writer had any thing 
 more in view, in it, than a flourish of rhetoric to attract the 
 vulgar gaze. 
 
 " The Mosaic dispensation, then, was figurative of the 
 Christian. The priesthood of the law was typical of the 
 priesthood of the gospel. The former consisting of distinct 
 and subordinate orders, a strong presumption thence arises in 
 favour of that distinction and subordination of office which, 
 until thS days of Calvin, characterized, without a single ex- 
 ception, the Christian church. This we contend, as was said 
 before, gives us possession of the ground, and throws the bur- 
 den of proof upon the advocates of parity. 
 
 " So much then for the Jewish priesthood. It was a sha- 
 dow of the Christian priesthood, according to the express 
 declaration of the apostle Paul. AVhile the miscellaneous 
 writer does not venture openly to deny this, but rather seems 
 to admit it, in representing the whole Jewish system as typical, 
 he endeavours, nevertheless, in an indirect manner, to destroy 
 all relationship between the priesthood of the law and of the 
 gospel, by dwelling on the variety of dress, with some other 
 subordinate points of distinction. Here he acts with his usual 
 imprudence ; tearing up, in his rage, against Episcopacy, the 
 very foundation of the Christian faith.!'* 
 
 The same analogy is thus traced by Cyprian : 
 
 ' " Why should not the orders of the priesthood under the 
 old economy be supposed to typify those orders that were to 
 be established under the new "? Besides, the fact is, that the 
 Christian dispensation was not so much the abolition, as it 
 was the fulfilment of the Jewish. Christ came, not to destroy, 
 but to fulfil the law and the prophets. 
 
 '• It is true, indeed, we possess not the Jewish form of 
 church government. We possess one, however, which is the 
 consummation of the Jewish — a government of which the 
 
 • No. Vril. Collec. p. 110, 111. 
 
70 Review. 
 
 Jewish was an imperfect image. We possess a priesthood 
 more glorious than the Levitical, inasmuch as it ministers un- 
 der a more glorious dispensation — inasmuch as it performs 
 purer and more exalted offices — inasmuch as, in its nature 
 and offices, it is the glorious substance which was only faintly 
 shadowed out under the law. 
 
 " We think, therefore, that we stand on substantia] ground 
 when we maintain that we derive a strong argument in de- 
 monstration of the divine origin of our form of chmxh' govern- 
 ment, by showing that on this point the new dispensation is 
 made to correspond with the old ; is made the true substance 
 of which the old was the shadow. What the high priests, the 
 priests, and the Levites, were in the temple, such are the 
 bishops, the presbyters, and deacons, in the church of Christ. 
 This is the uniform language of the fathers. This is the 
 conclusion to which the data afforded us hy the apostles inev- 
 itably lead. 
 
 " Such was the model of church government instituted 
 by God himself, and intended to be transmitted through all 
 ages, with modifications that should vary, no doubt, accord- 
 ing to the varying circumstances of mankind ; provided these 
 modifications affected not its great and cardinal principles. 
 We say that the Jewish priesthood was the image of the 
 Christian. We say that it is sound reasoning to deduce the 
 probable form of the substance from the lineaments of it that 
 may be traced in its image."* 
 
 It is somewhat curious to observe the rapid 
 growth of this argument from the Jewish to the 
 Episcopal priesthood. With the Layman it is not 
 proof ; it is merely '•'•presumptive evidence., entitled 
 to real attention." By the time it has travelled to 
 Cyprian, it is a " strong argument in demonstration 
 
 * No. VIIT. Colhc. p. HP, 120. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 71 
 
 of the divine origin of their form of church govern- 
 ment i^ and it places them, as well it may, "on 
 substantial ground." But while we are looking 
 through Cyprian's magnifier, at this Jewish image 
 of the " Christian priesthood," he suddenly shifts 
 his glass, and the giant. Demonstration, dwindles 
 down again into the dwarf. Probability. " We 
 say," adds he, in the next paragraph, " that it is 
 sound reasoning to deduce the probable form of 
 the substance from the lineaments of it that may 
 be traced in its image." One hardly knows what 
 to do with writers who drive their argument back- 
 wards and forwards between "proof" and "pre- 
 sumption ;" between " probability" and " demon- 
 stration ;" as if a rational debate were a game at 
 shuttlecock ! But they are not without excuse ; 
 for to one who can see the tendency of this argu- 
 ment of theirs, it is pretty clear that they did not 
 know what to do with themselves. For if, as they 
 assure us, the Jewish was a typ'e of the Christian 
 priesthood — if the former was " a shadow," and a 
 "faint shadow," of which the latter is the true 
 and " glorious substance," then there 7nust be a 
 coincidence between the essential parts of the 
 type, and the essential parts of the thing typified. 
 But according to the divine institution, the three 
 orders of the high priest, the priests, and Levites, 
 were essential to the legal priesthood ; and if this 
 was typical of the evangehcal ^' priesthood,''^ there 
 must of necessity be three orders in that also. If 
 
72 Review. 
 
 it were not so, the type would not tally with the 
 antitype, the image would not represent its object, 
 and the end of the typical system would be de- 
 feated. A body with a head would as soon cast 
 a shadow without one, as a type of three orders 
 represent a reality of two, five, or seven. This 
 reasoning supposes, that the number of orders en- 
 ters into the nature of the type ; and on the same 
 supposition rests the Episcopal argument. For 
 if the number of orders in the Jewish priesthood 
 constituted no part of the type, it is extreme weak- 
 ness to mistake it for a " demonstration," or even 
 a " presumption," that there ought to be three 
 orders in the thing typified. It is producing your 
 type to prove that the thing typified possesses a 
 property which the type does not exhibit. The 
 fallacy is too obvious to impose upon a child. 
 
 On the other hand, if the number of orders in 
 the Jewish priesthood makes a part of the type, 
 and the Christian ministry is the thing typified, the 
 conclusion is inevitable, that there must be three 
 orders in the Christian ministry. Usuch a typical 
 relation really exists between the ministry of the 
 old and of the new economy, we will lay down our 
 pen. Our cause is desperate ; the hierarchy has 
 triumphed, but not a Protestant hierarchy. For 
 according to all the laws of typical analogy, it is 
 not more necessary that there be three orders in 
 the " Christian priesthood," than that the highest 
 order be confined to a single person. In this 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 73 
 
 point the Jewish and the Episcopal priesthood 
 differ essentially. There is no hkeness between the 
 type and the antitype. Who, that intended to in- 
 stitute a set of resemblances., would ever dream of 
 appointing a numerous body of Levites to repre- 
 sent a numerous body of deacons ; a numerous 
 body of priests to represent another numerous 
 body of priests 5 and then finish by putting at 
 the head of his system a single high priest., to re- 
 present an order often thousand bishops ? Nay, if 
 the Episcopal argument here is sound, it con- 
 cludes much more forcibly in favour of the Papal 
 than of the Protestant hierarchy. The former 
 preserves, in her single pontiff, an essential feature 
 of the type, which the latter, by her order of 
 bishops, has perfectly obliterated. Thus, then, 
 the case stands ; if the typical character of the 
 Jewish priesthood does not include its orders, the 
 Episcopal inference from them in behalf of the 
 bishops, priests, and deacons, is palpably false : If 
 it does, while the Presbyterian perishes, the church 
 of Rome gains much more than the church of 
 England. 
 
 But this notion of the typical property of the 
 grades of priesthood in the Jewish church, is an 
 Episcopal fiction, ft has no real existence. The 
 decisive proof is, that the Levitical priesthood 
 typified our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom there 
 could be no place for different orders. Its several 
 
 grades, as such, had nothing to do with its typical 
 Vol. III. 10 
 
74 R 
 
 evietv. 
 
 character and functions. These lay in another 
 direction altogether. 
 
 We, therefore, advance a step higher, and deny 
 the whole doctrine of the hierarchy, in so far as it 
 makes the Jewish priesthood a type of the Chris- 
 tian ministry. The Layman has asserted that 
 " the law being figurative of the gospel, in all its 
 important parts, the Jewish priesthood was ^ of course, 
 typical of the Christian.''^* To the same purpose 
 Cyprian, " We say that the Jewish priesthood was the 
 image of the Christiany-f These are the asser- 
 tions ; now for the proof Cyprian tells us, that it 
 " is the uniform language of the fathers — the con- 
 clusion to which the data afforded us by the apos- 
 tles inevitably lead." The Layman, that " for this," 
 viz. that the " Jewish priesthood was typical of 
 the Christian, we have the express declaration of the 
 apostle Paul,''^ and that " the advocates of parity 
 will not pretend to controvert the position." But 
 they certainly do, sir; confident as you are of the 
 negative. They not only venture to controvert, 
 but engage to refute, your position. They main- 
 tain that the apostles have not aflforded any data 
 which can lead to such a conclusion. Cyprian 
 has mentioned none : and the only passage which 
 the other has quoted in his own justification, he 
 has misunderstood and misapphed. The consid- 
 erations which make against them, are numerous 
 and weighty. 
 
 * No. VIII. Collcc. p. 310. t No. IV. Collec, p. 320. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 75 
 
 1. The scriptures no where draw a parallel or 
 comparison between the rank and functions of the 
 ministry of the Old Testament and that of the 
 New. And if the former was designed to be the 
 model of the latter, the omission is altogether un- 
 accountable. They neither say nor insinuate that 
 the priests under the law were a type and image 
 of which the truth and substance are to be sought 
 in the ministers of the new dispensation. The 
 nature and use of the legal institutions are ex- 
 plained with minute accuracy by the Apostle Paul, 
 in his epistle to the Hebrews. He treats them as 
 types of "Jesus Christ, and all the effects of his 
 mediation in grace and glory ;" but of their typi- 
 cal relation to the Christian ministry, not a single 
 syllable. 
 
 Here the Layman interrupts us with " the ex- 
 press declaration of the apostle Paul." Let us 
 have it. " The priests of the law serving as ' the 
 example and shadow of heavenly things ^^ the circum- 
 stance of there being three orders in the Jewish 
 ministry furnishes a strong presumption against 
 the doctrine of parity."* The " express declara- 
 tion" of the apostle, it seems is, that ^'- the priests of 
 the law serve as the example and shadow of heavenly 
 things ;"t representing his meaning to be, that the 
 priests of the law are that example and shadow. 
 We have a small objection to this assertion of the 
 Layman ; and that is, that, like Cyprian's story of 
 
 * No. viii. Collcc. p. 110. t P- HI- 
 
76 Review. 
 
 bishop Epaphroditus, it puts into the mouth of 
 the apostle a speech which he never uttered. 
 There is neither in the passage quoted, nor in any 
 other passage of the epistle to the Hebrews, nor 
 in the whole New Testament, such a declaration 
 as the Layman ascribes to Paul. He has either 
 quoted from memory, which we suspect to be the 
 fact, and so has forgotten what the apostle said ; 
 or else is as unlucky in his criticism as his poor 
 friend Cyprian. The apostle says, "//tc priests 
 who offer gifts according to the Imv, serve,''"' not AS, 
 but " UNTO the example and shadow of heavenly 
 things^ It was not the priests, but the things to 
 which they ministered, that constituted the " exam- 
 ple and shadow." This is obvious upon the first 
 inspection of the text.* The apostle is discoursing 
 of the tabernacle, its furniture and service. These 
 were the " example and shadow." The substance, 
 the " heavenly things," was Christ Jesus, his sa- 
 crifice and intercession, with all their blessed ef- 
 fects in the salvation of men. This is the apostle's 
 own interpretation. For these same priests whom 
 he here describes as " serving unto the example 
 and shadow of heavenly things," he elsewhere de- 
 scribes as " serving the to6emac/e."t The taberna- 
 cle, therefore, not the priests, were the " example 
 and shadow of the heavenly things." And that 
 
 * OiTivss uiroSeij/fittTi xai Cxio. XargJuoutfi twv sir'ou^aviwv. Heb. 
 viii. 5. 
 
 f 0( T-fi (fXYjvrj Xct<rgeuovTe5 . Heb. xiii. 10. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 77 
 
 this is the apostle's meaning, is " yet far more 
 evident." For in the 9th chapter, after detaiUng 
 the construction, the furniture, and the service of 
 the tabernacle,* he says that this tabernacle, thus 
 framed, equipped, and attended, was a figure for 
 the time then present.t " But Christ being come," 
 proceeds the apostle, " an high priest of good 
 things to come, by (^through) a greater and more 
 perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is 
 to say, not of this building : neither by the blood 
 of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he en- 
 tered in once into the holy place, having obtained 
 eternal redemption for us." 
 
 This " greater and more perfect tabernacle," is 
 the human nature of the Son of God, in virtue of 
 the once offering up of which as a sacrifice for sin, 
 he entered into heaven itself for us. It is this blood 
 of his, typified by the " blood of goats and calves," 
 which " purges our conscience from dead works 
 to serve the living God." These are the " good 
 things to come ;" these " the heavenly things," of 
 which the first tabernacle was the " example and 
 shadow." The " Christian priesthood," as it is 
 improperly and offensively termed, does not even 
 appear in the comparison. If the Layman has 
 discovered it among the " heavenly things," his 
 penetration is acute indeed. Instead, therefore, 
 of producing an " express declaration" of the 
 apostle to support his doctrine, he has only put a 
 * Heb. xiii. V. 2—7. t v. 9. 
 
78 Review. 
 
 text to needless torture ; for his witness, like Cy- 
 prian's in the affair of Epaphroditus, knows no- 
 thing of the matter. 
 
 It is further worthy of notice, that the New Tes- 
 tament never applies to the Christian ministry 
 those terms which express the office of a priest, 
 and which were invariably applied to the priest- 
 hood of the law. Jesus Christ is called a priest, 
 an high priest, a great high priest ; but not his 
 ministers. On the principle that he is the true 
 priest whom the priests of the law prefigured, this 
 is perfectly natural. But is it not inconceivable, 
 that the appropriate title of the priesthood should 
 be given to the typical priests ; to the form — to 
 the shadow — and uniformly withheld from the 
 priests who are"^ the substance represented by 
 them } Why this change of language } If the 
 priestly character, office, and work, have been 
 fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ, and if he, as the 
 sole priest of the church, is now appearing in 
 heaven for us, the reason of the change is as clear 
 as noon day. There are no more official priests, 
 there is no more " priesthood," in. the church upon 
 earth ; and therefore the name is laid aside. But 
 if there are such priests and priesthood, and if 
 these are the very substance of which the old 
 priests were but a shadov/, it will baffle all the in- 
 genuity of the hierarchy to the end of time, to as- 
 sign even a tolerable reason why the spirit of wis- 
 dom has refiised them their official designation, 
 
Essays on Kpiscopacy. 79 
 
 and has altered the whole official style of the 
 church ! The ministry under the new dispensation 
 is represented as the ascension gift of our glori- 
 fied master.* Ordinary and extraordinary officers 
 are enumerated, but not a word of the Jewish or- 
 ders being a type of the Christian ministry. Not 
 a word of priests or priesthood, of altars, of sacri- 
 fices, or any of the sacrificial language to which 
 the hierarchy is so devoted. She has thought fit, 
 and she shall answer for it, to bring back and affix 
 to her clergy and their functions ; to her sacra- 
 mental table and its elements, a set of denomina- 
 tions which the Holy Ghost not only never annex- 
 ed to the ministry and ordinances of his own 
 creation ; but which he had, with pointed care, 
 excluded from the New Testament ! 
 
 Our assertion, therefore, stands firm, that the 
 apostolic writings furnish no data which can lead 
 us to the " conclusion" of Cyprian, or the " posi- 
 tion" of the Layman. Whence, we again ask, 
 whence this silence } Why is so important a pro- 
 perty of the typical priesthood overlooked ? Is not 
 the " glorious substance," of which it was only a 
 " faint shadow," so much as worthy of notice } and 
 that too in a set treatise of the legal shadows and 
 their corresponding substances } It is indisputable, 
 their own words evince it, that if the Layman and 
 Cyprian, and their several coadjutors, had prepar- 
 ed such a treatise ; whatever place they might 
 
 * Eph. iv. 11. 
 
80 Revie 
 
 w. 
 
 have allotted to the " apostle and high priest of 
 our profession," the dignity of the episcopal priest- 
 hood would have filled up one of their most ani- 
 mated chapters. Having found so much of their 
 own image where Paul found so little, it is but 
 right to supply his deficiencies, and to adminis- 
 ter a delicate rebuke for his neghgent exposition ! 
 
 2. A comparison of the Levitical with the Epis- 
 copal priesthood, will demonstrate that the for- 
 mer was not, and could not be, a type of the latter. 
 The grades are ranged thus : 
 
 Type^ or Shadow^ Antitype, or Substance. 
 
 High-priest, - - - - Bishop, 
 Priest, - . . > Priest, 
 
 Levite, - - _ _ Deacon. 
 
 Now in what do they resemble each other } 
 
 Did the high priest ordain the priests ? No. Did 
 he confirm the people ? No. Had he the exclusive 
 right of government ? No. On the other hand ; 
 Do the bishops discharge any duty analogous to 
 the offering up of the yearly sacrifice on the great 
 day of expiation ? No. Have they the peculiar 
 privilege of entering into the immediate presence 
 of God ? No. Is the oracle of God attached to 
 their persons } or have they any special right of 
 declaring the divine will ? No. He who has saga- 
 city enough to detect in the appropriate functions 
 of the high priest any thing that deserves to be 
 called a type of the functions appropriated to a 
 Christian bishop, can never be at a loss for type 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 81 
 
 and antitype, so long as any two objects remain 
 within the bible or without it. Their prerogatives 
 and offices are so absolutely dissimilar, that to 
 make the one an image of the other, is to pour 
 overwhelming ridicule upon the whole system of 
 typical ordinances. The success will not be much 
 better, if we go down to the second and third 
 grades of the priesthood. If the reader has an 
 hour which he cannot employ more profitably, he 
 may throw it away in hunting for likenesses be- 
 tween the priests of the law and of the gospel ; 
 between the Levite and the Episcopal deacon. 
 We have enough of it. Our argument is this, that 
 as typical officers must have typical functions, if 
 the functions of the legal priesthood did not typify 
 those of the Christian, then was not the one 
 priesthood a type of the other. To insist upon 
 a typical meaning in the number of orders, and to 
 discard as mere circumstances, the respective 
 functions of those orders, is a distinction which 
 reason laughs at, and a sound head will hardly 
 adopt. 
 
 3. As typical officers and typical functions are 
 correlate ideas, the former necessarily implying 
 the latter, we remark, that if the Jewish priest- 
 hood prefigured the Christian ministry, as a type 
 its antitype, then it follows, that we have in the 
 functions of the priesthood now, the substance of 
 that which in the functions of the Levitical priest- 
 hood was only a type. That is, the priests now 
 
 Vol. III. 1 1 
 
82 Review, 
 
 offer up the true sacrifice for sin, and are our me- 
 diators and intercessors with God, upon the foot- 
 ing of their sacrifice. It cannot be doubted that 
 the jjt'iestly office of old was typical ; and its sac- 
 rifices typical. Whoever, then, is the real priest, 
 ofters the real sacrifice. But he is the real priest 
 of whom the priests of the law were a type. And 
 the priests of the law were a type, says the hie- 
 rarchy, of our priesthood : therefore the priest- 
 hood of the hierarchy offer up the true sacrifice 
 for sin ! There is no getting rid of the conclusion. 
 The apostle Paul reasons in the same manner, 
 from the typical relation of the old priests and their 
 sacrifices to Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. He 
 insists, that because they were shadows and Christ 
 the substance, therefore Christ, the true priest, 
 has put away sin by the oflfering up of himself as 
 the true sacrifice. We see that the doctrine of 
 the hierarchy is irreconcileable with that of the 
 apostle. He teaches that the Levitical priest- 
 hood and their offerings were typical of Jesus 
 Christ and his offerings. The hierarchy teaches 
 that the Levitical priesthood typified the evangel- 
 ical ministry. Both cannot be true. The same 
 type cannot signify a single high priest who offer- 
 ed up a true and proper sacrifice for sin, and an 
 order of priests who offer up no such sacrifice. 
 If Christ is the substance of the legal priesthood, 
 the Episcopal hierarchy is not. If that hierarchy 
 is the substance, Jesus Christ is not. The reader 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 83 
 
 has his choice, whether he will side with the 
 hierarchy at the expense of the apostle, or with 
 the apostle at the expense of the hierarchy ! Whe- 
 ther he will look for the substance of the Levitical 
 priesthood in the Son of God and his mediatorial 
 work, or in the administration of the Episcopal 
 clergy ! Whether — But we check ourselves. A 
 stranger instance of infatuated zeal has rarely oc- 
 curred. The genius of the Old Testament types 
 shall be perverted ; their beautiful correspondence 
 with their objects shall be marred ; the principle 
 of a whole book of the New Testament, (the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews,) shall be set aside; but an 
 argument, though merely a presumptive one, for 
 the hierarchy, shall not be given up ! 
 
 The only escape from this dilemma appears to 
 be through a distinction between the particular 
 character of the Old Testament priests as such, 
 and their general character as ministers of reli- 
 gion. It may be yielded, that in the former they 
 were types of Christ; and maintained that in the 
 latter they were types of the Christian ministry. 
 The distinction is of no avail ; and its best effect 
 is to protract the death of the Episcopal plea for 
 a minute longer. If both their particular charac- 
 ter as priests, and their general character as min- 
 isters of religion were typical, they were nothing 
 but types. The worship which they offered up 
 v,'as typical worship ; their prayers were typical 
 prayers; their instructions to the people, typical 
 
84 Review. 
 
 instructions. The church in which they minister- 
 ed was a typical church. All was type. There 
 was no reality. But this is absurd. God had as 
 real a church, and dispensed as real blessings, by 
 real ministers before, as since, the evangelical 
 dispensation. Whatever typical ordinances might 
 be set up, the church itself never was a type. It 
 is a ivhole., and one part of a whole cannot be a 
 type of another part. And as there were real 
 ministers in a real church under the law, if you 
 will have them to be types in their general cha- 
 racter, you make the ministry of the church at one 
 period and in one form, the type of her ministry 
 at another period under another form. This is a 
 contradiction. For the same persons could not 
 be, at the same time, and in the exercise of the 
 same functions, under the same relations, both 
 shadow and substance. It destroys also the na- 
 ture of the church of God ; giving us all type be- 
 fore the new dispensation, and all substance after 
 it. So that in fact, according to the scheme we 
 are considering, there was no such thing as a 
 church at all under the law, but only the shadow 
 of a church. We have one step further in this 
 typical climax. The sinners under the law were 
 only typical sinners ; the saints only typical saints ; 
 the salvation of the soul only a typical salvation ; 
 and for aught we can see, the God of salvation 
 only a typical God ! 
 
 View it in any hght you choose : The doctrine 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 85 
 
 of the Layman, Cyprian, &c. concerning the Old 
 Testament types, is inconsistent with itself; with 
 the doctrine of the apostle Paul, and with all the 
 known relations of type and antitype. Yet while 
 they are spreading this confusion ; while they are 
 displaying the most absolute want of acquaintance 
 with both the Old Testament and the New, they 
 have the assurance to tell us that if we " have 
 proved that the Jewish priesthood was not typical 
 of the Christian, we have proved equally that the 
 law was not a shadow of the gospel: thus destroy- 
 ing effectually, all connexion between the Old 
 Testament and the New."* It seems, then, that 
 although we have Christ the true priest and true 
 sacrifice; and the effects of his mediation in 
 pardoning sin, in purging the conscience, and in 
 presenting an efficacious intercession before God 
 in the highest heavens — we have nothing to the 
 purpose ; we are " destroying the whole Christian 
 dispensation ;" we are doing ^' much more to the 
 support of infidelity, than of any other cause ;"t 
 we are tearing up the very foundations of the 
 Christian faith" — Why ? — ^because we will not ad- 
 mit the episcopal clergy to be the substance of 
 which the Levitical priesthood was only the 
 shadow! It is amazing, it is humiliating, that 
 men who have need that one teach them ichich be the 
 first prineiples of the oracles of GocL should talk so 
 confidently. Nay, in the very act of sanctioning 
 
 * Layman, No. viii. p. 110. \ P. 110. 
 
86 Review. 
 
 all this misconception, misconstruction, and wrest- 
 ing of the scriptures, Mr. H. has permitted him- 
 self to ask Dr. Linn, whether he is " really igno- 
 rant of the nature of the types of scripture," or 
 whether he is " guilty of wilful misrepresentation ?"* 
 Such questions as these ought not to have been 
 put by Mr. Hobart. 
 
 So much for the first fact to which the dispu- 
 tants for the hierarchy have appealed. 
 
 Their second fact, is the triple order of the 
 " priesthood" during our Lord's personal converse 
 with men. 
 
 " Whilst our Saviour remained on earth," (says Cyprian,) 
 " he, of course, held supreme authority in his church. The 
 twelve were appointed by him as his subordinate officers. The 
 seventy disciples constituted a still lower order. There exist- 
 ed, then, in the church of Christ, at this time, three distinct 
 grades of ministers. When our Lord ascended into heaven, 
 when he breathed upon the twelve, and said, " As my father 
 hath sent me, so send I you," he transmitted to them the same 
 authority which he himself had retained during his continuance 
 amongst them : the twelve commissioned their presbyters and 
 deacons to aid them in the administration of ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment. Before their death they constituted an order of 
 ministers to whom they conveyed that supreme authority in 
 the church which was lodged in their hands during their 
 lives. "t 
 
 Thus, also, the Layman : 
 
 " Jesus Christ commissioned twelve, and the seventy ; but 
 he gave them no authority to commission others. The high 
 power of ordination was exercised by himself alone. Here, 
 
 * Note to CoUec. p. 37. f Cyprian, No. II. CoUec. p, 62. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 87 
 
 then, were three orders ; our Saviour, the great head of the 
 church ; the twelve apostles ; and the seventy disciples."* 
 
 We should be much entertained, and possibly 
 edified, by the history of the three orders and their 
 succession, as compiled by the Layman and his 
 learned colleague, were we not disturbed by some 
 difficulties which we cannot well remove. 
 
 Our first difficulty, as to this second stage of the 
 triple order, relates to John the Baptist. He was 
 certainly the Redeemer's messenger, and exercis- 
 ed a contemporary ministry. Why is he left out 
 of the hst ? His extraordinary functions cannot 
 be the reason ; for those of his master were more 
 extraordinary than his own. But he was neither 
 the Christ, nor one of the twelve, nor one of the 
 seventy. If you take him into the catalogue, you 
 have /o?/r orders; if you leave him out, you must 
 leave out his master likewise ; and then you will 
 have but two. In either way the history of the 
 hierarchy sticks. . ^ 
 
 Our next difficulty relates to the co-existence of 
 the Jewish and Christian priesthoods. The church 
 of God was either organized under the Christian 
 form, during our Lord's continuance upon earth, 
 or not. If not, there was no Christian priesthood, 
 and consequently no orders of priesthood. If she 
 was, then did she actually subsist under two forms 
 at the same time. For it is certain that the legal 
 form remained, till the offering up of the " word 
 
 * Layman, No. IX. Collec p. 153. 
 
88 R 
 
 evicw. 
 
 made flesh," in sacrifice for sin. Moreover, our 
 Lord Jesus Christ was indubitably the head of the 
 church under her Jewish form. She was, with her 
 whole system of worship, his property. He came 
 vnto his own* He was in the temple, the lord of 
 the temple, and acted as such. Now if his per- 
 sonal presence as the head of the church made 
 him an order in her evangelical ministry, that same 
 presence in the Jewish church made him one of 
 the orders of the Jewish priesthood. Admit this, 
 and we are troubled with an additional order in 
 that priesthood ; deny it, and we have lost one of 
 the Christian orders. The former compels us to 
 take fonr^ the latter allows us but tivo. Scylla and 
 Charybdis over again for the history of the three 
 orders ! 
 
 Our third difficulty relates to the principle upon 
 which, in the present case, the triple order is 
 founded. The Layman and Cyprian, as a shoal 
 of other writers had done before them, work up 
 the apostles and seventy disciples into two orders 
 of priesthood ; and that their canonical number 
 might not be wanting, they complete it by adding 
 the Redeemer himself ! 
 
 Now, we had always thought, with the apostle 
 Paul, that Christ was faithful as a son over his own 
 house: that the church itself is the house; and that 
 all the ministers of the church are his servants. It 
 was really a stroke worthy of " giants in theology," 
 
 * El? Ta lAlA /jX^s. John i. 11. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 89 
 
 to make the Lord himself one of the orders among 
 his own servants ! And seeing that his assent into 
 heaven never stript him of any relation to his 
 church, and that he actually exercises the priestly 
 office at this moment before the throne of God, 
 the consequence is, either that there are now four 
 orders of the priesthood, or that there were but 
 hvo in the days of his flesh. The same perplexity 
 stares the hierarchy once more in the face ; and if 
 she will have three orders, neither more nor less, 
 she must depose her master in order to make 
 way for her bishops ! 
 
 Our fourth difficulty relates to the nature of the 
 succession. 
 
 Christ transmitted to the twelve, says Cyprian, 
 " the same authority which he himself had retained 
 during his continuance among them; and the 
 twelve commissioned their presbyters and dea- 
 cons to aid them in the administration of ecclesi- 
 astical government," and " before their death, 
 constituted an order of ministers to whom they 
 conveyed" their own " supreme authority.'''' 
 
 Some how or other, we have lost the seventy 
 disciples in this arrangement. Probably they were 
 promoted to bishopricks. However that be, the 
 descent of " power" is very distinctly stated. 
 Christ conveyed the same authority which he him- 
 self exercised to the apostles ; and the apostles 
 conveyed the same authority which they exercised 
 to the order which they constituted before their 
 
 Vol. III. 12 
 
90 Review. 
 
 death ; that is, the order of bishops. So, then, 
 the order of bishops have now the very same au- 
 thority which Christ himself had when he was upon 
 earth ! But Christ was the " lord and master" of 
 the church ; so are the Bishops ; and for that rea- 
 son are very properly styled, in some places, Ziorcfe 
 bishops! Christ was XhQ proprietor of the church — 
 so are the bishops, no doubt ! Christ had autho- 
 rity to appoint sacraments and to mould the go- 
 vernment of his church according to his pleasure : 
 so have the bishops, beyond controversy ! It seems, 
 then, that they are the successours not so much of 
 the apostles, as of the Lord Jesus Christ himself : 
 that he is gone away to heaven, and has deputed 
 to them m solidum^ by the lump, the whole autho- 
 rity which he himself possessed ! A fair inheritance 
 we own ; and very goodly heirs ! Having estab- 
 lished this point, we wonder that they put them- 
 selves to any further trouble in making out their 
 title to "the pre-eminence !" There is a short cut 
 to the resolution of every difficulty about the affairs 
 of the church, and every thing else. Go to the 
 bishops ! Christ had unlimited authority over the 
 conscience, and they have succeeded him. Eccle- 
 siastical history is not barren of instances wherein 
 they have acted up to the spirit of their trust. Eng- 
 land can witness, that, in one day, they threw 
 upon the mercy of the persecutor, and the comforts 
 of famine, two thousand of the best men and the 
 most glorious minister!^ of the gospel, that ever 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 91 
 
 blessed a nation or adorned a church : and a great 
 proportion of them for not submitting to imposi- 
 tions upon conscience for which the warrant of 
 the divine word was not so much as pretended. 
 But the Episcopal warrant was perfectly clear: 
 and the Puritans were righteously deprived for 
 not bowing to the successours of Jesus Christ ! 
 " Come set us the five mile act to music."* Let 
 us compensate the fast of the 30th January for 
 the martyrdom of Charles,t with the festival of 
 St. Bartholomew's,! for the judgment of the Pres- 
 byterians ! 
 
 * An act of 17th Charles II. by which non-conformist ministers 
 were prohibited, unless in crossing the road, to come or be, on any 
 pretence whatever, after March 24th, 16G5, within /w miles of any 
 city, town corporate, or borough that sent burgesses topariiament; 
 or within five miles of any parish, town, or place, wherein they 
 had, since the act of oblivion, been parson, vicar, or lecturer, &c.; 
 or where they had preached in any conventicle. 
 
 f Charles I. of tyrannical memory, was beheaded on the 30th 
 January, 1649. He called himself, and was called by some others, 
 a martyr. The anniversary of his martyrdom has afforded the 
 High church clergy many fine opportunities for displaying their 
 zeal for " the church," and mourning over her calamities. 
 
 X The famous ^^ Act for the uniformity of public prayers and 
 administration of sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies, ^*c., in 
 the church of England ;^^ which received the royal assent on the 
 19th May, 1662, and took effect on the 24th of August following, 
 being St. Bartholomew's day. Assent and consent to its provisions 
 were to be declared by that day, on pain of deprivation of their 
 livings, if the offenders were in the ministry; and if schoolmasters 
 or tutors, three months imprisonment and a fine of five pounds ster- 
 ling. About tivo thousand ministers could not, with a good con- 
 science, comply; and they were deprived accordingly. 
 
92 
 
 Revieiv. 
 
 They who can persuade themselves that the 
 Episcopal prelates enjoy the same power, which 
 was vested in our Lord Jesus Christ, are welcome 
 to their consolation. We are, as yet, a great ways 
 off from the hne of converts. 
 
 Our fifth difficulty relates to the question, whe- 
 ther the twelve were really a superiour order to 
 the seventy ? We cannot perceive in the New 
 Testament any characters of such superiority. 
 On comparing the history of their appointment, 
 we find their commission was the same both in 
 form and in substance ; that they had the same 
 powers, the same instructions, the same cautions, 
 the same support ; in short, that their whole mis- 
 sion was the same. Let any man of common can- 
 dour read the account of it in Matthew and Luke ; 
 and let him discover, if he can, any thing that 
 bears the semblance of a superiour and inferiour 
 order. To facilitate his inquiry we subjoin the 
 passages alluded to — 
 
 The Twelve : 
 Matthew ix. 37 — x. 16. 
 
 " Then saith he unto his 
 disciples, The harvest truly is 
 plenteous, but the labourers are 
 few. Pray ye therefore, the 
 Lord of the harvest, that he 
 will send forth labourers into 
 his harvest. And when he 
 had called unto him his twelve 
 disciples, he gave them power 
 
 The Seventy : 
 Luke X. 1 — 16. 
 " After these things the 
 Lord appointed other seventy 
 also, and sent them two and 
 two before his face into every 
 city and place whither he him- 
 self would come. Therefore 
 said he unto them. The harvest 
 truly is great, but the labourers 
 are few : pray ye therefore, the 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 
 
 93 
 
 The Twelve. 
 against unclean spirits, to cast 
 them out ; and to heal all 
 manner of sickness, and all 
 manner of disease. Now the 
 names of the twelve apostles 
 are these ; the first, Simon, 
 who is called Peter, and An- 
 drew his brother; James the 
 son of Zebedee, and John his 
 brother ; Philip and Bartho- 
 lomew ; Thomas and Matthew 
 the publican ; James the son 
 of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, 
 whose surname was Thad- 
 deus. Simon the Canaanite, 
 and Judas Iscariot who also 
 betrayed him. These twelve 
 Jesus sent forth, and command- 
 ed them, saying, Go not into 
 the way of the Gentiles, and 
 into any city of the Samai'itans 
 enter ye not : but go rather to 
 the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel. And, as ye go, preach, 
 saying. The kingdom of hea- 
 ven is at hand. Heal the sick, 
 cleanse the lepers, raise the 
 dead, cast out devils ; freely 
 ye have received, freely give. 
 Provide neither gold, nor sil- 
 ver, nor brass, in your purses ; 
 nor scrip for your journey, nei- 
 ther two coats, neither shoes, 
 nor yet staves ; for the work- 
 man is worthy of his meat. 
 And into whatsoever city or 
 town ye shall enter, inquire 
 who in it is worthy ; and there 
 
 The Seventy. 
 Lord of the harvest, that he 
 would send forth labourers in- 
 to his harvest. Go your ways : 
 behold, I send you forth as 
 lambs among wolves. Carry 
 neither purse, nor scrip, nor 
 shoes : and salute no man by 
 the way. And into whatso- 
 ever house ye enter, first say, 
 Peace be to this house. And 
 if the son of peace be there, 
 your peace shall rest upon it : 
 if not, it shall turn to you again. 
 And in the same liouse remain, 
 eating and drinking such things 
 as they give : for the labourer 
 is worthy of his hire. Go not 
 from house to house. And 
 into whatsoever city ye enter, 
 and they receive you, eat such 
 things as are set before you ; 
 and heal the sick that are 
 therein : and say unto them, 
 The kingdom of God is come 
 nigh unto you. But into what- 
 soever city ye enter, and they 
 receive you not, go your ways 
 out into the streets of the same, 
 and say. Even the very dust of 
 your city, which cleaveth on 
 us, we do wipe off against you : 
 notwithstanding, be ye sure of 
 this, that the kingdom of God 
 is come nigh unto you. But 1 
 say unto you, That it shall be 
 more tolerable in that day for 
 Sodom than for that city. Wo 
 unto thee, Chorazin ! wo unto 
 
94 
 
 Review. 
 
 Tide Seventy. 
 
 thee, Bethsaida ! foi* if the 
 mighty works had been done 
 in Tyre and Sidon, which 
 liave been done in you, they 
 had a great while ago repent- 
 ed, sitting in sackcloth and 
 ashes. But it shall be more 
 tolerable for Tyre and Sidon 
 at the judgment than for you. 
 And thou, Capernaum, which 
 art exalted to heaven, shaltbe 
 thrust down to hell. He that 
 heareth you, heareth me ; and 
 he that despiseth you, despi- 
 seth me ; and he that despiseth 
 me, despiseth him that sent 
 me." 
 
 The Twelve. 
 
 abide till ye go thence. And 
 when ye come into an house, 
 salute it. And if the house be 
 worthy, let your peace come 
 upon it : but if it be not wor- 
 thy, let your peace return to 
 you. And whosoever shall not 
 receive you, nor hear your 
 words, when ye depart out of 
 that house or city, shake oft' 
 the dust of your feet. Verily 
 I say unto you. It shall be 
 more tolerable for the land of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah, in the 
 day of judgment, than for that 
 city. Behold, I send you forth 
 as sheep in the midst of wolves ; 
 be ye therefore wise as ser- 
 pents, and harmless as doves. 
 He that receiveth you, receiv- 
 eth me ; and he that receiveth 
 me, receiveth him that sent 
 
 If, after all, the twelve were an order superiour 
 to the seventy, the evidence, whether in these or 
 other parts of the evangelical narrative, is too sub- 
 tle for our clumsy senses. The Layman, however, 
 whose perceptions are not so dull, has been more 
 fortunate. Let us betake ourselves to his aid. 
 
 " The twelve," says he, " were superiour to the 
 seventy, both in dignify and^o?(;er." 
 
 They were superiour in " dignity^ 
 
 How is this proved ? Thus — 
 
 1. "The apostles are every where spoken of, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 95 
 
 as the constant attendants of our Lord." Tlicic- 
 fore, they were of a higher rank than the seventy ! 
 The Layman is as active as he is sharp-sighted ; 
 but the ditch between his premises and his conclu- 
 sion being rather too wide for us to leap, we can- 
 not conveniently follow him. 
 
 But the Layman has forgotten that there were 
 others, beside the apostles, who are mentioned as 
 the constant attendants of our Lord,* and who re- 
 ceived from that circumstance no pre-eminence of 
 authority whatever. The Layman's first argu- 
 ment, then, is " good for nothing." 
 
 2. " The commission of the apostles was much 
 more general" than that of the seventy. The lat- 
 ter "were sent before our Lord into the cities 
 whither he himself ivould come.'''' The former were 
 directed " to preach the gospel to all the Jews." 
 A minister, therefore, who should be instructed to 
 make a preaching tour through the United States, 
 would be of a higher grade than one whose la- 
 bours should be confined to the state of Nev/ 
 York. If this argument of the Layman is not 
 very satisfactory, it is at least ingenious. There 
 is something vastly pleasant in regulating the 
 grandeur of the priesthood by the length of a jour- 
 ney; and determining its grades with a pair of 
 geographical compasses ! 
 
 3. " The inauguration of the twelve was much 
 
 * Acts i. 21. 
 
96 Review. 
 
 more solemn than that of the seventy." Therefore, 
 they must be of a superiour order. Because all 
 the world knows that it is impossible to appoint, 
 though on different occasions, officers of the same 
 rank without the very same degree of solemnity. 
 This is demonstration! Is it not, good reader .f* 
 But in what was the inauguration of the twelve 
 more solemn than that of the seventy? 
 
 " In relation to the first," replies the Layman, " we find 
 our Saviour directing his disciples to pray to God to send 
 labourers into the harvest. We find him continuing himself 
 a whole night in prayer. In the inauguration of the seventy 
 there was nothing of all this solemnity." P. 154. 
 
 Nothing ! if we read our bible correctly, there 
 is the same direction about prayer to the Lord of 
 the harvest, for labourers in his harvest, coupled 
 with the mission of the seventy, and of the twelve. 
 With respect to his continuing in prayer the whole 
 night previous to the choice of his apostles, is the 
 Layman sure that their appointment was the spe- 
 cial cause of our Lord's being thus employed } 
 That he never prayed in this manner upon any 
 other occasion } And particularly, before the elec- 
 tion of the seventy } And supposing him to be sure 
 of all this ; how does it affect relative dignity ^ 
 Christ prayed all night before appointing the 
 twelve, and not before appointing the seventy, 
 therefore, the twelve were a superiour order of 
 ministers ! It seems, then, that it was not preach- 
 ing the gospel, nor performing mighty works in 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 97 
 
 his name, which lay so near the Saviour's heart 
 when he was about to send forth his messengers, 
 as to engage him all night in prayer ; but it was 
 the desire to set off a superiour order of them with 
 suitable eclat ! — When the tivelve are to be com- 
 missioned, he prays all night. When the seventy 
 are to be commissioned, he is not at the same 
 trouble; and this merely to show that they are 
 not of such high dignity as the others ! Poor dis- 
 ciples ! To have the same duties and the same 
 trials with your twelve superiours, and much less 
 interest in your master's affections and prayers ! 
 It was no small matter, we see, to be a bishop or 
 something like one, in the days of his flesh : And 
 if the Layman will undertake to prove that the 
 successour-bishops have still the same enviable 
 privilege, we shall not refuse him the praise of 
 courage ! However, if they act up to the principle 
 of his argument, there is one inference which we 
 think may be drawn from it -with rather clearer 
 evidence than his own for the pre-eminence of the 
 apostles abov^e the seventy; and thatis, that when 
 the hierarchy is about ordaining bishops, she 
 prays most fervently ; and when presbyters are to 
 be ordained, she does not think it worth while to 
 pray at all ! 
 
 The Layman proceeds : 
 
 " The apostles were, likewise, superiour," viz. to the seventy, 
 '■'■'m power.'''' p. 154 
 
 How is this proved ? Thus : 
 
 Vol. III. 13 
 
98 Review. 
 
 " They alone received the commission to offer the eucha- 
 ristic sacrifice of bread and wine." 
 
 We stay not to comment on the popish style of 
 this passage. " Eucharistic sacrifice .'" The scrip- 
 ture knows neither the nanfe nor the thing, in re- 
 ference to the commemoration of our Lord's death 
 in the sacrament of the supper. The Layman's 
 argument for the superiority of the twelve is, that 
 they alone were authorized to administer this sa- 
 crament. Indeed ! How, then, came it to be ad- 
 ministered by the Episcopal priests who are not 
 the successours of the apostles.'* Either this power 
 does not prove superiority of rank, or else the 
 hierarchy has transferred to an inferiour order, 
 one of the pecuhar functions of the superiour; 
 and thus corrupted the institutions of Christ. The 
 Layman has his option. It will not be possible 
 to evade the alternative ; because the Lord's sup- 
 per is an ordinance of perpetual obligation, and 
 could not be administered by the apostles till af- 
 ter his death; nor is there a shadow of proof that 
 it was ever administered by them till after his as- 
 cension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit at 
 Pentecost. Prove what it will, it cannot prove 
 the superiority of the twelve above the seventy • 
 during his abode upon earth. And what is more, 
 there is nothing in the institution of the supper to 
 express the conveyance of authority to administer 
 it. There is nothing but the appointment of it 
 for the observation of the church. This do in re- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 99 
 
 membrance of me ; for as often as ye cat this bread 
 and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord^s death till he 
 come. But all communicants "do this in remem- 
 brance of him," they all "show forth his death," 
 in the holy supper, as much as did the apostles. 
 The commission to administer the sacraments, 
 and govern the church, was not given till the very 
 moment of his departure from earth. 
 
 In the next place : 
 
 " To the twelve," says the Layman, *' were twelve thrones 
 appointed, whereon they should sit, judging the twelve tribes 
 of Israel." P. 154. 
 
 As this language is altogether symbolical, he 
 should have fixed his meaning before he quoted it 
 as a proof. This he has not done, and it is not 
 our business to do it for him. But Cyprian has 
 conceded that Christ held, in his own hands, the 
 supreme authority while he was on earth; the 
 Layman himself has told us, that the twelve dur- 
 ing this period, had not the power of ordination ; 
 and men who had power, neither to govern nor to 
 ordain, are not very fitly depicted by the symbols 
 of men " sitting upon thrones, and judging the 
 twelve tribes of Israel." The Layman has again 
 mistaken and misrepresented the passage, part of 
 which he has cited. It stands thus, in Math. xix. 
 28. "Jesus said unto them. Verily I say unto 
 you, that ye which have followed me in the re- 
 generation, when the Son of Man shall sit in the thrdne 
 of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
 
100 Review. 
 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It appears 
 from Luke, ch. xxii. that this promise was ad- 
 dressed to the twelve just before our Lord's pas- 
 sion. Whatever then is meant by the " twelve 
 thrones," and the " judgment of the twelve tribes 
 of Israel," it was not, and could not be possessed 
 by the apostles, till after their master's exaltation : 
 till he should sit in the throne of his glory. He was 
 to bestow it upon them after he should have " as- 
 cended up far above all heavens," and not before. 
 This is the text on which the Layman relies for 
 proof of the pre-eminence of the twelve during our 
 Lord's humiliation^ when he did not sit in the throne 
 of his glory, and consequently they did not sit on 
 their thrones. 
 
 But " on them," viz. the twelve, " was to rest the fabric of 
 the church. The wait of the city having tic elve foundations, 
 and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.'^ 
 Rev. xxi. 14. 
 
 Another blunder, as usual. A symbohcal repre- 
 sentation of a state of the church which has not 
 yet happened, is to prove that the twelve were 
 superiour to the seventy in the days of their mas- 
 ter's flesh, and before they had received any com- 
 mission whatever to govern ! 
 
 There is one argument more. 
 
 " Upon the happening of a vacancy, by the apostacy of 
 Judas, Matthias was raised to his bishoprick, being numbered 
 with the eleven apostles, and taking a part of their ministry. 
 Acts i. Matthias had been one of the seventy. For this we 
 have the testimony of Eusebius, of Jerome, of Epiphanius. 
 
Essays an Episcopacy. 101 
 
 • 
 Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, witli other evangelists, as also the 
 
 seven deacons, were of the seventy, if the primitive fathers of 
 
 the church be at all to be relied upon as witnesses of facts. 
 
 And these persons, even after their promotion, were still inlGe- 
 
 riour to the twelve, being under their government." P. 154. 
 
 The elevation of Matthias to the apostleship 
 took place after the eleven had received their 
 commission from the risen Saviour, and after he 
 had ascended to heaven : and this is to prove that 
 they were superiour to the seventy before his pas- 
 sion. Truly the Layman has a right to make 
 himself merry with the logic of his opponents ! 
 But did the seventy retain, after Christ's resurrec- 
 tion, the commission which they had before his 
 death, or did they not ? If they did not, the Lay- 
 man's argument goes to the wall at once. If they 
 did, then it is strange that their official character 
 is never so much as mentioned, after the resurrec- 
 tion, in any part of the New Testament. And it 
 is no less strange that the Layman should repre- 
 sent any of them as being promoted to the office of 
 deacons. Lower they could not be, to be in the 
 " priesthood" at ail. And if they were next the 
 apostles, as they were put in a preceding part of 
 the discussion, their being made deacons, was a 
 promotion downwards. They must have been, as 
 belonging to the priesthood, either of the order of 
 deacons, or of a superiour order : if deacons, their 
 ordination to that office by the apostles was a 
 farce ; if of a superiour order, it degraded them. 
 The Layman has again his choice. But whether 
 
102 Review. 
 
 • 
 they were then degraded, or promoted, or neither, 
 
 what has this to do with their own office or that 
 
 of the apostles, during our Lord's abode upon 
 
 earth ? 
 
 So much for the Layman's proofs that the twelve 
 were superiour to the seventy. He has not proved, 
 nor can he, with the whole phalanx of the hierar- 
 chy to help him, prove, either from their commis- 
 sion, or from their acts, that the twelve exercised 
 or possessed an atom of power over the seventy. 
 
 But our difficulties are not yet ended. We en- 
 counter a formidable one in the fact, that the 
 Christian church was not organized at all durijig our 
 Lord''s residence on earth. The ministry of the 
 baptist, his own ministry, and that of the apostles 
 and the seventy, were all preparative. The church 
 could not be organized under the new dispensa- 
 tion, till the Jewish form ceased ; and that could 
 not cease till the Messiah had "finished transgres- 
 sion, made an end of sin, and made reconciliation 
 for iniquity," by the sacrifice of himself Accord- 
 ingly, he gave his apostles their high commission 
 after his resurrection ; and they did not so much 
 as attempt to act upon it, till, as he had promised, 
 they were " endued with power from on high," by 
 the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Then 
 they were able to speak in the name of a master 
 who was " set on the right hand of the throne of 
 the majesty in the heavens." Then, and not till 
 then, did the church put on her New Testament 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 103 
 
 form. It is, therefore, perfectly idle to infer what 
 this form should be, from her appearance in her 
 unformed state. 
 
 Once more. Had the Episcopal writers even 
 made good their assertions concerning the state 
 of the church in the period we have been review- 
 ing, it would avail them nothing. Because our 
 Lord has settled the platform of his church, the 
 leadingprinciples of her order, by positive statute; 
 and this precludes, to the whole extent of the 
 statute, all reasoning from analogy. We have 
 nothing to do but to ascertain what he has 
 enacted. 
 
 Thus have the proofs draAvn in favour of the 
 hierarchy, from the Jewish priesthood, and from 
 the state of the church during our Lord's personal 
 ministry, vanished, successively, at the touch. — 
 Grosser abuse of the divine word than we have 
 had occasion to expose, cannot easily be found. 
 The Layman hardly approaches a text without 
 disfiguring it. He is young, very young, in the 
 study of his bible. This is some excuse ; and, in 
 his being a layman., he has an apology which can- 
 not be extended to Cyprian, Vindex, or Cornelius. 
 If reading the scriptures, like correct interpreters, 
 were to be the test, we much fear that, in the 
 issue of the present trial, neither himself, nor his 
 reverend associates, would be entitled to plead the 
 benefit of clergy. 
 
104 Review. 
 
 Facts to justify the Episcopal claim, have been 
 sought, without effect, in the constitution of the 
 Jewish priesthood, and in that peculiar state of 
 the church which existed during our Lord's per- 
 sonal ministry. These refuges have failed. The 
 hierarchy has been dislodged from all^her in- 
 trenchments in succession, and left without a rest- 
 ing place for the sole of her foot, in any part of 
 the religious territory which was occupied by the 
 church from the days of Abraham, till the day of 
 Pentecost. We acknowledge, however, that she 
 will suffer little detriment from her defeat, if she 
 can establish herself firmly upon New Testament 
 ground. The strength of her positions here, is 
 next to be tried. If, as she glories, ih.Q facts of the 
 New Testament are on her side, we own ourselves 
 vanquished, and have nothing to do but to hand 
 her our swords. But we shall not take her word 
 for it. Let the facts be produced. According to 
 the writers whom w^e are reviewing, they are found 
 in the pre-eminence of James at Jerusalem ; of 
 Timothy at Ephesus ; of Titus in Crete ; and of 
 the seven angels in the Asiatic churches. Epa- 
 phroditus, too, has been occasionally added to the 
 number. The ability and learning of Cyprian^ had 
 done him up into a bishop, and had dispatched 
 him from Philippi, in Episcopal majesty, on a visit 
 to Paul at Rome. Unfortunately the good man 
 lost his mitre by the way, so that when he arrived, 
 the apostle could not distinguish him from a sim- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 105 
 
 pie messenger, who came on an errand from his 
 Phihppian friends, and sent him back again in 
 statu quo, without a single mark of prelatical dig- 
 nity. So we leave him to go in quest of the 
 others. Before investigating the validity of their 
 individual titles, we ask the reader's attention to 
 some general presumptions against the existence of 
 prelates in the apostolic church. Presumptions, 
 in our view, so strong, as almost to supersede the 
 necessity of further examination. 
 
 The first is this, that no such .order is mentioned, 
 nor even alluded to, either in the salutations of PauVs 
 epistles to the churches, or in his directions for the 
 'performance of relative duties. Had prelacy been of 
 apostolic origin ; had Paul himself been distin- 
 guished for his zeal in establishing it, would there 
 not have been something in his epistles to the 
 churches, appropriated to their chief officer.-^ 
 He gives very exact instructions to every other 
 class of Christians ; points out, minutely, their 
 duties to each other ; carefully distinguishes be- 
 tween presbyters and deacons ; draws their re- 
 spective characters, and assigns their functions ; 
 salutes individual ministers and private Christians, 
 both men and women, by name ; but no where 
 says one syllable to the superiour grade of mi- 
 nisters ! How is this fact to be explained ? That 
 Paul, who observed the most scrupulous proprie- 
 ty in all his addresses— who left no part of reli- 
 gious society any excuse for neglect of duty — 
 
 Vol. III. H 
 
106 Review. 
 
 who overlooked nothing which might tend to 
 counsel, conciliate, or console — who carefully 
 avoided every thing contemptuous or irritating — 
 who was even solicitious, as we are told, to as- 
 sert the dignity of prelates above that of presby- 
 ters — that this very Paul should take no manner 
 of notice of them in his letters to their dioceses, 
 should enjoin respect and obedience to their sub- 
 alterns before their faces ; and not so much as 
 hmt at the obedience which these subalterns owed 
 to them, is past all behef ! It would bespeak not 
 a man of discretion ; much less a wise man ; less 
 still, a great man ; least of all an inspired apostle 
 — but a downright idiot. He could not have 
 fallen upon a more effectual method to disgrace 
 them with their people ; to encourage insubordi- 
 nation among their presbyters ; and, by wanton- 
 ly sporting with their feelings, to convert them 
 into personal enemies. How then, we ask again, 
 shall this omission be accounted for ? It will not 
 do to reply, that as the names of bishop and pres- 
 byter were promiscuously used, he joins them in 
 common directions, salutation, and honour. This 
 answer relieves not the difficulty : for it cannot 
 extend to the deacons, whom he expressly distin- 
 guishes from the presbyters. Well, then, he singles 
 out the lowest order of clergy, pays them marked 
 attention, and, by this very act, insults the prelates 
 whom his silence had sufficiently mortified. Fur- 
 ther, if one set of particular instructions suits dif- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 107 
 
 ferent sets of officers, how can iYvQU functions be 
 different ? If the prerogative of the prelate con- 
 sist in the power of ordination and government, 
 how can his duties be comprised in a draught of 
 instructions for officers who have no such power ? 
 It would be as rational to insist that the very same 
 instructions would suit the governour of a pro- 
 vince and the constable of a town. And did not 
 every rule of decorum require, on the part of the 
 apostle, a primary attention to that order which 
 was emphatically to succeed him? that order, 
 without which, we are taught the Christian church 
 can have neither form nor government, nor minis- 
 try, nor sacraments, nor lawful assemblies; no, 
 nor even existence ? That this order should first 
 be instituted by the apostle, and then passed over 
 in absolute neglect when he is writing to their 
 churches; or be lumped with their inferiours, 
 while the grades of these inferiours are addressed 
 in a manner which it is impossible to mistake, 
 puts all credulity at defiance. The question, 
 therefore, returns, How shall we solve this enigma 
 in the conduct of Paul } The simple solution is, he 
 takes no separate notice o{ bishops as superiour to 
 presbyters^ because no such bishops existed. Other 
 solution there is none. For it is very certain that 
 cifter their introduction they figured gloriously. 
 Whoever was left in the back ground, the bishop 
 came conspicuously forward — whoever was thrown 
 into the shade, the bishop was irradiated — who- 
 
108 Revieiv. 
 
 ever was treated with neglect, due homage to tlie 
 bishop was never forgotten. Not such was the 
 fact in the days of St. Paul ; therefore, not such 
 was the order which he had instituted. 
 
 2. Another presumption, if, indeed, it deserve 
 not a higher name, against the episcopal con- 
 struction of the New Testament facts, is, that one 
 at least, of the two powers said to be vested ex- 
 clusively in prelates, is clearly attributed to pres- 
 byters. We mean the power oi government. 
 
 There are three terms employed in the New 
 Testament to express the authority which is to be 
 exercised in the Christian church, and they are 
 dl appUed to presbyters. These terms are, 
 
 1. iiyso\t.a.\ — To take the lead. 
 
 2. '^^o;r>)M'i — To stand before — to preside. 
 
 3. *o»fji,a»vw — To act the part, to fulfill the duties 
 of a shepherd. 
 
 Every power which Christ hath deputed to his 
 officers, is conveyed by one or other of these 
 terms. 
 
 For the greater precision we shall show, first, 
 that they do express the power of government ; 
 and then, that each of them is applied to presby- 
 ters. 
 
 1. HrEOMAi, To take the lead — signifies to 
 " rule." Math. ii. 6. Thou, Bethlehem, in the land 
 of Juda, art not the least among the princes ( ^/s^-otfiv) 
 of Juda ; for out of thee shall come a governour 
 ( *)7ou|X£vo£^ thai shall rule mi/ people Israel. The force 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 109 
 
 of tlic term, then, cannot be questioned. It is ap- 
 plied to presbyters. 
 
 Heb. xii. 7. Remember them which have the rule 
 OVER you. (i-ws ^7ouf;.£vuv ufx-wv your Tulers.) The apos- 
 tle is speaking of their deceased pastors ; for he 
 immediately adds, ivho have spoken untoyou the word 
 of God; luhose faith follow, considering the end, the 
 issue or termination, of their conversation. Again, 
 
 V. 17. Obey them that have the rule over you, 
 ^To»s TjyoufAsvois ufAwv^ for they watch for your souls as they 
 that must give account. 
 
 That these " rulers" were presbyters, is evident 
 from a single consideration; the apostle attri- 
 butes the power of " ruling," to those deceased 
 pastors who had preached the gospel to the He- 
 brew converts ; and those living ones who " watch- 
 ed for their souls ;" which are undeniably the 
 functions of presbyters ; therefore Paul recog- 
 nizes in presbyters, all the power of government 
 expressed by the first term — rulers. 
 
 2. nPOISTHMI, or HPOaTAMAI. To stand 
 or place before — to preside — to rule. 1 Tim. iii. 1. 
 j9 Bishop must be one that ruleth well {xoLkug 
 7r§OKrr(X[jLSvov) his oivn house. The same in v. 5. 12.* 
 
 The power expressed by this term also, is ap- 
 plied to Presbyters. 
 
 1 Thess. V. 12. We beseech you, brethren, to know 
 
 * For other references see Raphelii Annot. Phil, in N. T. ad 
 locum, & SchUusncri Novum Lfxicon in N. T 
 
110 Review. 
 
 them which labour among you, and are over you 
 {x^oKTT-ayLSVovg) in the Lord. 
 
 It is a description of ordinary faithful pastors; 
 not o{ prelates, for there were several at Thessalo- 
 nica ; and diocesan Episcopacy admits of but one 
 in a city. The whole description taken together, 
 supposes the exercise of functions, and an intimacy 
 of intercourse, among the people, which a prelate 
 cannot possibly observe in his diocese ; but 
 which is exactly characteristic of the Presbyter. 
 However, to put the matter out of all doubt, Paul 
 charges Timothy, 1 Eph. v. 17. Let the elders that 
 RULE WELL, (6^ xoXus 'ff^oetTTuteg) be accounted luorthy 
 of double honour, &c. 
 
 Presbyters they are, Episcopacy herself being 
 judge : for this is one of the passages which she 
 quotes to prove their inferiority in the church of 
 Ephesus, to bishop Timothy. The apostle, then, 
 here formally attributes to presbyters the power 
 of "ruling," which we humbly conceive to be 
 much the same with the power of " government." 
 
 3. nOlMAINO. To exercise the office of a 
 shepherd; hence, to provide for the safety and 
 comfort of any one — to direct, to controul, to go- 
 vern. 
 
 This term being more comprehensive than 
 either of the former two, we crave the reader's in- 
 dulgence to a minuter proof of the last mentioned 
 acceptation, viz. to •' govern." 
 
 As early as the days of Homer, this word and 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. Ill 
 
 its relatives were in familiar use, to designate not 
 only authority, but the highest authority in the 
 commonwealth. Thence that frequent Homeric 
 phrase "the shepherd of the people," for their 
 " kinff." No one who is in the least conversant 
 with that pre-eminent poet will ask for examples ; 
 but lest we should be contradicted by such as are 
 not, and yet wish to pass for " Greek scholars," 
 we subjoin a few ; though at the hazard of being 
 again reproved by Mr. Hobart for our " ostenta- 
 tion." 
 
 A^uavTa t£ IIOIMENA Xawv. 
 
 II. A. 263. 
 
 " Dryas the shepherd of the people" — which 
 the schohast interprets by Bao-iXsa o%Xwi; ; " the 
 KING of multitudes." 
 
 irsfdovTo TS nOIMENI Xawv 
 
 2x*)'7r'Toup(Oi (3a<fikr]ss. 11. B. 85. 
 
 " The sceptred kings yielded to the shepherd of 
 the people." — ^Where the scholiast again explains 
 " shepherd" by " king." Bao-jXff*. 
 
 In the same poet, " shepherd" is used inter- 
 changeably with other terms descriptive of the 
 mihtary chiefs of Greece. 
 
 A<av 5ioysvss,T£XaiM>ivie, KOIPANE Xawv. II, I. 640. 
 
 OWms HrEM0NE2 Aavawv xai KOIPANOI r^dav. II. B. 487. 
 
 Those who are elsewhere called " shepherds," 
 are here named " leaders" and " princes ;" the 
 former being interpreted " kings" by the scholi- 
 ast, as he had already interpreted "shepherds." 
 
112 Review. 
 
 In the same way does he translate the latter, in 
 his annotation upon v. 204, of the book last cited. 
 So that by the great master of Grecian language 
 and literature, the three terms, IIoi/A}]!', Hyf^wv, 
 Ko/^avof, i. e. " shepherd," "leader," "prince," are 
 interchangeably used of the same rank, and are 
 all explained by the Greek commentator, BacjXewf , 
 i. e. " king." Instances might easily be multiplied, 
 but we forbear. We have the rather appealed to 
 Homer, because he depicts that same state of 
 society in which a great portion of the scriptures 
 was written; and alludes to those same objects 
 from which they have borrowed much of their 
 imagery, and many of their terms. 
 
 Proceed we now to the septuagint version of 
 the Old Testament, which was completed be- 
 tween two and three centuries before Christ. 
 2 Kings., V. 2. in our version, 2 Sam. v. 2. The 
 Lord said unto thee, viz. David, thou shalt feed 
 (TTOiiJLoovsigj shalt act as a shepherd to) my people 
 Israel, and thou shalt be a captain (nyov^Asvov) over 
 Israel. 
 
 Precisely the same sort of example is to be 
 found in Ch. vii. 7, 1 Chron. ii. 2. xvii. 6 ; also Ps. 
 xlviii. 14. Death shall feed upon (^roi/AOCPei, shall 
 have the ride over) them. 
 
 The New Testament is equally decisive. Math, 
 ii. 6. Thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not 
 the least among the princes of Juda ; for out of thee 
 shall come a governour {hyovuL^vog) that shall rule 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 113 
 
 (^jToifxavsh feed, superintend as a shepherd,) my 
 people Israel. The prophet speaks of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who is the " good shepherd," and 
 the "chief shepherd;" and who had, and has, 
 " the government upon his shoulder." Is. ix. 6. 
 
 This term, likewise, is apphed to Presbyters. 
 
 Acts XX. 17, 28. From Miletus, Paid sent to 
 Ephesus, and called the presbyters of the church and 
 said unto them — Take heed unto yourselves., and to all 
 the flock over ivhich the Holy Ghost hath made you 
 BISHOPS to FEED Q?:oi[AO'.ivsiv, like good shepherds, to 
 provide for, watch over, and govern,) the church of 
 God, &c. 
 
 1 Pet. V. 2, 3. The presbyters who are among 
 you, I exhort, ivho am also a presbyter. Feed 
 (^roz/Aavarfi) the flock of God ivhich is among you, 
 taking the oversight {eTntrxoTFOvvrss, discharging 
 the duty of bishops) thereof, not by constraint, but 
 willingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind: 
 JVeither as being lords over God''s heritage, but being 
 ensamples to the flock. 
 
 It is obvious, upon the very face of the texts, 
 that these presbyters of Ephesus, and of the dis- 
 persion, are considered as vested with the pasto- 
 ral care in all its extent ; and they are command- 
 ed to be faithful to the trust reposed in them, by 
 providing for the protection, nurture, and comfort 
 of the flock of God. This " feeding" the flock, 
 this discharge of the pastoral duty, is directly op- 
 posed by Peter, to being " lords over God's heri- 
 
 Vol. 111. 15 
 
114 Review. 
 
 tage," i. e. to rigorous and oppressive govern- 
 ment ; or, as v^e commonly say, to " lording it" 
 over them. The contrast could have had no place, 
 had not these presbyters been church governours ; 
 for it is idle to warn men against abusing a power 
 which they do not possess. By instructing them 
 how they were to govern the church, the Apostle 
 has decided that the power of government was 
 committed to them. No higher authority than 
 he has recognized in them, can belong to the or- 
 der of prelates. For the very same term by which 
 he marks the power of the presbyters, is employ- 
 ed in scripture, to mark the authority of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ himself* 
 
 . The reader cannot for a moment, suppose that 
 we put any power left in the church, on a level 
 with that of her divine master. Far from us be 
 the thought of such blasphemy. But we contend 
 for these two things. 
 
 1st. That the term which both Paul and Peter 
 apply to the office of presbyters, undoubtedly ex- 
 presses the power of government ; seeing it is the 
 term which expresses the office of Christ, as the 
 governour of his people Israel. 
 
 2d. That as this term, applied to the office of 
 Christ, expresses the highest power of government 
 in him as the chief shepherd ; so, when applied to 
 the office of the under shepherds, it expresses the 
 highest power of government which he has dele- 
 
 * Math. ii. 6 — »}you,asvoj otfrig IIOIMANEI tov Xaov (aou, &c- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 115 
 
 gated to be exercised in his name for the welfare 
 of his church. But this power is vested, Paul and 
 Peter being judges, m presbyters ; therefore, pres- 
 byters, by the appointment of Jesus Christ, are 
 invested with the highest power of government 
 known in his church. 
 
 We go further : The authority conveyed by the 
 charge to "/cet/ the flock of God," comprehends 
 the ordering of all things necessary to her well be- 
 ing ; and, therefore, the power of ordination like- 
 wise. An essential part of the Redeemer's jsa^^o- 
 ral office, was, and is, to provide under-pastors for 
 his sheep. This, at first, he did in person, by im- 
 mediate vocation. But having " ascended up far 
 above all heavens, that he might fill all things," 
 he performs the same office through the medium 
 of the pastors whom he has left in the church. 
 The question is to ivhat pastors has he committed 
 the trust of ordaining other pastors, and thus pre- 
 serving the pastoral succession ? We answer, to 
 presbyters : for he has affixed to their office, that 
 very term which designates his own right and care 
 to furnish his church with pastors, or lawful minis- 
 ters. Let our Episcopal brethren show as much 
 for their prelates, if they can. 
 
 To sum up what has been said on this article : 
 No expression more clear and decisive than those 
 we have considered, are used in the scripture to 
 denote either the communication, or the posses- 
 sion, or the exercise, of the ordinary powers given 
 
116 Review. 
 
 by Christ for the well ordering of his church. 
 And we have shown, that the New Testament 
 has, in the most direct and ample manner, con- 
 fided them all to presbyters. 
 
 Unless, therefore, we adopt the insane paradox 
 of Hammond, viz. that the presbyters of the New 
 Testament were all diocesan bishops, the passages 
 quoted must bear one of two senses. Either they 
 point out, under the denomination of presbyters, 
 those officers who are strictly so called, in con 
 tradistinction from prelates and deacons ; or they 
 use the name with sufficient latitude to include 
 the prelates too. If the former, our position is 
 established. If the latter, then prelates and pres- 
 byters diYQ joined together in the power of govern- 
 ment, which the hierarchy maintains is confined 
 to prelates alone. In either way, the argument is 
 conclusive against her. 
 
 3d. At a very early period of the Christian 
 church, presbyters did actually exercise the power 
 of government : exercised it in conjunction with 
 the apostles themselves; and that upon the prin- 
 ciple of parity. 
 
 The important question concerning the obliga- 
 tion upon Christians to be circumcised and keep 
 the law of Moses, in order to salvation, was refer- 
 red by the church at Antioch, to the apostles and 
 elders at Jerusalem. The historian does not mean 
 apostles and ciders who had a fixed and perma- 
 nent charge at Jerusalem, which was essentially 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 117 
 
 incompatible with their apostoHc vocation. But 
 as that city had been the cradle of the Christian 
 church, and was the centre of religious communi- 
 cation from all parts of the world, the apostles re- 
 turned thither from their excursions in preaching 
 the gospel, accompanied with Elders or Presby- 
 ters from the churches which they had planted, 
 and met together in ecclesiastical council to con- 
 suit about their common interest. Herein they 
 have set us the example, and left us the warrant, 
 of a delegated body, as the ultimate resort in all 
 ecclesiastical affairs : for, such a body, to all in- 
 tents and purposes, was the assemblage of the 
 apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Of this most 
 venerable primitive Synod, we treat no further at 
 present than to ascertain what share the presby- 
 ters had in its proceedings. The following things 
 appear indisputable. 
 
 1st. The apostles and presbyters met in com- 
 mon; that is, they formed butowe assembly. Of 
 a " house of bishops," and a " house of clerical 
 and lay delegates," they had no idea. This im^- 
 provement in church-government was reserved 
 for discovery by those who have been trained in 
 the school of the "judicious"* Hooker. 
 
 * This appellation was bestOAved upon Hooker by James VI. 
 who was delighted, beyond measure, with his famous work on ec- 
 clesiastical polity. And delighted with it for the same reason 
 which, no doubt, ravished the heart of Cardinal Allen, and Pope 
 
118 Review. 
 
 2d. The right of the presbyters to sit in judg- 
 ment with the apostles upon all ecclesiastical con- 
 cerns, which were not to be decided by special 
 revelation, was well understood in the churches. 
 
 The proof of this proposition lies in the very 
 terms of the reference from Antioch. For it is 
 inconceivable, how the church there should think 
 of submitting a question, so weighty in itself, and 
 so extensive in its consequences, to the " elders," 
 conjointly with the " apostles," if they had not 
 been taught that presbyters were the ordinary 
 church governours, and were to continue such af- 
 ter the decease of the others. This explains why 
 they went up with the apostles to Jerusalem. It 
 was not only to give them opportunities of infor- 
 mation ; but also, if not chiefly, to learn the pro- 
 per mode of dispatching the pubHc business. Be- 
 fore this council or synod, composed of apostles 
 and elders, was the interesting reference from 
 Antioch laid ; by them was it discussed, and by 
 them decided. 
 
 3d. The apostles, on this occasion, acted simply 
 as members of the synod ; they did nothing in vir- 
 
 Clement the VIII.* viz. that the principle of HooJcer''s book, and 
 the scope of his argument, are to prove the right of the church to 
 model her government as she shall judge for edification. We shall 
 touch this subject again. Does not the reader suppose that this 
 must be a truly Protestant work, which excited the admiration and 
 rapture of the pope and his cardinals ! 
 
 * Hooker's life, p. 78, 79. Works, vol. 1. 8vo. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 119 
 
 tue of their extraordinary, which was their apos- 
 tohcal, character, nor introduced into the dehbe- 
 rations of the assembly, any influence but that of 
 facts ; of the ivritten scripture ; and of reasoning 
 founded on the comparison of both. All this is 
 evident from the narrative in the fifteenth chapter 
 of the Acts ; and resulted from the nature of the 
 case. Had the question been to be determined 
 by special revelation or apostolic authority, one in- 
 spired man, or one apostle, would have answered 
 as well as a dozen. The dispute might have been 
 settled on the spot, and by Paul himself Had 
 -there arisen any doubt of his power, or distrust of 
 his integrity, a hundred miracles, if necessary, 
 would instantly have removed the obstacle. In 
 every view, the embassy to Jerusalem would have 
 been an useless parade. 
 
 The truth is, that the apostles acted in a double 
 capacity. They had that authority which was de- 
 signed to be ordinary and perpetual, such as 
 preaching the word, administering the sacraments, 
 and governing the church. But superadded to 
 this, they had also the authority of special mes- 
 sengers for extraordinary and temporary pur- 
 poses. If a new church was to be founded among 
 the nations — if any part of the rule of faith was to 
 be revealed — if a particular emergency required 
 a particular interposition ; in these and similar 
 cases, their extraordinary character found its pro- 
 per objects : they " spake as they were moved 
 
120 Revieiv. 
 
 by the Holy Ghost :" their judgnient was infalli- 
 ble, and their authority paramount. But for the 
 ordmary government of the church, or any part of 
 it, they do not appear to have enjoyed these ex- 
 traordinary communications of the divine spirit ; 
 nor to have exerted their extraordinary powers ; 
 nor to have claimed a particle of authority above 
 the presbyters. Without such a distinction as 
 we have now stated, their history is a tissue of 
 inconsistencies, and their conduct in the synod of 
 Jerusalem must be given up as a riddle that baffles 
 solution. 
 
 Seeing, therefore, that in the apostolic epistles 
 and salutations to the churches, there is no men- 
 tion of prelates, although there is frequent men- 
 tion of presbyters and deacons — that presbyters 
 are formally addressed as possessing the power of 
 government — and that they actually did exercise 
 it in matters of the highest moment, the advocate 
 for diocesan episcopacy must adduce scriptural 
 facts to support him under the depressing weight 
 of all these considerations. As he maintains that 
 prelates are at least of apostolic origin ; and that 
 they alone succeeded the apostles in the powers of 
 ordination and government, his facts must not 
 only be plausible when detached from their place 
 and bearings in the Christian history, and when 
 decorated with appendages of his own imagina- 
 tion ; but they must accord with the language of 
 the New Testament, and with its narrative ; they 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 121 
 
 must be so decisive as to annihilate the foregoing 
 difficulties ; and must not admit of a fair and ra- 
 tional explanation upon Presbyterian principles. 
 With such facts, he tells us, he is ready to con- 
 front us. Our curiosity is awake : let us look at 
 them without further delay. 
 
 He refers us for one fact, to that same synod of 
 Jerusalem which we have just left. We must go 
 back again. 
 
 " If from Crete," says Cyprian, " we pass to Jerusalem, we 
 shall there discover equally striking evidence* that St. James, 
 the brother of our Lord, possessed in that place the pre-emi- 
 nence of a bishop in tlie church. In the first council that was 
 held there, in order to determine the controversy which had 
 aiisen in regard to the circumcision of Gentile converts, we 
 find him pronouncing an authoritative sentence. His sentence, 
 we remark also, determined the controversy. " Wherefore my 
 sentence is, says he, that we trouble not those who from among 
 the Gentiles are turned unto God." In Acts xxi. 17 and 18, 
 we are told, " that when St. Paul and his company were come 
 to Jerusalem, the brethren received him gladly; and that the 
 next day following, Paul went in with them unto James, and 
 all the Elders or Presbyters were present." Acts xii. 17, it is 
 said, that " Peter, after he had declared to the Christians to 
 whom he went, his miraculous deliverance, bade them go and 
 
 * What this " striking evidence" is, remains to be seen here- 
 after. We' shall reduce the out-works of the hierarchy before we 
 close in upon her citadel. This is the Episcopal character of Ti- 
 mothy and Titus, as her chieftains confess, as their anxiety to de- 
 fend it sufficiently indicates, even without their confession. In 
 the mean time, we believe Cyprian to be pretty correct in making 
 the evidence for the episcopate of James at Jerusalem, to be 
 ''equally striking" with that of Titus's at Crete. For we hope 
 to prove that in both cases it amounts to just nothing at all ! 
 Vol. III. 1 6 
 
122 Review. 
 
 show these things to James and to the brethren." In Gala- 
 tians ii. 12, St. Paul says, " that certain came from James," 
 that is, from the church of Jerusalem to the church of Antioch. 
 Surely these passages strongly indicate that James held the 
 highest dignity in the church of Jerusalem. The brethren 
 carry Paul and his company to him as to a supreme officer. 
 He has presbyters and deacons in subordination to him. When 
 messengers are sent from Jerusalem to other churches, it is 
 not done in the name of the presbyters and deacons, or of 
 the church of this place ; it is done in the name of James. Do 
 not these considerations prove James was the supreme ruler 
 of that church T' 
 
 The first argument of Cyprian for the episcopal 
 pre-eminence of James, is, that he pronounced in 
 the synod of Jerusalem, " an authoritative sentence ;" 
 and that " his sentence determined the controver- 
 sy." The proof is, that expression in his speech 
 to the council, "Wherefore, my sentence is, that 
 we trouble not those who from among the Gen- 
 tiles are turned unto God." Jlcts xv. 19. 
 
 We are under the necessity of objecting, for the 
 third time, to these writers, that they put into the 
 mouth of the person whom they quote, declara- 
 tions which he never uttered. They will make 
 James dehver an authoritative sentence as the 
 bishop of Jerusalem. They, perhaps, could not 
 help themselves, as they have only followed their 
 file leaders. Potter had said the same thing ; and 
 they took it as they found it. But the editor of 
 Lycophron, and author of the " Antiquities of 
 Greece," was " a scholar, and a ripe and good 
 one." He knew that he was standing on slippery 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 123 
 
 ground ; and so to save his own reputation, he 
 sHly fathers his construction of James's words up- 
 old Hesychiiis* 
 
 But in opposition to Cyprian, and the Layman, 
 and archbishop Potter, and Hesychius too, we 
 shall show, 
 
 1. That there is nothing in the language of 
 James, from which it can be inferred that he, as 
 the superiour officer, pronounced an authoritative 
 sentence, and, 
 
 2. That it was impossible for him to pronounce 
 such a sentence. 
 
 The first point is to be settled by a critical ex- 
 amination of his phraseology. His words are, 
 Jio eyo) KPIJVS2, which our translators have ren- 
 dered " Wherefore my sentence «.?." 
 
 The primitive meaning of the word is to discri- 
 minate, to separate, to select, to arrange. Thus 
 Homer, 
 
 KPINEI, sifsjyoixsvwv otsjawv KAPIION ts xai AXNAi;. 
 
 II. E. 501. 
 
 ^'■Separates, by the winds, the chaff from the 
 wheat.^'' 
 
 * Discourse on Church Government, p. 91. In a note, the learn- 
 ed prelate cites Hesychius as thus distinguishing — "Peter addresses 
 the council ; but James enacts the law." rierpoj ini^nyoQcif aXX' laKoiSoj 
 lonoOsTu. Potter's precaution passed unobserved. The reason 
 probably is, that it was locked up in the quotation from Hesychius, 
 " Grcecum est; et non potest legi!'^ said the Trojans of Oxford, 
 whenever a line of Greek came in their way. 
 
124 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 KPINA2 r'ava 5r\\kw ap^wg. 
 
 Od. A. 666. 
 
 ^''Selecting the most valiant throughout the 
 people." 
 
 KPIN' av5|aS xara (puXa. U. B. 362. 
 
 " Arrame the men according to their nations." 
 From this primitive notion, the word, by a very 
 natural transition, came to signify the formation 
 of an opinion, or judgment, and the expression of 
 it when formed, because no opinion or judgment 
 can exist without a previous process by which the 
 mind discriminates between its own perceptions. 
 And thus the word is familiarly used by writers 
 both profane and sacred. 
 
 fjiiCs. 5s -jrXsov ■>] 5i3cr] KPI.NANTE2. 
 
 " Forming their opinion rather from hatred than 
 justice," says Thucydides of the Plataeans, with 
 respect to their ^Wo-wew^ of the Thebans.* 
 
 — T75V 5iaxocr|X7jrfjv xai Ta|ivKPINEIN ou r-ox^Z — ^'vai xarfxsuaff/xaTa. 
 
 " To think that the beautiful order of the uni- 
 verse is not the production of fortune."! 
 
 TW TOUTO KPINEI2. 
 
 " Why dost thou think so ? upon what ground 
 art thou of this opinion T'^X 
 In the speech of Hermocrates to the Syracusans, 
 
 * Thucyd. III. 67. p. 209. cd Dukeri. 
 
 t Diod. Sic. Lib. xii. 84. Tom. I. p. 491. ed WesseL 
 
 i Aristoph. Pint v. 48. p. 9. ed Kusteri. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 125 
 
 as recorded by Thucydides, there is a perfect pa- 
 rallel to the expression of James. 
 
 u We shall consult," says he, " if we be in our 
 right minds, not only -our own immediate inte- 
 rests; but whether we shall be ablestill to preserve 
 all Sicily, against which, in my judgment, the Athe- 
 nians are plotting."* 
 
 The same use of the word is so common m the 
 New Testament, that examples are almost super- 
 fluous. We shall, however, subjoin a few, because 
 they will bring our criticism more directly withm 
 the reach of the unlearned reader. 
 
 Luke vii. 43. Simon said— I suppose that he to 
 whom he forgave most. And he said unto him. 
 Thou hast rightly judged {oqkog EKPINAS.) Si- 
 mon's judgment was surely not an official one. It 
 was simply his opinion, or conclusion, from the case 
 proposed to him. 
 
 John vii. 24. Judge not (Mi] KPINETE) ac- 
 cording to the appearance, but judge righteous judg- 
 ment "(rPJ^IiV ^^JA^-^ ^^0 No "authoritative 
 sentence" is contemplated here. 
 
 Jets xii. 46. Seeing— ije judge yourselves {KPI- 
 NETE) unworthy, S{c. 
 
 2 Cor. V. 14, 15. The love of Christ constraineth 
 us, because ice thus judge (KPINANTA2 tovxo,) 
 &c. " Concerning the love of Christ," saith Paul, 
 
 Tlivcyd. iv. 60. p. 272. ed Dukeri. 
 
1 26 Review. 
 
 " this is our sentiment, our mode of reasoning, that if 
 one died for all," &c. 
 
 In every one of the preceding quotations, the 
 very same word is used v\^hich occurs in the speech 
 of James, and, in the very same sense. It is the 
 plainest Greek imaginable to express the result of 
 one^s refections. This is all that the words of 
 James imply. He spoke among the last ; he avail- 
 ed himself of the discussion which had already 
 taken place : And when his opinion was matured, 
 he submitted it to the council in the form of a 
 temperate and conciliatory proposition. We ask 
 any man of plain sense, to look over the chapter, 
 and say whether this is not a natural and satisfac- 
 tory account of the whole affair. Little did the 
 guileless disciple suspect that his familiar and in- 
 nocent expression, would be converted, in these 
 latter days, into a certificate of his being a dioce- 
 san bishop ! And had not the " proofs" of the 
 hierarchy been, like lords' wits, rather " thinly 
 sown," she would never have attempted to cull one 
 from a form of speech which might have been 
 adopted by the obscurest member of the council, 
 with as much propriety as by James himself 
 
 We have neither interest nor disposition to con- 
 ceal what is well known to even smatterers in 
 Greek, that the term which we have shown to be 
 famiharly used to signify the expression of opinion 
 generally, is also used, and with equal familiarity, 
 in a more restricted sense, o( di judicial opinion; or. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 127 
 
 if you prefer it, an " authoritative sentence." But 
 then it sAsv a.ys presupjjoses the judicial or authorita- 
 tive character of the person to whom it is apphed. 
 Thus the senses of the word rank. 
 
 1. To discriminate— to select— to arrange.— 
 
 Thence, 
 
 2. To form a judgment — to express an opinion, 
 — and thence, 
 
 3. To pronounce an official judgment ; or " an 
 authoritative sentence." 
 
 But who does not see that you must first know 
 under what circumstances a person is represented 
 as speaking or acting, before you can determine 
 whether the writer intends, by the word we are 
 considering, a mere selection of one thing from a 
 number of others ? or an opinion as expressed in 
 conversation or debate } or a solemn judicial sen- 
 tence f Had the prelatic dignity of James been 
 first established; and had the synod at Jerusalem 
 been a convocation of his clergy, 4.here would have 
 been a propriety in attributing to him an " autho- 
 ritative" decision, and interpreting his words ac- 
 cordingly. But to argue from his " my sentence 
 is," that he was a prelate, is completely begging 
 the question. The argument assumes that he was 
 the bishop of Jerusalem ; for this is indispensable 
 to that " authority" which Cyprian ascribes to his 
 words ; and it is exactly taking for granted, the 
 thing to be proved. 
 
 Another unfortunate circumstance for the Epis- 
 
126 Review. 
 
 copal construction of James's speech is, that it 
 contradicts the sacred historian. In the very next 
 chapter he tells us, that Paul and Silas delivered 
 to the cities through which they passed, " the de- 
 crees for to keep, that were ordained {KEKPI- 
 MEJIVA) of the apostles and elders^ Ch. xvi. 4, 
 Cyprian says that James pronounced the " autho- 
 ritative sentence." The inspired historian says, 
 that it was pronounced by the aposdes and elders. 
 Both cannot be true ; and we are inclined to think 
 that the rector of the episcopal church in Albany, 
 cannot stand in the judgment, even with Potter 
 and Hesychius to back him. The affront put 
 upon the narrative of Luke is the more conspicu- 
 ous, as the term which, in the mouth of James, is 
 tortured into an " authoritative sentence," here oc- 
 curs in that sense most unequivocally : because 
 the reference from Antioch was brought before the 
 tribunal of the apostles and elders. They were re- 
 cognized as Judges having cognizance of the question; 
 and theirs was, of course, an authoritative sen- 
 tence. James was, indeed, one of the judges ; 
 he acted in his judicial character, but that cha- 
 racter was common to him with every other 
 member of the council ; and like theirs, his only 
 influence was that of his wisdom and his vote. 
 The scripture, then, being judge, it is incontesti- 
 ble, that he did NOT pronounce an " authorita- 
 tive sentence." 
 
 Our second position is, that it was impossible for 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 129 
 
 James to exercise such a power as the advocates 
 of Episcopacy attribute to him. Our proofs are 
 
 these : 
 
 1. The cause was not referred to him ; and 
 
 accordingly it was not tried in the court of " St. 
 James ;" but in the court of the " apostles and 
 elders," as the representatives of the Christian 
 church. 
 
 2. It could not be referred to him ; nor could 
 he, as bishop of Jerusalem, have any cognizance 
 of it ; Antioch being entirely without his juris- 
 diction. 
 
 3. The decision of the council was received 
 and obeyed with alacrity through the churches of 
 Asia. But had it been pronounced by an autho- 
 rity so limited and local as that of the bishop of 
 Jerusalem, the effect must have been very diffe- 
 rent. Unless we should suppose, that all the Asi- 
 atic cities through which Paul and Silas passed, 
 were subject to the see of Jerusalem ; and, then, 
 we shall not only spoil the Episcopal argument 
 from the seven angels of Asia ; but shall overturn 
 the whole system of the hierarchy, as it is pre- 
 tended to have been estabhshed by apostohc or- 
 dination ; because we shall admit, that, instead of 
 fixing bishops at proper distances for governing 
 the church within convenient dioceses, the apos- 
 tles put the immense regions of Asia under a 
 spiritual head in the land of Judea. Indeed, we 
 
 have always thought it hard, upon the Episcopal 
 Vol. III. 17 
 
1 30 Review. 
 
 plan, that, considering the importance and the 
 wealth of Antioch, not a bishop could be mus- 
 tered for that distinguished city ; but she must 
 go for direction all the way to the prelate of Je- 
 rusalem ! 
 
 4. The assembly in which James delivered his 
 speech was not composed of clergy belonging to 
 his diocese ; and, therefore, he could not, even 
 upon episcopal principles, pronounce an " autho- 
 ritative sentence." The reason is obvious : he 
 could not exercise authority over those who were 
 not under his controul. There were present at 
 the council, not only " presbyters," but " apostles." 
 Peter was there, Paul was there, and how many 
 others, we do not know. Had James then pro- 
 nounced an " authoritative sentence," he had been 
 above not only all the presbyters of his own dio- 
 cese, but above all the deputies from Antioch ; 
 above all the members of the council from what- 
 ever part of the world ; above the apostles them- 
 selves ! Look, then, at this/«c^ of the hierarchy. 
 It turns the very apostles into mere make-weights 
 of bishop James ! It sets up an authority much like 
 that of a visible head of the church catholic, than 
 the papists have ever been able to produce for 
 their " St. Peter !" If this is not a " bold stroke " 
 for a bishop, pray, gentlemen, what is ? And if 
 any of our readers can digest such a dish of ab- 
 surdity, we wish him mucli comfort of his meal ! 
 We shall not trespass long upon the patience of 
 
Essays 071 Episcopacy. 131 
 
 either our friends or our foes, in disposing of the 
 " remains" of Cyprian's proofs. " When St. Paul 
 and his company were come to Jerusalem, the 
 brethren received him gladly, and the next day 
 following, Paul went in with them unto James, 
 and all the elders or presbyters were present." 
 It was rather rustic in Paul not to pay his court 
 to the bishop j^r5/. We have learnt, at the ex- 
 pense of some mortification, that in New- York 
 any communication with the clergy, on eccle- 
 siastical matters, except through the medium of 
 the bishop, is an invasion of episcopal order. 
 But Paul must be pardoned for committing an 
 oversight, especially as Cyprian, to be even with 
 him, has done so too. He has stopped at that 
 part of the narrative, which, in his eyes, holds 
 James forth in something of bishop-like majesty, 
 and forgot to tell the rest of the story. The reader, 
 no doubt, would expect to hear of a very pointed 
 conference between James and the apostle, all 
 the presbyters listening with due humihty to their 
 superiours ; but if he turn to the history, (Acts 
 xxi.) he will find these same presbyters most un- 
 civilly advising the apostle ; and what is still 
 worse, telling him that they had decided the re- 
 ference from Antioch. Cyprian asserts that James 
 made the decision. They, on the contrary, have 
 the assurance to tell the apostle Paul, in the pre- 
 
1 32 Review. 
 
 sence of James himself, that the presbyters had 
 decided it. And all this while not a word of bishop 
 James ! In the following ages the presbyters 
 were taught better manners. 
 
 But then, it seems, that after Peter's " miracu- 
 lous deliverance, he bade the Christians go and 
 show these things to James, and to the breth- 
 ren" — Also, that " certain came from James, 
 that is, from the church of Jerusalem to the 
 church of Antioch." Therefore, James was 
 bishop of Jerusalem ! Very sagely and conclu- 
 sively reasoned ! As if such things did not hap- 
 pen every day in places where there are ministers 
 of the gospel distinguished by their talent or 
 standing. The writer of this review stepped the 
 other evening into the house of that venerable 
 Christian veteran, the Reverend Dr. Rodgers, and 
 found there " certain brethren" who had just 
 come from one of their judicatories. It is quite 
 common for people to talk of Dr. Rodgers' send- 
 ing ministers to preach ; and even to designate 
 his denomination as Dr. Rodgers' church ! There- 
 fore Dr. Rodgers is bishop of New-York ; and 
 primate of the Presbyterian church in North- 
 America ! ! 
 
 " Thus endeth the first lesson," which is con- 
 cerning Cyprian's " striking evidence" that James 
 was bishop of Jerusalem. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 
 
 133 
 
 Having disposed of the see of Jerusalem, 
 wiiich had been gratuitously conferred on James, 
 we proceed to the argument in favour of Diocesan 
 Episcopacy, from the epistles addressed, m the 
 book of the Revelation, to the seven churches ot 
 Asia. We give it in the words of Cyprian. And 
 as it may possibly amuse the reader, while it con- 
 vinces him that we were correct in saymg that 
 Archbishop Potter is one of the real authors un- 
 der the signatures of Cyprian, kc. we shall put his 
 Grace of Canterbury side by side with our Albany 
 friend. 
 
 Potter. 
 
 « St. John, in the three 
 fust chapters of his Revela- 
 tion, has given us a Uvely de- 
 scription of seven bishops 
 who presided in the seven 
 principal cities of the pro-con- 
 sular Asia. Our Lord is there 
 introduced, sending seven 
 epistles to the seven churches 
 of these cities, directed to the 
 seven angels of the churches, 
 whom he calls the seven stars 
 in his right hand. Now if it 
 appears that the seven angels 
 
 Cyprian. 
 " In the three first chap- 
 ters of the Revelations of St. 
 John, we find absolute demon- 
 stration of the existence of 
 the Episcopal dignity and au- 
 thority, at the time in which 
 this work was written. In 
 these chapters, St. John gives 
 us a description of the seven 
 Bishops, who superintended 
 the interests of the church in 
 the seven principal cities in 
 the Pro-Consular Asia. Our 
 Lord is represented as sending 
 seven Epistles to the seven 
 churches of these cities, di- 
 rected to the seven angels of 
 the churches, whom he calls 
 the " seven stars in his right 
 hand." From all the circum- 
 
134 
 
 Review. 
 
 Potter. 
 
 were so many single persons 
 invested with supreme autho- 
 rity in the seven churches, 
 there can be no reason to 
 doubt, whether they were the 
 bishops of these churches ; a 
 bishop being nothing else but 
 one who has chief authority 
 in the church. 
 
 " Let us examine in the 
 first place, whether the seveii 
 angels were so many single 
 persons 1 And first of all, it 
 is manifest they were not the 
 whole church or collective 
 body of Christians in their 
 several cities ; because the 
 churches are represented by 
 seven candlesticks, which are 
 all along distinguished from 
 the seven stars, which are em- 
 blems of the angels. Neither 
 Avere they any select number 
 or body of men : For they are 
 constantly mentioned as sin- 
 gle persons ; the angel of the 
 church of Ephesus, the angel 
 of the church of Smyrna, and 
 so the rest." 
 
 " Accordingly, both he and 
 all the rest are constantly ad- 
 dressed to in the singular 
 number ; / know thy tvorks, 
 J have a few things against 
 thee, remember how thou hast 
 
 Cyprian. 
 stances that are mentioned, it 
 undeniably appears that these 
 seven angels were so many 
 single persons, invested with 
 supreme authority in the 
 churches ; that is to say, they 
 were the bishops of those 
 churches. 
 
 " I say it manifestly ap- 
 pears, that these seven angels 
 of the churches, whom the 
 Lord calls the " seven stars" 
 in his right hand, were single 
 persons. They were not the 
 whole church or collective 
 body of Christians. This is 
 proved incontestably from 
 these considerations. The 
 whole Churches, or collective 
 body of Christians, are repre- 
 sented by " seven candle- 
 sticks," which are distinguish- 
 ed from the " seven stars," 
 that are emblems of the An- 
 gels, the Bishops. They are 
 constantly mentioned in the 
 singular number. " The An- 
 gel of the Church of Ephe- 
 sus" — " the Angel of the 
 Church of Smyrna," and so 
 of the rest. 
 
 And in the epistle to Thyatira 
 it is said, " I know thy works." 
 " I have a few things against 
 thee." " Remember how thou 
 hast heard." " Thou hast 
 kept the word of my pa- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 
 
 136 
 
 Potter. 
 heard, thou hast kept the loord 
 of my patience, and so in the 
 rest, where our Lord speaks to 
 them in particular : But when 
 what he wi'ites equally con- 
 cerns the people, he changes 
 his style, and speaks in the 
 plural : The devil shall cast 
 some of you into prison. Thou 
 hast not denied my faith when 
 Antipas my faithful martyr 
 was slain among you. / ivill 
 reioard every one of you ac- 
 cording to your loorks. 21iat 
 which ye have, hold fast till 
 I come. Which variation of 
 the number, is a plain argu- 
 ment that some parts of these 
 Epistles relate to the whole 
 churches, and others only to 
 the persons of the angels.^'' 
 
 " But there is one thing yet 
 behind, which will put this 
 matter beyond dispute : name- 
 ly, that the titles of angels and 
 stars are constantly applied in 
 this book of Revelation to sin- 
 gle men : Our Lord is called 
 the Morning Star, and the 
 Sun, and the apostles are call- 
 ed twelve stars, and twelve an- 
 gels ; but there is not one ex- 
 ample where these titles are 
 given to any society or number 
 of men. So that if we will al- 
 low the divine author of this 
 hook to speak in this place, as 
 he docs in all others, the angels 
 
 Cyprian. 
 ticnce." This is the style 
 wliich is used when the Angel 
 or Bishop of the Church is 
 
 addressed. 
 
 But when what is said relates 
 to ihe people, the style is al- 
 tered, the plural number is 
 then used. •' The devil shall 
 cast some of you into pri- 
 son." 
 
 " I will reward every one of 
 you according to your works. 
 Thai which yc have, hold fast 
 till I come." And this vari- 
 ation in the number, proves 
 that some parts of these Epis- 
 tles relate to the zchole Church, 
 and others only to the Angels. 
 
 But what places this subject 
 beyond all i-easonable doubt is 
 this circumstance : The titles 
 of Angels and stars are con- 
 stantly ajiplied in the book of 
 Revelation to single men, and 
 never to a society or number of 
 men. Our Lord is called the 
 " rnornhig star and the sun," 
 and the twelve Apostles are 
 called " twelve stars," and 
 " twelve Angels." 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that 
 the seven stars or Angels in the 
 book of Revelation, are single 
 persons. 
 
136 
 
 Review. 
 
 Potter. 
 of the seven churches can be 
 none but single persons. 
 
 " The next thhig to be made 
 out is, that these single per- 
 sons were men of chief autho- 
 rity in their several churches. 
 And we might safely conclude 
 they were so, though we had 
 no other proof of it, because 
 our Lord has directed to them 
 the Epistles, which he designed 
 for the use of their churches. 
 But there are several other ar- 
 guments, which prove that the 
 angels were men of eminent 
 station and authority : For 
 whereas the churches are on- 
 ly called candlesticks, the an- 
 gels are resembled to stars, 
 which give light to the can- 
 dlesticks.''^ 
 
 " They are praised for all the 
 good, and blamed for all the 
 evil which happened in their 
 churches. The «w^e?of Ephe- 
 sus is commended, because he 
 could not bear them that loere 
 evil, and had tried those who 
 called themselves Apostles, and 
 were not so ; which seems to 
 imply, that he had judicially 
 convicted them to be impostors. 
 And the angel of Pergamos 
 is reproved for having them 
 who hold the doctrine of Ba- 
 laam ; that is, the Nicolaitans, 
 who allowed themselves to 
 
 Cyprian. 
 
 That these persons possess- 
 ed supreme authority in the 
 Churches, is also demonstra- 
 ted from these considerations. 
 
 These Epistles are addressed 
 to them alone. 
 
 The Churches are called 
 candlesticks, and they the 
 stars which give light to the 
 candlesticks. 
 
 The seven angels are prais- 
 ed for all the good which they 
 had done, and blamed for all 
 the evil which happened in the 
 Churches. The Angel of 
 Ephesus is commended be- 
 cause " he could not bear them 
 that were evil, and had tried 
 those who called themselves 
 Apostles, and were not so," 
 which seems to imply that he 
 had convicted them of impos- 
 ture. The Angel of Perga- 
 mos is reproved for having 
 them " who hold the doctrine 
 of Balaam, and he is severely 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 
 
 137 
 
 Potter. 
 commit fornication, and to eat 
 things sacrificed to idols ; and 
 he is severely threatened, un- 
 less he repented: which shows 
 he had authority to correct 
 these disorders, otherwise he 
 could not justly have been 
 punished for them. The same 
 may be said of the angel of 
 Thyatira, who is blamed for 
 suffering Jezebel, who called 
 herself a prophetess, to teach 
 and seduce the people. And 
 the angel of Sardis is com- 
 manded to be watchful, and to 
 strengthen those who are ready 
 to die ; otherwise our Lord 
 threatens to come on him, as a 
 thief, at an hour which he 
 should not knoiv.'''' 
 
 Cyprian. 
 threatened unless he repent- 
 ed." This shows that he pos- 
 sessed authority to correct 
 these disorders, or he could 
 not justly be menaced with 
 punishment for permitting 
 them. The Angel of Thyatira 
 also is blamed for suffering 
 " Jezebel," who called herself 
 a prophetess, to teach and se- 
 duce the people. And the An- 
 gel of Sardis is commanded 
 " to be watchful, and to 
 strengthen those who are ready 
 to die," otherwise our Lord 
 threatens to come on him " as 
 a thief ; at an hour which he 
 should not know." 
 
 The writers under review, having a great con- 
 tempt for all reasoning from names, promised to 
 intrench themselves within scriptural /ac^^. One 
 of their facts they find in the history of the " stars" 
 or " angels" of the seven churches. Yet if the 
 reader shall attentively inspect their argument, 
 which we have placed before him in its full 
 strength, he will perceive that it rests entirely upon 
 their interpretation of two names. These are 
 " angel" and " star :" which, in the symbohcal 
 language of the scripture, are as really names of 
 office, as bishop, presbyter, deacon, are in its al- 
 phabetical or common language. The aspect of 
 
 Vol. III. 18 
 
138 Review. 
 
 the fact changes with the construction of these 
 two symbols. You must fix their sense before 
 you can tell what the fact is. Unless you can 
 prove that " star" and " angel" necessarily de- 
 note individuals, and such individuals as dioce- 
 san bishops, the fact, instead of being for the hie- 
 rarchy, will be against her. And thus her advo- 
 cates, under the pretext of " absolute demonstra- 
 tion," put us off with what they themselves have 
 again and again declared to be " miserable 
 sophistry" — " the old and wretched sophistry of 
 names." 
 
 Let us, however, examine this, their " absolute 
 demonstration" of diocesan Episcopacy. It turns, 
 as we just now said, upon the interpretation of the 
 symbolical titles, " angel" and " star." These, 
 our prelatical friends maintain, " are constantly ap- 
 plied in the book of Revelation to single men, and 
 7iever to a society or number of men^ Such is the 
 assertion — now for the proof 
 
 " The whole churches, or collective bodies of Christians, are 
 represented by " seven candlesticks," which are distinguished 
 from the " seven stars," that are emblems of the angels, the 
 bishops." 
 
 The distinction is admitted : but it is equally 
 marked upon the Presbyterian plan. For the col- 
 lective body of the ministry is quite as distinguish- 
 able from their churches, as the bishops alone can 
 be. Nothing is gained here. We go on. 
 
 " They," the angels, " are constantly mentioned in the sin- 
 sular number." 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 139 
 
 • 
 
 What then ? Does this prove that the singular 
 term " angel" has never a collective sense ? 
 
 What next ? Nothing at all. Let out readers 
 examine, again, the whole of what Cyprian has 
 said upon this point, and if they can detect, in the 
 multitude of his words, and his show of illustration, 
 any thing more than his mere assertion, we shall 
 be disappointed. 
 
 The stars and angels, says he, are distinguished 
 from the churches. True — but they may be so 
 without being diocesan bishops 
 
 " They are constantly mentioned in the singular 
 number" — which is not true. And if it were, the 
 question still is, whether the symbolical term in the 
 singular number must necessarily signify only a 
 single person — O yes, says Cyprian, most undoubt- 
 edly. " What places this subject beyond all rea- 
 sonable doubt, is this circumstance. The titles 
 of angels and stars are constantly applied in the 
 book of Revelation, to single men, and never to a 
 society or number of men !" Now this is exactly 
 the thing to be proved. 
 
 jlmphora ccepit 
 Institui : currente rota cur urceus exit ? 
 
 Cyprian sets out with a threat of " absolute 
 demonstration," and leaves off with begging the 
 question.* 
 
 * Potter, in his zeal to make out the prelatic character of these 
 angels, presses into his service a varioun reading. " If," says he, 
 
140 Review. 
 
 That the assertions which Cyprian has bor- 
 rowed from Potter, are not accompanied with 
 quite an " absolute demonstration," may be ga- 
 thered from the hght in which they are considered 
 by Episcopal writers no way inferiour to Potter 
 himself 
 
 « Methinks," says Dr. Henri/ More, " it is ex- 
 tremely harsh to conceit that these seven stars 
 are merely the seven bishops of any particular 
 churches of j^sia, as if the rest were not sup- 
 ported nor guided by the hand of Christ ; or as 
 if there were but seven in his right hand, but all 
 the rest in his left. Such high representations 
 
 " iu the epistle to Thyatira, instead of (jrjv ywaiKa u^cfii\,) the tvoman 
 Jezebel, we read {TrivywaiKa aov it^e(i)i\) thy wife Jezebel, as it is in 
 St. Cyprian, the Syriac version, the Alexandrian, and several 
 other manuscript copies, then the Angel of Thyatira was a married 
 man, and consequently but one person."* 
 
 Learning, when not well directed, falls into absurdities which 
 plain sense avoids. It is hard for a man to suspect himself of blun- 
 dering when he is displaying his erudition. But on this occasion, 
 the eyes of Potter seem to have been blinded by the dust of his 
 manuscripts. If we adopt his reading, and make " Jezebel" a 
 literal woman, by making her the wife of the prelate of Thyatira, 
 the symbolical or figurative sense of the text is gone. And in or- 
 der to be consistent, the crimes charged upon her must also be 
 literal. Thus we shall not only have my lady of Thyatira an open 
 adulteress ; but the diocese a huge brothel under her inspection ; 
 where by example and by precept, she initiates her husband's flock 
 in the mysteries of lewdness and idolatry. A goodly occupation 
 for the spouse of a diocesan ! Bad times, one would think, for an 
 angel-bishop ; and not the most flattering compliment to episcopal 
 discipline- 
 
 * Discourse of Church government, p. 145, 3d edit. 
 
Essays o?i Episcopacy. 141 
 
 cannot be appropriated to any seven particu- 
 lar CHURCHES WHATSOEVER." Again, " By an- 
 gels, according to the apocalyptick style, all the 
 agents under their presidency are represented 
 or insinuated — and it is so frequent and obvious 
 in the Apocalypse, that none that is versed there- 
 in can any ways doubt of it."* 
 
 The great, and justly celebrated Joseph Mede, 
 observes, that " Angels, by a mode of speaking 
 not uncommon in this book, are put for the 
 nations over which they were thought to preside. 
 Which appears hence, that they who, by the 
 injunction of the oracle, are loosed, are armies of 
 cavalry sent forth to slaughter men."t 
 
 Just after he adds, " the four angels, (Rev. ix. 
 14,) " signify so many Sultanies or kingdoms." J 
 
 Dr. Fulk, in his answer to the Rhemish Testa- 
 ment, remarks, that " St. John, by the angels of 
 the churches, meaneth not all that should wear 
 on their heads mitres, and hold- crosier-staves in 
 their hands, like dead idols, but them that are 
 faithful messengers of God's word, and utter 
 and declare the same. They are called the 
 
 * Exposition of the seven churches. Works, p. 724. 
 
 f Augeli ponuntur pro gentibus quibus praeesse credebautur, 
 non inusitata iu hoc libro metonymia. Id ex eo apparet, quod 
 qui contiuuo ex oraculi prsescripto solvuntur, Exercitus Equestres 
 sunt, homiaibus occideudis emissi. In Apocap. B. III. Tub. VI. 
 Works, p. 471. 
 
 i Angeli quatuor totidem Sultanias seu regna significant. Ibid. 
 
142 Review. 
 
 Angels of the churches because they are God^s mes- 
 
 »* 
 
 The famous Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, asks, 
 concerning these angels, " If, in the prophetick 
 style, any unity may be set down by way of re- 
 presentation of a multitude ; what evidence can 
 be brought from the nmnc, that by it some one 
 particular person must be understood ?" — And 
 a little further he says, " If many things in the 
 Epistles be direct to the angels, but yet so as to 
 concern the whole body, then of necessity, the 
 angel must be taken as a representative of the 
 whole body, and then, why may not the word 
 angel be taken by way of representation of the 
 body itself; either of the whole church, or, which 
 is far more probable, of the Consessus, or order 
 of Presbyters in that church ? We see what 
 miserable, unaccountable arguments those are, 
 which are brought for any kind of government, 
 from metaphorical or ambiguous expressions or 
 names promiscuously used."t 
 
 * This and the followuig quotation, are from the Appendix to 
 Ayton's Original Constitution of the Christian Church. 
 
 f It is the fashion with the Jure divino prelatists to decry this 
 work of Stillingfleet as the production of his juvenile days ; and 
 as being recanted by him in maturer life. The true reason of 
 their dislike to it is, that it has sorely gravelled them from the 
 date of its publication till the present hour, and is likely to gravel 
 them in all time hereafter. We cannot, however, see what the 
 age or the recantation of the author, (if he did recant,) has to do 
 with the question, any further than as it may be influenced by his 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 143 
 
 We quote these passages, not to make them 
 our own, but to show that Episcopal writers of 
 the highest reputation, entertain opinions very- 
 different from those of Potter and Cyprian, as to 
 the evidence which the apocalyptic angels give 
 in favour of their hierarchy : 
 
 " It is absolute demonstration," says Cyprian. 
 " It is a harsh conceit," says Dr. H. More. 
 
 " The titles of angels and stars are never ap- 
 plied," says Cyprian after Potter, " to a society 
 or number of men," They signify " them that 
 
 private opinion. " Old men are not always wise ;" nor do green 
 years detract from the force of argument. Facts and reasonings 
 having no dependence upon a writer's name, stand or fall in their 
 own strength. It is one thing to recant, and quite another to re- 
 fute. The learned, but unhappy Whitby, who, in his commenta- 
 ry on the New Testament, had zealously defended the divinity 
 and atonement of our Lord and Saviour, left a work behind him 
 entitled 'Xarcpat <ppovriScs, or After Thoughts, in which he denied 
 both. Yet his proofs of his previous belief remain unanswered 
 by himself, and unanswerable by any other man. We see that 
 it is very possible for great and learned men to change for the 
 worse. Therefore, although Stillingfleet, whether of his own ac- 
 cord, or by yielding to the teazings and menaces of others, did re- 
 tract the doctrines of his Irenicum, it does not follow that all his 
 facts and reasonings are false, or that he himself drew nearer to 
 the truth. He renounced the Irenicum, the prelatists cry — Good. 
 Did he answer it ? we ask. Howbeit, since Dr. Hobart has re- 
 presented himself and his brother-writers, as young men, and 
 even " striplings ;" who knows, but, upon their arriving at maturi- 
 ty, when they shall have sown their intellectual " wild oats," their 
 opinion may change in a direction contrary to that of the bishop 
 of Worcester, and that they may yet ripen into excellent Presby- 
 terians ? 
 
144 Review. 
 
 are the faithful messengers of God's word ;" an- 
 swers Dr. Fulk — They " are put for the nations 
 over which they were thought to preside," adds 
 the venerable Mede — More follows again, with a 
 declaration, " That no man versed in the apoca- 
 lyptical style, can any wise doubt that by " angels" 
 all the agents under their presidency are repre- 
 sented." And StillingfleeU their own Stillingfleet, 
 calls the argument of the hierarchists from 
 these symbolical titles, a " miserable" one ; thus 
 avenging the Presbyterian upon them, by deahng 
 out to them in their own way, " measure for mea- 
 sure." — 
 
 To which side the scale inclines, it is not diffi- 
 cult to discern. 
 
 That the epistles in question are addressed to 
 the persons designated by " stars" and " angels," 
 in such a manner as to imply that these persons 
 were invested with authority over the churches, 
 is freely conceded. It is also conceded that " an- 
 gel" and " star" are titles of office which belong 
 exclusively to the ministry. Unless we greatly 
 mistake, " stars," in the symbohcal language, sig- 
 nify, throughout the whole Bible, "ministers of 
 religion." 
 
 But we contend that they signify ministers ol 
 religion with regard to their general ojice, and not 
 with regard to their relative dignity. Jesus Christ 
 is a " star," the twelve apostles are " stars" — and 
 so are the apostate clergy, figured by the " third 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 145 
 
 part of the stars," which the dragon cast down 
 with his tail to the earth. Who does not see, that 
 the only point in which the symbol agrees to the 
 subject in all these cases, is the common charac- 
 ter of the religious ministry ; distinction of rank 
 being utterly disregarded ? On this principle, the 
 " stars" must mean the ministers of the churches 
 without discrimination ; every one being a " star." 
 It is, therefore, impossible to discover under this 
 emblem, any order of ministers to the exclusion of 
 any other. 
 
 In this general reasoning, the hierarchy might, 
 perhaps, concur without much prejudice to her 
 cause. She might insist, that a symbol, common, 
 in its own nature, to all ministers of rehgion, is re- 
 stricted, by the conditions of the text, to a single 
 individual, who, from the functions ascribed to 
 him, must be a superiour officer, and not one of a 
 college, concessus, or presbytery, having equal 
 authority. 
 
 There is internal evidence in the passage itself, 
 that this construction, though ingenious and acute, 
 cannot be true. For as the " candlesticks" are 
 emblematical of the churches, and as there is but 
 one star to give hght to each candlestick, it would 
 follow that there was but a single minister in each 
 of the churches ; and thus the Episcopalian would 
 overthrow himself: for without inferiour, there can 
 be no superiour, clergy. Surely he will not say, 
 that the bishop alone did all the preaching, gave 
 
 Vol. IIL 19 
 
146 R 
 
 evieiv. 
 
 all the instruction, and set all the example : i. e. 
 emitted all the hght on account of which ministers 
 are called " stars." The other clergy had some 
 share in these useful functions. They too " preach- 
 ed the word ;" they too, taught " from house to 
 house ;" they too, " let their light shine before 
 others." Now, one " star" being appropriated to 
 one " church," as one candle is to one " candle- 
 stick ;" it follows, from the nature of the compari- 
 son, that as one candle is the full complement of 
 light for one candlestick ; so one star is the full 
 complement of light for one church. But the light 
 which shone in these churches did not emanate 
 from any individual ; it emanated from a number 
 of individuals ; from the collective body of the 
 ministers of religion. Therefore, the " star" 
 which expresses the whole light in one of these 
 churches, is a symbol, not of a single minister, 
 but of her ministry collectivch/. It would be a 
 darksome diocese, indeed, which should enjoy no 
 rays of light but those which proceed from the 
 bishop. 
 
 Let us now advert to the other symbol, viz. 
 " Angel." This too, the hierarchists, whom we 
 oppose, say, is " constantly applied in the book of 
 Revelation to a single man, and never to a society 
 or number of men." 
 
 It looks somewhat uncivil to contradict so posi- 
 tive an assertion ; but we must contradict it ; for 
 it is not true. And if, in proving it to be false, we 
 
Essays 071 Episcopacy. 147 
 
 prove its authors either to be ignorant of the 
 scriptures, or wilfully to misrepresent them, we 
 cannot help it. One passage from the book of 
 Revelation itself, overturns the very foundation 
 upon which Cyprian and his associates have reared 
 their " absolute demonstration." 
 
 / saw, says the prophet, another angel Jly in the 
 midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to 
 preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to 
 
 EVERY NATION, and KINDRED, and TONGUE, and PEO- 
 PLE. (Rev. xiv. 6.) 
 
 " Heaven," in this book, is the ascertained sym- 
 bol of the Christian church, from which issue forth 
 the " ministers of grace" to the nations. As the 
 gospel is preached only by men, this " angel" who 
 has it to preach to " every nation, and kindred, 
 and tongue, and people," must be the symbol of 
 a human ministry. And as it is perfectly' evident 
 that no single man can thus preach it, but that 
 there must be a great company of preachers to car- 
 ry it to " every nation, and kindred, and tongue, 
 and people," the angel mentioned in the text is, 
 and of necessity must be, the symbol of that^rea; 
 comjmny. We might produce other examples; 
 but this is decisive. It shows the proposition of 
 Potter, Cyprian, &c. to be one of the most rash 
 and unfounded assertions into which the ardour of 
 party ever betrayed a disputant. 
 
 Assuming it now as proved, that the term " an- 
 gel" is applied in this book to a collective body, or 
 
148 Review. 
 
 ^^V^ 
 
 a number of men joined in a common commission, 
 we demand the reason of its being restricted to an 
 individual in the epistles to the churches of Asia. 
 Signifying " a messenger," it is in itself as appli- 
 cable to any preacher of the gospel as to a dio- 
 cesan bishop. If he was of old, what most of the 
 diocesans are now, he was, of all the clergy in his 
 diocese, the one who had the least claim to the 
 title. To " preach the word," to " declare the 
 whole counsel of God," to instruct the people, we 
 are told plainly enough, are not the peculiar at- 
 tributes of the bishop. By what rule of propriety 
 should he be characterised by symbols which are 
 foreign from his appropriate functions ? by sym- 
 bols which describe exactly the functions of those 
 ministers whom, we are taught, they do not re- 
 present.* 
 
 The advocates of the hierarchy must have sum- 
 moned up the most desperate resolution, when 
 they ventured upon the declaration which we have 
 
 * " Angel of the church," is a phrase borrowed from the syna- 
 gogue. " It answers to the Hebrew "*T)^\f fl'^tl^' ^^^ Legate, or 
 delegate of the church. A name which was given in the syna- 
 gogue to experienced and learned men, especially the Doctors (or 
 teachers,) who were usually delegated to pray for the public as- 
 sembly, whether in ordinary or extraordinary cases. So that by 
 Angels of the churches must be here understood those rulers of the 
 Christian church, whose office it was to offer up public prayers in 
 the church, to manage sacred concerns, and discourse to the people." 
 Vitringce anacrisis apocalypseos, p. 25. To the same purpose speaks 
 the profoundly learned Lightfoot. Works, Vol. I. p. 341. Fol. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy.^ 149 
 
 exposed. To do them justice, they seem not to 
 have been forsaken of those " compunctious visit- 
 ings," which occasionally trouble such as suspect 
 the righteousness of their cause. We infer this 
 from their growing dogmatical and rather unruly 
 in their asseverations, nearly in proportion as they 
 find themselves beset with difficulty. Not unlike 
 men who are accustomed to tell « a tough story," 
 and when they perceive the credulity of their au- 
 dience to be too hard pressed, back their veracity 
 with a file of oaths. Any plain reader will observe, 
 on a slight inspection of these epistles, that they 
 address the angel of a particular church in the 
 singular or plural number indifferently. Thus to 
 the angel of the church in Smyrna, the Redeemer 
 says, / know THY works, and tribulation and poverty, 
 but THOU art rich— Fear none of those things which 
 THOU shalt SUFFER. Behold the devil shall cast 
 SOME o/ YOU into prison, that YE may be tried; and 
 YE shall have tribulation ten days : be THOU faith- 
 ful unto the death ; and I will give THEE a crown of 
 
 life* 
 
 We ask any dispassionate man whether all this 
 is not addressed to the angel in Smyrna } Thou, 
 says the text ; " Thou," the angel, " shalt suffer." 
 How } What } " Thus," saith the text, " the 
 devil shall cast into prison some of you'' — you 
 who are signified by the angel. However, " be 
 thou faithful unto the death j" i. e. although thou 
 
 * Rev. ii. 8— 10. 
 
1 50 Review. 
 
 shouldest die for being faithful ; " and I will give 
 /Aec," whom ? certainly the persecuted, " I will 
 give thee a crown of life." This is so obvious, 
 that, in order to evade its force, the Episcopal 
 writers represent the epistles as addressed partly 
 to the bishop and partly to the people. 
 
 " When what is said relates to ihepeople, the style is altered ; 
 the plural number is then used." See Cyprian and Potter as 
 above. 
 
 This gloss is contrary, 
 
 1. To the plain and natural construction of the 
 prophet's words; which, using sometimes the sin- 
 gular, and sometimes the plural, number, when 
 speaking of the a^?^c/, leads us to a simple and easy 
 solution, by supposing that he employs that term in 
 a collective sense, of the whole ministry of the church. 
 
 2. To their own principles which the Episco- 
 pal writers have laid down as containing an " ab- 
 solute demonstration" of the prelatic dignity of 
 these angels, viz. " That the titles of angels and 
 stars are constantly apphed in the book of Revela- 
 tion to single men, and never to a society or number 
 of men." The epistle is written to the angel in 
 Smyrna. " Angel," say they, always signifies a 
 single person, and never a number of men ; and yet 
 they say, that of this very epistle to the angel, part 
 is addressed directly to the people^ who are " a so- 
 ciety or number of men." 
 
 3. To their own distinction between the em- 
 blems which point out the ministry and the church- 
 es respectively. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 131 
 
 " The stars and angels," say tljey, " were not the whole 
 church or collective body of Christians. This is proved in- 
 contestably from these considerations. The whole churches 
 or collective body of Christians, are I'epresented by " seven 
 candlesticks," which are distinguished from the " seven stars" 
 that are emblems of the angels, the bishops," Sec. See above. 
 
 The distinction is just; but it is completely 
 overthrown ni their subsequent interpretations. 
 For, in the first place, they tell us very truly, that 
 the collective body of Christians is signified by the 
 symbol of a " candlestick :" and in the next, that 
 they are directly addressed in the letter sent to the 
 angel, who is, say they, a single person : i. e. they 
 are explicitly and formally addressed^ under an ap- 
 pellation which is 7iever applied to them. 
 
 4. To the known use of those scriptural em- 
 blems, " star" and " angel." These titles in the 
 context are perfectly synonymous ; whatever is 
 meant by " star," is acknowledged to be meaiit by 
 " angel." Now both these symbols depict official 
 character ; and consequently, when applied to the 
 Christian church, cannot mean the people as dis- 
 tinguished from their ministers. Therefore, un- 
 der the term " angel," the ministry and the people 
 cannot be distinctly addressed. 
 
 5. To the tenour of the exhortations and pro- 
 mise in the text. If the " angel" is the collective 
 body of the ministry upon whom the persecution 
 was to fall, then the exhortations. Fear none of those 
 things which thou shalt suffer — Be thou faithful unto 
 the death ; and the promise, I tvill give thee a crown 
 
152 R 
 
 eview 
 
 of life, are in harmony with the pre-monition that 
 the Devil should cast some of them into prison. The 
 anticipation of evil is softened by the assurance 
 of support. But according to the Episcopal con- 
 struction, the sorrow goes one way and the cpn- 
 solation the other : the bishop is exhorted not to 
 fear : to be faithful unto the death. But it seems 
 that the people only are to bear the calamity. 
 ' The bishop has a glorious promise of a crown of 
 life ; but not a word to cheer his oppressed flock. 
 Cold comfort this to the poor prisoners cooped 
 up by the devil in a dungeon ! One would think 
 that the " cup of salvation" might have been put 
 to the lips which were drinking deeply of the cup 
 -of sorrow. But the matter is more dexterously 
 managed : the bishop suffers, and the people are 
 consoled, — by proxy. A mode of suflfering, we 
 presume, to which the bishops of the present day, 
 and many others beside them, would submit with 
 great magnanimity. How they would relish the 
 consolation thus administered, is another affair. 
 
 Lastly, to the authority delegated by Christ to 
 Presbyters : We have formerly proved that every 
 ordinary power left in the church is, in the most 
 direct and unequivocal manner, devolved on Pres- 
 byters.* And as one part of scripture cannot 
 be repugnant to another, it is impossible that any 
 term or expression here, in this book of the Re- 
 velation, can be rightly interpreted, which is said 
 
 * See page p. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 153 
 
 to lodge the whole power of government and dis- 
 cipline in a bishop, to the exclusion of presbyters. 
 
 We do not feel conscious of any arrogance in 
 supposing, that after the reader, who is solicitous 
 to know the truth, shall carefully have examined 
 and compared the reasonings now submitted to 
 him; and allowed them their due force on his 
 mind, he will coincide with us in opinion, that the 
 " angels" and " stars" in the context before us, do 
 NOT signify single persons^ but a number of men ; 
 that is, are emblems of a collective ministry, and not 
 of diocesan bishops. 
 
 " Thus endeth the second lesson," which is con- 
 cerning Cyprian's " absolute demonstration" that 
 the angels of the seven churches of Asia were 
 Episcopal prelates. 
 
 We now come to the third and great fact of the 
 Hierarchy, the prelatical character of Timothy 
 and Titus. The inquiry consists of two parts ; 
 the first, concerning their ordination, and the second, 
 iheir powers. 
 
 Although the Episcopal writers argue less con- 
 fidently from the first of these topics than from 
 the second ; yet it is not unimportant to their 
 cause. For if they can prove that ordination to 
 the ministry in the days of the Apostles was Epis- 
 copal, in their sense of the term ; that is, that an 
 officer whom they call the bishop, had the sole 
 power of ordination, presbyters being permitted 
 merely to express their consent — if they can prove 
 
 Vol. III. 20 
 
1 54 Review. 
 
 this, it will be hard to escape from the conclusion, 
 that the whole government of the church was 
 prelatical. If they decline much reliance upon 
 it, as Dr. Hobart and the Layman say they do,* 
 their shyness must be imputed to some other 
 cause than its insignificance ; for they are not in 
 the habit of declining very humble aid ; and our 
 former remarks will show that, though well sup- 
 plied with assertions, they have no evidence to 
 spare. 
 
 The following texts have been quoted under 
 the present head. 
 
 For Timothy. 
 
 JVeglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given 
 thee hy prophecy, with the laying on of the hands 
 OF the Presbytery. 1 Tim. iv. 14. 
 
 Wherefore I put thse in remembrance that thou stir 
 up the gift of God ivhich is in thee, by the putting 
 ON OF MY pANDS. 2 Tim. i. 6. 
 
 For Titus. 
 
 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou 
 shouldest set in order the things that are wanting ; and 
 ordain elders in every city, as i had appointed thee. 
 Titus i. 5. 
 
 From these texts one thing is clear, viz. that 
 both Paul and the Presbytery imposed hands on 
 Timothy. But several questions have been started 
 
 * CoUec. p. 59, note- Latman, No. V. p. 51. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 153 
 
 about the rest. Who constituted the Presbytery ? 
 Why were hands imposed on Timothy ? Was 
 this his consecration to the evangehcal ministry ? 
 If so, what share had the apostle in the transac- 
 tion, and what the presbytery ? The high church 
 construction is, that " St. Paul ordained Timothy 
 with the concurrence of the Presbytery. By the 
 Presbytery may be understood a number of Apos- 
 tles who laid their hands on Timothy, since the 
 Apostles, though certainly superiour to Presbyters, 
 style themselves " Elders," or Presbyters. The 
 Greek expositors understood the passage in this 
 sense as well as the Greek church, both ancient 
 and modern — since in the ordinations of this 
 church, the Presbyters do not lay on their hands 
 with the Bishop. Nor was it the custom in the 
 Western church until the fourth century. , But 
 allowing that by the Presbytery is meant a num- 
 ber of Presbyters, it is evident, from a compari- 
 son of the two texts, that the Presbyters imposed 
 hands, not to convey authority, but merely to ex- 
 press approbation. " By the putting on of my 
 hands," " ivith the laying on of the hands of the 
 Presbytery." In the church of England, the Pres- 
 byters lay on their hands with the Bishops in or- 
 dination, to denote their consent:'^ 
 
 As our business, at present, is not with ecclesi- 
 
 * HoBART's Festivals and Fasts, p. 25. The Greek expositors 
 to whom he refers in the margin, are Chrysostom and Theophy- 
 lact. Theophylact has copied Chrysostom, whose words are, 
 
 ov ntpt npta$vTtpiav (ptjctv tvTavQa- aWa jrtpi emaKoiruiv, ov yp en vptafivTtpol ro» 
 
156 Review. 
 
 astical history, but with the interpretation of 
 scripture, we pass over the allusion to the 
 Greek and Western churches. " The evidence" 
 that " the Presbyters imposed hands not to convey 
 authority^ but merely to express approbation,''' is ex- 
 torted from the two prepositions " 6y" and " with.''' 
 " By my hands," says Paul : therefore he alone 
 ordained Timothy. " With the laying on of the 
 hands of the Presbytery," says he again : there- 
 fore, the Presbytery merely " expressed their ap- 
 probation.'''' 
 
 In support of this " evident" difference between 
 the agency of Paul and that of the Presbytery in 
 the ordination, the Layman has entertained us 
 with some rare criticism which we shall not be so 
 unjust as to withhold from our readers. 
 
 " It is known to every Greek scholar, that dia signifies, 
 emphatically, the cause of a thing ; while meta denotes 
 emphatically, nearness of situation, relation, connexion, 
 
 tviaKOTTov tx^i^o'fovovv. Chrys. ad he. " He, the apostle, is not speak- 
 ing here of Presbyters, hut of Bishops : for Presbyters did not 
 ordain a Bishop.'''' The eloquent Patriarch flounders sadly. He 
 takes for granted, that Timothy was a bishop : to allow that a 
 bishop could be ordained by Presbyters, would demolish the whole 
 fabrick of the hierarchy. Paul had used an ugly word for their 
 spiritual mightinesses ; and so, to make short work with him, the 
 golden-mouthed preacher flatly contradicts him. It was a •' pres- 
 bytery," said the apostle. It Avas a council of bishops, replies 
 Chrysostom. Yet, after all, neither he nor Theophylact, have 
 interpreted the term of Apostles. When a writer quotes authori- 
 ties without consulting them, he should be wary, and be extreme- 
 ly cautious in mentioning names. Dr. H. was probably in haste. 
 Had he stuck closer to Potter, he would have been less inaccurate. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 157 
 
 agreement. It need not be observed that words are used 
 sometimes more loosely, and sometimes more strictly. A 
 term is often introduced in a sense different from its ongn.al 
 and primary meaning. The two words dia and meta are 
 opposed in the Epistles of Timothy. Well, then, the two 
 words being opposed, and the first, as every Greek scholar 
 knows, denoting, emphatically, the cause of a thmg ; the lat- 
 ter conveying, particularly, the idea of relation, connexion, 
 agreement, it follows, obviously, that they are to be taken in 
 these their appropriate senses. Our author will not venture 
 to say that the Greek word meta is as appropriate an one as 
 dia to express the cause of a thing. He will not so far ha- 
 zard his reputation as a scholar. I assert, then, that dia sig- 
 nifies, particularly, the cause of a thing, and that meta is the 
 preposition of concurrence. Nor is this invalidated by the 
 circumstance of meta being sometimes used as dia with the 
 genitive case. The emphatical distinction between the two 
 words lies m the first denoting a cause, the other concurrence. 
 Why does St. Paul carefully use the word dia in the one 
 case and meta in the other 1 Why does he not use meta in 
 both cases 1 It is to be recollected too, that the passages 
 are in his Epistles to Timothy, relating to the same subject ; 
 and of course, the terms must be regarded as contrasted with 
 one another. Surely the words dia and meta, as opposed, 
 signify, the first, the cause of a thing ; the last, nearness, 
 concurrence, agreement. This is familiar to every Greek 
 scholar, and 1 assert it on the authority of the best lexicons 
 of the language. The circumstance, then, of the Apostle 
 usinc a word in relation to himself, which denotes the instru- 
 mental cause, and with respect to the Presbytery, a word 
 which, particularly as distinguished from dia, expresses agree- 
 ment, shows, clearly, that the authoritative power was vested 
 in him, and that the act, on the part of the Presbytery, was 
 an act of mere concurrence."* 
 
 • Layman, No. V- Coll p. 53, 54. 
 
158 Review. 
 
 That Presbytery may be left without a shadow 
 of support, these two unhappy prepositions, {dia &r 
 fiera,) (dia and metd) by and with.^ are doomed to 
 the same rack on which Cyprian had formerly 
 tortured a noun, and the Layman himself both a 
 noun and a verb, into witnesses for the hierarchy.* 
 It being presumed that the imposition of hands 
 relates to Timothy's ordination, the " presbytery," 
 whose act it was, whether composed of mere Pres- 
 byters, or of Prelates, or of Apostles, had nothinor 
 to do in the affair, but barely to express their con- 
 sent ; and if this appear dubious, it shall be sub- 
 stantiated by the deposition of dia and meta. 
 
 " It is known," says the Layman, " to every Greek scho- 
 lar, that dia''' [by) " signifies, emphatically, the cause of a 
 thing ; while meta'''' (with) " denotes, emphatically, nearness 
 of situation, relation, connexion, agreement." 
 
 We do not wish to be uncharitable, but, if we 
 must judge from the instances of vv'ords, which, in 
 this collection have been unfortunate enough to 
 undergo his critical process, it is very hard for the 
 Layman to tell what a Greek scholar knows. Scho- 
 lars, hke other classes of men, have their appropri- 
 ate habits of speaking and acting: And when one 
 who has had only a dining-room acquaintance with 
 them, affects to be of their number, his awkward 
 imitation betrays him in the same manner as the 
 dialect of a foreigner distinguishes him from a na- 
 tive, as a prime minister would loose the reputa- 
 
 • See p. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 159 
 
 tion of a statesman by relying on annual registers, . 
 on reviews, or the gazettes, for his great political 
 facts. No scholar would have made the Layman's 
 indefinite appeal to " the best lexicons in the lan- 
 guage," for settling the meaning of a disputed 
 word. He would have produced examples from 
 the only legitimate authorities, the oWgma/ z^'n/m. 
 How the Layman would fare in such hands, we 
 shall not conjecture : but we are sure that a very 
 little acquaintance with Greek is sufficient to 
 pluck away the feathers with which poor dia and 
 meta have been made to adorn his plume. 
 
 " Dia signifies, emphatically, the cause of a thing." 
 
 For example : 
 
 // is easier for a camel to go through (dia) the eye 
 of a needle, than, Sfc. Math. xix. 24. 
 
 Jesus went— THROVGH (dia) the cornfiekls. Mark 
 
 ii. 23. 
 
 Jnd again he entered into Capernaum, after (dia) 
 
 some days. Mark ii. L 
 
 Now what " cause" does the preposition dia ex- 
 press here. Does it '• emphatically," as the Lay- 
 man speaks, " signify the cause'' of the needle's 
 eye ? of the cornfields ? or of the days } or the 
 ^^ cause'' of the camel's going through the first? of 
 our Lord's going through the second? or of his 
 spending the third before he went into Caper- 
 naum ? When the Layman shall have found his 
 emphatical signification o^ dia in these instances, 
 he may call upon us for a hundred more 
 
1 60 Review. 
 
 The fact is, that this preposition tiever signifies 
 the cause of a thing : whatever the " Lexicons" 
 say. It expresses the idea of transition or trans- 
 mission^ and has no Enghsh word to correspond 
 with it so well as the preposition " through^ 
 Whether it is accompanied with the notion of a 
 cause or not, must be determined by the phrase 
 where it occurs. 
 
 But in spoiling the Layman's criticism, we ac- 
 knowledge that we have not overthrown his argu- 
 ment. For if t\\Q imposition of Paul's hands was 
 the medium through which, to the exclusion of the 
 Presbytery, he alone conveyed the ministerial com- 
 mission to Timothy; and e/ this act of his formed 
 a precedent for all subsequent ordinations, the 
 Layman has won, and we own Timothy to have 
 been episcopally ordained : Whether a bishop or 
 not, would still remain a question. These 2/5, 
 however, seem to be rather anti-episcopal. 
 
 From the words of Paul, we should conclude, 
 that whoever or whatever else might have been 
 concerned in this august transaction, a material 
 part of it belonged to the Presbytery. Neglect not 
 the gift that is in thee., which was given thee by pro- 
 phecy., WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS OF THE 
 
 Presbytery. A plain reader would certainly say, 
 that Timothy was Presbyterially ordained : as he 
 could not well imagine that a Presbyterian him- 
 self would have chosen to word the account dif- 
 ferently. But this would be the errour of one who 
 
Essays on Episcojmcy. 161 
 
 had never heard what marvels can be effected by 
 a httle critical legerdemain operating upon Greek 
 prepositions. O no ! This is the very text which 
 proves that his ordination was not presbyterial ! 
 Astonishing ! 1 see Timothy bowing before the 
 Presbytery. I see them imposing hands upon his 
 head : I am told by the Apostle Paul, that the gift 
 which was in him was given him with the laying 
 on of their hands : and yet they did not ordain 
 him! " No!" Had no share in his ordination! 
 " No !" Gave him no gift at all ! " No !" Verily 
 this Layman is unceremonious in his behaviour to 
 words ; for he will either allow them no meaning 
 at all ; or else, as it may suit him, they shall mean 
 in the mouth of an apostle, the contrary to what 
 they ever have meant or ever shall mean, in the 
 mouth of any other man ! No ordination ! JYo 
 communication by the Presbytery ! Why, that old 
 Jesuit, who has foisted the Virgin Mary into every 
 chapter of the book of Proverbs,* could not him- 
 self be more fantastical ! How, in the name of 
 common sense, is the Presbytery disposed of.'* 
 Softly, zealous friend, softly. Thou shalt see. 
 Here comes the magician : his wand shall touch 
 the little four-lettered vocabule, " with," and lo, 
 the whole Presbytery will evanish, and leave only 
 a single ordaining hand ! 
 
 " The circumstance of the apostle using a word in relation 
 to himself, which denotes the instrumental cause," viz. dia ; 
 
 * Vid. F. Q. De Salazar, erpositio in Proverbia. 
 Vol. III. 21 
 
1 62 Review, 
 
 "and with respect to the Presbytery, a word which, particularly 
 as distinguished from dia, expresses agreement," viz. meta ; 
 " shows, clearly, that the authoritative power was vested in 
 him ; and that the act, on the part of the Presbytery, was an 
 act of mere concurrence." 
 
 So they wrap it up ! Let us try to unwrap it a 
 little, and see whether the bundle will bear exami- 
 nation. So far as we can perceive, there is no- 
 thing here but a play upon words ; and the argu- 
 ment consists in the jingle. The interpretation of 
 the word used by the apostle, is bent and twisted 
 in such a manner as to induce the unlettered 
 reader to suppose that it expresses the assent of 
 one person to the act of another. We do not ob- 
 ject to the Layman's translating meta by " con- 
 currence ;" for according to our great English 
 Lexicographer, " concurrence" signilQes " union, 
 association, conjunction :" " Agreement ; act of 
 joining in any design or measure" — " combination 
 of many agents or circumstances," &c. ; but 
 popular and colloquial usage often employs it 
 when nothing more is intended than an approbation 
 of an opinion or a measure. It is in this sense 
 that the Layman uses it; and it is here that his 
 criticism puts a fraud upon his reader. We do not 
 say that the fraud is intentional ; before we can 
 prove this, we must prove that he understands 
 Greek ; which we humbly beg leave to decline. 
 But we shall freely give him the " eight or ten 
 years" which his friend has craved,* in order to 
 
 * Hobakt's .4;7o/ogy, p.250. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 163 
 
 support his construction of meta by the proper 
 authorities ; and he shall have " the best lexicons 
 of the language" into the bargain. 
 
 But as we do not ask for credence to our bare 
 assertion, we shall subject the Layman's distinc- 
 tion between dia and meta to the test of fact. 
 
 " It is to be recollected," says he, " that the passages are in 
 his" (Paul's) " epistles to Timothy, relating to the same sub- 
 ject ; and of course, the terms," (viz. dia and meta,) " must 
 be regarded as contrasted with one another." 
 
 Be it SO. 1 open my New Testament and read, 
 that " many signs and wonders were done by (dia) the 
 apostles^* Proceeding in the narrative, 1 read 
 afterwards that Paul and Barnabas rehearsed all 
 things that God had done with (meta) them.-f Now. 
 the Layman being judge, as " the passages relate 
 to the same subject," viz. the miraculous works 
 which God enabled his servants to perform, and 
 the success with which he crowned their ministry, 
 " the terms" dia and 7n€ta " must be regarded as 
 contrasted with one another. The circumstance, 
 then, of the historian using a word in relation to 
 the apostles in general, which denotes the instru- 
 mental cause ; and with respect to Paul and Bar- 
 nabas, a word which, particularly as distinguished 
 from dia, expresses agreement, shows clearly, that 
 the authoritative power was vested in the former, 
 and that the act, on the part of the latter, was an 
 
 * Act ii. 43. nrokXa ts TSgara xia tfyj/xeia AIA twv a^otfToXuv 
 f bta. h d;og f'jroi>](f<,- MET' axjtux Act. xv, 4. 
 
164 Review. 
 
 act of mere concurrence." In fewer words, when 
 Peter, James, &c. wrought miracles, they did it in 
 virtue of an authoritative power ; and when Paul 
 and Barnabas wrought miracles, they had no au- 
 thoritative or instrumental agency, but merely ex- 
 pressed their approbation of what God did without 
 them ; although the historian has positively assert 
 ed that he did it with them. All this from the dif- 
 ference between dia and meta ! 
 
 Should the Layman by any means escape from 
 this difficulty, it will be to fall into another still 
 greater. Before he ventured upon the criticism 
 now under review, he ought to have read, in the 
 original, the verse which he has undertaken to 
 criticise. There he would have found his dia and 
 meta in the same proposition, and separated only 
 by a single word. The gift^ says Paul to Timothy, 
 which was given thee by {^vd^^ prophecy., with (meta) 
 the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.* That 
 the terms relate to the same subject, is indisputa- 
 ble ; and of course, says the Layman, they are 
 "contrasted with.one another. The circumstance, 
 then," proceeds he, " of the apostle using a word 
 in relation to prophecy, which denotes the instru- 
 mental cause ; and, with respect to the Presby- 
 tery, a word which, particularly as distinguished 
 from dia., expresses agreement, shows, clearly, 
 that the authoritative power was vested in the 
 
 *lTim. iv. 14. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 165 
 
 prophecy ; and that the act, on the part of the 
 Presbytery, was an act of mere concurrence." 
 
 The result of the Layman's criticism is, that 
 Timothy had tivo ordinations, by tivo authoritative 
 powers, viz. the prophecy, and the apostle Paul ; 
 and two concurrences of the Presbytery, viz. one 
 with prophecy, and one with the apostle. We 
 cannot deny that he was well ordained ! 
 
 From words let us go to things, and see what 
 the Episcopal argument will gain by the exchange. 
 The imposition of hands on the part of the Pres- 
 bytery, was an act, it is said, of " mere concur- 
 rence ;" designed to express approbation, and not 
 at all to convey the ministerial office.* 
 
 This assertion is not only without proof, but is 
 directly in the face of all the proof which the na- 
 ture of the case admits. 
 
 1. By what rule of reasoning is the very same act., 
 viz. imposition of hands, performed at the same 
 time, in relation to the saine subject, considered as 
 expressing the communication of authority by one 
 of the persons engaged, and only as expressing 
 approbation by all the rest ? When certain distinc- 
 tions have taken place, it is easy to invent other 
 distinctions to justify them. But is it credible ? 
 does it belong to the nature of significant rites, 
 that a rite signifying the conferring of power should 
 be employed by a number of persons in a concnr- 
 
 * HoBART and the Layman, as above. 
 
166 R 
 
 evieiv. 
 
 rent act, and yet, with regard to all but one of them, 
 not signify the conferring power at all ? 
 
 2. The advocates of prelacy are challenged to 
 produce from the scriptures, or other authentic 
 records of the apostolic and preceding ages, proof 
 that imposition of hands was used to signify mere 
 assent or approbation. To say that it might so 
 signify, is nothing to the purpose. The point to 
 be determined is, not what it might, but what it 
 did, signify. If, in every other case, imposition of 
 hands expressed authoritative communication, it 
 must have done so in the ordination of Timothy ; 
 and to maintain that it did not, is to beg the ques- 
 tion. The Episcopal construction violates the 
 plainest meaning both of words and of actions. 
 The Presbyterian construction is in perfect coin- 
 cidence with both. Paul says that the gift in 
 Timothy was given to him bi/ prophecy, with the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. It is agreed 
 that prophecy, or prophecies which went before 
 on Timothy, designated him as a fit person for the 
 ministry : but did not invest him with office — did 
 not give him the gift. Had there been nothing 
 else but the prophecy, he would have had no com- 
 mission. It was necessary that the imposition of 
 the hands of the Presbytery should concur with the 
 prophetical designation, or Timothy had remained 
 a layman. The Presbytery did thus concur; they 
 did lay their hands on Timothy, and he received 
 his office. Now as the prophecy made no part of 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 167 
 
 his ordination ; it follows, that he was ordained by 
 the Presbytery. If the gift which was in him by 
 the imposition of Paul's hands, was his ministerial 
 commission, that apostle had no share in it which 
 was not common to every member of the Presby- 
 tery ; or else his declaration, that Timothy was 
 ordained by prophecy with the laying on of the 
 hands of the Presbytery, would not be true. Nor 
 is there any thing in his expression which might 
 not be used by every one of his colleagues, and 
 with peculiar propriety by himself, if, as it is not 
 improbable, he presided at Timothy's ordination. 
 To exhibit this subject in another light, we pro- 
 pose a few questions which some of the advocates 
 for prelacy would do no disservice to their cause 
 by answering in such a manner as to remove the 
 scruples they must naturally occasion. 
 
 1. Did Paul alone ordain Timothy? or was his 
 ordination the joint act of the Presbytery } If the 
 latter, we have a complete scriptural example of 
 Presbyterial ordination. If the former, so that the 
 Presbytery, by the imposition of their hands, mere- 
 ly testified their assent^ then, 
 
 2. Were the persons who thus imposed hands on 
 Timothy simple Presbyters, or were they apostles 
 or prelates .^ If the latter, then, 
 
 3. How came Paul to appropriate to himself a 
 power which belonged to every one of them in as 
 full right as it could possibly belong to him .'* How 
 came they to surrender this their power into the 
 
1 68 Review. 
 
 hands of an individual? And how could the impo- 
 sition of Paul's hands bestow the ministerial gift, 
 while others, possessing the same authority^ did, by 
 the very same act^ at the very same /me, merely 
 declare their assent? 
 
 If the former, i. e. if those who concurred with 
 Paul in the imposition of hands were simple Pres- 
 byters, then, 
 
 4. What ordination did Timothy receive ? Was 
 he ordained a Presbyter or a Prelate ? If the for- 
 mer, his Episcopal character, in so far as it de- 
 pends upon his ordination, is swept away ; and 
 we have not a single instance of the consecration 
 of a prelate in all the New Testament. If the lat- 
 ter, then, 
 
 5. How came simple Presbyters to impose hands 
 upon the head of a Bishop at his consecration ? 
 Or supposing these Presbyters to have been Pre- 
 lates, where was Timothy's commission ? By the 
 terms of the argument, he was ordained by Paul 
 alone; but according to the Episcopal order, 
 which we are assured is the apostolical order, two 
 or three bishops are necessary to ordain a bishop.* 
 
 * Eirifl-KOTrof vtto tmaKOTiiiv ■xttQorovuaQtii AYO tj TPIilN. Can- ApoS. 
 
 I. Apud PP. App. Tom. I. p. 442. Ed. Clerici. On this canon, 
 Bishop Beveridge thus comments. " This right, therefore, used 
 by the apostles themselves, and presci-ibed, by apostolical men, 
 our church," meaning the church of England, " most religiously 
 observes ; and, as far as possible, it ought, beyond all doubt, to 
 be observed every where. But when necessity, that most unre- 
 lenting mistress, shall require it, the rigour of the canon may be 
 so far relaxed, as that a bishop may be ordained by two." Ibidp. 457. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 169 
 
 And so poor Timothy was not ordained a bishop 
 at all. If, in order to give him his mitre, we make 
 the Presbytery to consist of Apostles, or men of 
 apostolic rank, we not only prostrate the Lay- 
 man's famous criticism about dia and ?neta, but 
 are left without the vestige of an ordination by a 
 prelate alone, in so far as that point is to be made 
 out by the ordination of Timothy * There re- 
 mains nothing but an example of ordination by 
 a Presbytery, which is all that the Presbyterians 
 desire. 
 
 We cannot dismiss this point without remark- 
 ing how our prelatical friends shift their ground. 
 
 Two things are to be proved : that Timothy 
 was a Bishop ; and, that a Bishop alone ordains. 
 For the/r5/, according to our Episcopal brethren, 
 the Presbytery, who joined with Payl in laying 
 hands on Timothy, were bona fide prelates, who, 
 jointly with the apostle, imparted the Episcopal 
 dignity ; and so Timothy is a bishop without any 
 more ado. But for the second, the Presbytery were 
 not prelates ; or if they were, they did not ordain 
 jointly with the apostle; they merely expressed 
 their approbation. 
 
 " The legs of the lame are not equal." If we 
 adopt the first, we lose the proof of ordination by 
 a Bishop alone. If the second, we lose the ordina- 
 tion of bishop Timothy. The latter makes dia 
 
 * Ordination performed by Titus shall hereafter be considered. 
 Vol. III. 22 
 
1 70 Revieiv. 
 
 show " clearly, that the authoritative power was 
 vested in Paul," and meta^ that " the act on the 
 part of the Presbytery, was an act of mere con- 
 currence." The former shows, with equal clear- 
 ness, that the authoritative power was not vested 
 in Paul alone ; that the act on the part of the 
 Presbytery, was not an act of mere concurrence ; 
 and that there is nothing in dia and meta to esta- 
 blish the contrary. When a circle and a square 
 coincide, then shall these two arguments for pre- 
 lacy be consistent with each other. 
 
 So much for Timothy's ordination. Now for 
 that of Titus. Him, too, the Layman has ordain- 
 ed Episcopally. 
 
 " To Titus the apostle says, For this cause left I thee in 
 Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are want- 
 ing, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee. 
 Here let it be observed, in passing along, that Titus is spoken 
 of as having been ordained by the apostle : As I had appoint- 
 ed thee. Nothing is said of the Presbytery in this case. Paul 
 appointed Titus to his office. And this is a conclusive cir- 
 cumstance for believing that the case was the same in relation 
 to Timothy, as it is not reasonable to suppose that they were 
 commissioned in different ways."* 
 
 We agree that the office of Timothy and Titus 
 was the same, and that they were commissioned 
 in the same manner. But the Layman has over- 
 shot his mark. For, as we have already stated, 
 the advocates for the divine right of Episcopacy 
 maintain that the ordination of a bishop by two or 
 
 * Layman, No. V. CoUec. p. 56. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 171 
 
 three others, is an apostolical institution : and that 
 even in cases of the hardest necessity., two bishops 
 are essential to the ordination of a third. One of 
 two consequences is inevitable; either that Paul 
 exercised, on this occasion, his extraordinary 
 power, and so has set no precedent; or, if he set 
 a precedent for ordination by a single prelate, Ti- 
 tus was no more than a presbyter, and could not 
 by himself, ordain other presbyters. All this rests 
 upon the assumption that the expression, as I had 
 appointed thee., refers to the ordination of Titus. 
 Another blunder. There is not a syllable about 
 his ordination in the text. It pre-supposes his 
 authority, and relates solely to the directions which 
 the apostle had given him for the application of it. 
 The word rendered, " appointed.,'''' frequently oc- 
 curs in the New Testament, but always, with the 
 construction before us, in the sense of prescribing, 
 enjoining, commanding : and never in the sense 
 of setting apart to an office — Thus, 
 
 He COMMANDED ((^f£Ta^«To) a centuriou to keep 
 Paul. Acts xxiv. 23. Surely FeHx did not then 
 give the centurion his military commission. 
 
 As God hath distributed to every man ; as the Lord 
 hath called every one., so let him walk : and so ordain 
 I, {diataooo^ai) direct, enjoin I, in all chvrches. 
 1 Cor. vii. 17. 
 
 In the very same manner does Paul speak to 
 Titus. 
 
 As I had appointed (dwTa^afi.i]v) instructed, en- 
 joined, thee. 
 
172 Revi 
 
 ew. 
 
 The word which expresses mvestiture with of- 
 fice is quite different, as this very verse shows; 
 and the author of Miscellanies* had remarked: 
 but this circumstance, Dr. Hobart, though not 
 sparing of his notes, passes over in profound 
 silence. 
 
 We come, at length, to the decisive argument 
 for diocesan Episcopacy — \\iQ powers exercised by 
 Timothy and Titus. This is to silence the last 
 battery of the Presbyterians, and reduce them to 
 the humiliating necessity of surrendering at discre- 
 tion ! Really one would imagine, that the powers 
 of Timothy and Titus are a new discovery : and 
 that the epistles written to them by Paul, had been 
 in the custody of the prelates alone as containing 
 the precious charter of their rights. But the world 
 may believe us, upon our word of verity, that we 
 have actually read those epistles long ago; and 
 that the demonstration, said to be therein con- 
 tained, of the apostolical institution of the " sacred 
 regiment of Bishops," has been questioned, yea 
 and, in our judgment, confuted some hand- 
 ful of years before our grandfathers were born. 
 However, Ecce iterum Crispinus ! Here it is again. 
 We shall give unto thee, reader, as Cyprian and 
 the Layman have given it unto us. But we en- 
 treat thy patience to some preliminary matter. 
 
 We think that when the Episcopal writers ap- 
 
 • Clemens, No. 1. Collec p. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 173 
 
 peal, with so much confidence, to the powers ex- 
 ercised by Timothy, they ought also to have 
 agreed as to the ojice and rank of that eminent 
 man. Yet it is a disputed point among them, at 
 this hour, whether he was simply Bishop of Ephe- 
 sus, having jurisdiction over his presbyters; or 
 an archbishop, having bishops under him ; or the 
 lord primate of Asia, above them all. If you ask 
 the advocates of these several opinions, what was 
 precisely his authority ? some cry one thing, and 
 some another : for the assembly is confused ; and 
 their voices unite only in this. Great is Timothy 
 of the Ephesians ! We cannot refrain from trans- 
 cribing a few remarks of the powerful and elo- 
 quent Jean Daille. 
 
 " Here," we translate his own words, " Here 
 the hierarchs, having their imagination full of their 
 grand prelatures, of their bishoprics, their arch- 
 bishoprics, and their primacies, do not fail to 
 dream of one in these words of the Apostle. That 
 he besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesiis, signi- 
 fies, if you believe them, that he made Timothy 
 bishop of the church of Ephesus ; and not only 
 that, but even Metropolitan, or archbishop of the 
 province ; and even primate of all Asia. You see 
 how ingenious is the passion for the crosier and 
 the mitre ; being able, in so few and simple words, 
 to detect such great mysteries ! For where is the 
 man, who, in the use of his natural understand- 
 ing without being heated by a previous attach- 
 
174 Revieiv. 
 
 ment, could ever have found so many mitres — that 
 of a Bishop, that of an Arch-bishop, and that of 
 a Primate, in these two words, Paul besovght Ti- 
 mothy to abide still at Ephesus ? Who, without the 
 help of some extraordinary passion, could ever 
 have made so charming and so rare a discovery ?* 
 and imagine that to beseech a man to stay in a 
 city, means, to establish him bishop of that city, 
 Archbishop of the province, and primate of all 
 the country ? In very deed, the cause of these 
 gentlemen of the hierarchy must be reduced to 
 an evil plight,t since they are constrained to re- 
 sort to such pitiful proofs. "J 
 
 Our readers will hardly blame DailU for applying 
 the epithet " pitiful," to the argument of the hier- 
 archy for Timothy's Episcopate, when they see 
 that her ablest and most resolute champions are at 
 irreconcileable variance with each other on this 
 very point : some maintaining it as perfectly con- 
 
 * Deviner une chose si belle & si rare ? — 
 f A de mauvais termes. 
 
 X Daille' Exposition de la premiere epitre de VApotre Saint 
 Paul d Timothee ; en 48 sermons prononcfs d Charenton. Serm. 
 I. p. 22, 23. a Geneve 1661. 12mo. 
 
 This is that identical Monsieur Daillf/ •whom Mr. Bingham 
 and, from him, Dr. Hobart have represented as friendly to Epis- 
 copacy.* This is that Jean Daille' ! The prelatical commenta- 
 tors have played tricks with the French preacher ; which, if we 
 feel in a humour for it, we may one of these days expose. 
 
 * Hobart's Apology, p. 94, compared with p. 99. Bingham's Christian 
 ArUiquUiet. Vol. H. p. 799. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 175 
 
 elusive ; others rejecting it as weak and frivolous. 
 The mere fact of this variance is a strong pre- 
 sumption against the former, and in favour of the 
 latter. For although vigorous, cultivated, and 
 candid minds may be so far warped by their 
 wishes as to lay more stress upon an argument 
 for them than it deserves ; yet it is hardly to be 
 supposed that such minds will attribute to an 
 argument which, if sound, secures them the victo- 
 ry, much less importance than it possesses. If, 
 then, there are to be found among the advocates 
 of Episcopacy, men second to none of them in 
 learning, force, and sagacity, Vv^ho fairly give up 
 the plea from Timothy and Titus, the conclusion 
 is, that their concession is extorted against their 
 prejudices and interest. 
 
 As a specimen of the collision , which takes 
 place, on this subject, between the most zealous 
 supporters of prelacy, we transcribe a part of the 
 seventh section of the Appendix to Ayton's Origi- 
 nal Constitution of the Christian Church. It has not 
 been in our power to compare all his quotations 
 with the authors, but we have examined a number 
 and they are correct. 
 
 " The chief plea and argument of the EpiscopaHans is taken 
 from Timothy and Titus. But liowever much this is boasted 
 of by some, as a conclusive proof for a diocesan form of church 
 government, and superior power of Bishops to that of Presby- 
 ters ; yet there is nothing adduced by them that is more vio- 
 lently opposed by others of them, and in which they are more 
 egregiously divided. For some of them pretend, that the 
 
176 Review. 
 
 Apostle, in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, uses the terms 
 Bishop and Presbyter promiscuously, only to express such 
 officers as are now called Presbyters. Of this opinion I take 
 Bishop Hoadley to be, Dr. Whitby, Mr. Dodwell, and many 
 others might be named. 
 
 " But how contradictory to this is the judgment of Bishop 
 Pearson, Vindicia. Lib. 2. Cap. 13. Bishop Taylor, Episc. 
 assert. P. 85. Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Right of 
 Princes, Prcfac. p. 15. and p. 4, 5. of the Book : and Dr. 
 Hammond, in a variety of places. I say, how contradictory 
 are these sentiments of those prelates to this above named 1 
 seeing they hold, that all those whom they were to ordain were 
 proper bishops, nay, Di". Hammond's opinion is, that Timo- 
 thy and Titus were Archbishops, and had their suffragans 
 under them ; and with him bishop Bull seems to agree, when 
 he calls Timothy Archbishop, Serin, on 2 Tim. iv. 13. And 
 to these I could add others of the same mind. But, then as 
 Dr. Hammond reckoned, that the Apostles ordained no mere 
 Presbyters at the first, but only Bishops, Annot. on Acts xi. 6, 
 14. so Dodwell, Parcenes, p. 54. p. 13. and p. 102. p. 33. 
 must certainly contradict him in this, when he maintains, that 
 the Apostles at the first ordained no Bishops, but simple Pres- 
 byters only ; and that there is no mention of Episcopal 
 government in the New Testament, and that it was not esta- 
 blished till Anno 106. But then, according to both these Doc- 
 tors, there is one office in the church without scripture war- 
 rant — Presbyters, according to Dr. Hammond ; and Bishops, 
 according to Mr. Dodwell. But how will they answer to what 
 is advanced by Bishop Burnet, which equally contradicts them 
 both, Vi7idic. of the Church of Scotland, p. 355. That with- 
 out Scripture ivarrants no netv office may be instituted ? Besides 
 Dr. Hammond's conceit against Presbyters not being institu- 
 ted in the New Testament, is opposed with all freedom by 
 Mr. Maurice, Defens. p. 27. and by Bishop Hoadley, Brief 
 Defence, p. 113. Is it possible to behold such wrangling, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. \11l 
 
 without being affected with a mixture both of indignation and 
 compassion ? Is it not matter of indignation, that men of 
 judgment and learning should have such a fondness to main- 
 tain a cause that is so precarious, as to drive them into so 
 many schemes to defend it, and every one of them contradic- 
 tory to one another 1 And can it miss to beget compassion in 
 the breast of every sincere Christian, that men of abilities 
 should bestow so much time to perplex themselves and others, 
 when their labours, rightly employed, might prove much more 
 beneficial to the Protestant world 1 
 
 " But that we may give the world a view, how inconclusive 
 all these schemes and models are, which are taken from Ti- 
 mothy and Titus, I shall give some account of the minds of the 
 Episcopalians at some length, who, when adduced, will leave 
 no room for the Presbyterians to be in any perplexity in tlie 
 defence of their establishment. The first I shall bring on the 
 stage is the famous Willet, Si/nops. Papism, p, 236. ' It is 
 most like Timothy had the place and calling of an evangelist: 
 and the calling of evangelists and bishops, which were pastors, 
 was divers.' To him let us join the learned Stillingflect, who 
 says, Ii-cnic. p. 340. ' Such were the evangelists, who were 
 sent sometimes into this country to put the church in order 
 there, sometimes into another ; but wherever they were, they 
 acted as evangelists, and not as fixed officers. And such were 
 Timothy and Titus, notwithstanding all the opposition made 
 against it, as will appear to any who will take an impartial 
 survey of the arguments on both sides,' &,c. Nay, the Jesuit 
 Salmeron, is ashamed of this argument, for he says, Disput. 1. 
 on I Tim. ' It is doubtful if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus : 
 for though he preached and ordained some to the ministry 
 there, it follows not that he was the Bishop of that place ; for 
 Paul preached also there above two years, and absolved the 
 penitents, and yet was not Bishop. Add that now and then 
 the apostle called him away unto himself, and sent him from 
 Rome to the Hebrews with his epistle ; and in the second 
 Vol. III. 9'> 
 
178 Review. 
 
 epistle, he commands him to come to him shortly. Timothy 
 was also an evangelist of that order, Eph. 4. — So that Doro- 
 theus says in his Synopsis, That Timothy preached through all 
 Greece ; but he stayed at Ephesus not to be Bishop, but that, 
 in the constitute church of Ephesus, he might oppose the false 
 Apostles. — It appears therefore that he was more than a Bi- 
 shop, although for a time he preached in that city as a pastor, 
 and ordained some to the ministry. Hence it is, some calls 
 him Bishop in Ephesus.' 
 
 " Having elsewhere given the judgment of the learned Dr. 
 Whitby at some length, all that 1 shall transcribe from him at 
 this time, is a few lines of what he says in his preface to the 
 Epistle to Titus: 'First, I assert, that if by saying Timothy and 
 Titus were Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete, we 
 understand they look upon these churches or dioceses as their 
 fixed and peculiar charge, in which they were to preside for 
 term of life, I believe, that Timothy and Titus were not thus 
 Bishops.' See Chap. 1 and 4. 
 
 " To fortify those who have given their assault, let me bring 
 in Mr. Le Clerc, in his Supplement to Dr. Hammond's Anno- 
 tations on the Epistle to Titus, p. 530. who says, ' The testi- 
 monies of the ancients about this matter, who judge rashly of 
 the times of the apostles by their own, and speak of them in 
 the language of their own age, are of little moment. And so 
 do no more prove that Titus was the Bishop of the island of 
 Crete, than what Dr. Hammond says, proves him to have been 
 distinguished with the title of Archbishop.' To the same pur- 
 pose the forecited Dr. Whitby says, ' The great controversy 
 concerning this and the epistle to Timothy is, whether Timo- 
 thy and Titus were indeed made Bishops ; the one in Ephesus, 
 and the Pro-consailar Asia, the other of Crete, and having au- 
 thority to make, and jurisdiction over so many Bishops as 
 were in those precincts ? Now, of this matter, I confess 1 can 
 find nothing in any writer of the first three centuries, and not 
 any intimation, that they bore that name.' 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 179 
 
 *' Tlie judgment of the learned Whittaker is supporting on 
 this oceasion, as well as in the most of the former, who says, 
 Controv. 4. Q. 4. C. 2, p, 374. ' In the apostle's times there 
 were many things extraordinary. There was another form 
 of government in the church in the days of the apostles, and 
 another now, is acknowledged by Stapleton : For it was then 
 governed by the apostles, evangelists, and prophets, but now 
 only by pastors and doctors ; the rest are all removed.' From 
 this it may justly be inferred, that Timothy and Titus were 
 not ordinary officers, but they being both evangelists, are not 
 succeeded to by Bishops. And here I cannot but subjoin the 
 judgment of Chrysostom, whom our adversaries, I hope, will 
 not reject as an adversary. His words, as translated by Smec- 
 tymnuus, are these, Paul icould not commit the whole island 
 to one man, but would have every man appointed to his charge 
 and cure. For so he knew his labour would be the lighter, and 
 the people thai were under him ivould be governed with the 
 greater diligence. For the teacher should not be troubled with 
 the government of many churches, but only intend one, and study 
 for to adorn that. The remark of Smectymnuus is just. There- 
 fore this was Titus his work, not to be Bishop of Crete him- 
 self, but to ordain Elders in every city, which was an office 
 above that of a Bishop. 
 
 " But this fortification is not able to stand ; for the remark- 
 able Mr. Dodwell, Parosnes. Sect. 10. p. 404. attacks it most 
 handsomely, when he says, ' But truly, that the office of [Ti- 
 mothy] was not fixed, but itinerary, many arguments do evince. 
 It was required of him to abide at Ephesus, is testified by the 
 Apostle, 1 Tim. i. 3. He was therefore, when thus demand- 
 ed, an itinerary. The work of an Evangelist, 2 Tim. vi. 5. so 
 many journeyings with St. Paul, and his name being joined in 
 common with the Apostle, in the inscription of the epistles to the 
 Thessaloniajis, are all of them arguments for this. Moreover, 
 the apostle commands Titus only to ordain, in Crete, Presby- 
 ters in every city, Titus i. 5. He says, he was left there, that 
 
1 80 Review. 
 
 he might set in order things that were wanting. And he was 
 a companion of the apostle when he was left. And truly, 
 other places make it appear, that he was a companion of St. 
 .Paul, and therefore was no more restricted to any particular 
 place than the apostle himself.' Thus the famous Dodwell. 
 And from what has been said from so many learned Episco- 
 palian Doctors, one may consider, how far Bishop Hall had 
 lost his senses, when he saith with such a masterly air, 
 Episcop. Divine Right, Sect. 4. P. 2. That if Episcopal 
 power of ordination, and poiver of iniling and censuring Pres- 
 byters, be not clear in the apostWs charge to these tioo Bishops, 
 the one of Crete, and the other of Ephesus, I shall yield the 
 cause, and confess to tvant my senses.'''' 
 
 " But now, to dismiss this conceit of Timothy's being 
 Bishop of Ephesus, &c. I shall give the judgment of the 
 learned Willet, Synops. Papism. Contr. 5. Q. 3. ' Neither 
 can it be granted by the words of the Apostle, Lay hands 
 suddenly on no man, ifcc. that Timothy had this sole power in 
 himself; for, the apostle would not give that to him, which 
 he did not take to himself, who associated to him the rest 
 
 of the Presbyters in ordaining of Timothy. It is 
 
 questioned, says he, if the apostle had then constituted Ti- 
 mothy bishop there [Ephesus :] For, he saith. That thou 
 mightcst charge some that they teach no other docti-ine,'' &c. 
 I conclude with the judgment of the accurate Dr. Barrow, 
 Pope^s Supi-em. p. 82. whose words must certainly contra- 
 dict this notion concerning Timothy's Episcopate ; for he 
 says, ' Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge, affixed 
 to one standing place, and requiring a special attendance 
 there ; Bishops being Pastors, who, as St. Chrysostom says, 
 do sit, and are employed in one place. Now, he that hath 
 such a general charge, can hardly discharge such a particu- 
 lar office, and he is fixed to a particular attertdance, can 
 hardly look after so general a charge.' Though this is 
 spoken with respect to the Apostles ; yet it will equally hold 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 181 
 
 with respect to Timothy and Titus. I think, by this time, 
 this strong bulwark has ahnost lost its beautiful shapes, and 
 formidable figures, and is not capable of doing much execu- 
 tion. The itinerary life of the apostles, according to Bar- 
 row, is inconsistent with that of a Bishop, and must be so 
 likewise with that of Timothy and Titus, seeing they were 
 not fixed residenters in any particular place, as is well ob- 
 served by Mr. Dodwell : and it must conclude against them 
 with equal force, if Dr. Brett's notion be true, that they were 
 both of the Apostolic order." 
 
 No equitable judge would censure us for leaving 
 these sons of the hierarchy to dash their heads 
 against each other, and declining to give ourselves 
 any further trouble. We are not obhged to inquire 
 into the claim which they set up for Timothy or 
 Titus, until they shall themselves ascertain what 
 the claim is ; nor to answer their plea, until they 
 shall cease to quarrel about its correctness. But, 
 instead of taking so mortifying an advantage, we 
 shall meet the question as it is stated by Cyprian 
 and the Layman ; referring to our readers for an 
 opinion whether or not we are afraid to have the 
 cause tried either at Ephesus or in Crete ; and 
 under any form which our Episcopal friends shall 
 prefer. 
 
 " In Titus i. 5." says Cyprian, " it is said by the Apostle 
 Paul, ' For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest 
 ordain Elders in every city." Let us contemplate the circum- 
 stances that attended tliis transaction, and see what inferences 
 we can draw from it. St. Paul had planted the gospel in the 
 island of Crete. He had made proselytes in every city who 
 stood in need of tlie ministrations of Presbyters. He 
 
1 82 Review. 
 
 speaks not to Titus as if he had left him in Crete to convert 
 the cities to the faith. He speaks as if this work was ah'eady 
 accompUshed, as if the way was paved for the estabUshment 
 of the Church. These being the circumstances of the case, 
 it appears to me that tliis transaction carries on its face a 
 proof of superiority on the part of Titus to the Presbyters or 
 elders. Will it be imagined by any reasonable man, that 
 St. Paul had converted so many cities on this island without 
 having ordained any elders amongst them 1 What ! When 
 it was his uniform and invariable practice to ordain Elders in 
 every country in which he made proselytes ? What ! Could 
 he have neglected to ordain those amongst them who were 
 absolutely necessary to transact the affairs of the Church 
 during his absence 1 Would he have left the work he had 
 begun only half performed ? 
 
 " These considerations are sufficient to convince every un- 
 prejudiced mind that there were Elders or Presbyters in the 
 Church of Crete at the time St. Paul left Titus on that island. 
 And if there were Presbyters, and those Presbyters had the 
 power of ordination, why was it necessary to leave Titus 
 amongst them in order to perform a task that might as well 
 have been accomplished without him 1 If the Presbyters 
 possessed an authority equal to that of Titus, would not St. 
 Paul, by leaving him amongst them, have taken the surest 
 way to interrupt the peace of the Church, to engender jea- 
 lousy, and strifes, and contentions 1 Again. Let us view 
 this transaction in another point of light. St. Paul had made 
 converts, as I have said, in every city of Crete. Titus had 
 attended him on his last visit to that island. If Presbyters 
 were at this time considered as competent to the task of or- 
 daining others, why did he not ordain one at any rate during 
 his stay amongst them, and commission him instead of de- 
 taining Titus, to ordain Elders in every city 1 The efforts 
 of Titus were as much wanted as his own, to carry the light 
 of the gospel to other nations who had not received it. Why 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 183 
 
 was it necessary that Titus should ordain Elders in every city ? 
 After the ordination of a few, M'ould not his exertions have 
 become useless, if they were able to complete the work which 
 he had begun ? 
 
 " In short, Titus seems to be entrusted with all the autho- 
 rity of a supreme ruler of the Church. He is directed to 
 ordain Presbyters — to rebuke with all authority — to admo- 
 nish hereticks, and in case of obstinacy, to reject them from 
 the communion of the Church. These circumstances infal- 
 libly designate the presence of a Bishop. Accordingly we 
 find that the united voice of ancient writers declares him to 
 have been the first Bishop of Crete. Eusebius informs us 
 ' that he received Episcopal authority over the Church of 
 Crete.' So also says Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, 
 St. Ambrose. If these considerations united do not. show 
 that Titus possessed in Ephesus powers superior to those 
 which were held by the Presbyters of those Churches, I know 
 not what considerations would."* 
 
 And again : 
 
 " The case of Timothy alone, had we no other evidence 
 from Scripture, would, when taken into connexion with the 
 testimony of ancient writers, be perfectly satisfactory to me. 
 This alone demonstrates all that we can desire. He was 
 placed by St. Paul to superintend the Church of Ephesus. 
 This case is even stronger than was that of Titus in Crete. 
 It cannot be denied that there had long been Presbyters in 
 the Church of Ephesus. Listen then to the language which 
 St. Paul speaks in his Epistles to him, and see if it is possi- 
 ble that he possessed no superiority over the Presbyters of 
 that Church. ' 1 besought thee,' says he to Timothy, ' to 
 abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that 
 thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doc- 
 trine.' Would Timothy have been commissioned to charge 
 
 * CtpriaxV, No. II. Collec. p. 64, 65. 
 
184 Review. 
 
 the Presbyters to teach no other doctrine had he possessed 
 no superiority over them ? Would they not have had a right 
 to resist any attempts at a control of this kind as an en- 
 croachment on their privileges ? Again, Timothy is direct- 
 ed to try and examine the Deacons, whether they be blame- 
 less or not. If they prove themselves worthy, he is to admit 
 them into the office of a Dpacon ; and upon a faithful dis- 
 charge of that office, they are to be elevated to a higher sta- 
 tion. ' Likewise,' says he, ' must the Deacons be grave, not 
 double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy- 
 lucre, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience.' 
 * Let these also be first proved, and then let them use the 
 office of a Deacon, being found blameless.' Here we find 
 no mention made of the Presbyters of Ephesus, in the ordi- 
 nation of Deacons. They are not associated with him at all 
 in the work. Does not this indicate, does it not demonstrate 
 a superiority of power on the part of Timothy ? Timothy is 
 also exhorted to 'lay hands suddenly on no man.' There is 
 no such thing as a recognition even of the co-operation of 
 Presbyters with him. He seems to be the supreme and the 
 only agent in the transaction of these affairs. 
 
 " Now, I appeal to the common sense of mankind, had 
 the Presbyters of Ephesus possessed an authority equal to 
 that of Timothy ; had they, like him, possessed the power of 
 ordination, would not St. Paul have recognized their agency 
 in connexion with his ? Would it not have been to treat 
 them with improper neglect not to mention them ? But what 
 consummates our evidence on this point, and places the sub- 
 ject beyond all doubt, is the charge which St. Paul gives to 
 Timothy in relation to the penal discipline he was to exercise 
 over his Presbyters. Timothy is required to ' receive an ac- 
 cusation against an elder or Presbyter, only before two or 
 three witnesses.' ' Them, (that is, those amongst the Pres- 
 byters,) that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear.' 
 Can any one imagine that Timothy would have been com- 
 
Kssays on Kpiscopacy. 185 
 
 missioned to listen to acctisations made against Presbyters, 
 openly to rebuke them, had not his authority transcended 
 theirs ? Does not this single circumstance unquestionably 
 establish the point of his superiority 1 ' The man,' says a learn- 
 ed and ingenious writer of our country, ' who shall not find 
 a Bishop in Ephesus, will be puzzled to find one in England.'* 
 " I cannot conceive of a case that could be more clear and 
 iniequivocal, that could speak more loudly to the common 
 sense of mankind, than the case of Timothy in Ephesus. 
 He is obviously intrusted with apostolic authority. Every 
 thing which the Apostle could do in his own person, he com- 
 missions Timothy to perform during his absence. He is to 
 adjust the affairs of the church ; he is to prove and examine 
 Deacons ; he alone is to ordain them ; he alone is recognized 
 in the performance of the task of ordaining Elders or Pres- 
 byters ; he possesses perfect control over these Presbyters. 
 If they are guilty of any offences or misdemeanours, he is 
 to inflict punishment upon them. I cannot conceive of a case 
 more satisfactory in proof of the apostolic original of the 
 Episcopal form of Church government. Had Timothy been 
 of the same order with the Presbyters of Ephesus, can it be 
 imagined that the Apostle would, by elevating him to such 
 high privileges amongst them, have endangered the peace of 
 the Church, have taken a step so well calculated to excite dis- 
 content and dissatisfaction amongst the remaining Presbyters 
 or Elders 1 This cannot be imagined. Timothy was then 
 undeniably intrusted with Episcopal authority in the Church 
 of Ephesus ; he was the Bishop of that place. This is prov- 
 ed by the concurring voice of ancient writers. Eusebius tells 
 us ' that he was the first Bishop of the province or diocese of 
 Ephesus.' The anonymous author of his life in Phocius 
 says, ' that he was the first that acted as Bishop in Ephe- 
 sus, and that he was ordained Bishop of the metropolis of 
 Ephesus by the great St. Paul.' lu the council of Chalce- 
 
 * Dr. Bowden, in his answer to Dr. Stiles. 
 Vol. III. 24 
 
1 86 Review. 
 
 don twenty-seven bishops are said to have succeeded in that 
 cliair from Timothy. To prove the same point goes the tes- 
 mony of St. Chrysostom and Theodoret ; and in the aposto- 
 lical constitutions we are expressly told, that he was ordained 
 Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul."* 
 
 The Layman speaks to the same purpose. 
 
 " In whom was the power of ordination vested in the 
 Churches of Ephesus and Crete 1 Clearly in Timothy and 
 Titus alone. Them alone the apostle addresses, and them 
 alone he speaks of as ordaining Elders, or as committing the 
 things they had received from him to faithful men, capable 
 of teaching others. Is this not utterly inconsistent with the 
 Presbyterian system ? What individual among them could 
 with propriety be addressed as the apostle addresses Timo- 
 thy and Titus ? Not one. The power among them is in a 
 numerous body of equals, lest there should be ' lords over 
 God''s heritage.'' The power, in Ephesus and Crete, was in 
 Timothy and Titus, to whom the Presbyters were subject, 
 liable to be tried and punished for misconduct. It is on this 
 plain statement of facts, relative to Ephesus and Crete, as 
 well as to other churches, taken in connexion with the uni- 
 form and uninterrupted testimony of the church universal for 
 fifteen hundred years, that Episcopalians rest their cause. 
 They have never endeavoured to derive arguments from the 
 names made use of. This has been the practice, exclusively, 
 of the advocates of parity. Driven from the ground of fact, 
 not able to deny that Timothy and Titus were supreme 
 Governors in the churches of Ephesus and Crete, possess- 
 ing alone the power of ordination, they say that Timothy 
 is called a Presbyter, and was therefore upon a level with 
 those very elders whom he ruled, whom he could control as 
 to the doctrines they preached, whom he had power to try 
 and to punish !"t 
 
 * CvpRiAN, No. III. Colkc. p. 74, 75. 
 ^ T ATMAN, No. V. Colkc. p. 56, 
 
Essays 0)1 Episcopacy. 187 
 
 " It is very easy," says he, " to see why the advocates of 
 parity would exclude from view the situation of Timothy in 
 the church of Ephesus, since it carries absolute death to 
 their cause. Is it an immaterial circumstance that Timothy 
 ruled the whole church of Ephesus, both clergy and laity, 
 the Elders or Presbyters being subject to his spiritual juris- 
 diction 1 Is it an immaterial circumstance that Timothy alone 
 exercised the power of ordaining Ministers, and thus of con- 
 veying the sacerdotal authority ? What then becomes of the 
 doctrine of parity 1 Destroyed, utterly destroyed. The Church 
 of Ephesus, planted by St. Paul, and placed, by that Apos- 
 tle, under the government of Timothy, was constructed upon 
 a totally different principle. It had, in Timothy, a Bishop, 
 possessing jurisdiction over the other clergy, and exercising 
 all the powers which are claimed for the Bishops of the 
 church now. Is it of no consequence that the ancients, who 
 speak on the subject, unanimously represent Timothy as the 
 first Bishop of Ephesus 1 What says Eusebius 1 ' He was 
 the first Bishop of the province or diocese of Ephesus.' Eccl. 
 Hist. Bib. iii. chap. 4. What says Chrysostom 1 ' It is ma- 
 nifest Timothy was intrusted with a whole nation, viz. Asia.' 
 Horn, loth in 1 Tim. v. 19. Theodoret calls him the Apos- 
 tle of the Asiatics. The Apostolical constitutions expressly 
 tell us that he was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul ; 
 and in the council of Chalcedon, twenty-seven Bishops are 
 said to have succeded him in the government of that Church. 
 
 " We are perfectly safe, then, so far as relates to Timothy, 
 in resting our cause upon the situation which he occupied at 
 Ephesus, and on the powers which he exercised there. 
 The constitution of the Church of Ephesus was undeniably 
 Episcopal. This part of the subject the advocates of parity 
 do not choose to meddle with, running off constantly to the 
 terra Presbytery, that poor word being the chief basis of their 
 cause."* 
 
 * Proscript to the Layman, No. VIII. Colkc. p. 81. 
 
188 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 And thus the Episcopal arm has " carried death 
 to our cause !" And thus " the doctrine of pari- 
 ty" is " destroyed, utterly destroyed !" 
 
 Not so fast, good Mr. Layman. We have an 
 objection or two to such a settlement of our af- 
 fairs ; and shall take the liberty of stating them. 
 
 The reader will remember that we confine our- 
 selves, at present, to the Scriptural argument ; and 
 therefore shall not notice any quotations from the 
 Fathers. One thing at a time ; and every thing 
 in its place. 
 
 This is the argument which the Layman tells 
 us " the advocates of parity do not choose to 
 meddle with." If it be so, the terrour is needless. 
 But the assertion is only a polemical flourish, such 
 as the Layman is accustomed to make for the 
 entertainment of his friends : the fact, as usual, 
 being quite the other v\^ay. For if he will be at 
 the trouble, for the first time, as we presume, in 
 his life, to inspect the writings of the advocates of 
 parity at any period from the reformation to this 
 day, he will find that they have not only " med- 
 dled" with his argument, but so mauled and maim- 
 ed it, so battered and crushed it, that even skilful 
 diocesan doctors have given it up for dead, and 
 wondered at that delirious fondness which, in- 
 stead of decently interring it, insisted upon keep- 
 ing it above ground. Its ghost, however, seems 
 disquieted, and walks in company with the Lay- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 189 
 
 man and Cyprian, to frighten the Presbyterian 
 women and children — We must lay it. 
 
 Merriment apart — What do these long extracts, 
 with their glowing interrogations, prove ? Why, 
 that Timothy and Titus were superior to Presby- 
 ters ! Who denies it ? " What ! do you allow 
 that they had, severally, the power of ordaining 
 to the ministry, by their sole authority ?" Yes, 
 we do ! That they had authority to inquire into 
 the doctrines taught by Presbyters ?" Yes. " To 
 coerce the unruly ?" Yes. " To expel the hereti- 
 cal .'^" Yes — We never thought of disputing it — 
 " Then, certainly, they were diocesan Bishops !" 
 Cest une autre affaire.^ Monsieur. That is another 
 point. We admit the premises here stated, but 
 deny the conclusion. Timothy and Titus could 
 do all these things without being diocesan Bi- 
 shops. An apostle could do them in virtue of his 
 apostolic office : an evangelist, as Timothy, and 
 consequently, Titus, undoubtedly was,* could do 
 them in virtue of his office as an evansrelist : and 
 yet be very unlike a diocesan bishop. And to in- 
 fer that Timothy and Titus were bishops in the 
 prelatical sense of the term, because they enjoy- 
 ed a pre-eminence and an authority which they 
 might enjoy without being such bishops at all, is to 
 abuse the understanding of the reader. Our op- 
 ponent ought to prove not only that they exer- 
 
 • 2 Tim. iv. 5. " Do the work of an Evangelist." 
 
190 Review. 
 
 cised the powers enumerated, but that they did 
 so as ordinary officers in whom a precedent was set 
 for the future government of the church. He must 
 prove that their powers were not an appendage of 
 their special and extraordinary character, Uke the 
 powers pecuhar to the apostolic character. This 
 he neither has done, nor is able to do : and thus 
 the boasted demonstration of Episcopacy from 
 the history of Timothy and Titus, is a mere beg- 
 ging of the question — taking for granted the very 
 thing in dispute. 
 
 Let us apply this all conquermg argument to 
 other cases which appear to be perfectly parallel. 
 
 Episcopal argument. 
 Titus ordained elders in every city — Therefore 
 Titus was Bishop of Crete. 
 
 Parallelism. 
 
 Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every 
 church, to wit, in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, 
 at least* — Therefore Paul and Barnabas were joint 
 Bishops of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. 
 
 Episcopal argument. 
 
 Timothy instructed and charged the Ephesian 
 elders — Therefore he was Bishop of Ephesus ! 
 
 Parallelis?7i. 
 
 Paul instructed and charged the Ephesian el- 
 derst — Therefore Paul was Bishop of Ephesus. 
 
 *Act. xiv. 20, 21. 23. t ^ct. xx. 17, &c. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 191 
 
 Episcopal argument. 
 
 Timothy had power to inflict censure on Pres- 
 byters, and even to excommunite heretics — There- 
 fore Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus. 
 
 Parallelism. 
 
 Paul had power to excommunicate offenders in 
 the Corinthian church* — Therefore Paul was Bi- 
 shop of Corinth. 
 
 The parallel might be run further : but the fore- 
 going will evince, that the very same mode of 
 reasoning which proves Timothy to have been Bi- 
 shop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, will also 
 prove every one of the Apostles to have been bi- 
 shop of every place where he exercised any of 
 those functions which the Episcopal church has 
 restrained to her prelates. This her advocates 
 know to be absurd ; and so does all the world 
 beside. And yet let them show, if they can, that 
 our argument for the diocesan ubiquity of the 
 apostles, is not fully as fair and as conclusive as 
 their own for the bishopricks of Timothy and 
 Titus; and is not/ounded on the very same prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 There is nothing else in the Layman or Cyprian, 
 which has even the shadow of an argument, un- 
 less it be such suggestions as these : 
 
 " Will it be imagined by any reasonable man, that St. Paul 
 had converted so many cities on this island," (Crete,) " with- 
 
 » 1 Cor. V. 5. 
 
1 92 Review. 
 
 out having ordained any elders amongst them ? What ! when 
 .it was his uniform and invariable practice to ordain elders in 
 every country in which he made proselytes 1 What ! could he 
 have neglected to ordain those amongst them who were abso- 
 lutely necessary to transact the afl'airs of the church in his ab- 
 sence 1 Would he have left the work he had begun only half 
 performed 1"* 
 
 Cyprian sets himself down in his study at Alba- 
 ny, and, knowing infinitely more than any author 
 sacred or profane has told him, first determines 
 what the Apostle ought to have done seventeen hun- 
 dred and fifty years ago in Crete : next, very wise- 
 ly concludes that Paul, being also a wise man, ac- 
 tually did as he, Cyprian, has laid down and deter- 
 mined ; then, furnishes the churches of Crete with 
 Presbyters ; and, wanting still more, manufactures 
 Titus into a Bishop to supply the deficiency. Ex- 
 cellent ! But where did Cyprian get his facts ? 
 Where did he learn so positively what was Paul's 
 " uniform and invariable practice," in the article 
 of ordination ? He ought to have been cautious 
 of affronting his old guide, whose account of Paul's 
 " practice," is entirely diflferent from his own. 
 
 " One quahfication for a Bishop was, that he 
 should not be (iV£og)i;Tog) a novice ; that is, one 
 newly converted; time being required to prove 
 men before they could be intrusted with the care 
 of the church. And therefore the Apostles used 
 not to ordain ministers in any place before the second 
 time of their coming thither — Sometimes, when they 
 
 * Cyprian, as above. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 193 
 
 had no prospect of returning, they gave others a 
 commission to ordain ministers. For which reason 
 Titus was left in Crete by St. Paul to ordain minis- 
 ters in all cities. But there will scarce be found 
 a7iy instance of their ordaining ministers at i]\Q first 
 time of their coming to any place."* 
 
 It was rather bold in Cyprian to chastise the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, whom on other occa- 
 sions he so implicitly follows, for being ignorant of 
 Paul's " uniform and invariable practice :" but 
 there is something bolder behind : for, if we mis- 
 take not, the rector's rod has reached the back of 
 the Apostle himself He broadly insinuates, that 
 Paul could not, without culpable negligence, have 
 omitted to create officers who were necessary to 
 transact the affairs of the church in his absence; 
 and that had he done so, he would have left his 
 work only half performed. Now it so happens that 
 Paul, according to his own testimony, did not fur- 
 nish the churches in Crete with the requisite of- 
 ficers, or else he left Titus to ordain such as were 
 not absolutely necessary — he did actually leave 
 the work he had begun unfinished ; whether only 
 " half performed," or one third, or two thirds, 
 he does not say ; but so much was undone as to 
 demand the stay of Titus to complete it. The 
 express terms of his commission are, "That thou 
 shouldest set in order the things that are loanting.'''' 
 or, as the margin of our English version has it, the 
 
 * Potter. Discourse on Church Government, p. 101, 102. 
 
 Vol. 111. 25 
 
194 R 
 
 evteiv. 
 
 things that are '• left undone,''* and one of these 
 things, as the very next words indicate, was the 
 ordination of Presbyters — " and ordain Elders in 
 every city." Cyprian's assumption, therefore, that' 
 Paul ordained Presbyters in Crete, is without a 
 particle of evidence. There is not a syllable in 
 the whole narrative, from which we can infer that 
 there was a single Presbyter in the island at his 
 departure. The contrary inference is much the 
 more natural. If Titus was instructed to ordain 
 Presbyters in every city, the presumption is, that 
 none had been ordained hitherto. For, to turn the 
 edge of Cyprian's weapon against himself, it is 
 very improbable that the Apostle in organizing the 
 several churches, would begin to ordain Presby- 
 ters; would stop in the middle of his business; hie 
 off to another place ; do the same sort of half 
 work there; and so from city to city; and then 
 send Titus upon a traveUing tour to compensate 
 for the deficiencies occasioned by his haste, his 
 negligence, or his whim. But so it is. Titus 
 shall be Bishop of Crete. The proof of his title 
 will fail if there be no Presbyters there — Well, 
 then, there shall be Presbyters there, or else Paul 
 shall be convicted of neglecting his duty : — But 
 Paul did not neglect his duty; therefore there 
 ivere Presbyters in Crete when he left it ; therefore 
 Titus was a Bishop. Excellently well reasoned, 
 Mr. Rector ! And so—-' Fair play," interrupts an 
 
 * Ttt XSl'TT'OVTa. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 195 
 
 Episcopal voice, '• it does not follow from the re- 
 presentation of Cyprian, that Paul ordained some 
 elders in every city ; and left Titus to ordain the 
 rest. His words will bear another meaning : viz. 
 that the full complement of Presbyters were or- 
 dained in some cities, but none at all in others : 
 and that Titus was directed to ordain in these, 
 which would not have been necessary, had Pres- 
 byters possessed the power of ordination : seeing 
 that those of one district might have ordained for 
 another, as is done at this day by the Presbyte- 
 rians. And so, Mr. Reviewer, you are still in the 
 wrong, and Titus is a Bishop." 
 
 Not yet, if yQu please, dear Sir. Allowing your 
 premises, your conclusion is not good. The 
 Presbyters newly ordained had abundance of oc- 
 cupation, with very little experience. A proper 
 choice of officers in the first instance was all im- 
 portant to the infant churches. Titus had supe- 
 riour qualifications for making a wise selection ; 
 he could also resolve many difficulties which might 
 have been too hard for others. He was deputed 
 by the Apostle to set everything in order through 
 the island, that when he should be gone the stated 
 officers might have less trouble. In ordaining 
 , Presbyters he was doing the work of an Evange- 
 list. The churches were organized in the best 
 manner, and with the greatest expedition ; while 
 the Presbyters were permitted to superintend, 
 without distraction, the flocks just committed to 
 
1 96 Review. 
 
 their care. There is no example of the Apostle's 
 calling away Presbyters from their charges im- 
 mediately after their erection, and sending them 
 round the country to ordain others. This was the 
 appropriate employment of the apostles themselves., and 
 their assistants, the evangelists. They established 
 the evangelical order, and consigned it to the or- 
 dinary ministry. Presbyters, therefore, might have 
 been ordained in some cities, (although this is a 
 mere supposition ;) Titus might, notwithstanding, 
 ordain others in the remaining cities, and yet not 
 be Bishop of Crete. And certainly if his ordain- 
 ing some elders proves him to have been Bishop 
 of that island ; Paul's ordaining some, proves him 
 also to have been her Bishop. 
 
 Having exposed the weakness and vanity of the 
 argument drawn for diocesan Episcopacy from 
 the examples of Timothy and Titus, we might rest 
 the cause here: but we advance a step further, 
 and offer, what no laws of discussion exact from 
 us, to establish the negative. That is, the proof, 
 as we have manifested, that they i^ere such Bishops, 
 having miserably failed, we shall assign reasons 
 for our conviction that they were not. 
 
 1. The very terms of their commission favour us. 
 
 What does Paul say? That he gave Ephesus to 
 Timothy, and Crete to Titus, as their regular and 
 permanent charges } No : nothing hke it. The 
 former staid, at the Apostle's request, to resist the 
 inroads of false doctrine, which had begun to in- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 197 
 
 feet some of the public teachers. The latter to 
 finish the organization of the churches begun by 
 the Apostle himself Each, then, had a specific 
 charge, relating not to the government of settlea 
 churches, but to their preparation for it; or to the 
 correction of abuses for restoring and preserving 
 their purity. In both cases the charge was tem- 
 porary. Paul seized these occasions to furnish 
 his substitutes with written directions containing a 
 manual of general instruction to them, and through 
 them to the future ministry ; and, with such an ob- 
 ject in view, it was perfectly natural for him to 
 compress into his mstructions so great a compass 
 of matter. 
 
 2. Paul's mode of addressing Timothy implies 
 that Ephesus was not his peculiar charge. I be- 
 sought thcc, says he, to abide still at Ephesus. A 
 strange formula of appointment to a man's proper 
 station ! it carries a strong and evident implica- 
 tion, that Timothy remained there not because it 
 was his diocese, but to gratify the apostle by at- 
 tending to the exigencies of the pubhc service. It 
 bespeaks reluctance in Timothy to stay behind ; 
 Paul had to entreat him. All which, again, is en- 
 tirely natural upon the supposition of his being 
 the apostle's companion and assistant in planting 
 churches : but offensive and monstrous upon the 
 supposition of his being bishop of Ephesus. 
 
 " For why," says Daille', beseech a Bishop to 
 " remain in his diocese ? Is it not to beseech a 
 
1 98 Review. 
 
 man to stay in a place to which he is bound ? I 
 should not think it strange to beseech him to leave 
 it, if his service were needed elsewhere. But to 
 beseech him to abide in a place where his charge 
 obhges him to be, and which he cannot forsake 
 without offending God and neglecting his duty, is, 
 to say the truth, not a very civil entreaty ; as it 
 plainly presupposes that he has not his duty much 
 at heart, seeing one is under the necessity of be- 
 seeching him to do it."* 
 
 This is the language of good sense — No squeez- 
 ing; no twisting; no forcing; all which the hie- 
 rarchy must do when she puts into the mouth of 
 Paul such an awkward, bungling speech as, / be- 
 sought thee to abide still at Ephesus ; — for — " 1 con- 
 stituted thee bishop of Ephesus." We shall, how- 
 ever, suggest an improvement, for which we look 
 for the benedictions of some gentlemen in lawn ; 
 viz. That Timothy being Bishop of Ephesus, and 
 relishing confinement to his charge so little as to 
 lay the Apostle under a necessity of beseeching him 
 to stay in it, affords the best possible precedent 
 and plea for priests and Bishops who had rather 
 be detected any where than in their parishes and 
 dioceses — except — at tything time. 
 
 3. " If Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, it must 
 be when the first epistle was written. For it is in 
 that epistle in which he is said to receive his pre- 
 tended charge of exercising his Episcopal power 
 
 * Daii.le', ci-dessux, p. 23. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 199 
 
 in ordination and jurisdiction. But now this first 
 epistle was written wlien Paul was at Macedonia, 
 as the learned, both new and old, Papists and Pro- 
 testants, agree. And it was after this when Paul 
 came to Miletum accompanied with Timothy, and 
 sends for the elders of the Church of Ephesus 
 unto him, and commends the government of the 
 Church unto these Elders, whom he calls Bishops. 
 Now surely if Timothy had been constituted their 
 Bishop, (in the sense of our adversaries,) the 
 Apostle would not have called the elders Bishops 
 before their Bishop's face, and instead of giving a 
 charge to the Elders to feed the flock of Christ, 
 he would have given that charge to Timothy, and 
 not to them : and no doubt he would have given 
 some directions to the Elders how to carry them- 
 selves towards their Bishop. And because none 
 of these things were done, it is a clear demonstra- 
 tion to us, that Timothy was not at that time 
 Bishop of Ephesus. 
 
 " To avoid the force of this argument, there are 
 some that say, that Timothy was not made Bishop 
 of Ephesus till after Paul's first being a prisoner at 
 Rome, which was after his being at Miletum. But 
 these men, while they seek to avoid the Scylla of 
 one inconvenience, fall into the Charybdis of ano- 
 ther as great. For if Timothy was not made 
 Bishop till Paufs first being at Rome, then he was 
 not Bishop when the first Epistle was written to 
 him (which all agree to be written before that 
 
200 Review. 
 
 time.) And then it will also follow, that all that 
 charge that was laid upon him, both of ordination 
 and jurisdiction, and that entreating of him to abide 
 at Ephesus, was given to him not as to the Bishop 
 of Ephesus, (which he was not,) but as to an ex- 
 traordinary officer, sent thither upon special occa- 
 sion, with a purpose of returning when his work 
 imposed was finished. From both these conside- 
 rations we may safely conclude, 
 
 " That if Timothy were neither constituted 
 Bishop of Ephesus before Paul's first being pri- 
 soner at Rome, nor after ; then he was not con- 
 stituted Bishop at all. But he was neither con- 
 stituted Bishop before nor after, &c. Ergo, not 
 at all."* 
 
 By this time we trust the reader is satisfied that 
 Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus ; and, as it 
 is agreed that his functions and those of Titus 
 were alike, the conclusion is, that the latter was 
 not Bishop of Crete. What were they then } We 
 answer, they were extraordinary ojjicers, known in 
 the .j^postolic church by the name of evangelists; 
 and employed as travelling companiojis and assistants 
 of the Apostles, in propagating the gospel. 
 
 For this purpose their powers, like those of the 
 Apostles, were extraordinary ; their office too was 
 temporary ; and therefore their superiority over 
 Presbyters is no precedent nor warrant for retain- 
 ing such superiority in the permanent order of the 
 
 * Jus divinum ministerii Anglicani. p. 65, 66 4to. 1654. 
 
Essays on Kpiscopacy. 201 
 
 church. That such was the nature of the office 
 of an evangehst, we have testimony which our 
 Episcopal brethren will not dispute — the testimo- 
 ny of bishop Eusebius. 
 
 This celebrated historian tells us, that even in 
 the second century there were disciples of the 
 apostles, " who every where built upon the foun- 
 dations which the apostles had laid : preaching 
 the gospel, and scattering the salutary seeds of the 
 kingdom of heaven over the face of the earth. 
 And, moreover, very many of the disciples of that 
 day travelled abroad, and performed the work of 
 EVANGELISTS ; ardcutly ambitious of preaching 
 Christ to those who were yet wholly unacquainted 
 with the doctrine of faith, and to deliver to them 
 the scripture of the divine gospels. These, having 
 merely laid the foundations of the faith, and ordained 
 OTHER PASTORS, Committed to them the cultivation of 
 the churches newly planted ; while they themselves, sup- 
 ported by the grace and co-operation of God, proceeded 
 to OTHER COUNTRIES AND NATIONS. For €ven then, 
 many astonishing miracles of the divine spirit were 
 wrought by them."* 
 
 Eusebius has used the very expression of Paul 
 to Timothy, viz. the loork of an evangelist ; and if 
 the reader compare his description of that work 
 with the epistles to Timothy and Titus, and with 
 their history as it may be gathered from the New 
 Testament, he will perceive the most exact ac- 
 
 *EusEBn, Hi9. Ecchs. Lib- inc. 37. ed. Reading, T. i. p. 133. 
 Vol. III. 26 
 
202 Review. 
 
 cordance. That is, he will perceive the work of 
 an evangelist, like the work of an apostle, to have 
 been altogether extraordinary and temporary. 
 
 Paul took up Timothy at Lystra,* according to 
 the chronology of our bibles, in the year of Christ, 
 52. He accompanied the apostle in his travels ; 
 for at the close of the next year, 53, he was with 
 him at Berea, and staid there when Paul was sent 
 away by the brethren.t By the persons who con- 
 ducted Paul he received a message to come to 
 him at Athens; but did not join him, as appears, 
 till he was at Corinth,:j: the year after, 54. The 
 next two years he made a part of the apostle's 
 retinue ; was with him when he wrote both his 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians;|| and, at the close 
 of that period, was sent, with Erastus, into Mace- 
 donia, omno 56.§ Three years after he was de- 
 spatched to Corinth rlT and the next, anno 60, had 
 returned, and was with Paul when he wrote his 
 second Epistle to the church in that city.** He 
 was one of the seven distinguished personages 
 who composed the apostle's train that same year, 
 when he left Greece and went into Asia. 
 
 It was in this very journey that Paul sent for 
 the elders of Ephesus to Miletum, and laid upon 
 them that solemn charge to feed the flock over 
 which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers.ft 
 
 * Act. xvi. 1 — 4. t X''^"' 14. 
 
 % Act. xviii. 5. II 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. i. 1. 
 
 § Act. xix. 1, 10. 2;>. H 1 Cor. iv. 17. 
 
 *''2C6r.i. 1. ft XX. 28. 
 
Essays 071 Episcopacy. 203- 
 
 Timothy was there,* and if Bishop of Ephesus 
 at all, must have been appointed either then or 
 before. For as Paul never saw the Ephesian 
 brethren afterwards,t he never had afterwards 
 an opportunity of ordaining a Bishop over them. 
 If Timothy were their diocesan already, he had 
 been very little with them, as the narrative evinces. 
 And is it not strange that the whole of the apostle's 
 charge should be addressed to the Presbyters, 
 and not a syllable to their Bishop, nor to them on 
 their duty to him ? On the other hand, if he was 
 then ordained to his see, is not the silence of Paul 
 on the subject of their mutual duties equally mys- 
 terious ? That he should address them as having 
 the oversight of the flock ; when the fact was that it 
 belonged not to them but to Timothy, and should 
 do this to their Bishop's face without recognizing 
 his pre-eminence in the most distant manner ? 
 
 They who can swallow all this, when they are 
 boasting of the scriptural evidence that Timothy 
 was Bishop of Ephesus, have a most happy knack 
 at self-persuasion ! We own that our credulity 
 does not contain a passage for so large a camel ! 
 
 But let us see what becomes of Timothy. Whe- 
 ther he constantly attached himself afterwards to 
 the person of Paul we know not ; but we do know 
 that he was with him when a prisoner at Rome, 
 anno 64, and shared in his bonds.J 
 
 Let any sober man look at this itinerant life of 
 
 • 2 Cor. V. 5. 13. f v. 2.5. 38. J Heb. xiii. 23. 
 
204 Review. 
 
 Timothy, and ask whether his occupations resem- 
 bled those of a diocesan Bishop ? Whether there 
 is even the shadow of a presumption that he had 
 a fixed charge ? And whether there is not just as 
 good evidence of his being Bishop of Berea, of 
 Corinth, or of Thessalonica, as ofEphesus? 
 
 Titus is in the same situation. In the first 
 chapter of Paul's epistle to him, the object of his 
 stay at Crete is specified. The last chapter de- 
 clares it to have been temporary ; for Paul men- 
 tions his design of sending another to take his 
 place ; directs him to come without delay to him 
 at Nicopohs ; and to bring with him Zenas and 
 Apollos.* Whence, by the way, it is clear that 
 Titus had coadjutors in Crete. For Apollos was 
 an eloquent preacher of the gospel ; and in esti- 
 mation near the apostles themselves.t 
 
 On this point, the Inquirer, in the collection 
 under review, p. 132, had asked, 
 
 " Since Paul sent for Titus, after he had " set in order the 
 things that were wanting," to come to Nicopolis, took him 
 along with him to Rome, and then sent him into Dalmatia, 
 may not Titus be properly called an Evangelist; or atravel- 
 ling rather than a diocesan Bishop ?" 
 
 A very reasonable and modest question, one 
 would think. But Dr. Hobart, in his note, calls upon 
 Bishop Hoadley to shut the mouth of the Inquirer. 
 
 " Let Bishop Hoadley answer this inquiry, and silence the 
 only objection which the anti-Episcopalians can bring against 
 the evident superiority of Timothy and Titus over the other 
 • Tit. iii. 12, 13. f 1 Cor. i. 12. ii. 6. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 205 
 
 orders at Ephesus and Crete, that they were eztraoi-dinary of- 
 ficers ^ Evangelists, travelling Bishops. ' It is of small impor- 
 tance Avhether Timothy and Titus were fixed Bishops, properly 
 so called or not. Perhaps at the first plantation of churches 
 there was no such necessity affixed Bishops as was found af- 
 terwards ; or perhaps at first the superintendency of such per- 
 sons as Timothy and Titus was thought requisite in many dif- 
 ferent churches, as their several needs required. If so, their 
 office certainly was the same in all churches to which they 
 went ; and ordination a work reserved to such as they were, 
 persons superior to the settled Presbyters. But as to Ephe- 
 sus and Crete, it is manifest that Timothy and Titus were to 
 stay with the churches there, as long as their presence was riot 
 more wanted at other places: And, besides, if they did leave 
 these churches, there was as good reason that they should re- 
 turn 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. Nor is there the least 
 footstep in all antiquity, as far as it hath yet appeared, of any 
 attempt in the Presbyters of Ephesus or Crete, to take to them- 
 selves the offices appropriated in the forementioned Epistles, to 
 a superior order of men.' Hoadley'' s Def. of Episc. ch. i.— jEc?." 
 
 The anti-Episcopalians do not, so far as we un- 
 derstand tiiem, deny the " superiority of Timothy 
 and Titus over the other orders at Ephesus and 
 Crete." But they deny the inferences which the 
 jure divino prelatists draw from that superiority, 
 viz. 1. therefore., Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, 
 and Titus of Crete; and 2. therefore Diocesan 
 Episcopacy is of apostoHc institution. These 
 things they deny. They contend that a ministry 
 extraordinary and temporary cannot be a rule for 
 a ministry which is ordinary and permanent — that 
 
206 Review 
 
 functions which, hke those of the apostles and 
 evangehsts, admitted of no fixed charges, cannot 
 be a model for a sytem of fixed charges, as dio- 
 cesan Episcopacy undoubtedly is — that the me- 
 thod pursued in founding churches is no precedent 
 iox governing them when founded. It would be, in 
 their estimation, quite as fair and as reasonable, 
 to infer the form of government prescribed for a 
 conquered country, from the measures adopted by 
 the invaders for effecting and completing the con- 
 quest. Or to deduce the powers and jurisdiction 
 of the different departments in a civil constitution, 
 from the powers of those who set it up. This 
 would be most fallacious reasoning; and the 
 whole world would agree in rejecting it as not 
 only false but extremely dangerous. Yet it is pre- 
 cisely the fallacy of the Episcopal reasoning from 
 the powers of Timothy and Titus to those of or- 
 dinary rulers in the church. No. When we in- 
 quire who are the fixed officers, and what is the 
 fixed order of the church ? we must inquire, not 
 what apostles and evangelists did in executing 
 their peculiar trust ; but what officers and order 
 they fixed in the churches planted by their care. This, 
 and this alone, can be our pattern. In the history 
 of their proceedings we have the most incontes- 
 table evidence of their ordaining Presbyters in 
 fixed charges. But we challenge all the advocates 
 for Episcopacy to produce r single example of their 
 assigning a fixed charge to any officer above a 
 
Essai/s on Episcopacy. 207 
 
 Presbyter; or of their exercising, without imme- 
 diate inspiration in any settled church, a single act 
 of power which they refused to Presbyters. When 
 Hoadley tells us that fixed charges might not be 
 so necessary in those days as afterwards, he con- 
 fesses his inability to prove either that Timothy 
 and Titus were diocesan bishops ; or that dioce- 
 san Episcopacy has an apostolic sanction. For 
 if it were not, as a system of fixed charges, ne- 
 cessary then., the apostles did not then establish it. 
 If they did not then establish it, they never esta- 
 blished it at all ; for it cannot be pretended that 
 they left instructions for its introduction after- 
 wards. And if it was not then instituted, we reject 
 its claim ; if not then necessary, we must have 
 better authority than the prelates themselves to 
 satisfy us that it has been necessary at any period 
 since. Hoadley, therefore, with his ifs and per- 
 haps., instead of silencing our objection, has con- 
 firmed it. We drove the nail, and my lord of Win- 
 chester has most obligingly clenched it. Dr. Ho- 
 bart has our permission to draw it at his leisure. 
 
 We finish this scrptural view with observing, that 
 whatever may be the difficulty of Dr. Bowden, we 
 can see prelates in England without going to 
 Ephesus or Crete for spectacles : and that if no 
 more of prelacy had prevailed in the one, than 
 the scriptures show to have existed in the other, 
 it had been infinitely better, at this day, for the 
 most precious interests of Old England. 
 
208 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 In an early stage of this review, we joined issue 
 with our Episcopal brethren upon a proposition of 
 the Layman, viz. " The question of Episcopacy 
 is a question of fact, to be determined by a sound 
 interpretation of the sacred volume." We not 
 only consented, but insisted, that the question 
 should be decided by the scripture alone.* We 
 closed the scriptural argument in our last number, 
 and therefore, have closed the argument upon the 
 merits of the case. God's own word must contain 
 the law of his own house. The idea cannot be 
 admitted for a single moment, that those master- 
 principles, without which there could be no Chris- 
 tian order, nor any system of instituted worship, 
 are left unsettled in the rule of faith. Whatever 
 is to govern our consciences must have its foun- 
 dation here, and a foundation deep and strong. 
 We think we have demonstrated that the Epis- 
 copal claim has no such foundation. Who set up 
 the hierarchy, is a question not worth the expense 
 of a thought, seeing God has not appointed it in 
 his word. When we follow its advocates to the 
 ground of ecclesiastical history, we yield them a 
 courtesy which they have no right to expect. 
 The instant we cross the line of inspiration, we 
 are out of the territory where the only rightful 
 tribunal is erected, and where alone we shall per- 
 mit ourselves to be tried. 
 
 However, as the argument which prelacy de- 
 
 * See page 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 209 
 
 rives from the testimony of the fathers, is in truth 
 her best argument ; let us pay it the comphment 
 of an examination. Thus she states it from the 
 mouth of a bishop : 
 
 " Is it not reasonable to suppose that the primitive Fathers 
 of the church must have been well acquainted with the mode 
 of ecclesiastical government established by Christ and his 
 apostles 1 Now, their testimony is universally in our favour. 
 What course, then, have the enemies of Episcopacy for the 
 most part pursued 1 Why, they have endeavoured by every 
 art of misrepresentation to invalidate this testimony of the 
 Fathers. Ignatius Avas born before the death of St. John. 
 Seven of his Epistles have been proved by Bishop Pearson to 
 be genuine, to the satisfaction of the whole learned world. In 
 these Epistles lie repeatedly mentions the three orders of Bi- 
 shops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and speaks of the order of 
 Bishops as necessary in .the constitution of every Christian 
 church. All this has been done ; and still, the Presbyterian 
 teachers mislead the people, by artfully insinuating that none 
 of the writings are genuine which go under the name of Ig- 
 natius. Another artful method pursued by our opponents is 
 to collect all the errors into which the Fathers have fallen, 
 with respect to particular points of doctrine ; to paint these 
 errors in the blackest colours ; and when they have thus pre- 
 judiced the minds of the people against them, boldly to go on 
 to the preposterous conclusion, that the testimony of these 
 Fathers is not to be regarded when they stand forth as wit- 
 nesses to a matter of fact. But is this fair dealing? May not 
 a man of sincerity and truth be liable to errors, as to matters 
 of opinion ; and still be a true witness, as to things which he 
 has seen and heard ? 
 
 " Pursuing the usual mode of artful misrepresentation, our 
 Miscellanist has endeavoured to represent Jerome as favouring 
 the Presbyterian scheme of church government ; and with the 
 
 Vol. 111. ' 27 
 
210 Review. 
 
 same spirit, he abuses the church of England as too nearly 
 bordering on Popery. After seeing what has been pubhshed 
 on these subjects, if your opponent has any spark of modesty 
 remaining in his bosom, he will never produce the testimony 
 of Jerome in support of his cause."* 
 
 Thus, from the mouth of a priest : 
 
 " Here let me appeal to the common sense of every unpre- 
 judiced reader, to bear witness to the truth of the following 
 proposition. 
 
 " If we had only obscure hints given us in scripture of the 
 institution of this form of government by the Apostles, and if 
 at a very early period — as soon as any distinct mention is at all 
 made of the subject, this appears to be the only form of govern- 
 ment existing in the church, have we not the strongest possible 
 presumption, have we not absolute demonstration, that it was 
 of Apostolic original 1 Who were so likely to be acquainted 
 with the intentions, with the practices, with the institutions of 
 the Apostles, as their immediate successors ? If, then, we should 
 admit for a moment, (and really it is almost too great an out- 
 rage against sound reasoning, to be admitted even for a mo- 
 ment ;) I say, if we should admit, for the sake of argument, 
 that " the Classical or Presbyterial form of church government 
 was instituted by Christ and his Apostles," at what period was 
 the Episcopal introduced 1 When did this monstous innova- 
 tion upon primitive order find its way into the church of Christ? 
 At what period did the Bishops make the bold and successful 
 attempt of exalting themselves into " lords in God's heritage." 
 These are questions which the advocates of parity have never 
 yet been able to answer, which they never will be able to an- 
 swer. They tell us, indeed, of a change that must have taken 
 place at an early period, that Episcopacy is a corrupt inno- 
 vation ; but they can produce no proof on which to ground 
 these bold assertions. They are countenanced, in these as- 
 
 f Cornelius, Collec. p. 135- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 211 
 
 sertions, by none of the records of these times that have been 
 transmitted to us. It is a mere conjecture, a creature of the 
 imagination. It is conjectured that this change took place 
 immediately after the Apostolic age. It must be that this 
 change took place, or Presbyterian principles cannot be 
 maintained. Thus a mere conjecture on their part is to over- 
 balance the most solid and substantial proofs on ours. In order 
 to follow these aerial adventurers in their excursions, we are to 
 desert the broad and solid bottom of facts, and launch into the 
 regions of hypothesis and uncertainty. 
 
 " We say, then, and I hope it will be well remembered, that 
 from the earliest information which is given us concerning the 
 institutions and usages of the Christian church, it undeniably 
 appears, that there existed in it the three distinct orders of Bi- 
 shops, Presbyters, and Deacons. We say, that this circum- 
 stance amounts to demonstrative evidence, that these three 
 orders were of divine institution — were of Apostolic appoint- 
 ment." — " But we do not stop here. We maintain that to 
 suppose the form of government in the church of Christ to 
 have been so fundamentally altered at this time, is the wildest 
 imagination that ever entered into the head of man. Let us 
 contemplate the circumstances of this case. 
 
 " It is supposed that Christ and his Apostles instituted 
 originally but one order of ministers in his church, equal in 
 dignity and authority. It is i?)Wgined, that immediately after 
 their death, a number of aspiring individuals abolished this 
 primitive arrangement, elevated themselves to supreme autho- 
 rity in the church of Christ. Concerning the time at which 
 this innovation was effected, the advocates of Presbyterianism 
 are by no means agreed. The most learned among themj 
 however, admit that it must have taken place before the mid- 
 dle of the second century, about fo7-ti/ or fifty years after the 
 times of the Apostles. Blondkl allows that Episcopacy was 
 the established government of the church within forty years 
 after the Apostolic age. Bocuart assigns as the period of its 
 
212 Review. 
 
 origin, the age that immediately succeeded the Apostles. He 
 says it arose, paulo post Apostolos. Salmasius even allows 
 that this government prevailed in the church before the death 
 of the last of the Apostles. And, in fact, this is the only 
 period at which it can be supposed to have originated with 
 any degree of plausibility. It shall be my task to show that 
 it is altogether improbable, that it is almost impossible, that 
 any innovation upon primitive order and discipUne could have 
 been effectuated at this early period. 
 
 " Within forty years after the times of the Apostles, we are 
 told, that the Bishops, by a bold and successful effort, tram- 
 pled upon the rights and privileges of the Clergy, and elevated 
 themselves to the chair of supreme authority ! What ! Those 
 who were the immediate successors of the Apostles — those 
 who had received from these miraculous men the words of 
 eternal truth, the institutions of God's own appointment — so 
 soon forget the reverence and duty which they owed them — 
 so soon, with a rash and impious hand, strike away the foun- 
 dation of those venerable structures which they had erected ! 
 Would they not permit the Apostles to be cold in their graves 
 before they began to undermine and demolish their sacred 
 establishments'? Would such iniquitous proceedings have been 
 possible with men who exhibited, on all occasions, the warm- 
 est attachment to their Saviour, and to all his institutions "? 
 Will it be imagined that the good Ignatius, the venerable 
 Bishop of Antioch, he who triumphantly avowed that he dis- 
 regarded the pains of martyrdom, so that he could but attain 
 to the presence of Jesus Christ — Avill it be imagined that he 
 entered into a conspiracy to overthrow that government which 
 his Saviour had established in his church 1 Would the illus- 
 trious Polycarp, the pride and ornament of the churches of 
 Asia, have engaged in the execution of so foul an enterprise — 
 he, who, when commanded to blaspheme Christ, exclaimed, 
 " Four-score and six years have I served him, and he never 
 did me any harm ; how, then, shall 1 blaspheme my King 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 213 
 
 and my Saviour 1" Iii short, can all the pious Fathers tliat 
 succeeded these, be supposed to have co-operated in perfect- 
 ing the atrocious work which they had begun 1 These things 
 will not be credited. 
 
 " But even supposing that these pious men, whose meek 
 and unaspiring temper renders it altogether incredible that 
 they made any such sacrilegious attempt, were inclined to 
 obtain this pre-eminence in the church ; can it be imagined, 
 that the remaining Presbyters would have tvitnessed these 
 daring usurpations with indiffereiicc ? Would they have made 
 no effort to save themselves and their brethren from the con- 
 trol of so undue and illegitimate an authority 1 Could none 
 be found amongst them possessed of so much zeal in the ser- 
 vice of their divine master, so ardently attached to his holy 
 institutions, as to induce them to resist such a bold and im- 
 pious attempt 1 In short, would not such an attempt by a few 
 Presbyters, according to the uniform course of things, neces- 
 sarily have agitated and convulsed the church? Would not the 
 period of such an innovation have become a marked and pe- 
 culiar era in her existence ? Can the advocates of parity show 
 any thing in the history of man analagous to their supposed 
 change in ecclesiastical government at this time 1 Could ever 
 such a radical and important alteration have been produced in 
 any government, civil or ecclesiastical, without being accom- 
 panied by violence and convulsion ? We find that the congre- 
 gations, at this time, were extremely jealous of the authority 
 that was exercised over them. This jealousy made its appear- 
 ance even during the times of the Apostles. Some took it 
 upon themselves to call in question the authority of St. Paul, 
 others that of St. John. From the Epistle of Clemens to the 
 Corinthians, it would seem as if some disorders had arisen 
 amongst them from a similar source. Is it to be supposed 
 then that any number of Presbyters would have dared, would 
 have proved successful had they dared, to endeavour to accu- 
 mulate in their hands such undue authoritv as that which was 
 
214 Hevieiv. 
 
 claimed by Bishops 1 And even if we should allow thftt a 
 few Presbyters might in some places have had the talents and 
 address to elevate themselves to this superiority over their 
 brethren, is it probable, is it possible, that this took place at 
 the same time over the universal church 1 Can such a singular 
 coincidence of circumstances be reasonably imagined ? The 
 church had, at this time, widely extended herself over the Ro- 
 man empire. Did, then, the churches of Africa, of Asia, of 
 Europe, by a miraculous unanimity of opinion, enter at the 
 same moment into the determination to change their form of 
 government from the Presbyterial to the Episcopal ? I will 
 not do so much discredit to the understanding of any reader 
 as to imagine that he does not at once perceive the inadmis- 
 sibihty and the absurdity of such a supposition. 
 
 " Let us, however, suppose the most that our adversaries 
 can desire. Let us suppose that the primitive rulers of the 
 church were destitute of principle. Let us suppose them de- 
 void of attachment to the institutions of Christ. Let us sup- 
 pose that they waited every opportunity to promote their own 
 aggrandizement. Let us suppose the difficulties removed that 
 opposed them in their ascent towards the chair of Episcopal 
 authority. What was there, at this period, in the office of 
 Bishop to excite their desires, or to invite their exertions to 
 obtain it 1 The veneration attached to it, as yet, extended no 
 farther than to the family of the faithful. The cliurch was 
 on all hands encountered by the bitterest enemies. By ele- 
 vating themselves, therefore, to the pre-eminence of Bishops, 
 they only raised themselves to pre-eminence in difficulties, in 
 dangers, in deaths. Their blood was always the first that was 
 drunk by the sword of persecution. Their station only ex- 
 posed them to more certain and more horrid deaths. Was 
 an office of this kind an object of cupidity % Is it to be sup- 
 posed that great exertions would be made, many difficulties 
 encountered, to obtain it ? But I need say no more on this 
 part of the subject. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 215 
 
 " The idea that an alteration took place at this time in the 
 form of government originally established in the church of 
 Christ, is altogether unsupported by any proof. 
 
 " It is proved to be unfounded by unnumbered considera- 
 tions."* 
 
 After hearing the bishop and the priest, let us 
 hear also the Layman : 
 
 " Calvin found the whole Christian world in possession of 
 the Episcopal form of government. The most learned sup- 
 porters of the opposite doctrine scruple not to admit that 
 Bishops existed, universally, in the church, as distinct from, 
 and superior to, Presbyters, within forty or fifty years after 
 the last of the Apostles. Such is the concession of Blondel, 
 of Salmasius, of BocJiartus, of Baxter, of Doddridge. Some 
 of them, indeed, carry it up to a much earlier period ; Salma- 
 sius going so far as to admit that Episcopacy prevailed shortly 
 after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, and long before the 
 death of St. John. 
 
 " It is surely incumbent on those who advocate a form of 
 government admitted to be thus new, and thus opposed to the 
 early, universal, and uninterrupted practice of the church, to 
 give us the most convincing and unequivocal proof of the di- 
 vinity of their system. More especially when it is i-ecollected 
 that they can produce no record of a change ; but are obliged 
 to imagine one, in opposition to the uniform testimony of the 
 primitive fathers of the church. The age in which they sup- 
 pose a change to have taken place was a learned age, abound- 
 ing in authors of the first eminence. The most minute events 
 are recorded, and yet not a word is said of the revolution, 
 which some men talk of, so fundamental in its nature, and so 
 interesting in its consequences. The change, too, which they 
 imagine, must have been both instantaneous and universal ; 
 and this at a time when there were no Christian princes to 
 
 " Cyprian, No. V. Colhc. p. 144—147. 
 
216 Review. 
 
 promote it ; when no general council had met, or could meet 
 to establish it ; and when the fury of persecution cut off all 
 intercourse between distant churches ; leaving their Clergy, 
 also, something else to attend to than projects of usurpation. 
 Such are the strange and almost incredible absurdities into 
 which men will run, rather than give up a system to which 
 they have become wedded by educaton and by habit."* 
 
 The sum of the foregoing argument is this : 
 
 " Immediately after the death of the apostles, 
 the ivhole Christian icorld was Episcopal, and re- 
 mained so, without interruption, or question, for 
 fifteen hundred years — that no cause short of 
 Apostolic institution, can, with any show of rea- 
 son, be assigned for such an effect — that it is 
 absurd to suppose a sudden, universal, and suc- 
 cessful conspiracy, to change the primitive order 
 of the church — and therefore, that Episcopacy is, 
 at least, of apostohc origin." 
 
 Contracted into a more regular form, the argu- 
 ment stands thus : 
 
 That order which the church universal possess- 
 ed at, or shortly after, the death of the apostles, is 
 the order which they established and left : 
 
 But the order of the church universal, at, or 
 shortly after the death of the apostles, was Epis- 
 copal: 
 
 Therefore, Episcopacy is the order established 
 by the Apostles. 
 
 This reasoning appears, at first sight, to be con- 
 clusive. It certainly ought to be so, considering 
 
 ♦ Layman, No. VII. Colkc. p. 99. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 217 
 
 the interests which depend upon it, and the 
 triumph with which it is brought forward. Never- 
 theless, we more than suspect a fallacy in the rea- 
 soning itself, and an errour in the assumption 
 upon which it confessedly relies. 
 
 Supposing the fact to have been, as our Epis- 
 copal friends say it was, viz. that the accounts of 
 the state of tlie Christian church after the death of 
 the apostles, represent her, without an exception, 
 as under Episcopal organization, we should still 
 impeach the conclusion that Episcopacy was esta- 
 blished by the apostles. We acknowledge, that, 
 upon our principles, the phenomenon would be ex- 
 traordinary, and the difficulty great So great, that 
 did there exist no other records of the first con- 
 stitution of the church, than the testimony of the 
 primitive fathers ; and did this testimony declare 
 her to have been Episcopal, as that term is now 
 understood, there could be, in our apprehension, 
 no dispute about the matter. Common sense 
 would instruct us to decide according to the best 
 evidence we could get : that evidence would be 
 altogether in favour of the Episcopal claim, which, 
 therefore, no man in his senses, would think of 
 disputing. We say, such would be the result were 
 the testimony of the fathers correctly stated by the 
 hierarchy ; and had we no other documents or records 
 to consult. But we have other and better testi- 
 mony than that of the Fathers. We have the tes- 
 timony of the Apostles themselves : We have 
 Vol. ill. 28 
 
218 JR, 
 
 eview. 
 
 their own authentic records : We have the very 
 instrument in which the ascended Head of the 
 church has written her ivhole charter with the finger 
 of his unerring Spirit : We have the New Testa- 
 ment. This charter we have examined. We 
 have minutely discussed the parts upon which our 
 opponents rely: we have compared them with 
 other parts of the same instrument, and we have 
 proved that Episcopacy is not there. Admitting 
 then, what, however, we do not admit, that the 
 testimony of the fathers to Episcopacy is precise 
 and full, it would be nothing to us. They must 
 testify one of two things ,• either that the plan of 
 the hierarchy is laid down in the New Testament ; 
 or simply that it existed in their days. The for- 
 mer would refer to the written w^ord which we can 
 understand as well as themselves, if not much 
 better ; so that we should not take their assertion 
 for our interpretation. The latter could only fur- 
 nish us with a subject worthy of investigation; but 
 could not be a sohd foundation for so splendid 
 and ponderous a superstructure as the Episcopal 
 hierarchy. Were the language of the New Tes- 
 tament ambiguous throughout : did it contain no 
 interna] principles of satisfactory exposition : were 
 it, (which would render it a miraculous equivoque,) 
 were it equally adapted to an Episcopal, or an 
 Anti-episcopal, order ; in this event, too, the testi- 
 mony of the fathers would turn the balance. But 
 as neither its language nor its facts can be made. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 219 
 
 without negligence or violence, to accord with the 
 institutions of the hierarchy, she is not at liberty 
 to set off the testimony of the fathers against that 
 of the scripture ; and to infer that she is of apos- 
 tohcal extraction, merely because she was found 
 in being after her pretended spiritual progenitors 
 were dead. It never can be tolerated as sound 
 reasoning to determine the meaning of a law from 
 certain observances which are to be tried by the 
 law itself; and, by inference from extraneous facts ^ 
 to establish, as law, a point which the law does 
 not acknowledge. A question is at issue, whether 
 Episcopacy is of apostolic authority or not. The 
 law of God's house, penned by the apostles them- 
 selves, is produced ; and the verdict, upon trial, 
 is for the negative. The Episcopal counsel ap- 
 peals to the Fathers ; they depose, he says, that 
 Episcopacy was in actual existence, throughout 
 the Christian community, a little while after the 
 death of the Apostles ; and he insists that this fact 
 shall regulate the construction of the Christian law. 
 " By no means ;" replies the counsel on the 
 other side. " We accuse Episcopacy of corrvpting 
 the Christian institutions ; and her counsel pleads 
 the early existence of her alleged crime, as a proof 
 of her having conformed to the will of the Law- 
 giver ; and that the fact of her having committed 
 it from nearly the time of promulging the law, is 
 a demonstration that the law not only allows but 
 enjoins the deed ! !"' 
 
220 Review. 
 
 The United States are a republic, with a single 
 executive periodically chosen. Suppose that three 
 hundred years hence they should be under the 
 reign of a hereditary monarch ; and the question 
 should then be started whether this was the ori- 
 ginal order or not ? Those who favour the 
 negative go back to the written constitution, 
 framed in 1787, and show that a hereditary mo- 
 narchy was never contemplated in that instru- 
 ment. Others contend that " The expressions of 
 the constitution are indefinite; there are some 
 things, indeed, which look a little republican-like, 
 and might be accommodated to the infant state of 
 the nation ; but whoever shall consider the pur- 
 poses of the order therein prescribed, and the na- 
 ture of the powers therein granted, will clearly per- 
 ceive that the one cannot be attained, nor the 
 other exercised, but in a hereditary monarchy." 
 Well, the constitution is produced; it is examined 
 again and again; but no hereditary monarchy 
 is recognized there; it breathes repubhcanism 
 throughout : What, now, would be thought of a 
 man, who should gravely answer, " The concur- 
 rent testimony of all the historians of those times 
 is, that at, or very shortly after, the death of the 
 members of the convention of 1787, monarchy 
 prevailed throughout the United States ; and this 
 is proof positive, that it was established by the 
 convention." 
 
 " Nay," would the first rejoin, " your facts are 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 221 
 
 of no avail. The question is, not what prevailed 
 after the constitution was adopted : but what is 
 the constitution itself? There it is : let it argue 
 its own cause." 
 
 " But," says the other, " how could so great a 
 change, as that from a repubhc to a monarchy, 
 happen in so short a time ? and that without re- 
 sistance, or, what is still more astonishing, with- 
 out notice ?" 
 
 "You may settle that, « retorts the first," at your 
 leisure. That there has been a material change, 
 I see as clearly as the hght : hoiv that change was 
 effected, is none oi^my concern. It is enough for 
 me that the constitution, fairly interpreted, knows 
 nothing of the existing monarchy." 
 
 Every child can perceive who would have the 
 best of this argument ; and it is just such an argu- 
 ment as we are managing with the Episcopahans. 
 Granting them all they ask concerning the testi- 
 mony of the fathers, their conclusion is " good for 
 nothing," because it concludes, as we have abun- 
 dantly shown, against the New Testament itself 
 It is vain to declaim upon the improbability and 
 impossibility of so sudden and universal a transi- 
 tion from Presbytery to Episcopacy, as they main- 
 tain must have taken place upon our plan. The 
 revolution would have been very extraordinary, we 
 confess. But many very extraordinary thmgs are 
 very true. All that the hierarchy gains by the 
 testimony of the fathers, even when we allow her 
 
222 Review. 
 
 to state it in her own way, is an extraordinary 
 fact which she cannot explain for herself; and, 
 therefore, insists that we shall explain it, or else 
 bow the knee. We excuse ourselves. We are 
 not compelled to the latter, and we a?;e under no 
 obligation to the former. The controversy must 
 perpetually return to a simple issue, viz. Whether 
 Episcopacy and the New Testament agree or not .'' 
 We have proved, as we think, that they are irre- 
 concileable. This is enough. Here is the New 
 Testament on one side, and the hierarchy on the 
 other. Conceding that she had very early pos- 
 session of the church, what follows } Nothing but 
 that order of the church was very early corrupted ! 
 Whether we can or cannot trace the steps and fix 
 the date of this corruption, does not alter the 
 case. Corruption is corruption still. If we can 
 tell nothing about the rise of the hierarchy, our 
 ignorance does not destroy its contrariety to the 
 scripture. If we could ascertain the very hour of 
 its rise, the discovery would not increase that 
 contrariety. Our ignorance and our knowledge 
 on this subject leave the original question exactly 
 where they found it. A thousand volumes may be 
 written ; and after all, the final appeal must be 
 " to the law and to the testimony." 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that should we even ac- 
 quiesce in the account which our episcopal bre- 
 thren give of the primitive testimony, we are 
 justified in denying their conclusion : seeing that 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 223 
 
 all inferences against tlie decision of the New Tes- 
 tament itself, are necessarily invalid and false, be 
 the facts from which they are deduced ever so 
 many, ever so strong, or ever so indisputable. 
 
 But although, in our own opinion, the ground 
 on which the prelatists have chosen to make their 
 principal stand, aftbrds them so little advantage 
 as not to repay the trouble of dislodging them, we 
 shall, for the sake of their further satisfaction, 
 proceed to do them this service also. 
 
 They have heaped assertion upon assertion, 
 that the testimony of the primitive church is uni- 
 versally in their favour ; so explicitly and decisively 
 in their favour, that if Episcopacy had not been 
 instituted by apostohc authority, the whole Chris- 
 tian church must suddenly have changed her gov- 
 ernment from one end of the world to the other, 
 without any adequate cause, and without any op- 
 portunity of previous concert.* 
 
 When our opponents talk of the early and gene- 
 ral prevalence of episcopacy, they must mean 
 episcopacy as embraced by themselves^ i. e. as restrict- 
 ing the power of ordination and government to the 
 superior order of clergy called bishops ; or else they 
 are fighting for a shadow. 
 
 We deny their representation and shall prove 
 it to be false.t 
 
 * See the foregoing extracts. 
 
 t We cannot forbear remarking, by the way, a striking coinci- 
 dence between the popish and the episcopal melliod of defence. 
 
224 Review. 
 
 More than fourteen hundred years ago the supe- 
 riority of the Prelates to Presbyters was attacked, 
 in the most direct and open manner, as having no 
 authority from our Lord Jesus Christ. The ban- 
 ner of opposition was raised not by a mean and 
 obscure declaimer; but by a most consummate 
 Theologian. •' By one who, in the judgment of 
 
 When they begin to feel themselves pressed, they betake them- 
 selves to the scriptures ; but finding themselves hard pushed here, 
 they retreat to the fathers. There is scarcely a peculiarity of 
 popery for which some papal polemics do not pretend to have their 
 sanction. Take a sample. 
 
 "They of your" (the protestant) "side, that have read the fa- 
 thers of that unspotted church, can well testify (and if any deny 
 it, it shall be presently shown) that the Doctors, Pastors, and 
 Fathers of that church do allow of traditions ; that they acknow- 
 ledge the real presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament of 
 the altar : that they exhorted the people to confess their sins unto 
 their ghostly fathers : that they affirmed, that Priests have power 
 to forgive sins : that they taught, that there is a purgatory : that 
 prayer for the dead is both commendable and godly : that there is 
 Limbus Patrum ; and that our Saviour descended into hell, to de- 
 liver the ancient fathers of the Old Testament ; because before his 
 passion none ever entered into heaven ; that prayer to saints and 
 use of holy images was of great account amongst them : that man 
 had free-will, and that for his meritorious works he receiveth, 
 through the assistance of God's grace, the bliss of everlasting hap- 
 piness. 
 
 " Now would I fain know whether of both have the true Reli- 
 gion, they that hold all these above said points, with the primitive 
 Church ; or they that do most vehemently contradict and gainsay 
 them ? They that do not disagree with that holy church in any 
 point of religion; or they that agree with it but in very few, and 
 disagree in almost all ? 
 
 "Will you say, that these fathers maintained these opinions, 
 contrary to the word of God ? Why you know that they were 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 225 
 
 « Erasmus, was, without controversy, by far the 
 most learned and most eloquent of all the Chris- 
 tians ; and the prince of Christian Divines."* By 
 the illustrious JEROME-t 
 
 Thus he lays down both doctrine and fact rela- 
 tive to the government of the church, in his com- 
 mentary on Titus 1. 5. 
 
 the pillars of Christianity, the champions of Christ his church, 
 and of the true Catholic religion, which they most learnedly de- 
 fended against diverse heresies ; and therefore spent all their time 
 in a most serious study of the holy scripture. Or will you say, 
 that although they knew the scriptures to repugn, yet they brought 
 in the aforesaid opinions by malice and corrupt intentions ? Why 
 yourselves cannot deny, but that they lived most holy and virtuous 
 lives, free from all malicious corrupting, or perverting of God's 
 holy word, and by their holy lives are now made worthy to reign 
 with God in his glory. Insomuch as their admirable learning 
 may sufficiently cross out all suspicion of ignorant error; and their 
 innocent sanctity freeth us from all mistrust of malicious corrup- 
 tion." Challenge of a Jesuit to BishojJ Usher. 
 
 In the course of his full and elaborate answer to this challenge. 
 Usher quotes Cardinal Bellarrnine as one " who would face us down 
 that all the ancients both Greek and Latin, from the very time of the 
 Apostles, did constantly teach that there was a purgatory. Where- 
 as," replies Usher, " his own partners could tell him in his ear, 
 that in the ancient writers there is almost 7io mention of purgatory ; 
 especially in the Greek writers." Usher's Answer, Sfc. p. 170, 4to. 
 1625. 
 
 For "Purgatory," put "Episcopacy," and you will see pretty 
 nearly how the account stands between eminent Episcopalians 
 themselves. 
 
 * We quote the words of one who was assuredly uo friend to 
 our cause, vid. Cave, His. Litt. Script: Eccles. p. 171. Ed. 
 1720. Fol. 
 
 t Prosper, who was nearly his cotemporary, calls him magisfer 
 mundi: i. e. the teacher of the world. lb. 
 
 Vol. III. 29 
 
226 Review. 
 
 That thou shouldest ordain Presbyters in every 
 city^ as I had appointed thee* — " What sort of Pres- 
 
 * " Qui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari, in consequentibus dis- 
 serens hoc ait: Si qui est sine crimine, uuius uxoris vir," et cae- 
 tera : postea intulit, " Oportet. n. Episcopum sine crimine esse, 
 tanquam Dei dispeusatorera." Idem est ergo Presbyter, qui et 
 Episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu, stadia in religione fierent, 
 et dieeretur in populis : " Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autetn 
 Cephse :" communi Preshyterorum consilio ecclesiae gubernaban- 
 tur, Postquam vero unusquisque eos, quos baptizaverat, suos pu- 
 tabat esse, non Christi : in toto orbe decretum est, ut umis de Pres- 
 hyteris electus swperjjoneretur ceeteris, ad quern omnis ecclesia eura 
 pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Putet aliquis non 
 scripturarum, sed nostram, esse sententiam Episcopum et Presby- 
 terum unum esse ; et aliud setatis, aliud esse nomeu officii : relegat 
 Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis : Paulus et Timotheus 
 servi Jesu Christi, omnibus Sanctis in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Phihp- 
 pis, cum Episcopis et Diaconis, gratia vobis et pax, et reliqua. 
 Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae, et certe in una civitate flutes ut 
 nuncupantur, Episcopi esse non poterant. Sed quia eosdem Episco- 
 pos illo tempore quos et Preshyleros appellabant, propterea indiffe- 
 reuter de Episcopis quasi de Presbyteris est locutus. Adhuc hoc 
 alicui videatur ambiguum, nisi altero testimouio comprobetur. In 
 Actibus Apostolorum scriptum est, quod cum veuisset Apostolus 
 Miletum, raiserit Ephesum, et vocaverit Presbyteros ecclesiae ejus- 
 dem, quibus postea inter caetera sit locutus ; attendite vobis, et omni 
 gregi in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos, pascere ecclesiam 
 Domini quam acquisivit per sanguinem suum. Et hoc diligentius 
 observate, quo modo unius civitatis Ephesi Presbyteros vocans, 
 postea eosdem Episcopos dixerit. — H2ec propterea, ut ostenderemus 
 apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos et Episcopos. Pau- 
 latim vero, ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem 
 solicitudinem esse delatam. — Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex ec- 
 clesice consuetudine ei, qui sibi propositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita 
 Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine qunm dispositionis domi- 
 nicce veritate, Presbyteris esse majores, Hieronymi Com : in Tit: 
 I. I. Opp. Tom. VI. p. 168 ed : Victorii, Paris, 1623. Fol 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 227 
 
 byters ought to be ordained he shows afterwards : 
 If any be blameless.^ the husband of one ivife^ &c. and 
 then adds, for a bishop must be blameless., as the 
 steward of God., «fec. A Presbyter., therefore, is the 
 same as a bishop : and before there were, by the in- 
 stigation of the devil., parties in rehgion ; and it was 
 said among different people, / am of Paid., and I 
 of Jipollos., and I of Cephas., the churches were 
 governed by the joint counsel of the Presbyters. But 
 afterwards^ when every one accounted those whom 
 he baptized as belonging to himself and not to 
 Christ, it was decreed throughout the ivhole ivorld 
 that one, chosen from among the Presbyters, 
 should be put over the rest, and that the whole 
 care of the church should be committed to him, 
 and the seeds of schisms taken away. 
 
 " Should any one think that this is my private 
 opinion, and not the doctrine of the scriptures, let 
 him read the words of the apostle in his epistle to 
 the Phihppians ; ' Paul and Timotheus, the ser- 
 vants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ 
 Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and 
 deacons,' &:c. Philippi, is a single city of Mace- 
 donia ; and certainly in one city there could not 
 be several bishops as they are now styled ; but as 
 they, at that time, called the very same persons 
 bishops whom they called Presbyters, the Apostle 
 has spoken without distinction of bishops as 
 Presbyters. 
 
 " Should this matter yet appear doubtful to any 
 
228 Review. 
 
 one, unless it be proved by an additional testi- 
 mony ; it is written in the acts of the Apostles, 
 that when Paul had come to Miletum, he sent to 
 Ephesus and called the Presbyters of that church, 
 and among other things said to them, ' take heed 
 to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy 
 Spirit hath made you bishops.' Take particular 
 notice, that calling the Presbyters of the single 
 city of Ephesus, he afterwards names the same 
 persons Bishops." After further quotations from 
 the epistle to the Hebrews, and from Peter, he 
 proceeds : " Our intention in these remarks is to 
 show, that, among the ancients. Presbyters and 
 Bishops ivere the very same. But that by little 
 AND little, that the plants of dissentions might be 
 plucked up, the whole concern was divolved upon 
 an individual. As the Presbyters, therefore, know 
 that they are subjected, by the custom of the 
 church, to him who is set over them ; so let the 
 Bishops know, that they are greater than Presby- 
 ters more by custom, than by any real appoint- 
 ment OF CHRIST." 
 
 He pursues the same argument, with great point, 
 in his famous Epistle to Evagrius, asserting and 
 proving from the Scriptures, that in the beginning 
 and during the Apostles' days, a Bishop and a 
 Presbyter were the same thing. He then goes on: 
 "As to the fact, that afterwards, one was elect- 
 ed to preside over the rest, this was done as a 
 remedy against schism ; lest every one drawing 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 229 
 
 his proselytes to himself, should rend the church 
 oi Christ. For even at Alexandria, from the 
 Evangelist Mark to the Bishops Heraclas and 
 Dionysius, the Presbyters always chose one of 
 their number, placed him in a superior station, 
 and gave him the title of Bishop : in the same 
 manner as if an army should make an emperor ; 
 or the deacons should choose from among them- 
 selves, one whom they knew to be particularly 
 active, and should call him arch-deacon. For, 
 excepting ordination, what is done by a Bishop, 
 which may not be done by a Presbyter? Nor is it 
 to be supposed, that the church should be one 
 thing at Rome, and another in all the world be- 
 sides. Both France and Britain, and Africa, and 
 Persia, and the East, and India, and all the bar- 
 barous nations worship one Christ, observe one 
 rule of truth. If you demand authority, the globe 
 is greater than a city. Wherever a Bishop shall 
 be found, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or 
 Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or 
 Tanis, he has the same pretensions, the same 
 priesthood."* 
 
 * Quod autem postea unuselectus est, qui caeteris prseponeretur, 
 in schismatis remedium factum est : ue unusquisque ad se trahens 
 Christi Ecclesiam rumperet. Nam et Alexaudrise a Marco Evan- 
 gelista usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, freshyteri 
 semper unitm ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu coUocatum, Episcopum 
 nominahant : quomodo si exercitus imperatorem facial ; aut dia- 
 coni eligant de se, quem industrium noverint, & archidiaconum 
 voceni. Q^uid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, Episcopus, quod pres- 
 
230 Revieiv. 
 
 Here is an account of the origin and progress 
 of Episcopacy, by a Father whom the Episcopa- 
 Hans themselves admit to h^ave been the most able 
 and learned man of his age ; and how contradic- 
 tory it is to their own account, the reader will be 
 at no loss to perceive, when he shall have followed 
 us through an analysis of its several parts. 
 
 1. Jerome expressly denies the superiority of 
 Bishops to Presbyters, by divine right. To prove 
 his assertion on this head, he goes directly to the 
 scriptures ; and argues, aB the advocates of parity 
 do, from the interchangeable titles of Bishop and 
 Presbyter ; from the directions given to them with- 
 out the least intimation of difference in their autho- 
 rity; and from the powers of Presbyters, undis- 
 puted in his day. It is very true, that the reasoning 
 from names, is said, by those whom it troubles, to 
 be " miserable sophistry," and " good for nothing :" 
 But as Jerome advances it with the utmost confi- 
 dence, they might have forborne such a compli- 
 ment to the " prince of divines" in the fourth 
 century ; especially as none of his cotemporaries, 
 so far as we recollect, ever attempted to answer 
 
 byter non facial ? Nee altera Romanae urbis Ecclesia, altera to- 
 lius orbis existimanda esc. Et Gallise, & Brittaniae, & Africa, & 
 Persis, & Oriens, & ludia, & omiies barbarai uationes unum 
 Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatls. Si auc- 
 toritas quajritur, orbis major est urbe. Ubicumque fuerit Episco- 
 pus, sive Romse, sive Eugubii, sive Coustantinopoli, sive Rhegii, 
 sive Alexandrise, sive Taiiis; ejusderameriti, ejusdem & saccrdotii. 
 Hieron. 0pp. T. II. p. 624. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 231 
 
 it. It is a little strange that laymen, and clergy- 
 men, deacons, priests, and bishops, should all be 
 silenced by a page of " miserable sophistry !" 
 
 2. Jerome states it, as a historical fact, that, in 
 the original constitution of the church, before the 
 devil had as much influence as he acquired after- 
 wards, the churches ivere governed by the joint counsels 
 of the Presbyters. 
 
 3. Jerome states it as a historical fact, that this 
 government of the churches, by Presbyters alone, 
 continued until, for the avoiding of scandalous 
 quarrels and schisms, it was thought expedient to 
 alter it. " Afterwards,'*'' says he, " when every one 
 accounted those whom he baptized as belonging 
 to himself, and not to Christ, it was decreed through- 
 out the tvhole world, that one, chosen from among 
 the Presbyters, should be put over the rest, and 
 that the whole care of the church should be com- 
 mitted to him." 
 
 4. Jerome states it as a historical fact, that this 
 change in the government of the church — this 
 creation of a superiour order of ministers, took 
 place, not at once, but by degrees — " Paulatim,^'' 
 says he, " by little and little." The precise date 
 on which this innovation upon primitive order 
 commenced, he does not mention; but he says 
 positively, that it did not take place till the factious 
 spirit of the Corinthians had spread itself in dif- 
 ferent countries, to an alarming extent. " In 
 populis,''^ is his expression. Assuredly, this was 
 
232 Review. 
 
 not the work of a day. It had not been accom- 
 phshed when the apostoUc epistles were written, 
 because Jerome appeals to these for proof that the 
 churches were then governed by the joint counsels 
 of Presbyters ; and it is incredible that such 
 ruinous dissensions, had they existed, should not 
 have been noticed in letters to others beside the 
 Corinthians. The disease indeed, was of a nature 
 to spread rapidly ; but still it must have time to 
 travel. With all the zeal of Satan himself, and of 
 a parcel of wicked or foolish clergymen to help 
 him, it could not march from people to people, 
 and clime to clime, but in a course of years. If 
 Episcopacy was the apostolic cure for schism, the 
 contagion must have smitten the nations like a 
 flash of hghtning. This would have been quite 
 as extraordinary as an instantaneous change of 
 government ; and would have afforded full as 
 much scope for pretty declamation, as the dream 
 of such a change, which Cyprian and the Layman 
 insist we shall dream whether we will or not. No : 
 The progress of the mischief was gradual, and so, 
 according to Jerome, was the progress of the re- 
 medy which the wisdom of the times devised.* 
 
 * Our opponents, who contend that nothing can be concluded 
 from the proaiiscuous use of the scriptural titles of office, are yet 
 compelled to acknowledge that Bishop and Presbyter were after- 
 wards separated and restricted, the former to the superiour, and the 
 latter to the inferiour order of ministers. We would ask them when 
 and why this was done ? If it was not necessai'y to distinguish 
 these officers by specific titles in the apostles' day, ivhat necessity 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 233 
 
 We agree with them, who think that the experi- 
 ment introduced more evil than it banished.* 
 
 5. Jerome states as historical facts ^ that the ele- 
 vation of one Presbyter over the others, was a hu- 
 man contrivance ; — -was not imposed by authority, 
 
 was there for such a distinction afterwards ? The church might 
 have gone on, as she began, to this very hour ; and what would 
 have been the harm ? Nay, there was a necessity for the distinction ; 
 and Jerome has blown the secret. When one of the Presbyters was 
 set over the heads of the others, there was a new officer, and he 
 wanted a name. So they appropriated the term Bishop to him ; 
 and thus avoided the odium of inventing a title unknown to the 
 scripture. The people, no doubt, were told that there was no 
 material alteration in the scriptural order ; and hearing nothing but 
 a name to which they had always been accustomed, they were the 
 less startled. The Trojan horse over again! 
 
 * One thing is ol)vious. Had there never been, in the persons 
 of the prelates, a sort of spiritual noblesse ; there could never have 
 been, in the person of the Pope, a spiritual monarch. For the very 
 same reason that a Bishop was appointed to preserve unity among 
 the Presbyters, it was necessary, in process of time, to appoint an 
 Archbishop for preserving unity among the bishops; for we never 
 yet heard, that increase of power makes its possessors less aspiring. 
 In the same manner a patriarch became necessary to keep their 
 graces the Archbishops in order : and finally, our sovereign lord 
 the Pope, to look after the patriarchs ! The analogy is perfect ; the 
 reasoning one ; and the progression regular. What a beautiful 
 pile! How correct its proportions,! how elegant its workmanship! 
 how compact and firm its structure ! the Christian people at the 
 bottom ; rising above them, the preaching deacons: next in order, 
 the Presbyters ; above them, the Bishops ; these support the Arch- 
 bishops, over whom tower the patriarchs ; and one universal 
 Bishop- terminates the whole. Thus this glorious Babylonish edi- 
 fice, having for its base the Christian world, tapers off, by exquisite 
 gradations, into " his holiness'' at Rome. 
 Vol. III. 30 
 
234 Review. 
 
 but crept in by custom ; — and that the Presbyters of 
 his day, knew this very well. As^ therefore^ says he, 
 the Presbyters know that they are subjected to their 
 superiour by custom ; so let the bishops know that they 
 are above the Presbyters, rather by the custom of the 
 CHURCH, than by the Lord's appointment. 
 
 6. Jerome states it as a historical fact., that the 
 first bishops were made by the Presbyters them- 
 selves ; and consequently they could neither have, 
 nor communicate any authority above that of 
 Presbyters. " Afterwards,'''' says he, " to prevent 
 schism, one was elected to preside over the rest." 
 Elected and commissioned by whom.^ By the 
 Presbyters : for he immediately gives you a broad 
 fact which it is impossible to explain away. "At 
 Alexandria," he tells you, "from the evangelist 
 Mark to the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius," 
 i. e. till about the middle of the third century, " the 
 Presbyters always chose one of their number, placed 
 him in a superiour station, and gave him the title of 
 Bishop.'''' 
 
 We have not forgotten the gloss put upon this 
 passage, by Detector, in the collection under re- 
 view. 
 
 " The truth is," says he, " that Jerome affords no authority 
 for this assertion. In his Epistle to Evag. he says, " Nam 
 et Alexandrise, a Marco Evangehsta usque ad Heraclam et 
 Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, 
 excelsiori gradu coUocatum, Episcopum no77iinabant, (\}xorciodiO 
 si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi eligant de se quem 
 indubtriuni noverint, et archidiaconum vocent." " At Alex- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 235 
 
 andria, from Mark down to Heraclas and Dionysius the 
 Bishops, the Presbyters always named one, who being chosen 
 from among themselves, they called their Bishop, he being 
 placed in a higher station, in the same manner as if an army 
 should make their general, &.c." Does St. Jerome here de- 
 clare, as the fictitious '* Clemens " asserts, that " the Presbyters 
 ordained their Bishop 1" No ; Jerome merely asserts, that the 
 Presbyters named, chose one to be their Bishop. Does it hence 
 follow, that they gave him his commission ; that they ordained 
 him? Does it always follow, that because an army choose their 
 general, he does not receive his commission from the supreme 
 authority of the state 1"* 
 
 With all deference to this learned critic, we 
 cannot help our opinion, that the appointment, or, 
 if you please, ordination, of the first bishops by 
 Presbyters, not only follows from, the words of Je- 
 rome, but is plainly asserted by them. 
 
 Dr. Hobart, overlooking the Roman idiom, has 
 thrown into his English, an ambiguity which does 
 not exist in the Latin of Jerome. According to 
 the well known genius of that language, especially 
 in writers who condense their thoughts, a verb 
 governing one or more participles, in the con- 
 struction before us, expresses the same meaning, 
 though with greater elegance, as would be ex- 
 pressed by verbs instead of participles.t It is 
 
 * Detector, No. 1. Collec. p. 84. 
 
 t Ex. gr. lu Caesar's description of the bridge which he con- 
 structed over the Rhine, the first sentence is exactly analogous to 
 the sentence of Jerome : " Tigna bina sesquipedalia, paullum ah 
 imo prtgacuta, dimensa ad altitudinem flumiuis, intervallo pedum 
 duorum inter se jungebat." De Bello Gallico. Lib. IV. c. 17. p. 
 187. ed. OuDKNORPii. 4to. 1737. 
 
236 Review. 
 
 very possible that the Detector might not use this 
 construction ; but then the Detector does not write 
 Latin hke old Jerome. We should display the 
 sentence at length, converting the participles into 
 verbs, were it not for fear of affronting a scholar 
 who insists that he has " sufficient learning to de- 
 fend the Episcopal church."* 
 
 " The truth is," that this " famous " testimony 
 of Jerome, points out, in the process of bishop- 
 making, but one agency, and that is the agency of 
 Presbyters. Dr. H. himself has unwittingly con- 
 firmed our interpretation in the very paragraph 
 where he questions it. His words are these: 
 "Jerome merely asserts that the Presbyters named, 
 chose one to be their bishop." Not merely this ; for 
 the words which Dr. H. renders " being placed in 
 a higher station," are under the very same con- 
 nection and government with the words which he 
 renders, "being chosen from among themselves ;" 
 and if, as he has admitted, the latter declare a 
 bishop to have been elected by the Presbyters, then, 
 himself being judge, the former must declare him 
 to have been commissioned by them. This is an 
 awkward instance of felo de se ; yet a proof, how 
 properly the Reverend critic has assumed the ap- 
 
 We humbly apprehend that Caesar had as much to do in sharf- 
 ening and measuring the beams, as he had in jommg- them ; and 
 did not mean to say that the last operation was performed by hia 
 own hands, and the former by his ivorJcmen. 
 
 * Hobart's Apology, p. 20. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 237 
 
 pellation of Detector ; for he has completely detect- 
 ed himself, and no one else ! 
 
 That we rightly construe Jerome's assertion, is 
 clear, from the scope of his argument, and from 
 his phraseology toward the close of the paragraph. 
 
 His position is, that a Bishop and a Presbyter 
 were, at first, the same officer. And so notorious 
 was the fact, that he appeals to the history of the 
 church in Alexandria, as an instance which lasted 
 a century and a half, that when Bishops were 
 made, they were made by Presbyters. But had 
 Dr. H.'s construction been right, had Prelates 
 alone ordained other prelates, the fact, instead of 
 being /or Jerome, would have been directly against 
 himT and surely he was not so dull as to have 
 overlooked this circumstance; although it seems 
 to have escaped the notice of some of his saga- 
 cious commentators. 
 
 Jerome says, moreover, that Presbyters origi- 
 nally became Bishops, much in the same way as if 
 an army should " make an Emperor; or the dea- 
 cons should elect one of themselves, and call him 
 
 Arch-deacon^ 
 
 The Detector has given the passage a twist, in 
 the hope of twisting Jerome out, and tivisting the 
 hierarchy in. " Does it ahoays follow," he de- 
 mands, " that because an army choose their gene- 
 ral, he does not receive his commission from the 
 supreme authority of the state ?" Certainly not : 
 Although he would have gratified some of his 
 
238 Review. 
 
 readers by producing examples of the armies of 
 those ages choosing their general, and remitting 
 him to a higher authority for his commission. 
 But how came the Detector to alter Jerome's 
 phrase from " making^'' to " choosing'''' a general ? 
 We always thought, that making and commission- 
 ing an officer, are the same thing. Further, how 
 came the Detector to render Jerome's " impera- 
 tor''' by '-'- generalT'' Almost all the world, (for the 
 Detector seems to be an exception,) knows that 
 "• Imperator^'''' in Jerome's day, signified not " gene- 
 ral," but " Emperor ;" and was the highest official 
 title of the Roman monarchs. It is further known, 
 that the army had, on more occasions than one, 
 made an emperor ; and that this was all the commis- 
 sion he had. " You inquire," says Jerome, " how 
 the bishops were at first appointed. Suppose the 
 deacons should get together and elect one of their 
 number to preside over the rest, with the title of 
 Arch-deacon ; or suppose the army should elevate 
 a person whom they thought fit, to the Imperial 
 throne -, just so, by their own authority and elec- 
 tion, did the Presbyters make the first Bishops." — 
 And yet Dr. H. can find, in this very testimony, a 
 salvo for Episcopal ordination. — His powers of de- 
 tection are very uncommon ; 
 
 For optics sharp he ueeds, I ween, 
 Who sees what is not to be seen ! 
 
 7. Jerome states it, as a historical fact., that even 
 in his own day, that is, toward the end of the 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 239 
 
 fourth century, there was no power, excepting or- 
 dination, exercised by a Bishop, which might not 
 be exercised by a Presbyter. " What does a Bi- 
 shop," he asks, " excepting ordination, which a 
 Presbyter may 7iot do ?" 
 
 Two observations force themselves upon us. 
 
 1st. Jerome challenges the whole world, to show 
 in what prerogative a Presbyter was, at that time, 
 inferiour to a Bishop, excepting the single power 
 of ordination. A challenge which common sense 
 would have repressed, had public opinion con- 
 cerning the rights of Presbyters allowed it to be 
 successfully met. 
 
 2d. Although it appears from Jerome himself, 
 that the prelates were not then in the habit of as- 
 sociating the Presbyters with themselves, in an 
 equal right of government, yet, as he told the for- 
 mer, to their faces, that the right was undeniable, 
 and ought to be respected by them, it presents us 
 with a strong fact in the jjrogress of Episcopal do- 
 mination. Here was a pov/er in Presbyters, which, 
 though undisputed, lay, for the most part, dor- 
 mant. The transition from disuse, to denial, and 
 from denial to extinction of powers which the pos- 
 sessors have not vigilance, integrity, or spirit to 
 enforce, is natural, short, and rapid. According 
 to Jerome's declaration, the hierarchy did not pre- 
 tend to the exclusive right of government. There- 
 fore, there was but half a hierarchy, according to 
 the present system. That the Bishops had, some 
 
240 Review. 
 
 time after, the powers of ordination and govern- 
 ment both, is clear. How did they acquire the 
 monopoly? By apostoiic institution? No. Jerome 
 refutes that opinion from the scriptures and his- 
 tory. By apostoUcal tradition ? No. For in the 
 latter part of the fourth century, their single pre- 
 rogative over Presbyters was the power of ordi- 
 nation. Government was at first exercised by the 
 Presbyters in common. When they had, by their 
 own act, placed a superiour over their own 
 heads, they rewarded his distinction, his toils, 
 and his perils, with a proportionate reverence ; 
 they grew slack about the maintenance of trouble- 
 some privilege ; till at length, their courtesy, their 
 indolence, their love of peace, or their hope of 
 promotion, permitted their high and venerable 
 trust to glide into the hands of their prelates. We 
 have no doubt that the course of the ordaining 
 power was similar, though swifter. 
 
 Nothing can be more pointless and pithless than 
 the declamation of Cyprian, the Layman, and their 
 Bishop, on the change which took place in the 
 original order of the church. They assume a 
 false fact., to wit, that the change must have hap- 
 pened, if it happened at all, instantaneously : and 
 then they expatiate, with great vehemence, on the 
 impossibility of such an event. This is mere noise. 
 The change was not instantaneous, nor sudden. 
 The testimony of Jerome, which declares that it 
 was gracliiaU has sprung a mine under the very 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 241 
 
 foundation of their edifice, and blown it into the 
 air. Were we inchned to take up more of the 
 reader's time on this topic, we might turn their 
 own Aveapon, such as it is, against themselves. 
 They do not pretend that Archbishops, Patri- 
 archs, and Primates, are of Apostolical institution. 
 They will not so insult the understanding and the 
 senses of men, as to maintain that these officers 
 have no more power than simple Bishops. Where, 
 then, were all the principles of adherence to Apos- 
 lic order when these creatures of human policy 
 made their entrance into the church.? Among 
 whom were the daring innovators to be found } 
 Where was the learning of the age .? Where its 
 spirit of piety, and its zeal of martyrdom } Where 
 were the Presbyters .^^ Where the Bishops.? 
 What ! all, all turned traitors at once ? All, all 
 conspire to abridge their own rights, and submit 
 their necks to new-made superiours } What ! 
 none to reclaim or remonstrate.? Absurd! In- 
 credible ! Impossible ! These questions, and a 
 thousand Hke them, might be asked by an advo- 
 cate for the divine right of Patriarchs, with as 
 much propriety and force as they are asked by 
 advocates of the simpler Episcopacy. And so, 
 by vociferating on abstract principles, the evidence 
 of men's eyes and ears is to be overturned, and 
 they are to believe that there are not now, and 
 never have been, such things as Archbishops, Pa- 
 triarchs, or Primates in the Christianized world : 
 Vol. III. 31 
 
242 Review. 
 
 seeing that by the assumpiioyi of the argument, they 
 have no divine original; and by its terms^ they 
 could not have been introduced by mere human 
 contrivance. 
 
 To return to Jerome. The Prelatists being un- 
 able to evade his testimony concerning the change 
 which vi^as effected in the original order of the 
 church, would persuade us that he means a change 
 brought about by the authority of the Jtpostles them- 
 selves.* But the subterfuge is unavailing. For, 
 
 (1.) It alleges a conjectural tradition against the 
 authority of the ivritten scriptures. For no trace 
 of a change can be seen there. 
 
 (2.) It overthrows completely all the proof drawn 
 for the hierarchy from the Apostohc records. For, 
 if this change was introduced by the Apostles af- 
 ter their canonical writings were closed, then it is 
 vain to seek for it in those writings. The conse- 
 quence is, that the Hierarchists must either retreat 
 from the New Testament, or abandon Jerome. 
 
 (3.) It makes the intelhgent father a downright 
 fool — to plead Apostolic authority for the original 
 equality of ministers ; and in the same breath to 
 produce that same authority for the inequality 
 which he was resisting ! 
 
 (4.) To crown the whole, it tells us that the 
 apostles having fixed, under the influence oi^ divine 
 inspiration, an order for the church ; found, upon a 
 few years' trial, that it would not do, and were 
 
 * Hobart's Apology, p. 174, &c. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 243 
 
 obliged to mend it : only they forgot to apprise the 
 churches of the alteration; and so left the ex- 
 ploded order in the rule of faith ; and the new 
 order out of it ; depositing the commission of the 
 prelates with that kind foster-mother of the hie- 
 rarchy, Tradition /* 
 
 We may now remind our reader of the Lay- 
 man's declaration, that we " can produce no record 
 of a CHANGE ; but are obliged to imagine owe, in op- 
 position to the UNIFORM testimony of the primitive Fa- 
 thers /" And of the declaration of Cyprian, that we 
 talk '•'' of a change that must have taken place at an 
 early period ; but can produce no proof on which to 
 (ground our bold assertions " — That we " are coun- 
 tenanced by none of the records of these times that 
 have been transmitted to us ^'' — That our opinion is 
 " mere conjecture, a creature of the imagination ! /" 
 These gentlemen have, indeed, made their ex- 
 cuse ; they have honestly told us, what their pages 
 verify, that they are but "striplings" in literature. 
 But that a prelate, from whom we have a right to 
 look for digested knowledge, and scrupulous ac- 
 curacy, should deal out the same crude and un- 
 quahfied language, excites both surprise and 
 regret. He has been pleased to say, that our late 
 brother, the Rev. Dr. Linn, in " representing Jerome 
 as favouring the Presbyterian scheme of church go- 
 
 * If any of our readers wishes to have a fuller view of the wri- 
 tings of the hierarchy on Jerome's spear, we advise him to read 
 Dr. Hobart's Apology, p. 174 — ]94. 
 
244 Review. 
 
 vernment,''^ has ^^ pursued the usual mode of artful 
 MISREPRESENTATION." With ivkom the misrepresen- 
 tation lies, we leave to public opinion. But as we 
 wish to give every one his due, we cannot charge 
 the Right Reverend Prelate with any art ; nor 
 withhold an advice, that when he is searching, on 
 this subject, for a " spark of modesty," he would 
 direct his inquiries to a " bosom " to which he has 
 much easier access, than to the bosom of any 
 Presbyterian under heaven. 
 
 After this exhibition of Jerome's testimony, it 
 would be superfluous to follow with particular 
 answers, all the petty exceptions which are found- 
 ed upon vague allusions and incidental phrases. 
 Jerome, like every other writer upon subjects 
 which require a constant reference to surrounding 
 habits, conforms his speech to his circumstances. 
 He could not be for ever on his guard ; and if he 
 had been, no vigilance could have secured him 
 from occasional expressions which might be inter- 
 preted as favourable to a system which he solemn- 
 ly disapproved. This will sufficiently account for 
 those disconnected sentences which the friends of 
 the hierarchy have so eagerly seized. We could 
 show, taking them one by one, that they fall very 
 far short of the mark to which they are directed.* 
 
 * The quotation which stands most in the way of our argument, 
 and of Jerome's testimony, is from his " Catalogue of Ecclesiasti- 
 cal Writers ;" where, s'ays Dr. Hobart, " he records as a matter of 
 fact, ' James, immediately after our T.ord's ascension, having been 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 245 
 
 When we want to know a man's matured thoughts 
 on a disputed point, we must go to those parts of 
 his works where he has dehberately, and of set 
 purpose, handled it. All his looser observations 
 must be controlled by these. A contrary proce- 
 dure inverts every law of criticism ; and the inver- 
 sion is not the more tolerable, or the less repre- 
 hensible, because advocates of the hierarchy have 
 chosen to adopt it. But if Jerome's testimony is 
 to be slighted, because he was fervid, impetuous, 
 and unceremonious, we much fear that some of the 
 most important facts in ecclesiastical and civil 
 history must be branded as apocryphal. We are 
 very sure that none of Dr. H.'s friends could ask 
 
 ORDAINED BISHOP OF JERUSALEM, Undertook the charge of the 
 church at Jerusalem. Timotht was ordained bishop of the 
 Ephesians by Paul, Titus of Crete. Polycarp was by John 
 ORDAINED bishop of Smyrna.' Here, then," the reader perceives 
 the triumph, " here, then, we have bishojJS ordained in the churches 
 by the apostles themselves." Hobart's Apology, p. 194. 
 
 There is a small circumstance rather unfavourable to this vouch- 
 er. — It is not Jerome's. Of that part which relates to Timothy 
 and Titus, this is expressly asserted by the episcopal historian, 
 Cave; and by Jerome's popish editor- Vide Cave, Script, eccles. 
 hist. Utter, p. 172, ed. Colon. 1720. Hieron. Opp. T./. p. 265. 268. 
 ed. Victorii. The articles James and Polycarp are so precisely in 
 the same style with the others, and so diametrically repugnant to 
 Jerome's own doctrine, that if, by " bishop,''^ is meant such a 
 bishop as was known in his day, it is inconceivable they should 
 have proceeded from his pen. That they are interpolations, or 
 have been interpolated, we think there is internal evidence. At 
 least, when several articles of the same catalogue, tending to the 
 same point, and written in the same strain, are confessedly spurious ; 
 it is hardly safe to rely upon the remainder as authentic testimony. 
 
246 Review. 
 
 the credence of the world to a single assertion in 
 his Apology. And if similar productions were the 
 fashion of the day, we have no reason to wonder 
 at indignant feeling and vehement language in 
 men of a less fiery spirit than father Jerome. 
 
 The advocates of Episcopacy assert that the 
 whole current of fact and of opinion ^or fifteen hun- 
 dred years after Christ, is in their favour; that we 
 " can produce no record of a change,''^ in the gov- 
 ernment of the church, "but are obliged to imagine 
 one in opposition to the uniform testimony of the 
 primitive fathers." 
 
 We have met them on this ground ; and have 
 " produced " the " testimony " of one of the " pri- 
 mitive fathers," directly against the divine original 
 of the hierarchy. This was Jerome, the most 
 learned, able, and distinguished of them all. He 
 tells us, in so many words, not only that the epis- 
 copal pre-eminence is without divine authority; 
 but that this was a fact which could not, with any 
 show of reason, be disputed ; as being a fact well 
 ascertained and understood. " The Presbyters," 
 says he, " knoiv, that they are subjected by the cus- 
 tom of the church, to him who is set over them."* 
 
 To elude the force of Jerome's deposition, it is 
 alleged, among other things, that his opinion is of 
 no weight unsupported by facts ; and that his tes- 
 timony, in the fourth century, concerning facts in 
 the first and second centuries, that is, two or three 
 
 * See page 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 247 
 
 hundred years before he was born, is no better 
 than an opinion ; and so he is excluded from the 
 number of competent witnesses.* 
 
 By this rule some other witnesses who have 
 been summoned by our Episcopal brethren, must 
 be cast without a hearing. Eusebius, Chrysos- 
 tom, Augustin, Theodoret, Epiphanius, must all 
 be silenced. It is even hard to see how a single 
 man could be left, in the whole catalogue of the 
 Fathers, as competent to certify any fact of which 
 he was not an eye-witness. To say that they de- 
 rived their information of times past from credible 
 tradition, or authentic records, is indeed to over- 
 rule the principle of the objection. But when this 
 door is opened to admit the others, you cannot 
 prevent Jerome from walking in. We will allow 
 that Eusebius had access to " all the necessary 
 records of the churches." But had Jerome no 
 records to consult ? Was " the most learned of all 
 the Christians," as Erasmus calls him, with Cave's 
 approbation, in the habit of asserting historical 
 facts without proof.? If he was, let our opponents 
 show it. If he was not, as his high reputation for 
 learning is a pledge, then his testimony is to be 
 viewed as a summary of inductive evidence reach- 
 ing back to the days of the Apostles. In his esti- 
 mation, the facts of the original parity of minis- 
 ters, and of the subsequent elevation of prelates 
 
 * Cyprian, No. VII. Essays, p. 167. Hobart's Apology, p. 
 171— J78. 
 
248 Review. ' ; 
 
 by the custom of the church, were so undeniable, 
 that he did not think it worth his while to name a 
 document. The conduct of this great man was 
 different from that of some very confident writers 
 whom we could mention. He sifted his authori- 
 ties, and then brought forward his facts without 
 any specific reference, instead of malung stiff as- 
 sertions upon the credit of authors, whom he never 
 read, nor even consulted. 
 
 Jerome, we contend, is not only as good a wit- 
 ness in the case before us, as Eusebius or any 
 other father, but that he is a far better and more 
 unexceptionable witness than either that renown- 
 ed historian, or any other prelate or friend of pre- 
 lates. Whatever Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epipha- 
 nius,Theodoret,&c. testify in favour of episcopacy, 
 must be received with this very important qualifi- 
 cation, that they were themselves bishops ; and were 
 testifying in favour of their own titles, emolument, 
 grandeur, and power. They nad a very deep in- 
 terest at stake. An interest sufiicient, if not to 
 shake their credibility on this point, yet greatly to 
 reduce its value. On the contrary, Jerome had 
 nothing to gain, but much to lose. He put his 
 interest and his peace in jeopardy. He had to 
 encounter the hostility of the episcopal order, and 
 of all who aspired to its honours: He had to re- 
 sist the growing encroachments of corruption, 
 and that under the formidable protection of a civil 
 establishment. He had, therefore, every possible 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 249 
 
 inducement to be sure of his facts before he attack- 
 ed a set of dignitaries who were not, in his age, 
 the most forbearing of mankind.* The conclu- 
 sion is, that Jerome, as we said, is a more unex- 
 ceptionable witness than any prelate. To illus- 
 trate — let us suppose a tribunal erected in England 
 to try this question. Is Episcopacy of divine institu- 
 tion ? that no witnesses can be procured but such 
 as were brought up in the church itself; and that 
 the judges were obliged to depend upon their re- 
 port of facts. The bishop of Durham is sworn, 
 and deposes that he has examined the records of 
 the church, and finds her to have been episcopal 
 from the beginning. A presbyter of the same 
 church, of equal talent, learning, and application, 
 is sworn, and deposes that he too has examined 
 the records, and finds that, at the beginning, these 
 Christian ministers were of equal rank ; but that 
 by degrees inequality crept in; and that the bi- 
 shops have no pre-eminence but what the custom 
 of the church has given them. In general charac- 
 ter, for integrity, the witnesses are equal. They 
 flatly contradict each other. Who, now, is the 
 most credible witness ? The presbyter runs the 
 hazard of almost every thing in life by his testi- 
 mony. The testimony of my lord of Durham goes" 
 to protect his own dignity in the church ; his seat 
 in the house of peers; and a revenue of £20,000 
 sterling, per annum. A child can decide who is 
 
 * MosHKiM, Vol. I. p. 356. 
 Vol. 111. 32 
 
250 Review. 
 
 most worthy of credit. Nearly such is the dif- 
 ference between the witnesses for Episcopacy, 
 and Jerome, the witness for Presbytery. 
 
 But we waive our advantage. We shall lay no 
 stress upon Jerome's opinion. We shall cut off 
 from his deposition every thing but what came 
 within his personal observation. "The presby- 
 ters," says he, '■^know that they are subject to their 
 bishop, by the custom of the church." His testi- 
 mony embraces a fact in existence and obvious at 
 the time of deposition ; viz. the knowledge which 
 the presbyters of his day had of their being subject 
 to their bishops, solely by the custom of the 
 church, and not by Christ's appointment. This 
 assertion is correct, or it is not. If it is not, then 
 Jerome appealed to all the world for the truth of 
 what he knew, and every body else knew, was an 
 absurd he. No brass on the face of impudence, 
 inferiour to that of the Due de Cadore, is brazen 
 enough for this. On the other hand, if the asser- 
 tion be correct, how is this knowledge " of the 
 presbyters " to be explained } Where did they get 
 it } From one of two sources. Either there must 
 have been such a previous discussion of the sub- 
 ject, as ended in establishing a general conviction 
 ^in the minds of the Christian clergy, that prelacy 
 is a human invention ; or which is more probable, 
 the remnants and the recollection of the primitive 
 order still subsisted in considerable vigour, not- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 251 
 
 withstanding the rapid growth of the hierarchy 
 since the accession of Constantine. 
 
 It is inconceivable how Jerome should tell the 
 bishops to their faces, that Christ never gave them 
 any superiority over the presbyters ; that custom 
 was their only title ; and that the presbyters were 
 perfectly aware of this ; unless he was supported 
 by facts which they were unable to contradict. 
 Their silence under his challenges, is more than 
 a presumption that they found it wise to let him 
 alone. It amounts to little short of absolute proof, 
 that there was yet such a mass of information 
 concerning their rise, and so much of unsubdued 
 spirit in the church, as rendered it dangerous to 
 commit their claim to the issue of free inquiry. 
 Jerome, w^ith the register of antiquity in his hand, 
 and the train of presbyters at his back, was too 
 potent an adversary. They could have crushed 
 the man ; but they trembled at the truth ; and so 
 they sat quietly down, leaving to time and habit, 
 the confirmation of an authority which they did 
 not, as yet, venture to derive from the word of God. 
 
 In the next age, when Jerome was dead, the 
 presbyters cowed ; and the usurpation of the pre- 
 lates further removed from the reach of a reform- 
 ing hand ; Epiphamus did, it is true, bluster at no 
 ordinary rate against the "heretic" Aerius ; for 
 what reason we shall shortly see. But it is very 
 remarkable, that in the fourth century, when the 
 pretensions of the prelates were pretty openly can- 
 
252 Revieiv. 
 
 vassed, they spoke with great caution, and with 
 manifest reluctance on those parts of Scripture 
 which touch the point of parity. Let any one, 
 for example, look at the commentaries of Ciiry- 
 sosTOM on the epistles to Timothy and Titus. 
 Copious and fluent on other passages, he is most 
 concise and embarrassed on those which relate 
 to ministerial rank. Something he was obliged 
 to say : but the plain words of the apostle exhibit 
 a picture so unlike the hierarchy, that the eloquent 
 patriarch, under the semblance of interpretation, 
 throws in a word or two to blind the eyes of his 
 readers, and shuflfles off to something else ; but 
 never so much as attempts to argue the merits of 
 the question upon scriptural ground. This is the 
 reverse of Jerome's practice in his exposition. 
 At this early day we find the advocate for parity 
 boldly appealing to Scripture ; examining, com- 
 paring, and reasoning upon its decisions ; and the 
 prelatical expounder skipping away from it with 
 all possible haste and dexterity. We leave the 
 reader to draw his own inference. 
 
 The sentiment that Prelates are superiour to 
 Presbyters, not by any divine appointment, but 
 merely by the prevalence of custom, extended, 
 among the Latins of the fourth century, much 
 further than Father Jerome. He himself tells us, 
 that the Presbyters of his day not only thought so, 
 but knew so ; and, assuming this as an incontro- 
 vertible fact, he grounds upon it an admonition to 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 253 
 
 the Bishops to recollect then* origin. " Let them 
 know," says he, " that they are above the Pres- 
 byters more by the custom of the Church, than by 
 any institution of Christ." Considering him as an 
 honest witness, which is all we ask, and our Epis- 
 copal friends will not deny it, he asserts, without 
 qualification, that the Presbyters, i. e. the mass of 
 Christian clergy., in his time, were convinced, upon 
 satisfactory proof, that the authority exercised 
 over them by the prelates, limited, as it then was, 
 and nothing like what they now claim, had no 
 warrant whatever, either in the word of God, or 
 even in apostolical tradition ! We repeat it ; the 
 great body of the Christian clergy, according to 
 Jerome, were aware of this ! ! Here, since they call 
 for facts^ here is a fact more ponderous than all 
 the facts of Episcopacy put together ; a fact which 
 there is no frittering away, not even by the force 
 of that vigorous criticism which inverts persons 
 and tenses ; transmutes Hebrew verbs into others 
 with which they have no affinity ; and changes the 
 very letters of the Hebrew alphabet; so that 
 a t {zain^) is charmed into a | (nun,) and, by this 
 happy metamorphosis, the throat of an ill-con- 
 ditioned argument escapes from suffocation !* 
 
 The testimony of Jerome is corroborated by a 
 contemporary writer of high renown, and an un- 
 exceptionable witness in this case, as being him- 
 
 * Churchman's Magazine for May and June, 1810. on Exod. 
 xxxiii. 19. p. 178. 
 
254 Review. 
 
 self a Prelate ; we mean Augustin, the celebra- 
 ted Bishop of Hippo. In a letter to Jerome, he 
 has these remarkable words : — 
 
 " Although, according to the names of honour 
 " which the usage of the Church has now acquired^ 
 the office of a Bishop is greater than that of a 
 Presbyter, yet in many things Augustin is inferiour 
 to Jerome."* The sense of this acknowledgment 
 is thus given by a distinguished Prelate of the 
 Church of England, as quoted by Ayton : — " The 
 office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest, 
 not by the authority of the Scripture, but after the 
 names of honour which, through the custom of 
 the Church, have now obtained."t 
 
 The concession is so clear and ample, that Car- 
 dinal Bellarmine, with all his integrity, which was 
 not a little, had no other evasion, than to pretend 
 that these words are not opposed to the ancient time 
 of the Church ; but to the time before the Christian 
 Church ; so that tlie sense is, before the times of the 
 Christian Church these names, Bishop and Presbyter, 
 were not titles of honour, but of office and age ; but now 
 they are names of honour and dignity. % 
 
 Quibbles were scarce when a distressed cardi- 
 nal could muster up nothing more plausible. As 
 
 * Ciuanquam secundum honorum vocabula qua? jam Ecclesia 
 usiis obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major sit; tameu in multis 
 rebus Augustiuus Hierouymo minor est. Ep. 19. ed W.vron. 
 
 f Jewel. Defence of his apology, p. 122, 123. 
 
 X Jameson's Nazianzeni querela, p. 177, 178. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 255 
 
 if names of office were not names of dignity ! As if 
 AuGusTiN, in the very act of paying a tribute of 
 profound respect to Jerome, should think of giving 
 him a bit of grammar lesson about the words 
 " Bishop" and " Presbyter !" Verily, the Jesuit 
 was in sore affliction ; and had he uttered all his 
 soul, would have exclaimed, like a certain Armi- 
 nian preacher, when hard pressed by Scriptural 
 reasoning ; — " O argument, argument ! The Lord 
 rebuke thee, argument !" 
 
 Not much happier than the cardinal, nor much 
 less anxious for such a rebuke to argument than 
 the Arminian preacher, will be those critics who 
 shall maintain that Augustin's words regard only 
 the names of office, without any opinion on the 
 powers or rank of the offices themselves. 
 
 1. Such a construction makes the Bishop as- 
 sert a direct falsehood ; the terms were in use from 
 the beginning of the Christian Church; and, 
 therefore, could not have been introduced by her 
 customs. 
 
 2. If, by saying that he was superiour to Jerome 
 "according to the names of honour which the 
 Church had obtained by usage," Augustin meant 
 that he enjoyed only a titular pre-eminence over 
 that Presbyter, he either insulted Jerome by flout- 
 ing at him with a lie in the shape of a compliment, 
 or else the Prelates in his day had only a nominal^ 
 and not a real, power over the Presbyters. The 
 
256 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 second is contrary to fact; and the first is too 
 absurd for even a troubled cardinal. 
 
 If, on the other hand, it be alleged that Augus- 
 tin, in flattery to Jerome, seemed to claim only a 
 titular precedence, while he was conscious, at the 
 same time, of enjoying an essential superiority, 
 and that by divine right, the disputant will turn 
 himself out of the frying pan into the fire ; for he 
 exhibits the venerable father as acting the knave 
 for the pleasure of proving himself to be a fool. 
 So paltry a trick was not calculated to blow dust 
 into the eyes of Jerome. The distinction might 
 appear ingenious to some modern champions of 
 the hierarchy, as it is much in their manner ; but 
 could never degrade the pen of the Bishop of 
 Hippo. He is contrasting his official superiority 
 over Jerome, with Jerome's personal superiority 
 over himself The former is the superiority of a 
 Bishop over a Presbyter, which, he says, has 
 grown out of the custom of the Church. The 
 compliment to Jerome consists in this — that while 
 the office which sets him above Jerome was the 
 fruit, not of his own deserts, but of the Church's 
 custom, those things which gave Jerome his supe- 
 riority, were personal merits. The compliment is 
 as fine, and its form as delicate, as the spirit 
 which dictated it is magnanimous. 
 
 But our concern is with the fact which it dis- 
 closes. Turn Augustin's words into a syllogism, 
 and it will stand thus : 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 257 
 
 Augustiii is greater than Jerome, according to 
 tlie honours which have been created by the cus- 
 tom of the Church. 
 
 But Augustin is greaterthan Jerome, as a Bishop 
 is greater than a Presbyter. 
 
 Therefore^ a Bishop is greater than a Presbyter 
 by the custom of the Church. 
 
 Here, now, is Augustin himself, a Bishop of no 
 common character, disclaiming, unequivocally, 
 the institution of Episcopacy by divine right : For 
 he refers the distinction between Bishop and 
 Presbyter not only to a merely human original, but 
 to an original the least imperative ; to one which, 
 however potent it becomes in the lapse of time, is 
 at first too humble to arrogate authority, too fee- 
 ble to excite alarm, and too noiseless almost to 
 attract notice. He calls it the creature of custom. 
 What shall we say to this testimony of Augustin ? 
 He was under no necessity of reveahng his private 
 opinion. He had no temptation to sap the foun- 
 dation of his own edifice; to diminish the dignity 
 of his own order. All his interests and his preju- 
 dices lay in the opposite direction. Yet he speaks 
 of Episcopacy as the child of custom, in the most 
 frank and unreserved manner ; without an apolo- 
 gy, without a qualification, without a caution. He 
 does this in a letter to Jero3ie, the very man to 
 whom, upon modern Episcopal principles, he should 
 not, would not, and could not have done it — the 
 very man who had openly, and boldly, and repeat- 
 
 Vol. III. 33 
 
258 Review. 
 
 edly attacked the whole hierarchy ; whose senti- 
 ments, reasonings, and proofs, were no secret to 
 others, and could be none to him — the very man, 
 whose profound research, whose vigorous talent, 
 and whose imposing name, rendered him the most 
 formidable adversary of the prelature, and threat- 
 ened to sway more decisively the public opinion, 
 than a thousand inferiour writers — the very man, 
 therefore, whom it became his duty to resist. Yet 
 to this man does Augustin, the Bisliop, write a 
 letter in which he assigns to Episcopacy the very 
 same origin which Jerome himself had ascribed 
 to it — human custom ! ! 
 
 Was Augustin ignorant ? Was he treacherous ? 
 Was he cowardly ? Was he mad ? To write in this 
 manner to Jerome ! and to write it with as much 
 composure, and sang froid., as he would have al- 
 luded to any the most notorious fact in existence ! 
 No. He was not ignorant, nor treacherous, nor 
 cowardly, nor mad. But he spoke, in the honesty 
 of his heart, what he knew to be true ; and what 
 no well advised man would think of denying. Such 
 a concession, from such a personage, at such a 
 time, under such circumstances, is conclusive. It 
 shows, that in his day, the Bishops of the Latin 
 Church did not dream of asserting their superi- 
 ority to Presbyters by divine right. They had it 
 from the custom of the Church, and so long as 
 that custom was undisturbed, it was enough for 
 them. Anions the Greeks, the blundering, and 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 259 
 
 hair-brained Epiphanius set up the claim of a. jus 
 divinum; but his contemporaries were discreet 
 enough to let him fight so foolish a battle single 
 handed. 
 
 To Jerome and Augustin we may add Pelagius, 
 once their intimate friend, and afterwards, on ac- 
 count of his heresy, their sworn enemy. " He re- 
 stricts all Church officers to priest and deacon :* 
 and asserts, that janc^/if, without discrimination or 
 restriction, are the successors of the apostles. ''^'\ He 
 has more to the same purpose ; reasoning as Je- 
 rome reasoned, from the Scriptures ; and coming, 
 as did Sedulius, Primasius, and others, to the 
 same result ; viz. the identity of Bishop and Pres- 
 byters.J 
 
 Let not the heresy of Pelagius be objected to us. 
 Our Arminians will not surely cast opprobrium 
 upon the name of this, their ancient sire. For our 
 parts, we, with Augustin, hold him in detestation, 
 as an enemy of the grace of God. But his heresy 
 does not vitiate his testimony in the present case. 
 Fiercely as he was attacked by Jerome and Au- 
 gustin, his opinions on the subject of Prelacy 
 made no article of accusation against him as a 
 heretic. Could it have been done with any show 
 of reason, we may be certain it would not have 
 been spared. But the silence of his Prelatical 
 
 * In Rom. xii. t la 1 Cor. i. 
 
 X Not having access to these writers, we quote from Jameson's 
 Nazianzen: p. 176, 177. 
 
260 Review. 
 
 antagonists, on that head, is a proof both of the 
 justness of our foregoing comments on Augus- 
 tin's letter, and also of the general fact, that the 
 Bishops were conscious of their inability to meet 
 the question of their order upon the ground of 
 divine right. 
 
 There are two considerations which clothe our 
 argument with additional force. 
 
 The^r.9/ is, that all able heretics, as Pelagius 
 confessedly was, in their assault upon the Church 
 of God, direct their batteries against those points 
 in which they deem her to be the least defensible 
 Rightly judging, that it is good policy to make a 
 breach, no matter where. Only unsettle the popu- 
 lar mind as to any one object which it has been 
 accustomed to venerate, and the perversion of it 
 with regard to many others, is much facilitated. 
 If, in this policy, Pelagius and his coadjutors at- 
 tacked the authority of the Bishops, they seized 
 upon the defenceless spot; and the bishops were 
 beaten without a struggle. It is easy to perceive 
 what an immense advantage was gained by the 
 heretics in their grand conflict, when their oppo- 
 nents were put fairly in the wrong on an incidental 
 point, but a point which, in itself, touched the very 
 nerves of the public passions. 
 
 The 5eco«c? consideration is, that persons of such 
 different conditions, and such hostile feelings, could 
 never have united in a common opinion upon a 
 deeply interesting topic, had not the facts upon 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 261 
 
 which their union rested been perfectly indis- 
 putable. 
 
 Here is Presbyter and Prelate; the monk of 
 Palestine, and the African Bishop ; orthodoxy 
 and heresy; Augustin and Pelagius; all com- 
 bining in one and the same declaration — that 
 Episcopacy has no better original than the custom 
 of the Church! Nothing but truth — acknowledged 
 truth — truth which it was vain to doubt, could have 
 brought these jarring materials into such a har- 
 mony; these discordant spirits into such a con- 
 currence. — Stronger evidence it is hardly possible 
 to obtain ; and it would be the very pertness of 
 incredulity to demand. Yet there are writers who 
 do not blush to look us in the face, and assert that 
 the testimony of the primitive Fathers is univer- 
 sally in favour of Episcopacy, as having been es- 
 tablished by Christ and his apostles ! !* 
 
 Does the sun shine ? Is the grass green ? Are 
 stones hard ? Another shove, and we shall be in 
 Dean Berkeley's ideal world ! — If every thing sober 
 and solid is to be thus outfaced, there is nothing 
 for it, but to abandon fact and demonstration as 
 chimeras, and to take up what was once the ditty 
 of a fool, but is now the best philosophy, 
 
 Ilavra xovij, xai ifoyra FEAns, xai ifavra to MHAEN. 
 * Essays, p. 135. 
 
CONSIDERATIONS ON LOTS. 
 
CONSIDERATIONS ON LOTS. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 The irequency of public lotteries, the enor- 
 mous system of private frauds which has grown 
 out of them, the extensive ramifications of their 
 ■principle through the community, and the facility 
 with which many well disposed persons are se- 
 duced into the support of that principle, seem to 
 require an investigation of the true nature and 
 use of the lot. We shall accordingly devote 
 some papers to that subject. 
 
 A lot is an action, intended to decide a point 
 without the aid of human skill or power. This 
 definition includes every form of the lot, or every 
 decision which in common language, is said to 
 be left to chance. Thus, whether the lot or the 
 chance consist in drawing a ticket at random 
 out of the lottery- wheel, after it has been turned 
 
 Vol. II. 34 
 
266 Consideratioiis oti Lots. 
 
 round to prevent collusion, or in the position of 
 a die which is thrown after rattling it in the box, 
 or in the particular distribution of cards after a 
 promiscuous shuffle, or in the tossing up of a 
 piece of money, is a matter of no moment. The 
 principle of the action is still the same ; the de- 
 cision to be effected is put avowedly out of the 
 control of human skill and power. 
 
 My design is to show that every such action, 
 that is, every lot, is a direct appeal to the living 
 God, as the governor of the world, and that his 
 holy providence is concerned in the event. 
 
 For, if it be not an appeal to God, what is it ? 
 Not a reference to the tribunal of men ; for it is 
 so constructed as purpo.sely to exclude their ju- 
 risdiction. Not a reference to any other crea- 
 tures superior to man ; for it would suppose them 
 to be omnipresent, which is an attribute of 
 Deity. Not a reference to nothing ; for that is a 
 contradiction. Not a reference to chance ; for 
 that is atheism. There is, indeed, much talk of 
 chance : and, in its popular use, signifying some- 
 thing which happens in a manner unforeseen by 
 us, the term is harmless enough. But when used 
 philosophically, that is, when applied to the doc- 
 trine of cause and effect, it is either absurd or 
 blasphemous. For what is this chance? It 
 either has a real existence or not. If it has no 
 existence, then when you say that a lot is deter- 
 mined by chance, you say that it is determined 
 
Consklerations on Lots. 267 
 
 by nothing : that is, you say here is a sensible 
 eflect produced by no cause at all. This is pure 
 nonsense. If your chance is a real being, what 
 sort of being 7 Either it has life, intelligence, 
 and power, or not. If not, then you say that 
 millions of effects (for there are millions of -lots 
 in the world) are produced by a cause which 
 has neither powder, nor intelligence, nor life : that 
 is, you say, that millions of actions are performed 
 by an agency which is essentially incapable of 
 any action whatever. And this is as pure ab- 
 surdity as the former. If you say that your 
 chance is a living, intelligent, and active being, 
 I ask who it is ? and how you got your know- 
 ledge of it 1 You certainly imagine it to pos- 
 sess omnipresence and omnipotence ; for you 
 suppose it capable of producing, at the same 
 moment, millions of effects in millions of places ; 
 and thus you have found out a being that dis- 
 plays perfections of God, and yet is not God. 
 This conclusion is as blasphemous as the others 
 are insane. There is no retreat. Survey the 
 subject in any possible light, and you are driven 
 to this issue, that the lot is, by the very nature 
 of the case, a direct appeal to the living God, as 
 the Governor of the world. 
 
 As the appeal is to him, so his providence re- 
 gulates the event. 
 
 To many it seems irrational that the High and 
 Lofty One who inhabits eternity should descend 
 
268 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 to our little affairs, and take cognizance of things 
 which minister to onr amusement or agitate our 
 passions. They can conceive of a providence 
 which keeps worlds in their sphere and legislates 
 for the universe. This general government fills 
 them with magnificent ideas, worthy as they 
 think of the Supreme ; but to such petty con- 
 cerns as the common incidents of human life, 
 they judge it beneath his majesty and felicity to 
 attend ! 
 
 This sort of argumentation is not the only in- 
 stance in which atheism puts on the cloak of 
 reverence for God. I do not assert that all who 
 adopt such notions are atheists, but that the doc- 
 trine itself is atheistical there can be no doubt. 
 It makes a distinction between a general and a 
 particular providence, admitting the former and 
 exploding the latter. We are to believe, then, 
 that Jehovah rules the ivhole of his universe but 
 not its parts ; or that he has fixed certain laws 
 by which its operations go on independently of 
 his interposition. A fine world of creatures 
 truly, that can " live, and move, and have their 
 being," in a state of complete separation from 
 the influence of their Creator ! According to 
 this scheme, he has had no sort of interest in 
 them from the moment he gave them out of his 
 plastic hand, and never shall have any during 
 the whole period of their being. And as for 
 those who dream of his presiding over suns and 
 
Considerations on Lots. 269 
 
 stars, Avitliout noticing- the puny inhabitants of 
 our globe, they might with equal reason dream 
 of his creating suns and stars without his having 
 created men, or beasts, or insects, at all. That 
 which it was not unworthy of him to create, it 
 is not unworthy of him to preserve and govern. 
 It would surely be inverting all propriety to 
 maintain, that in proportion as creatures are 
 feeble, they can dispense with his fostering care ; 
 and that rational creatures, formed for immor- 
 tality, are exempted from the empire of his law. 
 For however artfully the sophist may play off* 
 his quibbles, a sound mind will perceive that, 
 without a particular providence, man cannot be 
 accountable. 
 
 This doctrine of a providence extending even 
 to the most trivial occurrences pervades the sys- 
 tem of revelation, and is stated in the scriptures 
 with the utmost precision and perspicuity. / 
 form the light, and create darkness; I make 
 peace, and create evil. . I, Jehovah, do all these 
 things. (Is. xlv. 7.) Thon sendest forth thy 
 Spirit, they (the young animals) are created; 
 and tJiou renewest the face of the earth. (Ps. 
 civ. 30.) Arc not two sparrows sold for a far- 
 thing'? and one of tJicni shall not fall on the 
 ground ivithotit your Father : hut the very hairs 
 of your head are all numbered. (Mat. x. 29, 30.) 
 What can be of less importance than the perish- 
 ing of a sparrow ? What more worthless thaji 
 
270 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 a hair of one's head ? And yet, the Truth itself 
 being witness, both are objects of the divine re- 
 gard. " It accords with the most liberal .spirit 
 of pliilosophy to believe, that not a stone can 
 fall or plant rise without the immediate agency 
 of divine power."* This is good sense, and 
 Christianity owns it all. If, then, the provi- 
 dence of God directs and disposes all other, the 
 most minute events, by what reasoning shall it 
 be proved to have no concern with lots '? espe- 
 cially as he has declared the lot to be under his 
 immediate inspection ? The lot is cast into the 
 lap, but the whole disj^osifig thereof is of the 
 Lord. (Prov. xvi. 33.) This will be decisive 
 with him who in simplicity and reverence in- 
 quires after the truth. But as there are captious 
 spirits which seek to hide themselves in the 
 mist of objections, and as arguments addressed 
 to the love of dissipation and of gain are apt to 
 make " the worse appear the better reason," we 
 shall pursue a little farther the denial of such a 
 providence as embraces the drawing of a ticket 
 or the cast of a die. 
 
 To deny, then, that the divine providence is 
 concerned in decisions obtained by lot, is to deny 
 that it has any concern with individuals or their 
 actions. For it cannot be shown that the go- 
 vernment of God affects any individual or any 
 
 * Malthus. Essay on tlie Principle of Population. Vol. II. 
 p. 67. 
 
Considerations on Lots. 271 
 
 action, but upon the broad principle of its 
 extending to every individual and every action. 
 If this position is incorrect, a line of distinction 
 must be drawn between persons and actions that 
 vre and are not under his immediate control. If 
 there are individuals to whom his providence, 
 wdiich is another name for the administration of 
 his government, does not reach, then all such 
 individuals are exempted from the obligation of 
 his law, and are neither accountable nor depend- 
 ent. For it is absurd to talk of dependence, 
 and law, and responsibility, while you exclude 
 the only agency which, by ascertaining facts, 
 motives, and character, can lay the basis of a 
 perfect judgment. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the divine providence 
 embraces all j^^^^'^ons, but not all actions, it fol- 
 low^s that the actions thus omitted are not sub- 
 ject to the divine law ; and, of course, that men 
 are at one period of their lives amenable to God 
 for their conduct, and at another period are not 
 amenable. And between these two states of 
 being luith and loithout law to God they are per- 
 petually vibrating. But how are they to know 
 when these alterations take place'? God has 
 not revealed it, and they cannot discover it for 
 themselves. But no judicious man can be re- 
 conciled to so miserable a subterfuge from a 
 pinching argument. It wnll not bear examina- 
 tion for a single moment. The alternative is, 
 
272 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 tliat the providence of God directs every thing 
 or nothing. If the former, then even the cast- 
 ing of a die ; if the latter, we are plunged into 
 atheism at once ; for a God who does not go- 
 vern the world is no God at all. 
 
 Perhaps it will he urged, that the Creator has 
 " fixed certain laws in the physical world ; that 
 the doctrine of chances, founded upon these 
 laws, is a subject of calculation ; and that their 
 operation is the only thing to be seen in the com- 
 bination of chances." 
 
 I assent to the proposition, but contend that 
 the objection grounded upon it is either futile or 
 impious. 
 
 Futile — for it amounts to no more than this, 
 that the Most High acts by second causes ; un- 
 less, indeed, they can act without him. The ob- 
 jection, to have any force, must mean that they 
 can so act ; and then. 
 
 It is impious — for it strikes at the lohole go- 
 vernment of God, in so far as it is carried on 
 through the medium of physical laws. To re- 
 peat the substance of a remark already made, 
 if his providence has no concern in one, two, or 
 twenty actions or events, occurring according to 
 physical laws, it is equally unconcerned in all 
 such events and actions ; and thus we arrive at 
 the old inference, that God has nothing to do 
 with us nor our affairs. This mode of reasoning, 
 pushed a little farther, will expel every thing 
 
Considerations on Lots. 273 
 
 but physical laws out of the universe. If I 
 may shut my Maker out of all events happening 
 according to these lav^^s, why not myself and 
 every other rational agent 1 And if I set my 
 neighbor's house on fire, or cut his throat, w^hy 
 not refer these things to the class of facts hap- 
 pening according to the laws of muscular mo- 
 tion 7 You shall not tell me that my rational 
 and moral nature acted through the instrumen- 
 tality of the firebrand or the knife ; because this 
 is to assert what you have just denied, viz. that 
 intelligent and moral power acts by physical 
 means. On my principles I admit your solu- 
 tion, but then it spoils your philosophy ; for I 
 shall as soon believe that an axe can hew wood 
 without the agency of man, as that physical 
 events can be produced, or physical law exist, 
 without the agency of God. And I shall as 
 soon deny the hewing of wood with an axe in 
 my hand to be my own act, as deny the produc- 
 tion of an event by physical laws to be an act 
 of the divine providence. In truth, all moral 
 order is maintained, and all moral events come 
 to pass, by the intervention of physical law. 
 And thus the conclusion forces itself upon us, 
 that the disposing of the lot is as much the act 
 of God, as if he were to perform it by some visi- 
 ble interposition. And therefore a wanton or 
 needless appeal to him by the lot is^a profana- 
 tion of his name. 
 
 Vol. III. 35 
 
274 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 It will not avail to plead, " the unseemliness 
 of supposing that men of profane minds can, 
 whenever tiiey please, coinpel the Almighty to 
 become umpire between them." The same ob- 
 jection applies to the oath. Shall men of pro- 
 fane minds compel the Almighty at their plea- 
 sure to ascend his throne of judgment, and de- 
 cide on perj uries and blavsphemies 1 Such lan- 
 guage is irreverent and ought not to be uttered. 
 The plea, however, may be retorted. Shall the 
 laws of God's world be suspended, or his ordi- 
 nary agency interrupted, because men choose to 
 be wicked? Shall they oblige him to work 
 miracles in order to keep himself out of the way 
 so often as they incline to sport with his provi- 
 dence? Nay, his appointments stand. His 
 laws go on. His agency in them ceases not for 
 a moment. And if men convert them to an un- 
 holy use, he will not alter his course to prevent 
 either their crime or their punishment. 
 
 To exhibit this matter in another light. If the 
 divine providence is not to be considered in the 
 lot, why is it to be considered in any other action? 
 And if in no other, upon what principle can 
 there be any religious worship ? W hy should 
 men pray ? Is the Most High to leave them in 
 their pastimes and sins, and come at their beck 
 in the hour of trouble 7 How can there be any 
 future retribution ? For this j)roceeds upon the 
 supposition of God's perpetual presence and 
 
Considerations on Lots. 275 
 
 agency ; as there is none in earth or heaven, but 
 himself, who can render to every one according 
 to his works. 
 
 The sum is, that against the interposition of 
 God's providence in the decision by lot, there 
 can be advanced no arguments which do not 
 lead directly to atheism. Consequently, all such 
 arguments are false ; and a decision by the lot is 
 a decision of God's own providence. And as 
 the lot, in every form and under all circum- 
 stances, is an appeal to him, it ought to be em- 
 ployed in a manner suitable to its nature. What 
 the proper use of the lot is, and how it is abused 
 at the expense of much sin, shall be pointed out 
 hereafter. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 It has already been proved from the very na- 
 ture of the thing, that a lot is, in every form and 
 upon every occasion, an appeal to the Most High 
 God as the Governor of the world, and that the 
 decision obtained by it is to be regarded as his 
 decision. My doctrine, however, comes clothed 
 with an authority much higher than that of ar- 
 gument, the authority of his own oracles. The 
 
276 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 lot is cast into the laj), but the whole disposing 
 thereof is of the Lord. (Prov. xvi. 33.) This 
 whole disposing, a good translation from a term 
 of great latitude, cannot comprehend less than 
 the following declarations : 
 
 1. That as soon as the lot leaves the hands of 
 men, it passes into the hand of God. 
 
 2. That the direction of it to its issue is his 
 own act ; and, 
 
 3. That he acknowledges the result as a judg- 
 ment given by himself 
 
 Can there remain any doubt on this point with 
 a serious mind? Is there any suspicion that 
 the reasoning upon it may have been overstrained, 
 or the sense of the passage just quoted mistaken 1 
 Let us compare them with scriptural facts. 
 
 The patriarch Jacob, on his dying bed, fore- 
 told by the spirit of prophecy the future condi- 
 tion of his sons, and even marked out the dis- 
 tricts which some of them should inhabit. Mo- 
 ses, in his parting blessing, was equally particu- 
 lar with respect to certain of the tribes. And 
 yet the land of their inheritance, by a statute of 
 Moses himself, was directed to be divided by lot : 
 and was actually so divided under the inspection 
 of Joshua, Eleazer, and the principal men of the 
 nation. Thus, also, in the election of the first 
 king of Israel, Saul, the son of Kish, a Benja- 
 mite, was pointed out to Samuel the prophet by 
 special revelation, as the man whom God had 
 
Considerations on Lots. 277 
 
 designated for that high station. For The Lord 
 had told Samuel in his ear, saying, To-morroio, 
 about this time, Iicill send thee a man out of the 
 land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to 
 be captain over my people Israel. And when 
 Samuel, the next day, saw Saul, the Lord said 
 unto him. Behold the man tchom I S2mke to thee 
 of! This same shall reign over my people. In 
 pursuance of this intimation Samuel took Saul 
 apart, and poured a phial of oil upon his head, 
 and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the 
 Lord hath anointed tJiee to be cap>tain over his in- 
 heritance ? 
 
 This affair, the reader will notice, was between 
 Samuel and the new monarch alone, as the 
 former had, of set purpose, excluded all wit- 
 nesses. It appears also to have been kept a pro- 
 found secret. For when God had given to Saul 
 " another heart," and the prophetic spirit had 
 fallen upon him, the* people were astonished, 
 and said one to another, What is this that is come 
 unto the son of Kish 7 But had they known the 
 nature of the interview between him and Sa- 
 muel, they would have been prepared for this 
 singular, and to them inexplicable, occurrence. 
 
 Shortly after these transactions, the good old 
 prophet assembled the tribes of Israel, before 
 God, in Mizpeh ; and when he had, in the most 
 dignified manner, but without success, remon- 
 strated against their folly and their sin in reject- 
 
278 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 ing their God, and desiring a king, he ordered 
 them to present themselves by their tribes, and 
 to choose their king by lot. Tlie tribes came 
 near ; the lot was cast ; and fell first on the 
 tribe, next on the family, and finally on the per- 
 son, of Saul. 
 
 Other instances are at hand, but these two are 
 sufficient. The certainty of the event is previ- 
 ously ascertained in both, by the testimony of 
 God ; and yet the lot is cast in the same manner 
 as if nothing had been revealed ! Who does 
 not see, that the credit of his prophets and the 
 truth of their inspiration, were put, by such a 
 proceeding, to the most hazardous of all possible 
 experiments. Who does not see, in the exact co- 
 incidence of the sortilege with the prediction, a 
 divine finger directing the lot to that same issue 
 which a divine prescience had foretold ? The 
 alternative is plain. You must either deny the 
 scriptural narrative to be true, or you must con- 
 cede that the " whole disposing of these lots was 
 from the Lord." Samuel exclaimed, when Saul 
 was produced to the people. See ye him^ lohom 
 the Lord hath chosen ? They knew of no choice 
 but that of the lot. They never so much as 
 hesitated whether it was the divine act or not. 
 Nor was their opinion at all uncommon. The 
 very same opinion runs through the whole his- 
 tory of lots as recorded in the Bible. And, by 
 the way, it is not impertinent to ask. How such 
 
Considerations on Lots. 279 
 
 a notion took possession of the minds of men 7 
 To say that superstition early prevailed, and 
 that it easily corrupts the moral and intellectual 
 powers, may satisfy an infidel, but not an inqui- 
 rer, far less a thinker. Superstition obscures, 
 abuses, and degrades, whatever it touches, but 
 it creates nothing. It misapplies, and throws 
 into a thousand absurd contortions, the religious 
 character of man ; but without the pre-existence 
 of that character it can have no materials to act 
 upon. The lot could never have been an engine 
 of superstition ; I will add, could never have 
 found its way into sober discussion, and thence 
 into foolish pastime, but in consequence of a 
 deep laid conviction that it is a mode of mani- 
 festing the divine will. Ring the changes upon 
 the word superstition as often and as loud as you 
 please ; you do but beg the question ; you give 
 no explanation ; you are not a hair's breadth 
 nearer the solution of the problem. Besides, in 
 the cases which we have examined, there was 
 no room for superstition. It is not the attribute 
 of that blind and senseless tyranny to look into 
 the secrets of a future age ; and the coincidences 
 between the prophecy and the lot, both in the 
 division of Canaan and the elevation of Saul, 
 were too many, too minute, and too public, to 
 have been either fortuitous or fraudulent. What 
 remains, but that the conviction of which we 
 are speaking could have had no other origin 
 
280 Coitsideralions on Lots. 
 
 than a faith in the particular providence of God, 
 commingling with affairs apparently the most 
 casual, overruling them to a proper termination, 
 and instamping the lesson upon the use of the 
 lot? This beautifully elucidates certain scrip- 
 tural phraseologies which otherwise are hardly 
 intelligible. Thou siistainest my lot. Thou 
 shall stand in thy lot. The rod of the luicked 
 shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous. In- 
 heritance (lot) amo7ig them that are sanctified. 
 Giving thanks unto the leather who hath made us 
 meet to be jx^'^^takers of the inheritance (lot) of 
 the saints in light. JVeither as being lords over 
 
 God^S HERITAGE (lOTs). 
 
 How could men ever have submitted their 
 wishes, their reason, their fortunes, their lives, to 
 the lot, without a strong assurance that the wise 
 and righteous God speaks by it ? How could 
 the term '^ lot" have been adopted to signify their 
 condition and circumstances, as ordered by his 
 providence, without a settled belief that the lot 
 is regulated by his providence ? Or, if this be- 
 lief is erroneous, how could it have been ad- 
 mitted into the devotional language of his church, 
 and sanctioned, from time immemorial, by his 
 Spirit of truth 7 
 
 These considerations preclude, in a great 
 measure, an objection which readily offers itself, 
 and is not without force. " That the lots men- 
 tioned in scripture, were extraordinary, and be- 
 
Considerations on Lots. 281 
 
 came appeals to God, and expressed his will, in 
 virtue of his own commandment, which is equally 
 necessary to every similar application of them ; 
 and therefore, that the instances quoted do nei- 
 ther prove his particular agency in ordinary lots, 
 nor furnish any general principle of reasoning 
 as to their nature and use." 
 
 This objection, though deemed by some to be 
 unanswerable, is not valid. 
 
 1. It is incorrect in its /«c^s. For although 
 there are instances of God's directing an appeal 
 to him by lot for special purposes ; yet there are 
 others in which the appeal was not founded up- 
 on any such direction ; and so must have rested 
 upon the known design of the lot. 
 
 2. It is incorrect in its assumption, viz. that it 
 was the special injunction of God which con- 
 verted the lot into an appeal to him. Whereas 
 the injunction 2y7-esupposcs such an appeal as 
 being essential to the lot ; and in appointing it 
 to be employed on special occasions, only ap- 
 pointed the use of a known method of bringing 
 a matter before the dirme tribunal, in preference 
 to other methods which might have been se- 
 lected. 
 
 3. The objection throws its authors and advo- 
 cates into that gulf of atheism, to which, it was 
 demonstrated in our first paper, the denial of 
 God's providence in the lot most certainly tends. 
 
 Vol. III. 36 
 
282 Considei'ations on Lots. 
 
 From the whole of the foregoing view we col- 
 lect, that the lot ivS an act of high and solemn 
 worship, as an appeal to the God of the earth 
 and of the heavens must necessarily he; and that 
 it ought never to be interposed but in matters 
 which warrant such an appeal. 
 
 What then are the uses of the lot ? When is 
 it proper ? And how should it be conducted ? 
 
 The uses of the lot are two. 
 
 1. It bears witness to n particidar providence. 
 
 It does not merely acknowledge God as an 
 upright judge who will, at such time as shall 
 please him, reward the good and punish the 
 evil ; but it incorporates with an act of worship, 
 a profession of faith that he is present, and pro- 
 nounces judgment on the spot. It is his finger 
 which moves the lot, and his voice which utters 
 the decree ! The operation, then, of the lot, is 
 to check, by a visible rebuke, that forgetfulness 
 of God to which we are so prone, and which 
 produces, in all tiieir variety, the bitter fruits of 
 iniquity and of wo — to assert liis dominion not 
 only over every world, but over every creature, 
 and over all the circumstances which relate to 
 that creature's happiness or misery — to erect a 
 barrier against the inroads of both speculative 
 and practical atheism — and to strengthen the 
 influence of that pure and undefiled religion 
 which is built upon the doctrine of a particular 
 providence. 
 
Considerations on Lots. 283 
 
 2. The lot is of use to determine questions 
 among' men. 
 
 Like the oath, it is a last resort. The one 
 appeals to God for the sincerity of oar declara- 
 tions : the other for the direction of onr choice. 
 They are different forms of acknowledging his 
 government, but the effect of both is the same — 
 to put an end to controversy, by putting a limit 
 to human research. Thus the scripture repre- 
 sents them — 
 
 "^nOATH, "T/ieLoT, 
 
 For conformation, is Causeth contentions 
 an end of all strife.''^ to cease., and parteth 
 Heb. vi. 16, between the mighty." 
 
 Prov. xviii. 18. 
 
 The parallel is exact, and leads to the second 
 question. 
 
 When is the lot propei' ') 
 
 In cases of importance ; which cannot be de- 
 cided by other means in the exercise of our rea- 
 son ; and for the prevention or termination of 
 strife. 
 
 The case must be important ; for appeals to 
 the living God with thoughtless frequency, upon 
 mere trifles, is an impiety which cannot be in- 
 dulged Avith impunity, nor thought of without 
 horror. 
 
284 Cotisiderations on Lots. 
 
 The case must not only be difficult, but such 
 as our best discretion is unable to bring to a com- 
 fortable issue. 
 
 For if we appeal directly to the judgment of 
 God in things which may be fairly and wisely 
 settled without so appealing, we depreciate the 
 value, by superseding the exercise of our ra- 
 tional faculties — we endeavor to disturb the 
 order which God has established, subjecting the 
 tribunal of human reason to the tribunal of his 
 supremacy ; inasmuch as we attempt to abolish 
 the inferior tribunal by withdrawing causes 
 which are of its proper jurisdiction ; and thus, 
 impeaching his wisdom, not honoring his throne, 
 we provoke him rather to inflict his curse than 
 to command his blessing. 
 
 Cases in which the lot may lawfully be used, 
 are such as these : 
 
 The division of property : when the portions 
 of it are adjUvSted with impartiality and skill; 
 and yet the claimants cannot agree upon the 
 distribution. The appointment of men to a ser- 
 vice of a peculiar interest or hazard ; when more 
 than the requisite number appear ; and their re- 
 spective qualifications or disqualifications are 
 pretty equally balanced. 
 
 The selection of victims ; when several, in- 
 volved in the same crime, are under the same 
 condemnation : but the government, leaning to 
 mercy, and resolving to make an example, re- 
 
Considerations on hots. 285 
 
 quires only a part to suffer, and does not name 
 the individuals. The reader can easily add 
 other illustrations. 
 
 I have only to answer the third question upon 
 this head ; viz. 
 
 How should the lot be conducted? 
 
 As it is an act of worship, the glorious ma- 
 jesty of Him with whom they have to do, should 
 be present to the minds of the worshipers. 
 Passion, levity, indiffernce, should be laid aside. 
 The name of God should be invoked by prayer ; 
 and the lot cast as under his eye. When the 
 issue is declared, the parties concerned should 
 repress every feeling of resentment or dissatis- 
 faction ; and acquiesce with promptitude and 
 reverence, as they undoubtedly would have 
 done, had their Almighty Umpire rendered him- 
 self visible, and given sentence in their hearing. 
 
 There cannot be a happier elucidation of the 
 right manner of applying the lot than the exam- 
 ple of the apostles at the election of a colleague 
 to fill the place of Judas. They knew that 
 an apostle could be chosen only by the imme- 
 diate act of their Master in heaven. They knew, 
 however, that he must have certain qualifications 
 which Peter mentioned. They looked round 
 among their brethren, and found two thus quali- 
 fied. They had gone as far as they could go in 
 fixing upon the man by ascertained rules, and 
 an insuperable difficulty presenting itself in the 
 
286 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 circumstance of two answering the general de- 
 scription, while only one was wanted, they refer 
 the decision to their ascended Lord. Having 
 set the candidates before him, they j^rayed and 
 said, Thou, Lord, (it was the Lord Jesus to whom 
 they prayed,) Thou, Lord, lohich knoioest the 
 hearts of all meri, show luhethcr of these two thou 
 hast chosen, that he may take part of this minis- 
 try and apostleshij), from which Judas by trans- 
 gression fell, that he might go to his own place. 
 And they gave forth their lots, aiid the lot fell 
 ujjon Matthias ; and he was numbered with the 
 eleven apostles. The decision was received with 
 profound submission, as the decision of the Lord 
 Jesus himself Not a soul disputed it; not a 
 whisper was heard of discontent or doubt. Let 
 Christians, in their use of the lot, go and do 
 likewise. 
 
Considerations on JLols. 287 
 
 No. III. 
 
 In the preceding numbers we have established 
 to the satisfaction, we hope, of the serious 
 reader, these two propo.sitions : 
 
 1. That the lot is a direct ajjpeal to God as 
 the Governor of the world, founded on the faith 
 of a particular providence. 
 
 2. That when used on proper occasions, and 
 in a proper manner, both of which have been 
 explained, it is an act of high and acceptable 
 worship. 
 
 From this doctrine the conclusion is plain, 
 that all unnecessary, light, careless, or customary 
 uses of the lot ; all uses of it, other than such 
 as are holy, reverent, and warranted by the rules 
 of the written word, are sinful, and to be 
 avoided as profanations of the divine name. 
 
 For under the name of God is comprehended 
 every thing by which he makes himself known. 
 In the oath he is solemnly invoked as the Om- 
 niscient, whose '' eyes are upon the truth." In 
 the lot a decision is put into his hands as the 
 Sovereign Umpire between his creatures, who 
 dispenses to them the most pure and perfect 
 righteousness. In both, his dominion over us, 
 his right to dispose of us and our affairs, and 
 the account which we shall render to him, are 
 fully acknowledged. 
 
288 Considerations on Lots., 
 
 The sinfulness of profane swearing consists in 
 treating with levity that name of God which the 
 spirits of heaven adore ; in impairing our sense 
 of his majesty ; in weakening the restraint which 
 his authority imposes on the lusts of men ; and 
 diffusing, in the same proportion, the influence 
 of practical atheism. If, then, as has been 
 proved, the lot is an ordinance of the same ge- 
 neral nature with the oath; if it involves the 
 same homage to the divine government j if it is 
 calculated to promote the same great moral and 
 social purposes, who can doubt that the irreli- 
 gious use of it is of the same complexion with 
 the irreligious use of the oath, and like it be- 
 longs to that " taking of the name of the Lord in 
 vain," which '' the Lord will not hold guiltless 7" 
 We question not that many who would on no 
 account pollute their lips with a profane oath, 
 are in the habit of misapplying the lot without 
 any conscientious scruple whatever. The rea- 
 son is to be sought in their want of instruction 
 and reflection. That they sin is not less certain 
 than that the lot is an appeal to God. Their 
 sin, we hope, must be referred to ignorance ; but 
 that ignorace cannot be invincible ; and is, there- 
 fore, culpable; and the excuse arising from it 
 grows less valid with every opportunity of in- 
 formation, and with every call to '' consider their 
 ways." 
 
Considerations on Lois. 289 
 
 This deduction from the foregoing reasoning 
 we might submit without comment to the con- 
 science of our readers. It contains the substance 
 of those conclusions by which, on many ac- 
 counts public and private, we wish them to try 
 the use of the lot as it occurs in the present 
 state of society. But as a general truth is often 
 best perceived in its details, we shall exemplify 
 our principle by pointing out several abuses of 
 the lot. 
 
 1. It is often employed as a means of deter- 
 mining the spiritual state and character of indi- 
 viduals. This is done in three ways. 
 
 Cards, with texts of scripture on one side, the 
 other being blank, are shuffled together, and 
 then dealt out to the company, who read the 
 text on their own cards, under an impression of 
 its being a divine message to them respectively. 
 To what lengths this species of game is carried, 
 or under what restrictions it is conducted, we 
 pretend not to know; but that such a game 
 exists we are perfectly certain. 
 
 In place of these cards the leaves of the Bible 
 are sometimes substituted; the book being 
 kept shiit, a pin is stuck between the leaves, and 
 a message from God is looked for in one of the 
 pages between which the pin is inserted. 
 
 Nearly allied to this, and substantially the 
 same, is the practice of opening the Bible at ran- 
 
 Vol. III. 37 
 
290 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 dom, and taking the passage first caught by the 
 eye as the message mtendecl. 
 
 These methods of applying the word of God 
 carry with them the mark of such puerile and 
 absurd superstition, that it may seem needless 
 even to mention them. But the mind in distress 
 about eternal things, under the influence of erro- 
 neous views of religion, is often bewildered, and 
 impelled by temptation to expedients very ill 
 calculated to yield relief. However incredible 
 it may be thought, this very practice of turning 
 the Bible into a lottery has filled some weak yet 
 well meaning people with unfounded confidence, 
 and driven others almost to desperation. One 
 man finds on his card, or selects with his pin, or 
 catches by a sudden glance of his eye, an assu- 
 rance of grace, or a promise of eternal life, and 
 he is transported with ecstasy. Another by the 
 same means lights upon a threatening or a curse, 
 and he is broken with terrors as if an angel of 
 God had written before his eyes a sentence of 
 reprobation. That which has happened already 
 may happen again, and Christians should be on 
 their guard against such delusion. Delusion it 
 imdoubtedly is, if words of truth and soberness 
 are entitled to our regard. 
 
 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, 
 and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
 correction, for instruction in righteousness ; that 
 the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly fur- 
 
Co7isidc7afio7is on Lots. 291 
 
 uished unto every good work." But in order to 
 reap this excellent fruit from the holy writings, 
 they must be studied, searched, compared. They 
 are addressed to us as rational beings, whose 
 faculties are to be exercised in discovering their 
 sense, that we may understand what is the re- 
 vealed will of God, and what opinion we are to 
 form of our own character. Serious inquiry 
 into these matters, with an ardent desire for the 
 guidance of the Spirit of truth, will, for the 
 most part, enable us to determine with tolerable 
 precision every question affecting our substan- 
 tial interests. They who are the most devoted 
 to it are not only the most intelligent Christians, 
 but, ordinarily, enjoy the most settled peace, and 
 are most abundant in the " fruits of righteous- 
 ness which are by Jesus Christ to the praise and 
 glory of God." But now all this use of the 
 scriptures, and all the blessed effects accruing 
 from diligent and holy investigation of them, 
 are completely set aside by converting them 
 into a lottery.. The greatest and the least ac- 
 quaintance with them are exactly on a level. 
 Progress in the knowledge of their doctrines, 
 precepts, promises, is of no avail. All com- 
 paring of things spiritual with .spiritual is at an 
 end. There is no more room for self-examina- 
 tion. The trial of tempers, affections, habits, 
 principles, corruptions, graces, declensions, re- 
 vivals, by the word of God, is superseded. The 
 
292 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 Bible ceases to be a rule of faith and conduct, 
 for every judgment is made to rest upon an im- 
 mediate i^evelation obtained by lot. They who 
 resort to such a summary method of getting at 
 ►spiritual results ought in all consistency to pur- 
 sue it in temporal things. It would prevent the 
 trouble of much circuitous industry ; it would 
 engender no sloth more ignoble than what it 
 creates in the concerns of the soul ; and it is 
 obviously as proper to decide by the turn of 
 a shilling whether we shall plough or not, as to 
 interrogate the point of a pin whether we shall 
 be saved or perish. 
 
 It is surprising that they, who are addicted to 
 this unhallowed use of the scriptures, do not 
 perceive their self-contradiction; and what is 
 infinitely worse, their endeavor to draw into 
 self-contradiction the God with whom they have 
 to do. They either lay some stress on the issue 
 of their lottery speculations in the scripture, or 
 none. If none, the contradiction lies in their 
 attempting to produce something by means 
 which, according to their own concession, can 
 produce nothing. If, on the other hand, any 
 stress be laid on them, the contradiction lies in 
 attempting to make these very means destroy 
 their own result, which is always done by rc- 
 jjeating the experiment. And when the issues 
 differ, as in most cases they will, one conclusion 
 is set off against the other, and yet both are 
 
Considerations on Lots. 293 
 
 valid. Thus, if a man shall draw a blessing 
 this moment, and a curse the next, he is bound 
 to believe himself both blessed and accursed ; 
 for the reason of his believing the one is equally 
 strong for believing the other, or else for not be- 
 lieving either, which would be as gross a con- 
 tradiction as the forn '^r. 
 
 If this, however, w^ere all ; if in these their 
 liberties with the Bible men of vain, irregular 
 minds, merely displayed their own folly, they 
 might expose themselves at their leisure. But 
 they actually endeavor to draw the Most High 
 God into self-contradiction. For if they view 
 those passages of his word which are assigned 
 to them by lot, as expressing his decision, they 
 ought never to try again, because his " counsel 
 shall stand." Whereas, by the very fact of 
 " trying again," they ask him to reverse his ow^i 
 judgment. And thus, their characters remaining 
 the same, should they happen, as in the example 
 above, to get now a curse and then a blessinsr 
 they ascribe to him two opposite judgments, in 
 one of wiiich he must necessarily certify a false- 
 hood. These are daring freedoms indeed. The 
 very thought of perverting his book of life into 
 a book of gambling should fill us with horror. 
 
 But let not our reprehension of such profane- 
 ness, for by no softer name can we call it, be mis- 
 understood. Let us not be suspected of deny- 
 ing that portions of divine truth, suddenly and 
 
294 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 unexpectedly presented to the mind, have in 
 many instances been accompanied with extra- 
 ordinary eflects. A careless man has uninten- 
 tionally opened the Bible at a place which ar- 
 rested his notice and flashed light in npon his 
 conscience. It was an arrow from the quiver of 
 the Etenal, shot into his very heart, and it stuck 
 there, drinking up his spirit, till it was extracted 
 by the healing hand of mercy. 
 
 So, likewise, many of those who '' fear the 
 Lord, ' and yet " walk in darkness and have no 
 light," proceeding in the path of duty, mourning 
 and depressed, have taken up their Bible, hardly 
 knowing whether they should reatl it or not ; 
 and have been directed to some unlooked for 
 passage, which, being powerfully applied to 
 their hearts, has dispelled their fears, and hlled 
 them with " peace and joy in believing." We 
 know that all this is exploded by many, and 
 even by vsome who are called, and who ought to 
 be, ministers of the gospel, as blind fanaticism. 
 [f the reader be of that class, we have at pre- 
 sent no dispute with him. He is welcome to the 
 consolation of laughing at that which multitudes 
 of believers, now in the church, and multitudes 
 more among the '' spirits of just men made per- 
 fect," can attest to be a divdne reality. He has 
 much higher reason to doubt his own Chris- 
 tianity than tlie sobriety of their experience. 
 
Considerations on Lois. 295 
 
 But while we allow in the amplest manner for 
 such cases as these — while we are far from 
 " limiting the Holy One of Israel " — we cannot 
 forget that his sovereignty is not onr rule of ac- 
 tion, nor concede that his interposition in such 
 instances as we have mentioned affords the 
 smallest countenance to the practice we have 
 condemned. " To the law and to the testimony ; 
 if they speak not according to this word, it is 
 because there is no light in them." But the sen- 
 tence of " the law and the testimony " is not to 
 be procured by cutting it up into lottery tickets, 
 nor to be used as if the promises of life and the 
 denunciations of death were pasted among its 
 leaves, to be distributed by lot. As w ell might 
 the divine promises and threatenings be par- 
 celed out on a back-gammon board, and the 
 dice be rattled for a cJiance of heaven or of hell. 
 If every man, whose soul is not lost to serious- 
 ness, shudders at this idea, let him also shudder 
 at the other, which is equally profane. It is a 
 gross abuse of the lot, and therefore a prostitu- 
 tion of an ordinance by the proper use of which 
 the name of God is glorified. 
 
296 ConsideratioJis on Lots. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 We exposed, in our last number, that signal 
 abuse of the lot which employs it as a means of 
 determining the spiritual state and character of 
 individuals. We proceed to point out another 
 abuse far more extensive in its operation and 
 most fatal in its effects, we mean games of 
 chance. Under this general appellation we com- 
 prehend cards^ dice., and other games, of which 
 the lot is an essential part. 
 
 The universal and decisive objection to them 
 in every form and under all circumstances is, 
 that they are jjrofane appeals to the divine throne., 
 and a luanton prostitution of a divine ordinance. 
 For the premises which support this conckision 
 we refer the reader to our first two numbers. 
 
 We are aware that our position will not 
 readily obtain the concurrence of many who are 
 far from being friendly to gaming or gamblers. 
 Both are held in abhorrence by sober-minded 
 men throughout the whole world. But their 
 opinions greatly vary as to the nature of the 
 games. 
 
 Some consider them, or at least certain forms 
 of theni, as innocent and pleasant recreations, 
 wheji they are not subservient to the sordid pas- 
 sions ; that is, when the parties either do not 
 play for money, or for no more than is necessary 
 to keep up the spirit of the competition. 
 
Considerations on Lots. 297 
 
 Others despise them as frivolous and ignoble 
 pastimes, without attaching to them the blame 
 of direct immorality, unless they become incen- 
 tives to crime by becoming the sources of un- 
 lawful gain. 
 
 Many beyond doubt there are, whose indul- 
 gence in these sports carries them to no such ex- 
 cess ; who treat gaming and gamesters with me- 
 rited contempt ; and who, while they give a lei- 
 sure hour to the card-table or the die, have not 
 the smallest suspicion that their amusement has 
 an irreligious taint, or tends to weaken in the 
 slightest degree the sense and effect of those ob- 
 ligations by Avhich man is bound to God his 
 Maker. 
 
 With these we remonstrate : with all who are 
 not strangers to compunctious feeling after they 
 have risen from a game of hazard ; and with all, 
 who, although they have occasionally speculated 
 upon the question, have neA^er been at the pains 
 to decide it satisfactorily to their own minds. 
 
 Gaming has always had an evil reputation in 
 all civilized countries, especially such as have 
 been enlightened by the Christian revelation. 
 It is both curious and instructive to mark the 
 gradations of this sentiment. 
 
 Gamesters themselves, in whom the avaricious 
 lust has not quite overpowered both integrity 
 and shame, know and feel that their occupation 
 is vile; for they study secrecy, not merely to 
 
 Vol. Ill 38 
 
298 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 elude the penal statutes of the law, but also to 
 save appearances among men better than them- 
 selves. Fame, low as is her credit for veracity, 
 has put less truth into her tattle, than is usual 
 even with her, if there are not in this very city 
 of New York, gentlemen^ and ladies too, who 
 consume their midnights over the fascinating 
 chance, amid piles of money ; but who could 
 never meet, in broad day, the infamy which con- 
 fronts an avowed gambler. 
 
 This, it may be said, is referable to that 
 wholesome discipline by which public opinion 
 coerces the impudence of vice. For the most 
 part it is so. But public opinion is an efiect, 
 and like all other effects must have a cause. 
 Set the gamblers aside, and there remains a 
 large body of sober, discreet members of the 
 community who never gamble, who view gaming 
 for money as altogether unjustifiable, as a sys- 
 tem of rapacity and plunder, and would on no 
 account whatever so far degrade themselves in 
 their own eyes as to pollute their liands with 
 the product of the gaming board. Yet a game 
 of chance, detached from such applications of it, 
 they will not stigmatize as immoral. How did 
 they arrive at the distinction ? How will they 
 show that a thing lawful for the purposes of 
 amusement may not be lawful for the purposes 
 of emolument also ? Why should that be ill- 
 gotten which is not gotten by ill means 1 Why 
 
Considerations on Lots. 299 
 
 should an hour or two spent at the card-table 
 gratis be consistent with virtue, and that same 
 time spent in the same employment be con- 
 demned as criminal the moment it profits one's 
 purse 1 Making" money is not vicious ; by the 
 terms of the argument cards and dice are not 
 vicious ; and yet making money by cards or dice 
 is accounted vicious by such a strong and gene- 
 ral coincidence of opinion as imposes law upon 
 society. What is there, then, to render the com- 
 hination immoral 1 It cannot be mere excess of 
 ardor in the pursuit of lucre. Labor may be 
 excessive ; enterprise may be excessive ; eco- 
 nomy may be excessive; yet economy, enter- 
 prise, and labor, are not immoral methods of ac- 
 quiring property. If the dreadful consequences^ 
 which in all ages have followed the spirit of 
 gaming, be assigned as the reason, we ask why 
 these dreadful consequences have followed ? In 
 the government of God evil consequences are 
 the punishment of evil deeds. The loss, disho- 
 nor, and wretchedness, which sooner or later 
 overtake the wicked, are the oiatiwal penalties 
 by which he chastises sin, vindicates the good- 
 ness of his law, and proclaims his determination 
 to enforce its authority. The universe cannot 
 produce an example of a train of miseries asso- 
 ciated, in every age, in every country, in every 
 state of society, with any action or set of ac- 
 tions, in which there is no abuse of some divine 
 
300 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 institution. Thus, falsehood, debauchery, covet- 
 ousness, dishonesty, revenge, and a thousand 
 other vices, will all be found, upon close exami- 
 nation, to be abuses of God's institutions, and their 
 deplorable effects to be the punishments which 
 he has annexed to them respectively. 
 
 Now as the fact is incontestible, that no curses 
 are more conspicuous or regular than those 
 which come down upon the head of the gam- 
 bler, the inference is irrefragable that gaming 
 must be a most provoking abuse of some divine 
 institution. What is it 7 We answer, the lot. 
 This solution alone goes to the bottom of the 
 difficulty. This alone explains the moral phe- 
 nomena which invariably attend the system of 
 gaming. An ordinance which God has appointed 
 for the holy and reverend acknowledgment of 
 his superintendence over the affairs of men, has 
 been perverted to the ends, first of amusement, 
 and then of lucre. This perversion he resents 
 and punishes. It will be a pitiful evasion to 
 plead instances of persons who play with mode- 
 ration as invalidating our general argument. 
 There are degrees of transgression and of cor- 
 rection. " Lust, when it hath conceived, bring- 
 eth forth sin ;" but it is not till " sin is '^finished " 
 that it " bringeth forth death.^^ And the death 
 which smites the perfected sin is only smiting 
 the progeny of the parturient lust. The game 
 of chance and downright gambling are but dif- 
 
Considerations on Lots. 301 
 
 ferent stages of the same iniquity. They have 
 always been coexistent ; if not in the same indi- 
 vidual, yet certainly in the same community. 
 Let the former take its course, and the latter 
 inevitably follows. So, when the spirit of gam- 
 bling, which is the matured offspring of the 
 game of chance, suffers the pains of divine dis- 
 pleasure, the blow is aimed at both together. 
 It is the principle which the " Governor among 
 the nations " is judging. If he strike it chiefly 
 in its most depraved state and most offensive 
 form, he does not indicate that in its earlier 
 states and less ruinous connection he tolerates it 
 as innocent, but gives another document that he 
 is long suffering and slow to anger. If this con- 
 clusion be at any time reversed, it is only a new 
 fact in the history of an old imposture. Because 
 sentence against an evil work is not executed 
 SPEEDILY, therefore the heart of the sons of men 
 is fully set in them to do evil. 
 
 All this, we are sensible, will be laughed to 
 scorn by those who '' like not to retain God in 
 their knowledge." We leave them to their pro- 
 pensities and their reward. Judgments are pre- 
 pared for scoRNERs, mul striates for the hack of 
 
 FOOLS, 
 
 But to those who have never weighed the sub- 
 ject seriously, or who are " halting between two 
 opinions," as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness 
 of the games in question, we address ourselves 
 
302 Considerations on LoU. 
 
 with better hope. They will not contemn, as 
 unworthy of their regard, the reasonings which 
 have already been submitted to them. They 
 will hardly suppose that moralists, divines, and 
 statesmen — Jews, Greeks, and Romans — politi- 
 cal legislatures, and ecclesiastical councils — 
 public principle, and private virtue, would all 
 unite in reprobating an innocent amusement. 
 But they have united in reprobating games of 
 chance. A coiubination which seems impossible 
 unless upon tlie ground of some common and 
 strong conviction of their intrinsic immorality. 
 
 That the gospel of Jesus Christ has divinely 
 illuminated the doctrine of morals, nothing but 
 a profligate warfare against truth will deny. 
 Where that gospel reigns in its purest influence • 
 rectifying speculative and practical error; set- 
 ting the heart at liberty from the bondage of 
 depravity ; and imparting a quick sensibility to 
 the conscience, games of chance are always 
 held in the icorst repute. 
 
 So long as a man continues profane and 
 wicked, he can generally game himself, and 
 make companions of those who do. But when 
 " he turns from his vanities to serve the living 
 God ;" when he ceases to have " fellowship with 
 the unfruitful works of darkness;" when his 
 delights are with the saints, with the excellent 
 of the earth ; and, in the hope of seeing Jesus 
 as he is, he " purifies himself, even as he is pure," 
 
Considerations on Lots. 303 
 
 he cannot easily fail io throw away his cards 
 and his dice. There have been, and there are, 
 professors of religion who retain a predilection 
 for these amusements ; but they are not, and 
 never have been, noted for circumspect and ex- 
 emplary Christians. Go the whole round of 
 those numerous circles which encompass the 
 card -table. You will find selections of all sorts, 
 from low vulgarity up to accomplished fashion — 
 from the refuse of the grog-shop, up to the most 
 brilliant assemblage of the drawing-room ; but 
 if you Ikll in with a single card-party, composed 
 of those who " worship God in spirit and in 
 truth ;" who remember that they were " re- 
 deemed from their vain conversation, with the 
 precious blood of Christ ;" and who are con- 
 strained by his love, to " live, not unto them- 
 selves, but unto him who died for them and rose 
 again ;" — if you fall in with a single card-party 
 composed of such Christians, (and they are the 
 only ones who shall see (xod,) we will give up 
 the cause. 
 
 What shall we say to these things 1 Shall 
 we say that a point which appears so serious to 
 the very best of the human race, is not worth 
 our attention 7 Shall we say that in deciding 
 on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a particu- 
 lar set of actions, we will prefer the judgment 
 of the thoughtless, the profane, the abandoned, 
 to the judgment of them who '' fear God and 
 
304 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 keep his commandments V Shall we say that 
 his church, in which his presence dwells, and 
 his mercies are dispensed, is a worse guide in 
 morals, than the '' world which lieth in wicked- 
 ness ?" Shall we say that the Spirit and grace 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ teach his people to 
 cherish an unconquerable antipathy against 
 practices which are not forbidden by his law ? 
 Who, that has not parted with reverence for 
 whatever is most holy, and just, and good, will 
 embrace the affirmative ? And who, that vindi- 
 cates the game of chance, does not embrace it 1: 
 The reader perceives that the immorality 
 which we attribute to games of hazard, does not 
 arise from circumstances ; but is essential to their 
 nature. We pronounce them immoral and un- 
 lawful, precisely on the ground of their abuse 
 and profanation of the lot, which is an institu- 
 tion of God for special religious and moral pur- 
 poses. We have introduced a view of their 
 effects no further than was necessary for the 
 prosecution of this argument. Not that we 
 think these effects of trifling moment. They 
 are of great and terrible moment. They 
 should never be forgotten by any who incline to 
 more indulgence than sev^erity toward the games. 
 By the light of the penalty, men often learn to 
 read the law. An ear deaf to the voice of re- 
 ligion, may sometimss listen to the admonitions 
 of prudence. An eye which sees no vice, may 
 
Considerations on Lots. 305 
 
 discern meanness ; and the fear of disgrace or 
 loss may control those who who are intractable 
 by piety. 
 
 For the sake of such, and for the confirmation 
 of those who already obey the dictates of a w^ell- 
 informed conscience, we shall give in our next, 
 a sketch of some evils incident to games of 
 chance, " 
 
 Vol III 39 
 
306 Considerations on Lots 
 
 No. V. 
 Evils incident to Games of Chance. 
 
 We have repeatedly stated, in the course of 
 these papers, that our great objection to lots as 
 they are commonly used, is the impiety of their 
 principle ; and that this constitutes the unlaw- 
 fulness of games of chance, such as cards^ dice. 
 &c. 
 
 x\ssuming our doctrine as true, because it has 
 been proved, we can view the mischiefs attend- 
 ant upon gaming, in no other light than that of 
 penalties which God inflicts upon the violation 
 of his law. On the confirmed gamester we do 
 not hope to make an impression. An under- 
 standing so blighted ; a conscience so seared ; 
 a heart so cold, so selfish, and so hard, as enter 
 into the composition of his character, render 
 him deaf to remonstrance, and put him. for the 
 most part, out of the reach of reform. 
 
 But they who hate gaming, while they love 
 the game ; who play freely for amusement, while 
 they would, on no account, play for lucre ; and 
 who would shudder at the thought of promoting 
 either vice or misery, are intreated to reflect 
 whether there be not such evils connected with 
 the game of chance, even in its least exception- 
 able form, and with its best limitations, as re- 
 quire them to abstain from it altogether 
 
Considerations on Lots. 307 
 
 1. A most unprofitable consumption of tiinc^ 
 is, by general consent, among the fruits of the 
 card-table and the dice-board. 
 
 Those relaxations and exercises which are 
 necessary to health, to spirits, and to activity, 
 ordinarily carry with them their own restric- 
 tion. Bodily weariness, or the cessation of that 
 charm which, for a short period, the mind per- 
 ceives in occupations calculated to relieve it 
 from its pressure, are of themselves, an admoni- 
 tion that the end is answered ; that the recrea- 
 tion is over ; and that we must return to the 
 business of life. But there is, in the very nature 
 of the game of chance, a perpetual and increas- 
 ing incitement. It tempts, fascinates, absorbs. 
 The glass runs out unheeded : hour is added to 
 hour; and the party rises fatigued and exhausted. 
 Exceptions there doubtless are ; but that such 
 is the tendency of the game, and such its very 
 frequent effect, cannot well be denied. I^et the 
 reader pause. Let him ask himself whether 
 this is an appropriation of time fit for one who 
 means either to obey God, or do good to man '? 
 Let him ask, whether whole afternoons or even- 
 ings, thus expended, belong to the '' redeeming 
 of time;'' or will afford a peaceful retrospect 
 on the bed of death.'* Add up the moments 
 which are squandered at the card-table, with- 
 out the least imaginable benefit to body, to soul, 
 or to societv : look at their sum ; see how much 
 
308 Considerations on LoU. 
 
 thou mightest have lived in them to thyself, to 
 thy friends, to God ; and remember that it is all 
 lost, worse than lost, from those days, for every 
 one of which thou must give an account. 
 
 2. An inseparable concomitant of the card- 
 table is intellectual dissipation. 
 
 The writer of these remarks numbers it 
 among the mercies of God, that he has seldom, 
 very seldom indeed, been placed in circum- 
 stances which compelled him to witness the ope- 
 ration of cards or dice on the minds of those 
 engaged. He has seen enough, however, to 
 satisfy him perfectly of their baneful influence. 
 Can any thing be more debasing or contempt- 
 ible, than that men and women, qualified to 
 bear a respectable part in conversation, and 
 even to adorn the social circle, should descend 
 from the elevation of their own good sense to 
 the level of every stupid thing, male and female, 
 that can giggle or swear over a pack of cards ! 
 Religion out of the question, this is no scene for 
 understanding. Leave it to the coxcomb and 
 the coquet, to the sharper and the fool ; but let 
 not a man or woman of cultivated mind be dis- 
 honored by taking a hand. The very atmo- 
 sphere which surrounds them is poison, at once 
 to the intellect and the heart. It were much to 
 be wished, that some who have imperceptibly 
 learned to degrade their lips with the jargon of 
 the gamester, could occasionally get such a re- 
 
Considerations on Jbots. 309 
 
 proof as the celebrated Locke administered to 
 certain British noblemen. '' One day, three or 
 four of these lords having met at Lord Ashley's, 
 when Mr. Locke was there ; after some compli- 
 ments, cards were brought in before scarce any 
 conversation had passed between them. Mr. 
 Locke looked upon them for some time, while 
 they were at play ; and, taking his pocket-book, 
 began to write with great attention. One of 
 the lords observing him, asked him what he was 
 writing? 'My lord,' says he ' I am endeavoring 
 to profit, as far as I am able, in your company : 
 for having waited with impatience for the honor 
 of being in an assembly of the greatest geniuses 
 of this age, and at last having obtained the good 
 fortune, I thought I could not do better than 
 write down your conversation ; and indeed, I 
 have set down the substance of what has been 
 said for this hour or two.' Mr. Locke had no 
 occasion to read much of this conversation: 
 those noble persons saw the ridicule of it ; and 
 diverted themselves with improving the jest. 
 They quitted their play, and entering into ra- 
 tional discourse, spent the rest of their time in 
 a manner more suitable to their character."* 
 If a similar record were made of the conversa- 
 tion of our card-parties, and published to the 
 world, the ridicule would be intolerable : and if 
 it should not deter men and women of sense 
 from play forever afterwards, it would at Jeast 
 
 * Life of Mr. Locke, prefixed to his work?, p. 22, 8vo. 
 
310 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 show how perfectly, for the sake of this paltry 
 pastime, they confound themselves with the 
 most arrant fools in nature. 
 
 " When blockheads," says a writer who will 
 not be accused of bigotry, " when blockheads 
 rattle the dice-box, when fellows of vulgar and 
 base minds sit np whole nights contemplating 
 the turn of a card, their stnpid occupation is in 
 character; but whenever a cultivated under- 
 standing stoops to the tyranny of so vile a pas- 
 sion, the friend to mankind sees the injury to so- 
 ciety witii that sort of aggravation as would 
 attend the taking of his purse on the highway, 
 if upon the seizure of the felon he was unex- 
 pectedly to discover the person of a judge."* 
 
 3. Play for amusement leads to and per- 
 petuates the whole system of gaming for money. 
 
 Very few, if any, learn to play with the de- 
 sign of becoming gamblers. But the progress 
 to this issue is both natural and common. 
 Knowledge of the cards is only a polite accom- 
 plishment, and an occasional hand no more than 
 mere civility. What was acquiescence in the 
 first stage becomes choice in the second, and 
 passion in the third. A cent, a sixpence, or a 
 quarter dollar, merely to keep up the spirit of 
 the game, is all that many plead for or allow. 
 The sum is mdeed too trifling to be an objection, 
 but are they aware of the jwinciple ? Do not 
 
 * The Observer, by Richard Cumberland, No. 22. 
 
Considerations on Lots. 311 
 
 the languor of the game without and its anima- 
 tion with the aid of this pecuniary stimulus, very 
 strongly mark its tendency 7 Is not here the com- 
 mencement of a course which carries the ad- 
 venturer along with accelerated step to deep 
 and fatal stakes ? Let it not be said that the 
 sober circles, which are the object of these 
 strictures, never permit and would be among the 
 first to resist such extremes. They put it seems 
 a rolling body on the top of a declivity, set it a 
 going, and stop it before it reaches the bottom ! 
 An admirable expedient ! Is there no danger of 
 its slipping through their hands, or of acquiring 
 a velocity which they cannot check ? There is 
 a much better method — JVever set it on the decli- 
 vity at all ! Plainly. Can these moderate and 
 cautious players be sure that none of those 
 whom they train up in what they term innocent 
 pastime, shall ever fall in with others who have 
 less scruple ? Have they never heard of a youtli 
 who received the rudiments of his gaming edu- 
 cation from his circumspect friends, becoming 
 in consequence of this very acquisition, the com- 
 panion of vile associates, and the victim of their 
 crimes 7 Have they never heard of an unhappy 
 fair one, initiated in the mystery of the card- 
 table under her father^s roof, being hurried 
 away with the maddening fascination till her 
 virtue and her peace were the price of redemp- 
 tion for her forfeited purse '^ 
 
312 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 Such things have been, and such things may 
 again be. The very possibility of their recur- 
 rence should inspire every one who values ho- 
 nor, truth, and purity, with a detestation of the 
 sports which conduct to them, and impel him to 
 lift up his voice and his example against their 
 introduction or use in any shape or any circum- 
 stances. The amusement which they can afford 
 will be a miserable compensation for a ruined 
 wife or daughter, son, or brother, or sister. 
 Considering the snares which beset the inexpe- 
 rienced foot, all the vigilance of parents and 
 friends is little enough to keep our youth, the 
 hope of our land, from error and harm. 
 
 It is neither right nor kind ; it is wrong, and 
 sinful, and cruel, to fit them for the most profli- 
 gate company and deeds. Nothing does this 
 more effectually than an acquaintance with 
 games of chance ; for there is no dissipated as- 
 semblage to which it is not a recommendation 
 To have the dearest parts of ourselves in a state 
 of complete readiness for the most alluring temp- 
 tation to the worst of crimes, is, to say the least 
 of it, notwithstanding every safeguard, a most 
 dangerous qualification. Keep them ignorant 
 of cards and dice, and you erect the strongest 
 human barrier against the seductions of gaming, 
 Teach them the art, and that barrier is thrown 
 down ; thrown down by your own hands ; thrown 
 down to the breakins: of vour own heart ; and 
 
Considerations on Lois. 313 
 
 when the destruction to which you yourself have 
 been accessary overtakes your children, you sit 
 down and vent the bitterness of your soul in 
 unavailing complaint. The benefits of gaming 
 none but a villain or a fool will undertake to 
 display ! Its mischiefs are palpable, horrible, 
 endless ! Its history is written in tears and 
 blood. Its vouchers are the most fell passions 
 of the human heart, and the most fearful ex- 
 cesses of human depravity. And yet, while 
 facts, which ought to send alarm and abhorrence 
 along every shivering nerve, are repeating their 
 admonitions every hour, parents — parents pro- 
 fessing themselves Christians — do, both by ex- 
 ample and precept, put their own children 
 directly into the gambler's path ! And as if the 
 temptations which assault tlie age of puberty 
 were too few, too feeble, or too tardy, parents 
 themselves anticipate the work of corruption, 
 antedate the progress of sin, and apply their 
 own ingenuity to help in bringing forward their 
 children to a forced maturity of vice. We can- 
 not exempt from this censure any w4io permit 
 gaming, under whatever form or pretext, in their 
 houses, and who do not discountenance it in 
 their offspring, or others subjected to them, by 
 their severest displeasure. It admits not of dis- 
 pute, that if the orderly and reputable members 
 of society were utterly to discard the game of 
 chance, gambling would soon be destroyed or 
 Vol. III. 40 
 
314 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 confined to the spendthrift and the thief. But 
 how can we hope for such a blessed reformation, 
 when, besides notorious gaming houses, many 
 who figure in the higher classes of society play, 
 and play deep, in their own houses. Could 
 these public and private seminaries of all that 
 is base and abominable be exposed at one view 
 to the eye, w^e will not say of a Christian, but of 
 a political moralist, he would almost despair of 
 our country. The rage for play w^as lately so 
 great in the city of New York, that public prints 
 ascribed the desertion of the theatre to the mul- 
 titude of gambling parties ! A rare account of 
 the virtue taught and learned at the theatre we 
 must own ! We ask a plain question. Had 
 cards and dice not been reputable as an amuse- 
 ment, could they ever have become so general as 
 a vice ? And is it to be wondered at that those 
 places of vile resort, the public gaming houses, 
 should be crowded with our youth ? Is it not a 
 perfectly natural consequence of play among 
 heads of families, merely to relieve a tedious 
 hour, that children, apprentices, and servants, 
 should pursue the practice farther, and at last 
 plunder parents and masters, to meet the de- 
 mands of the card-table and the billiard-room ? 
 The number of those fine young gentlemen who 
 have nothing to do ; heirs of estates with pock- 
 ets full of money ; lawyers and merchants' 
 clerks ; idlers, who, by a sad misnomer, are nick- 
 
Considerations on Lots. 315 
 
 named students ; beaux, whose greatest adroit- 
 ness is shown in keeping out of the hands of the 
 bailiff at the suit of tailors, and slioemakers, 
 and washerwomen ; ct id genus onitie, which 
 flock about the gaming houses, is incredible to 
 those who have no opportunities of observing 
 them. But it is not more lamentable than true, 
 that from nine in the morning till eleven at 
 night, and often much later, these nuisances are 
 attended by a succession of youth. Some spend 
 there the chief part of the twenty-four hours, 
 and there are always adepts in iniquity to decoy 
 the inexperienced and uncorrupted. Why is 
 the suppression of these enormities so difficult ? 
 Why are laws so easily, so openly, and so impu- 
 dently evaded 7 One reason is plain — gaming 
 grows less infamous. It grows less infamous 
 because respectable people of both sexes game. 
 The number of gamesters is so great because 
 they are kept in countenance by so many who 
 play only for amusement. Let the experiment 
 be fairly tried. Let the latter give up their sjwrt, 
 and we shall soon see multitudes of the former 
 give up their lust. The community would spee- 
 dily be rid of legions of those fiends who now 
 haunt its retreats, and prey upon its strength. 
 That immovable selfishness; that cold-blooded 
 malignity ; that hardened impiety ; that fell des- 
 peration, ready for fraud, for robbery, for mur- 
 der, for suicide, which form the character of a 
 
310 Considerations on Lots. 
 
 finished gamester, impose upon every man a so- 
 lemn obligation to resist the gaming system in 
 all its parts and progress. Every man, whom 
 the extinction of virtuous feeling has not pre- 
 pared for adding to the dishonor and the mise- 
 ries of human life, will perceive the obligation 
 in proportion as he reasons correctly, and applies 
 the discoveries of his understanding to the regu- 
 lation of his conduct. All our principles on this 
 subject are false, and all our deductions from 
 them impertinent, or it follows, that every one 
 who plays at cards or dice is responsible, to 
 the whole extent of the influence of his exam- 
 ple in preserving the knowledge and practice of 
 gaming, for all its tremendous effects on body 
 and soul, on property, character, and happiness 
 — on the best interests of his fellow-creatures 
 here, and on their best hopes for the eternal 
 world. 
 
AN ACT 
 
 CONCERNING FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION, 
 
 DRAWN UP BV DR. MASON, 
 
 EMITTED BY THE 
 
 ASSOCIATE REFORMED CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA 
 
 JUNE 12, 1798, 
 
AN ACT 
 
 CONCERNING FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION ; 
 
 EMITTED BY THE 
 
 ASSOCIATE REFORMED CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA, 
 
 JUNE 12, ]798. 
 
 The ministers and elders in synod assembled, 
 finding that dangerous errors are entertained and 
 propagated concerning the doctrines of saving 
 faith and of j astification, feel it their duty to de- 
 clare, and by this act they do declare, what they 
 conceive the holy scriptures to teach on these 
 important points, chiefly as they are at present 
 perverted or opposed. 
 
 I. Of the ai^propriation and assurance of faith. 
 
 Faith, in its general idea, is assent to, and re- 
 liance on, testimony. Its peculiar character 
 
320 An act concerning 
 
 must arise from the testimony on which it is 
 founded. That divine faith, therefore, by which 
 alone sinners are saved, must he an assent to, 
 and reliance on, the divine testimony, as exhi- 
 bited in the written word. The gospel is ex- 
 pressly termed the record or testimony, which 
 God gave of Ids Son, and faith a believing of 
 this record. (1 John v. 10.) In perfect har- 
 mony with the scriptures, its general character, 
 its special office, and its true and only warrant, 
 are comprehended in the concise and correct de- 
 finition of the shorter catechism. '' Faith in Je- 
 sus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive 
 and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is 
 offered to us in the gospel." 
 
 1. In its general character, which it has in 
 common with other benefits of the covenant, it 
 is said to be a saving grace. 
 
 A grace, or a free gift ; an unmerited favor. 
 It is the GIFT of God, and that both in its princi- 
 ple and in its exercises. Christians believe even 
 as the Lord giveth to every man. And it is he 
 who deals out to every man the measure of faith. 
 
 A grace — being purchased for us by Christ's 
 precious blood, and freely bestowed on us for his 
 sake. It is given unto us in the behalf of 
 Christ to believe on him. 
 
 A grace — because it is wrought in the heart 
 of a sinner by the free Spirit of God, through 
 the instrumentality ^f the word. For this rea- 
 
Fault and JuatiJicaUQiv. o^l 
 
 son he is called the Spirit of faith ; and the pea- 
 pie of God believe according to the working of 
 HIS MIGHTY POWER, which, by the Spirit, ho 
 wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the 
 dead, and set him at his own right hand in the 
 heavenly j^kiccs. And this faith, so produced^ 
 Cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word op 
 God. 
 
 This faith saves. As its origin is grace, so its 
 issue is salvation from sin and from wrath both 
 here and hereafter. He that believeth shall be 
 saved; he hath everlasting life, and, shall not 
 COME into condemnation J but shall receive the end 
 of his faith, even the salvation of his soul. 
 
 2. The special office of faith is to receive, and 
 rest upon Christ alone for salvation. But, m or- 
 der to have just views of this part of the sub- 
 ject, wx are previously to consider the true and 
 only warrant of faith, which is the free offer of 
 Christ to us i?i the gospel. 
 
 All that is necessary for elucidating tliis point 
 may be summed up in the following propositions : 
 (1.) God hath made a grant of his Son, Jesus 
 Christ, as an all-sufficient Savior, to a lost and 
 perishing world. He hath not merely revealed 
 a general knowledge of him, but has directly 
 and solemnly given him to sinners as such that 
 they may be saved. God so loved the world that 
 he GAVE his only begotten Son, that whosoever he* 
 Vol III ^ 41 
 
o22 An act concernin 
 
 o 
 
 lieveth in him should not perish, hut have everlast- 
 ing life, 
 
 (2.) Thin gi^i i^ absolutely free ; independent, 
 in every possible manner, on the worthiness or 
 good qualities of men. This is essential to the 
 very nature of his gift. Redemption through the 
 blood of Christ is according to the riches of his 
 grace. It is a faithful saying, and ivorthy of all 
 acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world 
 to save the chief of sinners. 
 
 (3.) This gift is indiscriminately to all the 
 hearers of the gospel, and to every one of them 
 in particular. Unto us a child is born ; unto us 
 a Son is given. The 'word is nigh thee, even in 
 THY mouth, atid in thine heart ; that is, the ivord 
 of faith ichich we preach : That if thou shalt 
 confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall 
 believe in thine heart that God hath raised him 
 from the dead, thou shalt be saved. No sins, 
 however enormous or aggravated, place any sin- 
 ner beyond the reach of this liberal grant. The 
 very terms in which it is conveyed suppose the 
 objects of it to be unbelieving, unrighteous, and 
 even obstinate in transgression. God gave his only 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him 
 might not perish ; manifestly implying that they 
 to whom he is given are unbelievers. The Lord 
 Christ, whose invitations to sinners must be 
 grounded on the Father's gift of him as the co- 
 venant of the people, thus addresses them : 
 
FaWi and Justification. 323 
 
 Hearken unto 7ne, ye stout hearted, that arc far 
 firom righteousness ; I bring near my 7'ighteous- 
 ness. 
 
 The Savior thus given God hath made it the 
 duty of every one who hears the gospel to ac- 
 cept, that he "may be saved; and he cannot re- 
 ject the gift but at the peril of his soul. This 
 is the commandment of God, that ice should he- 
 Heve on the name of his Son Jesus Christ. 
 
 Novv^j the divine command requiring all the 
 hearers of the gospel to receive the Lord Jesus 
 for salvation, it is manifest that he is freely given 
 in the gospel offer to every one of them in par- 
 ticular. Moreover, all the hearers of the gospel 
 are either believers or unbelievers. That Christ 
 was offered to believers is evident from the fact 
 that they have received him, and are saved by 
 him ; and that he is offered to unbelievers is no 
 less evident, because they will be condemned for 
 their unbelief He that believeth not is condemned 
 aheady, because he hath not believed in the name 
 of the only begotten Son of God. But the right- 
 eous Lord, who loveth righteousness, will not 
 condemn sinners for rejecting an offer which 
 was never made. 
 
 From all this it results, that God hath laid in 
 his word a firm foundation for the faith of sin- 
 ners — that they have his own umrrant, and 
 therefore a perfect rights to take the Lord Jesus 
 
324 An act concerning 
 
 in all his grace and fullness for their own salva- 
 tion m particular. 
 
 Now, as saving faith must correspond both 
 with the warrant of the divine testimony, and 
 with tlie right to an offered Savior which that 
 warrant creates, it is properly asserted to be a 
 receiving and restiyig upon Christ alone for sal- 
 vation as he is offered to us in the gospel. 
 
 It is to be carefully noted, that the true and 
 only object of faith is the Lord Jesus Christ 
 himself, set forth and given to sinners as such. 
 in the free promise of the gospel ; and that, in 
 believing, we receive and rest upon him, and 
 upon him alone, in all those relations, for all 
 those ends, and in that manner which the divine 
 testimony exhibits, and thus set to our seal that 
 God is true. 
 
 This receiving of Christ and resting upon him 
 are usually termed the apjyrojyriation and assu- 
 rance of faith. By the former we take the 
 Lord Jesus, who is ours in the general grant, to 
 be ours in personal possession. By the latter 
 we trust in him that we vshall be saved; be- 
 lieving, that whatever he did for any of the hu- 
 man race he did for us, and that whatever God 
 liath promised to his people shall be performed 
 unto us. These are not to be considered as dif- 
 ferent acts, but as essential properties of the 
 grace of faith. And that they are essential to it 
 is most demonstrable. 
 
Faith and Justification. 325 
 
 First, then ; Appropriation of the Lord Jesus 
 to ourselves, for our own salvation m particular, 
 is essential to saving faith — For, 
 
 1. Without such an appropriatioii faith could 
 not answer to its warrant in the divine testi- 
 mony, which, as hath been proved, tenders Christ 
 to every one in particular ; nor to the authority 
 of the divine command, which requires every 
 one in particular to take him thus tendered, 
 
 2. Without such an appropriation there would 
 he no material difference between the faith of 
 God's people, and that of hypocrites or devils. 
 Both may believe in general that Christ died for 
 sinners ; that God is in him, reconciling the world 
 unto himself; that he is able to save sinners, and 
 that many shall be saved by him. Mere assent 
 to the abstract truth of the gospel does not and 
 cannot imply any complacency or interest in the 
 salvation which it reveals. But that faith which 
 may be found in the devils and the damned can 
 in no sense be saving faith. 
 
 3. The condemnation of the law is particular. 
 Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things 
 'which are luritten in the book of the laio to do 
 them. When the Holy Ghost convinces of sin, 
 the sinner sees himself in particular shut up un- 
 der the curse. Thou art the man, says the vio- 
 lated law; lani the man, replies his awakened 
 conscience. Nor is it possible that he should 
 have peace or safety till the blood of Christ 
 
326 An act concerning 
 
 'O 
 
 purge his conscience, and he, for himself, be de- 
 livered from the curse. Therefore, if there were 
 not in believing a particular application of Christ 
 to the soul, the curse of the law would be more 
 efficacious to destroy than the blood of Christ to 
 save. 
 
 4. Salvation is particular. A sentence of 
 justification must pass upon, and a work of 
 sanctification be wrought in, everij one who shall 
 see the kingdom of God. But justification, and 
 sanctification, and whatever else belongs to the 
 salvation of the gospel, flow unto us only in and 
 through Christ Jesus. And as we receive his 
 benefits in believing ; as they cannot be sepa- 
 rated from himself; and as they are all commu- 
 nicated by particular application to our souls, it 
 is evident that the faith which embraces him, 
 and with him his benefits, is a faith of particu- 
 lar appropriation. He is made of God unto us 
 icisdom^ and righteousness, and sanctification, and 
 redemption. 
 
 5. The experience of God's people, as it is de- 
 scribed in his word, proves that their faith is an 
 appropriating faith. Whether they rejoice in 
 the light, or mourn under the hidings, of his 
 countenance, they equally claim him as their 
 God, even their oum God. / will love thee, O 
 Lord, MY stj'cngth. The Lord is my rock, and 
 MY fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my 
 strength, in whom I will trust : my buckler, and 
 
Faith and Justification. 327 
 
 the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. 
 Thou art the God of my strength : Why dost 
 thou cast me off 7 Why go I mourning because 
 of the oppression of the enemy 7 O send out thy 
 light and thy truth — Then icill I go — unto God 
 MY exceeding joy : Yea, upon the haiy loill I 
 praise thee, O God, my God. 
 
 6. The scripture continually ascribes this ap- 
 propriation to faith. It is illustrated by figures, 
 than which nothing can more strongly mark its 
 appropriating quality. It receives the Lord Je- 
 sus as a gift — puts him on as a garment— ;/Zees to 
 him as a refuge — lays hold of him as a hope— 
 claims him as a portion— ^eec/s upon him as the 
 living bread which came down from heaven. 
 This indeed is the very life of a believer's soul, 
 the fountain of his hope, his peace, his consola- 
 tion, that Christ is his Savior, and God, in Christ, 
 his covenant-God. 
 
 Secondly. In believing we not only appropriate 
 the Lord Jesus to ourselves, but are persuaded 
 that whatever he did for the salvation of sinners 
 he did for us, and that whatever God has pro- 
 mised to his people shall be performed to us. 
 This persuasion is the assurance of faith, and is 
 inseparable from it. 
 
 1 . Faith being an assent to and a reliance on 
 testimony, respects nothing but the veracity of 
 the testifier. It is this which distinguishes it 
 from all other principles, and which is essential 
 
32B An act concerning 
 
 to every kind of it, in every dep^ree, and under 
 every circumstance. Now the testimony of the 
 living God hath set forth the Lord Jesus as a 
 propitiation through faith in his blood. There 
 can be no medium betw^een receiving him by 
 faith and rejecting him by unbelief; and in be- 
 lieving we can believe nothing but what God 
 hath testified, because this is the sole ground of 
 our faith. But he hath testified, that whatever 
 Christ did as a Savior he did for them who re- 
 ceive him ; and that to them, and every one of 
 them, all the exceeding great and precious pro- 
 mises shall certainly be accomplished. I can- 
 not, therefore, cast my soul upon Christ for sal- 
 vation without believing the divine testimony ; 
 and this assures me, that as a believer I in par- 
 ticular shall be saved ; so that my faith, corres- 
 ponding with God's testimony, necessarily in- 
 cludes a persuasion of my own salvation in par- 
 ticular. 
 
 2. In the scripture faith is uniformly opposed 
 to doubting. If ye have faith and doubt not. 
 O thou of little faith^ wherefore didst thou doubt ? 
 If a man lack icisdoni let him ask of God— but 
 let him ask in faith, nothing ivavcring ; but 
 doubting being the want of assurance, and being 
 the reverse of faith, assurance is necessarily of 
 the essence of faith. 
 
 3. The testimony of God's word to this pro- 
 perty of faith is clear and decisive; It forms the 
 
Faith and Justification. 329 
 
 chief part of the definition which the Holy 
 Ghost has given. Now faith is the substance of 
 things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen* 
 We are exhorted to drav) nigh to the holiest of 
 all until true hearts^ and in the fill assurance of 
 faith. Where the truth contended for is doubly 
 established. (1.) By direct assertion; The as- 
 surance of faith, i. e. the assurance which be- 
 longs to faith ; or else the expression is destitute 
 of meaning. (2.) By allowing degrees in this 
 assurance— ;/ie full assurance of faith. Which 
 implies the existence of the assurance itself; for 
 a thing which has no being cannot have degrees 
 of being. These passages alone, and especially 
 in connection witli others which represent faith 
 as building on Christ the foundation, trusting in 
 him, resting and leaning on him, do fully prove 
 that assurance is of the nature of faith. 
 
 4. The fruits of faith do also bespeak assu- 
 rance. Believers have peace in their con- 
 sciences — they are freed from the dominion of 
 sin — they overcome the world — they receive 
 from the fullness of Christ Jesus — they mind the 
 things of the Spirit, &c. All these blessings are 
 the subject of promise, and are enjoyed only in 
 the way of believing the promise. But how can 
 he believe the promise who has no confidence in 
 it ? and how can a sinner have relief from the 
 
 * The original word, rendered •' evidence," oignifies demonstra- 
 tion — argument which forbids reply. 
 
 Vol III 42 
 
330 An act co7iccrning 
 
 terrors of the law 7 How can this enlightened 
 conscience be pacified? Much more, how can 
 he walk in newness of life, unless he be per- 
 suaded that he in particular is reconciled to 
 God ; that he in particular shall be saved ; and 
 unless he repose his soul upon the faithfulness of 
 God in Christ, who hath promised to do to him 
 and for him far more abundantly than he can 
 ask or think ? 
 
 Against this doctrine of faith it cannot be 
 justly objected, " that it requires every one who 
 hears the gospel to believe that Christ died for 
 him in particular, and thus terminates in the 
 error of universal redemption." 
 
 This consequence is avoided by a very plain 
 and important distinction between faith as a ge- 
 neral duty and as a special grace. As a general 
 duty, it is to believe assuredly on the testimony 
 of God^ who cannot lie, that Christ Jesus is 
 freely given in the gospel offer to me in particu- 
 lar ; and to take him to myself, as the Father's 
 gift, for my own particular salvation ; persuaded, 
 in thus receiving him, that I shall be saved. It 
 is this receiving of Christ which converts the 
 indefinite promise of salvation to believers into 
 a promise of salvation to me in particular ; and 
 without this appropriation of Christ none have 
 a right to conclude that he died for them and 
 that they shall be saved. As a special grace, 
 faith does actually receive the Lord Jesus, and 
 
Faith and Jastijication. 331 
 
 thus binds the divine faithfulness to the particu- 
 lar salvation of him who believes ; so that he 
 may warrantably say and ought to be persuaded, 
 and in some measure is persuaded, that what- 
 ever Christ did for sinners he did for /wm, and 
 whatever God hath promised to his people shall 
 be accomplished to Jiim. 
 
 Nor can it be objected, that " this doctrine of 
 faith, representing true believers as at all times 
 undoubtedly assured of their own gracious state, 
 is inconsistent with Christian experience, and 
 with the encouragements held forth in scripture 
 to those who labor under doubts and fears ; and 
 tends to make sad the hearts of those whom 
 God hath not made sad." 
 
 The question is not concerning a believer's 
 opinions of his state, which are influenced not 
 only by his faith but by his feelings, by tempta- 
 tions, by corruptions, and especially by unbelief, 
 but concerning the nature of his faith itself. 
 That this is sometimes strong, sometimes weak, 
 yea, so weak that he cannot discern its opera- 
 tions, and even disputes its existence, is most 
 certain ; but faith he has, notwithstanding. His 
 being unconscious of it at the time does no more 
 prove the want of it, than unconsciousness of the 
 vital motions of the body proves a state of death. 
 Though his faith be small as a grain of mustard- 
 seed, and feeble as the first motion of embryo 
 life, it is essentially the same with the branch- 
 ing tree, and with the active energy of a perfect 
 
332 An act concctming 
 
 man. It is, therefore, as really opposed to every 
 kind of doubting in its faintest as in its most 
 vigorous exercise. The difference lies only in 
 degree. Doubting believers there are, but 
 doubting faith there cannot be. In so far as a 
 believer doubts, he is under the power of vmbe- 
 lief ; for be his darkness and his fears what they 
 may, they prevail exactly in the same proportion 
 as his faith fails. A doubting faith, then, is equi- 
 valent to an unbelieving faith ; or, which is the 
 same thing, a believing unbelief. But this is a 
 contradiction. It is therefore undeniable, that 
 in the midst of conflict and dejection, the be- 
 liever does and cannot but trust, and that for 
 himself, in the mercy and faithfulness of his co- 
 venant-God. This is evinced to others, and 
 may be evinced to the satisfaction of his own 
 soul by his clinging to the Lord Christ as his 
 only hope, and by his horror at the thought of 
 relinquishing his claim to the promises, and to 
 the living God as his portion. Poor as he may 
 call his hope, he would not barter it for millions 
 of worlds. This bespeaks a trust, and that not 
 a slender one, in the Lord's promise, in Christ, 
 for personal salvation ; and this trust is precisely 
 the assurance asserted as essential to saving 
 faith. 
 
 It would greatly conduce to clear views of 
 this subject were the distinction between the 
 assurance oi faith and the assurance of sense 
 
Faith and Justification. 333 
 
 rightly understood and inculcated. When we 
 speak of assurance as essential to faith, many 
 suppose we teach that none can be real Chris- 
 tians who do not feel that they have passed from 
 death unto life ; and have not unclou^ded and 
 triumphant views of their own interest in Christ, 
 so as to say, under the manifestations of his love, 
 " my beloved is mine, and I am his." But God 
 forbid that we should thus offend against the 
 generation of his children. That many of them 
 want such an assurance may not be questioned. 
 This however is the assurance, not of faith but 
 of sense ; and vastly different they are. The 
 object of the former is Christ revealed in the 
 luord; the object of the latter Christ revealed 
 in the heai^t. The ground of the former is the 
 testimony of God icithout us ; that of the latter 
 the work of the Spirit icithin us. The one em- 
 braces the promise, looking at nothing but the 
 veracity of the promiser ; the other enjoys the 
 promise in the sweetness of its actual accom- 
 plishment. Faith trusts for pardon to the blood 
 of Christ; sense asserts pardon from the com- 
 fortable intimations of it to the soul. By faith 
 we take the Lord Jesus for salvation ; by sense 
 we feel that we are saved, from the Spirit's 
 shining on his own gracious work in our hearts. 
 These kinds of assurance, so different in their 
 nature, are very frequently separated. The as- 
 .surance of faith may be,'and often is, in lively 
 
334 All act concerning 
 
 exercise, when the other is completely with- 
 drawn. '' Zion said, My Lord hath forgotten 
 me ; and the Spouse, Mij Beloved hath withdrawn 
 himself and icas goneJ^ " He may be a forget- 
 ting and withdrawing God to my feelings, and 
 yet to my faith, 7ny God and my Lord still." 
 This case is accurately described by the pro- 
 phet. Who is among you that feareth the Loixl^ 
 that ohcyeth the voice of his servant^ that icalketh 
 in darkness^ and hath no light? let him trust in 
 the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God. 
 Here the believer, one who fears the Lord, is 
 supposed to be absolutely destitute of sensible 
 assurance, for he icalks in dai'kness and has no 
 light ; yet he is required to exercise the assu- 
 rance of faith by trusting in the Lord, and stay- 
 ing upon HIS God. 
 
 Seeing, therefore, that the scriptures teach 
 that there is in saving faith a special appropria- 
 tion of the Lord Jesus Christ to the soul, with a 
 persuasion of its own partic ular salvation through 
 him; and that this doctrine is in nowise con- 
 trary, but most conformable to the experience of 
 the saints; the synod do reject, and solemnly 
 testify against the prevailing errors, that justi- 
 fying faith does not necessarily contain an ap- 
 propriation of Christ to ourselves, as our own 
 Savior in particular ; nor any assurance that we 
 in particular shall be saved ; but merely a be- 
 lief and persuasion of God's mercy in Christ, 
 
Faith and Justification. 335 
 
 and of his ability and willingness to save those 
 who come unto God through him. And the sy- 
 nod do warn their people against the principles 
 herein condemned as contrary to the faith of 
 God's elect ; as tending to encourage in sinners 
 a lying liope, founded on a general assent to 
 the truth of the gospel ; and to mar instead of 
 promoting the growth and consolation of be- 
 lievers. 
 
 II. OF JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 Justification, being the reverse of condemna- 
 tion, expresses a change, not of personal quali- 
 ties, but of relative state. For, as condemna- 
 tion does not make the subjects thereof wicked, 
 so justification does not make them holy. But 
 as the former is a sentence according to law, de- 
 claring a person unrighteous and adjudging him 
 to punishment, so the latter is a sentence accord- 
 ing to law, acquitting him from guilt and de- 
 claring him righteous. In justifying sinners, the 
 Most High God, as an upright moral Governor, 
 passes a sentence, wherein he imrdoneth all their 
 sins, and accepteth them as righteous in his sight. 
 For he forgivcth all their iniquities, and 7nakes 
 them accepted in the Bcloocd. 
 
 This justification is an act, and is therefore 
 completed at once. It is necessarily an act, be- 
 cause it is a legal sentence; and an act cannot 
 
336 An act concernins: 
 
 'a 
 
 be progressive : this is the property of a icork. 
 
 The origin of justification is the sovereign 
 grace of God — We are justijied freely hy his 
 grace. 
 
 The meritorious cause of it ; that which ren- 
 ders it meet and right for God to al3solve the 
 sinner from the curse and receive him into favor, 
 and on account of which he is just in justify- 
 ing, is the righteousness of the Lord Jesus, con- 
 sisting of his whole obedience to the law, both 
 in its precept and penalty. We have redemiMon 
 through his blood, and by his obedience manij are 
 made righteous. 
 
 This righteousness is conveyed to us by impu- 
 tation ; that is, is placed to our account as really 
 and effectively as if it had been accomplished in 
 our own persons. He was 7nade under the law ; 
 so under it as to become sin for its, though he 
 kneiD no sin, that we might be made the righteous- 
 ness of God in him ; i. e. as our sin, being 
 charged on him, is sustained in law, as a suffi- 
 cient reason for exacting from him, in our name, 
 full compliance with all the demands of justice ; 
 so that compliance, which is his righteousness, 
 being imputed unto us, is sustained in law as a 
 sufficient reason for acquitting us, in his name, 
 from guilt, and conferring on us a title to ever- 
 lasting life. The Lord hath laid wpon him the 
 iniquity of us all ; and, therefore, by his stripes 
 ice are healed. 
 
Faitfi and Justijicaiion. 337 
 
 With the imputation of the Snretys right- 
 eousness on the part of God the Judge, there is 
 necessarily connected the cordial reception of it 
 on our part. This is done by faith, the faith of 
 the operation of God. It is in believing on the 
 Lord Jesus, or, as has already been explained, 
 accepting him for righteousness ; on the divine 
 warrant, that our persons are released from the 
 curse, and we are personallij instated in the 
 right to the inheritance. In this sense, and in 
 this only, does faith justify ; not as being, in any 
 possible form or degree, our justifying righteous- 
 ness ; but simply as it embraces the righteous- 
 ness of the Surety to the entire exclusion of our 
 own. So speaks the scripture : We are justified 
 hy faith ; only as it is faith in his blood. 
 
 Hence it is apparent that personal justification 
 takes place at the moment of believing, and not 
 before. But as this part of the doctrine of jus- 
 tification has been recently and boldly denied 
 within the bounds of the synod, they judge it 
 their duty briefly to confirm it, and to bear their 
 testimony against the contrary error. 
 
 1. It is not righteousness as imputed merely 
 that justifies, but as received also. On this the 
 scriptures lay particular stress. As many as re- 
 ceived him, to them gave he power to become the 
 fions of God; which receiving is immediately 
 explained by believmg on his name. No right- 
 eousness can justify me at the bar of ju{?tice. 
 
 Vol IU 43 
 
338 An act concerning 
 
 o 
 
 unless I am warranted in law to plead it as my 
 own. It is palpably absurd to plead a righteous- 
 ness which I reject. The very plea supposes 
 that the righteousness is mine, and that I trust 
 in it. Now, the righteousness of Christ is not 
 mine in possession till I accept it as the Father's 
 gift, which I do in believing. Before believing, 
 therefore, I have no righteousness to oppose to 
 the claims of the law, and consequently neither 
 am nor can be justified. It will not be ques- 
 tioned that the Lord never imputes righteous- 
 ness to those who never believe, and that he 
 alw^ays bestows the grace of faith on those to 
 whom he imputes righteousness. And this de- 
 monstrates that there subsists such a connection 
 between imputation on his part and faith on 
 ours, that without the latter the former could 
 not produce its effect. But that effect is our 
 justification ; therefore justification cannot take 
 place before believing. 
 
 2. The law applies its curse to the person of 
 every sinner in particular, and its terror to the 
 conscience of every convinced sinner in par- 
 ticular. 
 
 That the gospel, as the ministration of 
 righteousness, may be directly opposed to the 
 law as the ministration of condemnation, and 
 that its effect may completely destroy the effect 
 of the law's curse, it is necessary that there be 
 a particular application of righteousness to the 
 
^ Faith and Justificatloh. 339 
 
 person of the sinner, and that the peace-speak- 
 ing blood of Jesus be particularly applied to his 
 conscience. Both are asserted in the scripture. 
 Believers are elect according to the foreknowleilge 
 of God the Father, through sprinkling of the 
 blood of Jesus Christ, which purges their con- 
 science from DEAD WORKS. But it has been shown 
 under the preceding head, that it is faith which 
 appropriates the Lord Christ in his saving bene- 
 fits. And as there is no justification before he 
 be thus appropriated, there can be none before 
 believing. 
 
 3. The scriptures divide the hearers of the 
 gospel into believers and unbelievers, and pro- 
 nounce upon them sentences according to their 
 respective characters. He that helieveth is not 
 condemned ; he is justified from all things ; he 
 hath everlasting life. While he that helieveth 7iot 
 is condemned aheadij, and the wrath of God, 
 abideth on him. Till the sinner believe he is an 
 unbeliever; and as long as he continues so he is 
 in a state of condemnation ; the wrath of God 
 abideth on him. Justification, therefore, before 
 believing, is impossible ; it exhibits a monster 
 which the Bible cannot know, a justified unbe- 
 liever. It includes the revolting absurdity of a 
 man's being, at the same time, and in the same 
 respects, both acquitted and condemned, both in 
 a state of favor and in a state of wrath, at once 
 a partaker of Christ and an heir of hell. 
 
c>40 All act concerninii 
 
 However plain and peremptory the scriptural 
 doctrine on this point, there are not wanting 
 some to corrupt and oppose it by teaching, not 
 only that justification precedes believing, but 
 that the elect were justified from eternity. 
 
 If nothing more were meant than that the 
 Lord, from eternity, jmrjjosed to justify his elect 
 through the righteousness of their Head, Jesus 
 Christ, and Ami this gracious purpose or decree 
 infallibly secures their justification in time, it 
 would be a glorious truth. Though to call this 
 jusf/ijication, when it is in fact the same with elec- 
 tion, would be a strange abuse of terms, and 
 would engender an idle and unedifying strife of 
 words. But it is contended that justification, 
 strictly and properly speaking, is eternal : that 
 Jehovah, having from eternity accepted the sure- 
 tyship of the Son, accepted, and therefore justi- 
 fied, the elect in him : that as his will to elect is 
 election, so his will to justify is justification : 
 that this being eternally an immanent act of the 
 Divine Mind, is the true justification : that the 
 transient act, which passes in time on the person 
 of a sinner, and which we style justification, is 
 only an intimation to his conscience of what was 
 done in eternity : and that the proper business 
 of faith is not to justify, but to impart to the 
 believer a clear manifestation and a comfortable 
 sense of his eternal justification 
 
Faith and Justification. 341 
 
 How contrary all this is to the nature of 
 things, to the testimony of God's word, and to 
 the experience of his people, may be easily de- 
 monstrated. 
 
 1. Justification, being the sentence of God the 
 Judge, acquitting the sinner from guilt and pro- 
 nouncing him righteous according to the tenor of 
 the moral law, necessarily implies both the ex- 
 istence of the law and the breach of it by the 
 person justified ; neither of which can consist 
 with the doctrine of eternal justification. 
 
 2. If, as is alledged, the will to justify is jus- 
 tification, as the will to elect is election, it is cer- 
 tain that the will to create is creation, the will 
 to sanctify sanctification, the will to save salva- 
 tion ; so that men were created, sanctified, saved 
 from eternity. 
 
 That sanctification is a change of personal 
 qualities, and justification of legal relations, will 
 neither alter the question nor remove the diffi- 
 culty ; for justification as necessarily supposes 
 the existence of the relations affected by it, as 
 sanctification does the existence of the person 
 sanctified. Both these blessings impart a real 
 and glorious change; only the subject of the 
 latter is a sinner's person, and of the former his 
 state. Beside, condemnation affects only legal 
 relations; and if the will to justify is justifica- 
 tion, the will to condemn must be condemnation ; 
 so that mankind were condemned from eternity ; 
 
342 An act concernins' 
 
 'O 
 
 that is, eternally before the covenant for the 
 breach of which they were condemned had any 
 being : or else the covenant with Adam was as 
 eternal as the covenant with Christ ; i. e. was 
 made with Adam an eternity before he was 
 created. 
 
 3. If the elect were justified from eternity in 
 virtue of their being from eternity in Christ, by 
 covenant representation, it must follow, either 
 that they never were in Adam as a head of 
 condemnation, or else that they were condemned 
 in Adam after their justification in Christ; be- 
 cause the latter was from eternity and the 
 former only in time ; for it is evident that they 
 could not be condemned in Adam before he fell 
 tinder condemnation himself. But both these 
 propositions ar§ most repugnant to every princi- 
 ple and declaration of the scripture. 
 
 4. The elect could not be eternally justified in 
 Christ their Surety, because the Surety himself 
 was not thus justified. As the God-man, he 
 was made under the laAv, both in its precept and 
 penalty, nor was he discharged till he had satis- 
 fied both to the uttermost. God was first tnani- 
 fested in the flesh, then justified in the Spirit. 
 
 This is usually called the virtual justification of 
 the elect ; by which must be understood, that in 
 the obedience and death of the Lord Jesus a 
 foundation was laid for their pardon and accept- 
 ance, so that God might be just in justifying 
 
Faith and Justification. 343 
 
 them, and the promise thereof made h'reversibly 
 sure to them as the seed. But that this was not 
 their own proper justification is clear from the 
 example of those, who, by faith in the Savior to 
 come, were justified before his appearing to put 
 away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 
 
 5. If the elect were justified from eternity, 
 and of course came justified into the world, it is 
 undeniable that every elect person is regenerated 
 and sanctified from the womb ; or else that jus- 
 tification and sanctification may be, and often 
 are, separated : so that a person in favor with 
 God, and an heir of life, may notwithstanding be, 
 for years and scores of years, under the domi- 
 nion and wallowing in the filth of sin. The 
 former is contrary to notorious fact, and the lat- 
 ter, exploding satisfaction as the necessary con- 
 comitant and test of justification, destroys our 
 Lord's rule, that the tree is knoicn hy its fruit. 
 
 6. The notion of eternal justification over- 
 throws the whole doctrine of the scripture con- 
 cerning the office of the grace of faith. This is, 
 pre-eminently, to receive Christ Jesus the Lord 
 as Jehovah our righteousness ; for he is made of 
 God unto us, righteousness ; and loith the heart 
 man believeth unto righteousness. But if the use 
 of faith be merely to manifest our eternal justi- 
 fication, it can in no sense be said to receive 
 (Jhrist for righteousness, which implies that pre- 
 viously the person exercising it had none. In 
 
344 An act concerning 
 
 addition to which it is obvious, according to this 
 scheme, 
 
 (1.) That faith can no otherwise justify than 
 works ; because holiness, being the effect of 
 cleansing by the blood of Christ, manifests our 
 justification; yet the scriptures attribute justifi- 
 cation to faith, and positively deny it to works. 
 
 (2.) That no person can be a believer who 
 has not a comfortable sense of his justification, 
 for faith manifests it ; and he loses his faith as 
 often as he loses the manifestation of his justifi- 
 cation ; so that there are either no believers in 
 the world, or else men are believers or unbe- 
 lievers, as their comfortable sense of their justi- 
 fication comes and goes. 
 
 (3.) That no sinner can be called by the 
 ministry of the word to believe, or be condemned 
 for unbelief. Not to believe ; because the use of 
 faith being to manifest justification, the call if 
 general must be addressed to many who never 
 were and never will be justified, and therefore 
 have no justification to be manifested; and if 
 restricted, must be grounded on election ; the 
 objects whereof no man knows, or can know. 
 Nor could any be condemned for unbelief; for 
 faith, not being a receiving of Christ for justifi- 
 cation, but only manifesting our eternal justifi- 
 cation, embraces no offer ; and therefore unbe- 
 lief, which is the reverse of faith, rejects none : 
 ?aid if sinners be condemned for their unbelief, 
 
lAiitli' and Justiftcatiou. 345 
 
 they will be condemned for a non-manifestation 
 of what never existed. 
 
 7. The people of God, when enabled at first 
 to believe, never do it as already justified ; but 
 feeling themselves accurst and perishing sinners, 
 shut up under tlie most righteous condemnation 
 of the law, flee to the Lord Jesus that they vna]) 
 be pardoned, and 7nay he saved from the wrath 
 to come. These views are absolutely incon- 
 sistent with the idea and the doctrine of eternal 
 justification. To say that they are erroneous, 
 seeing the elect sinner was eternally justified, 
 though he does not know it, is, on the matter, to 
 say that the Holy Ghost fills his people with 
 groundless terrors, and leads them to lying exer- 
 cises ; fur it is he who convinces them of sin by 
 applying to their consciences both the precept and 
 the curse of the law. Nor will it be any relief 
 to plead, that the elect considered as in Christ 
 are justified, but considered in Adam are chil- 
 dren of wrath; for this not only silences the 
 challenge of the apostle. Who shall lay any thing 
 to the charge of God's electa but supposes them 
 to remain under the very condemnation from 
 which justification in Christ was intended to 
 deliver them. And as, on this plan, there is no 
 inconsistency now between their being justified 
 in Christ, and at the same time condemned in 
 Adam, there can be none at any future period : 
 so that the elect may continue to all eternity hi 
 
 Yoi:. ITT, 4-'l 
 
346 An act concerning^ <&c. 
 
 the heavens, in the presence and in the enjoy- 
 ment of God — children of wrath ! 
 
 From this pernicious tenet, as from a root of 
 bitterness and poison, spring many noxious er- 
 rors, which at various times have infected the 
 church of Christ, and which a regard to her spi- 
 ritual health has compelled the synod, however 
 reluctant in severity, to aim at extirpating from 
 their hounds. Hence the infatuated notions that 
 Christ is offered in the gospel to the elect only — 
 that ministers have nothing to do with the repro- 
 bate — that the immediate duty of the hearer of 
 the gospel is to believe, first of all, his personal 
 election to eternal life — that one may be for a 
 series of years in a gracious state without know- 
 ing it, or bringing forth the fruits of grace, and 
 yet ought not to question it, with other of a like 
 nature and tendency ; all of which do necessa- 
 rily arise out of the doctrine of eternal justi- 
 fication. 
 
 The synod do therefore bear this their expli- 
 cit and public testimony against it ; and do so- 
 lemnly warn and enjoin both ministers and peo- 
 ple under their care, as they regard the glory of 
 the Lord Jesus and the welfare of their own 
 souls, to discountenance it and every one, who, 
 in any manner, inculcates it, as subverting the 
 very foundations of the gospel, leading sinners 
 to a false and rumous confidence, and minister- 
 ing powerful incentives to all ungodliness. 
 
A CONTRAST 
 
 BETWEEK THE 
 
 DEATH OF A DEIST AND THE DEATH OF A CHRISTIAN : 
 
 BEIKG 
 
 A SUCCINCT ACCOUNT OF THAT CELEBRATED INFIDEL, 
 
 DAVID HUME, ESQ. 
 
 AKD OF THAT 
 
 EXCELLENT MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, 
 SAMUEL F I N L E Y, D. D., 
 
 IN THEIR LAST MOMENTS. 
 
A CONTRAST, &< 
 
 Letter from Adam Smithy LL. 2>., to William 
 Strahan, Esq., givuig some account of Mr. 
 Hume, during his last sickness. 
 
 Kirkaldy, Fife Shire, Nov. 9, 1776. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 It is with a real, though a very melancholy 
 pleasure, that I sit down to give you some ac- 
 count of the behavior of our late excellent friend, 
 Mr. Hume, during his last illness. Though, in 
 his own judgment, his disease was mortal and 
 incurable, yet he allowed himself to be pre- 
 vailed upon, by the entreaty of his friends, to try 
 what might be the effects of a long journey. A 
 few days before he set out, he wrote that ac- 
 count of his own life, which, together with his 
 other papers, he left to your care. My account, 
 therefore, .shall begin where his ends. 
 
350 Death of David Hume, Esq. 
 
 He set out for London towards the end of 
 April, and at Morpeth met with Mr. John Home 
 and myself, who had both come down from Lon- 
 don on purpose to see him, expecting to have 
 found him at Edinburgh. Mr. Home returned 
 with him, and attended him during the whole of 
 his stay in England, with that care and atten- 
 tion which might be expected from a temper so 
 perfectly friendly and affectionate. As I had 
 written to my mother that she might expect me 
 in Scotland, I was under the necessity of continu- 
 ing my journey. His disease seemed to yield to 
 exercise and change of air ; and when he arrived 
 in London, he was apparently in much better 
 health than when he left Edinburgh. He was 
 advised to go to Bath to drink the waters, which 
 appeared for some time to have so good an effect 
 upon him, that even he himself began to enter- 
 tain, what he Avas not apt to do, a better opinion 
 of his own health. His symptoms, however, 
 soon returned with their usual violence; and 
 from that moment he gave up all thoughts of 
 recovery, but submitted with the utmost cheer- 
 fulness, and the most perfect complacency and 
 resignation. Upon his return to Edinburgh, 
 though he found himself much weaker, yet his 
 cheerfulness never abated, and he continued to 
 divert himself, as usual, with correcting his own 
 works for a new edition, with reading books of 
 amusement, with the conversation of his friends: 
 
Death of David Hnnie, Esq. 351 
 
 and, sometimes in the evening, with a party at 
 his favorite game of whist. His cheerfuhiess 
 was so great, and his conversation and amuse- 
 ments run so much in their usual strain, that, 
 notwithstanding all bad symptoms, many people 
 could not believe he Avas dying. '• I shall tell 
 your friend, Colonel Edmonstone,"' said Doctor 
 Dmidas to him one day, " that I left you much 
 better, and in a fair way of recovery." "Doc- 
 tor," said he, '-as I believe you would not choose 
 to tell any thing but the truth, you had better 
 tell him that I am dying as fast as my enemies, 
 if I have any, could wish, and as easily and 
 cheerfully as my best friends could desire." 
 
 Colonel Edmonstone soon after came to see 
 him, and take leave of him ; and on his way 
 home, he could not forbear writing him a letter, 
 bidding him once more an eternal adieu, and 
 applying to him, as to a dying man, the beautiful 
 French verses, in which the Abbe Cliaulieu, in 
 expectation of his own death, laments his ap- 
 proaching separatien from his friend, the Mar- 
 quis De La Fare. 
 
 Mr. Hume's magnanimity and firmness were 
 such, that his most affectionate friends knew 
 that they hasarded nothing in talking or writing 
 to him as to a dying man, and that so far from 
 being hurt by this frankness, he was rather 
 pleased and flattered by it. I happened to come 
 into his room while he was readina: this letter. 
 
352 Death of David Himie^ Esq, 
 
 which he had just received, and which he im- 
 mediately showed me. I told him, that though 
 I was sensible how very much he was weak- 
 ened, and that appearances were in many re- 
 spects very had, yet his cheerfulness was still 
 so great, the spirit of life seemed to be still so 
 very strong in him, that 1 could not help enter- 
 taining some faint hopes. He answered, " Your 
 hopes are groundless. An habitual diarrhea of 
 more than a year's standing, would be a very 
 bad disease at any age : at my age it is a mortal 
 one. When I lie down in the evening, I feel 
 myself weaker than when I rose in the morn- 
 ing ; and when I rise in the morning, I feel my- 
 self weaker than when I lay down in the eve- 
 ning. I am sensible, besides, that some of my 
 vital parts are affected, so that I must soon die." 
 '' Well," said I, " if it must be so, you have at 
 least the satisfaction of leaving all your friends, 
 your brother's family in particular, in great 
 prosperity." He said that he felt that satisfac- 
 tion so sensibly, that when he was reading a few 
 days before, Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead, 
 among all the excuses which are alledged to Cha- 
 ron, for not entering readily into his boat, he 
 could not find one that fitted him ; he had no 
 house to finish, he had no daughter to provide 
 for, he had no enemies upon whom he wished to 
 revenge himself. "I could not well imagine,' 
 said he. ''what excuse I could make to Charon. 
 
JJmtk of David HiDiie^ Jblaq. 35c) 
 
 ill order to obtain a little delay. I have done 
 every thing of consequence which I ever meant 
 to do; and I could at no time expect to leave 
 my relations and friends in a better situation 
 than that in which I am now likely to leave 
 them ; I, therefore, have all reason to die con- 
 tented." He then diverted himself with invent- 
 ing several jocular excuses which he supposed 
 lie might make to Charon, and with imagining 
 the very surly answers which it might suit the 
 character of Charon to return to them. " Upon 
 further consideration," said he, " I thought I 
 might say to him, ' Good Charon, I have been 
 correcting my works for a new edition. Allow 
 me a little time that I may see how the public 
 receives the alterations.' But Charon would 
 answer, ' "W hen you have seen the effect of these, 
 you will be for making other alterations. There 
 will be no end of such excuses ; so, honest friend, 
 please step into the boat.' But I might still 
 urge, ' Have a little patience, good Charon ; I 
 have been endeavoring to open the eyes of the 
 public. If I live a few years longer, I may have 
 the satisfaction of seeing the downfall of some 
 of the prevailing systems of superstition.' But 
 Charon would then lose all temper and decency. 
 '■ You loitering rogue, that will not happen these 
 many hundred years. Do you fancy I will grant 
 yon a lease for so long a term ? Get into the 
 boat this instant, you lazy, loitering rogue/ " 
 Vol. HT. 4^ 
 
354 Death of David Hame^ Esq. 
 
 But, though Mr. Hume always talked of his 
 approachhig dissolution with great cheerfulness. 
 he never affected to make any parade of his 
 magnanimity. He never mentioned the subject 
 but when the conversation naturally led to it, 
 and dwelt no longer upon it than the conversa- 
 tion happened to require : it was a subject, in- 
 deed, which occurred pretty frequently, in con- 
 sequence of the inquiries which his friends, who 
 came to see him, naturally made concerning the 
 state of his health. The conversation which I 
 mentioned above, and which passed on Thurs- 
 day, the 8th of August, w^as the last, except 
 one, that I ever had with him. He had now 
 become so very weak, that the company of his 
 most intimate friends fatigued him ; for his cheer- 
 fulness w^as still so great, his complaisance, and 
 social disposition were still so entire, that when 
 any friend was with him, he could not help talk- 
 ing more, and with greater exertion, than suited 
 the weakness of his body. At his own desire, 
 therefore, I agreed to leave Edinburgh, wiiere I 
 was staying partly upon his account, and re- 
 turned to my mother's house here, at Kirkaldy. 
 upon condition that he would send for me w^hen- 
 ever he wished to see me ; the physician who 
 saw him most frequently. Dr. Black, undertaking 
 in the mean time, to write me occasionally an 
 account of the state of his health. On the 22d 
 
Death of David Hume, Es<]. 355 
 
 of August, the Doctor wrote me the following 
 letter : 
 
 " Since my last, Mr. Hume has passed his time 
 pretty easily, but is much weaker. He sits up, 
 goes down stairs once a day, and amuses himself 
 with reading, but seldom sees any body. He 
 linds that even the conversation of his most in- 
 timate friends fatigues and oppresses him ; and 
 it is happy that he does not need it, for he is 
 quite free from anxiety, impatience, or low spi- 
 rits ; and passes his time very well with the as- 
 sistance of amusing books." 
 
 I received, the day after, a letter from Mr. 
 Hume, myself, of which the following is an ex- 
 tract : 
 
 Edinburgh, 23 August, 1776. 
 
 My dearest Friend, 
 I am obliged to make use of my nephew's 
 
 hand in writing to you, as I do not rise to-dav. 
 
 * * * * * * # 
 
 ****** :J^ 
 
 I go very fast to decline, and last night had a 
 small fever, which I hoped might put a quicker 
 period to this tedious illness, but unluckily it 
 has, in a great measure, gone off, I cannot sub- 
 mit to your coming over here on my account, as 
 it is possible for me to see you so small a part of 
 the day ; but Doctor Black can better inform 
 you concerning the degree of strength which 
 
356 Death of JDavid Hume, Esq. 
 
 may from time to time remain with me 
 Adieu, &c." 
 
 Three days after, I received the following 
 letter from Dr. Black : 
 
 Edinburgh, Monday, Aug. 26, 1776. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 Yesterday, about four o'clock, afternoon, Mr. 
 Hume expired. The near approach of his death 
 became evident in the night between Thursday 
 and Friday, when his disease became excessive, 
 and soon weakened him so much, that he could 
 no longer rise out of his bed. He continued to 
 the last perfectly sensible, and free from much 
 pain or feelings of distress. He never dropped 
 the smallest expression of impatience ; but when 
 he had occasion to speak to the people about him, 
 always did it with affection and tenderness. I 
 thought it improper to write to bring you over, 
 especially as I heard that he dictated a letter to 
 you, desiring you not to come. When he be- 
 came very weak it cost him an effort to speak . 
 and lie died in such a happy composure of mind, 
 that nothing could exceed it. 
 
 Thus died our most excellent and never to be 
 forgotten friend ; concerning whose philosophical 
 opinions men will no doubt judge variously, 
 every one approving or condemning them, ac- 
 
Death of David Hume, Esq. 357 
 
 <5ording as they happen to coincide or disagree 
 with his own ; but concerning whose character 
 and conduct there can scarce be a difference of 
 opinion. His temper, indeed, seemed to be more 
 happily balanced, if I may be allowed such an 
 expression, than that perhaps of any other man 
 I have ever known. Even in the lowest state 
 of his fortune, his great and necessary frugality 
 never hindered him from exercising, upon proper 
 occasions, acts both, of charity and generosity. 
 It was a frugality founded not upon avarice, but 
 upon the love of independency. The extreme 
 gentleness of his nature never weakened either 
 the firmness of his mind, or the steadiness of his 
 resolutions. His constant pleasantry was the 
 genuine effusion of good nature and good hu- 
 mour, tempered with delicacy and modesty, and 
 without even the slightest tincture of malignity, 
 so frequently the disagreeable source of what is 
 called wit in other men. It never was the mean- 
 ing of his raillery to mortify ; and, therefore, far 
 from offending, it seldom failed to please and de- 
 light, even those who were the objects of it. 
 To his friends, who were frequently the objects 
 of it, there was not perhaps any one of all his 
 great and amiable qualities, which contributed 
 more to endear his conversation. And that 
 gayety of temper, so agreeable in society, but 
 which is often accompanied with frivolous and 
 superficial qualities, was, in him. certainly at- 
 
SdS Death of David Hume, Esq. 
 
 tended with the most severe application, the 
 most extensive learning, the greatest depth of 
 thought, and a capacity in every respect the 
 most comprehensive. Upon the whole, I have 
 always considered him, both in his lifetime and 
 since his death, as approaching as nearly to the 
 idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as 
 perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit. 
 I ever am. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Most affectionately yours, 
 Adam Smith. 
 
Death of ISaniml F'uiley^ D. D. 359 
 
 ISome of the, last choice icords of Doctor Samuel 
 FiNLEY, President of the college of New Jersey. 
 
 Friday, July 11, 1776. The Rev. Mr. Richard 
 Treat came to visit the Doctor, who desired that 
 he would pray by him. Being asked what he 
 vshould pray for, he answered, "Beseech God 
 that he would be pleased to let me feel just as 
 I did at that time when I first closed with Christ, 
 at which time I could scarce contain myself out 
 of heaven." 
 
 Dr. S. acquainted him that he could live but 
 a few days longer ; at which he lifted up his 
 eyes with much composure, saying, " Then wel- 
 come, Lord Jesus." He declared himvself under 
 the greatest obligations to the doctor for his 
 kind and diligent attendance during his illness, 
 and said, " I owe a large catalogue of debts to 
 my friends, which will never be charged to my 
 account ; God will discharge them for me." 
 
 July 13th, Lord's-day, noon. Dr. C. came to 
 his bed-side, and told him there appeared a very 
 visible alteration in his countenance, by which 
 he judged death was not far off. He raised him- 
 self upon his pillow, and broke out, '^ Then may 
 the Lord bring me near to himself — I have 
 waited with a Canaan hunger for the promised 
 land — I have often wondered that God suffereii 
 
o60 Veath of iSamuel Finley, D. Jj. 
 
 me to live-I have wondered more that ever he 
 called me to be a minister of his word He has 
 often afforded me much strength, and though I 
 have abused it, he has returned in mercy. Oh • 
 how sweet are the promises of God ! Oh ' that 
 I could see him as I have seen him heretofore in 
 his sanctuary! Although I have earnestly de^ 
 sired death as the hireling pants for the evening 
 shade, yet will I wait my appointed time. I 
 have struggled with principalities and power, 
 and have been brought almost to despair-^Lord 
 let it suffice." 
 
 He now closed his eyes, and fervently prayed 
 that God would show him his glory before he 
 departed hence— that he would enable him to 
 endure patiently to the end-and, particularly 
 that he might be kept from dishonoring the mi- 
 nistry. He resumed his discourse, saying "I 
 can truly say that I have loved the servic'e of 
 God— I know not in what language to speak of 
 my own unworthiness ; I have been undutiful • 
 I have honestly endeavored to act for God, but 
 with much weakness and corruption." Here he 
 lay down, and spoke as follows : "A Christian's 
 death is the best part of his existence. The 
 Lord has made provision for the whole way 
 provision for the soul and for the body. Oh! 
 that I could recollect sabbath blessings ! The 
 Lord has given me many souls as a crown of 
 my rejoicing. Blessed be God, eternal rest is at 
 
Death of Samuel Finley; D. D. 361 
 
 hand : eternity is long enough to enjoy my God. 
 This has animated me in my severest studies. 
 I was ashamed to take rest here. Oh ! that I 
 could be filled with the fullness of God ! that 
 fullness which fills heaven !" 
 
 One asked him, if it was in his choice either 
 to live or to die, which he would prefer? He 
 replied, " To die. Though I cannot but say I 
 feel the same difiiculty with St. Paul. But 
 should God by a miracle prolong my life, I will 
 still continue to serve him : his service has ever 
 been sweet to me. I have loved it much. I 
 have tried my Master's yoke, and will never 
 shrink my neck from it. His yoke is easy, and 
 his burden light." 
 
 " You are more cheerful, sir," said one of the 
 company. " Yes, I rise or fall as eternal rest 
 appears nearer or further off." 
 
 It being observed to him, that he always used 
 that expression '•''Dear Lord'''' in his prayers; he 
 answered, " Oh ! he is very dear, very precious 
 indeed ! How pretty for a minister to die upon 
 the sabbath ! I expect to spend the remaining 
 part of this sabbath in heaven." 
 
 One said, " You will soon be joined to a bless- 
 ed society; you will for ever converse with 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with the spirits of 
 just men made perfect, with old friends, and 
 many old-fashioned people." " Yes, sir," he re- 
 
 VoL. III. 46 
 
362 D eat I I of Samuel Finiey, D. D. 
 
 plied, with a smile, " but they are a most polite 
 people now." 
 
 He frequently expressed great gratitude to 
 his friends around him, hut very particularly to 
 the kind family he was in ; and said, " May the 
 Lord repay you for your tenderness of me ; may 
 he bless you abundantly, not only with temporal 
 but spiritual blessings." Addressing himself to 
 all that were present, he said, " Oh ! that each 
 of you may experience what, blessed be God, I 
 do, when ye come to die ! May you have the 
 pleasure of reflecting in a dying hour, that with 
 faith and j^f^tience, zeal and sincerity^ you have 
 endeavored to serve the Lord ; that each of you 
 may be impressed, as I have been, with God's 
 word, looking upon it as substantial, and not 
 only fearing, but unwilling to offend against it." 
 
 To a person about to return to Princeton, he 
 said, " Give my love to the people of Princeton ; 
 tell them I am going to die, and that I am not 
 afraid of death." He would sometimes cry out, 
 " The Lord Jesus take care of his cause in the 
 world." 
 
 Monday, 14th. Waking this morning, " Oh ! 
 what a disappointment have I met with ; I ex- 
 pected this morning to have been in heaven !" 
 His great weakness prevented his much speak- 
 ing to-day : what few words he uttered, breathed 
 the language of triumph. 
 
Death of Samuel Finleij, D. D. 363 
 
 Tuesday, 15th. With a pleasmg smile and 
 strong voice he cried out, " Oh ! I shall triumph 
 over every foe ! The Lord hath given me the 
 victory ! I exult, I triumph. Oh ! that I could 
 see untainted purity ! Now I know that it is 
 impossible that faith should not triumph over 
 earth and hell ; I think I have nothing to do now 
 but to die. Perhaps I have ; Lord show me my 
 task." 
 
 After expressing some fears that he did not 
 endeavor to preserve his remaining life, through 
 eagerness to depart, and being told he did no- 
 thing inconsistent with self-preservation, he said, 
 " Lord Jesus, into thine hands I commit my spi- 
 rit. / do it icith confidence^ I do it ivith full as- 
 sw^ance. I know that thou wilt keep that which 
 I have committed unto thee, I have been dream- 
 ing too fast of the time of my departure. I find 
 it does not come ; but the Lord is faithful, and 
 will not tarry beyond his appointed time." 
 
 When one who attended him told him his pulse 
 grew weaker, he expressed with pleasure, that 
 it was well. He often would put forth his hand 
 to his physicians, and ask them how his pulse 
 beat; and would rejoice when he was told it 
 was fluttering or irregular. 
 
 In the afternoon, the Rev. Mr. Spencer came 
 to see him, and said, " I am come, dear sir, to 
 hear you confirm by facts the gospel you have 
 preached. Pray how do you feel ?" The doc- 
 
364 Death of Samuel Finley, D. D. 
 
 tor replied, " Full of triumph. I triumph through 
 Christ. Nothing clips my wings but the thoughts 
 of my dissolution being prolonged. Oh ! that it 
 was to-night. My very soul thirsts for eternal 
 rest." Mr. Spencer asked him, what he saw in 
 eternity to excite such vehement desires in his 
 soul ? He replied, " I see a God of love and 
 goodness — I see the fullness of my Mediator — I 
 see the love of Jesus. Oh ! to be dissolved ; to 
 be with him ! I long to be clothed with the 
 complete righteousness of Christ, not only im- 
 puted but inherent." He desired Mr Spencer to 
 pray before they parted. " Pray that God would 
 preserve me from evil — that he would keep me 
 from dishonoring his great name in this critical 
 hour ; and support me in my passage through the 
 valley of the shadow of death.'''' 
 
 He spent the remaining part of the day in bid- 
 ding farewell to, and blessing his friends ; and 
 exhorting such of his children as were with him. 
 He would frequently cry out, '^ Why move the 
 tardy hours so slow V 
 
 July 16th, his speech failed him. He made 
 many efforts to speak, but seldom so distinct as 
 to be understood. Mr. Roberdeau desired him 
 to give some token whereby his friends might 
 know whether he still continued to triumph. 
 He lifted up his hands and said, " Yes." This 
 afternoon he uttered several sentences, but little 
 could be collected from them. 
 
Death of Samuel JFinley, D. D. 365 
 
 Some of his very last words concerning him- 
 self were, '' After one or two more engagements 
 tlie conflict will be over." About nine o'clock 
 he fell into a sound sleep, and appeared much 
 freer from pain than for several days before. 
 He continued to sleep without moving in the 
 least till one o'clock ; when he expired without 
 a sigh or a groan, or any kind of motion, suffi- 
 cient to alarm his wife, and those friends who 
 were about his bed. During his whole sickness, 
 he was never heard to utter one repining word. 
 He was at times tortured with tlie most excru- 
 ciating pains; yet he expressed in all his beha- 
 vior an entire resignation to the divine will. In 
 all his affecting farewells to his relations and 
 friends, he was never seen to shed a tear, or show 
 the least mark of sorrow. He often checked 
 his affectionate wife when she was weeping; 
 and he expressed his unshaken confidence in the 
 promises of his God, whenever he spoke of his 
 dear children. 
 
 His truly polite behavior continued to the last, 
 and manifested itself whenever he called for a 
 drop of drink to wet his lips. Every one around 
 him was treated with that same sweetness and 
 ease that were so peculiar and natural to him. 
 In fine, he was a most striking example of that 
 faith which kindles love in the heart, and pro- 
 duces the sweet fruits of meekness, gentleness, 
 patience, and every Christian grace and virtue." 
 
366 On the death of Hume and Finley. 
 
 JRemarks on the jorecedlng accounts of the death 
 of David Hume, Esq., and Samuel Finley^ 
 D.D. 
 
 The common sense and feelings of mankind, 
 have always taught them to consider death as a 
 most awful and interesting event. If it were 
 nothing more than a separation from all that we 
 love in this world; the dissolution of our hodies; 
 and the termination of our present mode of ex- 
 istence ; there would be sufficient reason for ap- 
 proaching it with tender and solemn reflection. 
 But when we add those anticipations of which 
 very few, if any, can wholly divest themselves ; 
 that scene of " untried being," which lies before 
 us ; and especially that eternity which the Chris- 
 tian revelation unfolds, death becomes an object 
 of unutterable moment; and every sober thought 
 of it bears upon the heart with a weight of so- 
 licitude which it is not in the power of unaided 
 reason to remove. The mere 'possibility of our 
 living hereafter, is enough to engage the atten- 
 tion of a wise man : the prohability of it is too 
 grave and affecting to leave an excuse for indif- 
 ference : nnd the certainty with which the scrip- 
 tures speak of it, as of an immortality of bless- 
 edness or of wo, allows to light and ludicrous 
 
On the dealh of Ilwiue and Fhdcy. 367 
 
 speculations concerning it, no other character 
 than that of the insanity of wickedness. 
 
 When that hour draws nigh which shall close 
 the business of life, and summon the spirit to the 
 bar of " God who gave it," all the motives to de- 
 ception cease, and those false reasonings which 
 blind the judgment, are dissipated. It is the 
 hour of truth, and of sincerity. Such, at least, 
 is the general fact, which cannot be invalidated 
 by the concession that, in some instances, men 
 have been found to cherish their infatuation, and 
 practice their knavery, to the very last. Their 
 number in places which enjoy the pure gospel, 
 the only ones in our present view, is too small to 
 make any perceptible difference in the amount ; 
 or to disparage that respectful credence with 
 which the rustic and the sage listen to the testi- 
 mony of a dying bed. 
 
 By this testimony, the " gospel of the grace of 
 God," has obtained, among every people and in 
 every age, such strong confirmation, and has car- 
 ried into the human conscience, such irresistible 
 appeals for its truth, its power, and its glorious 
 excellency, that its enemies have labored with 
 all their might, to discredit these triumphs. 
 They have attacked the principle upon which 
 the testimony of a dying believer rests. They 
 have said that the mind, being necessarily en- 
 feebled by the ravages of mortal disease upon 
 the body, is not a competent judge of its own 
 
368 On the death of Hume and Finley. 
 
 operations — that the looks, the tears, the whole 
 conduct of snrronnding friends, excite artificial 
 emotions in the dying — that superstition has a 
 prodigious ascendancy over their imagination — 
 that their joyful impressions of heaven, are the 
 mere reveries of a disturbed brain — that their 
 serenity, their steady hope, their placid faith, 
 are only the natural consequence of long habit, 
 which never operates more freely than when the 
 faculty of reflection is impaired. All this, and 
 more like this, do unhappy mortals who take, 
 or pretend to take, pleasure in putting an ex- 
 tinguisher upon the light of life, detail with an 
 air of superiority, as if they had fallen upon a 
 discovery which merits the plaudits of the 
 world. But were it even so — were the Chris- 
 tian victory over death only a dream, it is a 
 dream so sweet and blessed, that with the 
 scourger of Lord Bolingbroke's philosophy, I 
 should " account that man a villain that awoke 
 me — awoke me to truth and misery."* But I 
 am not going to discuss this question. The poor 
 infidel does not believe himself, and why should 
 others believe him ? With one breath he en- 
 deavors to cry down the argument to be de- 
 rived in favor of their religion, from the peaceful 
 death of Christians ; and with the next to enlist 
 
 * Hunter's view of the philosophical character and writings of 
 Lord Viscount Bolingbroke. 
 
On the death of Hume and Finley. 369 
 
 it in his own service. He omits no opportunity 
 of celebrating the intrepidity or composure dis- 
 played by sceptical brethren in their last mo- 
 ments. Let the letter of Dr. Adam Smith, con- 
 cerning the death of David Hume, Esq., be a 
 proof Every sentence betrays his anxiety to 
 set off his friend to the best advantage. The 
 dullest observer cannot but perceive his design 
 to compare Mr. Hume dying an infidel, with a 
 Christian dying in the faith of Jesus. Let us 
 draw out, at length, that comparison which he 
 has only insinuated ; and that the effect may be 
 more decisive, let us remember, that the whole 
 annals of unbelief do not furnish a more favor- 
 able example than he has selected. Mr. Hume 
 was a man of undisputed genius. His versatile 
 talent, his intense application, his large acquire- 
 ments, and his uncommon acuteness, place him, 
 perhaps, at the head of those enemies of revela- 
 tion who attempt to reaso7i ; as Voltaire stands 
 Avithout a rival among those who only scoff. He 
 had, besides, what rarely belongs to the ascer- 
 tained infidel, a good moral reputation. We 
 mean that he was not addicted to lewdness, to 
 drunkenness, to knavery, to profane swearing,* 
 
 * On further recollection, we are compelled to deduct from Mr. 
 Hume's morality, his freedom from profane swearing. For, in an 
 account of the life and writings of the Rev. Dr. Robertson, the 
 great historian, drawn up by Professor Dugald Stewart, there is a 
 letter from Mr. Hume to the doctor, in which he descends to the 
 coarse and vulgar profanity of the ale-house, and the main-deck. 
 
 Vol. III. 47 
 
370 On the death of Hume and Finley. 
 
 or any of those grosser vices which are the 
 natural and ordinary companions of enmity to 
 the gospel. For otherwise, as he labored to 
 unsettle all fixed principles of belief; to over- 
 turn the whole system of moral obligation ; to 
 obliterate a sense of God's anthoritv from the 
 
 To ask his reverend correspondent, the principal of the Universitj* 
 of Edinburgh ; the ecclesiastical premier of the church of Scot- 
 land, " What the devil he had to do with that old fashioned, dang- 
 ling word, tvherewith ?" and to tell him, " I will see you d d 
 
 sooner," viz. than " swallow your hath."* — are such gross viola- 
 tions of decency, that unless Mr. Hume had been accustomed to 
 adorn his speech with similar expletives, they never could have 
 found their way into a familiar letter ; much less into a letter de- 
 signed for the eye of a man to whom, considering his profession 
 only, they were a direct insult. We do not wonder that Mr. Stew- 
 art should " hesitate about the propriety of subjecting to the criti- 
 cisms of the world so careless an effusion." But, knowing as we 
 do, the urbanity of that gentleman's manners, the elegance of his 
 mind, and his high sense of decorum, we much wonder that his 
 hesitation had not a different issue. We fear that all men of so- 
 briety, we are sure that all men of religion, will refuse to accept 
 Mr. Hume's " gayety and affection," as an apology for his vileness ; 
 or to let 'it pass off under the mask of " playful and good-natured 
 irony." 'If a philosopher's " affection" must vent itself in ribaldry, 
 if he cannot be " playful and good-natured," without plundering the 
 waterman and scavenger of their appropriate phraseology, we own, 
 that his conversation has no attractions for us. Such a " glimpse" 
 as this letter affords, of the " writer and his correspondent in the 
 habits of private intercourse," is far from " suggesting not unpleas- 
 ing pictures of the hours which they borrowed from business and 
 study." But the most melancholy reflection is, that such intima- 
 cies and correspondences furnish an index of Dr. Robertson's own 
 character. The infidels never allowed that he had any thing of 
 the Christian minister but his canonicals and his sermons. With 
 these exceptions they claimed him as their own, and their claim ap- 
 pears to have been too well founded. 
 
 * An account of the Life and writings of William Robertson, D. D., pre- 
 fixed to his works, p. 80. 81. 
 
On the death of Hume and Finley. 371 
 
 conscience ; and positively to inculcate the inno- 
 cence of the greatest ci'imes, he must be ac- 
 counted one of the most flagitiously immoral 
 men that ever lived. 
 
 His panegyrist, too, was a man of superior 
 parts and profound erudition. The name of 
 Adam Smith will always rank high in the repub- 
 lic of letters, and will never be pronounced but 
 with respect by the political economist. Mr. 
 Hume can have lost nothing, has possibly gained 
 much, by the pen of his friend. Taking him, 
 therefore, as the letter to Mr. Strahan repre- 
 sents him, let us contrast him with that servant 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, £>r. Samuel Finley. 
 
 Whatever be a man's opinions, one of his 
 most rational occupations in the prospect of 
 leaving the world is to look back upon the man- 
 ner in which he has passed through it, to com- 
 pare his duties with his conduct, and to inquire 
 how far he deserves the approbation or the re- 
 proach of his own conscience. With a Chris- 
 tian this admits not of dispute. Nor will it be 
 disputed by a Deist, who professes his faith in 
 the being and providence of God, and a state of 
 rewards and punishments hereafter proportioned 
 to the degree of crime or of Aartue here. To 
 such a one it is, upon his own principles, a ques- 
 tion of unspeakable importance, whether he 
 shall commence his future existence with hopes 
 of happiness or with fears of misery ; especially 
 
372 On the Death of Hume and Finley. 
 
 as he relies much upon the efficacy of penitence 
 and prayer in procuring forgiveness of his faults, 
 indulgence to his infirmities, and a general miti- 
 gation of whatever is unfavorable. Nay, the 
 mortal Deist, or the Atheist himself, for they are 
 not worth the trouble of a distinction, ought, for 
 their own sakes in this life, to be so employed. 
 If, with the rejection of all religious constraint, 
 they have not also uprooted every affection of 
 their nature, nothing could afford them more 
 gratification in the evening of their days than 
 the consciousness of their having contributed 
 something to the mass of human comfort. In 
 short, whether we argue upon Christian or un- 
 christian grounds, it can be the interest of none 
 but the worthless and the malignant to shut their 
 eyes upon their own history, and sink down in 
 death as a bullock drops under the knife of his 
 executioner. 
 
 Yet strange as it may appear, and inconsistent 
 as it certainly is with his high pretensions, there 
 are few things so rare as a dying infidel taking 
 a deliberate retrospect of life. We say a deli- 
 berate retrospect; for it is undeniable, that on 
 many of those, who, like the apostate Julian, 
 waged implacable war with the Galilean, con- 
 science, recovering from its slumbers, has at the 
 hour of death, or the apprehension of it, forced 
 an unwilling and tormenting recollection of 
 their deeds. The point of honor in their philo- 
 
On the Death of Hume and Finley. 373 
 
 sophy seems to be, and their utmost attainment 
 is, to keep completely out of view both the past 
 and the future. This was evidently the case 
 with Mr. Hume. Read over again Dr. Smith's 
 letter to Mr. Strahan, and you will not find a 
 syllable from which you could gather that there 
 is an hereafter, a providence, or a God — not a sen- 
 tence to indicate that Mr. Hume believed he had 
 ever committed a sin, or was in any respect an 
 accountable being. 
 
 Turn now away from the philosopher, and 
 hear what a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ 
 has to say. Melting into gratitude for that 
 mercy which he had received from his heavenly 
 Father, he goes back to the commencement of 
 his Christian course, and desires his friend to 
 pray that God " would be pleased to let him feel 
 just as he did at that time when he first closed 
 with Christ," and the rapture of his soul came 
 near to the blessedness of heaven. With deep 
 humility he owns his sinfulness ; not a whisper 
 of extenuation or apology does he utter — " I 
 know not in what language to speak of my own 
 unworthiness — I have been undutiful." But 
 with great tenderness, as in the presence of the 
 Omniscient, he attests his satisfaction with time 
 spent in his Christian duties and enjoyments. 
 " I can truly say that I have loved the service of 
 God — I have honestly endeavored to act for God, 
 but with much weakness and corruption — I have 
 
374 On the death of Hume and Pinley. 
 
 tried my Master's yoke, and will never shrink 
 my neck from it." That he had been useful to 
 others and instrumental in their salvation was 
 to him. a source of pure and elevated joy. 
 " The Lord has given me many souls as a crown 
 of my rejoicing." 
 
 What think you, now, reader, of Mr. Hume 
 and Dr. Finley, with regard to their retrospect 
 of life ? Who evinces most of the good and the 
 virtuous man 1 Whose reflections, is it reasona- 
 ble to conclude, were the most delightful 1 His, 
 who let none of them escape his lips ? or his, 
 whose words were inadequate to express their 
 abundance or their sweetness 7 No ; the one 
 had not delightful recollections to communicate. 
 High happiness is never selfish. The overflowing 
 heart pours off its exuberance into the bosom of 
 a friend. And had Mr. H. had any thing of this 
 sort to impart, his companions and encomiasts 
 would have shared in his pleasure, and would 
 not have forgotten to tell the world of its luxury. 
 Their silence is a sufficient comment. 
 
 Let us extend our comparison to a particular, 
 which, more than almost any thing else, touches 
 the pride of philosophy ; we mean the dignity 
 displayed by the infidel and by the Christian re- 
 spectively. 
 
 Ask Dr. Smith. He will tell you that at the 
 very time when he knew his dissolution was 
 near, Mr. Hume continued to " divert himself as 
 
On the death of I/ainc and Pinky. 375 
 
 usual, with correcting his own works for a new 
 edition ; with reading books of amusement ; with 
 the conversation of his friends ; and sometimes, 
 in the evening, with a party at his favorite game 
 of whist." Behold the dying occupation of a 
 captain of infidelity ! Of one who is eulogized 
 " as approaching as nearly to the idea of a per- 
 fectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the na- 
 ture of human frailty will admit "^ — his most se- 
 rious employment is " diverting himself." Just 
 about to yield up his last breath, and '' diverting 
 himself!" From what 1 Let them answer who 
 know that there are apt to be troublesome 
 visitors to the imagination and the conscience of 
 one who has prostituted his powers to the pur- 
 pose of spreading rebellion against the God who 
 made him ! '' Diverting himself!" With what ? 
 With correcting his own works for a new edition ! 
 a considerable portion of which " works " is 
 destined to prove that justice, mercy, faith, and 
 all the circle of both the duties and charities, 
 are obligatory only because they are useful ; 
 and, by consequence, that their opposites shall 
 be obligatory when they shall appear to be 
 more useful — that the religion of the Lord Je- 
 sus, which has " brought life and immortality to 
 light," is an imposture — that adultery is a baga- 
 telle, and suicide a virtue ! With what 7 With 
 reading books of amusemeiit. The adventures 
 of Don Quixote ; the tales of the genii ; a 
 
376 On the death of Hume and Finley. 
 
 novel, a tragedy, a farce, a collection of sonnets ; 
 any thing but those sober and searching treatises 
 which are fit for one who " considers his latter 
 end." With what 1 With the conversation of 
 his friends, such as Dr. Smith, and Dr. Black, 
 another famous infidel, who, as they had nothing 
 inviting to discuss about futurity, and Mr. H. 
 could not bear the fatigue of abstruse specula- 
 tion, must have entertained him with all that 
 jejune small talk which makes great wits look 
 so very contemptible when they have nothing to 
 say. With what 1 With an evening party at 
 his favorite game of whist ! A card table ! and 
 all that nauseous gabble for which the card 
 table is renowned ! The question is to be de- 
 cided, whether such stupendous faculties as had 
 been lavished upon Mr. Hume were to be blasted 
 into annihilation ; or expanded to the vision and 
 fruition of the Infinite Good; or converted 
 into inlets of endless pain, despair, and horror ? 
 A question which might convulse the abyss, and 
 move the thrones of heaven — and while the de- 
 cision is preparing, preparing for him, Mr. H. 
 sits down to a gaming-board, with gambling 
 companions, to be " diverted " with the chances 
 of the cards and the edifying conversation to 
 which they give rise ! Such is the dignitij of 
 this almost " perfectly wise and virtuous man !" 
 Such a iihilosophefs preparation for death ! 
 
On the deal) I of Hume and Finley. 377 
 
 Let us leave Iiim at the card-table, and pay a 
 second visit to Dr. Finley. From his gracious 
 lips not a trifling word escapes. In his ardent 
 soul, now^ ready to speed its flight to the spirits 
 of the just, there is no room for " diversion," for 
 " correcting" compositions, for " books of amuse- 
 ment," or for " games of w^hist." The everlast- 
 ing life of those around him — the spiritual pros- 
 perity of a congregation dear to him — the inter- 
 ests of his Redeemer amon^ the nations — these 
 these are the themes which fill his thoughts and 
 dwell upon his tongue. " Oh that each of you," 
 says he to the spectators of his pain, " may ex- 
 perience what, blessed be God, I do, when ye 
 come to die." — " Give my love to the people of 
 Princeton : tell them that I am going to die, and 
 that I am not afraid of death. The Lord Jesus 
 ^take care of his cause in the world." 
 
 The manner in which Mr. H. and Dr. F, 
 directly contemplated death, and the eflfects of 
 death, presents another strong point of contrast. 
 
 It is evident from the whole of Dr. Smith's 
 narrative, that the former confined or wished to 
 confine his view to the mere physical event — 
 to the bodily anguish which it might create, and 
 its putting a period to earthly enjoyments. The 
 whole of the philosopher's " magnanimity " cen- 
 tres here. Allowing to his composure under 
 these views of death as much as can reasonably 
 be demanded, we do not perceive in it all that 
 
 Vol. III. 48 
 
378 On the death of Hume and Finley. 
 
 '' magnanimity " which is perceived by Dr. S, 
 Thousands, who had no pretensions to philoso- 
 phical pre-eminence, have been Mr. H.'s equals 
 on this ground. If he had succeeded in per- 
 suading himself, as his writings tend to persuade 
 others, that the spirit of man, like the spirit of 
 a beast, " goeth downwards ;" that when the 
 breath should leave his body, there would be an 
 end of Mr. Hume ; that the only change would 
 be to " turn a few ounces of blood into a dif- 
 ferent channel " — to vary the form of a cluster 
 of corpuscles, or to scatter a bundle of percep- 
 tions up and down through that huge collection 
 of impressions and ideas, that stupendous mass 
 of nothings of which his philosophy had saga- 
 ciously discovered the whole material and intel- 
 lectual world to be composed — if this were all, 
 we cannot discern in what his magnanimity con- 
 sisted. It is chiefly as a mortal event that death 
 is interesting — as an event, which, instead of put- 
 ting an end to our existence, only introduces us 
 to a mode of existence as much more interesting 
 than the present as eternity is more interesting 
 than time. 
 
 It is this view that chiefly engaged the at- 
 tention of Dr. Finley. In common with others 
 he was to undergo the pains of dissolution. 
 But he rested not in these. He fixed his eye 
 upon that new form which all his relations to 
 God, to holiness, to sin, and the inhabitants of 
 the future world, were shortly to assume. The 
 
On the death of Hume and Pinky. 379 
 
 reader, we doubt not, perceives the immense 
 disparity between these cases. Mr. H. looks at 
 death as it affects the affairs of this world. Dr. 
 F. as it involves eternal issues. Mr. H., accord- 
 ing to his own notions, had nothing to encounter 
 but the struggles of nature, and nothing to lose 
 but a few temporal enjoyments. Before Dr. F. 
 was the tribunal of God, and the stake at hazard 
 was an immortal soul. An error here is irre- 
 trievable ; the very thought of its possibility is 
 enough to shake every fibre of the frame ; and 
 proportionably precious and certain must be 
 that religion which can assure the believer of 
 his safety, and convey him with peacefulness 
 and pleasure to his Father's house. 
 
 This being the case, let us weigh the consola- 
 tions of the philosopher against those of the 
 Christian. 
 
 Dr. Smith has made the most of them in be- 
 half of the former, but a very little scrutiny will 
 show that they are light and meagre indeed. 
 " I am dying," they are the words of Mr. H., 
 " as easily and cheerfully as my best friends 
 could desire." " When he became very weak," 
 says Dr. Black, " it cost him an effort to speak ; 
 and he died in such a happy composure of mind, 
 that nothing could exceed it." 
 
 We are not without suspicion, that on the part 
 of Mr. H. there is some affectation here ; and on 
 the part of his friends, some pretty high color- 
 
380 On the death of Hume and Finley. 
 
 ing. In the mouth of a Christian, " composure," 
 '' cheerfulness," complacency," " resignation," 
 " happiness," in death, have a^n exquisite mean- 
 ing. But what meaning can they have in the 
 mouth of one, the very best of whose expecta- 
 tions is the extinction of his being 1 Is there 
 any '^ complacency " in the thought of perish- 
 ing? any '' happiness " in the dreary and dismal 
 anticipation of being blotted out of life ? It is 
 a farce ; it is a mockery of every human feeling ; 
 and every throbbing of the heart convicts it of a 
 lie. But Mr. Hume expected a better state of 
 existence — nay, talk not of that. There is not, 
 either in his own expressions or those of his 
 friends, the faintest allusion to futurity. That 
 glorious light, which shines through the grave 
 upon the redeemed of the Lord, was the object 
 of his derision. No comfort from this quarter. 
 The accomplishment of his earthly wishes and 
 the prosperity of his near relatives are the only 
 reasons assigned for his cheerfulness. But these 
 are insufficient. In thousands and ten thou- 
 sands they have not availed to preclude the 
 most alarming forebodings ; and why should 
 they do more for Mr. Hume 1 
 
 In the next place, how shall we interpret his 
 "resignation?" Resignation to what ? To the 
 Divine Will ? O no ! God was not in all his 
 thoughts. But death was at hand, and he could 
 not escape ; he submitted to a stroke which it 
 
On the death of Hume mid Pin ley. 381 
 
 was impossible to avoid. And all that is said of 
 his " composure/' and " cheerfulness," and " re- 
 signation," and " complacency," when measured 
 by the scale of truth, amounts to no more than 
 a sottish unconcern set off with a fictitious 
 gayety. It is easy to work up a fine description, 
 and it is often most fine when most remote from 
 the fact. Let any infidel between the poles pro- 
 duce, if he can, a reason that shall satisfy a 
 child why one, who has lived without God, 
 should find " complacency " in death. Nothing 
 but that " hope which maketh not ashamed " is 
 a cause equal to such an effect. But " hope " 
 beyond the grave is a word which had no place 
 in Mr. Hume's vocabulary, because the thing 
 had no place in his soul. It is plain, however, 
 that he 
 
 Felt his ruling passion strong in death. 
 
 Whatever his decay had weakened, his desire to 
 see " the downfall of some of the prevailing sys- 
 tems of superstition, ' which with Mr. Hume 
 meant neither more nor less than the destruction 
 of Christianity, in every modification retained 
 its whole vigor. And thus, while venting his 
 spite at the only " system " which ever could 
 render death comfortable, he goes to Lucian's 
 dialogues, and edifies his friends with chattering 
 nonsense about Charon and his boat ! O ccecas 
 hominivm mentes ! Nothing can be more blind 
 
382 On llie death of Hume and Finley. 
 
 and infatuated than the fanaticism of philosophy 
 '' falsely so called." With this puerile levity be- 
 fore our eyes, and this contemptible babbling 
 sounding in our ears, we must listen to tales of 
 Mr. Hume's magnanimity, complacency, and re- 
 signation ! 
 
 From a barren exhibition of atheism, let us 
 repair once more to the servant of God. In Dr. 
 Finley we see a man dying, not only with cheer- 
 fulness, but with ecstasy. Of his friends, his 
 wife, his children, he takes a joyful leave ; com- 
 mitting all that he held most dear in this world, 
 not to the uncertainties of earthly fortune, but 
 to the " promises of his God." Although his 
 temporal circumstances were very moderate; 
 although he had sons and daughters to provide 
 for, and slender means of doing it, he felt not a 
 moment's uneasiness — Leave thy fatherless chil- 
 dren with me ; I will preserve them alive ; and, let 
 thy loidows trust in me, was, in his estimation, a 
 better security for their support than any inhe- 
 ritance in lands or lucre. And as to death 
 j^gglf — who but one " filled with hopes full of 
 immortality " could use such language as this — 
 " A Christian's death is the best part of his ex- 
 istence " — " Blessed be God ! eternal rest is at 
 hand." " O I shall triumph over every foe," (he 
 meant sin, Satan, death, the grave,) '^ the Lord 
 hath given me the victory — I exult ; I triumph ! 
 Now I know that it is impossible that faith should 
 
On the death of' Hume ami h^nley. 383 
 
 not triumph over earth and hell " — '' Lord Jesus, 
 into thy hands I commit my spirit ; I do it with 
 confidence ; 1 do it with fidl assurance. I kuoio 
 that thou wilt keep that which I have committed 
 unto thee 7" We appeal to all the world, whe- 
 ther any thing like this, any thing that deserves 
 so much as to be named in comparison, ever fell 
 from the lips of an infidel. How poor, how 
 mean, how miserable, does he look, when brought 
 to the contrast ! Let the reader review again 
 the situation of Dr. Finley, ponder his words, 
 and mark their spirit ; and then let him go back 
 to Mr. Hume's " diversion " — to his correcting his 
 atheistical writings for a new edition — to his 
 " books of amusement " — to his "game of whist " 
 — to his insipid raillery about Charon and his 
 boat ! Truly the infidels have cause to look 
 big, and despise the followers of Jesus Christ ! 
 " Pray, sir," said a young man to the late Dr. 
 Black, in the presence of a juvenile company, 
 at the Dr.'s own table, •■ Pray, sir, how did 
 Mr. Hume die?" "Mr. Hume," answered the 
 sceptical chemist, with an air of great signifi- 
 cance, " Mr. Hume died as he lived, a philoso- 
 phefJ' Dr. Black himself has aided Dr. Smith 
 in telling us what the death of a philosopher is. 
 It has taught us, if nothing before did, that the 
 pathetic exclamation, " Let my soul be with the 
 philosophers," belongs to one who is a stranger 
 to truth and happiness. If they resemble Mr. 
 
384 On the death of Hwne and Firdey. 
 
 Hume, we will most devoutly exclaim, " Fur- 
 thest from them is best." Let oui^ souls be with 
 the Christians ! with the humble believers in 
 that Jesus who is " the resurrection and the life." 
 Let them be with Samuel Fi7iley ; let them not 
 be with David Hume ! 
 
 We cannot close these strictures without 
 again reminding the reader, that no instance of 
 composure in death is to be found more favorable 
 to the infidel boast than the instance of Mr. 
 Hume. And yet, how jejune and forlorn does 
 he appear in compai'ison of Dr. Finley. The 
 latter longs for his departure, '' as the hireling 
 pants for the evening shade ;" and when it 
 comes, he pours around him his kindly benedic- 
 tions ; his eye beams with celestial brilliancy • 
 he shouts. Salvation ! and is away to " the bo- 
 som of his Father and his God." 
 
 But in the other all is blank. No joy spar- 
 kles in his eye ; no hope swells his bosom ; an 
 unmeaning smile -is on his countenance, and fri- 
 gid ridicule dishonors his lips. Be it never for- 
 gotten, that no infidels die in triumph ! The 
 utmost to which they pretend is dying with 
 calmness. Even this rarely happens ; and, the 
 scripture being judge, it is a part of their ac- 
 cursedness. It imparts the deepest horror to the 
 surprise of the eternal world. But, if you re- 
 verse the picture, and ask how many infidels 
 close their career in anguish, in distraction, in a 
 
On the death of Hume and Fin ley. 385 
 
 fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indig- 
 nation which shall devour the adversaries? 
 liow endless is the train of wretches, how 
 piercing their cry ! That arch blasphemer, Vol- 
 taire, left the world with hell anticipated ; and 
 we hear so frequently of his disciples " going to 
 their own place " in a similar manner, that the 
 dreadful narratives lose their effect by repeti- 
 tion. It was quite recently that a youth in the 
 state of New York, who had been debauched 
 by the ribaldrous impiety of Paine, yielded up 
 tlie ghost with dire imprecations on the hour 
 when he first saw an infidel book, and on the 
 murderer who first put it into his hand. But 
 who ever heard of a dying man's cursing the 
 day in which he believed in Jesus'? While 
 such an instance, we are bold to assert, never 
 occurred, nothing is more common than the 
 peaceful death of them who have " tasted that 
 the Lord is gracious." They who see practical 
 Christianity in those retreats which the eye of a 
 profane philosopher seldom penetrates, could 
 easily fill a long record of dying beds softened 
 with that bland submission, and cheered with 
 til at victorious hope, which threw so heavenly 
 .1 lustre round the bed of Dr. Finley. 
 
 These things carry with them their own re- 
 commendation to the conscience, which is not 
 yet '' seared as with a hot iron." If our pages 
 fall into the hands of the young^^we affectionately 
 
 A^oL. III. 49 
 
386 On the death of Jlimie and Finley. 
 
 entreat them to " remember their Creator in the 
 days of their youth ;" " to make their calling and 
 their election .sure," before they be " hardened 
 by the deceitfulness of sin." Rich are the tints 
 of that beauty, and sweet the fragrance of those 
 blossoms, on which, in the morning of life, the 
 Lord our God sheds down the dews of his bless- 
 ing. You would not wish to be associated with 
 infidels in their death ; shun the contagion of 
 their principles while you are in spirits and in 
 health. Your hearts cannot but sigh, " Let me 
 die the death of the righteous, and let my last 
 end be like his." Cast in, then, your lot with 
 him ; choose for your own God the God of Sa- 
 muel Finley; and like him, you shall have 
 " hope in your death ;" like him, you shall " be 
 had in everlasting remembrance," when "the 
 memory of the wicked shall rot." 
 
CONVERSATION 
 
 WITH A 
 
 YOUNG TRAVELER. 
 
CONVERSATION 
 
 WITH A 
 
 YOUNG TRAVELER, 
 
 Every one has remarked the mixed, and often 
 ill-assorted company, which meets in a public 
 packet or stage-coach. The conversation, with 
 all its variety, is commonly insipid, frequently 
 disgusting, and sometimes insufferable. There 
 are exceptions. An opportunity now and then 
 occurs of spending an hour in a manner not un- 
 worthy of rational beings ; and the incidents of 
 a stage-coach produce or promote salutary im- 
 pressions. 
 
 A few years ago, one of the stages which ply 
 between our two principal cities, was filled with 
 a group which could never have been drawn to- 
 gether by mutual choice. In the company was 
 a young man of social temper, aflable manners, 
 and considerable information. His accent was 
 barely sufficient to show that the English was 
 not his native tongue, and a very slight peculi- 
 
390 Conversation with a 
 
 arity in the pronunciation of the tk ascertained 
 him to be a Hollander. He had early entered 
 into military life; had borne both a Dutch and 
 French commission ; had seen real service, had 
 traveled, was master of the English language; 
 and evinced, by his deportment, that he was no 
 stranger to the society of gentlemen. He had, 
 however, in a very high degree, a fault too com- 
 mon among military men, and too absurd to find 
 an advocate among men of sense : he swore pro- 
 fanely and incessantly. 
 
 While the horses were changing, a gentleman 
 who sat on the same seat with him, took him by 
 the arm, and requested the favor of his company 
 in a short walk. When they were so far retired 
 as not to be overheard, the former observed, 
 " Although I have not the honour of your ac- 
 quaintance, I perceive, sir, that your habits and 
 feelings are those of a gentleman, and that no- 
 thing can be more repugnant to your wishes 
 than giving unnecessary pain to any of your 
 company." He started, and replied, " Most cer- 
 tainly, sir ! I hope I have committed no offense 
 of that sort." 
 
 " You will pardon me," replied the other, '' for 
 pointing out an instance in which you have not 
 altogether avoided it." 
 
 " Sir," said he, ''I shall be much your debtor 
 for so friendly an act: for, upon my honor, I 
 cannot conjecture in what I have transgressed." 
 
Young Traveler. 391 
 
 "If you, sir," continued the former, "had a 
 very dear friend to whom you were under un- 
 speakable obligations, should you not be deeply 
 wounded by any disrespect to him, or even by 
 hearing his name introduced and used with a 
 frequency of repetition and a levity of air in- 
 compatible with the regard due to his cha- 
 racter 1" 
 
 " Undoubtedly, and I should not permit it ! but 
 I know not that I am chargeable with indecorum 
 to any of your friends." 
 
 " Sir, my God is my best friend, to whom I am 
 under infinite obligations. I think you must re- 
 collect that you have very frequently, since we 
 commenced our journey, taken his name in vain. 
 This has given to me and to others of the com- 
 pany, excruciating pain." 
 
 " Sir," answered he, with very ingenuous em- 
 phasis, " I have done wrong. I confess the im- 
 propriety. I am ashamed of a practice which I 
 am sensible has no excuse ; but I have imper- 
 ceptibly fallen into it, and I really swear without 
 being conscious that I do vso. I will endeavor 
 to abstain from it in future ; and as you are next 
 me in the seat, I shall thank you to touch my 
 elbow as often as I trespass." This was agreed 
 upon : the horn sounded, and the travelers re- 
 sumed their places. 
 
 In the space of four or five miles the officer's 
 elbow was jogged every few seconds. He al- 
 
392 Conversation with a 
 
 way,s colored, but bowed, and received the hint 
 without the least symptom of displeasure ; and 
 in a few miles more so mastered his propensity 
 to swearing, that not an oath was heard from his 
 lips for the rest, which was the greater part of 
 the journey. 
 
 He was evidently more grave ; and having ru- 
 minated some time, after surveying first one and 
 then another of the company, turned to his ad- 
 monisher, and addressed him thus : 
 
 " You are a clergyman, I presume, sir." 
 
 " I am considered as such." He paused : and 
 then, with a smile, indicated liis di.sbelief in di- 
 vine revelation, in a way which invited conversa- 
 tion on that subject. 
 
 '' I have never been able to convince myself 
 of the truth of revelation." 
 
 "Possibly not. But what is your difficulty 7" 
 
 " I dislike the nature of its proofs. They are 
 so subtle, so distant, so wrapt iji mystery, so me- 
 taphysical, that I get lost, and can arrive at no 
 certain conclusion." 
 
 " I cannot admit the fact to be as you repre- 
 sent it. My impressions are altogether different. 
 Nothing seems to me more plain and popiilar; 
 more level to every common understanding ; 
 more remote from all cloudy speculation, or 
 teazing subtleties, than some of the principal 
 proofs of divine revelation. They are drawn 
 from great and incontestible facts ; they are ac- 
 
Young Traveler. 393 
 
 cuiiiulatiiig' every hour. They liave grown into 
 such a mass oi" evidence, that the supposition of 
 its falsehood is iiiliuitely more incredible than 
 any one mystery in the volumes of revelation, 
 or even than all their mysteries put together. 
 Your imjuiries, sir, appear to liave been unhap- 
 pily directed — but what sort of j)roof do you de- 
 sire, and what would satisfy you ?" 
 
 " Such proofs as accompany physical science. 
 This I have always loved ; for I never find it de- 
 ceive me. I rest upon it with entire conviction. 
 There is no mistake, and can be no dispute in 
 mathematics. And if a revelation comes from 
 God, why have we nut such evidence for it as 
 mathematical demonstration ] ' 
 
 *' Sir, you are too good a philosopher not to 
 know that the nature of evidence must be 
 adapted to the nature of its object ; that if you 
 break in uj)on this adaptation, you will have no 
 evidence at aiJ ; seeing that evidence is no more 
 interchangeable than objects. If you ask for 
 mathematical evidence, you must confine your- 
 self to mathenuitical disquisitions. Your subject 
 must be quantity. If you wish to pursue a moral 
 investigation, you nuist quit your mathematics, 
 and confine yourself to moral evidence. Your 
 subject must be the relations which subsist be- 
 tween intelligent beings. It would be quite as 
 wise to apply a rule in ethics to the calculation 
 of an eclipse, as to call for Euclid when we want 
 Vol. III. 50 
 
394 ConDcrsafAun loltJi a 
 
 to know oiir duly, or to submit the question, 
 " whether God has spoken," to the test of a 
 problem in the conic sections. How would you 
 prove mathematically that bread nourishes men, 
 and that fevers kill them ? Yet you and I both 
 are as firmly convinced of the truth of these 
 propositions, as of any mathematical demonstra- 
 tion whatever ; and should I call them in ques- 
 tion, my neighbors woidd either pity me as an 
 idiot, or shut me up as a madman. It is, there- 
 fore, a great mistake to suppose, that there is no 
 satisfactory nor certain evidence but what is re- 
 ducible to mathematics." 
 
 This train of reflection appeared new to him. 
 For, however obvious it is, we must remember, 
 that nothing is more superficial than fieethinking 
 philosophy, and nothing more credulous than its 
 unbelief. Dogmatical positions, asserted with 
 confidence, set off with small ridicule, and favor- 
 able to native depravity, have a prodigious ef- 
 fect upon the volatile youth; and persuade him, 
 that they have enlightened his understanding, 
 when they have only flattered his vanity, or cor- 
 rupted his heart. 
 
 The ofiicer, though staggered, made an effort 
 to maintain his ground, and lamented that the 
 " objections to other modes of reasoning are nu- 
 merous and perplexing, while the mathematical 
 conclusion puts all scepticism at defiance." 
 
rouni^ Travpler, 395 
 
 " Sir, ' rejoined the clergyman^ '' objertions 
 against a thing fairly proved, are of no weight. 
 The proof rests upon our knowledge, and the 
 objections upon our ignorance. It is true, tliat 
 moral demonstrations and religions doctrines 
 may be attacked in a very ingenious and plansi- 
 ble manner, because they involve questions on 
 which our ignorance is greater than our know- 
 ledge ; but still our knowledge is knowledge ; 
 or, in other words, our certainty is certainty. 
 Ill mathematical reasoning our knowledge is 
 greater than our ignorance. When you have 
 proved that the three angles of every triangle arc 
 equal to tnio right angles^ there is an end of 
 doubt ; because there are no materials for igno- 
 rance to work up into phantoms; but your know- 
 ledge is really no more certain than your know- 
 ledge on any other subjeci. 
 
 "There is also a deception in this matter. 
 The defect complained of is supposed to exist in 
 the nature of the iwoof ; whereas it exists, for 
 the most part, in the mind of the inquirer. It is 
 impossible to tell how far the influence of human 
 depravity obscures the light of human reason.' 
 
 At the mention of '" depravity, ' the officer 
 smiled, and seemed inclined to jest: probablv 
 suspecting, as is common w ith men of that clas.'^, 
 that his antagonist w^as going to retreat into his 
 creed, and intrench himself behind a technical 
 
396 Conversation with a 
 
 term, instead of an argument, The triumph 
 was premature. 
 
 " You do not imagine, sir," said he, continu- 
 ing his discourse to the otficer, " you do not ima- 
 gine that a man who has been long addicted to 
 stealing, feels the force of reasoning against theft 
 as strongly as a man of tried honesty. If you hesi- 
 tate, proceed a step further. You do not imagine 
 that an Iiabitiuil thief feels as much abhorrence 
 of his own trade and character, as a man who 
 never committed an act of theft in his whole life. 
 And you will not deny that the practice of any 
 crime gradually weakens, and frequently de- 
 stroys, the sense of its turpitude. This is a 
 strong fact, which as a philo.sopher, you are 
 bound to explain. To me it is clear as the day, 
 that his vice has debauched his intellect : for it 
 is indisputable, that the considerations which 
 once fdled him with horror, produce no2o no more 
 impression upon him than they would produce 
 upon a horse. Why ? Has the vice changed 1 
 Have tlie considerations changed ? No. The 
 vice is as pernicious, and the considerations are 
 as strong, as ever. But his powder of perceiving 
 truth is diminished ; and diminished by his vice ; 
 for, had he not fallen into it, the considerations 
 would have retained, aud, (should he be saved 
 from it,) they would resume their original force 
 upon his mind. Permit yourself, for one mo- 
 ment to reflect how liard it is to persuade men 
 
Vouiig Ti-avA'Jcr. 1597 
 
 of the virtues of others against whom tiiey are 
 prejudiced! You shall bring no proof of the 
 virtues which the prejudice shall not resist or 
 evade. Remove the prejudice, and the proof 
 appears invincible. Why ? Have the virtues 
 changed ? has the proof been strengthened ? 
 No. But the power of perceiving truth is in- 
 creased ; or, which is the same thing, the impe- 
 diment to perceiving it, is taken away. If, then, 
 there are bad passions among men ; and if the 
 object of Divine rc^velation is to control and rec- 
 tify them ; it follows, that a man to whom the 
 revelation is proposed, will be blind to its evi- 
 dence, in exact proportion to the perverting in- 
 fluence of those passions. And were the human 
 mind free from corruption, there is no reason 
 whatever to think that a moral argument would 
 not be as conclusive as a mathematical argu- 
 ment is now ; and that the principles of moral 
 and religious science would not command an 
 assent as instantaneous and peremptory as that 
 which is commanded by mathematical axioms." 
 
 After a short pause, in which no reply was 
 made by the ofliccr, and the looks of the com- 
 pany revealed their sentiments, the clergyman 
 proceeded : 
 
 " But what Avill you say, sir, should I endea- 
 vor to turn the tables upon you, by showing 
 that the evidence of your physical science is not 
 without its difficulties ; and that objections can 
 
398 Conversdtion irifh a 
 
 be urged against mathematical demonstration 
 more puzzling and unanswerable than any ob- 
 jections against moral evidence V 
 
 "■ I shall yield the cause; but I am sure that 
 the condition is impossible." 
 
 " Let us try," said the other. 
 
 " I begin with a common case. The Newto- 
 nian system of the world is so perfectly settled, 
 that no scholar presumes to question it. Go, 
 then, to a peasant who never heard of Newton, 
 nor Copernicus, nor the solar system ; and tell 
 him that the earth moves round its axis, and 
 round the sun. He will stare at you, to see 
 whether you be not jeering him ; and when he 
 sees you are in earnest, he will laugh at you for 
 a fool. Ply him, now, with your mathematical and 
 astronomical reasoning. He will answer you, 
 that he believes his own eyesight more than your 
 learning; and his eyesight tells him the sun 
 moves round the earth. And as for the earth's 
 turning round upon her axis, he will say, that 
 ' he has often hung a kettle over the kitchen-fire 
 at night, and when he came back in the morn- 
 ing, it was hanging there still, but, had the earth 
 turned round, the kettle would have been turned 
 over, and the mash spilled over the floor.' You 
 are amused with the peasant's simplicity, but 
 you cannot convince him. His objection is, in 
 his own eyes, insurmoimtable ; he will tell the 
 affair to his neighbors as a good story ; and they 
 
Youii^ Traveler. 399 
 
 will agree that he iairly shut the philosopher's 
 mouth. You may reply, that ' the peasant was 
 introduced into the middle of a matured science, 
 and that, not having learned its elements, he 
 was unsupplied with the principles of correct 
 judgment.' True; but your solution has over- 
 thrown yourself. A freethinker, when he hears 
 some great doctrine of Christianity, lets ofl' a 
 small objection, and runs away laughing at the 
 folly, or railing at the imposture of all who ven- 
 ture to defend a divine revelation ; he gathers 
 his brother unbelievers, and they unite with him 
 in wondering at the w eakness or the impudence 
 of Christians. He is in the very situation of the 
 peasant. He bolts into the heart of a grand re- 
 ligious system ; he has never adverted to its first 
 principles, and then he complains that the evi- 
 dence is bad. But the fault in neither case lies 
 in the evidence: it lies in the ignorance or ob- 
 stinacy of the objector. The peasant's ground 
 is as firm as the infidel's. The proof of the New- 
 tonian system is to the former as distant, subtle, 
 and cloudy, as the proof of revelation can be to 
 the latter; and the objection of the one, as good 
 as the objection of the otiier. If the depravity 
 of men had as much interest in persuading them 
 that the earth is not globular, and does not move 
 round the sun, as it has in persuading them that 
 the Bible is not true, a mathematical demonstra- 
 
400 Conversation loith a 
 
 tion would fail of converting them, although the 
 demonstrator were an angel of God ! 
 
 ^' But \vith respect to the other point, viz. that 
 there are objections to mathematical evidence 
 more puzzling and unanswerable than can be 
 alledged against moral reasoning, take the two 
 following instances : 
 
 " It is mathematically demonstrated that mat- 
 ter is infinitely divisible : that is, has an infinite 
 number of parts: a line, then, of half an inch 
 long, has an infinite number of parts. Who 
 does not see the absurdity of an infinite half- 
 inch? Try the difliculty another way. It requires 
 some portion of time to pass any portion of 
 space. Then as your half-inch has an infinite 
 number of parts, it requires an infinite number 
 of portions of time for a moving point to pass 
 by the infinite number of parts : but an infinite 
 number of portions of time, is an eternity ! 
 Consequently it requires an eternity, or some- 
 thing like it, to move half an inch /" 
 
 " But, sir," interposed the officer, ^' yoa do not 
 deny the accuracy of the demonstration, that 
 matter is infinitely divisible !" " Not in the least, 
 sir ; I perceive no flaw in the chain of demon- 
 stration, and yet I perceive the result to be infi- 
 nitely absurd. 
 
 " Again : it is mathematically demonstrated 
 that a straight line, called the asymptote of the 
 hyperbola, may eternally approach the curve of 
 
Young Ti^aveler. 401 
 
 the hyperbola, and yet can never meet it. Now, 
 as all demonstrations are built upon axioms, an 
 axiom must always be plainer than a demon- 
 stration : and to my judgment it is as plain, that, 
 if two lines continually approach, they shall 
 meet, as that the whole is greater than its part. 
 Here, therefore, I am fixed. I have a demon- 
 stration directly in the teeth of an axiom, and 
 am equally incapable of denying either side of 
 the contradiction." 
 
 " Sir," exclaimed the officer, clapping his 
 hands together, '' I own I am beat, completely 
 beat : I have nothing more to say." 
 
 A silence of some minutes succeeded ; when 
 the young military traveler said to his theolo- 
 gical friend, "1 have studied all religions, and 
 have not been able to satisfy myself." 
 
 " No, sir," answered he, "there is one religion 
 which you have not yet studied." 
 
 " Pray, sir," cried the officer, roused and eager, 
 " what is that ?" 
 
 " The religion," replied the other, " of salva- 
 tion through the redemption of the Son of God : 
 the religion which will sweeten your pleasures, 
 and soften your sorrows ; which will give peace 
 to your conscience, and joy to your heart ; which 
 will bear you up under the pressure of evils 
 here, and shed the light of immortality on the 
 gloom of the grave. This religion, I believe, 
 sir, you have yet to study." 
 
 Vol. Hi. 51 
 
402 Conversation loith a Young Traveler. 
 
 The officer put his hands upon his face ; then 
 languidly clasping them, let them fall down ; 
 forced a smile, and said, with a sigh, " We must 
 all follow what we think best." His behavior 
 afterward was perfectly decorous. Nothing fur- 
 ther is known of him. 
 
 Note. The individual by whom the " Conversation with a Young 
 Traveler" was held, was the Rev. Dr. John Mason, the father of 
 the author, the first pastor of the Scotch Presbyterian Church, in 
 the city of New York. 
 
 A considerable time after it occurred, a knock was heard at the 
 door of Dr. M. at a very early hour, and a note, addressed to him, 
 was handed in, accompanied by a handsome Beaver Hat. The 
 note was from the " Young Traveler" and its purport " to remind 
 Dr. M. of the circumstances under which he had once met with him ; 
 to inform him, that, in consequence of what he had then heard, he 
 had been induced to study the religion of Jesus ; that his investi- 
 gation had resulted in an entire conviction of the divine origin of 
 that religion ; and that by the blessing of God, his remarks had 
 been, as he hoped, made instrumental to the salvation of his soul." 
 
 He further added, " that he had recently received orders to re- 
 turn to Europe ; had arrived in the city late on the preceding even- 
 ing, and was about to sail that morning ; that he should not have 
 time to call on Dr. M., but begged him to accept the assurance of 
 his affectionate regard ; that in all human probability he should 
 never see him on earth, but he indulged what he trusted was a 
 well-founded hope, that they should spend a happy eternity to- 
 gether." 
 
 "a word spoken in season, how good is it !" 
 
HINTS ON THE INSUFFICIENCY 
 
 THE LIGHT OF NATURE. 
 
HINTS ON THE INSUFFICIENCY 
 
 THE LIGHT OF NATURE. 
 
 The light of nature looms largely in all onr 
 treatises upon the evidences of religion, forming 
 in most of them a sort of groundwork upon 
 which the fabric of revelation rests; and is 
 esteemed of material importance in consulting 
 the real glory of our nature, and its happiness 
 through all the states of being which lie be- 
 fore it. 
 
 Its value is highly overrated, and that which 
 I propose to prove, is, the utter insufficiency of 
 unassisted reason to make those discoveries 
 concerning God, ourselves, our duties, and 
 our destination, which are simply necessary 
 to our happiness, and, therefore, the absolute 
 
406 Insufficiency of the 
 
 need of a^pecial communication, on all these 
 particulars, from God himself; which com- 
 munication we call Revelation. 
 
 This general position has much hostility to 
 encounter. A great number of men, of whom 
 there is no lack in our own country, deem what 
 they term natw'al religion, or those deductions 
 which we are able to make, by the force of our 
 7xason alone, from the works of creation and 
 providence, concerning their Divine Author and 
 our relations to him, and the duties required of 
 us, to be amply sufficient for all the purposes of 
 instruction and blessedness. 
 
 These men are distinguished by the name of 
 Deists, i. e. who admit the being and government 
 of God, but utterly deny the reality or neces- 
 sity of a special revelation. 
 
 Of these there are, or have been two classes, 
 known by the names of mortal and immortal 
 Deists ; the fir.st bearing a strong resemblance to 
 those philosophists of the French revolution, 
 who pronounced Death to be an eternal sleep ; 
 the second, more sober and modest, conceding 
 the immortality of the soul and a state of future 
 rewards and punishments. Our debate is chiefly 
 with these, the mortal Deists being rather Athe- 
 ists than any thing else, (and for an Atheist I 
 know of no more suitable argument than a 
 shaven head and a blistering cap- — a straight 
 waistcoat and a maniac's cell.) 
 
Light of JVcUure. 407 
 
 There is great and confident talk about natu- 
 ral religion even in the Christian world. The 
 advocates of it here, it is true, expressly deny its 
 sufficiency to lead men to eternal happiness ; 
 but they make it to contain a great many fun- 
 damental truths, and represent them as the dis- 
 coveries of mere reason. The effect has been, and 
 must be, the converting of the schools of natural 
 religion and moral philosophy into mere hotbeds 
 of Deism ; and thus, with the very best inten- 
 tions, good and upright men have in various 
 parts of the world been imdermining the foun- 
 dations of that divine religion which is taught 
 in the scriptures. 
 
 But that we may not do these worthy men 
 injustice, we must remove a mistake into which 
 they have fallen in supposing that the scriptures 
 bear them out in their doctrine of this natural 
 religion. 
 
 They read in their Bibles that the heavens de- 
 dare the glory of God, and the fcrmamcnt shoiceth 
 his liandiwork. They read that tliat wkicli may 
 he k7ioimi of God is manifest in them who hold 
 the truth in righteousness, because God hath 
 showed it unto them : {For the invisible things of 
 him from the creation of the loorld are clearly 
 seen, being understood by the things tliat are 
 made, even his eternal power and Godhead .) so 
 
 THAT THEY ARK WITHOUT EXCUSE. 
 
408 Insufficiency of the 
 
 That God hath imprinted notices of himself — 
 that he hath, so to speak, written his name upon 
 his works in legible and luminous characters — 
 that he hath made a loud proclamation of " his 
 eternal power and Godhead " in the fabric of 
 heaven and earth, and peculiarly in the struc- 
 ture of that strange compound, the soul and 
 body of man — and therefore that every man 
 living has access to important knowledge of his 
 Maker, even in his own person — and such know- 
 ledge as must forever shame his ignorance and 
 forgetfulness — is an indisputable truth. . But 
 to infer that all this is the discovery, or can be 
 discovered, by our reason, corrupted and blind 
 as it is, is certainly what the logicians call a 
 non scquitur. 
 
 You would not say that the non-perception of 
 a mathematical truth affords any presumption 
 that the truth is not perfectly clear in itself. 
 You may have met with instances where a per- 
 son could not tell where even the centre of a 
 circle is to be found, while to us it is perfectly 
 plain ; and the hesitation about it only proves 
 the immense stupidity which could have any 
 doubt about the matter. To a young child, that 
 three and two are five may appear a very ab- 
 struse proposition ; to us it is as clear as the day. 
 
 How many things, moreover, are there in the 
 common works of creation, which cannot be 
 discerned without previous instruction, and are 
 
Light of Nature. 409 
 
 yet altogether obvious to a disciplined observer 7 
 The very flowers of the field, the common grass 
 upon which you habitually tread, disclose beau- 
 ties and wonders to the eye of a botanist, which 
 are entirely hidden to our own eyes. 
 
 What miracles of wisdom, power, design, 
 glory, does the contemplation of the starry hea- 
 vens unfold ! There, if I may dare so to ex- 
 press myself, is the walk of the Almighty God. 
 There he clothes himself icith light as loith a 
 garment, and every footstep leaves behind him a 
 demonstration that the Creator is there: mso- 
 much, that, to quote the words of the poet, 
 
 An undevout astronomer is mad. 
 
 Yet the ranks of modern philosophy are full of 
 these madmen. How often have men gazed 
 upon this theatre of glory, where their Maker un- 
 veils himself to their notice, without one smgle 
 thought of his greatness, his grandeur, or even 
 
 of his being '? . . ^ 
 
 In his written word God has been pleased to 
 make a plain revelation of his perfections and 
 of his grace, so that " he may run who readeth 
 Yet what multitudes are there, to whom the 
 simplest truths of the gospel, the very A B C 
 of religion, are riddles and mysteries insolvable 
 
 throughout 7 , 
 
 Now, what shall we say to all this'? Is the 
 
 fault in the evidence, or in the observer ? In many, 
 Vol. III. '^2 
 
410 Insufficiency of the 
 
 if not all, of the instances I have mentioned, it 
 will be acknowledged that the evidence is clear 
 enough, but that something is wrong about the 
 faculties which ought to perceive it. This is 
 precisely the solution of the problem of natural 
 religion. The scriptures speak only of the evi- 
 dence itself which God has given of himself and 
 his perfections in his works. From this, worthy 
 men have drawn an inference respecting the 
 powers of human perception. In this inference 
 lies the whole fallacy. Evidence in abundance 
 — evidence clear as " the sun shineth in its 
 strength " — has he afforded of his '' eternal 
 power and. Godhead." There it is, and there it 
 shall remain, in the works of his hands, as long 
 as those works endure. But man, miserable 
 man, blinded and corrupted by his sin, cannot 
 see that evidence — cannot read the letters of 
 light in which the divine name is inscribed — 
 cannot hear the proclamation which the voice of 
 God utters throughout the universe. The argu- 
 ment, therefore, from the testimony of the scrip- 
 tures, must be abandoned; ,and the question 
 returns upon us in all its force. Can man, unaided 
 by divine revelation, discover by nature's light 
 what he ought to know of God and of himself, 
 to lead him in the way of truth and blessedness ? 
 It is quite obvious that the knowledge 
 which men ought to have of God for this pur- 
 pose is such as should mingle itself with all the 
 operations of their minds; such as should ex- 
 
Light of Nature. 411 
 
 tend to all the relations which they bear to him ; 
 such as should be perfectly clear to the feeblest 
 understanding. 
 
 1. It is such as should mingle itself with all 
 the operations of their minds. God, I now take 
 for granted, is a Spirit — that his chief rule is in 
 and over spirit, and, subordinate to this, over the 
 material world. Now, if there be any opera- 
 tions of created mind, which the knowledge of 
 God is not to influence, then to the whole extent 
 of such operations the rational creature would 
 be independent of him, which is neither more 
 nor less than partial Atheism. 
 
 2. It should be such as extends to all our re- 
 lations ; for if it does not, if any be exempted, 
 we cannot give him all the glory which is his 
 due ; and we shall be unable to tell whether the 
 point in Avhich we are deficient is not essential 
 to both our duty and our blessedness. 
 
 3. It ought to be perfectly clear to the feeblest 
 understanding. We inquire after that, which, 
 by the nature of the case, ought to be univer- 
 sal. If, then, there be a single human being, in 
 the ordinary exercise of his powers, who cannot 
 attain it, the whole scheme of natural religion 
 is ruined. It will not do to produce us exam- 
 ples of men of great sagacity, great leisure, and 
 great advantages, as examples of what human 
 reason can do in a case in which every one who 
 breathes the breath of life has an equal interest. 
 
412 Insufficiency of the 
 
 All are concerned to know ; and if all have not 
 either powers or means of knowing, I repeat, 
 the cause of natural religion is ruined. 
 
 4. It must not only be clear, but accompanied 
 with indubitable proofs, such proofs as exclude 
 all uncertainty ; for in so momentous a question 
 as that concerning God, our duties, and our des- 
 tiny, doubt is equivalent to ignorance ; and we 
 may think we are honoring God, and making 
 rapid advances in the way of life, when we are 
 most highly dishonoring him, and going just as 
 rapidly the road to death. There are two, and 
 but two, methods of deciding this controversy. 
 The first is from matters of fact ; the second is 
 a priori, from the nature of the human faculties 
 compared with the object which they are to 
 effect. 
 
 I. I begin with the first of these, inquiring 
 what man is able to do by examining what he 
 has done. Our work here is very short. We 
 ask what nation upon earth can be pointed out, 
 who, with all their notions of divinity, had clear 
 and satisfactory ideas of the living and true 
 God? What could they tell about his provi- 
 dence? What about the soul of man? Had 
 they ascertained whether it is mortal or immor- 
 tal 7 Did they know any thing about true holi- 
 ness? about the chief good? about walking 
 with God ? about holding fellowship with him ? 
 If they did, let the fact be produced ; if they did not, 
 
Light of Nature. 413 
 
 they had no such thing as is called natural religion. 
 But we rest not here. It may be thought that 
 we demand too much when we call for a nation 
 possessing this knowledge. Be it so ; we are 
 w^ell aware that such a nation cannot be found. 
 But let us waive our demand. I ask, then, 
 when, where, and by whom, were these disco- 
 veries made ? I do not mean by the vulgar, but 
 by philosophers, who professedly sought after 
 the truth ; and some of whom were as close 
 thinkers, as accurate reasoners, as patient and 
 candid investigators, as the world ever saw. 
 Bacon himself did not surpass Aristotle in natu- 
 ral sagacity, in strength of mind, in acuteness, 
 in comprehension. Yet upon the simplest article 
 of natural religion, the very being of a God, there 
 were the most strange varieties of sentiment 
 among them. Let Cicero save us the trouble of 
 further detail : " Qui vero," says he, in his treatise 
 De Natura Deorum, " Qui vero Deos esse dixe- 
 runt, tanta sunt in varietate ac dissentione, ut eo- 
 rum molestum sit dinumerare sententias." (De 
 Nat. Deor. page 6, Dav. 1744.) And, indeed, who- 
 ever shall be at the trouble of reading the trea- 
 tise now quoted, will meet with such confusion, 
 conjectures, contradiction — such a chaos of ab- 
 surdities and nonsense on points of primary im- 
 portance, as will sicken him to ulterior pursuit, 
 and fill his heart with sadness and sorrow. 
 
 Now these were not the whims and guesses 
 of the illiterate among the heathen, but the 
 
414 Insiffficiency of the 
 
 grave conclusions of their wisest men ; and 
 well justifies the declaration of Paul, that jiro- 
 fessing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 
 
 It must be granted, however, that occasionally 
 they dropped great expressions when speaking 
 of the Divinity and of virtue. But here we 
 must be on our guard against a very natural and 
 dangerous illusion. 
 
 We, who have been brought up and educated 
 in a Christian land, have imbibed all our ideas 
 from the Bible, or those who have read and stu- 
 died it. Those ideas are so familiar to our 
 minds, and so deeply impressed upon them, that 
 no art nor industry could make us for a moment, 
 even when children, believe in the truth, for ex- 
 ample, of Ovid's Metamorphoses, or in the exist- 
 ence of Homer's gods. Now, when we fall in 
 with noble and lofty expressions of divine things 
 among the Pagan writers, or with the same 
 terms concerning the moral virtues as are in use 
 among ourselves, we insensibly carry our own 
 thoughts with us, and attribute them to the 
 heathen, supposing that they meant the same 
 thing with ourselves, whereas nothing can be 
 farther from the fact. A little explanation, were 
 it possible, would convince us that we had 
 scarcely an idea in common with them. 
 
 Such, then, was the state of their theology 
 among their best informed and most virtuous 
 teachers. There was not a man among them, 
 
Ldg/U of Nature. 415 
 
 no, not one man, who had any correct or con- 
 sistent opmions, far less principles, upon those 
 things which concern our most serious duties, 
 our eternal blessedness. 
 
 The conclusion is plain. It is absurd to main- 
 tain that every man, in all ages and circum- 
 stances, can do, what no man, in any age or cir- 
 cumstances, has actually done. Revelation, 
 therefore, is simply necessary, not for the vulgar, 
 the illiterate mass only, but also for the wise, 
 the cultivated, the most advanced philosophers, 
 the greatest proficients in human knowledge. 
 
 Having seen that the powers of human reason 
 never did, in fact, make the least progress in the 
 discovery of the most necessary truths — that 
 the world by wisdom never knew God — let us 
 now proceed, 
 
 II. To inquire, a priori, from the nature of 
 the human faculties, what they can do in this 
 matter. 
 
 It is no doubt very easy for those, who have 
 all their lives breathed the atmosphere of reve- 
 lation, to demonstrate the being and many glo- 
 rious excellencies of the First Cause, and to 
 discourse learnedly and convincingly of his pro- 
 vidence, of the dependence of all things upon 
 him, upon the duty of worshiping him, the hap- 
 piness of enjoying his favor, &c., from merely 
 rational principles. All this appears to them 
 quite plain, and whoever shall dispute it to be 
 
416 Ih.siifficiency of the 
 
 hardly in the sober exercise of his reason. Well, 
 we have no question but that these truths are 
 perfectly reasonable, as all truth must be in the 
 nature of things. But how, we may ask, did 
 they come by their means of demonstration? 
 and how has it happened that all these vigorous 
 demonstrators liave flourished in Christian 
 lands, and not a single one of them where Chris- 
 tianity is unknown ? It is the light of divine 
 revelation that has shone upon their darkness, 
 and caused them to see clearly where all was 
 once the blackest midnight ; and they have, 
 with true philosophical gratitude, bedecked 
 their reason with garlands stolen from the tree 
 of life, and given themselves credit for the gift 
 of God. This plagiarism runs manifestly through 
 a Deistical book, formerly of some noise and 
 note, though now nearly forgotten, (as all such 
 books will be sooner or later,) entitled, " Chris- 
 tianity as old as the creation.''^ Many things are 
 perfectly evident to our understanding when 
 once they are pointed out, which, if left to our- 
 selves, would never have come into our minds. 
 
 Let us begin with interrogating reason con- 
 cerning God and his attributes ; though here we 
 must be somewhat at a loss ; for really, human 
 reason is so much improved by the light of the 
 gospel, that it is very difficult to distinguish her 
 answers from those of the superior power speak- 
 ing in her and through her. But if, with all this 
 
Light of Nature. 417 
 
 high advantage, she be caught tripping, we may 
 easily conceive how completely her mouth would 
 be stopped in the deprivation of all supernatu- 
 ral aid. 
 
 It is supposed to be one of the simplest and 
 most obvious truths of natural religion, that 
 there is but one God, the Creator and Governor 
 of all things. If you demand of her advocate 
 how he came by this knowledge, he will reply, 
 that from the unity of design in the works of 
 creation, common sense will of itself infer the 
 unity of their Author. But I am not to be so 
 easily satisfied. I ask farther, how do you knmo 
 this unity of design 1 Is it not strange that a 
 thing so very obvious should have escaped the 
 notice of the most acute observers for four thou- 
 sand years ? Was there no common sense in the 
 world during all that time 1 But it must be left 
 for men since the Christian era to perceive this 
 unity'? Evident to you it may be; but why 
 was it not evident to Zoroaster, to Thales, to 
 Socrates, to Aristotle, to Plato? They cer- 
 tainly either did not perceive it, or at least 
 did not make this deduction of common sense 
 from it. 
 
 Let us, however, consider whether, granting 
 the premises, the inference follows as a matter of 
 course. Does common sense tell me, or any one 
 else, that several deities may not with perfect 
 harmony concur in one and the same design. 
 
 Vol. tit. 53 
 
418 Insufficiency of the 
 
 and keep up the execution of that design 7 If 
 they could, where is your proof from the unity 
 of design ? and how are you to prove that they 
 could not 1 If you draw your proof from the 
 disagreement which must necessarily take place 
 among men, you then judge of the divinities by 
 yourselves, making yourselves the standard of 
 their actions, and making them no more gods 
 than you are. This looks much more like the 
 theology of Homer, who, Longinus being judge, 
 has represented his gods like men, and his men 
 like gods. The alternative is manifestly this : 
 twenty gods may agree in producing the har- 
 mony of the universe ; or should they disagree, 
 that disagreement would prove that there are no 
 gods, which contradicts the very terms of the 
 argument, and is a begging of the question. My 
 argament is a very plain one. Twenty true 
 gods might agree perfectly, and you answer 
 this by showing that they could not be gods at 
 all ! Well, then, your reason even now, with 
 all that revelation has done for it, fails most 
 lamentably in the proof that there is only one 
 living and true God. In fact the doctrine of 
 the ancient Persians, and later of the Manichees, 
 that there are tivo principles, one good and the 
 other evil, appears to be more consonant to de- 
 praved reason than the doctrine of the divine 
 imity. 
 
 In the same manner it may be shown, that 
 mere reason will not bear you out in the posi- 
 
Lii^ht of Nature. 419 
 
 tion that the one God is necessarily the Eternal, 
 Immntahle, Omnipresent, Omniscient. When 
 you come to the consideration of his goodness, 
 your difficulties increase. He does, indeed, pour 
 his bounty upon the earth; but he also pours 
 out his curse. A fruitful season is balanced by 
 one of sterility. If you have one year abun- 
 dance of food, you have a famine in another. If 
 the heavens are now serene and pleasing, they 
 are again charged with thunder and lightning, 
 pregnant with hail-storm and tempest. To-day 
 the^'genial shower descends ; to-morrow a flood 
 sweeps off together the fruits of human indus- 
 try and of the earth's fertility, and carries away 
 both man and beast in its impetuous torrent. 
 At one time the atmosphere is benign and exhi- 
 larating; at another, charged with the pestilence, 
 it causes us to inhale our death with the very 
 instrument of life. Nature's light furnishes not 
 the key to these apparent contradictions, nor 
 enables us to conceive how a Being of boundless 
 goodness can inflict so much suffering. Coyvjec- 
 tures, p'obahle conjectures, we may have, but 
 none can say that his conjectures are demon- 
 strated; and therefore none can show a solid 
 foundation on which the mind can rest. 
 
 This deep and dreadful fluctuation of opinion, 
 arising from the variations we perceive in the 
 government of the world, shakes all our ideas 
 at the same time of the divine immutability; 
 
420 Insuffuicncy of ihr 
 
 and a cliangeling God is a most fearful 
 thought. 
 
 Should ever the query arise in our minds, and 
 it has often arisen in tiie minds of many, ichat 
 is the mode of subsistence in the divine nature 7 
 "we stand at once aghast. " It is higli as heaven, 
 what can we know? Deeper than hell, what 
 can we do V Who among the cliildren of men 
 is not subdued, confounded, annihilated, by the 
 majesty of the theme, by his own daring pre- 
 sumption 7 Here we stand, young and old, 
 learned and unlearned, wise and foolish, alike 
 petrified by our own intrusion " into tliose things 
 which we have not seen." And Avho would 
 ever have dreamed of Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, in that one God, had he not been pleased 
 to reveal the fact by that Spirit who searcheth 
 "the deep things of God 7" Yet if the true 
 knowledge of the true God be essential in all 
 circumstances to our duty and our happiness, 
 the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity must be 
 a branch, and a material branch, of natural 
 religion. 
 
 That the soul of man is immortal^ has been 
 argued from its immateriality — from its capaci- 
 ties — from its desirCvS — and from the course of 
 providence — all of which, when weighed in the 
 balance, will be found wanting. None, upon 
 which, in the hour of your utmost need, you 
 could with confidence stake your eternity. 
 
Liglit of Nature. 421 
 
 1. It has been argued that because the soul is 
 immaterial, it must necessarily be immortal — 
 because from its immateriality, it has no prin- 
 ciple of dissolution. Now death is a dissolu- 
 tion, and that which cannot be dissolved, can- 
 not die. 
 
 Granting that all this, except the conclusion, 
 is correctly spoken ; that there is no sophistry 
 in the argument, no play upon the terms ; how 
 does the conclusion follow ? Life and death de- 
 pend upon the sovereign pleasure of God. Now 
 wiiere has he told you that he will never com- 
 mand an immaterial being back again into its 
 original nothing ? When did he deprive himself 
 of his power to annihilate any of his creatures, 
 and to create others in their stead 7 It will not 
 do to say, that whatever be his power, it is not 
 his purpose. How do you know that 1 Search 
 the earth and the heavens till you find a proof 
 of it. For aught that appears from nature's 
 light, God may have many wise reasons to de- 
 prive even immaterial beings of existence. 
 They come into the world by his almighty fiat. 
 They there answer a temporary purpose, and 
 then are ordered out of it. What have you to 
 say, why it should not be so 7 You may not 
 pretend that it contradicts all your ideas of the 
 divine goodness and wisdom. But how are you 
 sure that your ideas are riglit? In many other 
 things they are manifestly wrong. A short proof 
 
422 Insufficiency of the 
 
 is, that your goodness and wisdom would do 
 every thing in the government of the universe 
 different from what he does. And suppose it be 
 the same case here. You cannot show that it is 
 not. Therefore, for aught you can tell, the soul's 
 immateriality is no bar to its annihilation. 
 
 2. When we draw an inference from the capa- 
 cities of the soul to its immortality, we talk at 
 random. Those capacities are, indeed, in our 
 view, stupendous. We can form no conception 
 of the improvement and powers which the most 
 unpromising of human beings may in due season 
 develop. But what are these to the Infinite 
 One? He could, with perfect ease, vacate all 
 their stations in the scale of being, and instantly 
 replace them with creatures far nobler, and of 
 still greater capacities. The world, for aught 
 we can tell, would be no loser by the exchange, 
 and his glory might be a great gainer. What 
 has your reason to say to the contrary ? You 
 may guess, you may conjecture : but guessing 
 and conjecturing afford a very miserable foot- 
 hold when you are about stepping into a state 
 of untried being. And I will venture to say, 
 that no man ever yet enjoyed any solid comfort^ 
 from the mere consciousness of a capacity fitted 
 for lasting good. He must be equally conscious 
 of a capacity of lasting wo. And the idea of 
 miserable existence cannot be comfortable. 
 
Light of Nature. 423 
 
 Besides, men's capacities are not fully em- 
 ployed here. Genius of the highest order often 
 languishes, is smothered, does not display the 
 thousandth partof its riches, dies unknown, dis- 
 appears, and is forgotten. How do you know 
 but something of the same kind may occur here- 
 after? Many, multitudes of things, in the ani- 
 mal and material creation, have valuable pro- 
 perties, which, nevertheless, are not unfolded. 
 And I presume your reason is not of so morbid 
 a quality as to persuade you of the immortal 
 life of horses, of trees, and cabbages. Millions 
 of creatures perish, without even evolving the 
 germ of such faculties as they possess. How 
 can w^e determine what exhibitions of wisdom 
 the Creator may please to make by this use of 
 his creatures ? We never were of his counsel, 
 and where we know nothing, we must not de- 
 cide : our best course is to " lay our hands on 
 our mouths, and our mouths in the dust," and 
 to ask no impertinent nor curious questions. 
 
 3. But we have large desires ; vehement long- 
 ings ; and intense appetite for immortality. 
 Why were these desires given ? this longing ex- 
 cited 7 this appetite implanted 1 Only to be 
 disappointed? To teach us to expect mighty 
 things, and vanish like a dream 7 Verily, this 
 looks like charging our Maker with a deliberate 
 mockery. 
 
4^4 Insufficiency of tlie 
 
 Not so hasty, if you please. Are there not 
 in other things, mnch desire, ardent longing, in- 
 tense appetite, which, however, are in fact dis- 
 appointed ? Is your Maker obliged to gratify 
 your wishes, however unreasonable or extrava- 
 gant, under the penalty of being accused of 
 mockery if he does not. Suppose one man has 
 a passion for being a king ; another for an end- 
 less succession of pleasures ; a third for more 
 wealth than is to be found in both the Indies. 
 Is your Maker under any possible necessity of 
 satisfying this desire, this longing, this appetite. 
 And must we, wretched beings of a day, pre- 
 sume to impeach his wisdom or goodness, if he 
 refuse ? 
 
 It will not be denied that we are sinful crea- 
 tures. What if all this desire after immortality 
 should proceed from a sinful bias of our nature? 
 What if it should be nothing but a longing, in- 
 herited from our first mother, who, as the scrip- 
 ture informs us, wished very much to be like 
 God 7 What if it should meet with his rebuke 
 instead of his indulgence 1 What if it should, 
 after all, be nothing more than that love of life 
 which all beings have, and strong in proportion 
 to their perception of its sweetness 1 Is this 
 really a ground upon which you rest your hope 7 
 
 But why did not all these satisfy inquirers of 
 old? Men had as large capacities, as insatiable 
 desires and longings, then, as they have now. 
 
JLlgfd of JVatare. 425 
 
 Yet Plato, even Plato, the prince of philoso- 
 phers, put his argument for futurity, I do not say 
 immortality, upon a childish analogy. Day suc- 
 ceeds night; and night day. Therefore, as death 
 succeeds life, so life must succeed death. And 
 to make this sophism appear the worse, he has 
 put it into the mouth of the grave, acute, sen- 
 tentious Socrates. Plainly showing that even 
 that Avonderful man had nothing better to offer. 
 
 If we have recourse to a moral plea from the 
 inequalities of God's government here, vice often 
 triumphant, virtue depressed, it would seem that 
 his justice requires an hereafter : and so it has 
 been, and is yet, very confidently alledged, that 
 if God be just, he must in a future state .show 
 that righteous impartiality w hich we do not ob- 
 serve to obtain here. 
 
 The utmost that can be concluded from this 
 argument, even if we were to grant its assump- 
 tions, is that there shall be a future state ; but 
 how it proves that an immortal one, I am unable 
 to see. For of all arguments it appears to be 
 the weakest among the weak. A single remark 
 will be enough to refute it. Who among the 
 children of men will undertake to affirm that the 
 Most High God cannot rectify in a given time 
 *all the inequalities which have taken place in a 
 given time 1 That he requires an eternity to 
 set right what ever has gone wrong in this tem- 
 porary existence ? Immortality, then, the une- 
 
 VoL. III. 54 
 
426 Insufficiency of the 
 
 qual dispensations of Divine Providence here 
 cannot prove. I w\\\ go farther, and perhaps 
 deny that they prove even a future state. The 
 plea which w^e are now considering, takes for 
 granted, that there is great inequality in the 
 divine administration. How do you know that ? 
 Who erected you into judges, and especially 
 compete7it judges 7 " You see vice prospering," 
 you say, " virtue depressed and despised." But 
 can you tell what passes within the bosoms of 
 men 7 We know from matter of fact, that vi- 
 cious men, though surrounded with wealth, and 
 honors, and flatterers, are sometimes very mise-. 
 rable. They confess it, in spite of their flatter- 
 ers. Memorable is the acknowledgment of Col. 
 Gardiner, before he was brought to the know- 
 ledge, or had tasted the love of God. He was 
 handsome, gay, gallant, accomplished, versed in 
 every form of elegant dissipation, and on all 
 sides, complimented and flattered. Here is an 
 example of prosperous vice : but he owned, af- 
 terwards, that in the very moments of gayety, 
 in the very riots of joy, when all the sons and 
 daughters of mirth and pleasure were paying 
 him homage, he has often said to himself, when 
 a dog accidentally came into the room, " O that 
 I were that dog P^ On the contrary, a virtuous 
 man in affliction has often consolations which 
 he would not exchange for the prosperity of 
 vice. If it should be otherwise, remember that 
 
Light of Nature. 427 
 
 we arc poor judges. The all-penetrating eye of 
 God, may detect some flaw in his virtue for 
 which he deserves to be punished. Suppose, 
 now, that the secret dealings of God with virtu- 
 ous and vicious individuals, should completely 
 and exactly balance the difference of their out- 
 ward lot — and that they do not is more than na- 
 ture's light can demonstrate — where is your ar- 
 gument for a future state. The accounts of men 
 are finally settled, and there is no room for an- 
 other state in order to adjust them. I say, then, 
 that mere unaided reason, when .she so confi- 
 dently vaunts her ability to show the certainty 
 of a future and an immortal state, and comes to 
 grapple with the proof and the difficulties, finds 
 her strength to fail her, and she faints and falls 
 in the struggle. 
 
 I readily allow that all these things, our ca- 
 pacities, our wishes, and other natural feelings, 
 of which no human being can entirely divest 
 himself, and which render our nature an ever- 
 lasting puzzle to our understandings, most ad- 
 mirably coincide with the doctrine of our im- 
 mortality, when once made known and certain 
 from divine revelation, while without it they 
 afford nothing satisfying, but leave the mind a 
 prey to anxiety, immerse it in doubt, and all 
 the distractions inseparable from suspense. 
 Such, then, is the miserable estate of a man 
 
428 JnRu.fjjcipnc.if of the 
 
 destitute of the benefit of God's revelation. 
 He hopes, and he knows not why : he fears, and 
 he knows not what. His conscience fills him 
 with awful forebodings which he can neither 
 explain nor avoid : all around him is intellectual 
 and moral chaos. It may be he shall live here- 
 after : it may be God shall call him to account : 
 it may be there is happiness and glory in a world 
 to come : but it may be also, a world of wo. 
 The forms which pass and repass before his men- 
 tal vision, are forms of undefined horror. He 
 has light enough to let him see that he is inex- 
 cusable : but not near enough to discover the 
 cause of his perplexity ; not enough to see that 
 he is ruined ; and far, far too little to espy his 
 relief. Despair broods over the scene ; and no- 
 thing will ever dissipate the gloom, but the 
 " light of the knowledge of God, shining in the 
 face of Jesus Christ." 
 
 On the supposition that there is a happy here- 
 after, a most serious question and a most tre- 
 mendous difficulty instantly occur. The ques- 
 tion is, ''How shall we attain it?" If you an- 
 swer " by doing the will of God," the difficulty 
 immediately faces you, " How do you A:no?/; i/ie 
 v)ill of God ?" Hie labor, hoc opus. What can 
 our unassisted reason discover of that will ? 
 The sura and the substance of all she can say, 
 Mr. Addison has put into the mouth of Cato, at 
 
Light of Nahire. 429 
 
 the very time when he was meditating and 
 about to perpetrate suicide, 
 
 If there's a power above, (and that there is 
 All nature cries aloud through all her works,) 
 He must delight in virtue : and that which he delights in 
 Must be happy. 
 
 Very poetically spoken : but poetry will not 
 quiet a troubled conscience. The difficulty still 
 remains. It is a hideous spectre, which all the 
 art of poetical necromancy cannot charm down. 
 W\\dit\^ virtue 7 Is it conformity to the divine 
 will ? But then, again, How am I to ascrMain 
 the divine will ? Till this point be settled, I am 
 at as great a loss as ever. " You must search 
 it out in his works," replies the advocate of na- 
 ture's power. " Where ?" I impatiently ask, 
 " Where ? Is it in these heavens ? Is it in yonder 
 deep ? Does it shine in the spangled firmament, 
 or is it spread on the face of the earth ? Is it 
 written upon the leaves of the trees, on the 
 flowrets of the field, or to be heard in the howl 
 of the beasts of the forest 1 Show it, O show 
 it to me! 
 
 You will tell me that it can be deduced as a 
 very plain inference from the works which we 
 behold. That from the marks of skill and de- 
 sign, every where visible in creation, we very 
 naturally infer, the goodness, the truth, the 
 kindness of their author. I answer, that this is 
 not satisfactory to my mind ; that the conclu- 
 
430 Tnsiifficiency of the 
 
 sion is by much too far from the premises ; that 
 there is no natural nor necessary proportion be- 
 tween intellectual and moral attributes, nor any 
 inference that can at all be drawn from his 
 works to his idUL That I indeed see, in common 
 with millions more, abundant traces of wisdom 
 and power, but what does all this teach me of 
 the divine will7 It is true, that from the con- 
 formation of certain creatures, I can certainly in- 
 fer his pleasure in some particulars : for ex- 
 ample, from the structure of our teeth, and the 
 cravings of our stomach, I may conclude, with- 
 out hesitation, that my Maker intended I should 
 eat : and so of many other physical things. But 
 this has no sort of connection with my moral 
 duties. It does not inform me how I am to 
 worship him, nor what course I am to pursue to- 
 ward my feilow-creatures. I might eat to the 
 full, and never think of him ; nor feel myself 
 impelled to one act of kindness to my fellow- 
 man. 
 
 When we see a clock performing its compli- 
 cated movement with precision, we can and do 
 pronounce, immediately, upon the skill of the 
 clockmaker; but whoever thought of looking 
 at a dock to determine the moral character of 
 the man? So in the machinery of the world. 
 It is self-evident that it could not be constructed 
 but by a being superlatively wise and skillful. 
 But it warrants no further conclusion. 
 
Jbiglit of Nature. 431 
 
 The great question, what does God require of 
 me to secure his favor, and my own blessedness, 
 is hidden in impenetrable darkness, notwith- 
 standing the clear proofs of his skill and wisdom 
 in the creation. Nor can I derive any, the most 
 remote consolation, from his being possessed of 
 boundless skill and power. Who shall inform 
 me, with certainty, that his infinite resources 
 shall not be put in requisition to make me mise- 
 rable? Or who shall quiet the misgivings of 
 my conscience on this head ? That there are 
 such misgivings, and very vehement ones, is a 
 fact for which I have as many vouchers as there 
 are men in the world. But the origiii of these 
 misgivings is the point, as well as all the other 
 aberrations of the human mind. That these are 
 very often sinful, that they give to our thoughts 
 and purposes a criminal bias, and are the source 
 of criminal actions, who can deny, or who ex- 
 plain ? 
 
 Here, then, a new difficulty occurs. How shall 
 we account for the introduction of moral evil, 1 
 do not say into the universe, but into our world ? 
 If we know nothing of its original, we must be 
 ignorant of its cure. 
 
 Shall we say that our Creator made us so ? 
 That it was intermixed with the elements of 
 our constitution ah initio 7 How, then, shall we 
 excuse our Maker from being the Author of 
 evil I How reconcile it with his justice to pu- 
 
432 Insufficiency of the 
 
 nisli man for the very things which he laid 
 him under a necessity of committing 1 And of 
 what use would a pure law of obedience be, sup- 
 pose we had it, if by our very nature we cannot 
 help transgressing it ? 
 
 Is it an adventitious affection of our being ? 
 How came it? Does it excuse us from the 
 charge of offending God? Who will demon- 
 strate this ? On all these points, momentous as 
 they are, we are utterly in the dark. The dark- 
 ness thickens upon us the moment we proceed 
 a step farther and ask about our deliverance. 
 
 Will the Most High God pardon sin ? O yes ! 
 say the advocates of nature's light, he is very 
 merciful. It may be so, but where is your proof? 
 Is it in the pain, sickness, sorrow, and death, of 
 which the world is full ? Is it in the sad solici- 
 tude of men's minds whenever they seriously 
 ask such a question ? Can you show by facts 
 that God in his dealings with men actually for- 
 gives sin 7 Can you point me out one sinner 
 whom he has thus forgiven? Methinks, if it 
 were so plain, so much a matter of course, there 
 could be no want of those happy individuals to 
 whom he has* been gracious. I wish to see the 
 man who can say, upon other than scriptural 
 grounds, that his iniquities are taken away, and 
 his sin purged. One fact is worth a million 
 speculations. If I can see a man walking in 
 the peace of his conscience, and under a sense 
 
Light of Nature. 433 
 
 of forgiving love, I have done. We can show 
 thousands of such men upon the Christian plan, 
 who can give a rational account how they came 
 by their peace, and why they believe, that, 
 although sinners, God has most graciously for- 
 given their sins. But if I shut up the Bible, I 
 shut up your hearts in midnight darkness, in ill- 
 boding anticipations. 
 
 The idea of repciitancc for your sins will per- 
 haps afford you relief Man is frail, you think. 
 God is most gracious, and what more can he 
 ask of a poor offender than all he has, which is 
 to be sorry for his offense and to labor after 
 amendment 7 
 
 The first question to be resolved here, is, what 
 you understand by repentance. Is it merely sor- 
 row for the consequences of sin? Men depre- 
 cate punishment, no doubt. No criminal can be 
 in love with the gallows. But let him once 
 free — let him escape the halter, and he will be 
 as active as ever in the repetition of his crime. 
 Is it this repentance with which you would put 
 off your Maker? To tell him, in substance, 
 that you are very sorry that he has detected you 
 in your rebellion ? very sorry that he is stronger 
 than you, and that you cannot escape — that you 
 are alike unable to resist and to flee ? and, there- 
 fore, that he must of course pardon you, or else lose 
 all credit for generosity with you and with rebels 
 like you ? Why not make yet shorter work of 
 
 Vol. Ill 55 
 
434 Tnsu^ciency of the 
 
 it, and tell him that it is absurd to punish sin at 
 all 1 and that if he does not issue an act of ge- 
 neral indemnity, he will forfeit your good opi- 
 nion forever afterwards 7 This is really the 
 amount of the plea for pardon merely on ac- 
 count of your sorrow for sin. 
 
 Oh, but, say you, you connect with your re- 
 pentance the purpose and promise of amendment. 
 Well, and if you do, and if you even execute 
 your purpose and fulfill your promise, what has 
 that to do with the question ? . It is for your 
 past transgressions that you are to be punished, 
 and you purpose and promise to obey m future ! 
 Do you mean to />«?/ your Creator 1 and to pay 
 him with what is already his due ? Or do you 
 imagine you can save any thing over and above 
 the demands of his law, and lay up a fund of 
 merit out of which you may satisfy its claims 
 on account of former transgressions ? In moral 
 matters this is the very rectified .spirit of ab- 
 surdity. 
 
 I would inquire, moreover, if there is any such 
 thing as a penalty to God's law ? The very no- 
 tion of pardon seems to imply it ; and it is ar- 
 gued that repentance is to procure the remission 
 of the penalty, which remission is another word 
 for pardon. Well, then, is this penalty a mere 
 bugbear 7 a painted scourge, which is never to 
 be used? If it is, then what becomes of the 
 authority of the law, or the awful majesty of 
 
Light of Nature. 435 
 
 the divine government — if men do what they 
 please, have nothing to fear from God the 
 Avenger? Oh, no! will it be said, it will be 
 strictly executed upon impenitent offenders, 
 while to the penitent mercy will be extended. 
 That is to say, that God makes, through means 
 of nature, a proclamation of pardon to all rebels 
 who are willing to be pardoned ! For this wish 
 to be pardoned lies at the bottom of all repent- 
 ance. Is not this, now, a pretty government ? a 
 model of impotence or indolence, which would 
 be overwhelmed with ridicule in the affairs of 
 men? And shall we dare to attribute to the^ 
 '' only wise God " a constitution which would be 
 laughed at for its folly, if it were attempted 
 among men 1 Of all the dreams which have at 
 various times filled their heads on the subject of 
 government, there is none half so crazy, so be- 
 reft of common sense, as this ; and such a stupid 
 constitution men would palm upon their Maker ! 
 Let me ask yet again, Can the Most High God 
 justly punish a repenting sinner in any case ? 
 Or must all crimes whatever be forgiven, pro- 
 vided the criminal repents? If not, if he may 
 punish notwithstanding repentance, then you 
 cannot be sure of pardon, repent never so much. 
 But if pardon must necessarily ensue upon re- 
 pentance, I ask farther, can the sinner repent 
 when he pleases, or must his repentance be the 
 gift of God? If the former, if his repentance 
 
436 Tnsufficiency of the 
 
 be purely an act of his own will, I see not but 
 there is a necessary abolition of all the sanction 
 of God's law ; or which comes to the same thing, 
 a sinner can evade it w henever he pleases, for he 
 can repent whenever he pleases, and when he 
 repents he is pardoned, i. e. he can escape punisli- 
 ment whenever he pleases. But if repentance 
 be a gift of God, he must depend upon the will 
 of another for his pardon; and as the acts of 
 that will cannot be compelled, he must owe his 
 forgiveness to the good pleasure of God. Now, 
 whether he will ever interfere thus or not in be- 
 half of man, he only can tell ; and if he tells it, 
 that is revelation. Say not he tells it in his 
 works of creation and providence. I once more 
 ask, lohere? In the leaves of the trees? In 
 the feathers of the birds ? In the stones of the 
 ground 1 In the streams of water 7 It is really 
 trifling with our most awful concerns to pretend 
 to find it here. 
 
 But still there are strong indications of God's 
 forgiveness in the course of his providence — 
 that his long forbearance bespeaks his gracious- 
 ness and encourages hopes of pardon. His for- 
 bearance does indeed mark his graciousness, and 
 wo to them whom it never leads to repentance ! 
 But it extends equally to the penitent and to the 
 impenitent. If the penitent only were objects 
 of the divine forbearance, something like an ar- 
 gument might bje founded upon it. But what if 
 
Light of Nature. 437 
 
 this forbearance be only until sinners have filled 
 up the measure of their iniquities'? Will pu- 
 nishment be the lighter because it has been long 
 delayed? Shutting a man up in prison, and 
 sparing his forfeited life until the day of execu- 
 tion comes, does not make execution at last 
 either less certain or more tolerable. 
 
 After all, is it true that we can fairly argue 
 any purpose of forgiveness from the acts of 
 Divine Providence 1 I mean, do these demon- 
 strate the connection between forgiveness of sin 
 and the repentance of the sinner ? 
 
 In human governments, where we find men's 
 most sober judgment, it is evident they do not; 
 and in the view of the most wise and compas- 
 sionate of the community, they ought not. 
 
 When men are convicted of crime, they very 
 often show great sorrow for their fault ; but 
 what should we think of the judge who should 
 liberate a prisoner upon this plea? Nay, the 
 sentence of the law must be heard, must take its 
 course in the infliction of punishment, even to 
 the loss of life itself. And do we not see in the 
 government of God, as administered in his pro- 
 vidence, innumerable instances when the pe- 
 nalty annexed to transgression actually follows 
 the oflfense, be the offender never so contrite ? 
 
 A man impoverishes himself by his extrava- 
 gance, and ruins his family besides. He wastes 
 his health, and becomes a prey to lingering and 
 
438 fns2(fficiency, &c. 
 
 loathsome disorders by his dissipation. He may 
 become extremely sorry for his excesses, but 
 does that for one moment arrest the penalty ? 
 Does his penitence drive poverty from his door, 
 or restore his family to comfort? Does peni- 
 tence heal his diseases, and sweeten his body ? 
 Penitent, truly penitent, he may be; ay, and 
 his sins may be forgiven, too, for the w^orld to 
 come, and the fruits of them may be death with- 
 out mercy here. 
 
 Whether, then, we consult the nature of the 
 case, or hearken to the voice of God speaking 
 in the acts of his government, the only conclu- 
 sion to be drawn from both, is, that repentance 
 does not procure forgiveness ; so that for any 
 thing nature's light or the light of reason can 
 show us, the hope of a sinner is as the giving up 
 of the ghost. 
 
 END OF VOL. III. 
 
Princeton Theological Semi"ary Libraries 
 
 1 1012 Oil 
 
 95 8743