y OF THE AT PRINCETON, N. J. x> t> tv .a. t i o tv t> if SAMUEL AG NEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, P, Q4Z. a* c//_ £>cfr£ tSsfi ♦ ©<5r = £92>93<^^>33 ,——5,© ^e^aa^e ?^^>9 ♦ QJS.ai | , Case, «^--ft*Sa-f1 S £%&/, *Sectic siX« MX*. -I- 3f Christ's religion." Now, Sir, in this opinion I can see nothing in- consistent with Episcopal pre-eminence. I can sub- scribe to it without the least hesitation. We all agree, that in the beginning of Christ's religion, Presbyters were also called Bishops. Consequently they were different names for the same office. But here lies the fallacy. The word bishop in the ele- venth question, was understood in the appropriate Sense. The question is, " Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the scripture or not ? And whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest ?" To this, Dr. Cox answers, — u Bishops [in the appropriate sense of the word] have autho- rity, as is aforesaid, of the Apostles, in the tenth question, to make Priests, except in cases of great necessity" In his answer to the tenth question, to which he refers, he had made this distinction — Bi- shops as they be now ; that is, as superior to Presby- ters ; have authority to make Priests, Dr. Red- mayn gives his opinion in these words — u To the first part [that a Bishop, in the appropriate sense of the word, hath authority to make a Priest by scrip- ture] I answer, yea; for so it appeareth, Titus \, and Tim. v. with other places of scripture. But whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest, 1 have not read, but by singular privilege of God. As for making, that is to say, ordaining and Testimony of the Reformers. i% consecrating of Priests, I think it specially belonged* to the office of a Bishop, as far as can be shown by scripture, or any example, as I suppose from the beginning." And with Redmayn agree Thirleby^ SymmonSy Robertson, Leighton, and others. In short, they all agree, that none but Bishops have authority to make Priests — a few making an excep* tion to cases of extreme necessity. Nothing can be more clear and decisive, with respect to the opi- nions of the English Reformers, than the statement of Burnet and Collier of the whole progress of that business. From this view, given us by the above named historians, it is evident, that if this transaction had taken place, as you assert, in the reign of Edivard the sixth, the question relating to Episcopacy would not be affected by it. All agree that it took place before the ordination offices were compiled ; but Burnet clearly proves, in opposition to Stillingfieet, that the transaction occurred in the reign of Henry the eighth, when the Reformers had made but little progress in the great work in which they were engaged; and that of course, even at that early, period, they had become perfectly convinced fromj scripture and the writings of the Fathers, that Episcopacy was the true and proper government of the Christian church. Yet, Sir, you say, with Burnet in your hands, that he maintains, u Such were the language and the views of Cranmer and other Prelates, in the reign U Letter XIV. of Edtvard the sixth ;"* when he, in direct terms, says tht contrary. He dates the questions and reso- lutions to which I suppose you have reference, as far back as the year 1 540, and observes, that he had a seen a much fuller paper concerning orders and ecclesiastical functions, signed, either in the year 1537 or 1538, since it is subscribed by Edward Fox, Bishop of Hereford, who died in May, 1538."t • You must have been misled, Sir, by somebody or other upon this point. You have confounded two distinct transactions, which happened, the one in the reign of Henry the eighth, the other in the reign of Edward the sixth. With respect to the lat- ter, Burnet says, " This winter (1540) there was a committee of select Bishops and divines appointed for examining all the offices of the church, and for re- forming them. — The thing they first examined was the sacrament of the Eucharist ; which being the chief of Christian communion, was thought to deserve their chief care. And here they managed their inquiries in the same manner that was used in the former reign ; in which, when any thing was considered in order to a change, it was put into several queries,*to which every one in commission was to give his answer in writing. It is no wonder, if the confusion that followed in queen Marifs reign have deprived us of most of those papers ; yet there is one set of them preserved, relating to some ques- • Letter vi. p. 222. f Hist. Ref. addenda, vol. i. p. 289, 365r Testimony of the Reformers. 13 uons about the priest 1 s single communicating."* I have looked over the questions to which Burnet refers, and I do declare, that there is not to be found in them one syllable upon the subject of Episcopacy. This evidence, together with Stri/pe\ shows in a satisfactory manner, that Stilling 'feet was mis- taken, in dating the transaction in question in the reign of Edward the sixth. Burnet, in his history, corrected the error ; and StiUingfieet never contro- verted the point, that we know of. The circumstance, too, of the manuscript, which Burnet says he had seen, and which contains the questions and answers in a fuller manner than that of 1540, and which was clearly drawn up no later than in 1538, as it was signed by Fox, Bishop of Hereford,\vho died that year, — affords strong proof, that the business had been begun in 1538, but was not completed till 1540. There is also strong in- ternal evidence, that the questions and answers were put out some years before the framing of the ar- ticles of the churGh, and the offices of public wor- ship, which took place in 1548. In the latter there was unanimity, in the former there was not. The minds of those excellent men were gradually enlightened ; it was scarcely possible that it should have been otherwise. But, if the business of the questions and answers took place in the same year * Hist. Reform, vol. ii. p. 61. Vol. II. C 1-* Letter XIV. in which the articles, &c. were framed, the re- formers must have had the light of truth break in upon them very suddenly indeed ; for in the former, there is much crudeness of expression, some difference of opinion, and some singularity of sentiment. But every thing has a different aspect in the articles and offices of the church. These circumstances are, I think, sufficient to convince every impartial person, that you have been misled by Stillmgjleet, or somebody else, in dating the questions and answers in 1548. But notwithstanding this correct view of the whole business given by Burnet and Collier, you still push forward with zeal to carry your point. You say, " Another circumstance, which serves to show that Archbishop Cranmer considered the Episcopal system in which he shared, as founded rather in prudence and the will of the magistrate, than the word of God, is, that he viewed the exercise of all Episcopal jurisdiction as depending on the pleasure of the King, and that, as he gave it, so he might take it away at pleasure. Agreeably to this, when Henry the eighth died, the worthy primate regarded his own Episcopal power as expiring with him ; and therefore would not act as Archbishop till he had received a new commission from King Edward. 1 '' There is, Sir, nothing in this world easier, than to misstate facts and superinduce false colours upon truth. Your unlearned and prejudiced readers have, no doubt, been greatly misled by your numerous Testimony of the Reformers, II misstatements, and your extremely plausible asser- tions. No doubt, you mean what you say, and are perfectly free from any inteDtion of giving a wrong view of the subject. But how %o acquit you from negligence in the investigation of facts, I de- clare, Sir, I do not know ; and therefore shall not attempt it. That Archbishop Cranmer took out a new com- mission for the exercise of his office, is true ; but it was not upon the principle which you mention. It is undeniable, that it was the doctrine of the King, the Bishops, and the whole nation, that authority to administer the sacraments, and to perform all other spiritual offices, was derived, not from the crown, but from Christ. This doctrine was explicidy maintained in the " Institution of a Christian Man," as you will see by consulting Collier. And that it was maintained by the King, is evident from a let- ter of his to the convocation of the province of York, explaining the supremacy. That letter you will find in Dr. Chandler's Appeal defended, p. 54. Therein the King makes a clear distinction between the temporal and spiritual powers of the Bishops ; the former he derives from the state, the latter from Christ. It is, therefore, evident, that what was meant to be given by the King, was nothing more than a legal right to exercise that spiritual function, which was derived from Christ, and a jurisdiction relating to matters testamentary, ma- trimonial, &c. which was derived from the state. 16 Letter XIV. Afterwards, in the reign of Edward the sixth, from 1548 to 1553, Bishops were commonly appointed by the King's letters patent, " By those letters," says Bishop Burnet, " it is clear, that the Episcopal function was acknowledged to he of divine appoint- ment, and that the person was no other way named by the King, than as lay patrons present to livings; only the Bishop was legally authorized in such a part of the King's dominions, to execute that func- tion which was to be derived to him by impositioh of hands."* This, Sir, is the true state of the matter ; and it evidendy shows how very incorrect you are, when you advance Cranmer's taking out a new commis- sion after the death of Henry, as a proof that he be- lieved Episcopacy was a mere human institution. As a further proof that Cranmer believed the Episcopal office to be of Apostolical institution, let us have recourse again to the questions and re- solutions.. To the 11th question, Dr. Leighton thus answers : u I suppose that a Bishop hath au- thority of God, as his minister, by scripture, to make a Priest ; but he ought not to admit any man to be a Priest, and consecrate him, or to appoint him to any ministry in the church, without the Prince's license and consent. And that any other man hath authority to make a Priest by scripture, I have not read, nor any example thereof." To the 12th question, Leightoh answers : " I suppose there * His. Ref. vol. ii. p 128. Tesi tf 'the Reformers* 17 is a consecration required, as by imposition of hands ; for so we be taught in the ensample of the Apostles." Durell, in his Vindicice, says, that hav- ing had an opportunity of examining the original manuscript, he found that Crcmmer gave his con- sent to Leighton\ opinions upon this subject, scribing to each — Thos. Cantuariensis.* This is a decisive proof, that the Archbishop was, at that pe- riod, a correct Episcopalian. Before that time, Cranmer seems indeed to have had too high a notion of the power of the magis- trate ; and it appears from the above answer, that Ijeighton also had ; and it may be, for any thing I know to the contrary, that all the reformers of the church of England had the same tincture. Burnet says — " In Cranmer s papers some singular opi- nions about the nature of ecclesiastical offices will be found ; but as they are delivered by him with all possible modesty, so they are not established as the doctrine of the church, but laid aside as particular conceits of his own ; and, it seems, that c/ieniards he changed his opinion* For he subscribed the book that was soon after set out, which is directly contrary to those opinions set down in those pa- pers.'^ These are sufficient proofs, that Cranmer and the other reformers were far enough from being Presbyterians in principle, as yg.u incau^ tiously assert. • Chandler's Appeal defended, p 2C f Hist. Reform vol. f. p. 239. C 2 18 -Letter XLV. But as some men, from one cause or other, are very hard to be convinced, I will add more evidence with respect to Cranmer. Bishop Burnet informs us, that in 1548, Cranmer compiled a Catechism, or, " large instruction of young persons in the grounds of the Christian reli- gion;" in which, says my author, " he fully owns the divine institution of Bishops and Priests." Cranmer also published, at the same time, a sermon on the authority of the keys, which is as highly Episcopal as any thing can be. In that sermon are the fol- lowing words. I shall give them according to our modern spelling. " They that were so ordained, were indeed, and also were called, the ministers of God, as the Apostles themselves were, as Paul saith unto Timothy. And so the ministration of God's word, (which our Lord Jesus Christ himself did first institute) was derived from the Apostles unto others after them by imposition of hands, and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles down to our da) s. And this was the consecration, orders, and unction of the Apostles, whereby they^ at the beginning, made Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue in the church, even to the world's end." But even these proofs, convincing as they are, do not close the evidence upon this point. I appeal to the ordination offices, which are the public standards of the church, and which were compiled by Cran- mer and others in the year 1550.* You, Sir, in- * Burnet. Hist. Reform, vol. ii. p 113, 144. Testimony of the Reformers. 19 deed, endeavour to preclude us from that plea, by observing, that " those who insist on this argument, forget that the ordination service, as it now stands ^ differs considerably from that which was drawn up by Cranmer and his associates. If I mistake not, that service, as it came from the hands of the re- formers, did not contain a sentence inconsistent with the opinions which I have ascribed to them." Thus you assert, Sir, but give us no proof what- ever of the correctness of your assertion. Profes- sing as you do, to have nothing in view but to lead your Christian brethren into truth, you ought cer- tainly to have laid before them the evidence upon which you ground your assertion. But this you have not done in the smallest degree. I also think, Sir, that xve are entitled to some respect. When you say we are wrong, you ought to prove upon solid grounds that we are so. You can hardly sup- pose, that we shall take your assertion for proof; especially after the numerous specimens you have given us, that there is a wide difference between asserting and proving. Were I to assert that you are mistaken upon this point, it would prove just as much, as your saying that zve are. Reallv, Sir, this mode of discussion is far beneath a scholar and a man of sense. But to come to the point. In the year 1 549, not long after Edward's accession to the throne, an act passed the parliament for drawing up an Ordinal The act being short, I shall transcribe from Collier 20 Letter XIV. so much as will answer my purpose. After pre- mising the object of the act to be concord and unity, it proceeds to say — a It is requisite to have one uniform fashion and manner for making and conse- crating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, or Mi- nisters of the church. Be it, therefore, enacted by the King's Highness, with the assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that such form and manner of making, and consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other ministers of the church, &c."* From this act it is evident, that the formation of different offices for different orders, was contem- plated. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose, that the intention of the act was fulfilled, and that dif- ferent offices were actually framed for different orders. This was, in fact, the case. But those who are ever looking out for some slight defect, upon which they may ground an ob- jection, have said, that in the Ordinal set forth in Edward's reign, the words for conveying the Bi- shop's character, are not the same as in the present Ordinal, Thus, in the latter, the words are — Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishops &c. But in the former, the words were — Take the Holy Ghost, remember that thou stir up, &c. Here, say they, the word Bishop was not used, and., therefore, it could not have been determined to * Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 288. Testimony of the Reformers. 21 what office the person on whom hands were laid, was designed. This, Sir, is one of the weakest and most idle cavils I have ever seen. It was first started by the Papists ; and the Puritans, although folly is marked upon " the head and front" of it, were not ashamed to repeat it. Collier, in answer to it, observes,* that u although the word Bishop is not used, (at the time of imposing hands) yet there is a plain dis- tinction in other parts of the office. For instance, there is an express declaration of two Bishops, that the person present is to be consecrated to their own order. There are more questions put to him by the Archbishop, than are mentioned in the office for ordaining Priests ; some of w T hich suppose a supe- rior authority in his character, and that the exer- cise of discipline, and the government of a diocese* are branches of his function. The Archbishop, and two other Bishops, lay their hands upon the head of the elect; whereas, at the ordination of a Priest, this rite is performed by the Diocesan with some Priests assisting." It is, therefore, not to be denied with any appearance of reason, that the first and second Ordinal are precisely the same as to intention, dis- tinction of office, and conveyance of authority. As a further proof that a new office was conferred by the old Ordinal, I would observe, in the words of Dr. Chandler, that, " in the ordination of Pres- * Ecc, Hist. vol. i. p. 291, 22 Letter XIV. byters, a distinction of their office from that of Bi- shop, immediately follows. They are declared to have, and the declaration implies that they have, in virtue of that ordination, only the power of ab- solving penitents, and of dispensing the word and sacraments ; and that in such congregations as they should be appointed to. There is not the least appearance of Episcopal powers, nor of any authority which is not at this day given by the church of England to Presbyters. But in the ordi- nation of Bishops, there is not the least restraint ; the words are left general, as they were used by Christ in ordaining his Apostles ; and all the ordinary au* thority, -which they were originally intended to ex- press, is conveyed by them without diminution. So that in one case, there is only a limited commis- sion given ; but in the other, a commission without any restriction or limitation, and, consequently, ex- tending to all ecclesiastical offices, which, in fact, is also intended."* Bishop Burnet also argues correctly and forcibly Upon this point. " It is to be considered, that ec- clesiastical orders being from the influence and ope- ration of the Holy Ghost, which being one, yet hath different operations for the different adminis~ trations; therefore, the concomitant actions, words, and circumstances must show, for which adminis- tration the Holy Ghost is prayed for, since that gene- * Appeal further defended, p. 42,* 43. Testimony of the Reformers, 2J rai prayer is made for all; but the functions being different, the same Holy Ghost works differently in them all. Therefore, it is plain from the practice of our Saviour, that there is no need of expressing, in the very words of ordination, what power is thereby given, since our Saviour did not express it, but what he said both before and after, did deter- mine the sense of those general words to the Apos- tolical function. The whole office of consecrating Bishops, (for instance) shows very formally and ex- pressly what power is given in those (general) words. So that a Priest being presented to be made a Bishop, the King's mandate being read for that effect, he swearing canonical obedience as Bishop elect ; prayers being put up for him as such, toge- ther with other circumstances which make it plain what they are about; those general words are by these qualified and restrained to that sense." What can be the reason, Sir, when you revived this idle cavil, that you did not extend it to the or- dination of Priests likewise ? You must certainly know, that in the old ordinal, the word Priest was not used at the time of imposing hands ; and, there- fore, if the objection has any force in the one case, it has equal force in the other ; and then Chere was no distinction made by the old ordinal between the office of a Presbyter, and that of a Deacon. Thus would the whole ministry of the church of Eng- land be demolished at a stroke ; and, let me add, the. Presbyterian ministry too ; as it was derived in 24 Letter XIV. Great-Britain principally, if not altogether, from the Bishops of that church. This, I suppose, Sir, you: thought, would be carrying the matter too far. Indeed, Sir, it is too gross a reflection upon the English reformers, who are acknowledged by all the world to have been great and good men, to sup- pose that they would compose different offices, for the ordination of Bishops and Priests, if they believed them to hold the same office. Is it possible, that men who had any conscience, would perform the solemn farce of reinvesting the Bishop elect with the same powers which he received, when he was ordained a Priest? Can any one who knows the characters of those divines, suppose that they would be so profligate as to invoke the Almighty for his blessing upon them in communicating those powers, which they had no intention of communicating, as the person was supposed to be invested with them already ? Sir, this cavil carries folly upon the face of it, and must ever be considered by every man who has any pretensions to impartiality, to be as weak as it is ungenerous. As a further proof that the reformers maintained a distinction of offices in the church, they expressly said, in their preface to the old ordinal, — - " It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostle's time there have been these* orders of ministers in Christ's church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." Testimony of the Reformers. ^o . Still farther. The prayers in the old ordinal ex- pressly mentioned the appointment of divers or- ders by the Holy Ghost.* Thus, at the ordination of a Bishop, the prayer was just the same as it is now. Almighty God, giver of all good things, ■who, by thy Holy Spirit, hast appointed divers or- ders of Ministers in thy church, ^mercifully behold this thy servant novo called to the work and minis- try of a Bishop, £^c. The same declaration, that the Holy Spirit appointed divers orders in the church, was likewise in the prayers used at the or- dination of a Priest, and of a Deacon. Now it is a consequence obvious to common sense, that when a committee was appointed for the express purpose of composing distinct offices for the ordina- tion of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons — when three distinct offices were actually composed— when in the preface to these offices, three distinct orders were particularly enumerated ; and when in the prayers of each office, it is expressly declared, that divers orders were appointed by the Holy Ghost ; and, lastly, when in the service for consecrating a Bishop, it is explicitly said, that the elect is to be admitted into the office of a Bishop— when, I say, these things are considered, it is obvious to common sense, that the reformers believed that Bishops were superior to Presbyters by Apostolic institution, or else they were the most odious hypocrites that ever dis- * See Brett on Episcopacy, p. 159, and Burnet, vol. ii. p. 144, Vol. II. D 26 Letter XIV. graced the Christian church. I do not see, Sir, how it is possible for you to avoid adopting one part or other of this alternative. It is really a curiosity in the region of contro- versy, that you, Sir, and Dr. Chauncy, in this country, and Mr, Neal, and others, in England, should have recourse to^so pitiful a cavil, as to in- fer from the word Bishop not having been used at the imposition of hands, that, therefore, there was no intention of conveying any authority beyond what the Bishop elect was invested with, when he was ordained a Priest; when the objection of the whole body of Puritans to these offices was, that they do make the office of a Bishop superior to that of a Priest. In their short table of sundry exceptions, &c. p. 99, they place it under the article of defects in the public service, that " the Priest receiveth in his ordination, no authority to govern the flock, and exercise the discipline of Christ, but only to preach and administer the sacraments ;" whereas, in the office for consecrating a Bishop, that power is ex- pressly conferred — Be to the flock of Christ a Shep- herd, not a wolf — be so merciful that ye be not too remiss; so minister discipline that ye forget not mercy. Under the head of untruths, they rank the Preface to the Ordinal, in which the three orders are expressly mentioned; and, to. crown all, they rank under the head of Popish Errors, that u Dea- cons, Priests, Bishops, and Archbishops, are made Testimony of the Reformers, 27 •several orders and degrees of ministry."* [By the way, Archbishops were never considered a distinct ©rder ; nor were they ever ordained to that office ; and that the Puritans must have known very well.] I think, Sir, I may now, with great propriety, address you in the words used by Bishop Madox, in reply to Mr. Neal, upon the same point. " No- thing, sure, but the impossibility of supporting your scheme, and proving the parity of Presbyters and Bishops any other way, could have put you upon this method of attempting it. You, indeed, have un- dertaken a difficult task, and must, therefore, have great allowances in the execution of it. The sense and practice of the whole Christian church for 1500 years, in a form of church government, so early, so universally, so constantly received, were great obstacles. No instances of Presbyters executing the distinguishing offices of a Bishop ; no example of any man's being a Bishop one day, and reduced to a mere Presbyter the next, as must have been the case, had a Bishop, as is sometimes alleged, been no more than a Chairman, a Moderator, or temporary President of a Presbytery ; no instances of many Bishops for places where there were manv Priests : on the contrary, we always find one par- ticular person mentioned as the Bishop, and sole Bishop of one particular city, even where there were many Presbyters. This being the case, other methods were to be tried, and the verv form of * See Madox agairs* N#al. 28 Letter XIV. consecrating a Bishop, who had before been or- dained a Priest, be employed to prove there was, in the opinion of the compilers of that form, no such order as Bishops in the church — all were Pres- byters, and nothing more, not only the order, but the very office the same." Will you, Sir, take Bishop Burnet's account of the opinions of the reformers upon this point? " In the ancient church," says he, " they knew none of those subtilties which were found out in the latter ages. It was then thought enough, that a Bishop was to be dedicated to his function by a new impo- sition of hands, and that several offices could not be performed without bishops; such as ordination, confirmation, &c* But they did not refine in these matters so much as to inquire, whether Bishops and Priests differed in order and office, or only, in degree* But after the Schoolmen fell to examine matters of divinity with logical and unintelligible niceties, and the Canonists began to comment upon the rules of the ancient church, they studied to make Bishops and Priests seem very near one another, so that the difference was but small. They did it with different designs. The Schoolmen having set up the grand mystery of transubstantiation, were to exalt the priestly office as much as was possible ; for the turning the host into God, was so great an action, that they reckoned there could be no office higher than that which qualified a man to so mighty a per- * Madox against Neal, p. 64, 65. Testimony of the Reformers, 29 formance. — But as they designed to extol the order of Priesthood, so the Canonists had as great mind to depress the Episcopal order. They generally wrote for preferment, and the way to it was to exalt the papacy. Nothing could do that so effectually as to bring down the power of Bishops." After se- veral other observations, Burnet says, " These are the very dreg's of 'popery ;" and then concludes with these strong words : " So partial are some men to their particular conceits, that they make use of the most mischievous topics when they can serve their turn, not considering how much farther these ar- guments will run, if they ever admit them."* It now, Sir, appears beyond all reasonable contra- diction, that the compilers of the old ordinal ac- knowledged three distinct orders in the church, as the preface to the ordinal evinces — that they de- clared there were, by divine appointment, divers orders of ministers — that they composed a distinct office for the ordination of each order — that there could be no dispute to which of these orders the person ordained was admitted, nor what were the peculiar duties of his office — and that all this war. approved of, and consented to by the Bishops and Clergy, and established by the King and Parlia- ment. Still it must be admitted, that adding the words — for the office and work of a Bishop, in the one office, andyir the office and work of a Priest in * Hist. Reform, vol. i. p 366. D2 Letter XIV. the other, completely removed the objection which me Puritans and Papists made to these offices ; and entirely freed those candid inquirers after truth from that unhappy necessity, which they thought "hemselves under, of obscuring what was suffici- ently clear to unprejudiced minds. But notwithstanding all this clear and decisive evidence, we have not yet come to the close of this part of the discussion. As a further argument in proof of your point, you observe, that " when these great reformers went further than to compile temporary and fugitive manuals; when they under- took to frame the fundamental and permanent arti- cles of their church, we find them carefully guard- ing against any exclusive claim in behalf of diocesan Episcopacy. If they had deemed an order of Bi- shops superior to Presbyters, indispensably neces- sary to the regular organization of the church, and the validity of Christian ordinances, can we sup- pose that men who showed themselves so faithful and zealous in the cause of Christ, would have been wholly silent on the subject? And above all, if they entertained such an opinion, would they have forborne to express it in that article in which they undertook formally to state the doctrine of their church with respect to the Christian ministry? That article (the 23d) is couched in the following terms: It is not lavjful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully Testimony of the Reformers. Si .ailed and sent to execute the same. And those ive ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men, who have public authority given unto them in the congrega- tion, to call and send ministers into the Lord^s vine- yard" You say that, " here is not a syllable said of diocesan Bishops, or of the necessity of Episco- pal ordination ; on the contrary, there is most evi- dently displayed a studious care to employ such language as would embrace the other reformed churches, and recognize as valid their ministry and ordinances."* To this I answer, 1st. The question between us is not, whether the reformers of the church of Eng- land believed that Presbyterian ordination is valid, where no other can be had, but whether Episcopacy is of Apostolical and divine institution t That they believed it is, has been proved beyond all reason- able contradiction; and that the 23d article does not contradict that opinion, is perfectly clear. 2d. It was not the business of the reformers to say in the above article, that the divine institution of Episcopacy necessarily precludes from the cha- racter of churches, those which have not the order of Bishops, They said enough when they declared, that " it is evident from Holy Scripture, and an- cient authors, that from the Apostles' times there have been these orders of Ministers in the church, * Letter vi. p. 223. 32 Letter XIV- Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;" and when they said, that " no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereaf- ter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal con- secration or ordination." 3d. It is clear, beyond all controversy, from the above declarations, that the reformers maintained the apostolical institution of Episcopacy ; and, there- fore, when they say, in the 23d article, that " it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same ;" the words before he be lawfully called and sent, must necessarily be in- terpreted by the words in the preface to the ordinal, viz. No man shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, except he be called accord- ing to the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal consecration or ordination.^- Here it is evident that the reformers consider none as lawful Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, without Episcopal ordination ; at the same time they say nothing about Presbyterian ordination, leaving it to shift for itself upon the plea of necessity, or any other plea its advocates may advance in its fa- vour. This, considering the danger to which the whole reformation was exposed, was a mark of Testimony of the Reformers, 33 prudence ; but I think no impartial and candid man can consider it as affording the smallest proof, that the reformers did not consider Episcopacy as of di- vine institution, and Presbyterian ordination as ir- regular, and totally destitute of Apostolic sanction. I know it has been said, although you do not say it, that by the word lawful is meant, according to the larv of the land. But I do not see how that can be ; for the King and Parliament, who alone have authority to make laws, did not draw up the offices and articles of religion, but the Bishops and clergy assembled in convocation, who have ever been es- teemed the proper expositors of the law of God, When the clergy, therefore, declare any thing to be lawful or unlawful, they must ne- essarily be un- derstood, according to the law of God. For the judges, not the clergy, are the proper expositors of the laxv of the land. This evasion, therefore, is totally inadmissible. Lastly. It might as well be argued by the ad- vocates for lay ordination, from there being no mention of Presbyters in the 23d article, that the church of England does not require so much as Presbyters to lay on their hands in ordination, as that she does not require Bishops to lay on their hands, because nothing is said in that article about diocesan Bishops. The argument, in respect to the former, is just as conclusive as in respect to the latter. But this proves too much; and, therefore, by a rule of logic, proves nothing. 34 Letter XIV. I shall close this head, and this letter, with notic- ing your quotation from Bishop Burnet, The quo- tation amounts to this, that the reformers did not magisterially pronounce a sentence of invalidity, upon the orders of the reformed churches upon the continent. That is very true. It was not their bu- siness to do so in direct and pointed terms. But let any man consider the genuine consequence of the declaration of the reformers. They say there were three orders instituted by the Apostles— -Bishops, Priests and Deacons. That to Bishops belongs the right of ordaining ; and that none shall be consi- dered lawful Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, unless they have been Episcopally consecrated or ordained. Let any one, I say, consider the genuine conse- quence of these declarations, and then if he can see any thing in the article of a comprehensive na- ture, I shall not be so hostile to his repose, as to at- tempt to deprive him of the comfort he can derive from it. When, Sir, you quoted Burnet, why did you not give us the last words of the passage which you ad- duced ? Those words are—-." Necessity has no law, and is a law to itself." From this it is evident, that he predicates all that he says upon necessity* Read the whole that he says upon the Article, and yoa will see that all his observations rest upon that ground. To conclude : It is very evident from what has appeared in this letter, that Burnet fully believed Testimony of the Reformers. 35 the Apostolical and divine institution of Episco- pacy ; yet, he had some how or other a way of sa- tisfying himself, that the want of Episcopal orders renders a church only irregular and unsound; but does not invalidate her ministry. Upon this point, unanimity among Episcopalians cannot reasonably be expected. I shall now conclude with the testimony of the learned historian, Mosheim. Of the church of England, he says, " It constantly insisted on the divine origin of its government and discipline."* * Eccles. Hist, vol, ii. p. 231, t 30 )- LETTER XV. Rev. Sir I SHALL continue the consideration of your tram ©f arguments in support of vour assertion, that the reformers of the church of England were Presby- terian in principle. I think that I have already said quite sufficient to show, that you are very far from being correct in this assertion. But as you endeavour to support it, by other arguments, it is expedient, if not neces- sary, for me to canvass every thing material that you have said. You observe, that " an act of Parliament was passed in the 13th year of the reign of Queen Eli- zabeth, to reform certain disorders touching minis- ters of the church;" and that " this act was framed ■with an express view to admitting into the church of England, those who had received Presbyterian ordination, in the foreign reformed churches, on their subscribing the articles of faith."* That there was an act passed in the 13th of Elizabeth^ to reform certain disorders, &c. is true ; but that it * Letter vi. p. 225. Testimony of the Mefot mers. 37 was with "■ an express view of admitting into the church those who had received Presbyterian ordi- nation," does not appear at all from the act. You ought, Sir, to have given your readers that part: of the act which relates to the present subject. It runs thus : Be it enacted— " that every person, under the degree of a Bishop, which doth, or shall pretend to be a Priest, or Minister of God's holy word and sacraments, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering, than the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late King, or now used in the reign of our most gra- cious Sovereign Lady, before tke feast of the nati- vity of Christ next following, shall, in the presence of the Bishop, declare his assent, and subscribe to all the articles of religion — and shall bring from such Bishop, in writing under his seal authentic, a testimonial of such assent and subscription — upon pain that every such person, which shall not, before the said feast, do as is appointed, shall be, (ipsa facto) deprived."* From this act it is evident, that the case of the foreign Presbyterian churches, and the validity of ordination by Presbyters, were not at all contem- plated. There is not a syllable said about either. It speaks indeed of those who pretended to be Priests by an ordinal different from that of King Edward's; but by that was principally, if not exclu- * Gibson's Codex, p. 396, and Sparrow's Collection, p. 118, Vol. II. E 38 Letter XV. sively meant, such as were ordained by the Popish ordinal. But what a valid ordination is, the act does not say. We must have recourse for that to the preface of the ordinal, which expressly makes Episcopal ordination the only lawful mode. The act does not say, that all who were ordained by Presbyters, or in any other manner, should, upon subscription, be allowed to hold livings in the church. That would have been a direct contradiction of the act passed in the reign of Edxvard; and, therefore, such an extension should not be given to it. Let it further be considered, that it was the avowed doctrine of the church throughout the whole reign of Elizabeth, that Episcopal ordination was of divine appointment, and then it will be evi- dent, that the act in question could not have been designed to indulge, under the specified condition, those who had received no other orders but Presby- terian. To confirm your opinion, that this act was in- tended to comprehend those who had received no other orders but Presbyterian, you observe, " that Dr. Strype, an eminent Episcopalian, informs us, that this act was framed with an express view to admitting^ into the church of England, those who had received Presbyterian ordination in the foreign reformed churches, on their subscribing the articles of faith." You ought, Sir, in order to give your readers a correct view of what Strype says, to have given us Testimony of the Reformers, 39 ..is own words. They are as follows: " It con- cerned all such persons as pretended to be Priests and Ministers of God's word and sacraments under the degree of a Bishop, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering, than :he form set forth in the late King Edward's time, and now used in the reign of the Queen. Meaning, mdoubtedly, to comprehend Papists, and likewise such as received their ordination in some of the foreign reformed churches, when they were in exile under Queen Mary** From this it is evident, that Strype did not mean to comprehend all the re^ formed churches. He expressly says some of them ; most probably the churches of Sweden, Denmark, and Bohemia, By the church in Bohemia is meant the reformed church in that kingdom, which was deemed Episcopal. Notwithstanding these, in my judgment, decisive observations, with which I can hardly suppose you are unacquainted, (for they are not new) you pro- ceed thus : " The conduct of the English reform- ers corresponded with their laws and public stand- ards. They invited several eminent divines from the foreign reformed churches, who had received no other than Presbyterian ordination, to come over to England ; and, on their arrival, in consequence of this formal invitation, actually bestowed upon them important benefices in the church, and in the uni- * Annals. Reform. lib. i. chap. 7. An. 1571. 40 Letter XV. versities." Pray, Sir, from whom did you receive this information ? What can be the reason that you will not give us your authority for what you ad- vance as facts? I have never, in the whole course of my reading, met with any controversial writings, in this respect, like yours. You heap quotation upon quotation, without condescending to give us the chapter, the page, or even the volume ; and you have repeatedly advanced things as matters of facts without exhibiting the testimony by which the facts are supported. Thus, in the instance under consi- deration, you assert, that several foreign divines, who had only Presbyterian ordination, were allowed to hold benefices in England, Who were those fo- reign divines ? You have not told us. I will supply the omission. They were, P. Martyr, M, Bucer, and P. Fagius. The two last were never admitted to any ecclesiastical benefice. They were admitted to nothing but academical preferments. The first, indeed, had an ecclesiastical preferment ; but he was previously ordained by a Bishop.^ Thus, these turn out like most of your other facts. You still proceed : " Besides inviting these dis- tinguished divines into England, Archbishop Cran- /tier and Grindal, and their associates, corresponded with Calvin, solicited his opinion respecting many points in the reformation of the church, and not only acknowledged him in the most explicit man - " Chandler's Appeal defended, p. 43. i e&timony of the Reformers. 41 ner, to be a regular minister of Christ, and the church of Geneva to be a sister church, but also ad- dressed him in terms of the most exalted reverence, and heaped upon him every epithet of honour." Still no proof. Tou, Sir, have said it, and that is enough. But let it be, that the English reform- ers held Calvin in reverence; what does that prove? Does it prove that they acknowledged the validity of ordination by Presbyters? You certainly will not draw that inference from it. The truth is, that they respected Calvin for his talents, learning, and zeal ; while, at the same time, the}* censured hi& arrogant, tyrannical spirit. No one can deny that m the exercise of his ministerial authority, the Ro - man Pontiff himself was scarcely his equal for tyranny and arrogance. Of this I could give abun- dant proof, were it necessary. But the fact is too notorious to need it. The Reformers knew this very well ; and therefore, when he offered his ser- vices, they civilly rejected the offer. This displeased him to such, a degree, that although he had before spoken handsome things of the church of England,, yet, from that time, he began to say harsh things of her; still his talents and learning commanded re- spect, and he became the oracle of one part of the reformation. The respect then which the English divines paid to Calvin, was the result of that prin- ciple of human nature, which irresistibly impels us to admire talents and learning. This, I believe, is the whole of the matter. E2 Letter XV. But you, Sir, will have it, that the Reformers ad- mitted the validity of his orders, and acknowledged the church of Geneva to be a true church. Allowing that to be the case, it was upon no other ground ihan that of necessity, which is the very ground upon which Cabin himself, at first, placed it. But, Sir, I doubt very much whether the Reformers ever con- sidered Calvin in the light of a minister ; for it is very uncertain, whether he received even Presby- terian ordination; any other he certainly did not. Dr. Learning, in his controversy with Mr. Welles, positively asserts, that Beza, and Papirius Massi* a'ius declare that he never was ordained. Reeves loo, in the preface to his Apologies, bears the same testimony. Beza must have been perfectly acquainted with the matter ; for he was Calvin's intimate friend. Nor had Calvin, before he left '/ranee, Episcopal orders, if we may believe Du Pin, It is well known that he was originally in- tended for the church, having received an appoint- ment in the Cathedral of Noifon, before he was twelve years of age. He afterwards held the cure of Manteville, which he exchanged for that of Pont :cqu.e; but this happened in 1529, when he was under age. And Du Pin positively says, that " he possessed these benefices without being in ecclesi- astical orders ;" and it is certain that about this time lie gave up his preferments in the church, and ap- plied himself to the study of the law ; so that it is net at all probable, that after quitting the church for Testimony of the Reformers, 43 the law, he was afterwards episcopally ordained. Indeed, it is plain, not only from Du Pirfs testimony that he was not, but from this circumstance also ;-— that before he was twenty-three years of age, he em- braced the new doctrines as they were then called ; and he certainly after that, neither would, nor could have been ordained in the church of Rome, And, after this period, it does not appear from any docu- ment whatever, that he ever received any thing like an ordination. It is then pretty clear, that Cahin had no other pretensions to the ministerial charac- ter, than what was founded on the election of him by the magistrates and people of Geneva, to be their preacher and professor of divinity. And yet, no doubt, this lay professor of divinity ordained num- bers ; and thus, a spurious brood of ministers, even upon Presbyterian principles, was introduced into that church ; and, consequently, there can be no probability of a clear, uninterrupted succession of ministers from that source. Now, Sir, if these things be so, it is not at all probable, that the Reformers of the church of Eng* land would have explicitly acknowledged Calvin's ministerial character. You must produce positive proof for that; and, further, if you should, you must show, that what they said was not grounded upon the consideration of his ordination being a case of necessity ; but that it was the opinion of the Re- formers, that ordination by Presbyters, upon all or* dinary occasions, is lawful. I am sorry, Sir, to give 4A Letter XV. you all this trouble; but as you have brought Calvin upon the board, it is necessary that you should help him out of his difficulties, as well as you can. You proceed to give us another case, which shows, in your judgment, in what light the Reformers of the church of England viewed Presbyterian ordi- nation. The case is that of John Morrison, a Pres- byterian minister, who was licensed by Archbishop Grindal to preach, &c. in the Province of Canter- bury. Well, S ; r, this being the fact, what is the inference 1 Precisely this — that Grindal thought ordination by Presbyters valid ; but not that his opinion made it so* Now, if this be the only lo- gical inference, we need not give ourselves much trouble about it. I have, however, some consider- ations to offer, to which I request your attention. 1. Whatever may become of this case, it is a curious circumstance, that you should urge it as a proof of the principles of the Reformers. Grindal was not one of them; he was not Archbishop of Canterbury till the reign of Elizabeth ; and the event you have adduced, did not take place till near thirty years after the reformation. How is it pos- sible, Sir, that you could have run into such an error ? Nor would it follow, if he had been one of the Reformers, and Archbishop of Canterbury at that time, and had done just as he did in respect of Morrison, that the other Reformers were of his opinion. That is no consequence. The result simply is, that Grindal thought Presbyterian orders Testimony of the Reformers* 45 valid. But what has that to do with the principles of the Reformers ? Just as much as with the prii> ciples of Confucius, 2. Let us consider what sort of a man Grindal was. He is said to have been remiss in his disci- pline; insomuch that the government took notice of it. Collier* has recorded a letter from the Privy Council to him, in which they complain of his con- duct, and enjoin for the future a stricter discipline, and a more punctual execution of the ecclesiastical laws upon all the violators of them. But what places in a striking point of light the turn of his mind, is the encouragement he gave to what was then called prophesying. This was a sort of preaching much in vogue among the more enthusiastic part of the clergy. The result was much confusion, shameful irregularity, and great injury to the church* " The exercise of prophesv ing," says Collier, "\ u was at- tended with several inconveniences. It gave op- portunity to the spreading of erroneous doctrine. For that purpose, those who were suspended, or deprived for nonconformity, ventured to appear at these meetings. And here they took the liberty to declare against the government and liturgy of the church. And sometimes their satire was played upon the state. Sometimes they glanced upon per- sons, and ran out into particular invectives. And sometimes the laity undertook the argument, and Eccle* Hbt vol. ii. p. 571 \ Vol. ii p. 55? 46 Letter XV. held forth. In short, the exercises at last were re- markable for squabbling, and unnecessary disputes, and failed in the requisites of chanty and discre- tion." Now, who would suppose that Archbishop Grin- dal was a friend to these meetings ? Yet such was the case. It must, however, be acknowledged, that he did not countenance the irregularities, but drew up a set of rules to check them. But the tendency of them was bad, and no rules could answer any good purpose. The government, therefore, or- dered the suppression of them. A particular man- date to that purpose was sent to the Archbishop, but he refused to comply with it. For his disobe- dience, he was suspended from the exercise of his office for six months. After the lapse of that pe- riod, the government offered to restore him upon a proper submission. He made a submission, but it was not deemed satisfactory. The suspension was, therefore, continued. How long he remained in this state I cannot learn; but^tt length, meeting the wishes of government, he was restored to the ex- ercise of his Episcopal function. According to Collier,* it was before the Arch- bishop's jurisdiction was restored, that his Vicar- General, Dr. Aubrey, granted a preaching license to John Morrison ; and if it were, Grinded did by his * Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 579. Testimony of the Reformers. 47 Vicar what he had no right to do ; that is, he ex- ercised his function while under suspension. From this statement, which I believe is correct, it appears that the Archbishop was somewhat fa- natically inclined ; that he was, in some degree, iax in his discipline ; and that he does not appear to have had those views of the Christian church that the Reformers had, when they compiled the ordination offices. But what shows in a still clearer point of light the irregularity of GrindaPs conduct is, that by the act under consideration, he went directly counter to the principles of the church over which he pre- sided; for in the preface to the ordinal, it is ex- pressly said, as has been already noticed, that there are three orders of Apostolic institution, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and that none shall be es- teemed lawful ministers who have not been episco- pally ordained, or consecrated. What now shall we think of a man who could thus fly in the face of his own church, deliberately violate what he had solemnly engaged to maintain, and obstinately per- sist in disobedience to the government, when, upon a full conviction of the mischievous consequences of prophesying, it had ordered him to suppress such meetings t It will be of no consequence to say, that he was a conscientious, good man, and that whatever he did, was done upon principle. That is nothing at all to the purpose. A man's conviction of the rectitude of his intention, was 48 Letter XV. never considered by any man in his senses as a test of truth. For any thing that appears to the con- trary, Guy FauXy when he was about to blow up King, Lords, and Commons, was conscientiously devoted to that diabolical work ; and our Saviour himself tells his Apostles, that they would be per- secuted to death, by those who would think that they were doing God service by shedding their blood. The utmost, then, that can be said for Grindal is, that his acting from conscience might palliate his erroneous conduct, but it can never justify it. There is, I think, no doubt that the Archbishop Was a well meaning man. In this respect, I do not mean to lessen his character in the smallest de- gree. But u all is not wise that wise men say, nor good that good men do." He was generally charged with remissness, with a fondness for the Calvin* istic scheme, and with over-indulging delinquents. But, in my opinion, the greatest blot upon his cha- racter is, his violation of the principles and the laws of the church over which he presided. With this declaration before him, that none are lawful Bi- shops, Priests, and Deacons, without Episcopal or- dination, he certainly strained his prerogative, and the license which was granted, was, in law, good for nothing. The words of the license seem to me to imply a consciousness in him, that the business was not legal. The words I mean are, As far as lies in us, and we can lawfully do it } and as far as the Testimony of the Reformers, 49 Isws of the kingdom suffer us* But if this be the usual form, even in cases which admit of no doubt, then I acknowledge this observation has not the least force. There is another observation that I would make before I quit this point, It is not clear horu Mor- rison was ordained. There was reformation upon reformation in the church of Scotland. The pro- cedure in that country was very different from that of England. In the latter, the Bishops and Clergy conducted the reformation calmly and deliberately ; examining scripture, and the primitive writers, with the utmost care and attention. In the former, die Bishops and Clergy generally did not reform, and the reformation, in consequence, was conducted, chiefly, by the laity. No one could be at a loss ta determine what sort of reformation it would turn out. Riot, confusion, abuse of the Catholics, demo- lition of venerable edifices that had been erected for ages, destruction of private property, and every spe- cies of violence were the consequences. But what particularly respects my purpose, the regimen of the primitive church was not strictly regarded. There was, however, such a sense of the antiquity and pro- priety of Episcopal government, that something like it was established. Had the Bishops reformed, no doubt, Episcopacy would have been established. But as the Bishops still held the Sees, Superinten- dents were appointed, who exercised Episcopal ju- risdiction ; but, unfortunately, they were not con- Vol. II. F 50 Letter XV. secrated by Bishops. The principle of parity does not appear to have been thought of among the jirst Scotch reformers ; yet they do not appear to have had a correct notion of the ground and nature of Episcopacy. I cannot suppose that it was under this scheme of super intendency, that Morrison was or- dained, for this plain reason — The Jirst book of dis- ripline rejected (strange as it may appear) impo- sition of hands in ordination ; and the license men- tions, that Morrison was ordained by imposition of hands. The church was governed by those Super- intendents till the year 1512, at which time, all the Popish Bishops being either dead or deprived, the Sees were filled by officers bearing the titles of Archbishops and Bishops ; the old divisions of the dioceses were restored; the patrimony of the church- was properly applied ; and every Bishop had spi- ritual jurisdiction in his own diocese. But there was one circumstance more necessary to make this a proper Episcopacy. The consecration of these Bishops was, some how or other, overlooked ; and, consequently, they were not true and proper Bishops; they were no more than Superintendents, with the old titles, and with more enlarged powers. But in every other respect, the plan was coincident with true and real Episcopacy.* ♦ See Skinner's Eccies. Hist, of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 204, 205. This author, not long deceased, was the father of the present Bishop Skinner, the pious and venerable Primus of the Scotch Episcopal church. rtimony of the Reformers, 51 This plan of government continued till the year 1580, when Presbyterianism, sincere and genuine, was established by means of the incessant and vi- gorous measures, and the subtle arts and intrigues of Melville and his party. It is highly probable that Morrison was ordained by one of those Bi- shops; for his license from Grindal was dated but two years after the abolition of this species of Epis- copacy. It is true, this would not be Episcopal or- dination, according to the principles of the church of England, and of the primitive church ; but Grin- dal was not, it is evident, so strict as the church to which he belonged, and from whose principles, every one will allow, he ought not to have departed, The inference which may be drawn from this ir- regularity of GrindaPs, is not of the least conse- quence to you in any point of view whatever. You must show that it affords a presumption, that the church of England does not place Episcopacy upon the ground of divine right ; but I am well satis- fied that you will not exercise your ingenuity upon that point. If the irregularity of Grindal affords a presumption, that the church of England does not consider Episcopal ordination necessary, then it fol- lows, that the instances given by Dr. Chandler, and lately by Dr. Hobart, of men's holding livings in the diocese of Bangor, who had never received any orders, affords a presumption, that she does not consider orders at all necessary to constitute a man a minister of Christ. If one instance of a licen c - 5£ ■ Letter XV. having been granted to a Presbyterian minister, affords you any room for exultation, certainly, seve- ral instances of mere laymen's having been licensed to hold livings, affords the fanatic, at least as much room for exulting in the inference, that the church of England considers orders of no manner of con- sequence. Nov/, Sir, do be candid, and allow the latter to be as good reasoning as the former. It is scarcely possible for us to form any thing like an adequate conception of the difficulties with which the church had to contend in the reign of Elizabeth. Harassed on the one hand by the Puri- tans, and, on the other, by the Papists, she had to wink at several things which were inconsistent with her principles and usages. Her most formidable enemies being the Papists, and the whole Protestant interest depending so much upon her maintaining her ground, her clergy, while they maintained the apostolical institution of Episcopacy, were, at the same time, very cautious of explicitly inferring from it, the invalidity of Presbyterian ordination. They wanted the aid of the Puritans, and of the foreign reformed, against the common enemy; and they would have had no reason to expect that, had they expressly asserted that Presbyterian orders in all cases are invalid. Hence arose the salvo of a case of necessity, and the distinction between apostolical and divine institution; and, upon one or other of these principles, I have no doubt that Grindal acted. T have taken up more time with this article than Testimony of the Reformers* it really deserves. It must be a desperate cause indeed that needs such support ; and the urging of this case, taking all the circumstances I have men- tioned into the account, is peculiarly ridiculous. The irregular conduct of Grindal is brought to prove the Presbyterianism of the Reformers who lived thirty years before this event, and who had declared to all the world, in the most explicit man- ner, that in the primitive church there were three orders, and that none should be considered as law- ful ministers of the church of England, who had not been Episcopally ordained. The conduct of a man who had deliberately subscribed to the principles of his church, both as to doctrine and regimen, and who had directly contradicted those principles, is pro- duced as a proof that they are Presbyterian. Can any thing be more preposterous ? Surely, Sir, you cannot be in earnest. Suppose I were to quote you as denying the doctrine of ministerial succession, would it be any kind of proof that your confession of faith does not maintain that doctrine ? And of what weight would your belief be in opposition to the standard of your own church ? Just nothing at all. Nothing can be more fallacious, nothing more insidious than this procedure ? Is there any church upon earth, every individual of whose ministers perfecdy accords with her standards in principle ? I will venture to assert that there is not. Away then with such an improper mode of discussing die sub- ject. Its obvious design is ad captandum vulgiis. F2 ,4 Letter XV. When a doctrine cannot be proved by scripture, or reason ; when a fact cannot be substantiated by pro- per and sufficient evidence, then A. B. and C. are introduced to prove it. Men of sense and learning ought not to descend so low as this. Another of your arguments to prove that the church of England does not place Episcopacy upon the ground of divine right, so far as to annul ordi- nation by Presbyters, is, that the 55th canon requires the clergy to " pray for the churches of England, ■Scotland, and Ireland, as parts of Christ's holy catholic church, which is dispersed throughout the world." This, Sir, is not the point in dispute between us. The question is not, whether the church of Eng- land declares ordination by Presbyters invalid j but whether she places Episcopacy upon the ground of divine right? I have proved from the preface to the ordinal, and from the declaration of the church, that none will be considered by her lawful Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who are not Episcopally or- dained j and from the prayers in the ordination of- fices, that she maintains the divine right of Epis- copacy. This is all I feel any concern about ; the consequence of this principle is another question, which I am not called upon at present to discuss. There is, Sir, something very unfair in your management of this subject. The question between us simp] is, What is the government of the Chris- tian church by apostolical and divine appointment? Testimony of the Reformers: SS We say it is Episcopal ; you say it is Presbyterian. To prove that you are right you quote some Epis- copalians, who allow, under certain circumstances, the validity of your orders. And although you do not expressly draw the inference, yet you evidently produce these quotations to impress upon the minds of your readers this position, that Episcopacy is not a divine institution, because some Episcopali- ans who maintain that it is, at the same time do not carry the principle so far as to unchurch Pres- byterians. This, Sir, is not a proper view of the subject. Reason as much as you please against the ground upon which we place our regimen ; marshal, if you can find them, fifty Episcopalians, who assert, in opposition to the principles of their own church, that Episcopacy is a human institu- tion ; but do not fly off to another question, viz, What is the necessary consequence of believing Episcopacy to be of divine institution? This is not the question we are discussing. Men frequently differ about the consequences of principles. Con- sequences are made out by reasoning; and men reason very differently. How strikingly is this the case with Calvinists! Some of them admit without any scruple, all the consequences with which their principles are charged ; others reject these conse- quences, and contend that they do not flow from the doctrines of Calvin. Thus also the Westminster divines, in their disputes with the Independents^ deny the validity of ordination by laymen, and S6 Letter XV, strenuously maintain the necessity of unbroken suc- cession; yet there are some Presbyterian ministers, who, while they assert the divine institution of a mi- nistry, do not carry the principle so far as to invali- date lay ordination. Just so it is with some Episco- palians. They say that maintaining the divine insti- tution of Episcopacy does not invalidate Presbyte- rian ordination. Whether those Presbyterians and Episcopalians are consistent, is another question. It may be further observed, that those who as- sert the divine institution of Episcopacy, must ne- cessarily be supposed to maintain, that a church which rejects Episcopacy, or cannot possibly ob- tain it, (which is placing it upon the most favour- able ground) is quo ad hoc imperfect and unsound. For if Episcopacy rests upon divine institution, then a Presbyterian church, which wants Episco- pacy, wants a divine institution ; and, consequent- ly, in a very important point, must be defective. And whether a conscientious man, convinced of this, can derive any comfort from the concession, that this principle does not go so far as totally to unchurch; or whether he can continue a member of such a church consistently with the duty of being a member of a complete, sound, and scriptural church, is a question of great importance, and, therefore, deserves the attention of every serious Christian. The next observation which you make, in the pursuit of your object, is the following: "Dr. Warner-, a learned Episcopal historian, declares, Testimony of the Reformers. 57 that Archbishop Bancroft was the first man in the church of England, who preached up the divine right of Episcopacy. The same is asserted by many other Episcopal writers ; and this passage from Warner is quoted with approbation by Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, in his Case of the Episco- pal Churches, in showing that the doctrine which founds Episcopacy on divine right, has never been embraced by the great body of the most esteemed divines of the church of England. 1 '' Here, Sir, you have shifted your ground again. The fifty-fifth canon has been just quoted to prove that those who had high notions of Episcopacy, or, in other words, maintained its divine origin, did not, however, carry that principle so far as to un- church Presbyterians. This, I have observed, is not the question in the present dispute. You now come to the precise point of debate ; and upon this point, if I do not deceive myself, you will be easily vanquished. You assert, Sir, after Dr. Warner, that " Ban* croft was the first man who preached up the divine right of Episcopacy." How any man with the or- dinal and ordination offices before him can venture this assertion, is beyond my comprehension. I have shown, in my view of the matter, beyond the possibility of refutation, that the ordinal and offices of ordination declare Episcopacy to be a divine institution. This doctrine was then made by the Reformers, a standard principle of the church of 58 Letter XV. England. After this, the first defence of Episco- pacy, upon the ground of divine right, was by Whit- gift, and not by Bancroft. But this is really of no importance. It was needless to write an elaborate defence of Episcopacy, till it was attacked. The first attack made upon it was by Cartwright and his associates, in the year 1572, twenty-four years after the reformation. They published a book en- titled, An Admonition to the Parliament; the de- sign of which was to subvert the government of Bishops. An answer was given to this book by Dr. Whitgift, then Vice- Chancellor of the Univer- sity of Cambridge. Strype says of this book, that " it contained a very learned and satisfactory vin- dication of the church of England, and especially of the government of it by Bishops."* Some years afterwards, Sir F. Knollys, a great puritan, complains of Whitgift, that in this book he " had claimed, in the right of Bishops, a superiority belonging to them over all the inferior clergy from God's own ordi- nance."! In 1593 Whit gift, when promoted to the see of Canterbury, wrote a letter to Beza, in which he expostulates with him for intermeddling in the dis- pute between the church and the puritans. In that letter he says, " We make no doubt but that the Episcopal degree, which we bear, is an institution apostolic and divine ; and so hath always been held by a continual course of times, from the Apostles to • Life of Whitgift, p. 33. f Ibid. \x 34?. Testimony of the Reformers, 59 this very age of ours." Again : * You may re- member, learned Sir, the beginnings of that Epis- copacy, which you make to be only of human in- stitution, are referred by the Fathers, with one mouth, to the Aposdes, as the authors thereof; and that the Bishops were appointed as successors of the Apostles ; especially in certain points of their function. And what Aaron was to his sons, and to the Levites, this the Bishops were to the Priests and Deacons ; and so esteemed of the Fathers to be by divine institution."* It is now, Sir, proved incontrovertibly, that your guide, Dr. Warner, was in an error, when he as- serted that " Bancroft was the first that preached up the divine right of Episcopacy." It was preached by the Reformers, and made by them a fixed prin- ciple of the church; and as soon as the church was attacked by the Puritans, it was defended first by Whit gift, and afterwards by Bancroft and others, upon the ground of divine right. You next, Sir, tell us a story of Dr. Holland's checking Laud, afterwards Archbishop of Canter* -bury, for asserting, in a public disputation, the divine right of Episcopacy. What Dr. Holland thought, is of no more consequence than what you, or /think. We ought not to employ ourselves in collecting opinions ; that is a very irksome, and after all, a verv useless employment* Our business is to ex- • Life of Whitgift, p. 460. m Letter XV. hibit all the evidence that can be produced for or against Episcopacy. This is all that the eye of philosophy looks for ; any thing further may be calculated to catch the ignorant ; but can never have the least weight with a logical inquirer after truth. You go on. " The reformation in Scotland com- menced in the year 1560. The constitution of that church was formed, as every one knows, on the Presbyterian plan." Excuse -me, Sir; every one does not know that to have been the case. On the con- trary, every one who is acquainted with the history of that period, knows that the church of Scotland was not settled upon that plan. It is an essential princi- ple of Presbyterianism, that Christ founded the mi- nistry upon the ground of parity; consequently, if this were true, parity of ministers must be a divine institution. But this principle is rejected by the Re- formers of the church of Scotland; and there cannot be any doubt, that Episcopacy would have been esta- blished, had the Bishops reformed. There was also another circumstance, which contributed much to prevent the establishment of that regimen. By the constitution of the kingdom, the Bishops made one of the three estates of the realm ; it was, therefore, supposed that the Popish Bishops could not be le- gally dispossessed. They were, therefore, left in their sees, with all their revenues, and all their temporal powers. But this notwithstanding, Pro- testant Bishops might have been consecrated ; for it is not necessary that Bishops should have tern- Testimony of the Reformers. 61 poral jurisdiction, and great revenues. This un- happy error contributed much to prevent the esta- blishment of a proper Episcopacy. But still parity was disclaimed, and Superintendents, with Epis- copal jurisdiction were established. Bishop Sage, in his Presbytery Untwisted, names thirty points of superiority, which the Superintendents had over the Parish Ministers. In jurisdiction, they had all the powers of Bishops, and there was nothing want- ing but consecration to have made them such. This, Sir, was the plan of the reformation of the church of Scotland, and not the Presb) T terian plan, as you assert ; and with which (strange it is !) you sup- pose every one to be acquainted."* You go on, Sir, in one continued strain of error. You say, " This form" (the Presbyterian) " was retained until the year 1610, when prelacy was vio- lently introduced against the sense of the nation." I have shown that the church of Scotland was not formed upon the principle of parity, but of impa- rity ; and, consequently, Presbyterianism, which was not introduced in 1560, could not have been retained till 1610. The truth is, that it had no ex- istence till 1580, twenty years after the reforma- tion. And before Presbyterian government was established, a still nearer approach to Episcopacv took place in the year 1572. The plan of Superin- tendents was laid aside ; Clergymen, with the old * See Sage, Collier, Spotswood, Skinner, and Burnet. Vol. II. G 62 Letter XV. tides of Archbishops and Bishops were appointed ; they were put in possession of the revenues of the Sees, restored to the ancient jurisdiction, and made, as formerly, the third estate of the realm; and this government (although not strictly Episcopal, be- cause the Bishops were not consecrated) continued till the year 1584.* — Unaccountable, indeed, Sir, it is*, that you should not be acquainted with these notorious facts. A third error is contained in the following words. ** In that year, (1610), Spots-wood, Lamb, and Mfc milton, were consecrated Bishops in London, by some of the English prelates; and, on their return home, ^ey imparted the Episcopal dignity to a number of others. As they had been Presbyters before this time, Archbishop Bancroft proceeded to their corir secration as Bishops, without requiring them to be previously re -ordained as Priests; expressly deli- vering it as his opinion, that their former Presby- terian ordination was valid." Surely, Sir, you must know that there is a very different account given of this matter by Hey tin, Collier, and Grey. Bancroft, according to them, reasoned in a very different manner. He said * 4 that there was no necessity for the Scotch Bishops pass- ing through the intermediate orders of Deacon and Priest; for that the Episcopal character might be * Sage's Presbytery Untwisted, p. 270, and Collier's Eccles. ;Iist. yol. ii. p. 534. Testimony of the Reformers. 63 fully conveyed at a single consecration ;"* and for this he cited two precedents in the ancient church. The examples were Ambrose, Bi3hop of Milan, and Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople. This is a much better account of the transaction than you have given. You acknowledge that Ban- croft placed Episcopacy upon the ground of divine right ; we may, therefore, very reasonably suppose, that he would act upon a principle that is more con- sonant to that belief, than the one you imagine he acted upon. The principle, that the highest order necessarily comprehends the powers of the inferior orders, is perfectly correct, and may, therefore, in uncommon cases, be admitted ; although, in the ordinary course of things, it will be found expedient to proceed in a different manner. I really, Sir, am heartily tired of examining your statements. Some of them are so totally different from the facts, and others are placed in so unfair a point of view, that I believe our readers will think me fairly discharged from noticing every minute particular of this nature. But allowing that you have fairly represented the assertions of some Episcopa- lians, and of Luther and Calvin, and others ; pray, Sir, to what does it amount r Is truth to be tried by the opinions of a few great men t Does reason say it ought to be ? Certainly not. We must examine it by its proper evidence ; and when it is established by that evidence, it matters not how many narr.°°. * Collier's Ecclcs. Hist. vol. ii. n. 702. 64 Letter XV. can be brought against it. Were I disputing with you upon what are called the Cahinistic doctrines, I suspect it would excite in you some degree of in- dignation, were I to give you a long list of Presby- terian divines who have written against those doc- trines. You would, I believe, cut the matter short, and tell me, at once, that the truth of the Calvin- id tic doctrines is not to be tried in that manner, but by reason and scripture j and if they can be esta- blished upon these grounds, it matters not how many Ministers of a Cahinistic church are opposed to them. This would be perfectly correct, and no reasonable reply could be made to it. This observation may be applied with the strictest propriety to the present discussion. If I have proved from scripture and the ancients, that Episcopacy is a divine institution, then the matter is settled ; and if you could produce fifty times as many names as you have produced, it would be to no purpose, but to mislead the unthinking. The argument, (if it be not a prostitution of language to use the word in •his case) is, however, of a popular kind, and ad- mirably adapted to make an impression upon those who know not the nature of evidence, and, conse- quently, can have no fixed principles of reasoning. But if I have not established diocesan Episcopacy upon the grounds of scripture and antiquity, my showing that you have misrepresented Episcopa] writers, is nothing at all to the purpose. In the eye of a philosopher, the controversy was ended • Testimony of the Reformers, 65 with the testimony of scripture, interpreted by the practice of the primitive church. And the question concerning the principles of the church of Eng&md, and of her Reformers, was closed with the evidence produced to prove that they are Episcopal. What a few individuals then may say or think, is altoge- ther irrelevant to the point in dispute. Notwith- standing this cannot be denied, yet I shall consider, in toy next letter, what you call the concessions of Episcopalians upon the subject of Episcopacy. It is also, I conceive, needless for me to take a particular view of the sentiments of Luther, and Cahi:i, and Beza. and other Reformers; that has been sufficiently done by Dure!!, and many others since his day, and lately by Dr. Hobart, It is, I conceive, beyond reasonable controversy, that Cal- vin, at first, did plead necessity for his departure from Episcopal government; and that he did ac- knowledge it to have been the government of all the churches upon earth, from the times of the" Aposdes, for 1500 years together.* - " But his ex- traordinary Gpinion of Episcopacy will farther ap- pear in a letter which he and Bullinger, and other learned men beyond Sea, wrote in 1549 to Edxvard the sixth, offering to make him their defender, and to have Bishops in their churches for better unity and concord amongst them, as appears from Stn r A, given us by Coke, Whitehead, and Charles Wes- ley, convinces me that John Wesley, at the very time that he thus abandoned Apostolic usage, was * Ses a pamphlet latv 75 Letter XVI. not satisfied with the correctness of his own con- duct. Charles Wesley says^ in his letter to Dr. Chandler, which has been published and republished in this country, that he was at his brother's elbow all the time, and that he did not give him the least hint of his intention. He was afraid of encounter- ing his brother Charles's arguments against such a measure ; for Charles was very primitive in his no- tions of Episcopacy. Another circumstance which convinces me that jfohn Wesk'fs mind was not quite at ease when he assumed the Episcopal cha- racter, is, that he was evidently persuaded to take that very unjustifiable step by Coke, and two or three others, and that it did not originate from himself. I le appears to me to have yielded rather to impor- tunity than to conviction. A third reason is, that he was evidently ashamed of the whole business ; tor the pretended consecration to the Episcopal of- fi:e was not performed in public, but in a private room ; thus realizing, as Charles Wesley says, " the Xags-llead ordination, and robbing his friends of their boasting." The last reason for my conviction i:, what I have already mentioned, that he after* wards wished to retrace his steps, and to undo, as far as he could, what he had done. Taking all these circumstances together, I am satisfied, that John Wesley acted from a doubting mind, if not abso- lutely in contradiction to his own conviction* But, admitting that he was really convinced by Lord King 4 yet, I think, that Charles Wesley's ex- Testimony of other Witnesses of the Truth. 77 cuse for him is the best that can possibly be made — " My brother was eighty-two years of age when he took this fatal step." The other observation that I shall make upon this rash measure is, the great danger, and mischievous consequences of departing either from the doctrine, or discipline of the primitive church in the purest and best ages. Trace any heresy, or any schism you please, and it will be found to be a deviation from the church in one or the other of these re spects. Christianity can admit of no improvements, It was complete the moment the canon of scripture was closed ; and those who lived in, or near the Apostolic age, had many advantages for under- standing what were the doctrines, the constitution, and the discipline of the Christian church, which we have not. The Holy Scriptures, expounded and elucidated by primitive and universal belief and practice, will effectually secure us from the delu- sions, the heresies and schisms of later ages ; and if John Wesley had governed himself by this rule, in- stead of giving himself up to Lord King's dictates, we never should have heard of the spurious Episco- pacy of the Methodists. I shall now, Sir, go back to the first part of your sixth letter, the consideration of which I post- poned, till I had taken a view of what you have said concerning the English Reformers. The first thing deserving of notice, is your ad- ducing the Wcttdenscs, as witnesses to Presbyterian 112 78 Letter XVL parity. You say that they maintained that " there ought to be no diversity of rank among Ministers of the gospel — that Bishops and Presbyters, accord- ing to the word of God, and primitive practice, were the same order ; and that their ecclesiastical or- gan izatioli was Presbyterian in its form." Now, Sir, I maintain, on the contrary, that the Waldenses were Episcopal, both in principle and practice. My first authority is Mosheim* He says, u The government of the church was committed, by the Waldenses, to Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons; for they acknowledged that those three ecclesias- tical orders were instituted by Christ himself."* This is a very explicit, and very strong testimony against you. The next testimony is, perhaps, stronger than Mosheim\. It is that of Dr. Allix, who- minutely examined the history of this body of Christians, and pronounced them to have been Episcopal. I have not AHix's Remarks upon the ancient Churches of Piedmont; I must, therefore, be indebted to Dr. Chandler for what follows. The Doctor observes, that u Allix has abundantly proved, that the Walden- ses always preserved, under all their persecutions and dispersions, the same form of church govern- ment, from the time of their separation from the church of Rome, in the eleventh century ; and that they distinguished their clergy into three orders — * Eccles. Hist, vol. iii. p. 126 Testimony of other Witnesses of the Truth, ¥9 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. He proves this even from the testimonies of those enemies, who endeavoured to fix upon them the reproach of al- lowing the laity to preach and administer the sacra*- ments. And he proves it more fully from their own writers."* My third testimony against you, I also take from Dr. Chandler, He quotes the author of " The In- validity of the dissenting Ministry" who says, that " in 1717, a contribution was made throughout England for the Waldenses, and that, on that occa- sion, it clearly appeared that their church was Epis- copal, like the church of England, for which they always pray in their Liturgy." But what settles this matter in the most satis- factory manner, is what follows. The Bohemian church, in its preface to the book called, Ratio Dis- ciplince, Ordinisque £cclesiastici in Unitate Fratrum Bohemorum, says : " And whereas the said Wal- denses did affirm, that they had lawful Bishops, and a lawful uninterrupted succession from the Apostles unto this day ; they solemnly created three of our Ministers Bishops, and conferred upon them power to ordain Ministers."j And, in conformity with this, Commenius, the historian of the Bohemians, says : " The Protestants of Bohemia, who were ap- prehensive that ordinations, in which Presbyters, and not a Bishop, should create another Presbyter, ." Appeal defended, p. 91, 92. f Ibid. p. 69. €0 Litter XVI. would not be lawful ,• and were in doubt how they should be able to maintain such an ordination, either to others when they opposed, or to their own peo- ple when they questioned it, — sent deputies to the remains of the ancient Waldenses, upon the con- fines of Moravia and Austria y by whose Bishops these deputies were consecrated to the Episcopal office, which they have ever since transmitted to their successors."* From these accounts it appears beyond contra- diction, that the Waldenses had Diocesan, and not Presbyterian Bishops, as you assert— that they con- secrated three Presbyters to the Episcopal office, who were sent by the Bohemians for that purpose—^ and that they were persuaded that they had an un- interrupted succession of Bishops from the Apostles. Of what consequence is it now, Sir, to inform us, that Eneas Sylvius, (afterwards Pope Pius the se- cond) and the Monk, V/alsingham, and one or two more of the Popish enemies of the Waldenses, charged them with maintaining, that Bishop and Presbyter were only different names for the same of- ficer. They charged them also, with allowing lay- men to preach and administer the sacraments. They were loaded with every kind of reproach, and de- stroyed with every species of cruelty. What such men said of them has no weight, when set in oppo- sition to the respectable authorities which I have quoted. 1 Com. in F»t. Bohem. as quoted by Bishop Ellys. Testimony of other Witnesses of the Truth. &1 Your next witness in favour of Presbyterian pa- rity, is John Wickliffe, Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, It is not, Sir, an easy matter, whatever yoa may think, to determine what Wkkliffeh principles were. Thus far I believe we may go with safety : He opposed the Pope's supremacy, transubstanti- ation, the worship of images, the invocation of saints,- and some minor points. But scriptural and rational as he was with regard to these subjects, yet he maintained some very shocking doctrines. Col- lier has given us a view of them, as he took them from Waldensis and Harpsfeld, These men, to be sure, were Wickliffe** enemies, and, therefore, we ought not to place implicit confidence in them. But if we receive their testimonies with respect to him in some particulars, we must in all, unless we can find impartial historians, who contradict these men upon the offensive tenets with which they charge Wickliffe. I will exhibit a few of those tenets as I find them in Collier.* . 1st. Wickliffe maintains a stoical fate, and makes all things proceed from absolute necessity. God, says he, forcibly determines all creatures to their respective actions. Every one that will be damned, is a devil like Judas, Judas was chosen by our Saviour's humanity. This, says Harpsfeld^ makes men friends by predestination, and is a more hor- * Eccks. Hjst. vol. i. p 584, 585, 536. 82 Letter XVI. rible doctrine than that of the Manichaeans, who made man the author of his own miscarriage, and did not fetch the principal of evil from God Al- mighty. 2d. Wickliffe is charged with denying infant bap- tism, and with giving a most absurd interpretation of our Saviour's declaration, that, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. He affirms, that by these words we are to understand only the water which flowed from our Saviour's side, in conjunction with the baptism of the spirit. 3d. He disallows imposition of hands in ordina- tion, and all other ceremonies of an outward cal- ling. He is likewise said to have given women the privilege of the priesthood and pulpit, and to allow Priests to ordain to their own order. 4th. Wickliffe is charged with several hetero- doxies relating to the attributes and operations of the Almighty. As that, God always acts to the extent of his power, and can do nothing more nor otherwise, than what he does : That he could not alter the state of the creation, the order of things, or make the world greater or less than it is : That the First Cause is limited in the creation of human souls, and cannot exceed such a fixed and deter- mined number, nor annihilate any thing. 5th. Several errors relating to our Saviour are ascribed to him ; as that our Saviour had three na- tures in a separate sense j whereas, the scriptures Testimony of other Witnesses of the Truth, 83 mform us that he consists only of two, the human and divine. Lastly : He is charged with denying that a Bishop is superior to a Priest. These, Sir, are but a few of WickHffe's hetero- doxies, as they are given us by Collier.* Now, you may either receive all, or reject all. Take Wickliffe^ with some important truths, and many gross errors, and what does it all amount to ? Precisely to this t that it was wasting time and paper to have noticed him. But as you fiave brought him to view, it was expedient for me to show, that Wickliffe*s opinion, with respect to Episcopacy, is of no more conse- quence than George Fox's, with respect to a minis- try in any degree, or under any form. You go on, Sir, in the same irrelevant and useless manner. You inform us, that the renowned mar- tyrs, jfohn Huss, and Jerome of Prague, who laid down their lives for the truth, a little after the time of Wickliffe, embraced the greater part, if not all the opinions of the English Reformer, and especi- ally his doctrine concerning the parity of Christian Ministers. You then quote Eneas Sylvius to prove this, but do not let us know in what part of his works we are to look for the quotation ; and you say, that this account is confirmed by Thuanus % without any reference to page or volume. Were I to pass over the whole of this, it would be * See aUo Mcsheim, vol. iii. p. 533, 84 Letter XVI. treating the matter as it. deserves. When a writer gives us no particular reference, his assertion is not entitled to any notice. But waving this, I observe — First, That Collier, in the view he gives us of John Huss > and Jerome's sentiments, does not say a word of their notions of ecclesiastical govern- ment. This, indeed, taken alone, does not amount to much. But taken in connection with what fol- lows, it has some weight. In the second place ; Mosheim does not say that John Huss maintained the principle of ministerial parky. And Mosheim's translator, Dr. Maclean, asserts, that he adopted the opinions of Wickliffe only " in relation to the papal hierarchy, the despot- ism of the court of Rome, and the corruption of the clergy ; for in other respects, it is certain that he adhered to the most superstitious doctrines of the church, as appears by two sermons he had prepared for the council. of Constance"* It cannot, therefore, be deemed of any conse- quence, that Eneas Syhras (admitting the correct- ness of your quotation) charges John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, with maintaining the principle of ministerial parity. . . Although I do not think it of the least mo- ment what Sylvius says upon this point, yet I wish to have access to his works, to see with my own eyes, what he asserts with respect to these men, and * Mosheim 's Ecc'.es. Hist. vol. iii p. 410. -/ restimony of other Witnesses of the Truth. Ho the Waldenscs. But I have not his writings, nor do I know who has. They are, I find, in the library of Philadelphia; as appears from some notes in my possession, made upon your book by a sensible and candid Clergyman of that city. " As Dr. Mil- ler (says he) quotes Thuanus, Eneas Sylvius, and XValsingham, to prove, that the Bishops of the Wal- denses were mere Presbyters, I this day [July 27th] looked into these authors, in the Library ; but in the places to which the indexes refer, could find no- thing to the purpose. In Thitanus, there is a pas- sage, which I find translated in Bishop Newton; but this cannot serve Dr. Miller's turn. Eneas Syl- vius mentions them cursorily, when he introduces his account of John IIuss. But the intemperate manner in which he speaks of both John Huss and the Waldenses, would at least invalidate what is brought from him, if it be there, which I doubt. In Walsingham I could find nothing; and, indeed, I should lay little stress on any thing from this monk- ish writer." " When I looked on Bishop NexvtorCs, and at Dr. MosheinCs representations of the Waldenses, and at the respectable, early testimonies, so far back as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which they refer to in their notes, I am surprised at Dr. Miller's bringing against them the testimony of Walsingham and Syl- vius, who lived in the fifteenth, and that of Thuanus, who lived in the sixteenth century ; even supposing their testimony to be as stated; of which, to say the Vol. II. I V A So Letter XVI. least, / have great doubts? 1 Thus writes a man, who would not wilfully misrepresent any thing. You next quote a passage from Tyndal, who was a canon of Oxford, in the reign of Henry the eighth. But I can see nothing in the quotation to which I cannot very readily subscribe. " All that were called Elders (or Priests, if they so will) were called Bi- shops also, though they have _ now divided the names." This is very correct. Presbyters were undoubtedly called Bishops at first, but at the begin- ning of the second century, those who succeeded to the Apostolical pre-eminence, had the title of Bishop appropriated to them. This Tyndal, according to Collier^ was very he- terodox, upon both Popish and Protestant principles. To mention but one particular : He maintained that all Christians were Priests, and denied the necessity of any distinct order. Such a man's ideas of ec- clesiastical regimen, can be of no consequence, one way or the other. Iximberfs testimony is also of the same import with that of TyndaFs. He certainly did not mean to exclude the Apostles from their rank in the church ; and then there were three orders, Apostles, Presbyters or Bishops, and Deacons. The commu- nity of names is nothing at all to the purpose, as has been proved, almost to a demonstration. I have now, Sir, to examine what you are pleased to call the Concessions of Episcopalians, * Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 72. Testimony of other Witnesses of the Truth. Wf Before you come to the point, you prudently make the following observations : " When I exhi- bit Episcopal divines as making concessions in fa- vour of our doctrine, none, certainly, will understand me as meaning to assert, that they were Presbyte- rians in principle. So far from this, the chief value of their concessions consists in being made by de- cided friends of Episcopacy. Neither will you un- derstand me to assert, that none of these writers say anything, in other parts of their works, inconsistent with these concessions. It is enough for me to know what language they employed, xvhen they un- dertook professedly to state tnei sub- ject before us"* It appears from this quotation, that you do not bring to view the writers named in your Letter, for the purpose of showing that they were Presbyterians in principle. A Presbyterian is one who believes that the Apostles, acting by divine direction, left the Ministers of the church in a state of perfect equality. You acquit the authors quoted from maintaining this principle. Well then, what did they maintain? That the Apostles, directed bv the Holy Ghost, left the church under no particular form of government ? That opinion is absurd ; for home form even' society must have ; and the scrip- tures declare the church to be a society ; and it is e\ i- dent to common sense that it is. Now, if th \ SB Letter XVI. authors did not believe the church to have been committed to Ministers, acting upon a footing of equality, then they must have believed that the Apostles established the ministry upon a principle ot imparity / and this is true and proper Episcopacy. 2. If the Episcopalians whom you quote believed that imparity among the Ministers of the Gospel was established by the Apostles, then they must have believed that the Apostles acted either under the direction of the Holy Ghost, or that they acted from their own private judgment. If they, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, established impa* rity, then imparity is a divine institution. If so* then the authority of the Holy Ghost, by which imparity was established, is necessary to abolish it ; for it is an acknowledged principle, in both human and divine governments, that no less power than that which institutes, can abrogate. Consequently, if those Episcopalians, who assert that Episcopacy was established by the Apostles, acting under the direction of the Holy Ghost, do at the same time assert, that Episcopacy may be abrogated by human power, they involve themselves in palpable incon- sistency ; as then they assert, that an inferior power may abrogate what has been established by a supe- rior j that is, that man may annul what God has in- stituted. This not only involves an absurdity in principle, but also leaves Christ's church complete- ly at the disposal of whim, ignorance, interest, and passion. Upon this ground there is no such thing Testimony of other Witnesses of the Truth. 89 33 a principle of unity ; no such thing as a ministry deriving its authority from Christ ; no such thing as Ambassadors of Christ, as Stewards of the household of God. Those are Ministers who make themselves such, or are made such by the people. No criterion of genuine priesthood remains, nor was ever established. The body of Christ is as multi- form as clay in the hands of the potter, and every thing is a church, which man pleases to call so. But if any Episcopalian, who maintains that Episcopacy was established by the Apostles, should, at the same time, assert, that the Apostles, in estab- lishing it, acted from their best judgment, and not by the direction of the Holy Ghost, then thev have as great difficulties to encounter, as the above de- scription of Episcopalians. 1. They contradict the whole tenor of the New Testament. Christ instituted a ministry, and promised to be with that ministry to the end of the world. This is beyond a doubt. 2. Christ promised the Apostles, that he would send the Holy Ghost to lead them into all the truth, with which it was necessarv for his church to be acquainted. And, accordingly, the Holy Ghost de- scended upon the Apostles. This also i3 beyond contradiction. 3. The Aposdes ordained Presbyters and Dea- cons : and the Apostle Paul sent Timothv to Ephe- 12 00 Letter XVI. sw, and Titus to Crete, to ordain those ministers. And it appears, that this was sometimes, if not al- ways, done by the special direction of the Holy Ghost. These things cannot be denied. Then it follows, 4. That the constitution of the Christian church, •as to its ministry, was fixed and rendered perma- nent by Christ, and that, therefore, the Apostles were not left to their own judgment. But, 5. If we were even to grant that the Apostles were left to their own judgment, yet, if Episcopacy was established by them, as the present case sup- poses, then the power of ordination was attached to the order of Bishops, as those Episcopalians allow, and as, indeed, the order of things necessarily im- plies j for in every government, commissions must How from the fountain head : then it will follow, that Presbyters, not having been invested with that power by the Apostles, cannot possibly exer- cise it without usurpation. So that, whether the Apostles acted under the authority of the Holy Ghost, or from their own judgment, the constitu- tion of the church having been settled by them, in the article of ordination, no subsequent alteration by others, in this particular, can be deemed valid. 6. To this consideration of invalidity must be added all the consequences resulting from the for- mer case. Those are, leaving the church entirely at the disposal of whim, ignorance, interest, and Testimony of other Witnesses of the Truth. 9? passion ; and, consequently, implanting in its very constitution the seeds of variety, confusion, and de- formity. From these considerations, it appears to me, that no one who asserts that Episcopacy is an Apostolic institution, but, at the same time, admits, that it is not perpetually binding* (at least where it may be had) can be considered as holding an opinion con- sistent with scripture, with the nature of Episco- pacy, and with those principles that are necessarily involved in the very idea of government. I have made these observations to show, that if even the authors whom you quote, should, upon ex- amination, turn out as you would have them, yet, acknowledging Episcopacy to be an Apostolical in- stitution, their deductions from that fact do not at all affect the point in question. Their opinion upon the consequences of the fact is worth no more than their reasoning upon which the opinion is found- ed. Let that be correct, or not, they acknowledge that Episcopacy is an Apostolical institution ; and that is all that I am concerned about. The first writer whom you mention in favour of your cause, is Mr. Dodwell. That you should name him, is a very extraordinary instance of impru- dence. Perhaps no man ever maintained the divine institution of Episcopacy more zealously than he did. The whole tenor of his writings evince this. He does not so much as hint, that the first Bishop? &2 Letter XVI. were consecrated by Presbyters, as you assert. He repeatedly declares, that the first Bishops were or- dained by the Apostles ; that every Bishop in his diocese, was what the High Priest was in the Jew- ish church; and that as the High Priest was a type of Christ, so the Bishop, in the Christian church, is his representative, or vicegerent. And from this principle, he argues against Presbyterian ordination. He held, indeed, the singular opinion, that St, James was divinely appointed to a supremacy over the whole Christian church, which supremacy he sup- posed continued till the destruction of Jerusalem* That then it was transferred to the Bishop of Ephe- sus: but that the Apostles, before their death, esta- blished Bishops generally over the churches; and that a succession from this source had continued through all ages, to the time when he wrote ; and that it would continue to the end of the world. Mr. Dodzvell also supposed, that as this general establishment of Episcopacy by the Apostles, acting under the influence of the Holy Ghost, did not take place till all the Epistles were written, we are not to look for a particular and explicit exposition of this Ecclesiastical regimen in the New Testament ; but that, as the whole church of Christ, in every age subsequent to the Apostolic, bears testimony to the divine institution of Episcopacy, the fact is thereby as fully ascertained as the canon of scrip- ture, the institution of the Lord's day, and the prac- Testimony of ether Witnesses of the Truth, 93 •ice of baptizing infants ; and this, he maintains, is at complete proof, as can be produced for any mat- rer of fact whatever. How you could think of naming Dodwell, as in any degree, or in any point of view, favourable to your side of the question, is more than I can com- prehend. He has always been considered as a strong Episcopalian, upon the ground of divine right. He does not stop here ; but deduces from this principle, what appeared to him to be its ge- nuine consequences, viz. the invalidity of Presby- terian ordination ; the inefficacy, but by extraordi- nary grace, of all the administrations of Presby- ters thus ordained ; and the unjustifiable schism of all who set up churches upon a principle of parity*. If such a man can be of any service to you, Sir, you are very welcome to him. The next person whom you name, not indeed as maintaining a parity of ministers, but as holding the opinion, that Presbyters were not ordained till after the canon of scripture was closed, is Dr. Hammond, Pray, Sir, why. do you quote writers who can render you no manner of service ? You know very well, that Dr. Hammond maintained the divine right of Episcopacy. If he had a particular notion about the time when Presbvters were or- dained, what is that to the general principle ? It is very probable, Sir, that you and I have not precisely the same notions about the doctrines of the Trinity. and the atonement; and if we were to give our sen 94 " Letter XVI. timents to the public upon these points, would it not be very preposterous in a Socinian, to quote us as not agreeing precisely in our ideas ? I have no xloubt, Sir, that you and some of your brethren differ con- siderably in your views of the divine decrees, free- dom of will, election, and reprobation ; yet were I disputing with you upon these points, I should think it very weak, to adduce the particulars in which you differ, as proofs against the truth of those doctrines. A perfect agreement in men's conceptions upon any doctrine, is hardly to be ex- pected. When they admit the truth of the doctrine, that is all that a reasonable man should look for. No men more firmly believed the divine right of Episcopacy than Dodwell and Hammond ; and no men more strenuously maintained it. The next thing worthy of notice is, your quoting four authorities among the Papists, in proof that Bishops and Priests were the same in the primitive church. Your first authority is the canons of Elfrrc, in the year 990. In those canons, you say, " Bishops and Presbyters are declared to be of the same order" Pray, Sir, why did you not give us the words of the canon ? I ask you seriously, do you think your- self entitled to an answer, when you do not give us the words of an author t If this had happened but in a few instances, a patient reader might bear with it ; but when it occurs so very often* it is almost in tolerable. Testimony of other Witnesses of the Truth. §5 The canon which you must have had in view-, is the seventeenth. " It describes," says Collier, " the character of a Mass, or Parish-Priest, and lays it down for a rule, that there is no difference between a Priest and a Bishop, excepting that the Bishop has the privilege of ordination, of visiting the diocese, and managing the grand affairs of religion; and though both act within the same order, yet the nobler part of it belongs to the Bishop."* Can it be possible, Sir, that you see any thing in this canon favourable to your cause ? Is it of any consequence, whether we say Bishops and Presby- ters are of a different order, or of a different de- gree ? I prefer the former ; but I do not find fault with any Episcopalian who uses the latter, if he ac- knowledges, as is done in the canon, that ordina- tion, and a supremacy of jurisdiction, are the pre- rogatives of the Bishop. These powers, in the opi- nion of the generality of Episcopalians, create a different order ; and to me it appears the more cor- rect way of speaking. Bishop Burnet has already been quoted as observing, that the word degree came into vogue in the Romish church, after the doctrine of transubstantiation was broached; but, at the same time, it was maintained by all those who thus spoke, that the Bishop has powers, by divine institution, which the Priest has not. And this being acknowledged, it is of no consequence whe- • Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 207. 96 Letter XVI. ther we use the word order , or degree* This will serve as an answer to two or three other quotations of the same kind. Your second authority, before the Reformation, is Anselme, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died about the year 1109. You say, that he explicitly tells us, that, " by the Apostolic institution, all Pres- byters are Bishops." You then refer to his com- mentary on the Epistles to Titus and the Philip- pians. Upon reading this quotation, it struck me that there must be an error somewhere or other. I could not think that Anselme, who, according to Du Pin, was a very strong Catholic, would use the language of your quotation. To satisfy myself, I first con- sulted Collier, who gives a list of Anselme's works, but he does not mention the commentary you have quoted. I next consulted Du Pin, who is still more minute in his list of the Archbishop's writ- ings ; but I found no such commentary in the list. I then had recourse to Cave's Historia Liter aria, in Which I find the commentary marked as a spu- rious work,* This, Sir, is an unfortunate elucida- tion for the extract you have given us. Your next quotation is from the Canon Law, yustelle's Collection of Canons is not within my reach. But even in the quotation which you have given us, I do not see any thing that is much amiss. * Vol. ii. p. 162. Saculum Hildebrandinum. Testimony of other Witnesses of the Truth. 97 It seems to be nothing more nor less than Jerome's opinion, — >that to prevent schism, Bishops were set over the Presbyters by general consent. This may be true or not, according to the sense in which it is taken. I suspect, Sir, that all is not quite right with respect to this quotation ; but I cannot, at pre- sent, throw the same light upon it that I have upon the one immediately preceding. Your last Catholic testimony is from the Consul- tations of Cassander. This testimony does not dif- fer materially from the last ; and as I have not ac- cess to CassandeSs writings, I must content myself with the same answer that I have given to your extract from the Canon Law. I have now, Sir, shown that the canons of Elfric are pointedly, and decidedly in our favour ; and that the testimony which you ascribe to Anselme, is not taken from his genuine writings. And as to the two last quotations, although I cannot at present throw that light upon them that I wish ; yet, I have not a doubt, that if I had the books to which you refer, I should be able to show, that you have failed as much in these, as in the others. I shall close this letter with one observation. — It is an easy matter, by means of scraps, and sentences expressed in vague terms, to make an author speak almost any thing that we wish. In this way, I could make you appear a very good Episcopalian, and a person who had not access to your book would be at a loss to prove, that the quotations were partial and Vol. II. K 98 Letter XVI. imperfect. I have, in the course of this discussion, shown this kind of management to be so common in your Letters, that I suspect, even your friends will shrug up their shoulders, and make some very unfavourable exclamations. They, no doubt, will acquit you, as I certainly do, of all designed misre- presentation ; but still they will, if I mistake not, be pretty unanimously of opinion, that you ought to have been more particular in your investigation, and have trusted less to others. ( 09 ) LETTER XVIL Rev. Sir, AFTER giving your readers four quotations from authors before the Reformation, in favour, as you suppose, of Presbytery, you proceed to observe, " that all the first Reformers of the church of Eng~ landireely acknowledged Bishops and Presbyters to have been the same in the Apostolic age ; and only defended diocesan Episcopacy as a wise human ap- pointment." This I have proved to be most grossly erroneous. I have proved it from the preface to the ordinal, and from the ordination offices. I have proved that Cranmer placed Episcopacy upon the ground of Apostolic institution, and that all the Reformers were of the same mind. So much evidence has been produced upon this point, that I cannot conceive it possible for any human mind to resist its force. I have also proved that you committed an error, when you asserted that Bancroft was the first who placed Episcopacy upon the ground of divine right* Whitgift had done so seventeen years before Ban- croft.* The former published his answer to the * Collier, vol. ii. p. 537. 100 Letter XVIL Admonition to the Parliament, in the year 1571 j the latter, by your own account, preached his famous sermon in the year 1588. You next, Sir, give us a long quotation from Dr. Raignolds, from which it appears, that he did not conceive Episcopacy was founded upon divine right. To quote Raignolds in favour of the human institu- tion of Episcopacy, is much like quoting a Presby- terian in favour of it. You must certainly know, that this learned professor was a leading man among the Puritans, and that he was the prolocutor of their commissioners, at the famous Hampton court con- ference. What a number of cavils he advanced on that occasion, may be seen in Collier's ecclesias- tical history. To quote such a man can hardly be considered as candid. It is true, he did not sepa- rate from the church ; and, therefore, I suppose, you rank him among Episcopalians. But a man cannot, with any propriety, be viewed in that light, although he may be officiating in an Episcopal church, when he renounces the very principle which discriminates Episcopacy from Presbytery. It is not a form of prayer that makes the distinction; for there are several Presbyterian churches that use forms. It is not any doctrines peculiar to either that discriminate ; the doctrines, except the article of election, with its counterpart reprobation, are the same, or nearly so. It is not that the one uses rites and ceremonies, and that the other does not use them ; for rites and ceremonies, in a greater or less Concessions of Episcopalians, 101 degree, belong to all churches that have any preten- sions to decency. No; these are not the points of difference between Episcopalians and Presbyterians. The grand distinction between them is, as I have already observed, that one holds Episcopacy to have been instituted by the Apostles, guided by the Holy Ghost ; the other, that a parity of ministers rests upon the same foundation. Raignolds, therefore, had no just claim to the character of an Episcopa- lian, and, consequently, his testimony is that of an enemy, and not of a friend. Your next quotation is from Archbishop Whitgift, who, you say, " referring to the great attention which Bancroft's sermon had excited^ observed that it had done good ; but added, that with respect to the offensive doctrine which it contained, he rather wished, tlian believed it to be true." I shall give you the answer to this, which Dr. Chandler gave forty years ago to Dr. Chauncu % when he urged it. " This is incredible in itself, and seems to rest altogether on NeaVs authority. This historian, in his account of Bancroft's sermon, refers to no other evidence than Strype^s life of Whit gift; and in that book the anecdote is not to be met with. But near this time, viz. in 1589, the Archbishop, in answer to the calumnies of Martin Mar, prelate, says, ' that he zvas persuaded, that there ought to be by the xvord of God, a superi- ority among the ministers of the church; and thai K2 102 Letter XVII. it xvas sufficiently proved in his book against CarU kvright. And that he was at all times readif to jus* tify it by the holy scriptures, and by the testimony of all antiquity?* This clearly shows, that the Archbishop did not wish, but believed Bancroft's doctrine to be true."f This testimony, with that quoted in the last letter, evinces, beyond contradiction, that Whitgift main- tained Episcopacy on the ground of divine right. When, therefore, he says, (as you quote him) u It is well known that the manner and form of govern- ment used in the Apostle T s time, and expressed in the scriptures, neither is now, nor can, nor ought to be observed, either touching the persons or func- tions ;" he must certainly mean persons and func- tions, which are not essential to Episcopal regimen, otherwise he flatly contradicts himself. That a man should write a book to prove Episcopacy to be founded on the word of God, and after, in his own opinion, he has fully gained his point - r that he should then very gravely tell his readers, notwith- standing Episcopacy is founded on divine autho- rity, yet men may abolish it whenever they think proper, and substitute in its place whatever whim may suggest; that he should do this, carries im- probability upon the very face of it. But con- clusive as this presumption would be with every candid man, yet I am not obliged to depend afto- * Life of Whitgifr, p. 304. t Appeal defended, p. 37 Concessions of Episcopalians. 1€>3 gether upon it. I have Whitgift's own words, from which it will appear that I have represented him with perfect correctness. It is well known that the Puritans maintained, that nothing is to he admitted into the worship or discipline of the church, that is not prescribed in the word of God. This Whitgift denies ; and strenuously contends, that things of a mutable na- ture, grounded altogether upon expediency, are and must be admitted into the church of Christ. Thus, in his defence of the Answer to the Admoni- tion written by Cartwright> he has the following words — u Visible and external government, is that which is executed by man, and consisteth of exter- nal discipline, and visible ceremonies practised in that church that containeth in it both good and evil. For so much as you make mention of excommuni- cation, I take it that you mean the external govern- ment of the church, and that kind of government. And yet I must ask you, — -whether you mean that this government [excommunication and other cen- sures] is necessaiy at all times, or then when the church is collected together, and in such place where it may have government. For you know that the church is sometimes by persecution so dis- persed, that it appeareth not, as we read Apoca- lypse 6, so that it cannot have any external govern- ment, or exercise of any discipline. But to be short, I confess that in a church collected together in one place, and at liberty, government [discipline, 104 Letter XVII. excommunication and other censures] is necessary in the second kind of necessity, [that is, without which a thing cannot so well and conveniently bej ; but that any one kind of government [discipline, &c] is so necessary, that without it the church can- not be saved, or that it may not be altered into some other kind thought to be more expedient, I utterly deny."* Again : Whitgift, speaking of Cartwright's ridi- culous assertion, that u the government of the com- monwealth must be framed according to the go- vernment of the church, even as the hangings to the house," very justly observes—" this is a dan- gerous error, and springeth of this, that he doth not distinguish betwixt the essential points of the government of the church, and the accidental points of the same ; for the essential points of ecclesiasti- cal government, may well agree with any lawful state of commonwealth, and civil kind of govern- ment ; as the gospel may be truly preached in them all, the sacraments rightly ministered, discipline duly executed, and such like. But the accidental points of government (as the manner of electing ministers, the kind of discipline, accidental ceremo- nies, and other such like rites and circumstances) may be varied according to time, place, and cir- cumstances.'^ There is a great deal more to the same purpose in other parts of his book. * Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, p. 80, 87 •f Table of dangerous doctrines. Concessions of Episcopalians. 105 It is evident from these quotations, that when Whit gift pleads for the mutability of government, he means of discipline, of church censures, of rites and ceremonies, and not of Episcopacy. Yet no doubt he maintained, even with respect to Episco- pacy, what every Episcopal writer that I have ever met with maintains, that this government is not ab- solutely necessary to the very salvation of the church, but that it is so necessary, that the church cannot be in a sound and perfect state without it. I think, Sir, that I have now given sufficient proof, that Whitgift maintained the divine right of Episcopacy, in this sense — that it was instituted by the Apostles acting under the direction of the Holy Ghost, and therefore not to be laid aside upon a pretence, that it would be more convenient to adopt some other regimen. The next writer whom I conceive you have mis- represented, is Bishop Bilaon. You quote a pas- sage from his work against Seminaries, in which, if the passage be correctly quoted, he says, " that Bishops came in after the Apostles' time." I have not the work to which you refer ; but I have his book entitled, " The perpetual Government of Christ's Church." In the preface to that work, he has the following words : u Who succeeded the Apostles, whether ail Presbyters equally, or certain chief and chosen men, one in every church and city, trusted with the government both of the peo- ple and Presbyters, I have largely debated, and 106 Letter XVII. made it plain, as well by the scriptures as by other ancient writers past all exception, that from the Apostles to the first Nicene council, and so all along to this our age, there have always been selected some of greater gifts than the residue, to succeed in the Aposdes' places ; to whom it belonged, both to moderate the Presbyters of each church, and to take the special charge of imposition of hands ; and this their singularity in succeeding, and superiority in ordaining, have been observed from the Apos- tles' times, as the peculiar and substantial marks of Episcopal power and calling." " I know," continues he, " some late writers vehe- mently spurn at this, and hardly endure any differ- ence betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, unless it be by custom and consent of men, but in no case by any or- der or institution of the Apostles ; whose opinions, together with the authorities on which they build, I have, according to my skill, examined, and find them no way able to rebate the full and sound evi- dence that is for the contrary. For what more preg- nant probation can be required, than that the same power and precepts which Paul gave to Timothy, when he had the charge of Ephesus, remained in all the churches throughout the world, to certain special and tried persons authorised by the Apostles themselves, and from them derived to their after- comers by a general and perpetual succession in every church and city, without conference to enlarge it, or council to decree it j the continuing whereof Concessions of Episcopalians. 107 for three descents, the Apostles saw with their eyes, confirmed with their hands, and St. John, amongst others witnessed, with his pen, as an order of ruling the church, approved by the express voice of the Son of God. When the original proceeded from the Apostles' mouth, and was observed in all the fa- mous places and churches of Christendom where the Apostles taught, and whilst they lived ; can any man doubt whether that course of governing the church were Apostolic ? For my part, I confess I am neither so wise as to overreach it with policy, nor so wayward as to withstand it with obstinacy." It is impossible to reconcile these, and numerous other passages with that which you quote. The great object of Bilsorfs work is to prove Episcopacy an Apostolical institution ; and I cannot but think that whoever will read him with impartiality, will be satisfied that he has gained his point. — I there- fore conclude, that the passage which you quote, is not in the original ; or that it is so garbled as not to express the author's sense ! Bishop Jewel is another Episcopalian, whom you quote for some purpose or other; I do not very well know for what. Do you mean to infer from the quotation, that the Bishop thought Epis- copacy was a human institution? If that be your meaning, you do him great injustice. Try, Sir, whether you can reconcile that opinion with the following extracts. — M The truth is, this church hath been persecuted, because she alone, of all the 108 Letter XVII. churches in Europe, has had the blessing and sin- gular favour of God to reform with prudence, mo- deration, and an exact and regular conduct, after great and wise deliberation, by the consent of our Bishops, Convocations, States, and Princes, without tumults or hasty counsels. So that the Papists themselves do even envy our primitive doctrine, government, and discipline, and both fear and hate us more than any other of the reformed churches. —They are the same things that have raised the spleens and animosities of the other side, with whom, whatever is older than Zuinglius and Cal- vin, is presently popery, and must be destroyed. Tell them that Episcopacy was settled in ail churches in the days of the very Apostles, and by them ; and they reply, the mystery of iniquity began then to work; intimating, if not affirming, that this Holy Order was a part of it."* Again : " We believe that there is one church of God — that this church is the kingdom, the body and spouse of Christ; that Christ is the only Prince of this kingdom ; that there are in the church divers orders of Ministers ; that there are some who are Deacons, others who are Presbyters, and others who are Bishops."f If any words can be more explicit than these, I know not what they are. You refer your readers for the quotation from Bishop Jewel to his defence of the Apology of the * Preface to his Apology. f Apology, p. 21. Concessions of Lpmcopaiiam* 109 church of England, page 248. I have, Sir, looked over that book from page 220 to 275, and over several other parts of the volume, but without the least success. How is this ? It is possible indeed that I have missed the place; but I do not believe that I have. It is a folio that I have consulted; perhaps you took your quotation from a book of another size; or rather lk second hand, from some- body else, who I am convinced has made blunder- ing work. Be this as it may, the extracts which I have given from Jewel* s Apology, completely settle the point. Without attending to the order of the writers whom you quote, I shall next notice what you say concerning Bishop Hall. You observe that he M ex- erted himself in favour of the divine right of Epis- copacy, with as much zeal and ability as any man of his day." Now, Sir, this is all that I am contending for. I have been obliged several times to tell you, that I am not endeavouring to unchurch other denomi- nations. That is not the question in this discussion. Here a difference takes place among Episcopalians ; and we may reasonably expect that it would ; for the scripture has said nothing about the conse- quences of the opinion I am maintaining. What the essence of a church is, neither Presbyterians, nor Episcopalians, have as yet determined. Upon the question, what defect unchurches, unanimity is not to be looked for. Some Presbyterians say? Vol. II. L UO Letter XVII. the want of a ministry unchurches ; others say, it does not. Some of them say, that lay baptism is invalid ; others say, no. Some unchurch Indepen- dents and Quakers, and some other denominations. Other Presbyterians do not. When you shall have the good fortune to agree among yourselves, what is the precise point at which a church loses that character, perhaps your discoveries will lead Epis- copalians to unanimity; till then, I fear r we shall not be agreed, whether the divine right of Episco- pacy necessarily involves the consequence, that denominations which have not Bishops, when it proceeds from necessity, want a valid ministry; and whether, again, the want of such a ministry completely unchurches. That Bishop Hall maintained Episcopacy upon the ground of divine right, you acknowledge ; and yet that he did not think Episcopacy absolutely es- sential to the being of a church, is very certain. He considered that want, as the Synod of Dort itself did, a circumstance much to be lamented. Both he and they viewed it as unavoidable ; and, therefore, a misfortune, and not a crime. It is, Sir, rather an amusing circumstance, that what you deem a concession, those staunch Pres- byterian divines, to whom the epithet of Smectym- nuan has been given, should deem no concession at all. Those divines drew up a reply to the hum- ble remonstrance, supposed to have been written by Bishop Hall The good Bishop, either from a con- Concessions of Episcopalians, 111 viction of the correctness of the opinion, or from an unwillingness to give offence, softened his doc- trine in the following manner. " By divine right, is not to be understood an express law of God re- quiring Episcopacy, as of absolute necessity, to the being of a church , but an institution of the Apos- tles, inspired by the Holy Ghost, warranting it where it is, and requiring it where it may be had." This distinction was considered, by the Smectymnuan divines, as no distinction at all. They say, " If not requiring it to the being of a church, how then ? Requiring it only where it may be had! What a strange limitation is this ? Where is it that Epis- copacy may not be had, must not be had, if it be an ordinance of Christ? Where is it that the church of Christ may not have word, sacraments, pastors, and Bishops too, if they be his ordinance ? What is the meaning of this, where it may be had? Does he mean where it may be had with the favour of the Prince ? Then the primitive church had never had any. Or where it may be had with the willing subjection of the people ? Then Episco- pacy shall be an ordinance, if the people will have it so. Where it may be had! What ? With quiet and conveniency ? Then you make that which you call an ordinance of God subject to man's conve nience. Or what ? With possibility ? Requiring that where Episcopacy may be had possibly, it should ? What is this less than a command r' ; " * Brett on Episccpacy, p. 144, 145. 11.2 Letter XVII. Thus you see, Sir, that those divines did not con- sider the Bishop's distinction as worth their ac- ceptance. This, however, was the usual distinc- tion at that time, in order to save the Reformed churches, and I believe it has been generally made ever since. What I have said with respect to Hall, will an- swer very well for Davenant, He also maintained the divine institution of Episcopacy j but at the same time did not think it essential to the very being of a church. The next person who deserves attention is, Arch- bishop Usher, It is well known that this celebrated writer, when speaking of the difference between Bishops and Presbyters, generally used the language of the schoolmen. He considered the difference between them to consist in a superiority of degree, as be- tween the High Priest and the Priests, and not in a superiority of order. This is evident from the quotation which you have given us. It further appears from that quotation, that the Archbishop considered ordination by Presbyters schism atkal, except in cases of necessity — that he considered churches without Bishops, very muck defective; and that the churches in France are in this re- spect more excusable, because they live under a Popish power ; and, therefore, are less able to re- medy the defect. It is then sufficiently evident, that the difference between Usher and other Epis- Co7icession$ of Episcopalians. 113 copalians was principally verbal. He ascribed a real pre-eminence to the Bishop, which was communi- cated by a new ordination ; but he considered that pre-eminence as raising a Bishop to a higher degree in the priesthood, but not as constituting a distinct order. This is, in truth, a matter of no conse- quence. The opinion of the Archbishop, with respect to this subject, is given us by Dr. Bernard, who was many years his chaplain. The following are the Doctor's words. tt For that superiority only in degree which he (the Primate) saith a Bishop hath above a Presbyter, it is not to be understood as an arbitrary matter, at the pleasure of men, but that he held it to be of Apostolical institution, and no more a diminution of the pre-eminency and autho- rity of Episcopacy, than the denomination of lights given in common by Moses to all of them in the firmament, detracts from the sun and moon, whom he calls the greater, and were assigned of God to have the rule of the rest ; though the difference be- tween them be only gradual, yet there is a deriva- tive subordination, as the pre-eminency of the first born was but gradual, they were all brethren, but to him was given of God, the excellency, or su- premacy of dignity arid pozver, to him they must bow, or be subject, and he must have the rule over them. And that this gradus is both derived from the pattern prescribed by God in the Old Testament, and from the imitation thereof brought in by the lftt Letter XVII. Apostles, and confirmed by Christ in the time of the Newy the Primate hath so fully confirmed in that learned tractate of his, of the Original of Bi- shops, which he hath deduced from the Apostolical times, that I know not what can be added."* It is now evident that Usher believed Episcopacy to be an Apostolical institution; and this he abun- dantly proves in the above named tract. Yet the Archbishop did not think those who were without Bishops from necessity, thereby unchurched ; but declares his readiness to communicate with them, were he among them ; but those who can have Bi* shops and will not, (as was the case with the Dis- senters in England and Ireland) he considered as schismatics, with whom he could not possibly com- municate. This, I believe, is a correct view of the Archbishop's sentiments ; and it evidently does not come up to your wish, which is, to make that great Prelate speak in favour of the human institution of Episcopacy. Stillingfeet is another writer whom you quote. His famous Irenicum is always mentioned by our opponents with great applause. He wrote that book when he was about twenty-four years old, with a view to moderate the violent controversies which the dissenters unceasingly kept alive against the church. He perceived that so long as both parties placed their respective regimen on the ground of * The judgment of the late Archbishop, &c. p. 127 Concessions of Episcopalians* llo divine right, there .was a great gulph between them, which could not be passed by either. He, therefore, from a too sanguine hope of reconciling them, adopted a neutral principle, viz. that the scriptures prescribe no form of ecclesiastical go- vernment ; but have left it to the prudence of every church to regulate itself by existing circumstances. This is a specious principle, which would most cer- tainly captivate numbers. But had that young di* vine been acquainted with human nature, he would not have entertained much hope of success from his wide and comprehensive scheme. It turned out as all such schemes do — it displeased both parties ; and afterwards, when his judgment was matured, it displeased himself too. For he says in his preface to the Unreasonableness of Separation^ •* Will you not allow one single person who hap- pened to write about these matters when he was very young, in twenty years time of the most busy and thoughtful part of his life, to see reason to alter his judgment P y In a sermon preached on the oc- casion of an ordination at St. Paul's , many years after he wrote his Irenicum, when his judgment was perfectly matured, and his reading had become more extensive, and better digested ; on that occa- sion, when he would be particularly attentive to what he said, and would not suffer the warmth of imagination to hurry him into bold and positive as- sertions, he thus seriously speaks : u I cannot find -any argument of force in the New Testament to 116 Letter XVIL prove that ever the Christian churches were under the sole government of Presbyters." Again : " This succession was not in mere presidency of order; but the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in the govern- ment over those churches." Further : " There is as great reason to believe the Apostolical succession to be of divine institution^ as the canon of scripture, or the observation of the Lord's day" And in his Unreasonableness of Separation, he asserts, that 44 the case of Timothy is an uncontrollable instance •f diocesan Episcopacy." But it seems all this is but " a kind of vague and feeble recantation." If this be " a vague and fee- ble" I beg you will let us know what a precise and strong recantation is. When a man at one time says v that Episcopacy is not a divine institution, and, at another, says k is; he must have remarkably nice discernment, who perceives this to be nothing more than " a vague and feeble recantation." This change of opinion in Stilling fleet, after all, is, I acknowledge, of no material consequence i but then I must, at the same time, think, that those who rely so much upon his opinion at the age of twenty-four, and treat with so much indifference his opinion at the age of forty-five, act very pre- posterously, if they consider merely the opinion of a learned man, and not the weight of the reasons upon which the opinion is founded. For the opi- nions of learned men are often as worthless as those of the unlearned. Concessions of Episcopalians. 317 Weil then, the opinion of Stillingfeet, whether for or against Episcopacy, is of no consequence ; but it seems the reasonings and authorities " upon which he grounds his opinions have undergone no change." This is undoubtedly correct: They have precisely the same force now that they ever had. But is not that the case also with respect to his latter opinions? You will undoubtedly say — yes. We are come then to this point, Stilling fleet, in his Ire- nicum, is neither an Episcopalian, nor a Presbyte- rian ; he has taken neutral ground ; and the reason* ings and authorities by which he maintains his ground, bear equally upon both parties. This being the true state of the case, why, Sir, do you name him? Does he support Presbytery upon the ground of divine right? He certainly does not. He labours to prove that it has no title to that sanction. He does the same with respect to Episcopacy. If then his " reasonings and authorities" have never been answered either by himself or others, they dis- prove the principle upon which both parties rest their regimen ; and, consequently, the constitution of the Christian church is a matter subjected to men's disposal. Are you prepared, Sir, to adopt this principle ? Were I to leave the matter here, Stilling feet's Irenicum would do us no more harm than it does you ; nor you any more good than it does us. But we have something to say which you have not. The learned author certainly changed his opinion ; US Letter XVII. and still more, he wrote in favour of Apostolical, Diocesan Episcopacy. Now, as that is the point in dispute, if he has proved it, he has answered his Irenicum, although he has not made a reply to every thing asserted in that book. When the foun- dation is removed, the building- must necessarily fall to the ground. His " reasonings and authorities" appeared to himself, and I believe they do to all Episcopalians, to go to the very point of establish- ing Episcopacy upon the ground of Apostolical in- stitution ; and, if so, the Irenicum is substantially refuted. But this is not all. Not only Stilling fleet him- self, but others have refuted all the leading princi- ples of that book. I do not, indeed, know of any author who has professedly and formally answered the whole of it ; but several have taken particular reasons and authorities, and have shown the one fallacious, and the other ill founded ; and Stilling- jleet himself must have thought so, otherwise he would not have changed his opinion. You indeed intimate, that he was influenced in this change by the hope of preferment, and the fear of giving of- fence, if he adhered to the principles of the Ireni- cum. But this is too gross an imputation, and ut- terly unworthy of a candid and liberal mind. Further still. If Stilling fleet's " reasonings and authorities" have not been answered, it certainly rnust be because they cannot be answered ; for as- suredly it could not have proceeded from a want o£ Concess ions of Episcopalians. 119 learning, talents, and zeal. I must then suppose that ycu have adopted those unanswerable u rea- sonings and authorities," otherwise you are not true to your cause. But seriously, Sir, it does not appear to me, nor to any Episcopalian that I have heard give an opinion upon your book, that you have said any thing that is unanswerable. I cannot but flatter myself that every thing you have said has been pretty well sifted, and that the result is a vast deal more chaff than wheat. You next quote Bishop Burnet as a friend to parity of ministers ; or, at least, that imparity is a matter left to human prudence. — u I acknowledge (says he) Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office, and so plead for no new office-bearer in the church." x . Whatever Burnet may have been when he was a Professor in the college of Glasgow, at which time he wrote his vindication of the church of Scotland^ certain it is, that he was afterwards an Episcopalian upon the ground of Apostolic and divine right. In examining the principles of the Reformers, I have produced several quotations which expressly maintain that doctrine. I will now give another from the Bishop's exposition of the thirty-nine Articles.* " Christ appointed a succession of pastors in different ranks, to be continued in his church for the work of the gospel, and that as the • Page ?84. 120 Letter XVIL Apostles setded the churches, they appointed dif- ferent orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons." There certainly is nothing for you to say after this. That Burnet, however, admitted a case of necessity is undoubtedly true. This has always been the salvo : The church is imperfect without Bishops ; but where they cannot be had, men must submit to the privation, and do as well as they can; for necessity, says Burnet, has no law.* That Tillotson, whom you introduce to our notice, was a very moderate churchman, is pretty well un- derstood. If he had not been a sort of neutral man, it is probable that he would not have been nominated to the See of Canterbury by king William, who, you know, was a rigid Presbyterian. Tillot- son was, I believe, as low with respect to the regi- men, as the doctrines of the church. He Was strongly suspected of Arianism and Universalism ; and men of such principles care very litde about church order, any farther than as it contributes to decency. That Wake, Bi?igham, Prettyman, and Gisborne, assert the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy, the extracts you have given us fully prove. Bingham and Wake, particularly the former, are among its ablest advocates. Yet these four divines do not * Since I sent my manuscript to the press, I have found another testimony from Burnet. He says, " Whereas by di- vine institution, all Bishops were equal, both in order and juris- diction," &c. Preface to Find. Ord. Cb. of England. Concess i ons of Ep iscopalians, 121 consider it as essential to the very being of a church* When Christians can have it, they ought to have it; but when they cannot, necessity frees them from all blame. This appears to be the more common opi- nion of Episcopalians. Lord King, whom you quote, wrote a book to prove that Congregational Episcopacy is an Apos- tolical institution. He was answered by Slater, a Presbyter of the church of England ; and so com- pletely was he refuted, that Lord King himself became sensible of his error, and acknowledged Slater s victor)-. This has always been confidently asserted. However this may be, it is certain, that his Lordship never made any reply, nor has any other person done it for him, that I have ever heard of. Indeed, Congregational Episcopacy has so little to be said in its favour, that no learning, nor inge- nuity can give it the smallest degree of plausibility. It was never thought of till some years after the Re- formation; and its weakness and novelty have been so completely exposed by Siillingjleet, Maurice^ Bingham, and Slater, that it is astonishing to me that it should have been revived by Dr. Campbell^ and maintained by yourself with only one point of difference. But, as I have already observed, the controversy, every now and then, must be re- vived ; and our opponents, not being deficient in sagacity, see very clearly, that it will not do to take notice of the several triumphant answers that have been given, at different times, to their hypothesis. Vol. II, M 122 Letter XVII. You have given us, Sir, two or three extracts from a Bishop Crofts, whose name is so obscure, that not one of our clergy in this city have ever heard of him. All I know about him, is contained in a prefatory discourse to an examination of Burnet's Exposition of the thirty-nine Articles. The author says, " There was a pamphlet in King Charles the second's reign, called Naked Truth, that made a great deal of noise for a while, because it was sup- posed to be written by a Bishop, with whose station and character, the scope and design of k did very ill agree ; which was to undermine the church, throw down its walls, and lay all open. What was principally aimed at, and zealously contended for, was liberty of thought and opinion ; scarce allowing it to be fit to tye men up to any sort of doctrine by creeds or subscriptions ; much less to confine men to any particular constitution, be it that of Episco- pacy, or any other whatever," " Whatever prospect the author of that book might have at the time he published it, the opposi- tion which the project of a comprehension scored out in it, met with, at that time, quashed all hopes of it during that reign." It appears from this account, that Crofts was a man of very comprehensive principles, an enemy to all creeds and subscriptions, and disposed to let into the church, men of all principles, both as to doctrine and government. If doctrine was not regarded by such a man, certainly government Concessions of Episcopalians* V2o would not be.« — He was answered, I find, by Bi- shop Burnet, and some others. As to Willet, Holland, Whitaker, Forbes, and Moreton, as I have not access to their works, I can- not say any thing to the quotations you have given us. They may be correct or not. I will admit them to be perfectly so. And then I ask, what do you infer from them? It must be either some- thing, or nothing". Nothing, you will hardly avow. What then is the something? Is it, that it is pro- bable Episcopacy is a human institution, because these five men (or twenty times five, if you please) thought so? Of that inference, I know you would be ashamed. Well then, if it adds nothing to the probability of the opinion, the inference is, pre- cisely — nothing. Thus, Sir, you have thrown away your time, and have made me throw away mine. I have now shown, I think, with uncontrollable evidence, that the Reformers of the church of Eng- land, and all her greatest and best writers, on the subject of ecclesiastical regimen, maintain the Apos- tolical and Divine right of Episcopacy. Yet, at the same time I acknowledge, that they do not consider •it as essential to the very being of a church ; but afcer making this concession, they insist upon it as ne- cessary to a well organized, sound, and perfectly Apostolical church ; and that a departure from it where it is, is an unjustifiable schism ; except when a church imposes upon its members sinful terms of communion. 124 Letter XVIL But although there are many great names, who have thus mitigated the principle, that Episcopacy is of divine right ; yet it must also be acknowledged, that there are many who do not admit these quali- fications, but insist upon it, and give reasons of great weight for their opinion, that if Episcopacy be a divine institution, it must be essential to a Christian church, if a ministry be so. But if a ministry be not essential to a church, then they ac- knowledge that Episcopacy is not. This question I shall not discuss at this late period of the contro- versy ; nor indeed do I think, that it is a question a conscientious man would wait to have decided, were he about to make a choice of the church to which he should attach himself. He would, it apr pears to me, reason thus. If Episcopacy be a di- vine institution, it is my duty to become a member of that church in which it is found, unless sinful terms of communion be required. Whether Episcopacy be essential to the being of a church, or not, certain I am that it is my duty to submit to a divine institution. By this submission, I shall be free from all doubts and difficulties ; but should I act otherwise, I must rely altogether upon my own reasoning, and that of others. This may, or may not be right ; but in the other case, I shall be perfectly free from all misgivings. This appears to me to be the conclusion, at which a conscien- tious man would arrive. Before I conclude this letter, it may be well for Concessions of Episcopalians. 125 me to state, in what sense I consider Episcopacy as resting upon the ground of divine right, ■ A thing may be said to be divinely instituted, in three senses. 1. As God positively ordains it by his own ex- press command, or by the express command of his Son Jesus Christ. In this sense, I do not take Episcopacy to be a divine institution. Nor in this sense, is the Christian sabbath, or infant baptism, or the canon of scripture, entitled to the sanction cl divine institution. 2. A thing may be said to be of divine institution, when it is delivered by men divinely inspired ; as are all those precepts and ordinances, delivered by the Apostles and Prophets, by divine inspiration. Every thing of that kind must be deemed of divine institution, because God, by his Holy Spirit, has commanded it. 3. Whatever is founded upon a divine commis- sion, as the preaching of the gospel, the adminis- tration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys, is of divine institution. In the two last senses, I take Episcopacv to be of divine institution. For, if the Holy Ghost in- spired the Apostles to establish Episcopacy in the church, it is certainly of divine institution, although there may be no express and formal precept for that purpose. Or if the Apostles, by virtue of the com- mission which they received from Jesus Christ, es- tablished Episcopacv, it must, if not immediate! v, M2 126 Letter XVII. yet mediately, be grounded upon divine institution. For if the Apostolic commission was founded upon divine authority, as it certainly was, then all com- missions derived from that source, and within the limits of that commission, are also mediately founded upon divine authority ; and in this sense, at the least, every one that believes Episcopacy not to be a mere human institution, must believe it to have a divine sanction. This statement is, I believe, agreeable to the sentiments of the best writers on our side of the question. I am sure that it perfectly coincides with the opinion of Bishop Saunderson* After observing "that Episcopacy is not founded upon a peremptory command of God in his word, he says, " There is a secondary and more extended signification of that term, [divine right] which is also of frequent use among divines. In which sense such things, as hav- ing no express command in the word, yet are found to have authority and warrant from the institution, example, and approbation, either of Christ himself, •or his Apostles ; and have (in regard of the im- portance and usefulness of the things themselves) been held by the consentient judgment of all the churches of Christ in the primitive and succeeding ages, needful to be continued : such things, I say, are usually and interpretatively said to be of divine •%ht." Again he says; " They, therefore, that so speak of this government as established by divine right, Concessions of Episcopalians, _ 122 are not all of them necessarily to be understood, as if they meant it in that first and strictest sense [as- founded upon positive precept]. Sufficient it is for the justification of the church of England, in the constitution and government thereof, that it is (as it certainly is) of divine right in the latter and larger signification ; that is to say, of Apostolical institution and approbation; exercised by the Apos- tles themselves, and by other persons in their times, appointed and enabled thereunto by them, accord- ing to the voice of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the commission they had received from him." " Which, besides that it is clear from evident texts of scripture, and from the testimony of as ancient and authentic records, as the world hath any to show for the attesting of any other part of the established doctrine of the church of England; so it is evidently deduced out of sundry passages in the book of Consecration, and hath been constantly and uniformly maintained by our best writers, and by all the sober, orderly, and orthodox sons of this church."* Thus, Sir, I think it is as clear that the Episco- pal order is of divine institution, as that the order . of Presbyters is. There is no positive precept which ordains the office of a Presbyter ; but we see that order in the scriptures, and we know that it * Saur.derson's Episcopacy not prejudicial to Re^al power, -ect. ii. No. 3, 4, 6. 128 Letter XVTL was the sense of the Apostles, and of the whole primitive church, that it was to be continued to the end of the world. There is no possibility of guarding any doctrine ©f Christianity, or any of its institutions, from the cavils of men wedded to their own systems, and peculiar ways of thinking. There is no objection that has been made by the Presbyterians against Episcopacy, that has not been made by Indepen- dents against Presbytery ; and what is not a little amusing, the Presbyterians were obliged to have recourse to the weapons of Episcopalians, in order to defend themselves. It is curious to read the con- troversy between those two denominations of dis- senters, as we have it in the Jus divinum, &c. When the Independents denied the perpetuity of the mi- nistry by an uninterrupted succession, the Presbyte- rian divines replied, U All that is written in the epistles concerning the ordainers and the qualifica- tions of the ordained, is directed to Timothy and Titus" To prove the constant succession of the mi- nistry, they argue like staunch churchmen — " That Christ was sent, and had his commission from his Father. That Christ, as he was sent of his Father, so he sent forth his Apostles. That the Apostles went about ordaining Elders in every church, and that the Apostle Paul ordained Timothy and Titus, [Mark this.] That these ordained others, and that as Timothy was entrusted with the word of Christ, so he was commanded to commit the same trust to Concessions of Episcopalians, 12$ faithful men, that so there might be a succession of teachers." They also urge Matt, xxviii. 20, " I am ahvav with you, even unto the end of the world." And 1 Tim. vi. 14, " Keep this commandment until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ;" and several other texts. When the assembly urge against the Indepen- dents the testimony of the Fathers, the practice of antiquity, and of all former ages, for a succession of ministers, the fanatics pay them in their own coin, telling them that " corruptions, and antichris- tianism, and tyranny, came very early into the church ; that the mystery, and the ministry of the man of sin were working in the first centuries ; that in this apostacy, the church, which had been a chaste virgin, became the mother of harlots and abomina- tions — Bethel turned into Betkaven, and the minis- try wholly lost under antichrist." To this the Westminster divines reply, that " the truths, ordinances, servants, and ministries of Christ, do not, therefore, cease to be of Christ, because some, either by mistake or by design, shall say, they are of antichrist — that it is a great cheat put upon the saints of God in this nation, in scaring people from the doctrine of Christ, by persuading them to avoid anti-Christ." And, therefore, they earnestly entreat their respective congregations u not to be affrighted at the bug-bear words anti-christian and popish." They tell the fanatics, that ■ no true mi- nistry, -no true church— that the Lord Jesus hath 130 Letter XVII. given the ministry to the church, to continue till all come to the unity of the faith, which will not be till the day of judgment." I shall make but one more extract from the Jus divinum. When the fanatics assert that the people have a right to ordain ministers, the Assembly ask—- " By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority? Show us your war- rant out of the word. Why was Titus sent to ap- point Eiders in every city ? Might not the people say, what need Paul leave Titus to do that which we can do ourselves? Add that which to us seems of weight, that all that is written in the epistles con- cerning the ordainers, and the qualifications of the ordained, is all written in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, who were church officers. In the other epistles which were written to the churches, there is no mention made of these things, which doth abundantly prove to us, that the work of ordination is a work belonging to ministers, and not to the people. And they alone who have received this church power from the Apostles, can transmit it to others. {Here is the doctrine of uninterrupted suc- cession most clearly.] Now let us change but one word, and put Presbyter instead of people, and see how those reverend gentlemen plead the Episcopal cause. — " By what authority do you Presbyters do these things, and who gave you this authority? Why was Titus left in Crete, or Timothy in Ephe- $u$, to ordain Elders? Might not those Elders say a Concessions of Episcopalians, 131 what need Paul leave Timothy to do that which we can do ourselves ? All that is written in the epistle9 concerning ordainers, is written in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, who were the church officers for this purpose. In the other epistles there is no mention made of these things, which doth abun- dantly prove that the work of ordination is a work belonging to Timothy and Titus, and not to the Presbyters; and they alone who have received can transmit it." Thus the Presbyterian calls on the fanatic to show his commission ; the Episcopalian, with the very same reason, calls upon the Presby- terian to show his. — Where is the consistency of all this ? I have now, Sir, examined every thing material in your letter upon the Concessions of Episcopalians, and I have shown that all the authors whom you quote (four or five excepted, whose works I have not), maintained Episcopacy upon the ground of Apostolical and divine right. There is, indeed, a difference of opinion among Episcopalians with re- spect to the consequences of this principle, as there is among Presbyterians with respect to the conse- quences of the divine right of Presbytery ; but this, in either case, does not affect the principle. It is, therefore, weak and sophistical to urge this differ- ence against either Presbytery or Episcopacy. I forgot, Sir, to make, in their proper place, a few observations upon what you ascribe to Bishop White* It may be well, although not in order> J 32 Letter XVII. just to notice what you say. You assert that he maintains, " that the doctrine which founds Epis- copacy upon divine right, has never been embraced by the great body of the most esteemed divines in the church of England."* This may be true, and yet leave Episcopacy upon as high ground as I wish to place it. By divine right, Bishop White means positive precept, or a direct command in so many words, that there shall be three orders in the church, — Bishops, Presby- ters, and Deacons, and that they shall continue to the end of the world. There is no heterodoxy in this opinion. All the great Episcopal writers ac- knowledge this to be the truth. But will you venture to assert, that Bishop White does not place Episco- pacy upon the ground of Apostolical institution? You certainly will not ; because the following quo- tation would stare you in the face. " There having been an Episcopal power originally lodged by Jesus Christ with his Apostles, and by them exercised generally in person, but sometimes by delegation, (as in the instances of Timothy and Titus J the same was conveyed by them to one pastor in each church, which generally comprehended all the Christians in a city, and a convenient surrounding district. Thus were created the Apostolic succes- sors." Again : " It seemed good to the Apostles to appoint some of these with a supereminent com- * Letter vi> p. 229. Concessions of Episcopalians. 1SS mission, of which there were instances in Timothy and Titus; and the persons so appointed have handed down their commission through the different ages of the church* This is the originally constituted order."* Now (to use the words of Dr. Hobart with a lit- tle alteration) " if you will make these concessions, and hold this language, you fairly give up your cause. You maintain all that the Episcopalian could wish. And we shall be glad to hear on what grounds you will justify your rejection of the ori- ginally constituted order, and of degrees of the mi- nistry, who had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles" It is now, Sir, very evident, that Bishop White holds the divine right of Episcopacy in this sense ; that it was instituted by the Apostles under the di- rection of the Holy Ghost, and, consequently, ac- cording to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ. He surely then is at variance with Presbyterian parity. I shall in my next consider your letter upon " the rise and progress of Episcopacy." * Hobart's Apology, 139, 140. v ( 134 ) LETTER XVIII. Rev. Sir, MY labour is now happily drawing to a close, f have little more to do than to take a view of your fanciful statement of " the rise and progress of Episcopacy." I do not conceive that it is necessary for me to do this ; for if I have proved the fact, that Episcopacy is an Apostolical institution, all the efforts of your ingenuity to show that it took its rise long after the death of the Apostles, must be ascrib- ed to the " audacity of fancy," and be deemed ut- terly inconsistent with the truth of history. No, Sir, it is not because you have said any thing in your eighth Letter, which in any degree affects the evidence I have produced, that I am led to examine your plausible attempt to account for what never has yet been accounted for ; but because I shall be fur- nished with an opportunity of presenting to my readers, what I deem complete moral demonstra- tion, that Episcopacy is not a human, but a divine institution. This is my leading motive for conti- nuing this discussion : my secondary motive is, to show your readers, that you have exhibited to them, a perfect tissue of conjectures, fallacies, and mis- representations of facts. Rise and Progress of Episcopacy. i S S There is a question, which, at the very outset of ihis inquiry, will occur to a reflecting mind. — If Episcopacy was introduced into the church after the Apostolic age, what can be the reason, that it cannot be determined by the advocates for parity, when this anti-christian usurpation took its rise. Some of them place it in the close of the first cen- tury, before the death of St. John, as Baxter, Chamier, and Du Moulin ; others in the beginning of the second century, as Doddridge and Salmasius ; others in the middle of that century, as Blondel and the Westminster divines ; others at the close of that age, as Campbell and Chauncey ; others in the third century, a long list of whom you will find hi Sage's Cyprianic Age ; and others again in the fourth century, as yourself, Lord King, and a few more. Here is a wide range taken by our oppo- nents j not less than the space of two hundred years. Now, this difficulty of pointing out the time when Episcopacy took its rise, must be owing either to a want of records, or to the very trifling nature of the change. To the first it has never been ascribed; for the records are sufficiently ample. Nor can it, with the most distant appear- ance of reason, be ascribed to the latter ; for the change was very striking and important ;. no less than that of depriving the Presbyters throughout the whole Christian church of their right of ordain- ing, and of establishing in one person a supremacy of power and jurisdiction. It is not possible to 136 Letter XVIII. consider such a change as unimportant, and un- worthy of notice. This then is the first presump* tive proof, that no such change took place. You endeavour, Sir, to surmount the difficulty, which arises from the wide difference of opinion among Presbyterians, with respect to the date of Episcopacy, by saying that we cannot tell the time when infant communion began in the church. And do you seriously think, Sir, that this, were it true, would obviate the difficulty? How is it possible that you should not see, that there is no parrallel between the two cases? What human being did ■infant communion deprive of his rights? What was there in this practice to excite the passions of men? What to produce violent contention, and strenuous resistance? Was the adult injured by it? Did it exclude him from the altar ? Not a single consideration can be perceived by the human mind to induce it to think, that any thing more than verbal contention would be the issue. But in the other case, the Presbyters were deprived of their most sacred rights. The right of ordaining, which was given them by Jesus Christ, and which they were as sure belonged to them as that they held the office of Presbyters, was wrested out of their hands. A parity of power and jurisdiction, which they had derived from the same source, was abo- lished, and a supremacy established in an individual, in every city. I appeal to every man who is ac- quainted with human nature, whether such flagrant Rise and Progress of Episcopacy, 137 injustice was not sufficient to rouse the fiercest pas- sions of the heart ? Let the trial be made at this day, by a number of the most daring spirits among the Presbyterian ministers in this country, to seat themselves in Episcopal chairs. To ask a child what would be the issue, would be to insult his understanding. It must be obvious to every reflecting mind, that there is a great difference between opinions, which do not in the least affect the rights and privileges of others, and principles which do. The former may be broached and spread considerably, before any notice is taken of them. But the latter immediately set men upon exerting all the powers of resistance. Every effort would, have been made by the Presby- ters to prevent the execution of so daring a project ; and considering the circumstances in which the church was, before the establishment of Christian- ity by the Emperor Comtantine, it was morally im- possible for the Bishops to succeed in their foolish and wicked attempt. There is, therefore, no parallel between the two cases* I think I might safely trust this reasoning with ever) 7 impartial person. The difference between a principle which is perfectly harmless, and one that, when acted upon, is flagrantly unjust, sets the two cases at such an immense distance, that I am as- tonished at your bringing them to a point of com- parison. But the unreasonableness of this mode of removing the difficulty need not have been in- N 2 lo8 letter XVIIf. sisted upon, for you have, by a single sentence, given up the point. Remember that the opponents of Episcopacy cannot agree, whether it took its rise in the first, second, or third century, or even till some time in the fourth. But you say, " It is certain that this corruption [infant communion] existed in the second century." Here you fix the time ; for I suppose you do not mean to carry it up to the first century, and make it an Apostolical practice. Nor is it at all probable that it took its rise early in the second century, while numbers were living who had seen the Apostles administer the holy com- munion. We must, therefore, upon every ground of probability, place its beginning somewhere about the middle of the second century. Now, Sir, we do not tie you up in this manner. We do not ask you to give us a period of a few years, when all the Presbyterians in the world became Episcopalians ; although we certainly have a right to call for the re- cord of such a wonderful revolution. No, Sir, we will not confine you to so short a period as fifty years. You may take any entire century you please after the first ; and if we do not prove from indubitable records, that Episcopacy existed before your given period, we are willing to give up the whole cause. It seems then, that you can tell, within a few years, when infant communion began ; but you re- quest of us to allow you between two and three hundred years for the period, within which Epis- copacy made its appearance, and then you can Rise and Progress of Episcopacy. IN very confidently assure us, that its birth happened within that short, very short space. This is very- modest, and very consistent. A harmless opinion and practice, which could irritate, which could in- jure no one, can be traced within a few years of its birth ; but a wonderful revolution, calculated to in- flame the passions of thousands, and to produce v& the church the most violent convulsions, the most virulent animosities, is involved in such thick dark- ness, that it is impossible for the greatest antiquaries among the Presbyterians to tell us in what century this new form of government was given to the church. The man who can believe this, needs not to pray that his faith may be strengthened. You assert, Sir, very confidently, that infant com- munion was the practice of the church in the se- cond century -, but, as usual, you talk without book* Who is your warrant for this assertion ? You name none. On the contrary, I assert, that there is no authority to be produced earlier than St, Cyprian, about the middle of the third century* Bingham names that Prelate as the first who mentions it. Neither Tertullian, nor Clemens of Alexandria, nor Jreneus, nor Justin Martyr, say any thing about it. We have, therefore, no reason to think, that it was known in the church till the third century. Here then the rule of Vincent his Lirinensis com- -pletely fails, ^uod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, does not accord with infant communion ; and, consequently, it is not of Apostolic institution j £40 letter XVlll. feut Episcopacy has been proved to accord perfectly with these marks, and, therefore, it is of Apostolic- institution. If Episcopacy were merely a point of opinion,', and not a matter of fact, which was calculated to inflame the passions, and produce animosity and contention, I should not think it reasonable to call upon our opponents to point out the time, even within half a century, when it took its rise. Opi- nions creep in the dark for some time, and are not immediately noticed ; but great revolutions, either in church or state, are always the prominent objects of. history. The historian seizes upon them with avidity, dwells upon them minutely, and paints them in strong and vivid colours. But the change from Presbytery to Episcopacy was conducted with all the silence of the grave ; no historian recording, it, no mortal perceiving it. Yet our opponents talk with as much confidence of a change, as if they could produce history in abundance to warrant their assertion; as if they could give us the place zvhere y or the year when, it made its appearance. But when pressed upon this point, why then, to be sure, they beg to be excused ; and gravely tell -us* that there are certain opinions, and certain practices^ the date of which cannot be ascertained ; and this they think is a set-off to the difficulty of accounting for a change, which, in the circumstances of the primi- tive church, was morally impossible. JBut if the case o£ infant communion will not Rise and Progress of Episcopacy, 14I- meet that of Episcopacy, perhaps it may be met by the difficulty of assigning a period for the introduc- tion of Metropolitans. Here, Sir, you will find no relief from your embarrassment. This case, if pos- sible, is worse than the last. There is no difficulty in determining when Metropolitans were introduced into the church. "That primacy commenced," (says Dr. Cave* J " not long after the Apostolic age, when sects and schisms broke in apace, and controversies multiplying between particular Bi- shops, it was found necessary to pitch upon one in every province, to whom the umpirage of cases might be referred, and by whom all common and public affairs might be directed." With this, as to- time, Bingham agrees, adding — " Perhaps it [the office of Metropolitan] took its rise from that com- mon respect and deference, which was usually paid by the rest of the Bishops, to the Bishop of the civil metropolis in every province ; which advanc- ing into a custom, was afterwards made into a canon by the council of Nice"^ Bingham gives sufficient evidence of the rise of Metropolitans in the second century. He observes, that " Lyons, in France, was -a metropolis in the civil account ; and L-eneus, who was Bishop of it, is said to have the superintendency of the Galican Par cedes, or dioceses, as Eusebius words it. Philip, Bishop * Annals of Church Government, p. 92. t Antiquities, vol. i, p. 185, 186, octavo edition 142 Letter XVIII. of Gortyna, in Crete, is styled by Dionysius of Cg* rinth, Bishop of all the Cretian churches. Poly- crates, Bishop of Ephesus, presided in council over all the Bishops of Asia; Palma, of Atnastris, over the Bishops of Pontus ; and Theophilus, of Caesar ea^ with Narcissus of Jerusalem, over the rest of the Bishops of Palestine" " It is true (continues Bingham) none of these are expressly called Metropolitans ; for that name scarcely occurs in any ancient record before the council of Nice ; but they were at first wpuTu, and xi$x\ocl, chief Bishops, and heads of the province, as the Apostolical canon styles them. After ages gave them other names, as that of Archbishops, at Alexandria, and other places, till that name became appropriate to the Patriarchs." Thus you see, Sir, there is not the least difficulty in determining when Primates, or Metropolitans, took their rise in the Christian church ; and, there- fore, you cannot derive the least degree of relief from this quarter. But, Sir, if it were even impossible to determine the century when Metropolitans first appeared in the church, still there would be no parallel between this difficulty, and the one relating to Episcopacy.. There was no usurpation of power, (as you assert) by that order of Bishops. It was a Presidency per- fectly natural, because expedient, nay, necessary. When, in the second century, Bishops were multi- plied inconsequence of the diffusion of Christianity, Rise and Progress of Episcopacy* 143 those who resided in the same Province frequently met in council, for the purpose of regulating the affairs of their churches. A council, for the sake of order, requires a president ; and the election of that officer would most commonly fall upon the Bi- shop of the metropolis, who, from the wealth and number of his congregations, would naturally ac- quire (all other circumstances being equal) a supe- rior degree of consequence. This was, in fact, the case j for we find, in the history of the church, that the Bishops of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, were the first Presidents, or Metropo- litans, in the Christian church. There was no usur- pation in this ; it was a matter of choice ; a matter of necessity, after provincial councils took their rise. We, therefore, hear no complaints about it in the second and third centuries ; for what was the wish of all, could give offence to none. Further, the Metropolitical power, which was very small, till after the establishment of Christianity, did not deprive other Bishops of any rights belonging to their office ; consequently, there was nothing to excite resentment and opposition. The Bishops retained in the highest degree, and most complete security, their right of ordaining and confirming, and their supremacy of jurisdiction within their dioceses. What then was there in this measure of expediency, which can, without a prostitution of language, be called usurpation ? Or what kind of parallel can there be between the rise of Metropoli- 144 Letter XVIIL tans, and the rise of Episcopacy, when the time of the former can be named, and the reasons of the appointment assigned ; and when the time of the latter cannot be named, and no reason, no motive which influences the human mind can be assigned ? — Surely none. And here, I would just remark by the way, that this appointment of Metropolitans, or Primi inter pares, is a convincing proof of the existence of Bishops at that time ; not congregational, but dio- cesan Bishops ; for those standing Presidents con- voked none but Bishops to meet in councils ; and Presbyters were excluded from them as members ; unless perhaps they happened to represent their absent Bishops. But, Sir, although you have been extremely un- fortunate in adducing these two instances to get rid of a pressing difficulty, yet perhaps your next in- stance will serve you better. You inform us that, " closely connected with the introduction of Arch- bishops, and other grades in the Episcopal office, is the rise and progress of the Papacy. It is certain, that the anti-christian claims of the Bishop of Rome were begun before the close of the second century. The writings of Ireneus and Tertullian both furnish abundant evidence of this fact. Yet, the records of antiquity give so little information, respecting the various steps by which this man of sin rose to the possession of his power ; they contain so little evidence of any efficient opposition to his claims^ Rise and Progress of Episcopacy. 145 and represent the submission of the other Bishops as being so early and general, that the Papists at- tempt, from these circumstances, to prove the di- vine origin of their system." Here is, I think, abundance of error ; but happily it will not take many pages to expose it. In order to understand one another upon this point, I would ask, what do you mean by the Pa- pacy ? Do you mean the temporal power of the Pope, or his claim of universal supremacy over the Christian church ? I presume it is the latter ; be- cause the former is not peculiar to the Pope ; many Bishops holding with their ecclesiastical, princely powers. It seems then, according to your statement, that we do not know when this claim of supremacy was first advanced, and when it was first allowed. I cannot acquiesce in this. I find no difficulty at all in determining these points. Boniface the third, in the seventh century, was the first Bishop of Rome who claimed the title of oecumenical, or uni- versal Bishop.* This tide was indeed claimed but a few years before, by John, Bishop of Con- stantinople. This arrogance was resented by Gre- gory the Great, who was contemporary with John, in the most marked terms of reprobation. He says, that whoever arrogates to himself this title, outstrips a?iti-Christ.-\ Here then is positive proof, * Barronius, An. Eccles. vol. viii. p 198. Anastasius De Vjtis Pont. Rom. vol. i. p. 117, and Mosheim. t Ego audentem fidenter dico, quod quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elaticne sua, ami- Vol. U. O 146 Letter XVIII. that the claim of supremacy was not known in the Christian Church till the seventh century. Thus, Sir, we have settled one point ; the other is, to determine when this claim was granted, and carried into effect. And this point is as easily settled as the former. The cruel usurper, Phocas, who murdered his master, Mauritius, granted this title to Boniface* Soon after the Pope began to carry mto effect this supremacy. He convened a synod of seventy-two Bishops, thirty Presbyters, and three Deacons, who decreed that no election of a Bishop should be deemed legal, unless ratified by the Pope in these words^-vS'ic volumus et jubemusf* There is not, before the seventh century, the least trace of any system of policy in the Holy See to es*- tablish its claim of superiority over other Bishops. There was, indeed, in the time of Cyprian, an un- due stretch of power by Stephen, Bishop of Rome ; but it was treated with the utmost contempt by the other Bishops, and particularly by Cyprian, who, on that occasion, declared, " there is no Bishop of Bi- shops" in Christ's Church. But any thing like Pa- pal supremacy was not known till the period which I have assigned to it. The famous forgery of the donation of Italy to Pope Sylvester, by Constantine the Great, forms another remarkable epoch in the history of the Pa- christum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se ceteris praeponit. Greg. Op. 1. vi. Ep. 50. * Platina, p. 60. Vitas Pont. Rise and Progress of Episcopacy. 147 pal usurpation. This forgery, which contributed-so much to the extension- of the power of the " man of sin," was never suspected till the twelfth century, when a hint to that purpose was dropped in a Sabine monastery. But it was left for the bold and mas- terly pen of Laurentius Valla to unmask the impos- ture, and expose it to the world in all its deformity. To this forgery, the Popes awed much of their civil authority, and as that increased, their ecclesi- astical power increased with it. It would extend the discussion upon this point to too great a length, were I to go on marking the se- veral epochs of the increasing power of the Popes ; but this has been done by so many able writers, that whoever wishes to be well informed upon this sub- ject, can be at no loss for sources of information. Enough has been said to disprove your assertion, that we know not the time when the Papacy came into being. Nay, Sir, we know the time when all the leading errors of the Church of Rome were broached. The present subject does not require me to enter upon a detail of this kind ; but I stand ready to do it whenever it shall become necessarv. You inform us, Sir, that " the anti-christian claims of the Bishop of Rome were begun before the close of the second century ;" and that u the writings of Ireneus and Tertuilian furnish abundant evi- dence of the fact. 7 ' This, Sir, is very vague. You should have informed us what you mean by " anti- christian claims." It may be true, and yet amount 148 Letter XVIII. to very little. I believe I could give proof enough of other Bishops doing the same thing ; and what is more, I can give abundant proof, that Presbyters and Deacons, and even hymen, asserted " anti- christian claims." But that the Bishop of Rome claimed, in the second century, supremacy over all other Bishops, I utterly deny, and call upon you to .give us the proof. On the contrary, it is a notorious fact, that the church of Rome was, for the first three centuries, as pure as any church then upon earth. She maintained in a high degree, the unity of the faith, in the bond of peace. Neither, Sir, have you given us any quotations from the above named Fathers. Perhaps that would have entirely spoiled your assertion. We should have then known the extent of those " anti-christian claims." Your intimation of something like Papa- cy might then appear to be nothing like it; and that would have entirely defeated the policy, which just gives a glimpse of something wrong, and leaves it to the reader's imagination to make out the worst. This will do very well in some species of composi- tion ; but in letters, which profess to give a correct view of the Christian Church, such management is very censurable. At the time that you committed to paper the as- sertion, that " the anti-christian claims of the Bishop of Rome were begun before the close of the second century," I wonder, Sir, that you did not perceive that you were destroying your own hypothesis, You Rise and Progress of Episcopacy. 149 say, it is as difficult to trace the rise and progress of Papacy as of Episcopacy. Yet, you assure ur. that the former took its rise in the second century » and your authorities for this assertion are brtneus and Tertullian. But neither you, nor any body else, can tell us the century when Episcopacy be- gan ; and yet, it seems, that being able to ascertain the one, and unable to ascertain the other, amounts precisely to the same thing. Happy inconsistency, which affords a man such decisive proof! Another unlucky circumstance attends you, Sir. You name authorities for the rise of Papacy ; but no mortal ever yet attempted to produce one writer who says, that Episcopacy took its rise in any age short of the Apostolic. Yet, no doubt, this im- portant difference makfs the two cases perfectly similar*. Enough has now been said to show, that the rise and progress of Popery can, in every thing mate- rial, be easily traced ; but the rise of Episcopacy, upon Presbyterian principles, still remains involved in impenetrable darkness. Not one ray of light has as yet been thrown upon this point, by the ablest advocates of parity. This is evident from their being so completely at variance among, themselves, when they attempt to assign any period of time for the birth of Episcopacy. This could never be the case, were there any footsteps of parity in the pri- mitive church. You go on. Sir, to other examples, in the same 02 ISO Letter XVIII. inconsequential manner. You say, " Scarcely less remarkable, or in itself improbable, was the change which early took place in the mode of electing' and installing the Pastors of the church. You have been informed, in preceding parts of this work, that, as each Bishop, in the primitive church, was the Pastor of a single congregation j so even' Bishop was elected by the people of his charge, and ordain- ed to the work of the ministry in their presence* It is certain, however, that at least as early as the fourth century, this power of electing their own Bishops began to be gradually taken away from the people ; and that, in the course of two or three cen- turies afterwards, the privilege was almost wholly withdrawn from them. But how came a right so popular, and so highly prized, to be tamely surren- dered ? And why is it that the records of antiquity furnish so little information on this subject 1 &c* Here is a great deal said, but nothing proved* You take it for granted, that the people elected their Bishops for the first three centuries. But would it not, Sir, be better to prove this by competent testi- mony ? What evidence is there that, in the first century, Bishops or Presbyters were elected by the people ? None at all. On the contrary, it is evident from the New Testament, that they were elected by rhe Apostles, and that the people had no voice in the business. There is not a single instance that * Page 099. Rise and Prog ress of Episcopacy* I St can be produced in opposition to this assertion. Does Clemens Romanus intimate that the people elected Bishops ? Quite the contrary, as you very well know. He expressly asserts, that Bishops and Deacons were designated by the Holy Spirit for their respective offices ? Does Barnabas coun- tenance your assertion? He has not a syllable upon the subject. Does Hernias? He also is silent. Does Ignatius? Very far from it- Does Justin Mar- tyr, or IreneuSy or Tertvllian, or Clemens of Alex- andria ? No testimony ever has been, or can be produced to this purpose. Here then are two centu- ries, from which not a tittle can be drawn to coun- tenance your assertion. But perhaps the third cen- tury will furnish you with sufficient evidence of this fact. But what, Sir, if it should ? That would not prove, that the people elected their Bishops in the first and second centuries. In the first, as we have seen, there is positive evidence against it ; and in the second, there is no evidence for it. Well then, if this practice began in the third century (for we have no right to say that it began sooner) and was abolished in the fourth, as you intimate, we have a period assigned for its rise, its progress, and its abolition. Consequently, this is not a case that will ^erve for an offset to the difficulty of accounting for the rise of Episcopacy. Were I, Sir, to rest the matter here, it would completelv defeat your view, in asserting that Bi- shops were elected by the people till the fourth 152 Letter XVIII. century. But I will give you one passage from St# Cyprian, which shows what was the general prac- tice of the African churches in electing a Bishop. In his sixty-eighth epistle he says, " It is the cus- tom throughout almost all the provinces for the neighbouring Bishops to meet together, and choose a Bishop in the presence of the people, who know his "life and conversation ; which was done at the ordination of Sabinm T Bishop of Emerita, in Spain, who was ordained to that dignity by the suffrage of the people, and the decision or judgment of the Bishops" — §>uod factum videmus in Sabini ordina- tione ut de universes fraternitatis suffragio, et de Episcoporum judicio episcopatus ei deferretur. Cy- prian generally uses the word suffrage for approba- tion, likifig; but not for polling, or voting. Of this I will give two instances out of many which might be quoted. In his tract De Zelo et Livore, he says, when the people saw David slay Goliah, " they broke forth into praises of David with suffrage of applause." There certainly was no voting on that occasion. In his treatise De Vanitate Idolorum, he says, that the Jews delivered up our Saviour to Pontius Pilate," requesting his-death by violent and pertinacious suffrages" — Mortem suffragiis violentie et pertinacibus flagitantes. This expresses the vio- lent desire of the Jews to see Jesus put to death, but no more than desire, and approbation ; for they had at that time, no power to put any man to death. If you wish to see instances of this kind . Rise and Progress of Episcopacy, ISo multiplied, and the point clearly proved, that the people had nothing to do with the election of a Bi- shop, but barely gave their testimony to his charac- ter, please to consult Slater's Original Draught, and Sage's Cyprianic Age vindicated* Let me also remind you, Sir, of St. Jerome's testimony to this point. " At Alexandria (says he) from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas and Diony- sius' Episcopate (that is, in the third century), the Presbyters always nominated one their Bishop, chosen from among themselves." It appears then from the New-Testament, that the people did not claim any right to elect their Bi- shops, but that the Apostles always nominated them, as St. Paul did Timothy and Titus; and from Clemens Romanus, that the Apostles went through cities and regions ordaining Bishops, who were designated by the Holy Ghost. And it does not appear from any records of the second century, that the people ever exercised or claimed that right. It also appears from: Cyprian and Jerome, that elections were conducted in a different manner, in the third centurjv About the close of this century, I believe, the people of 'Rome acquired great influence in the election of their Bishops; but they exercised it in such a tumultuous and scandalous manner, that Constantine, after he be- came a Christian, found it necessary to prevent them from interfering in elections. As there was no rule prescribed by the Apostles, with respect to *54 Letter XVIlL elections, there was some diversity of practice m different churches ; but that Bishops, and Pres- byters, and Deacons, were elected by the people in the first three centuries, is very far from being correct. This case, therefore, is totally irrelevant to the point you wish to establish. Further : If it were even as you say, that the people elected their Bishops till the fourth century, how in the name of common sense, can this be considered as presenting a difficulty equal to that of accounting for the rise of Episcopacy ? How do you know, Sir, that the people elected their Bishops? It must be, if at all, from records. Here then the cases are totally dissimilar. You consider the evidence for the people's electing their Bishops clear enough ; but with respect to Episco- pacy, you acknowledge that its birth cannot be traced. And with respect to the abolition of popular election, you say it began to take place in the fourth century. So then, a thing which is clear, is as dif- ficult to be known as that which is involved in mid- night darkness. Pray, Sir, what do you call this ? As to the difficulty of accounting for the people's so " tamely surrendering a right so highly prized," which you seem to think equal to the difficulty of accounting for the Presbyters resigning the power ©f ordination, you should first have proved that the Christian laity generally exercised that right, as you are pleased to call it ; but if you had proved it, still the two cases would be totally dissimilar j fcr Rise and Progress of Episcopacy, 155 whenever popular elections were abolished, it was done by the civil power, which the people could not resist ; but no Presbyterian writer has ever hinted, that the right of ordination was taken from the Presbyters by the c'wil authority. The exercise of that right, almost all our opponents acknowledge, ceased long before the conversion of Constantine. The difficulty then still continues in full force against you. The next thing you mention as presenting a dif- ficulty equal to the rise of Episcopacy, is the abo- lition of the office of Ruling' Elder. I flatter myself that I have fully proved, in my eighth letter, that there never was any such officer in the Christian church, till the time of Calvin. That it is a mere human institution, a great part, if not the greater part of Presbyterians themselves acknowledge ; and that nine tenths of the Christian world are against the office, is beyond all controversy. You must, Sir, have very strong reinforcements, to be able to stand your ground upon this point. Your list of difficulties increase fast upon us. You gravely inform us, that we cannot tell when Sub-deacons^ Acolyths, and Exorcists were intro- duced into the church ; and your inference from this must be, that we ought not to urge the diffi- culty of accounting for the rise of Episcopacy, when we cannot ascertain the time when these dig- nified officers were first created. Upon reading this, the correctness of Lord 156 Letter XVIII. Kaimes > definition of the ridiculous, forcibly struck me. He says, it is that " which excites laughter blended with contempt."* Sub-deacons, Acolyths, and Exorcists! Why did you not add, Sextons, Porters, Bell-ringers, and Grave-diggers? Surely, Sir, you must take your readers for children, when you suppose that they will believe, that the intro- duction of the first named officers was u calculated to interest the feelings both of the clergy and of the people, and to excite long and violent opposition from various quarters." What was there in the office of a Sub-deacon to excite opposition ? That officer prepared the sacred vessels and utensils of the altar, and delivered them to the Deacons in time of divine service. He attended the church doors during the time of the communion service ; and he went on the Bishop's embassies, with his letters to foreign churches. Was this an office of so much consequence, as to excite commotions in the church, upon its introduction? No one can seriously say, it was. The Acolyths were an order peculiar to the Latin church, and quite unknown to the Greek for four hundred years. It appears from a canon in the fourth council of Carthage, that their office was to light the candles, snuff them, furnish the wine for the sacrament, and attend the Bishop. Do you seriously think, Sir, that appointing candle * El. Crit. vol. i. p. 221. Rise and Progress of Episcopacy* 157 snuffers was calculated to produce commotions in the church? Sir, I am ashamed of this; it is really too bad ; far, far too low and ridiculous to come from your pen. Exorcists began with Christianity itself. In the Apostolic age, all orders of the clergy, and even laymen cast out devils, and this continued to be the case till miracles ceased, which was not till the persecutions of the Christians ceased. This has been abundantly proved by several writers. When this miraculous power of casting out devils ceased, which was at different times in different situations, the order of Exorcists was instituted, and this we know was about the middle of the third century ; for Cyprian mentions this order, and I cannot find any before him that does. The duties of this office were to pray, both in private and public, for the En- crgwnens, or those who were supposed to be pos- sessed of the devil, to keep them always employed in some innocent business, and to see them pro- vided with daily food. This was a humane ofRce ; but it was strongly tinctured with superstition. — All these inferior orders are found in the church in the third century. When a writer can prevail on himself to give the most distant hint, that the difficulty of determining the time when these petty, servile offices were in- troduced into the church (even if that were true) is as great as the difficulty of determining the sera Vol. II. P 158 . Letter XVIII. of Episcopacy, it must excite strong suspicion, that all is not right in some quarter or other. In reviewing your eighth letter, I have thought it best to settle this point, although not in the order you observe, before I consider whether it was morally possible for so great a revolution to take place in so short a time ; and whether, if it were, we should not have some notice of it in the records of the church. Let us give these points a fair dis- cussion. The point of time that I shall take for this sup- posed revolution, is the middle of the second cen- tury, because I am warranted by the concessions ^f your ablest writers to do so. The assembly of Presbyterian divines in their yus. Divin. Minis, Ang. p. 104, have this question, — " How long was it, that the church of Christ was governed by the common council of Presbyters, without a Bishop set over them ? A. Dr. Blondel, a man of great reading and learning, undertakes, in a long dis- course, to make out that before the year 140, there was not a Bishop over Presbyters." This gives us the opinion of the English Presbyterian divines, and it differs very materially from yours, as to the point of time when Episcopacy is supposed to have been introduced. Chamier, a Protestant divine of the French church, says, that " inequality (of Bi- shops and Presbyters) was very ancient, and near the times of the Apostles. Nay, that it took place, Rise and Progress of Episcopacy* 159 the first age having not yet, or scarcely elapsed."* Now one of the Apostles, St. John, out-lived the first age, dying at Ephesus, A. D. 101. Salmashis says in his book called IValo Messalinus, chap. iv. u About the beginning, or middle of the second age, the first Bishops were placed over the Presbytery."" Another divine of the same church, Du Moulin, candidly acknowledges, that u Episcopacy was an Apostolic institution, and whatever name we may give Timothy and Titus, whether that of Bishops or Evangelists, it is manifest that they had Epis- copal successors, who enjoyed their pre-eminence. "f Bucer, a divine of the Swiss church, acknowledges that, u even irvthe times of the Apostles themselves, one of the Presbyters was chosen and ordained to be a guide, and, as it were, a Prelate, who went before all the rest, and had the care of souls, and administered the Episcopal office, chiefly and in the highest degree."J With Bucer agrees Cabin, in his comment on Titus i. 5. " At that time (ot Timothy J there was no equality among the minis- ters of the church, but some one in authority and council had the pre-eminence."j! Baxter, Le Clerc, and Doddridge, have been already quoted ; the trio former, as placing the rise cf Episcopacy in the * Inseq'.iaiiutem esse vctu^tiss'inam ac vicinam Apostcb- rum temporibus. Aut non dum elapp, aut v'.x elapso prime bsculo. t Ordinem Episcopalcr:: esse jur'.s Apostolic?, he. X L b de anima. «- - .ripsir. Ar!£ p. 380. jj Ncn earn fuisse tunc ^ciuaiitateni inter etclesi^e rnifii^'.roT, uixoltc, of Gulliver's Travel V, of Amadis of Gaul, as believe this story. It is incredible — it is unreasonable. Yet it seems any account of the matter will do, when a hypothesis is to be served ; when those passions are to be consulted, which always entwine themselves with principles once avowed, and with interests once es- tablished. Let us now see how you surmount all these diffi- culties. The consideration of this point shall oc- cupy the first part of ray next letter * ( ira ) LETTER XIX Rev. Sir, YOUR manner of accounting for the silence o£ the primitive writers, with respect to a revolution in the government of the Christian Church, is as follows: — u Nor is it wonderful that we find so lit- tle said concerning those usurpations in the early records of antiquity. There was probably but lit- tle written on the subject ; since those who were most ambitious to shine as writers, were most likely to be forward in making unscriptural claims them- selves ; and, of course, would be little disposed to record their own shame. It is likewise probable, that the little that was written on such a subject would be lost ; because the art of printing- being unknown, and the trouble and expense of multiply- ing copies being only incurred for the sake of pos- sessing interesting" and popular works, it was not to be expected that writings so hostile to the ambi- tion and vices of the clergy would be much read, if it were possible to suppress them. And when to these circumstances we add, that literature, after the fourth century, was chiefly in the hands of ec- clesiastics ; that many important works written in Rise and Progress of Epucopccy. 1 73 the three first centuries, are known to be lost ; and that of the few which remain, some are acknow- ledged on all hands to have been grossly corrupted, and radically mutilated, we cannot wonder that so little in explanation of the various steps of clerical usurpation has reached our times.*" It seems then, from this account, that we are not to look for any records of this wonderful usurpa- tion ; because those who were the most capable of writing, would be the very men who would most probably have usurped Episcopal pre-eminence; and they would not, you think, record their own shame. But were there none who were capable of writing, but the comparatively small number of usurping Bishops ? Was the eloquent Tertxdhan one of the usurpers ? Has not he left various writings ? Has he given any hint about this anti-Christian usurpa- tion ? Would he have recorded his own shame by so doing? Nay, Sir, has not this Presbyter, who had ever}' motive to brand with infamy these usurpers, declared in the most explicit terms, that all spiritual power is derived from Episcopal or- dination ? That neither Presbyter nor Deacon has a right to baptize without the Bishop's authority? Does not he challenge the heretics to produce a list of their Bishops, from the Apostles, as the Catho- lics could ? What could have induced Tertullian to be silent with respect to this usurpation, if it had * Page 302. Q2 174 Letter XIX. ever existed ? Or rather, what could have induced him to assert such a shameless falsehood, as that Episcopacy was of Apostolical institution, if it was not a notorious fact ? What also could have induced the learned Clemens of Alexandria to be silent upon this point ? Was he one of the usurping Bishops ? Would he have recorded his own shame by lifting up his voice against the usurpation? Or rather, would he not have been highly culpable^ if he had been silent ? Bat we hear no remonstrance from him. On the contrary, we find him declaring ;hat the Apostles left three orders in the church- Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. We have the ^ame testimony from the profoundly learned Ori- gen. He also was but a Presbyter ; and therefore one of the sufferers under this unchristian domina- ;ion. He had, too, a peculiar motive for unmasking die imposition. He conceived himself to have been ill treated by his Bishop. Yet, irritated as he was, he declares Episcopacy to be of divine ap- pointment. Did he not know how the matter was? Was he an idiot, or a knave ? Was he afraid to tell the truth, or had he any motive for telling a lie ? Surely, Sir, we have got to a strange pass, when >uch monstrous fictions are imposed upon man* kind ? But why are the Christian Bishops to be excluded from bearing their testimony to Episcopacy ? Oh ! they were the usurpers, and of course could not re- ;?rd their own shame* Was Ignatius a usurper? Rise and Progress of Episcopacy* 1 7T Does the man who had been forty years Bishop of Antioch, who had been ordained to that office by Apostolic imposition of hands, and who encountered for the sake of Christ, death in one of its most hor- rible forms, deserve that character? Did he, virtuous and pious as he was, go out of the world with a lie in his mouth I Did this martyr, who declares over and over again, that the office which he bore was of divine institution, record his own shame? Was Polycarp, the venerable and pious Bishop of Smyr- na, one of those usurping Prelates I He must have had a principal hand in the business, if Blondel and the Westminster divines have guessed right ; for he lived at the very time when, they say, this flagitious revolution was effected. Was this distinguished character, who recommended in strong terms the epistles of Ignatius, in which the divine right of Episcopacy is repeatedly asserted, and who, from recommending them, must have been of the same opinion - y was, I say, Polycarp one of those usur- pers ? Did he go out of the world, triumphing in the flames, and exulting in the hope of happiness,, when he had upon his soul the guilt of destroying that sacred regimen which Christ left in his church? Was he tenacious of the time of keeping Easter, which was of no material consequence ; but regard- less of the constitution of the Christian church ? If these questions will admit of an answer in the affirmative, then the nature of man is totally differ- ent from what it was in the early ages of the church. 176 Letter XIX. At that time, great events were not recorded, while the most insignificant were. At that time, revolu- tions were effected by simple volition; but ever since they have required vigorous action. Then the government of the Church was subverted with- out the least notice, noise, or contention; but now it would excite the greatest commotions, and most virulent animosities. In that age men loved misery ; but now they abhor it. Then art and intrigue possessed magical power, and were irresistible ; novo, their influence may be effectually counteracted. In short, a total revolution has taken place in the human mind, as well as in the Church. Its princi- ples, its motives, its feelings, its powers, have un- dergone a complete change* Surely, Sir, I need not go on naming other dis- tinguished lights of the Church in the second and third centuries. I need not say any thing about Hegesippus, and Justin Martyr, and Mclito, and Poly crates, and Theophilus, and Ireneus, and several others in the second century ; and Miltiades, and Minutius Fcelix, and Alexander of Jerusalem, and Cyprian, and Cornelius, and many more in the third century; several of whom left writings behind them, in which there is not a tittle about a change of go- vernment; and all of them were men of distinguished piety, eminent virtue, and respectable talents. To talk of these men being either usurpers themselves, or encouragers of usurpation, either by word or deed, in others ; or of even keeping silence during Rae and Pre < :f Epucopdtfk it; -rogress, or after it took place, is such an c mge committed upon probability, that it is mcon- ceivable to me how any one can possibly be guilty o£it. Yet such "s the. feet, that ycu are : it, whether it can be accounted for or not. i go on, S e save unvaried strain of conjecture and fancy. You think it * probable that die little that was written on such a subject, [a change cf government] would be lost ; because tb* art of printing being unknown, and the trouble and expense of multiplying copies being only incurred for the sake of possessing interesting' and poptdat works, it was not to be expected that writings so hostile to the ambitious views of the CI :uld be much read, if it were possible to suppress them.* It seems then, that you know, or at least think it probable, that in several works which are lost, there WM some account of this revolution^ Was there ever such an argument: as this from a man • wishes to be deemed a reasoner ! At this rate, what j become cf the best attested facts? A sceptic has nothing to do but to say, u it is probable that the little that was written 7 ' in opposition to those facts, is lost ; but if we had those writings, it is very likely that we should have a very differ story. Or if the art of printing had been kne- : bable that those books wh i c h contradict the alleged facts, would have been so much multi- :otal destruction, and then those pretended facts would appear gross iropesi- 1T8 Letter XIX. tlons. What a sweeping' way of reasoning is this ! Might not the Deists, at this rate, argue against the Gospel History, that " perhaps there were ac- counts published concerning our blessed Saviour by good hands, directly contrary to those in the Gos- pels now extant, although they are entirely lost, as many books of the adversaries of Christianity are known to be ? And how easily may they argue against the reasonableness of our receiving the books of the New Testament upon the testimony of the Fathers, that we know not what they all thought j that many of them are lost, which, per- haps, contradicted the testimony of the remaining part ? Would it not be a sufficient reply to such persons, that nothing can be more unreasonable than to reject the concurrent testimony of all, or most of the writers extant, upon so groundless a supposition as this ? Nay, that it is more reason- able to think, that the writers not extant, bore wit- ness to the same things, and that if they believe anv thing upon the testimony of past writers, they ought in reason to believe this, because the same surmises lie against all historians ?"* I have now, I flatter myself, proved the extreme weakness of your reasoning to show the possibility and probability of a change from Presbytery to Episcopacy. And if the human mind canno* act without motives j if no motive can possibly * Hoadley's brief Defence of Episcopal Ordination, p. 18, 19t Rise and Progress of Episcopacy* 179 be assigned consistently with the universally ac- knowledged principles of human actions; if a change which deprived the Presbyters of the Church of their most sacred rights, and was in the highest degree calculated to produce the most violent oppo- sition, and the most rancorous enmity ; if, notwith- standing, no opposition was excited, and not a hint given by any writer of antiquity, that such a revo- lution took place ; but, on the contrary, if every au- thor who mentions the subject founds Episcopacy upon Apostolical institution ; then the conclusion is irresistible, that no change took place ; but that from the beginning of the Christian Church there was no such thing as parity, but a real distinction of office and character. Notwithstanding the reasoning upon which I rest this conclusion, is drawn from the nature of the hu- man mind, from the well known circumstances of the Church in the second and third centuries, from the universally acknowledged virtue and piety of those who must necessarily have been concerned in this flagitious usurpation, and from the total silence of all antiquity upon the subject ; yet, you venture to assert that a change was not only practicable and probable y but that it actually took place. Well, Sir, let us now try this point. And here I would observe, that all you have said to prove that a change actually took place, is nothing more .than you had said in different parts of your book ; to which I have given a very particular an- 180 Letter JCIX. swer. But as you have, by way of recapitulation, again brought to view the same points, it may be expedient for me to repeat, in as concise a manner as possible, my replies, . 1. You urge the indiscriminate use of scripture titles. This has been fully answered over and gver again. It has been evinced, that the commu- nity of names amounts to nothing at all. There were during the lives of the Apostles three orders in the Church — Apostles, Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons ; and in the next age, the successors of the Apostles were styled Bishops, who had under them, Presbyters and Deacons. This is generally the language used by the writers of all ages succeeding the first; and whenever the Fathers style a Bishop a Presbyter, which is very seldom, it is done with propriety, as the greater implies the less. u It is not necessary to repeat the proof of these positions. They will, therefore, be assumed as established points." But when you tell us, that "** in the writings of the third century, we begin to perceive a style of expression indicating a com- mencement of a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, 7 ' you assert what has been abundantly proved to be erroneous ; for I have shown that the writers of the second century, particularly Ignatius, used the same distinctive language; and that arose not from " a change in the nature of the offices" but from the fact, that the Bishops succeeded to the Apostolical pre-eminence j and that, therefore, there Rise and Progress of Episcopacy. 13 i was no alteration in the regimen of the Church, as Presbyterian writers gratuitously assert. 2. You repeat your declaration, that Jerome, Hilary, and Chrysostom^ writers of the fourth cen* tun-, maintain that a change took place after the Apostolic age ; but I have shown from their express assertions, that they held Episcopacy to be an Apostolic institution ; and their testimonies " are so pointed and unquestionable, and so formally stated, that they must silence even prejudice and sophistry themselves. Were not these learned men as likely to understand the subject on which they wrote as any of the present day ? Is it credible that they should be totally deceived concerning a fact, which, if it did not fall under their own ob- servation, must have been personally witnessed by their predecessors ? It is not credible. Yet unless we suppose these writers to have been either deceiv- ed or dishonest,"* the Episcopal form of church government was of Apostolic and divine institution. 3. You observe that " Prelacy was first embraced in populous and wealthy cities." This is perfectly correct. It was first embraced in Jerusalem, An- iioch, Rome, Alexandria, . 249. Rise ana F regress of Episcopacy* 197 The observation of Du Pin, that the text of the canon is in a very corrupt state, from the circum- stance of city Presbyters having been allowed to ordain without the Bishop's license, previously to the passing of the canon, while the Chorepiscopi, who were true and proper Bishops, were restricted from the exercise of that part of their office, carries with it great force. There is no way of removing from the canon, the charge of inconsistency with the principles and practice of the church at the time when it was formed, but by adding the words, to do any thing, as has been done by the ablest and best writers, both ancient and modern. I have dwelt the longer upon this point, to show the very singular way you have of settling every thing, however obscure and difficult. You assert roundly, and there is an end of the matter. But surely, Sir, there must be some ^rnong your read- ers, who will not be put off in this way. There must be some, however predisposed to receive your assertions, that will be staggered when they find adduced so many instances in your work of unfair management, and so many proofs given of your ontradicting well-authenticated facts. This last instance of arbitrary decision is not the least, and I believe it will not be the last, of this very cen- surable catalogue. Before I go on to your fifth head of observations, I would just observe, that it is an argument against Episcopacy which one w T ould not have expected -S2 198 Letter XIX. from a man of sense and a scholar, that there have been Bishops who attempted to extend their autho- rity beyond its due limits. Yes, Sir, this is un- doubtedly true; but is it not equally true, that Pres- byters and Deacons have done the same? With respect to the latter, does not Jerome tell you so ? Arid with respect to the former, is not history full of it? I name but one of these Presbyters-*-t?tf/pm, (supposing him to be such) the Apostle of Geneva, Consider his conduct, and be silent for ever. Under y our fifth head you say, — u The gradual diminution of the number of Bishops, after the first three centuries, serves to confirm the fact for which I am contending. The great number of Bi- shops found in the early ages of the church, was remarked in a former letter. They appear to have been as numerous within two or three centuries of the Apostolic age, as modern parish ministers. But as we recede from that period, we find their num- ber gradually diminishing, in exact proportion' as ^heir claims and honours became extended. In the island of Cre te, where we are informed that in early times there were one hundred Bishops, in a few centuries afterwards we find but txvehe. In a small district in Asia, where, in the third century, theie were settled one hundred and Jive Bishops^ in two or three centuries their number was reduced to 7iine. — What is the obvious inference from these facts ? That primitive Bishops were a very differ- ent class of officers from those which bore that name Rise and Progress of Episcopacy* 1 99 three or four centuries afterwards j and, conse- quently, that during this period an important change had taken place in the character and powers of Bishops." Here, Sir, you give us a story very different from that you told us in your fifth letter.* Now, you say, after the third century the number of Bishops decreased j then, you represented their numbers in the fourth and fifth centuries as enormously great- Thick as in spring the flowers adorn the land Or leaves the trees One of the councils in the fifth century, you say, was composed of 6000 Bishops. Here then must have been a prodigious increase of Bishops, after the period you have assigned for their diminu- tion. And in the same century, you assert, that the council of a single province in Africa, was composed of between five and six hundred Bishops. Where now is the diminution of Bishops after the third - century ? The fact is, that Bishops in the Apos- tolic age were but few, while Presbyters were very numerous. There were several Elders at Jeru- salem, and but one Bishop, St. James. That was also the case at Ephesus, and Crete, and Philippic and Alexandria, and Rome, and other places. In the second century we find the Bishops much in- creased, in consequence of the diffusion of Chris- * Page 198, 199. 200 Letter XIX. tianity j but the Presbyters, from the same cause, increased proportionably. This continued to be the case during the subsequent ages. The increase of Bishops in Africa in particular, after the schism of the Donatists, was enormously great; those schis- matics placing a Bishop of their own, wherever the Catholics had one."* But after the Roman Empire was torn to pieces by the northern bar* barians, a considerable change took place. The number of Bishops was in some places lessened ; and after the conquest of the Saracens in the East, many flourishing churches were entirely extin- guisbed, and most of them greatly diminished both as to clergy and people. The frequent revolutions which took place in the Eastern and Western Em- pires, produced a constant change in the number of Bishops ; generally on grounds of a political na- ture, in no way connected with the spiritual nature of the office. But what argument can be drawn from all this against the Apostolic origin of Epis- copacy, is beyond my comprehension. Whether -Bishops have been more or less numerous at dif- ferent periods, has no more to do with the origin *of their office, than with the origin of Presbytery, -or of Independency. • How strangely is the world altered in this respect ! The very heretics and schismatics took care always to have Bishops ; for they knew that otherwise it would be an unanswerable argument against them in the mouths of the Catholics. Just ihe reverse is the case at present. Rise and Progress of Episcopacy, 201 What you say, Sir, with respect to the island of Crete, and a small district in Asia, wants to be sup- ported by competent authority. What author says that there were a hundred Bishops in that island in early times ? Till I saw your book I had never heard of it. I have consulted Euscbius in those parts of his history, in which one would naturally look for such an account. But I can find nothing like it. Bingham, who has given the most correct view of the primitive dioceses, speaks a language very different from your's. His words are, " In the isle of Crete, Carolus a Sancto Paulo names eleven dioceses. The Notitia of Leo Sapiens, in Leunclavius, makes them twelve ; but Hierapetra is there, by mistake of some transcriber, divided into two, which being corrected, reduces them to the same number. Whence I conclude, this was pretty near the standing number for several ages."* It now appears, I think, very evident, that you are at variance with yourself upon this point ; but putting that out of the question, you are at variance with the best authorities we have upon the extent of dioceses, and the number of Bishops in the primitive ages. But if you were even correct, still your in- ference with respect to the origin of Episcopacy, has nothing to do with the position, that the num- ber of Bishops decreased after the third century. That is easily accounted for, from the well known ■ Vol. i. p. 426. 202 Letter XIX. events which took place in the Eastern and Western Empires, and from that constant mutability which attends all human affairs. The last circumstance which you advance in fa- vour of your hypothesis is, " that it is confirmed by the most learned and impartial historians;" and of these you mention three — Mosheim^ Gibbon^ and Hawezs, These three writers give us nothing more than their opinion; and I have already observed, that the value of an opinion depends upon the strength of the evidence by which it is supported. Mosheim gives no proofs ; he merely asserts. Assertions are easily made ; but proofs are not so easily given. Mosheim too had the system of his own church to maintain. The prejudice and errors arising from this source, every thinking mind must be aware of. Many great men have adopted opinions utterly in- consistent with facts, and have maintained princi- ples from which common sense revolts. Gibbon is another of your authorities, if the opi- nion of a man can be called authority. I wonder, Sir, that it did not strike you, that a man who de- nied the divine origin of the scriptures, could not, with the least consistency, allow the divine origin of Episcopacy. To have done this, would have been to renounce infidelity. If the scriptures have not the stamp of divinity, certainly the ministry which was instituted to preserve and expound them, cannot claim any character of that sort. Rise and Progress of Episcopacy. 203 Your next historian is Dr. Haxveis. Did you quote him, Sir, on account of the weight he derives from his learning, or profound knowledge of an- tiquity, or consistency of character ? Do you think that a man who despises learning, can be very learned himself, and who abuses all the Fathers of the church, can know much about them ? Do you think that man's testimony is of much weight, who always takes part with heretics.and schismatics, and commends No t uatians i Donatists, Meletians, and Luciferians, while Catholic confessors and martyrs are treated with contempt, because they did not think as he does upon the subjects of predestination and grace P Can you think that man's opinion of any consequence, who says, that he " thinks Episco- pacy most correspondent to the Apostolic practice, and the general usage of the church in the first and generally esteemed purer ages" and yet can unite with those who have departed from Apostolical practice, and are the avowed enemies of primitive usage? Can he be a proper guide to those who wish to be acquainted with the constitution of Christ's Church, who says, that " most of the Apos- tles lived and died among their brethren in Pales*- tine; that " all ecclesiastical officers for the first three hundred years were elected by the people ;" and that u Matthias was thus chosen to fill up the tribular number of the Apostles," as he expres- ses himself? Is that man a diligent and ac- curate historian, who talks of the constitutions of 204 Letter XIX. Ignatius, meaning, no doubt, the Apostolical Con- stitutions, which were pretended to have been written by Clement; who calls Poly carp the dis- ciple of Ignatius, when all the primitive writers assert that he was the disciple of St, John ; who mistakes the name of an office for the name of a man, calling Pontius, the Deacon of St. Cyprian, Pontius Diaconus P Can, in short, that man, who is so spiritually minded, because he believes the doctrine of election and reprobation, be a sure guide to primitive truth and order, when he speaks contemptuously of the great lights of antiquity, the martyrs and confessors of the faith of Jesus ; and when he rejects in a lump the testimony of the early writers of the Catholic Church? If such a man's opinion can be of any service to you, avail yourself of it, Sir ; but we will be contented with the ancient Fathers, as historians of the facts which were accessible to their inquiries.* -. I will close this letter with recommending as a counterpoise to your three historians, the Ecclesi- astical histories of Eusebius, Sozomen, and Theo- doret- among the ancients ; Echard's and Du Pin's among the moderns ; and, with them, Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church. * See a Reviexii of Ifaweis' Church History, annexed to Skinner's Answer to Campbell's Lectures, lately republished by T. & J. Swords. 20o ) LETTER XX. Rev. Sir, I HAVE now considered, as briefly as I well could, your manner of obviating the difficulties at- tending the supposition of a change of government in the purest ages of the Christian church ; and if I do not deceive myself, it has been demonstrated, that it was morally impossible, that such a change should have taken place before the Roman empire became Christian. The profound silence of ail antiquity upon the subject ; the impracticability of a change, considering the circumstances of the church in the first three ages ; the absurdity of the supposition, considering the nature of the human mind, which cannot act without motives ; the ex- treme difficulty of perceiving any motive that could have actuated the breasts of the usurpers ; the in- consistency of such a supposition, with the positive testimony of the Fathers to the Apostolic origin e)£ Episcopacy ; the well known purity of the church in the second century, when this change is supposed to have taken place ; all these accumulated consi- derations place Episcopacy upon high and im- pregnable ground. They r.fTcrd what the great Vol. II. T £06 Letter XX, Chillingworth does not scruple to call a demonstra- tion of the Apostolic origin of Episcopacy. The demonstration stands thus—" Episcopal govern^ rnent is acknowledged to have been universally received in the church presently after the Apostles' times. Between the Apostles' times and that pre- sently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration. " And, therefore, there was no such alteration as is pretended. And, therefore, Episcopacy being confessed to be so ancient and Catholic, must be granted to be also. Apostolic" In the preceding letter, I showed that Presbyterian vriters are at. variance, when they attempt to assign he century when Episcopacy first appeared in the church ; and also observed, that this difference ^inong themselves affords a strong presumption that they are all wrong. I would now observe, that as they cannot agree with respect to the time, so. neither can they with respect to the source of this usurpation. The generality ascribe it to wicked ambition, rendered successful by general corruption. J3ut the celebrated Dr. Campbell takes very different ground. He condemns those who ascribe -the change to corruption ; for that, he says, is ascribing It to what did not exist. The church, he assures us, was in great purity, and the clergy were distin- guished for their virtue and piety in the second century ; and you make the same acknowledgment. He ascribes the change not to vice, but to virtue ,. t and Progress ofAEpiscophcy. 2 they do not enter- tain the most distant thought, that the want of it will preclude men from salvation, when it pro- ceeds from necessity, or from honest error. The} believe that such error will be forgiven, and sin- cere piety accepted in all who profess the faith of Christ. No charity can be more extensive than this ; and whatever may be thought of the correc;- ness of the principle, no fault can be found with the temper of the mind. They think, that if Episcopacy be a divine institution, and there can be no church without a ministry, the inevitable consequence is, that Episcopacy is essential to the visible church. And as to the difficulty which you propose, they do not view it as any difficulty at all ; for they say> when the heart is right, that grace which is not promised to unauthorized administrations, is granted Vol. II. X 230 Letter XX. by special favour ; so that none will fail of salvation when the error is not wilful, or when necessity ex- cludes men from Episcopal administrations. Now, whatever may be thought of this reasoning, it ap- pears to me to be the only way in which you can reconcile your own principle, " no ministry, no true church," with charity, and rational views of the goodness and mercy of God. The other class of Episcopalians, although they believe Episcopacy to have been instituted by the Apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, yet do not consider it as essential to the being of a church. Presbyterian churches they consider as very defective; but not deprived of their church character ; as excuseable, when Episcopacy cannot be had; but schismatical, when it can; as irregular and unscriptural in their ministry, but, by no means, devoid of a valid ministry. This class of Episco- palians have nothing to do with your supposed dif- iiculty. As they do not unchurch dissenters from Episcopacy, although they think them blameable, and in most cases schismatical; as they do not place them under uncovenanted mercy, they have the same channels of grace open to them that Episcopa- lians have, and, consequently, may be as good, or better than they, if they are placed in a more favour- able situation. It is then only the first class of Episcopalians that are affected by what you deem a difficulty of no easy solution. But whether it be a difficulty or not, you should remember, that the Practical influence of Prelacy* 231 Westminster divines and yourself are as much af- fected by it, in reference to the Quakers and other mystic Christians, as the first class of Episcopalians are with respect to Presbyterians. If you will, therefore, extricate yourself, and they like your mode of doing it better than their own, no doubt they will adopt it; but until you do, depend upon it, they will not think it very modest in you to call upon them to solve a difficulty, in which you are as deeply involved as they are. These arguments are partly ad hominem, and partly ad verecundiam. The first class of Episcopalians, whatever may be said for the correctness of their principles, are, at least, very consistent. They set out precisely on the same ground with the Westminster divines — " no ministry, no true church." If, then, Episco- pacy be a divine institution, and none but Bishops can communicate the sacerdotal character, it follows inevitably, that there can be no ministry without them, and, consequently, without them no true church. This is the mode of reasoning of this class of churchmen; and perhaps it is not so easy to answer it, as those must suppose, who reject the principle upon which it is founded. Be that as it may, it is exactly the reasoning of the Westminster divines, and of yourself, Sir. You say,* " It is only as far as amj succession flows through the line of Presi that it is either regular or valid. It is d ♦ Pa^e 847 232 Letter XX. on of the hands of the Presbytery that constitutes a scriptural ordination." Consequently, without the ■reposition of the hands of Presbyters, there can be no ministry ; and without a ministry, there can be no true church. And none but those who be- long to the visible church are entitled to covenant privileges. Therefore, the Quakers and some others, who have no ministry ordained by laying' on of the hands of the Presbytery, are completely unchurched. I cannot conceive, Sir, how it is pos- sible for you to evade this consequence ; and if you cannot, how strange is it for you to propose a diffi- culty, which, if it be really such, bears with all its force upon you, as much as upon those Episcopa- lians who unchurch Presbyterians. But the other class of Episcopalians (as has been already observ- ed) stand entirely clear of this difficulty, because their principles have nothing exclusive in them, at least in their view of the matter, and, consequently, they place Episcopal regimen on a more liberal footing than you do Presbyterian ; for they exclude nobody from visible church membership, but you exclude Quakers and all those who have not a ministry ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. And as you assert, that nineteen Episcopalians out of twenty, are of the second class, then it follows upon your own concession, that in that proportion, churchmen are more liberal than genuine, consistent Presbyterians. Well, Sir, be it so, I have no objection. Practical Influence of Prelacy. £33 Without attempting to determine which of the two classes of Episcopalians is right, that which totally unchurches all denominations which have not Bishops, or that which, while they maintain the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy, do, neverthe- less, in certain cases, admit the validity of Presby- terian ordination, but in no case its regularity, I shall but just observe, that even on the first and highest ground, you cannot, with the least consist- ency, or modesty, make any objection. If they make Episcopacy essential to the being of a church, so do you a ministry ordained by the hands of the Presbytery. If they are at a loss to solve the dif- ficulty, how it is that God confers his grace as freely upon those who are not members of the visible church, as upon those who are, you are equally at a loss. But if you can solve this diffi- culty, so can they in- the very same manner. How then is it, Sir, that you could have so lost sight of consistency and propriety, as to have indulged yourself in such language as you have, towards those, as they are commonly styled, high-flying churchmen ? You place their principles upon a level with the worship of images, and exhort vour people to exercise patience towards those deluded bigots ; not considering that you were at the same time involving \ ourself in the same condemnation. The Quaker, Sir, can treat you in the same com- plimentary manner with at least as much propriety, and as good a grace, as you treat Episcopalians. X2 234 Letter XX. I sincerely wish, Sir, that a number of expressions in your letters had been forborne. They favour too much of bitterness, and of that bigotry of which you complain in others. - But, Sir, after all, what is this mighty difficulty, which is to deter Episcopalians from asserting that there cannot be such a church as Christ con- stituted without Episcopal authority ? Do those Episcopalians thereby exclude Presbyterians from salvation ? Far, very far from it. They declare most readily, and delight in the thought, that their piety will be accepted. Surely, Sir, you know this» How then could you say, that " such persons are to be viewed in the same light with those who con- scientiously believe — that there is no salvation out of the pale of the church of Rome ?" Are those who extend salvation to all denominations of Christians, and even to the very heathen, to be abused as bigots, and ranked with those who con- fine it to a particular pale ? Is such extensive cha- rity to be put upon a footing with such contracted bigotry ? Are those who ascribe sincerity to the piety of others, and purity to their motives, to be ranked with those who admit no purity, and, of consequence, no salvation out of their own church? Surely, Sir, you could not have been under the in- fluence of the usual benevolent pulse of your heart, when you gave way to such feelings, nor of the usual dictates of your good sense, when you uttered such expressions. But you. must be. excused, as Practical Influence Of Prelacy. 23^ you had a difficult task on hand ; for certainly it 13 difficult to give plausibility to error, and to truth the appearance of falshood. However difficult you may think it is to account for the Almighty's extending his grace to those who are in fundamental error, yet as the fact is cer- tain that he does extend it, we ought not to be too curious in our inquiries into his conduct. The Judge, of all the earth will do right. He has given his church such a constitution as he saw fit, and it is our duty* to conform to it. If we err, and our er- ror be not wilful, he will make due allowances for our honest misconception ; but we have no right to call that a Christian church which is materially different from the one he has constituted by his Holy Spirit. Still he may and does extend his grace and mercy to such Christians. We are bound, but his grace is free. This is the language of the first class of Episcopalians. I fear that I have been too prolix upon this point ; but I believe it was necessary- to show how inconsistent you are in this part of the discussion, and how unreasonable in expecting from Episcopa- lians a sacrifice of what they deem truth, because the consequences bear hard upon others. If they are correct in their views of the Christian church, the consequences, whatever they may be, are not of their making. Let those look to that who have deviated from a divine institution. Thus, then, I think it appeal's, that those who S36 Letter XX. carry Episcopacy so far as to pronounce your minis* try invalid, and, in consequence, your church funda- mentally deficient in her regimen, carry the matter no further with you, than you do with the Quakers j and, therefore, you cannot, with any consistency, find fault with them. And as to any difficulty that you may think attends the carrying of Episcopacy to such a length, the very same difficulty attends the divine right of Presbytery , when carried into all its consequences. You must, therefore, either give up this mode of assailing Episcopacy, or you must change your principles. Consistency requires that you should do one or the other. I now proceed to consider a few more passages in your concluding letter. You say, " The efficacy of Episcopal govern- ment in securing the unity of the church, in guard- ing against schism, and in promoting harmony and peace, has been much celebrated. But is there such a peculiar and benign efficacy in that form of Ecclesiastical order? I am willing to refer the de- cision of this question to any man who is acquainted with Ecclesiastical history? If we consult Euse- bius, he will present us with a picture of the vio- lence, the strife, and the divisions among Bishops, and among different portions of the church, through their means, which is enough to make a Christian weep. If we consult Gregory Nazianzen, he will tell us, in language before quoted, that Prelacy * has caused many fruitless conflicts and bruises,' &c. If Practical Influence of Prelacy, 237 we examine the history of any Episcopal church on earth, we shall find it exhibiting, to say the least, as large a share of heresy, contention, and schism, as any which bears the Presbyterian form ; and what is more, we shall ever find the Prelates themselves quite as forward as any others in scenes of violence! and outrage."* All this, Sir, is free enough to be sure ; and ra- ther out of the common way of proceeding. When men are charged with violence, and a contentious spirit, and when it is said, either expressly, or by implication, that the office they bear has a tendency to cherish that spirit, every reasonable man would expect such proofs as would justify these bold asser- tions. But you give us none at all; not so much as a single passage from any of the ancient historians* You indeed say, that you are willing to have the matter tried by Ecclesiastical history ; but as you adduce no instances of the violence you talk so much about, it is hard to be obliged to look over many folio volumes in Greek and Latin, to pick up against ourselves, instances of misbehaviour in Bi- shops. I hope, Sir, you do not expect this. Well then, If such a demand would be highly unreasona- ble, I will take another method, and give you a sufficient number of instances of heresies, schisms, and contentions by Presbyters and Deacons, when Bishops had no other concern with them, than that • Page 337, 338. 23S Letter XX, of making a faithful and zealous opposition to them. And upon this subject, very fortunately, I shall have no trouble ; for I find it all done to my hand in a sufficient degree by Dr. Maurice, in his masterly answer to Baxter. I shall select from the Doctor's " Vindication of the primitive Church," several in- stances, which, if they will not make you " weep," will at least make you sorry — that Bishops were not the authors of them. And if this will not defeat you in this mode of attack, I will freely acknow- ledge my error ; and, as a penance for it, I will enjoin upon myself to read your book over again. First, then : All Ecclesiastical writers agree, that Simon Magus was the author of the first heresy in the Christian church. You will not say, I presume, that Simon was a Bishop. He wished indeed to be invested with that character, and for that purpose offered a sum of money to the Apostles. But they were too honest to be bribed by his offer. " Thy money perish with thee," was their reply. The next heretic we read of was Menander ;* but no mortal ever asserted that he was a Bishop. . Saturninus and Basilides are the next in order. But neither of them was a Bishop, nor of any other order in the church that we know of.f Next in the list is the heresy of the Nocalaitans^ This is generally ascribed to Nicolas the Deacon. So say Ireneus and Epiphanius.% This, however, *• Epiph. Her. 23. f Iren. lib. I chap. 22, 23- t Her < 25, Prac ileal Influence of Prelacy. 2 39 is disputed. Be it as it may, he certainly was no Bishop. The Gnostics also had no Bishop for their foun- der and promoter. Carpocrates was a leading man among them ; but he was never invested with Apos- tolical Episcopacy.* Cerinthus, Ebion, Valentinus, Secundus, Epipha- ?ies, Isidorus, Ptokmceus, and Marcus, were no Bi- shops ; nor were Colarbasms, Heracleon. and Cerdo, The thirty-ninth Christian sect in Epiphanzus is that of the Cathari, or Puritans. Novatus^ an Af- rican Presbyter, was the author of this sect; and he seduced Novatianus, a Roman Presbyter, to join with him against his Bishop.f Theodotus, or Theodotion, was a learned man, and orthodox at first; and so was Bardesanes Syrus; but neither of them was a Bishop. Montanus became the author of an impious here- sy, because he could not obtain the Episcopal cha- racter. He blasphemously declared that he was the Holy Ghost4 The first heretical Bishop that we meet with in Ecclesiastical history, is Paulus Samosatenus, who succeeded Demetrianus in the See of Antioch, in the year 262, and who fell into heresy in the year 267. Here is a long space of time, more than two hundred years, and not one Bishop can be * Clem. Alex. lib. vi. t Epiph. Aux. Philast. J Enseb. m Chron. 240 Letter XX. produced who was the author of any heresy. Bui in that time, we find a few Presbyters, one Deacon, and several laymen, who were authors of heresies. This Paulus was a bad man as to his morals, and very heterodox as to his faith. He taught that Christ was not God.* But he was not the first that taught this doctrine. Artemas and Theodotus taught it before him.-f Now, Sir, be careful to put Paulus upon your list of heretical Bishops ; but, at the same time remember, that he was deposed by a council of Bishops. Theodotus too, who was a Presbyter, was not suffered to remain in the Catholic church. He was excommunicated by Vic- tor, Bishop of Rome, We have now, Sir, enumerated the principal heresies, which sprang up in the Christian church, for the first three hundred years, and in all that time, we find, among many thousand Bishops, but one heretic. This is really very wonderful. If any man wished to ascertain the state of Chris- tian doctrine during that period, what better proof could he have of it* purity, than this remarkable coincidence of principle among the Governors of the church? There is nothing like this to be produced in modern times, of which some peo- ple talk in such high strains of panegyric. Now, from a general prevalence of purity of doctrine, we may very reasonably infer purity of morals ; * Euseb. lib. vii. chap. 20. f Epiph. &c Practical Influence of Prelacy. 241 otherwise, what advantage has truth over error? Add to this the dreadful persecution of Christians during this period, and we may safely pronounce, widiout inquiring into the fact, that the three first centuries were the golden period of the church* What then shall we say to your picture of it ? I do not hesitate to say, that it is a perfect caricature. The following ages, it must be acknowledged, were not so pure. The early part of the fourth century was very afflictive to the church, in conse- quence of heresy and schism, which always destroy its peace. Me/etius, an Egyptian Bishop, the first of that order who began a schism, forsook the communion of the church, because, according to Epiphaniuz, those who fell from the faith under persecution, were received into it. But Atlianasius tells the story difFerendy. He says, that this Bi- shop had himself denied the faith, and being con- demned by a Synod of Bishops, he became a schismatic. About the same time sprang up the DonatisU, who, if Optatus be right, oweck their origin to two Presbyters, Botrus and Celcusius; although they were named from Donatus, one of their Bishops, who lived a good while after the rise of that faction.*" But the sect that most afflicted the church in the fourth century, was that of the Avians; so called from Arius, who, by good providence, was no * Aug. Heref. Vol. II. Y 242 Letter XX. more than a Presbyter. He taught that Christ was not of the same substance with the Father, and that he was not eternal. This doctrine first divided the church of Alexandria, and then all the world ; a few Bishops adopting his notion, but by far the greater part opposing it. At length a general council was called, by which Arms was condemned; and out of nearly three hundred Bishops, but seven- teen took his part, and but five of them refused to sign the decrees of the council.*" Constantius succeeded his father in the East, and being a friend to the Arians, that heresy gained ground to a great degree. The Bishops, who were generally opposed to it, were deposed and banished, and the Sees filled with Arians. It was in this state of things that so much contention arose among the Bishops of the church. The Arian Bishops, sup- ported by the Emperor, persecuted the orthodox Bishops ; while these, as was their duty, strenu- ously opposed their heretical adversaries. Hence arose that confusion and violence, which Gregory Nazianzcn speaks of as existing in the councils of that age. Not Prelacy, as you would have your readers believe, but heresy, was the principal cause of it; and if the Bishops could have had their wish, or if their efforts had been successful, the church would not have experienced the miseries which resulted from that pestilent sect. * Socr. lib. i. cap. 6. and Soz. lib. i. cap. 2? Practical Influence of Prelacy, 243 The sects that sprang out of Arianism were, most of them, begun by those that were not Bishops. jEtius was no more than a Deacon.* Eunomius and Macedonius were heresiarchs long before they were Bishops. The prevalence of Arianism, under an Arian Emperor, placed them in Episcopal chairs.f Another improver of Arianism, and leader of a new sect, was A'erius. He was no Bishop. His fellow student, Eustaihius, being raised to that of- fice in preference to him, the disappointment rankled in his breast, and he began to disparage that Apos- tolic order. u He was," says Dr. Maurice, " the Cartwright of those times, and the father of the Presbyterian parity. A notion brought into the world by the ambitious discontent of one, who, when he could not be a Bishop himself, yet scorned to seem inferior to any Bishop." The Audians were a sect which sprang up about the same time with the Arians, headed by one Audius, an Anthropomorphite ; but he was no Bi- shop, till he had made a schism, and then he was made a Bishop by his own party.f The Prisciilianists, who were a mixture of Ma- nichees and Gnostics, sprang up in the West; but their author was not a Bishop. Marcus is supposed to have been the founder of it ; but it does not ap- pear that he had any clerical character. Priscil * Soz. lib. iii 18. Soc. lib. ii. i Epiph. Heres. 71. + Soc. lib. iv. cap. 7- Athan. Apol. 2. 244 Letter XX. his scholar, gave name to the sect ; but he was no more than a layman, when he was condemned by the council of Saragassa.* The Pelagian heresy had no Bishop, either for its author or promoter. Pelag'ius, who gave it being, was a monk ; and Julianas and CeksttUS\ his disciples, were never Bishops.t Eutyches was no Bishop, but a monk. This he- resy prevailed chiefly among the Eastern monks j who made great disturbances about it after the council of Chalcedon. The heresy of the Monothelites was an unavoid- able consequence of the doctrine of Eutyches. This heresy is fathered upon Cyrus, Bishop of Alexan-* dria, who seduced two other Bishops into his opi- nion. But this departure from Catholic doctrine made no great progress, having met with great op- position from the Episcopal college. These were the principal heresies of the first five or six centu- ries ; and we see that no blame can be attached to the Bishops; but, on the contrary, that they are de- serving of the highest commendation. a But now," says Dr. Maurice, " because ths devil had another game to play, and started up but few heresies until those last ages ; let us see what sort of men the authors of them have been. The Sivelkfeldians, Anabaptists, Mennonists, the Family of Love, ^linkers, Ranters, and the rest of the 4 Scv. lib. ii. in fin. f Ang. Her. 88. Practical Influence of Prelacy. 2-45 modern sects ; did these derive themselves from any Bishops ? Servetus, was he a Bishop, or Soci- mis ? Or were the Racovian divines a Council of Bishops:"- Were Luther and Carolastadius Bi- shops ? It is well known they were not. Yet they could quarrel, and disgrace the Reformation by their incessant jarring. The latter was at last banished by the Elector of Saxony, at the instigation of Lu* then. Bishops had nothing to do with these con- tentions, which are enough to make a Christian " weep." Let us now see how it was in the church of Ge- neva, that paragon o£ Ecclesiastical regimen. Calvin, the founder- of ministerial parity, was endowed by nature with great talents. But he was a man. His new scheme of ministers upon equal ground, with a mixture of Ruling Elders, was to do wonders. But, were his expectations realized? No ; Geneva was soon torn with factions, and this gentle system of parity became the source of much contention. Calvin was rewarded for his services with banishment ; but after some time he was re- stored, and a new trial given to parity. It appears from his own letters, that the church in that city was miserably distracted, although there was not a Bishop within, its atmosphere. The return of Cal- vin evinced again the gentle sway of Presbyterv. CastelliOy a man of great learning, was soon expelled^ * Vind. p. Z03. Y2 246 - Letter XX. at the instigation of the Reformer. A violent con- test then took place between him and the senate about the election of a minister. It produced al- most sedition. Calvin's quarrels with Peri mis pro- ceeded to such a length, that the council became furious against one another. And what do you think was the cause of it? Why, Perimis thought it was no harm to recreate himself now and then with dancing. But Calvin, although no Bishop, played the tyrant, and forbad that amusement upon pain of excommunication. Per inns was not to be treated in that manner. He opposed such tyranny; and two of the ministers who joined with him were turned out of their livings. The contention became general throughout the city, and the com- mon council, taking different sides, almost cut one another's throats. Many more instances of tumults might be adduced as proofs of the gentleness of pa- rity. One person was put to death for libelling Calvin. Another was banished the city for preach- ing against Predestination. Servetus was burned for heresy. So much for the mother church of Presbytery. Switzerland zho fared no better under this parity yegimen. Dr. Maurice says, u Erastns having pub- lished his Theses of excommunication, was confuted by Beza ; yet there remained still several ministers dissatisfied; as BuUinger, Gualter, and divers others. This occasioned very great jealousies between the several parties, and it had almost come to a run- Practical hifiuence of Prelacy, 24F tttre. The churches of the Palatinate were no less shaken with this new controversy, and the zealots ibT this government and discipline took all occa- sions publicly to maintain them ; but the prudence of the Prince prevented the mischiefs which threat- ened his churches from this question. Builinger y m a letter dated March 10, 15T4, and Gualtcr, in some letters of his to the Bishops of London and Ely, and several other eye witnesses, do sufficiently testify the lamentable condition of those reformed churches, and the confusion which Presbyterian government brought upon them."* The Geneva platform was adopted by the re- formed in France, The constant persecution that church was under, and the bloody wars they had to maintain with the Catholics, kept them, of ne- cessity, more united than their neighbours. But notwithstanding the heavy pressure upon them, parity could not preserve them in peace. New and dangerous opinions in religion were continually started, and it required all the exertions of the pru- dent Du Plessis, and a few more of his character, to keep the church in any tolerable degree of tran- quillity. Holland to, where parity reigned in perfection, and the face of a Bishop was not to be seen, exhi- bited a sad scene of distraction. a The church government of that country," says Dr. Maurice^ * Vind. p. 37$, w 9. 34* Letter XX. was not established without great trouble and ditti- culty, and occasioned no small disturbance."* The civil magistrates and the ministry were constantly at variance. Synod after synod was convened, and they did more harm than good. If these synods had been Episcopal, we should have heard enough about their contentions ; but, by good fortune, they were all composed of parity men. But these disputes were not of great moment, in. comparison of what followed. The Arminian schism threw that church into violent convulsions,- For several years there was nothing but conference after conference, and synod after synod. At last it came to tumult, and sedition,, and bloodshed. A general synod was then resolved on: it met, at Dort. The Remonstrants were condemned, and these poor people, among whom were some of the most learned men of the age, were treated with the greatest severity. Some of the ministers who would not subscribe, were banished, and some were imprisoned. In short, it was a sad scene. This business was conducted, not under Episcopal regi- men, but under the mild sway of Presbytery. " And as these Presbyterian churches have been afflicted with schisms and contentions, so they have been sensible of the mischiefs of heresy. In them, ministers have no great revenues, nor dignities, nor power, and there are no Bishops ; and yet * Vind . p. 184. Practical Influence cf Prelacy, 249 heresies make a 3hift to thrive. Arians, Socini* ems, Mennonists, and others, abound, and are pert:- naciou3."* But, perhaps, there is no church which has felt the mischiefs of parity more than that of Scotland, " The concord of that church," says my author, " was much greater while it continued under Su- perintendents and Bishops, than it has been since Andrew Melvil disturbed it with the perfection: of the Geneva discipline and government. Whafc schisms there arose in the late times between the disciplinarians and the rest, and what disturbances the same sort of men have given of late, is too well known to need a relation, and the field conventicles still witness. "f It is utterly inconsistent with his- torical truth to give the least intimation that the u unity of the church" is preserved by Presbyterian regimen. " Is this proof," asks Dr. Hobart, " to be found in the almost infinite number of sects, which sprang from Presbytery in the time of Oliver Cromwell ? Or does this proof exist in the state c£ the Presbyterian churches in Scotland, or in this country ? In Scotland, the Seceders are a numerous body, who separated from the parent church, charge ing her with being a corrupt church.. We find there that Presbyterian government did not pre- serve the visible unity cf the church. Was unity preserved among these Seceders, who carried with .* Maurice, p, 390, 391. f Vind. p. 393. 250 Letter XX. them Presbyterian government, perfect equality of rank among ministers? In the space of a few years after the secession, they split into the two sects of Burghers and Anti-Burghers ; the former so called from their submitting to what is called the Burgher oath, which the latter refuse to take, as inconsistent with the principles of the secession. Here then are three distinct Presbyterian churches, who form- ally excommunicated one another, and disclaim all church fellowship. Admirable specimen of the efficacy of Presbyterian government in preserving the visible unity of the church! But this is not alL In Scotland, there is a fourth Presbyterian church, called the Relief church, so denominated from their having relieved themselves from the patronage, by which livings are conferred in the established church. And, last, though not least of all, the Reformed Presbyterian church, commonly called Covenanters, who boast that they alone maintain the genuine Presbyterian principles, and are the purest church on the face of the earth."* w Nearly the same divisions are found among Presbyterians in this country, as subsist in Scot- land. There are several denominations of them professing subjection to distinct ecclesiastical judi- catories, and some of them refusing church fellow- ship with the others»"f There are also numerous congregations in New-England, who are, as to or- * Apol. p. 221, 222. t Ibid. p. 222, 224. Practical Influence of Prelacy. 25 1 dination, Presbyterian, although as to government Congregational; and they also have had frequent contentions and numerous schisms. So that look where we will, since the Reformation, and we shall find parity the fruitful source of confusion in the church. No government indeed can prevent this altogether. The nature of man is so depraved ; he is so much under the sway of pride, and selfishness, and obstinacy, that offences of this sort must come. But some governments, in their very nature, are better calculated to preserve peace, and prevent schism, than others. That appears to me to be strikingly the case with the Episcopal regimen. Look at the Episcopal church in this country, and you will find it one in its form, in its ordination, and in its worship. It is the same in England, in Ireland, in Scotland, and in Sxveden and Denmark, What an inestimable advantage is this ! If a schism should take place, it is a difficult matter to induce a Bishop to violate the unity of the church. In coun- tries where there is an establishment, it scarcely ever occurs; and even where there is no establish- ment, the degradation and loss of character that ensue, and the almost impracticability of preserv- ing the succession, are deterring circumstances. But among Presbvterians these things are conti- nually occurring. A turbulent man can at any time make a schism, and as there is not the least diffi- culty with respect to ordination, a Presbytery of some sort or other being easily formed, the circum- f&% Letter XX. stance which is attended with so much difficulty to Episcopalians, who are disposed to be schismatical, is not attended with the slightest inconvenience to Presbyterian schismatics. They may be schisma- tics, and Presbyterians still. But when Episcopa- lians are guilty of schism, they scarcely ever retain that character, but in almost every instance have recourse to ordination by Presbyters. This is not an imaginary advantage which the Episcopal regi- men possesses. Look at the Episcopal churches throughout the world, and it will be found to be a matter of fact, that where Episcopacy is abandoned, there schisms and sects spring up like mushrooms. When, in the seventeenth century, that Apostoli- cal regimen was abolished in England, upwards of sixty different sects, according to Edwards, a Pres- byterian divine, distracted that unhappy country. But as soon as Episcopacy was restored, they gra- dually died away, and left behind them but five or six of the more decent and sober kind. In Scotland too, it was pretty much in the same way. As soon as Melvil got his favourite Geneva platform intro- duced, schisms began, and they have not ended to this day; and what is more, never will, as long as parity prevails. When we attend to the operations of our own minds, we find them almost intuitively admitting the expediency of superior ranks in communities -of every kind. What has always been the common sentiment, and the common practice of the world, Practical Influence of Prelacy. 256 must be correct. In matters of taste, in moral prin- ciples, and in political science, it is allowed to be so. Why is nature, and the common sense of mankind, to be violated in the government of the Christian church? We do not cease to be men as soon as we become Christians. There is enough of pride, ambi- tion, and perverseness, in both priests and people, to need all those checks which the wisdom of ages has found necessary, to preserve peace and harmony in religious communities. History is uniform in her report upon this subject. The religion of the Pa- triarclis, of the Jems, of the Greeks and Romans, of the Persians, of the Egyptians, of the Druids, of the Mahometans, in short, of every nation that deserves to be so called, had its superior and inferior priests ; and we know, that in one instance the Al- mighty expressly enjoined this gradation. If, then, the common sense of mankind be considered as a sure test of truth; if the experience of ages has sanc- tioned imparity in the ministers of religion, if God himself expressed his approbation of it, by esta- blishing it among his peculiar people, the jfcxvs, we may very reasonably conclude, tha£ Jesus Christ would not act in direct opposition to the voice of nature, to the common sense of mankind, and to the example set him by his heavenly Father. And when we add to these analogical and a priori arguments, the accumulated evidence that has been adduced in proof of me /act. I see not what there is wanting to convince an unprejudiced mind, that Vol. II. Z 254 Letter XX. Episcopacy is an Apostolical and divine institu- tion. One more letter, Sir, and I shall take my leave of this subject for the present. ( 255 ) BETTER XXI. &ev. Sir, jt-OU go on in the same strain of unqualified in- vective against Bishops; not recollecting that every thing with which you charge them, may be retorted upon Presbytery in a tenfold degree. You say, " If we examine the history of any Episcopal church on earth, we shall find it exhibiting, to say the least, as large a share of heresy r contention, and schism, as any which bears the Presbyterian form; and, what is more, we shall ever find the Prelates themselves quite as forward as any others in scenes of violence and outrage." These charges could not have proceeded from a proper motive. If they were even well founded, they ought not to have been advanced. Religion can derive no benefit from criminations of this kind, nor did your argument require the introduction of the subject. I fear you were not under the influence of your usual meekness of spirit, when you committed to paper several passages in your book. With an -appearance of much candor and moderation, every now and then expressions drop from your pen, which show that all is not right. I am sorry to 256 Letter XXL make these observations; out when a man advances Hi founded, and, at the same time, severe things, he has no right to expect that they will be passed over in silence. Before you indulged yourself in charges of this serious nature, you ought to have refreshed your memory with a perusal of the history of the Chris- tian church. If you had, you would have found but one Bishop a heretic for the first three hun- dred years ; and very few, in any age, in com- parison of Presbyters and laymen. And as to vio- lence and outrage, I am totally at a loss to deter- mine what you mean, and at what church you point. I cannot think that you have our church in view, or the moderate church of England, or of Ireland, or the Episcopal church in Scotland, or the church of Sweden, or of Denmark, or of the Mo- ravians* What, Sir, do you mean ? When you tell us, you w T ill most probably receive an answer. I have, in the course of this discussion, several times expressed my astonishment at your manner of quoting authors, and at your wide departure from well authenticated facts. You give us another instance. You inform us, that Eusebhis gives a sad picture of the divisions among Bishops ; but you take care not to tell us in what part of his history that picture is to be found. I have looked over his account of the state of the church in the early part of the fourth century; and so far from finding a great corruption of morals, I am astonished at the Practical Influence of Prelacy. 2 5 1 faith and patience displayed by all ranks of Chris- tians, under sufferings the most appalling to human nature. Among these Christians, he gives a long list of illustrious Bishops, who endured the most excruciating tortures, rather than renounce their God and Saviour. Read, Sir, his account of the Dioclesian persecution, and perhaps you will feel m your heart some tenderness, even for Bishops. You have given us, Sir, a very unwarrantable account of the Nicene council ; and to have some colour for your representation, you say, in a note, p. 330, that Gregory Nazianzen " speaks of the unprincipled ambition and shameful conduct of the clergy of that council." When I see the passage which gives that information, I shall not be dis- posed to doubt that it is to be found in the works of Gregory; but then I shall oppose to it the ac- count which Eusebius gives us of that council. He was a member of the council, and must, there- fore, have known more about it than Gregory^ who lived fifty years after the event. Eusebius says nothing, that I ean find,, about u unprincipled ambition and shameful conduct." If you will consult the thirteenth chapter of the third book, you will find that nothing occurred inconsistent with gravity and decorum. He mentions, indeed, an undue degree of warmth that appeared in some of the members, and some instances of personal reflections, which the Emperor, who was present, immediately checked. Arianim^ and the time of Z3 -253 Letter XXI. keeping Easter, were the most material points de- bated in that council, and the first in particular was very interesting : of course it would excite warmth, and warmth generally produces improprieties ; but none occurred, according to Eusebius, but what the subjects, and the number of the members present, would naturally produce; none that would justify your assertion, that the clergy of that council were men of u unprincipled ambition, and shameful con- duct." When I read the account which Eusebius has given of that council, and the canons which were made by it, I cannot perceive* in your representa- tion, the least trace of moderation, or conformity to facts. I should think that men who could enact such canons as the following, must be pure them- selves, and very zealous to promote purity in others. The second canon ordains, that " those who shall be convicted of any crime, shall be de- prived of their ecclesiastical functions." The third forbids " Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other clergymen, to keep women in the house with them, excepting those o£ whom there can be no suspi- cion." The ninth ordains, " that those Priests shall be degraded, who are found either to have sacrificed, or to have been guilty of other crimes before their ordination." The fifteenth forbids '* the translation of Bishops and Priests," and or- dains " that those who shall be translated, shall re- turn to their first church." The seventeenth or- Practical Influence of Prelacy* 259 dains, " that clergymen who are usurers, or who take sordid gain, shall be deposed."* These ca- nons look as if the Bishops of that council were men of virtue and religion, and not ambitious and unprincipled, as you represent them. Add to this, that they had but lately come out of a most dread- ful persecution, which generally purifies both priests and people; and then there can be no doubt that you have given a grossly erroneous account of the council of Nice, and the Bishops of the early part of the fourth century. I should not, Sir, take any notice of your quota* tion from Dr. Oxven, were it not to show your readers how strangely you have hooked yourself upon one of the horns of a dilemma. " The first express attempt," says the learned Dr. Owen, " to corrupt and divide a church, made from within it- self, was that in the church of Jerusalem, made by Thebulis, because Simon Cleopas was chosen Bi- shop, and he was refused. The same rise had the schisms of the Novation* and Dciiatists, the here- sies of Arius and others." Now, Simon Cleopas was either a diocesan, or a congregational Bishop* If a diocesan, then you give up the point, and ac- knowledge that kind of Episcopacy to be an Apos- tolic institution. If a congregational Bishop, then I would be glad to know, what the conduct of The- bulis has to do with diocesan Episcopacy. Dr. Owen, • Du Pin's Ec. Hist. vol. i. p. 252, 253. 269 Letter XXI. may have been a learned man; but if this specimen be any proof, he was not a reasoner. And how you could so far forget yourself as to quote with approbation a passage, which implies either a dere- liction of your hypothesis, or a circumstance, which, if it has any force, lies entirely against yourself, can be accounted for in no other way, than by sup- posing that your zeal obscured your understanding. What you say from page 339 to 341, is only a repetition of what you say in the first part of; the letter; to which I have made a reply in my last. But it may be well to take notice of your mode of answering an obvious objection to your reasoning. Your position is, that those who belong to a true, visible church, ought to be better than those who do not. To this I have shown^ that the Quaker can talk precisely in the same manner with respect to Presbyterians, that you do with respect to Epis- copalians j and that there is no possible way for you to break the force of the retort. This alone is quite sufficient to impose silence upon you, without ad- ding another syllable ; for the reasoning of the Qua- ker, upon the Presbyterian principle, u no ministry, no true church," is perfectly logical. But other modes of reasoning may be adopted by us. I ask you, how do you determine that the members of our church, when placed in equally favourable cir- cumstances, are not better than the members of your church ? Will you say, I can see with my eyes and hear with my ears, and cannot perceive that Practical Influence of Prelacy. 261- ihey are a tittle better than we ? But, Sir, have we not eves and ears as well as you ? And are they not as good as yours ? Now, suppose their report should be, that we are betterthan you, what would you say to it ? I cannot see what, but that you do- not think so. But suppose we do, who is to de- cide the point? Can any created being do it? I believe not. I hope I shall not be misunderstood upon this point. I make no claim for Episcopalians to supe- rior goodness. I only put the matter upon this ground for the sake of argument ; and to show the weakness of what you seem to think conclusive reasoning. In truth, the whole is mere assump- tion. Another mode of reasoning used by us is, that there may be very correct principles, and yet not a suitable practice. But you say, this " is merely an evasion of the argument." And again: " We con- tend that there is, and must ever be, more virtue- and holiness in the church of Christ, than out o£ it." Then it will follow, as you unchurch the Qua- kers by making a ministry essential to a true church, that the objection in the mouth of a Quaker against you, is as strong as the same objection in the mouth of a Presbyterian against us. You ought then in reason to satisfy the Quaker, before you demand of us to satisfy you. You go on — " Nor do we, by taking this ground, furnish either an infidel or an heretic with a handle 262 Letter XXI. against us." Why not? Because, " as long as he could only with truth say, 4 some of you, Christians, are as bad as infidels,' I would confidently reply, they are not Christians but hypocrites ; for if they had any portion of the spirit of their Master, they would not act thus. But if he could really make it appear that Christians are in general, and as a body, in no respect better than infidels, he would certainly establish his argument." And do you really think, Sir, that these are parallel cases ? Is there no dif- ference between infidels and professing Christians who have not a valid ministry ? Have not these the Bible to regulate their principles, and improve them in virtue and piety? Infidels reject this source of information altogether. They therefore can have no knowledge of God, but by their own unassisted reason ; and what a fallible guide that is, the history of mankind sufficiently evinces. Were a Christian in a situation, in which he could not attend any public worship, but had to rely entirely upon his Bible for instruction, we might reasonably suppose that he would be a better man than the infidel y who rejects that source of instruc- tion. Otherwise, what advantage has good in- struction over bad? What advantage has revelation over reason ? In that book he would find that the wrath of God is revealed against all unrighteousness ; that re?nission of sins is preached in the name of Jesus Christ, and in no other name whatever. Would not this (the blessing of God attending it) Practical Influence of Prelacy. 26S have a powerful tendency to raise him from a death of sin to a life of righteousness? It certainly wouldc But the infidel, by rejecting the Bible, foregoes this inestimable advantage. He trusts to his own falli- ble reason, which can never assure him, that, were he even to repent of his past transgressions, and live righteously for the future, this would recom- mend him to the favour of God, and give him a reasonable hope of eternal happiness. Reason never produced this conviction in the minds of the hea- then. They were without hope, and without God in the world. Here there is. a striking difference be- tween the case of the infidel and that of the Chris- tian, although the latter were in a situation in which he could not attend any kind of public instruction and worship. But when the Christian regularly attends public worship, although the ministers who officiate have not received a valid ministry, yet the benefit of joining in the prayers and praises of a religious assembly, and the moral and religious lessons that are taught from the pulpit, must, in reason, be considered as very great. Still farther. In a church in which there is not a scriptural and valid ministry, both those who ad- minister what are deemed sacraments, and those who receive them, may receive considerable benefit from them. And as the ministers who officiate .sincerely believe that they have a right to do so, and the people also have the same persuasion, there can be no doubt, that a God of mercy will 263 Letter XXI. pardon their involuntary error, and dispense that grace to their well meant endeavour to do his will, which is not attached by promise to unwarranted administrations. If you should not deem these ob- servations satisfactory, you will be under the ne- cessity of excluding from divine grace and mercy, those Christians who have no ministry. Once more, Sir — The whole of your reasoning upon this point appears to me to rest upon a false foundation. It supposes that the ministry is of the essence of religion. There may be, and we know there is, faith in Christ, and love to God and man, which are the essentials of Christianity, where there is no ministry. A ministry is, in my opinion, essen- tial to a visible church. In this I believe Episcopa- lians and Presbyterians are generally agreed. It is, therefore, of great- importance to preserve it. What God has appointed, no man, no church has a right to reject. Still some good people may be so un- happy as to. err upon this point. Of the cause of their error we are not competent judges. We must leave them to him who judge th righteously. Upon the whole matter, in the words of Dr. Hobart, " He who worketh all things according to the council of his own will, may dispense with his own institutions, and depart from the settled order of the economy of grace. It may please him to bless the sincere exertions and labours of those who reject the positive institutions anil laws of his house. He giveth not to man an account of his doings. Prac tical Influence of Prelacy . 2'<3 o The inefficacy of these institutions on the lives of many, and the piety and holiness which others ex- hibit who reject them, may be trials of our humility and submission; tests, whether under these inauspi- cious appearances we may not arrogantly exclaim, To what purpose are these positive ordinances? We may be virtuous and pious without them. Ah! let not the humble believer be seduced by this spe- cious, but arrogant reasoning from the ways ofGod^s appointment. It was this proud spirit which urged our first parents to violate a positive institution of the Almighty ; which lost them paradise, and the fallen angels the glory of their frst estate."* Thus, Sir, it appears to me, that there is no dif- ficulty in answering fairly and solidly, the objection which you make to Episcopacy, when carried so far as to unchurch all non-Episcopalians. , If we once adopt the principle, that we are not to admit any thing into our religious creed which bears hard upon others, I really do not know at what point we are to stop. I fear this principle will put all reli- gions exactly upon a par. The serious and inquisi- tive mind will never be satisfied till it rests upon what it deems truth ; and when once it is settled upon that ground, it will never be induced to relin- quish it from any supposed or real inconvenience that may result from it to others. Were the con- trary to be admitted, a ministry must be given up ; * Apology, page 248. Vol.IL A a 266 Letter XXI. for the consequence offends those who have none. Nay, Christianity must be given up ; for it offends Jews, Turks, Idolaters, and Infidels of every kind . This, Sir, or something like it, would be the an- swer to your imaginary difficulty, from that class of Episcopalians who pronounce the Presbyterian ministry absolutely invalid. The other class, al- though they place Episcopacy upon the ground of Apostolical and divine right, as well as the first ; yet, not thinking that it necessarily unchurches others, are not at all concerned with your objection. This class then have the advantage of you (if there be any advantage in it) ; for, by your doctrine, a ministry is made essential to a visible church; and, consequently, you unchurch the Quakers, and some other mystical professors of Christianity. But one more point now remains to be consi- dered: it is the doctrine of uninterrupted succession. It is very evident to me, that although you admit the doctrine for the sake of argument, yet that you do not believe it. If so, you are not a Presbyterian, for the Westminster divines, and all true Presbyte- rians, maintain that doctrine as strenuously as Epis- copalians. Dr. Mason and Mr. M^Leod assert it most pointedly. I think then, that they cannot pos- sibly be pleased with this, and several other parts of your book. Were I a Presbyterian, I should certainly say, ncn tali auxilio ; for in my humble opinion, you have ruined the Presbyterian cause. Were it not too late m the discussion, and that I Uninterrupted Succession* 267 am heartily tired of the labour I have sustained, I Vj'ould enter into a very minute detail of particu- lars ; but, perhaps, on some future occasion, I may be induced to do it. I have already said something upon the point in my thirteenth letter ; but Mr. How has said a great deal more ; and whoever reads his masterly performance with an attentive and impartial mind, will be satisfied that I am cor- rect in my assertion. ■ The doctrine of uninterrupted succession appears to me to be capable of strict logical proof. In rea- soning upon any point, there must be some allowed principle upon which the reasoning must ultimately rest ; for we cannot go on adding argument to ar- gument ad infinitum. The principle admitted in this case is this — No man has a right to act as an offi- cer in Christ's kingdom without a commission from him. The greatest enthusiast, as well as the most sober Christian, admits this to be reasonable, neces- sary, and scriptural. They differ only as to the man- ner in which the commission is conveyed. Let us now see whether we cannot rest our arguments in proof of uninterrupted succession upon this ground. If we can, the point must necessarily be considered as established. There are but two ways pretended, in which a commission is conveved from Christ to his minis- ters. The one is ordinary, the other extraordinary. The latter we have nothing to do with. In the first way, none can give a commission, but those who 268' Letter XXI. are authorized by the commission they themselves bear, to commission others. This is undeniable. But the question is, To whom was this power of appointing stewards in Christ's household given? It must have been given either to the people, or to ministers. We cannot possibly tell by our own rea- son, to whom Christ gave this power ,• we must, therefore, have recourse to Revelation. Now, there is not one tittle in the whole book of God, which intimates that this power was given to the people : but, on the contrary, the original commission, and every transaction relating to a ministry, prove that none but ministers of some sort (it matters not what, as it relates to the present argument) have a right to ordain. They then who are ordained by laymen, cannot possibly derive a commission in this way from the great Head of the church ; of course, or- dination by ministers must be the only scriptural mode. The New Testament shows this to have been the case. The Apostles were authorized by Christ to act in his name ; and he promised to pre- serve in his church to the end of time the authority which his commission conveyed. By virtue of this commission, the Apostles ordained others, as St. Paul did Timothy and Titus ; and these officers committed the same commission to other faithful men ; and thus a succession began by Christ, and continued by his Apostles, and by those who suc- ceeded to the authority contained in the original commission, has been preserved, under the spec3»\i Uninterrupted Succession* 26$ providence of Christ, who has bound himself to the church, that a succession shall be preserved to the end of the world. " The Christian church" (to use the words of Dr. Chandler) " was thus originally constituted un- der officers of divine appointment, as evidently as the Jewish was ; and Christians in the times of the Aposdes, had no more right to set up an authority different from theirs, or in opposition to it, than the Israelites had, in the rebellion of Korah, to gainsay Moses and Aaron in these very popular words: 1 Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the con- gregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them ; wherefore then lift ye up your- selves above the congregation of the Lord V Let it now be observed, that what were the rights of Christians in the Apostles' days, the very same, neither more nor less, are the rights of Christians at this day."* Consequently, as the power of or- daining was not lodged in the body diffusive, but in the hands of particular persons, it can be de- rived from the Apostles in no other way than by personal communication, or succession, in a line that has never been interrupted. If then all authority in the church is mediately derived from Christ, as all Presbyterians allow, an uninterrupted succession is an inevitable conse- • Appeal further defended, p. 81, 82, 83. Aa2 270 Letter XXI. quence, and is capable of demonstration. " If au- thority can be conveyed from Christ mediately, by a succession that is interrupted, there must be somewhere in the succession a person who can give that which he has not. If the authority first given to A y is to pass on successively to B, to C\ to Z), and to E ; should the conveyance stop, or be inter- rupted ac 67, so that it passes not on to D; in that case D does not receive it, and, therefore, cannot convey it to is, unless D be able to give what it has not. Supposing the authority, when it comes down to 67, to be annihilated, or to cease ; unless it be re- newed, E can never be invested with it. The ques- tion then is, who shall renew it ? Now, all authority* from Christ must flow from Christ ; if it begins, and has its source short of him, it is not his au- thority. If he pleases to renew it, he may give it immediately to is, or he may give it to .D, by him to be communicated to E ; and in either way E may be invested with Christ's authority. But now let us suppose that any number of men upon earth, or that all the Angels in heaven should at- tempt to renew the authority of Christ, once inter- rupted and lost ; unless a stream can have a higher derivation than its source ; unless these men, or these Angels can give what they have not, the thing is impossible. They may give what they have, they may give their own authority; but Christ's authority they cannot give, unless they have received it. And Un i n terrupted Succession, 271 if they have received it, it is not they that renew the authority, but Christ himself."* Thus then it appears to be capable of demon- stration, that an uninterrupted succession of minis- ters is essential to the Christian church ; and that if there has been any failure, a ministry deriving its authority from Christ, has also failed. But this we know cannot be ; for Christ has promised that it should not ; and what he has promised, he is certainly able to fulfil. And as the order of the clergy is a positive insti- tution by the great Head of the church, so the dif- ferent degrees of the ministry must of necessity be a positive institution by the same authority. If then Episcopacy has been proved to be a divine institution, it as necessarily follows, that the suc- cession of Bishops has been as uninterrupted as the ministry. For if to the order of Bishops the power of ordaining was attached, then it follows that the Episcopal order is essential to the perpetuity of the ministry. Of course a succession of such ordainers is essential. Admit then that Episcopacy is a divine institution, and the succession is a matter of neces- sity, and is no more capable of failure than the mi- nistry is. Being the law of God's house, it must answer the purpose for which it was established. It is' no solid objection to say, that the ministry is too * Chandler's Appeal defended, p. 60 a 61, 272 Letter XXI. much under the control of man to be susceptible of perpetuity, and uninterrupted succession. The will of man is as much under the control of the Al- mighty as the winds of heaven, or the ebbing and flowing of the tides. Were he to withdraw his in- fluence from the creation, the law of nature, as it is called, would not prevent, for a moment, universal confusion. The law of God, whether it respects the creation, the moral system, or the positive in- stitutions of the church, must produce its effects ; and although deviations may, for wise reasons, be permitted in the natural and moral world, and in the church, yet the general effect intended to be produced by the original constitutions, will infallibly take place; and every thing upon which the Crea- tor has stamped perpetuity, will no doubt continue till his purposes shall be answered. Thus I think it appears, both from reason and scripture, that the uninterrupted succession of the ministry, and of consequence Episcopacy, if it be a divine institution, is a necessary consequence of the original establishment ; and that there is no more danger of its failing, than there is of the church failing. It may indeed be destroyed in par- ticular situations ; so may the church also ; and we know that in fact this has been the case ; but so long as the sun and moon endure, so long will the church and her ministry endure. It is an objection that sometimes meets us, that Uninterrupted Succession. 27H an uninterrupted succession cannot be proved by written records. This is really very weak. We do not want records to prove the succession of the ministry. Its divine institution, and the promise to be with it, to the end of the world, is a better proof of succession than a million of volumes would be. But although I deem this a sufficient answer to the objection, yet I will meet it in another way : I say then, that we have records, equal to those for a succession of the manuscripts of the Bible. Suppose, Sir, a Deist should ask, — What proof can you give that the present Greek Testament is a faithful copy of the original Gospels and Epis- ties P Would you not tell him that it is a copy of the oldest Greek manuscripts now extant — that it lias been compared with other versions, the Latin y the SyriaCy the Arabic, the Persic, the Ethiopia and that 5 for this, we have the testimony of the learned, which, from the nature of the case, is the only evidence we can have ? If the Deist should proceed in his inquiry, and ask again, — How do you know that the manuscripts, from which the present Greek Testament is taken are genuine tran- scripts of more ancient manuscripts, and they again of still more ancient, till we reach the originals ? To this you would say, we have the testimony of the learned in every age up to the Apostolic. Add to this, that we find our present Greek Testament corresponding with innumerable passages in the writers of every age, from the first to the sixteenth 274 Letter XXI. century; and then you have the most complete evi- dence the case admits of, for the genuineness and authenticity of our present Greek copy. Just the same evidence we have for the succession of the ministry in every age. The testimony of a crowd of writers in every period of the church declares it to be so; nay, the very existence of the church proves it to be so ; for a church and a ministry always go together. The one cannot be supported, cannot exist, without the other. There may indeed have been false pretenders to the ministry in every age, as there have been false copies of the sacred writings j but both were rejected by the church; the one con- demned as forged, the other as invalid. Notwithstanding the strong and invincible argu- ments that may be offered in support of the doctrine of uninterrupted succession, yet you inform us-, that several writers have pronounced " the claim of succession to be as futile as it is unnecessary ; as- sailing it with the most pointed ridicule, as well as with formidable arguments." That several Presbyterians, Independents, Soci- nians, and even Episcopalians, have opposed the claim of succession, is undoubtedly as true as that severalDeists have opposed the claim of Revelation; and that they have attempted to ridicule what they could not answer, is also true. But I am very sorry, Sir, that you should give the slightest coun- tenance to the notion, that ridicule is a proper wea- pon on a serious subject. The inquiry, whether Un interrupted Succession, 275 the Bible is the word of God, and whether the commission which Christ gave to his Apostles has been handed down by vicarious ordination to the present time, are certainly too serious to be ridi- culed. When, therefore, I read an author who uses ridicule, I take it for granted that he has no solid arguments to offer; that the truth is too powerful for him, and that, therefore, he has re- course to distortion, which divests truth of its native beauty and simplicity, and gives it a form calcu- lated to produce laughter mingled with contempt. Such a weapon will never be used by a serious Christian against any thing that is not in itself ri- diculous ; and surely what can be supported by sound reasoning, and by the word of God, can never be deserving of that character. You conclude, Sir, as you began, with undesign- ingly misrepresenting some of the writers of our church. You say, Chillingworth, Barrow, and Hoadhj, " have taken the negative side" of this question. If you had given a reference to that part of Chillingworttfs writings which contain what you ascribe to him, I should, of course, con- sult the place ; but as you have not, I shall not run over his works in quest of what I am fully satisfied can never be found. I am perfectly weary of the trouble you have given me in this respect ; and I am sure that no one will blame me for declining it on this occasion. — As to Barrozv, I have shown, in my eleventh letter, by several quotations from him, 276 Letter XXI. that he maintains the doctrine of successioti, as much as any man ; and also that Hoadly maintains it in his book on the " Reasonableness of Confor- mity ;" admitting, however, in a case of necessity, a departure from the line of succession. It is true, that in the latter part of his life, he adopted a prin- ciple that totally annihilated the church of Christ. He supposed that Christ left no authority whatever in his church j and, consequently, that succession is wholly needless. This produced the famous Ban- gorian controversy ; in which Hoadly was assailed by the ablest writers of the church, and particularly by Mr. Lazv, who gave him one of the most com- plete defeats that perhaps any man ever received. If you had Koadly in view when he thus laid the " axe at the root of the tree," you are extremely welcome to him ; but if you had reference to the book I have mentioned, you are greatly mistaken, as I have shown, page 301. To this doctrine of unbroken succession, so stre- nuously maintained by all the ancients, and by the church to which you belong, you evidently are not well affected. However, you will take for granted, u that it is the only channel through which minis- ters of the present day can have the Apostolic com- mission transmitted to them. Supposing this to be the case, nothing is more easy than to show, on Presbyterian principles, that the succession in our church is as distinct, regular, and unbroken, as that of the Episcopal church." Uninterrupted Succession. Z7Y Were, Sir, this to be admitted, it can do you no good, unless you can prove Presbytery to be the original constitution of the church. Then the same arguments that I have used in support of Episcopal succession, would apply to Presbyterian ; because, undoubtedly, Christ would take care of his own institution. But even in this case, whatever may be said of your church, it is very certain, that several sects make no pretensions to succession, and, therefore, no care is taken to preserve it. This is the case with the Baptists, Independents, and others. In New-England^ there have been nume- rous instances of lay ordinations ; consequently, all derived from that source have no pretensions to succession. In France, for several years, lay ordi- nation was practised and defended ; but at lengdi it was given up, as unscriptural and unwarrantable. The ministry of the Huguenots, then, cannot flow in an unbroken line. Calvin himself was not or dained, if Beza, his friend and colleague, knew any thing about the matter; and yet, no doubt, he ordained numbers. Is it probable, then, that the church of Geneva has a succession ? With respect to the church of Scotland, I do not know that lay ordination was ever admitted by her ; but it is very certain, that for several years there was no such thing as imposition of hands. This, I think, all sober Christians will acknowledge to be verv un- scriptural, to say the least. The English Presbvte- rian succession is, I believe, the most pure, as the Vol. II. B b 278 Letter XXI. first non-conformists were ordained by English Bi- shops. But admitting that Presbyterian orders are every where free from suspicion, yet there is one obvious objection to them. When the Reformation began, all the churches in Europe were Episcopal, and all the Presbyterians then existing, had been ordained by Bishops. But no Bishop ever gave a Presbyter authority to ordain. The utmost authority given is, to preach the word, and to administer the sacra- ments. Whence then did those Presbyters who first ordained, derive that power ? The office of a Presbyter is a gift mediately from Christ. But a person who receives a gift, receives just as much as the gift implies, and not a tittle more. But the power of ordaining was not a part of the gift to the Presbyters at the Reformation. How then could they ordain others when they were not empowered so to do ? There appears to be a difficulty here : How* is it to be removed ? There is one expression, which, before I close, it may be proper to notice. You say, at the bottom of page 346, that imparity is a Popish doctrine. Pray, Sir, do you know what Popery is? I am per- fectly cool, I do assure you. I will not give way to any indignant expressions ; but I do insist upon it, that you are totally ignorant of the meaning of the word Popery, or you would not assert that imparity sprang out of the church of Rome ; for this must be your meaning, or you mean nothing to the pur- Cnirttcrrupied Succession. C 27 C J ptose. Besides, this assertion is inconsistent with your own concession. I have proved that the Papal, supremacy did not exist till the seventh century, and you allow that imparity prevailed centuries be- fore that period. Gan a thing spring from a source that did not exist till ages after ? Again: How happened it, Sir, that when the assertion under consideration dropped from your pen, you did not recollect Jerome's account of the church of Alexandria ? He assures us, that imparity existed in that church from its- foundation. Poor Jerome ! How you do treat him! When he speaks obscurely, he is a great man — a man of great learning and research ; but when he speaks plainly and positively in favour of Episcopacy, then he is treated with as little respect as you treat the office of a Bishop. Further : If imparity originated in the church of Rome, there must- be some evidence cf it. Now, Sir,. I will put the matter to a fair trial. I call upon you to produce the evidence, that Episcopal impa- rity began in the church of Re me. You have com- mitted yourself, Sir; you must, therefore, either prove, or renounce your assertion. Lastly. Weigh impartially the evidence exhi- bited in these letters, for tht; Apostolic origin of Episcopacy, and then lav your hand upon your heart, and in the fear of God say, whether you do not think that you have most grossly libelled the whole Episcopal church throughout the world, iiv 280 Letter XXI. ascribing Episcopacy to corruption, and to a love of power and domination, from which Papal supre- macy originated. Something explicit upon this point will be expected from you, in the course of the controversy. Silence will not be taken as an acknowledgment of error, but as a pertinacious ad- herence to it ; and we shall not be satisfied unless you either say, " I have erred," or maintain your assertion with learning and argument. You next sum up all that you have said in favour of parity, and against Episcopacy, in the following, triumphant manner. " You have seen," (addressing your Christian brethren) " that the scriptures contain but one com- mission for the gospel ministry." — Yes, Sir, and we have seen that the one commission was conveyed in all its plenitude to that order of men, who, ac- cording to scripture and antiquity, took the place of the Apostles ; and to the Presbyters, but a part of the authority implied in that commission. This was proved in a particular manner by the authority given to Timothy and Titus, and by the testimony of antiquity. " You have seen — that Bishop and Presbyter are uniformly used in the New Testament as converti- ble titles for the same office ; that the same character and powers are also, in the sacred writings, ascribed interchangeably to Bishops and Presbyters, thus plainly establishing their identity of order as well as of name? — We have seen that the community Recapitulation* 281 iji names is a gross and insufferable fallacy — that it does not follow, because the second order had a double title, that there were none who presided over them. We have seen that the Apostles go- verned those Presbyters and Bishops, and that they devolved their supremacy on a number of persons, to whom the care of churches was committed; and that this order had one of the titles, at first given to Presbyters, appropriated to them. That title is Bishop, according to all the Fathers, who are posi- tive and decisive upon this point. " You have seen — that the Christian church was organized by the Apostles, after the model of the Jewish Synagogue, which was undoubtedly Pres- byterian in its form." — We have seen that the Syiia- gogue and the Church are essentially different in their origin, their constitution, and their ministry ; that the former was of human appointment, that the latter is of divine ; that the ministry of the former possessed no character of sacredness, no commis- sion from God, but from the people ; that there was no principle of unity in the Synagogue, no sacra- ments, no marks of a Church; in short, that it was no Church ; and, therefore, that the Synagogue was not the model of the Christian Church. " You have seen that all the arguments which our Episcopal brethren profess to derive from scripture in favour of their system, are perfectly nugatory, and do not yield it the least solid support." We have seen that the Apostolic commission is to bo Bb2 282 Letter XXI. continued in the church to the end of the world ; that it was devolved upon Barnabas, Epaphroditus y Timothy, Titus, and the Apocalyptic Angels ; and that these had their successors, who were in power and rank superior to the Presbyters. This, we have observed, is a decisive proof, that the Apos- tolic pre-eminence is to be continued in the church for ever. " You have seen that the Fathers of the first two centuries are so far from furnishing a single passage which gives even a semblance of aid to the Episco- pal cause, that, like the scriptures, they every where speak a language wholly inconsistent with it, and favourable only to the doctrine of ministerial pa- rity." — We have seen that this is a misrepresenta- tion gross to excess.' We have seen the testimo- nies of Clemens of Alexandria, of Tertitllian, of Jreneus, of Dionysius, of Hegesippus, and of Ig- natius, in the second century - T and we have seen that the evidence is so clear and strong, that Blon- del, Salmasius, Chamier, and a number of others, have given up the point after some time in that century. We have also seen, that the third cen- tury affords a large collection of testimonies to Episcopal government as existing not only in what age, but also in the two preceding ages ; and that the fourth century bears the same testimony. And the conclusion from all this is, that we have clear, decisive evidence for the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy. Recapitulation. " You have seen that the great body of the Re- formers and other witnesses for the truth, of differ^ ent ages and nations, with one voice maintained the same doctrine, as taught in scripture, and in the primitive church; and that even the most conspi- cuous English Reformers, while they assisted in organizing an Episcopal establishment in their own country, defended it on the ground of human expe- diency^ and the will of the magistrate, rather than that of divine right.'' 1 — We have seen that all this is at utter variance with the true state of the case ; that all the Reformers of the church of England placed Episcopacy on the ground, not of human expediency^ but of Apostolic institution. We have seen this to be the fact from the most authentic documents} from the Questions and Ansviers, from the preface to the Ordinal, from the Ordination offices, from CratimeSs catechism, and sermon on the Keys, and from the testimonies of Collier and Burnet. We have also seen that those distinguished zvitnesses for the truth, the Waldenses, and the Protestants of Bohemia r were Episcopalians upon the ground of Apostolic institution, and that they preserved this primitive government under all their sufferings, and in defiance of all the power of their enemies. We have seen all this proved by the testimony of historians the most respectable, and the most wor- thy of credit. u You have seen that the church of England, and those churches which have immediately descended 284 Letter XXL from her, stand absolutely alone, in the zvhole Pro- testant world, in representing Bishops as an order of clergy superior to Presbyters ; all other Pro- testants, even those who adopt a sort of prelacy, having pronounced it to be a mere human invention? •—We have seen that this is in direct opposition to matter of fact. We have seen that not only the churches of England and Ireland, and the Episco- pal church in Scotland and in this country, place Episcopacy upon the ground of Apostolic institu- tion, but that also the Moravian church* and the churches of Sweden and Denmark place it upon the same ground- We have also seen that nearly die whole world is Episcopal; and that no proof can be brought that there ever existed a single Presbyterian church from the Apostolic age to the Reformation. And to this may be added, the late information given by Dr. Buchanan, that the Syrian church in the East-Indies is Episcopal, and has been so from its foundation. u You have seen some of the most learned and pious Bishops and other divines of the church of England, utterly disclaiming the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy ; and declaring that they con- sidered a great majority of the clergy of that church, in later as well as earlier times, as of the same opi- nion with themselves."-— We have seen that nearly all the divines whom you quote, as conceding that Episcopacy is a human institution, do, in the most express manner, maintain that it is an Apostolic in- Recapitulation. 285 iuuuion ; and that this is the opinion of the great body of Episcopal divines is beyond all doubt. " Finally: You have seen that the gradual intro- duction of Prelacy, within the first four centuries, was not only practicable, but one of the most natural and probable of all events , and that the most com- petent judges, and profound inquirers into early history, have pronounced that it actually took place." — .We have seen that there was no change, either gradual, or otherwise, in the government of the church y that not a single writer of antiquity gives any hint of a change ; but, on the contrary, that they all declare Episcopacy was established by the Apos- tles* We have also seen, that, from the afflictecL state of the church during the first three centuries, from the nature of the human mind which cannot act without a motive, and from the impossibility of assigning any motive for an attempt to alter the go- vernment of the church, no such change could have taken place. We have further seen, that if men could have been found weak and wicked enough to make the attempt, still that it was impracticable to succeed without the aid of the civil arm y and that,. we know, for three centuries, was exerted, not to give distinction to the church of Christ, but to leave not a trace of it upon the face of the earth. And, lastly, we have seen, that the opponents of Episcopacy, confidendy as they talk about a change, cannot so much as mime the century in which the change took place, but that they are at utter variance 286 tetter XXI. upon this point among themselves. From all these considerations we conclude, that no change took place ; but that Episcopacy is an Apostolic and divine institution. To conclude : We have seen that your boolc, from the beginning to the end, is almost one con* tinued chain of misstatements of facts, misrepre- sentation of authors — bold, unfounded assertions — false reasoning — palpable contradictions of your own assertions, of the principles of your own church, of the writers of your own denomination, and what is worse than all, of the holy scriptures. All this* must have been veiy evident to every attentive and impartial reader. But still it may be well again to bring to view these particulars, that every one who wishes to see the truth, may be satisfied that I am perfectly correct in my assertion. The references will be to my own Letters, in which the proofs of your errors are exhibited. Misstatements of Facts. 1. You say, that Dionysius, Bishop of Alexan- dria, attended the council of Antioch, in the year 260. Eusebius says that he was not there; being detained by age and infirmities. Letter iv. p. 81. 2. You say, that Dalmatius, who assisted at the general council of Ephesus, in the fifth century, told the Emperor, that " there were 6000 Bishops in the council." You quote no ancient author for. this* Misstatements of Facts. 287 for a very good reaon — you could not. Indeed, it carries absurdity upon the face of it; and it contra- diets Du Pin, and Cave, who say that about 200 attended. Letter iv. p. 84, 85, 86. 3. You say, that St. Patrick planted congrega- tional Episcopacy in Ireland. This is absolutely incredible. A Bishop, acting under the Pope of Rome, planting parity in the churches hefounded, is too ridiculous. Mosheim gives such an account ' of the matter as every man would expect — Patrick planted Episcopacy. Dr. Maurice gives the same account. Letter iv. p. 87, 88, 89, 90. 4. You assert, that the Bishop lived in the. same house with his Presbyters. This also is too ridicu- lous for any man to believe. It is a gross misstate- ment, as will be seen Letter iv. p. 91, 92. 5. You say, that ■" Ireneus was Bishop of Lyons, when he was sent with a letter from that church to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome.'''' This contradicts Eusebius, who says that Ireneus was but a Presby- ter at that time, and that he was not Bishop of Lyons till after his return. Letter vii. p. 169. 6. You assert, that the business of the ^tiestions and Ansxvers occurred in the year 1548 ; whereas it is evident from Burnet, that it took place in the year 1540, before the death of Henry the eighth, when the Reformation had made but little progress. Letter xii. p. 11, 12. 7. You inform us, " that several foreign divines who had only Presbyterian ordination, were allowed 288 Letter XXI. to hold benefices in England*'' Of #vis you give no proof; nor do you so much as name the foreign di- vines. I have, however, supplied the omission. They were P. Martyr, M. Bucer, and P. Fagius. The two last were never admitted to any Ecclesias- tical benefice, but only to academical preferments. The first held a benefice, but he was previously or- dained by a Bishop. Letter xv. p. 40. 8. You assert, that " Bancroft was the first man who preached up the divine right of Episcopacy." This is contrary to fact. Cranmer preached it long before Bancroft. So did the other Reformers, and some time after them, Whitgift preached it. The ordination offices also maintain that doctrine. Letter xv. p. 57, 58, 59. 9. You say, that the constitution of the church of Scotland was founded on the Presbyterian plan. On the contrary, I have proved from the most respecta- ble historians, that the Reformers Of that church adopted the Lutheran plan of Superintendents ; and tfiat parity of ministers was not admitted till twenty years after the Reformation. Letter xv. p. 60, 61. 10. You maintain, that the Swedish Bishops are no more than Superintendents. This is in direct contradiction to Mosheim. Letter xvi. p. 70. 11. You adduce the Waldenses as witnesses to ministerial parity ; and assert " that their Ecclesias- tical organization was Presbyterian in, its form." This has been proved to be a gross error. The proofs are taken from Mosheim. Allix, Commenius, Misrepresentation of Authors. 289 and the Bohemian church, in its preface to the book called Ratio Disciplinable* Letter xvi. p. 78, 79,80. 12. You misstate the times when infant commu- nion, the power of Metropolitans, and the Papacy took their rise. Letter xviii. p. 136 to 150. 13. You assert, that the people elected their Bi- shops in the first three centuries. This is certainly contrary to fact, during by far the greater part of that period. Letter xviii. p. 150, 151, 152. These are but a part of your misstatements. Misrepresentation of Authors, 1. You have misrepresented Jtrome. Several pointed, decisive testimonies have been adduced from this author. When he is not obscure, no wri- ter of antiquity bears stronger testimony to the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy. Letter i. pas- sive. 2. Hilary is misrepresented. He says, " In the absence of the Bishop, the Presbyters consigncmt /' or, more probably, consecrant — consecrate the Eu- charist. At any rate, it does not signify ordain. Letter ii. p. 33, 34, 35, 36. 3. You grossly misrepresent Chrysostom and Theodoret. They most pointedly and unequivo- cally assert the Apostolic institution of Episcopacv. Letter ii. p. 38, 39, 40, 41. 4. You give an unfair view of the testimonies of Primasius and Sedulius. They do no more than VoL. II. C c 290 Letter XXL assert the community of names ; to which Episco- palians readily subscribe. Letter ii. p. 42. 5. Your view of the condemnation of A'erius, is utterly inconsistent with the accounts of Epiphanius and St. Augustine. Letter ii. p. 42, 43, 44. 6. You misrepresent the address of Cyprian's '9th Epistle. To make it comport with your order of Ruling Elders, you insert the word Elders, which is not in the address. Letter iii. p. 67. 7. You make Numidicus a Ruling Elder, when Cyprian says, he joined him with his Clergy, that their number might be recruited with such illustri- ous Priests — gloripsis sacerdotibus. Letter iii. p. 69. 8. You have vilified the Apostolic Canons, which Bishop Beveridge has amply proved to be the de- crees of Synods in the second and third centuries, collected at different times, and by different persons. Blondel acknowledges that they are as ancient as the third century. Letter v. p. 114, 115, 116, 117. 9. You have misrepresented Dodxvell in what he says with respect to Peter. Letter v. p. 128, 129. 10. You have most egregiously misrepresented Cyprian in the few quotations you give us from his writings, and particularly when you say, that he calls Presbyters his colleagues. He never once calls them so. Letter v. p. 135. 11. You have given a ridiculous account of Tcr- ttdlian's High Priest, who, you suppose, " might have been the standing Moderator of the Presby- tery." Letter vi. p. 142, 143. Misrepresentation of Authors. 291 12. You misrepresent Clemens Alexandrians, who distinctly enumerates the orders of Bishop, Presby- ter anil Deacon - T and asserts that there are precepts in the holy scriptures relating to each of them ; consequently, that they are of divine institution. Letter vi. p. 155. 13. You have given an unfair view of the testi- monies of Ireneus. Nothing can be more explicit than his assertion, that Bishops succeeded to the pre-eminence of the Apostles. Letter vii. p. 163, 164, 165. 14. You have, even to a degree of ridiculous- ness, misrepresented Ignatius. His Epistles are such a powerful support to the Episcopal cause, that the most learned advocates of Presbytery have never attempted to bend them in favour of their hypothesis. Letter vii. p. 182, 183, 184 r 185. 15. You have entirely perverted the meaning of Origen and Hilary, in order to make them give a favourable look towards Ruling Elders. They do not give that order the slightest support. Letter viii. p. 204, 207, 208. 16. You have given an explication of the various texts of scripture adduced in the course of the dis- cussion, which is at utter variance with the explica- tion of the Fathers. As the point in dispute is a matter of fact, they r^iist be infinitely better judges of the evidence of that fact than any moderns can be. Letters ix. x. 17. You have greatly misrepresented Barrow, 292 ■ Letter XXI. Dodwell, and Hoadly, on the subject of uninter- rupted succession. The latter is misrepresented on the supposition that you had reference to his Rea- sonableness of Con for mitt). Letter xi. p. 296, 297, 300, 301, 302. 18. You have totally misrepresented the nature of the Jewish Synagogue ; and, in consequence, have erroneously made it the exemplar of the Christian church. Letter xii. 19. You have given an erroneous view of the Institution cf a Christian man. It maintains a pa- rity of Bishops in opposition to Papal supremacy ; but not a parity among all the ministers of the Gospel. Letter xiv. vol. ii. p. 3. 20. You have misrepresented the principle upon which Cranmer took out a new commission for the exercise of his office. He did not thereby acknow- ledge any spiritual authority in the King ; as is evident from Burnefs history of the Reformation. Letter xiv. p. 15, 16. 21. You have given a very false representation of the old Ordinal. Letter xiv. p. 19 — 27. 22. You have grossly misrepresented the canons of Elfric. They bear a direct testimony to Epis- copal pre-eminence. Letter xvi. p. 94, 95. 23. You have ascribed to Archbishop Ansebne, a work which Cave says is spurious. Your quo- tation therefore is good for nothing. Letter xvi. p. 96. 24. You have given a very improper view o 4 Unfounded Assertions, 29*3 IVhitgift, Bilson, J exv el, Stilling fleet, Burnet, and several other writers. Letter xvii. passim. 2 J. Your view of the Rise and Progress of Epis • copacy is nothing but misrepresentation from first to last. It is in direct contradiction to the nature of the human mind, to notorious facts, to the circum- stances of the church, and to the testimony of all antiquity. Letters xviii. xix. passim. These, Sir, are but a part of your misrepresenta- tions. They are, however, enough for a specimen; 3. Unfounded Assertions, 1. All your misstatements of facts, and misrepre- sentation of authors, are so many unfounded asser- tions. To these I will add a few more. 2. You assert that Jerome informs us, that the Presbyters ordained their Bishop at Alexandria. This is without foundation. He says no such thing. Letter i. p. 19. 3. Your caution to your readers to beware of the writers of the third century, cannot be justified by facts. None of your observations can be supported. Letter ill. p. 59, 60, 61, 62. 4. You assert, that there was but one congrega- tion at Carthage. This has been proved to be groundless. Letter iii. p. 70, 71 •• 5. You say, " That the church of which a Bi- shop had the care, is represented in the Epistles of Ignatius, as coming together to one place." This is without foundation. Letter vii. p. 187. Cc-2 ■294, . Letter XXL 6. You say, that " the Fathers are not unani- mous, but contradict one another." This is totally unfounded. They all make Episcopacy an Apos- tolical institution. Letter viii. p. 220, 221. 7. You assert, that Timothy and Titus acted as Evangelists at Ephesus and Crete, This assertion is unfounded. It has been shown that they could not possibly have acted as Evangelists, if we re- gard the etymology of the word ; for the Gospel had been preached in both places before Timothy and Titus were sent to preside over them. Letter ix. p. 255, 256. 8. You assert, that the Reformers of the Church of England were Presbyterians in principle. This has been proved by abundant evidence to have no foundation. Letter xiv. passim. 9. Your assertion that ignorance prevailed in the second and third centuries, is groundless. It was very far from being the case. Letter xviii. p. 166, 167, 168, 169. 10. I have noticed in this letter your unfounded assertion, that imparity is a Popish doctrine, p. 278. It. The summary in your last letter of the evi- dence contained in your book, is nothing but a string of unfounded assertions. Not one of the nine particulars which you enumerate has been proved, p. 280—285. This I believe will be a sufficient sample of un- founded assertions. Contradictions and Omissions. 295 Contradictions. 1. You contradict yourself. Letter xiii. p. 381. 2. You contradict your own Confession of Faith. Ibid. 3. You contradict the Westminster Divines, Dr. Mason, and Mr. MLeod. Ibid. 4. You contradict the scriptures. Ibid. p. 379. Omissions. You have omitted several direct, positive testi- monies from Jerome, several from Hilary, two from Isidore, two from Optatus, one from Athana- sius, one from Theodoret, two from Epiphanius^ several from Chrusostom, and several from Ensebius; besides the testimonies of hundreds of Bishops met in General and Provincial Councils in the fourth century. 2. In the third century you have omitted the tes- timonies of Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, of Cornelius, and the Presbyters of the church of Rome^ of Origen, and a volume of testimonies from Cyp- rian, and the Bishops of Africa; besides the tes- timony given to Episcopacy by the Apostolical canons. 3. In the second century, you have omitted the testimony of DionyshiSj of PolycraUs^ and of He- gcsippus. 296 Letter XXI. 4. In the first century you have omitted to notice the church of Jerusalem, which, from the scripture account, and the testimonies of the ancients, affords Episcopacy strong support. I have now, Sir, said all that I think necessary to be said upon the question relating to the govern- ment of Christ's church. The subject will admit of a much ampler discussion, and it would be an easy matter to fill another volume with testimonies, and reasonings upon them ; but I think enough has been done to convince those who will weigh with candour and impartiality the evidence adduced, that Episcopacy is an Apostolic and divine institution. Although my patience has been severely tried by your manner of quoting authors, by several pro- voking hints and expressions, and by a management strikingly partial and unfair; yet I hope that I have not been hurried into any transgression of decorum* I certainly wished, while I spoke plainly, to avoid every thing that would unnecessarily hurt your feel- ings. When error is exposed, it must unavoidably have an unpleasant effect upon the mind of him who has fallen into it ; but if, when exposing error, the manner of doing.it be so harsh as to irritate the feelings of art opponent, it is censurable. That I am faulty in this respect, I am not conscious ; but if you, Sir, perceive any thing of the kind, point it out, and it shall be immediately retracted. Or if I have done you injustice in any respect whatever, you have but to name it, and if it be really in jus- Conclusion. 297 tice, I will readily acknowledge it to be so. To en- degrades no man ; but obstinately to persevere in error, is really disgraceful. The series of Letters which I have now addressed to you, can certainly have no claim to freedom from defects. The circumstances under which they have been written, do not, I believe, often attend one who gives his thoughts to the public, upon such a variety of points as have occurred in this discussion. By far the greater part of these Letters have been written in the midst of my family, without having hud recourse in a single instance, to solitary re- tirement, and but one of the whole series has been transcribed. My collegiate duties, too, have caused daily and almost hourly interruptions. A candid mind will not, therefore, be disposed to find fault with slight inaccuracies ; but will place them among those things quas incur ia fudit. I shall now, Sir, take my leave of you, at least for a time. Whether I shaH ever address you again, will entirely depend upon yourself. Should you be disposed for any further discussion of the subject, you will not find me unwilling to meet your wishes. When the church to which I have the happiness to belong is attacked, irksome as writing is at my time of life, I feel no backwardness to exert the little ability I possess, in her defence ; and it af- 29$ Letter XXI. fords me no little pleasure to think, that I am at the same time defending the cause of almost every Christian church upon earth. I am, Reverend Sir, With esteem and respect, Your obedient humble servant, JOHN BOWDEN. Columbia College, July 15, 1808> THE END. BOOKS Printed and sold by T. &J. S WORDS, No. 160 Pear I -street, Nexo-York. 1. Dissertations on the Prophecies, which have remarkably been fulfilled, and at this Time are fulfilling in the World. By Thomas Newton, D. D. late Lord Bishop ot" Bristol. 2. A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Protest3nt Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Principally selected and altered from Helsonh Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Church of England. Ev John Henry Hobart, A. M. an Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-Yoi k. To which are added, Pastoral Advice to Young Persons before and after Confirmation, by a Minister of the Church of Eng- land; and an Exhoitation to Family Prayer, by Bishop Gibson; with Forms of Dcvoron. 3. A Guide to the Church, in several Discourses : To which are added, two Postscripts; the first to those Members of the Church who occasionally frequent other Places of Public Worship ; the se- cond to the Clergy. Addressed to William Wilberforce, Esq. M. P. By the Rev. Charles T)aubeny\ LL. B. 3 Prtsbvtev of the Church of England. 4. The Catechism of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. To which is annexed, a Catechism, designed as an Explanation and Et.Iargi.ment of the Church Catechism: Re- commended by the Bishop and Clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Sra^e of New-Yoik. The third Edition. 5. An Exposition of the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacramet tr, and othei Rues and Ceremonies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. By the Rev. Andrew Foioter, A. M. Rector or St. Bartholomew's Parish, South-Caro- lina. T*'e record Edition, with Additions and Improvements. 6._ A Collection of the Essays on the Subject of Episcopacy, which originally appeared in the Albanv Centinel, ano v. h.ch are ascribed principally to the Rev. Dr. linn, the Rev. Mr. BeasLy, and Thomas V. Hrru; Esq. With additioual Notes and Remarks 7. An Apology for Apostolic Order and its Advo- cates, occasioned by the Strictures and Denunciations cf the Christian's Maga- zine. It, a Series ot Letters, addressed to the Rev. John M. Mason, D. D. the Editor of that Work. By the Rev. John Henry Htbart, an Assistant Minis- ter of Trinity Church. Judge rtgfffntis jmigment. Jchri vii. 24. 8. Two Letters to the Editor of the Christian's Magazine. By a Churchman. Becalm in arguing, for JSerceuesi mai error a faulty and truth discourttsy. Herbert. — Refeliert nut fertrnacia, it refelii sine iraawdia, pari.'i sumtts Cicero. 9. An Abridgement of Scripture History; con- sisting of Lessons selected from tie Old Testament. For the Use of Schools and Fatnil.es. By Mrs. Trimmer 10. An Attempt to familiarize the Church Cate- chism. For the Use of Schco'.s si, t Families. By Mrs. Trimmer. First Amtri- can, fronj the third London Edition. 11. The Christian Institutes; or, the Sincere Word of God. Eeing a plain and impartial Account of the \vh,>le Faith and Duty of a Christian. Collected out of the Writings of the Old and New Testament: digested ur.oer proper Heads, and delivered in the Words of Scripture. By the Right Reverend Father in God Francis, late Lord Bishop of Chester. The first American, irom the twelfth Loudon Edition. 12. Discourses on several important Subjects. By the late Right Rev. Samuel Sealury, D. D Bishop of the Protestant Episco- pal Church in the States cf Connecticut and Rhode-Island. Published from Manuscripts prepared by the Author for the Ptess. Books printed and sold by ST. C** y. Sivords. 13. An Apology for the Bible, in a Series of Let; ters, addressed to Thomas Paiiie, Author of a Rook entitled, The Age of Rea- son, Part the Second, being an Investigation of True and of Fabulous Theo- logy. By R. Watson, D. D. F. R. S. Lord Bishop of Landaff, and Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. 14. Primitive Truth and Order vindicated from modern Misrepresentation: with a Defence of Episcopacy, particularly that of Scotland, against an Attack made on it by the late Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen, in his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. By the Right Rev. John Skinner, in Aberdeen, senior Bishop of the Scotch Episcopal Church. The first American Edition. To which is annexed, a Review or Dr. Ihnveis' Church History. 15. A brief Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century. Part first; in two Volumes: containing a Sketch of the Revolutions and Im- provements in Science, Arts, and Literature, during that period. By Samuel Miller, A. M. one of the Ministers of the United Presbyteiian Churches in the City of New-York, Member of the American Philosophical Society, and corresponding Member of the Historical Society of Massachusetts. 16. A Sermon, delivered before the General Con- vention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Ameika, in St. Michael's Church, Trenton, New-Jersey, on Friday, September 11, 1801, on the Occasion of the Meeting of the said Convention, and of the Consecration of the Right Rev. Bishop Moore, of New-Yoik. By the Right Rev. William White, D D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania. 17. The Charge of the Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the *tare of New-York : delivered to the Convention of said Church, on the 5th Day of October, in the Yen of our Lord 1802. 1 8. A Sermon, preached before the General Con- vention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in thr United States of America, in the Citv of New-York, on Wednesday, September 12. 1804. By the Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York. Published at the Request of the Convention. 19. The Duty of fulfilling all Righteousness ex- plained and enforced, in a Sermon, by the Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Published for the Use of the Members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York. 20. The Life and Posthumous Writings of Wil- liam Cowper, E'u,. with an Introductory Letter to the Right Honourable F.ai I Cowper. By William Hayley, Esq. 21. Observations upon certain Passages in Mr. Jef- fet son's Notes on Virginia, which appear to have a Tendency to subvert Re- ligion, and establish a False Philosophy. 22. The Life of Samuel Johnson, D. D. the first President of King's College, in New-York. Containing many interesting Anecdotes; a general View of the State of Religion snd Learning in Connec- ticut during the former Part of the last Century ; and an Account of the In- stitution and Rise of Yale College, Connecticut /and of King's (now Columbia) College, New-York. By Thomas Bradbury Chandler, D.D. formerly Riaor ©f St. John's Church, Elizabeth-Town, New-Jersey. To which is added, an Appendix, containing many original Letters, never before published, from Bishop Berkeley, Archbishop Seeker, Bishop Lowth, and others, ro Dr. Johnson. 23. An Antidote to the Miseries of Human Life, in the History of the Wkiow Placid and her Daughter Rachael. ~f£j- Common Prayer and Psalm Eooks, of various sizes, and in elegant and plain bindings, may be had as above ; also Bibles, Testaments, Spelling Books, Primers, &c. &c. 8cc, .-..■ : ■; i , ^ • W-c