LIBEAEY PRINCETON, N. J. No. Case, , No. Shelf, _ Sec No. Book, Ho, BX 5099 .B7 Brown, John, 1784-1858. The exclusive claims of Puseyite Episcopalians to < Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/exclusiveclaimsoOObrow_0 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS OF PUSEYITE EPISCOPALIANS TO THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY INDEFENSIBLE: WITH AN INQUIRY INTO THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPACY AND THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION: W A SERIES OE LETTERS TO THE REV. DR PTJSEY. By JOHN BROWN, D. D. LIINISTER OP I.AUGTON, BERWICKSHIRE. TO WHICH 18 PREFIXED AN ARTICLE ON THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION Erom the Edinburgh Presbyterian Review. PHILADELPHIA: PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. Paul T. Jones. Publishing Agent 1844. Priuteil by WW. S. KAETIEH. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION.* The origin of Puritan nonconformity ,t its ample war- rant, and complete justification, will be found in the character and proceedings of Queen Elizabeth, the principles on which the Anglican Church was at first based, and the means by which it was finally esta- blished. Elizabeth was one of those persons whose character it is difficult to portray, because it consisted of ele- ments apparently irreconcilable. She possessed the peculiar characteristics of both sexes in almost equal proportions. She had all the masculine energy* and enlarged capacity of a strong-minded man, with all the caprice, vanity, and obstinacy of a weak-minded woman; while the circumstances in which she was placed had a direct tendency to develope and mature all the elements of her character. She was suspi- cious by nature, by education, and by necessity, and despotic by temperament, by habit, and by policy. Thoroughly and intensely selfish, she made all the means within her reach minister to her own interests; utterly insensible to the miseries she might occasion to the instruments of her will, or the objects of her * The article on the Anglican Reformation is from the Presby- terian Review of January, 1843. t Puritans and nonconformists were, at first, the common titles of those who were subsequently called Presbyterians, while Brownites, sectaries, and separatists, were the ordinary appellations of those who are now called Independents. See Pierce's Vindication of the Dis- senters, pp. 147, 16:), 205, 6, 213, 215, 223. Hanbury's Eccl. Me- morials of Independents, i. 3, 5, et passim. iv THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. policy.* Impatient of contradiction, not less from the strong than the weak points of her character, she quelled, with equal imperiousness, all opposition to her will, and crushed a refractory spirit in prelates, parliaments, and privy council, in puritans, papists, and populace, with as iron a rigour as was ever dis- played by Henry VIII. It was only by the favourable circumstances in which she was placed, and by the dexterity with which she regulated her personal deportment, as well as her general policy, that such a character, which could conciliate no love, enkindle no gratitude, and excite no sympathy, could inspire those feelings of national homage of which we know she was the ob- ject. Her life, to many of her Protestant subjects, appeared the only barrier against the return of Popery and persecution; and therefore, for their own protec- tion, they not only tolerated the strong measures of her government, but admired her prudence, and pro- moted her plans. Parsimonious to an extreme in granting salaries or pensions to her servants from the royal treasures, she was munificent in rewarding, if not her ministers, at least her minions, by donations from the estates of the Church; and thus she secured the applause of those — and they are always a numer- ous party — who look more to the value of the gift, than the legitimacy of the source whence it is drawn. Theatrical, yet imposing, in her carriage ; magnificent, though coarse in her tastes; thoroughly English in her feelings, and successful in her enterprises, she won and retained the admiration of those (always the mass in every nation) who are impressed only through then senses, judge merely by results, and admire * " My good old mistress," says Sir Francis Bacon to King James in 1612, "was wont to call me her watch candle, because it pleased her to say I did continually burn; and yet she suffered me to waste almost to nothing." (Wordsworth's Eccl. Biog. iv. 70, n.) She kept Sir Francis Walsingham at Paris, because she found him serviceable to her purposes, till his health was completely shattered, and his for- tune utterly impoverished ; nor could all his petitions and representa- tions to herself and her council, obtain either an accession to his income, a respite to his labours, or a recall from his embassy. See Strype's Annals, iii. 339, 340. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. V power and splendour, without looking too curiously into the source whence the one is derived, or the ob- jects to which the other is directed. It was part of her policy not to demand taxes from her parliaments, lest they might attempt to canvass her measures, and control her proceedings;* while from the very same policy she directed the most judicious efforts to enlarge the wealth and the prosperity of the kingdom ; and all this had, of course, the very strongest tendency to increase her general popularity. It must have been from sources such as these that so much of admiration was lavished upon one who never uttered one amiable sentiment, and never performed one generous deed. It is not less difficult to estimate Elizabeth's reli- gious character, than to do justice to her personal and political life. During her sister's reign, she regularly attended confession and mass, and conformed to all the ritual observances of Popery.t Nor was this merely from policy, or from a desire to escape perse- cution from that ferocious bigot, who was well known to cherish no sisterly regard towards her ; for after her accession to the throne, she continued to pray to the Virgin Mary, and, as we shall see, maintained many of the peculiar doctrines of Romanism. She believed in the real presence, which, as then under- stood, was synonymous with transubstantiation,J pub- licly censured a preacher, who preached against it in her presence, and praised another who preached in its favour. The people, in the sudden ebullition of their joy, at what they conceived the downfall of Ro- manism, pulled down the rood lofts, broke in pieces altars and images, and burnt up the pictures and cruci- fixes, which, in the days of their ignorance, they had worshipped. § Elizabeth, however, indignant at such sacrilege, ordered these appendages of idolatry to be restored ; and it was only after the most strenuous exertions of her prelates and counsellors, she could be induced to yield to their removal. || But although she * Bishop Short's Sketch of the History of the Church of England. 2d edit. Sect. 421), 467. « t Strype's Annals, i. 2. t Ibid. 2, 3. § Ibid. 260—2. II Ibid. 237, 241. There is a singular letter from Jewell to Peter VI THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. gave a reluctant assent to have them removed from the churches, she still retained a crucifix, with tapers burning before it, upon the altar in her own private chapel. Against this open idolatry, all her prelates, not even Cox excepted, remonstrated in a style of very unusual vehemence; and in terms the most obsequious, yet firm, they begged leave to decline officiating in her majesty's chapel until the abomina- tion was removed. For the moment she seems to have given way to the storm. But she soon recovered her obstinate determination in favour of her crucifix and lighted tapers, — restored them to their former place upon the altar,* — and there they remained at least as late as 1572.t Nor were these badges of idolatry retained merely as ornaments. Strype in- forms us distinctly, that " she and her nobles used to give honour to them."J Nor could it be any ambi- Martyr, (Burnet's Hist. Ref. Records, Bk. vi.No. 60,) dated 4th Feb. 1560, beginning, "O my father, what shall I write thee?" in which he says, " That controversy about crosses (in Churches) is now hot amongst us. You can scarcely believe in so silly a matter, how men, who seemed rational, play the fool. Of these the only one you know is Cox. To-morrow a disputation is appointed to take place upon this matter. Some members of parliament are chosen arbitrators. The disputants are, in favour of crosses, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Parker) and Cox; against them, Grindal (Bishop of London) and myself. The result lies at the mercy of our judges. However, I laugh when I think with what, and how grave and solid arguments they shall defend their paltry crosses. I shall write you the result, however it may go. At present the cause is in dependance. How- ever, so far as I can divine, this is the last letter you shall receive from me as a bishop, for the matter is come to that pass, that we must either take back those crosses of silver and pewter, which we have broken, or resign our bishopricks." * In 1570. Strype's Parker, ii. 35, 36. + Strype, speaking of the year 1565, says, "The queen still, to this year, kept the crucifix in her chapel." Annals, i. ii. 198. Again, " I find the queen's chapel stood in statu quo seven years after." Ibid. 200. Cartwright also mentions the fact in his " Admonition to Parliament," published in 1570. Parker exerted himself strenu- ously, but in vain, against this nuisance. Strype's Parker, i. 92. The encouragement which this attachment of the queen to some of the grossest errors of their system gave the papists, may be inferred from the fact, that a popish priest, in 1564, dedicated to her a work in defence of the crucifix being retained and worshipped as before. Strype's An. i. 260-2. J Strype's An. i. 259, 260. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. vii guous manifestation of popery and idolatry, which could extract from Cox that long and urgent declina- ture to officiate in her chapel, in which he says, " I most humbly sue unto your godly zeal, prostrate and with wet eyes, that ye will vouchsafe to peruse the considerations which move me, that I dare not minis- ter in your grace's chapel, the lights and cross remain- ing."* But although Elizabeth was thus obstinate in fa- vour of these "dregs of Popery," and "relics of the Amorites," as Jewell termed them, she had not even the semblance of personal religion. Those members of the Church of England who are favourable to pro- testantism, and yet feel that their Church is identified with the Church of Elizabeth, may, as a matter of course, be expected to portray her both as Protestant and pious; and this has been done to an extent which, in our mind, has rendered every history of Elizabeth, by members of the Anglican Church, altogether un- worthy of credit, except simply when they state facts, and give their authority for them. Even Strype, so favourably distinguished for veracity and candour, exerts himself to write a panegyric on Elizabeth, although the facts which he is too honest to conceal, jar oddly enough with his praises; and although also, occasional expressions drop unguardedly from his pen, which show how dissatisfied he was with the per- sonal character and religion of that queen. " And, indeed," he says, speaking of her religious character at her accession, " what to think of the queen at this time as to her religion, one might hesi- tate somewhat. "t She seldom or never attended Church except during Lent, (which she observed, and compelled others to observe, with all the formality of Rome,) when the best pulpit orators from all parts of England were summoned up to preach before her.t She, indeed, held the preaching of the gospel not only in contempt, but in something bordering upon detesta- * Strype's An. i. 260, and Ap. Rec. No. 22. t Annals, i. 2. \ Strype's Parker, i. 401. Viii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. tion, and wished that all her subjects should follow her own example in absenting themselves from hear- ing sermons. While nine parishes out of every ten throughout the kingdom were destitute of a preaching ministry, she commanded Grindal, in 1 576, to diminish still further the number of preachers, declaring that three or four were sufficient for a whole county — that preaching did more harm than good, and that, consequently, " it was good for the Church to have few preachers."* And because he would not obey, suppress " the prophesyings," and lessen the number of preachers, she suspended him from his functions, sequestered his revenues, and confined him a prisoner to his own house, and it was with some difficulty she was restrained from proceeding further against him. Grindal's firmness, however, under God, saved Eng- land ; for had he yielded to her anti-christian tyranny, it is easy to perceive what the result must have been upon the moral and spiritual condition of the king- dom. Nor were her morals more eminent than her piety. Without giving more attention than they deserve to the scandalous revelations of Lingard, or to the rumours which have descended to our own time in secret me- moirs, in MSS., and by traditions, it is impossible to question that the " virgin queen" hardly deserved the epithet of which she was so ambitious.! She indulg- ed freely in the pleasures of the table. During her annual " progresses," her prelates and nobles, aware of her taste for magnificent entertainments, rivalled one another in ministering to her gratification. After her return from these more than oriental fetes, she was generally indisposed, nature exacting her usual tribute, not less from the queen, than from more * Strype's Grindal, pp. 328, 329, and Appendix B. ii. No. 9, which we recommend to our readers to read throughout. t Leicester, in a private letter to Walsingham, while ambassador at Paris, speaking of a mysterious illness, by which she was sudden- ly seized, says, " That, indeed, she had been troubled with a spice or show of the mother." And although he says that, " indeed, it was not so," he was too good a courtier, as well as too personally implica- ted, to be a trustworthy witness. Strype's An. iii. 319. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. plebeian gourmands.* She swore most profanely, not only in her conversation, but also in her letters, and that not only to her profane men, but even to her prelates, t As Elizabeth did not often attend church, she had the more time to desecrate the Sabbath; and while the puritans were persecuted for not honouring saints' lay, she, her nobles and her prelates, profaned the lay of the Lord. In one of her " progresses," in .575, she spent three weeks at Kenilworth, one of he seats of her favourite, the Earl of Leicester. A contemporary chronicler gives the following account of the manner in which two of trfc Sabbaths spent tlere were desecrated. In the forenoon she went to the parish church. But "the afternoon" was spent " n excellent music of sundry sweet instruments, and in lancing of lords and ladies, and other worshipful degrees, with lively agility and commendable grace. At light, late after a warning or two," such as Jupi- ter's respects to the queen and other heathen masques and mummeries, there " were blazes of burning darts flying to and fro, beams of stars, coruscant streams, and hail of fiery sparks, lightning of wild-fire, in * This, in 1571, after her return from one of these "progresses," " She was taken suddenly sick at her stomach, and as suddenly re- lieved tv a vomit." Strype's An. iii. 175. t Sir lohn Harrington, giving a description of an interview he had wit! her in 1601, a year or two before her death, says, "She swears much at those that cause her griefs in such wise, to the no small discomfiture of all about her." Nugae Antiquae, i. 319. We owe the bllowing anecdote to the same amusing gossip. Cox of Ely having refused to alienate some of the best houses and manors of his see to some of her courtiers, notwithstanding of a personal command from the queen, received from the indignant Elizabeth the following characteristic epistle. " Proud prelate, you know what you were before 1 made you what you are; if you do not immediately comply with my request, by G — d, I will unfrock you. Elizabeth." However ludicrous to us, such a mandate must have been anything bit laughable to the poor bishop of Ely. With a pertinacity, how- e'er, which would have been sublime, had it been displayed in a bitter cause, Cox preserved to the last the revenues of his see. After he death, however, Elizabeth was revenged. She kept the diocese vacant for eighteen years, (as she kept Oxford for twenty-two years,) anl before a succession was appointed, she stripped it so bare, that fron having been one of the richest, it is now one of the poorest dio- cesis in England. X THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. water and land, flight and shot of thunder-bolts — all with continuance, terror and vehemence, as though the heavens thundered, the Avater scourged, and the earth shook. This lasted till after midnight." Next Sabbath the same scene was repeated with sundry alterations. But, in addition, " this, by the kalendar," being " St. Kenelme's day," the genius or tutelary god of the place, there "was a solemi country bridal, with running at quintal, in honoir of this Kenilworth Castle, and of God and St. Kei> elme !"* When we bear in mind the manner h which the Sabbath lias been desecrated in England down from the Beformation by princes, peers, aid prelates, by " Book of Sports," by acts of parliamait and convocation, and that the only friends of Sab- bath observance have been the persecuted puritais, the wonder is, not that it should be so grievously desecrated, but that any veneration whatever shculd continue to be paid to it. Among the manifold forms in which the queen's attachment to the "relics of Popery" displayed itself, few were so offensive to the clergy as her counten- ance of clerical celibacy and her opposition t) the marriage of the priesthood. In her first parlitment * Apud Strype's An. ii. i. 584, 585. It may be said in palliation of Elizabeth's desecration of tlie Sabbath, that she only folliwed the example set before her by the primate of all England. Paker hav- ing finished a princely dining hall in his palace at Cantfrbury, in 1565, gave several magnificent entertainments there. " 7he first," says his biographer, " was at Whitsuntide, and lasted tlree days, that is Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday." ..." His seond feast was on Trinity Sunday following. . . . The hall wc.s set forth with much plate of silver and gold, adorned with rich tapestry »f Flanders . . . There were dainties of all sorts, both meats and drinks, and in great plenty, and all things served in excellent order by none but the archbishop's servants." Strype's Parker, i. 376 — 380. It was Parker's ambition upon these occasions to rival the fetes given oy his predecessor Warham to the Emperor Charles V. and Henry VIII., and that such important matters might not be lost to posterity, he became their historian himself. Ibid. ii. 296, 297. Even when he retired to his smallest country residence, Parker's domestic establish- ment consisted of about a hundred retainers. Ibid. i. 277; Parler, however, was completely outshone by Whitgift, who rivalled Wofeey himself. See his Life by "Sir George Paule, comptroller of his Grace's household," in Wordsworth's Ecclesiastical Biographj, iv. 367—9. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XI an attempt was made to pass an act to legalize the marriage of the clergy, as had been done in the reign of her brother, but she would not permit it.* Various efforts were made by Cecil, Parker (who was mar- ried himself) and others, to induce her, at subsequent periods, to yield ; but their attempts only exasperated the vestal queen. In 1561, she issued an injunction forbidding married clergymen from living with their Avives within the precincts of colleges or cathedral closes, and but for the importunity of Cecil, she would have absolutely forbidden the marriage of the clergy. When Parker shortly afterwards waited upon her, she scolded him with much "bitterness," and spoke in such terms not only against clerical matrimony, but the whole constitution of the Church of England, and threw out such hints of what it was her intention to do to remedy the evils she complained of, that, as he wrote to Cecil, he expected nothing short of an absolute order to restore things to the condition in which they stood in the reign of her sister, or, at all events, that she would restore so much of popery that he could not conform to the Church.t When she cooled, however, and saw that Protestantism was the only tenure by which she held her crown, she relented so far as not to compel a return to popery, but she issued orders imposing conditions upon the marriage of the priesthood, which he must have been not only uxorious indeed, but degraded in taste and spirit, who could comply with.J Never could she be got to give any thing more than a tacit connivance to clerical matrimony, while ever and anon she poured her contempt upon both the married clergy and their wives. That amusing gossip, Sir John Harrington, gives the following ludicrous instance of her treatment even of the primate's lady. Parker had given Eliza- beth one of his sumptuous banquets at Lambeth. As the queen was retiring, she thus publicly addressed Mrs. Parker : " Madam" — (the usual title of mar- * Strypo's Ann. i. 118. t Strype's Parker, i. 213—217. t See the injunctions in Bishop Sparrow's Collections, 65, or in Dr. Cardwell's Documentary Annals of the Church of England, i. No. 43. pp. 178—20!). Xii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. ried ladies) — " Madam I may not call you, Mistress" (the ordinary title of unmarried ladies) " I am loath to call you, but, however, I thank you for your good cheer." In 1594, she banished Bishop Fletcher, lately translated from Worcester to London, from her court for having married "a fine lady," (sister to Sir George Gifford, one of her gentlemen pensioners,) which she said " was a very indecent act for an elder- ly clergyman." Nor did her wrath end here. She commanded Whitgift to suspend him, and it was with considerable exertions on the part of Cecil that at the end of six months the suspension was removed. Still she would not suffer him for a twelvemonth afterward to appear in her presence. The poor court chaplain, who had hitherto basked in the sunshine of her smiles, pined away under her frowns, and died shortly afterwards of a broken heart, — a warning to all "elderly clergymen" not to be guilty of such " indecent acts " in future.* We shall show in the sequel that if Elizabeth had had any regard to the morals of the clergy, (which she had not,) she ought rather to have passed a law compelling them to marry, nor would it have militated against good morals had she set them the example. Such having been Elizabeth's feelings against Pro- testantism and in favour of Popery, it must be matter of great surprise to ordinary readers that she should ever have become a Protestant at all. And, indeed, we are thoroughly persuaded that if she had not been necessitated, both by her personal and political posi- tion, to promote the reformed interest, she would have remained herself, and kept the kingdom too, in communion with the Church of Rome. Religion with Elizabeth was, all her life, a mere political engine. While she persecuted in her own kingdom all who opposed her ecclesiastical views, she aided by coun- sels, men, and money, the Protestants of Scotland, France, Geneva, and the Netherlands, who opposed the ecclesiastical supremacy of their civil governors. * See the whole account in Strype's Whitgift, ii. 215 — 218. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xiii The court of Rome had declared her father's mar- riage with her mother invalid, and herself conse- quently illegitimate, and incapable of inheriting the throne of England. On her accession, she despatched a notification of that event to Rome, and resolved in the meanwhile to do nothing in favour of the Refor- mation, lest she might alienate the Vatican. The pontiff, however, ignorant equally of his own impo- tency, and of the imperiousness of her whom he ad- dressed, sent her back a haughty and arrogant an- swer, declared her illegitimate, commanded her to abandon the throne she had usurped, and resign her- self entirely to the will of the holy see of which Eng- land was but a fief. Such language Elizabeth could little brook even from the assumed vicar of Christ. Had the energetic but wily and insinuating Sixtus V. then occupied the chair of Peter, from his avowed regard for the congenial character of Elizabeth, and from other politic considerations, the answer would assuredly have been different, and the result would as assuredly have been different also. Or had Elizabeth been a weak-minded Papist, as she was a strong- minded-one, she might have been terrified into com- pliance, and Mary of Scotland would have ascended the throne of England in her own person instead of that of her son. But God made the wrath of men to praise him, and human infirmities and folly to magnify his own wisdom and might. Elizabeth's courage could as little falter at the spiritual thunders of the Vatican as at the more formidable artillery of the Armada of Spain. She therefore at once deter- mined to declare open war with the papacy, and to construct the Church of England after a model which, without banishing Popery in the splendour of its or- naments, the magnificence of its ritual, the mysticism of its sacraments, or the scholasticism of its dogmas, should be found more subservient to her own will, and more conducive to her personal aggrandizement, than if it held of Rome. She resolved to unite the pontificale with the regale in her own person, to in- corporate the triple-storied tiara with the imperial Xiv THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. diadem, and grasp the keys of Peter with the same hand which wielded the sword of Alfred. In one word, she determined to become to the Church of England what the Pope was to the Church of Rome ; and she carried her determination into execution. Elizabeth left neither her prelates nor her privy council at any loss to divine her intentions. She told Parker at the interview, at which, as already narrated, she had denounced the marriage of the clergy, that she meant to issue out injunctions in favour of Popery.* Had she been so disposed, the act of supremacy, to which we shall immediately allude, placed the entire constitutional power so to do in her hands. Political considerations, however, dissuaded her from seeking reconciliation with Rome. She valued her ecclesias- tical supremacy at the very least as highly as her civil autocracy ; and as a reconciliation with Rome could be purchased only by the surrender of the for- mer, and most probably also of the latter, Elizabeth remained satisfied with the power to render the na- tional religion Popish in every thing but a submission to the universal supremacy of the Pope. Parker, whose conscience was sufficiently elastic to enable him to remain in England during the reign of Mary, and whose nerves were not easily shaken, was in a "horror" at the determined manner in which she told him she was resolved to restore Popery; and he anticipated nothing else than that he should be one of the first victims of a new Popish persecution.t Even Cox, who, next to Cheney of Gloucester, was the most papistical of Elizabeth's first bishops, was so well aware of her inclinations to restore more of Popery than even he desired, that one of the argu- ments which he employed to urge Parker to a more vigorous persecution of the puritans, was an appre- hension lest the opposition they gave to her ecclesi- astical arrangements should provoke her to a total abandonment of Protestantism.^ Indeed, so well established is this point by the clearest historic evi- « Strype's Parker, i. 217, 218. t Ibid. Ap. Records, No. 17. t Ibid. i. 456. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XV dence, that no man acquainted with the facts of the case now doubts it, except, perhaps, some Anglican evangelicals, who are retained in the bosom of the Church of England through a delusive idea that it had really been reformed by Elizabeth. The High Church party are perfectly aware that Elizabeth did prevent the reformation of the Church of England. " This arbitrary monarch," says one of that party, "had a tendency towards Rome almost in every thing but the doctrine of the papal supremacy. To the real presence she was understood to have no ob- jection; the celibacy of the clergy she decidedly ap- proved; the gorgeous rites of the ancient form of worship she admired, and in her own chapel retain- ed."* The Puseyites gratefully acknowledge the ser- vice Elizabeth rendered to their cause. " Queen Elizabeth," says one of that school, "with her pre- judices in favour of the old religion, was doubtless an instrument in the hand of God for stopping the progress of the Reformation. "t Indeed, the only objections that party have to Elizabeth's measures is, that she kept the supremacy to herself instead of leaving it in the hands of the clergy. Still with all her faults, and they are sufficiently numerous and aggravated, Elizabeth was a splendid monarch, and we can easily account for the admira- tion in which her memory is still held in England. To view her to advantage, or perhaps even to do her justice, we must forget her sex, overlook her religious opinions, bear in mind the unsettled form of the con- stitution, and judge her by the maxims of her own age. That assuredly could be no ordinary person- age who could task the consummate sagacity and finished tact of Cecil, fix the volatile passions of Lei- * Quarterly Review for June 1827, p. 31. See even the low church Burnet, the indiscriminate panegyrist of Elizabeth's mea- sures, Hist. Ref. ed. 1839, ii. 582-3. Dr. Short, the present bishop of Sodor and Man, makes the same confession, Sketch of the Hist, of the Church of England, 2d ed. 313, et passim. And so, in short, as we have said, do all historians, except some evangelicals, to whose position it is essential to overlook the fact. t British Critic for October 1842, p. 333. See also, p. 330—1. XVi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. cester, bend the stubborn spirit of Parker, outmanoeu- vre the Machiavellian policy of Montalto, and hum- ble the genius, chivalry, and resources of Spain. In courage equal to Semiramis, in accomplishments to Zenobia, in policy and energy to Catharine, she pos- sessed a combination of talents to which none of them could lay claim. Forget for the moment her creed, overlook her treatment of parliament and the Puri- tans, place yourself in her own age, and view her merely as a monarch, and even prejudice must ac- knowledge that she was the most magnificent sove- reign that ever occupied the English throne. The various steps by which the Church of England was brought to assume its present form, have been, as might well be expected, very keenly canvassed. "We shall enable the reader, by a simple induction of facts, to form his own opinion both of the Church itself, and of the various means by which it was primarily established, and made to assume its present form. The first act of Elizabeth's first Parliament restor- ed to the crown the supremacy in matters spiritual which was possessed by Henry VIII. and Edward VI., but which Mary had resigned to the Pope. By this act " Such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and for reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, shall for ever, by the authority of the present parlia- ment, be united and annexed to the imperial crown of the realm." By a clause in the act of uniformity, it was enacted, " That the Queen's Majesty, by advice of her ecclesi- astical commissioners, may ordain and publish such ceremonies or rites as may be most for the advance- ment of God's glory, and the edifying of the church." So highly did Elizabeth esteem the authority thus THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XVii conferred upon her that she told Parker she would never have consented to establish the Protestant reli- gion at all but for the power with which she was thus invested to change it according to her own will. Nor let it be forgotten that our gracious sovereign Victoria, has, at this moment, the very same extent of power which the act of supremacy conferred upon Elizabeth. In order to enable Elizabeth, and all her successors, to exercise this most exorbitant power, by a clause in the act of supremacy she was empowered to dele- gate her authority to any persons, being natural born subjects, whether lay or clerical, who, as commission- ers from, and for the crown, were empowered to " visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all such errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, contempts and enormities whatsoever, which, by any manner of spiritual or ecclesiastical power, authority or jurisdic- tion, can or may lawfully be reformed, ordered, re- dressed, corrected, restrained or amended." " Nothing," as a High Church historian has well observed, "can be more comprehensive than the terms of this clause. The whole compass of Church discipline seems (and not only seems, but in reality was) transferred upon the crown."* While all par- ties, except the most decided Erastians, low church- men, and some also of the Evangelical body, have united in condemning, in the strongest terms, the spiritual powers thus conferred upon the crown, their indignation has been specially directed against that clause by which the whole ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Chinch of England may be exercised by lay commissioners, acting by a warrant under the crown. Had the crown been restricted to employ only eccle- siastics in ecclesiastical causes, the evil would be practically redressed. But as the crown not only possessed, but exercised the power to place this juris- diction in the hands of laymen, who, in virtue of their commission, were empowered to examine, censure, * Collier's Ecclesiastical History, Barham's edition, vi. 224. B XViii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. suspend, and even depose, not only the inferior clergy, but even the prelates and the primates, and did too, in manifold instances, execute their commission, it were strange, indeed, if any man who can distinguish the Church from the world, and things spiritual from tilings civil, could but deplore and condemn this foul invasion of the privileges of Christ's kingdom. Such was the foundation of the high commission court, and of the star chamber, which in a subsequent age, proved so disastrous, not only to the liberties and the lives of the subject, but also to the stability of the altar and the throne. The authority of these courts was so undefined, their powers so despotic, that they could be perpetuated only by the destruction of all liberty, both civil and religious. " Whoever," says a Romanist historian of high name, " will compare the powers given to this tribu- nal, (the high commission court) with those of the inquisition which Philip the Second endeavoured to establish in the Low Countries, will find that the chief difference between the two courts consisted in their names."* And all that a learned and zealous advocate of the Church of England can say in her defence is, that " Dr. Lingard ought to have added, that though such commissions were not unknown in the time of Edward VI., the person who first brought into Eng- land the model attempted in the Low Countries was Queen Mary; . . . and that the same system was continued in the reign of Elizabeth, not because it was congenial with the spirit of Protestantism, but because the temper of the times had been trained and hardened in the school of Popery."t As if it were not admitted, even by this apologist himself, that the Church of England had the precedency of Philip in the institution of a court of inquisition under Edward, as if any man but an out-and-out apologist of the Church of England would identify t Lingard's History of England, v. 316. t Dr. Cardwell's Documentary Annals of the Church of England, . i. 223. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xix the actions of Elizabeth with the genuine manifesta- tions of " the spirit of Protestantism," and as if, be- sides, the high commission court and the star cham- ber, as Dr. Cardwell's words would insinuate, had terminated with the reign of Elizabeth, or had been abolished by the Church of England, when he very well knows the horrors these courts perpetrated in subsequent reigns, and knows, too, that it was the rising power of the Puritans that demolished these infernal courts, which an increasing party in the Church of England, who fairly represent her genius, will ere long restore, if the old puritan spirit do not prevent such a national calamity. Ample as the spiritual and ecclesiastical powers thus conferred upon Elizabeth were, she was not satisfied, until, by a clause in the act of supremacy, all persons holding public office, civil, juridical, muni- cipal, military or ecclesiastical, were required to take an oath in recognition of the supremacy royal, binding themselves to defend the same, under pain of being deprived of their offices, and of being declared inca- pable of further employment. This oath, by the 36th canon, continues to be taken by all ecclesiastics down to this day. Thus, by one disastrous stroke, the liberties of the Church of England were cloven down, and laid pros- trate in the dust. All ecclesiastical jurisdiction, all spiritual power, were lodged in the crown, without respect to the sex, creed, or character of the party who, for the time, might happen to wear it. The prelates and pastors of that Church thus became, even in the discharge of their most sacred functions, the mere vicars and delegates of the supreme civil magis- trate. Not one rite, even the most trivial, can they alter, not one canon, however necessary, can they pass, not one error, however gross, can they reform, not one omission, even the most important, can they supply. The civil magistrate enacts the creed they are bound to profess and inculcate, frames the prayers which they must offer at the throne of God, prescribes in number and form the sacraments they must admin- XX THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. ister, arranges the rites and vestments they must use, down to the colour, shape, and stuff of a cap or a tunicle, and takes discipline altogether out of their hand. The parish priest has no authority to exclude the most profligate sinner from communion, the lord- liest prelate or primate cannot excommunicate the most abandoned sinner, or suspend the most immoral ecclesiastic from his functions, and should either the priest or the prelate attempt to exercise the discipline prescribed by the Lord Jesus in his house, he will speedily be made to understand, by the terrors of a praemunire, or the experience of a prison, that he is not appointed in the Church of England to administer the laws of Christ, but the statutes of the imperial par- liament, or the injunctions of the crown.* Never was there so autocratical a despotism placed in the hands of a human being, as, by the Constitution of the Church of England, is reposed in the sovereign — never, on earth, was there so fettered and enthralled a commu- nity as the southern establishment. The muftis and other ecclesiastical functionaries (so to term them) have an indefinite authority by the constitution of Turkey to resist the jurisdiction of the Sultan — a general council, it is the prevalent opinion among Romanists, can control the authority of the pope, and in both cases the supreme functionaries are consider- ed spiritual officers; but in the Church of England, * It is only one or two years ago that a country clergyman wrote the editor of the Christian Observer for advice under the following circumstances. A married gentleman in his parish lived in a state of open adultery with the wile of another man. A child was the fruit of this unhallowed union. The guilty, but shameless mother, actuated by feeling3 which we are glad we cannot analyze, came to the min- ister, insisting upon being " churched ;" that is, that a particular office, appointed for the purpose, should be offered up next Sabbath, return, ing thanks to the God of all holiness for the safe delivery of this infant, born in double adultery. We know not what was the issue of the case, but our brethren of the Synod of Ulster, in one of their late admi- rable works in favour of presbytery (Presbytcrianism Defended, pp. 183-4, 203-4,) mention an instance of a minister who was kept for years in prison for having refused the strumpet of a gentleman resi- dent in his parish admission to the Lord's Supper. The late case of the Dean of York shows the jurisdiction, or rather total want of juris- diction, which the prelate possesses over the clergy. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXi priests, prelates, and primates, have no authority whatever, ecclesiastics though they be, to control, or even to modify, the spiritual supremacy of a lay and civil magistrate. So anomalous a society was never witnessed, if society it can be called, which has not one single ele- ment of an organized community, — which consists of a mere congeries of individual atoms without laws enacted by themselves, without officers appointed by themselves, or powers lodged in themselves, which has no self-existing attributes, no self-regulating agency, which, in one word, has not one single element, even the most essential of a corporate body. Were we disposed to push our arguments, as far as we are warranted, we might deny that the Church of Eng- land is a Church at all. For let it be observed that, as from the nature of the case, spiritual power cannot be lodged in lay or civil hands, any more than autho- rity to administer the sacraments, the Lord's Supper, as well as baptism, and to confer orders, can be pos- sessed by a layman or a woman; and as all priestly powers, by the constitution of the Church of England, are placed in the sovereign — the prelates being his mere delegates, (and that, whether in the reign of Henry VIII., and of Edward VI., they are obliged to take out a commission to empower them to perform their functions, or submit, as they all must now do, to the 36th canon;) and as, moreover, every society must possess some species of organization, suited to its peculiar character, which the Church of England, as a Church, does not possess, it raises a serious ques- tion, whether that can be accounted a Church, if we are to take our ideas of a Church from the word of God. We certainly have no intention whatsoever to maintain, as so many of them do regarding us, that the individuals who compose that Church are cast out to the "uncovenanted mercies of God;" for we rejoice to know that the grace of God is not restrained by any external impediments; and we rejoice further to know, that there are many of God's chosen ones in communion with that Church, as we doubt not was xxu THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. also the case even in the Church of Rome, during the middle ages; but as a Church, or scripturally con- stituted society, we dare not but have considerable difficulty in recognizing it.* The Erastian thraldom to which the Church of England has been reduced, cannot but be galling to all her rightly constituted clergy, and we so deeply sympathize with them, that we put the most favour- able construction upon all their apologies for them- selves. We cannot, however, lend the same indul- gence to their attempts to prove that theirs is the best possible constitution, any more than we could listen with any patience to a West Indian slave, who should shake his fetters in our face as an evidence of the superior advantages of slavery. Even this, how- ever, we might pass with a sigh for the degradation to which slavery reduces its victims, but we cannot extend the same tolerance to their libels upon other Churches for having had the manliness of spirit to assert their proper liberty, and the regard to the honour of Jesus to vindicate his sovereign exclusive supremacy in his own Church. And yet a member of the Church of England can never think of defend- * When Henry VIII. was about to appoint a commission to ex- amine the state of the religious houses, he, with one stroke of his pen, suspended all the prelates in England from the exercise of their jurisdictions. He afterwards, at the humble petition of each prelate separately presented, was graciously pleased to restore him to his functions by a commission, in which it was distinctly specified that he was to regard himself as the mere vicar of the crown. The terms of these commissions are sufficiently startling to any man who has not sounded the lowest depths of Erastianism. We "rnay give a con- densed summary of one clause of these singular instruments: "Since all authority, civil and ecclesiastical, flows from the crown, and since Cromwell," (a mere layman, but made vicar general in spiritualibus over all the clergy) " to whom (and not to the prelates) the ecclesias- tical part has been committed," (vices nostras as the vicar of the crown", " is so occupied, that he cannot fully exercise it, we commit to you (each individual prelate) the license of ordaining; granting institution and collation; and, in short, of performing all other eccle- siastical acts; and we allow you to hold this authority during our pleasure, as you must answer to God and to us!" Similar commis- sions were granted by Edward VI. to his prelates. Seethe originals in Collier (fol.) ii. rec. Nos. 31, 41; or Barham's ed. ix. pp. 123, 157; Burnet, i. rec. b. iii. No. 14 ; and ii. No. 2 ; or London 8vo. ed. 1839 ; iv. pp. 104, 249. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXih ing his own Church, but he must at the same time attack the Churches of others, and especially the Church of Scotland.* Just notice the self-complacent absurdity of the following passage from the last page of the work noticed in the preceding note, by the pre- sent bishop of Sodor and Man: "Compare," says Dr. Short, addressing men who are too ignorant to be capable of instituting a comparison, or too pre- judiced to be able to pass an impartial judgment, "compare what took place in Scotland with what took place in England, at the period of the Reforma- tion;" and after showing some of those things which did take place in England, and stating that " the admirer of our Episcopal Church — our apostolic estab- lishment" must thank the timid, if not the time-serv- ing and Erastian Cranmer, that the Church of Eng- land was reformed precisely as she was, and that it did not happen there as it did happen among us — we have Dr. Short's word for it — " that the force of the multi- tude ... in Scotland (had) thrown down what the Epis- copalians will consider as almost the Church itself." And who, pray, composed that " multitude" of which Dr. Short speaks so very contemptuously? The Christian people of Scotland, who through " the unction of the Holy One," had, by an ordination higher than the Church of England can confer, been made a "royal priesthood;" and who, both by their position in the Church, and by their qualification, were thus entitled and bound by more authoritative "injunctions" than ever emanated from prince or prelate, to " try the spirits," and not accept of any man to be minister over them, unless, as his creden- tials, he brought with him, not "letters of orders," or an excerpt from a pretended apostolical genealogy, but the gifts, graces, and gospel of the living God. And, pray, what horrible acts did this same " multi- tude" commit, which should be so enormous as to * Sec some specimens of this line of defence and attack, which would be amusing enough from their ludicrousncss, if they were not pitiable from the perversity of judgment they display, in Dr. Short's Sketch of the History of the Church of England, 104, 242-3, 198, and elsewhere. XXiv THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lead " an episcopalian to consider that they had almost thrown down the Church itself?" Why, they just followed where their ministers led them — no great crime, one should suppose, in the eyes of a prelate; and also, in conformity with the prophetic enuncia- tion of their God-commissioned apostle, they fancied, that the " best way to prevent the rooks from return- ing was to pull down their nests," a proceeding, the prophetic sagacity of which has been demonstrated by the history of the Church of England, in whose dark cloisters rooks have continued to roost ever since the Reformation, to which as their safe retreats they betake themselves whenever the moral effulgence of the truth becomes painful to their distempered optics, and from which, as at present, they come forth in darkening clouds whenever the fields seem ripe for their pillage. But let us return to the history of the Anglican Reformation. When Elizabeth ascended the throne, Popery, as restored by Mary, was the established religion. Those Protestants who had, in the words of Fuller, "con- trived to weather out the storm" of Mary's persecu- tions at home in England, depending upon the pro- testantism of the daughter of Anne Boleyn, the early patroness of the Reformation, now ventured to cele- brate public worship according to the liturgy of Ed- ward VI. This was done with still more zeal by the exiles who had fled to the continent to avoid the persecution of Mary, and had now returned in the hope of enjoying liberty of conscience in their native land. Elizabeth, however, had hitherto done nothing to indicate that she was favourable to the reformed faith, but much to the contrary. She had been crowned according to the forms of the popish pontifi- cal, of which a high mass was an essential part. The exiles, however, presuming at least upon a toleration, began to celebrate public worship according to the reformed ritual, and to preach to the people the un- searchable riches of Christ. Elizabeth, when appriz- ed of this proceeding, issued a proclamation, forbid- ding all preaching, and the use of Edward's liturgy, THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXV and commanding that in public worship the missal in Latin should be employed, except the litany, the Lord's prayer, and the creed, which were tolerated in English. The only instruction to be given to the people consisted of the " gospel and the epistles of the day," with the ten commandments, which were allow- ed to be read in the English tongue. Religion, through- out this year (1558) continued precisely as it had been in the reign of Mary, and was celebrated by precisely the same priests, with the addition of so many of the exiles as had returned, and the few Pro- testants who had remained at home.* Elizabeth, however, was aware that some altera- tion in religion must be made. Accordingly, about the period at which she summoned her first parlia- ment, she appointed certain divines, under the presi- dency of Secretary Sir Thomas Smith, to prepare a liturgy which might be laid before the legislature. These divines were instructed to compare Edward's two liturgies with the popish offices, and to frame such a form of prayer as might suit the circumstances of the times. They were, however, to give a prefer- ence to Edward's first liturgy, which retained many popish dogmas and usages, in all matters to be very wary of innovations, and especially, to leave all mat- ters in discussion between the Protestants and the Papists so undefined, and expressed in such general terms as not to offend the latter. Elizabeth's great desire in this, and, indeed, in all her measures, was to comprehend the Papists in any form of religion which might be established. She never seems to have enter- tained any desire to conciliate or concede any thing to her Protestant subjects. The divines having finished their work, brought the draft of a liturgy to Cecil, in order to its being submitted to her majesty. Before presenting it to parliament Elizabeth made various important altera- tions on it, all for the express purpose of reducing it to a nearer conformity to the popish liturgies, and thus conciliating the Papists. It were altogether beyond » Strypc's Annals i. 59, 74, 77; Burnet ii. 585; Collier vi. 200. XXVi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. our present limits to give a minute enumeration of the various alterations introduced by Elizabeth into the draft presented to her by the divines, or to show in what, and how many particulars, her prayer-book, which (with a few verbal alterations since introduced) is the liturgy at present in use in the Church of Eng- land, is still more popish than even that which was in use at the death of Edward. A few, however, must be mentioned.* In the litany of Edward's second liturgy there was a prayer in the following terms : — " From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormi- ties, good Lord deliver us." This was cancelled in the liturgy of Elizabeth, — we can be at no loss to divine for what reason. In the communion office of the former, when the minister delivered the bread to the communicant, he said, "Take, and eat this, in re- membrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thine heart by faith, with thanksgiving;" and when he delivered the cup, he said, " Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful," — clearly implying that it was mere- ly an eucharistic commemoration, rendered efficacious only through faith. In the communion office of the latter, the priest, in handing the bread, said to the communicant, " The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this," &c. And when delivering the cup, "The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this," &c. — words that were expressly intended to imply the real presence, and an opus operatum efficacy, with- * Those who desire fuller information, we recommend to study Dr. Cardwcll's History of Conferences on the Boole of Common Prayer ; the two Liturgies of Edward VI. compared, bv the same author; Dr. Short's Sketch of the History of the Church of England, 537—549 ; Collier's History, vi. 248—250; and Records, No. 77; Strype's An- nals, i. 98 — 123; see also Baillie's Parallel of the Liturgy with the Mass Book, the Breviary, and other Romish Rituals, 4to., 1641; Wheatlcy's Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer, and the other Ritualists ; Palmer's Origincs Liturgicae. Burnet, Neal, and the other historians, all take up the subject, but very imperfectly. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xxvii out any regard whatever to the faith or spiritual con- dition of the communicant. In order to prevent the idea that when kneeling was retained as the required posture at the communion, it was intended to imply that Christ was bodily present, or that any adoration was designed to be given to the elements, a rubric was added to the office in Edward's second prayer- book, which declared that the elements remained unchanged, and that no adoration was given them. This rubric was omitted in Elizabeth's prayer-book, and the communicant was left to believe and to adore as he had been accustomed to do. The divines who had drawn up Elizabeth's liturgy left it to the choice of the communicant himself to receive the communion kneeling or standing; Elizabeth made it imperative upon all to receive it kneeling. These divines, be- sides, had disapproved of any distinction being made between the vestments worn by the ministers while celebrating the cucharist, and those worn at other parts of the service; Elizabeth, however, made it im- perative on the officiating priest to administer the sacrament in the old popish vestments, as was the case in Edward's first liturgy, but had been altered in the second; and in order that the benighted Papists might, by act of parliament, and of the supremacy royal, have every encouragement to continue in their idolatry, it was ordered that the bread should be changed into the wafer formerly used at private masses. Not satisfied with the popish innovations she had already made, and seemingly apprehensive that if she went at once so far as she felt inclined in her re- trogression towards Rome, she might find some diffi- culty in carrying the prelates and the parliament along with her, Elizabeth introduced into the act of uniformity (to which we shall allude immediately) a clause by which she was empowered " to ordain and publish such further rites and ceremonies as should be most for the reverence of Christ's holy mysteries and sacraments;" words of ominous import; and, as we have already stated, she told Parker that if it had not been for the power thus conferred upon her, XXVlii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. " she would not have agreed to divers orders of the book."* The liturgy having been thus prepared was intro- duced into parliament, in a bill for " Uniformity of prayer, and administration of sacraments," and passed through the Commons, seemingly without opposition, in the short space of three days. It met with some opposition in the upper house from a few of the popish prelates and peers, but was carried, without one word being altered, by a most triumphant majority; and having received the royal assent, became law. The population of England at this time consisted of two great parties, Puritans and Papists, with of course some neutrals, who were prepared to join either party according as their interests might seem to dictate. Both of these great parties differed, as in every thing else, so also in their estimation of the prayer-book. We now proceed to consider the opin- ions and the conduct of each of these parties in regard to the newly imposed liturgy. The intrinsic character of the Anglican liturgy may be very safely inferred from the sources whence it was drawn, and the estimation in which it was held by Papists. In regard to the former, it is known to all in any measure conversant with the subject, that the book of common prayer was taken from the Ro- mish service-book. " In our public services," says the present bishop of Sodor and Man, " the greater part of the book of common prayer is taken from the Roman ritual." Again, — " In giving an account of the common prayer book, it will be more correct to describe it as a work compiled from the services of the Church of Rome, or rather as a translation than as an original composition." Again, speaking of Edward's first prayer-book, of which, indeed, he spoke in both the preceding instances, he says, " almost the whole of it was taken from different Roman catholic * Peirce's Vindic. of Dis. p. 47, ?trype, Burnet, Collier, &C, fancy that some of these alterations were introduced by parliament, but Dr. Cardwell has shown that they were the work of Elizabeth ; see Cardwell's History of Conf. pp. 21, 22. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXIX services, particularly those after the use of Salisbury, which were then generally adopted in the south of England, and the principle on which the compilers proceeded in the work was to alter as little as possible what had been familiar to the people. Thus the litany is nearly the same as in the Salisbury hours." Speak- ing of the Anglican ordination office, he says, "its several parts are taken from that in use in the Church of Rome," with few exceptions, which he mentions. In a note, he states that those parts of the liturgy which were not taken from the service books of the Church of Rome were drawn from a prayer-book compiled about this time by Hasrman, the popish bishop of Cologne.* Edward's second prayer-book was a revised edition of the first, omitting some of the grosser abominations of Popery which the first contained. The present prayer-book of the Church of England stands about half-way between the first and second of Edward, and was, as we have seen above, taken almost verbatim from the popish ser- vice book. Such, then, is the parentage of " our apostolic prayer-book — our incomparable liturgy — our inestimable service book," of which even evan- gelical members of the Church of England cannot speak in terms sufficiently expressive of their rap- turous admiration. Bearing all this in mind, we shall cease to feel any surprise at the fact mentioned by all historians of the period, that so well satisfied were the Papists with the Reformed (so termed) services, and so little dif- ference did they discover between the modern and the ancient ritual, that for the first ten years of Eliza- beth's reign they continued, "without doubt or scru- ple," as Heylin says, to attend public worship in the Church of England. Indeed, as all acknowledge, who know any thing of the subject, if the court of Rome had not altered its policy towards England, excommunicated Elizabeth, and forbidden her sub- jects to attend the Established Church, the Papists * Sketch of the History, &c., 201, 537, 510, 541. XXX THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. would have remained conscientiously convinced, that in worshipping in the Anglican establishment, they were still attending upon the Romish services ; so imperceptible to their well-practised senses was the difference between the two, and so well did the com- pilers of the prayer-book or the revisers of their work accomplish the task prescribed to them by the queen, viz. to frame a liturgy which should not offend the Papists.* Nay, but what is more, when a copy of the prayer-book had been sent to the Pope, so well was he satisfied with it, that he offered, through his nuncio Parpalia, to ratify it for England, if the queen would only own the supremacy of the see of Rome.t Such was the estimation in which the Pope and his followers held the prayer-book, which Anglicans now can never mention without exhausting all the super- latives in the vocabulary of commendation to express their most unbounded admiration of " our inimitable, inestimable, incomparable, apostolic, (?) and all but inspired liturgy." Nothing strikes so painfully upon the ear as to hear a man of evangelical sentiments utter such hyperboles in laudation of a Popish com- pilation, which even antichrist offered to sanction. In attempting to account for so startling a phenome- non, we have heard men less charitable than our- selves surmise, that the only principle on which it can be accounted for is, that the less intrinsic merit any object possesses, the more loudly must it be praised, to secure for it popular acceptance. For our own parts we must say we rank the matter under the category de gttstibus, &c, and say there is no * Sir George Paule relates in his panegyric on Wliitgift, that an Italian Papist, lately arrived in England, on seeing that ambitious primate in the cathedral of Canterbury one Sabbath, " attended upon by an hundred of his own servants at least, in livery, whereof there were forty gentlemen in chains of gold; also by the dean, prebenda- ries, and preachers, in their surplices and scarlet hoods, and heard the solemn music, with the voices and organs, cornets and sackbuts, he was overtaken with admiration, and told an English gentleman, that unless it were in the Pope's chapel, he never saw a more solemn sight, or heard a more heavenly sound." — Wordworth's Eccl. Biog., iv. 388-9. t Strype's An., i. 340. Burnet, ii. 645. Collier, vi. 308—9. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXXi disputing about taste. And if members of the Church of England were satisfied with enjoying it them- selves, without thrusting it upon other people, and if moreover they did not, as some of them do, place it upon a level with the Bible, we should for our own part be as little disposed to deny them its use as we certainly are to envy them its possession. The commendations bestowed by Papists upon the Anglican prayer-book might of itself lead us to infer that it did not satisfy the Reformers; and the conclu- sion thus arrived at is as much in accordance with historic facts as it is the result of logical accuracy. The continental Reformers to a man expressed both contempt and indignation towards the Anglican litur- gy. Calvin* declared, that he found in it many (tolerabihs ineptias), i. e., "tolerable fooleries;" that is, tolerable for the moment, as children are allowed (to use quaint old Fuller's illustration) to "play with rattles to get them to part with knives." Knoxt declared, that it contained "diabolical inven- tions, viz., crossing in baptism, kneeling at the Lord's table, mumbling or singing of the liturgy," &c, and "that the whole order of (the) book appeared rather to be devised for upholding of massing priests, than for any good instruction which the simple people can thereof receive." Beza,l writing to Bullinger about ttie state of England and the English Church, says, " I clearly perceive that Popery has not been ejected from that kingdom, but has been only transferred from the Pope to the queen; and the only aim of parties in power there is to bring back matters to the state in which they formerly stood. I at one time thought that the only subject of contention (between the Puritans and the Conformists) was about caps and external vestments; but I now, to my inexpres- sible sorrow, understand that it is about very differ- * Epist. p. 28, t. ix. ed. 1667. t Calderwood's History, (Wodrow ed.), i. 431. See the whole let- ter, pp. 425—434. t Strype's An. ii. Rec. No. 29. The whole letter deserves a care- ful perusal. XXX'ii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. ent matters indeed," even the most vital and fun- damental elements of the Christian Church, as the sequel of the letter shows.* Beza concludes by say- ing, " such is the state of the Anglican Church, ex- ceedingly miserable, and indeed, as it appears to me, intolerable." We might quote similar sentiments from other continental divines, such as Bullinger and Gualter, and may perhaps do so ere we close. But since the opinions of the Anglican Reformers them- selves will be, in the circumstances, of more import- ance, and since we are very much hampered for want of space, we come at once to the recorded judgment which these great and good men passed upon the prayer-book and the Church of England. The opinions of Grindal, successively bishop of London and archbishop of York and Canterbury ; of Sandys, successively bishop of Worcester and Lon- don, and archbishop of York : of Parkhurst of Nor- wich, Pilkington of Durham, Jewell of Salisbury, and others, we need not refer to, as every one knows that they expressed themselves as strongly against the state of the Anglican Church as Sampson, Fox, Coverdale, or Humphreys. The only prelates of the first set appointed by Elizabeth who are claimed by Anglicans themselves, as having been in favour of the reformed condition of the Church of England, are Archbishop Parker, Cox of Ely, and Home of Win- chester, (as for Cheney of Gloucester and Bristol, we give him up an avowed Papist,) and if we show that these were dissatisfied with the condition of the Church of England, even her apologists must acknow- ledge that all Elizabeth's first prelates desired that that Church should be further reformed. Parker was one of the compilers of the prayer-book, and we have already seen how much the first draft excelled the present liturgy. Even after it had been enjoined, both by parliament and the queen, that the * The vicar of Leeds not only admits, but contends that Beza was correct in stating that the contention entered into the vital elements of Christianity. See Dr. Hook's Sermon, a Call to Union, &.c, 2d ed., 74, 75. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXX1U communion should be received kneeling, Parker ad- ministered it in his own cathedral to the . communi- cants standing.* At the very time when he was per- secuting the Puritans for nonconformity, (1575,) he wrote Cecil, " Doth your lordship think that I care either for caps, tippets, surplices, or wafer bread or any such?"t And Strype says expressly, that his " pressing conformity to the queen's laws and injunc- tions, proceeded not out of fondness to the ceremonies themselves," which he would willingly see altered, "but for the laws establishing them he esteemed them."i " It may fairly be presumed," says Bishop Short, " that Parker himself entertained some doubts concerning the points which were afterwards disputed between the Puritans and the high church party; for in the questions prepared to be submitted to con- vocation in 1563, probably under his own direction, and certainly examined by himself," for his annota- tions stand yet upon the margin of the first scroll, "there are several which manifestly imply that such a difference of opinion might prevail. "§ The ques- tions here alluded to by Bishop Short embrace most of those matters which were at first disputed between the Puritans and conformists. In particular, " It was proposed that all vestments, caps, and surplices, should be taken away; that none but ministers should bap- tize ; that the table for the sacrament should not stand altar-wise; that organs and curious singing should be removed ; that godfathers and godmothers should not answer in the child's name;" and several other mat- ters, which were then loudly complained of, but which remain in the Church of England till this day.|| It was only after he had been scolded into irritation by the queen, after his morose and sullen disposition and despotic temper had been chafed and inflamed by the resistance of the Puritans, and he felt or fancied that his character and the honour of his primacy were in * .McCrie's Life of Knox, 6th ed., p. 64, note. + Strype's Parker, ii. 424. t Ibid. p. 528. § Sketch, &c., p. 250. U Burnet, iii. 457, 456. Strype's Parker, i. 386. Rec. No. 39. XXXiV THE ANGLICAN REF0RB1ATI0N. jeopardy, that Parker committed himself to that course of persecution which has "damned his name to ever- 1 lasting infamy." Had he even the inquisitor's plea of conscience, however unenlightened, to urge in his own defence, some apology, how inadequate soever, might be made for him. But Parker was a perse- cutor only from passion, or at best from policy.* Par- ker himself then was inclined to a further reformation of the Church of England. As to Cox again: in a letter to Bullinger, in 1551, we find him writing thus: — " I think all things in the Church ought to be pure and simple, removed at the greatest distance from the pomp and elements of the world. But in this our Church what can I do in so low a station?" (he was then, if we rightly remember, only archdeacon of Ely:) " I can only endeavour to persuade our bishops to be of the same mind with myself. This I wish truly, and I commit to God the care and conduct of his own work."t In the follow- ing year we find him complaining bitterly of the oppo- sition of the courtiers to the introduction of ecclesi- astical discipline, and predicting that if it were not adopted, " the kingdom of God would be taken away from them."J After his return from exile, he joined with Grindal (whose scruples in accepting a bishopric were hushed only by all the counsels and exhortations of Peter Martyr, Bullinger, and Gualter)§ and the other bishops elect in employing the most strenuous efforts to effect a more thorough reformation in the Church of England, before they should accept of dioceses in it. When they found that they could not succeed, they seriously deliberated whether they could accept preferments in so popish a Church. At last they were induced to yield to the counsels of Bul- * Bishop Short candidly acknowledges, that " when Parker and the other bishops had begun to execute the laws against nonconfor- mists, they must have been more than men," or less, "if they could divest their own minds of that personality which every one must feel when engaged in a controversy in which the question really is, whether he shall be able to succeed in carrying his plans into execu- tion." Sketch, &c, p. 251. t Burnet, iii. 303—4. t Strype's Mem. Ref. ii. 366. § Strype's Grindal, 41—44, Ap. No. 11. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXXV linger and Gualter, and other continental divines whom they consulted, because the rites imposed were not in themselves necessarily sinful; because they anticipated that when elevated to the mitre, they should have power to effect the reformation they desired, and because, moreover, by occupying the sees they might exclude Lutherans and Papists, who would not only not reform, but would bring back the Church still further towards Rome.* Even Cox, then, desired further reformation in the Church of England, and was so dissatisfied with its condition, that not- withstanding of the gold and power it would bestow, (and both of them he loved dearly) he scrupled to accept a bishopric within its pale. When we bear in mind his conduct at Frankfort, and his subsequent career in England, we may safely conclude that the Church that was too popish for Cox had certainly but few pretensions to the name either of Reformed or Pro- testant. And finally, as to Home, he not only had scruples at first, like the rest, as to accepting a bishopric, but when he found that the reformation he anticipated he should be able to effect after his elevation could not be accomplished, he deliberated with himself, and consulted with the continental divines, whether it did not become his duty to resign his preferments. In conjunction with Grindal, he wrote for advice to Gualter, asking, whether, under the circumstances, he thought they could with a safe conscience continue in their sees. Gualter induced Bullinger, whose in- fluence was greater, to answer the question submitted to him. Bullinger accordingly replied, that if, upon a conscientious conviction, it should appear that, upon the whole, and all things considered, it were better to remain, then it became their duty to occupy their places, but if the reverse, then it was as clearly their duty to renounce them. He cautions them, however, against imagining, that because he gives this counsel, he therefore, in any manner, approved of the con- duct of those who were for retaining "Papistical * Slrype's An. ii. 263. Strypc's Grindal, 41—49, 438. XXXVi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. dregs." On the contrary, he urges, with the greatest warmth, that the queen and the rulers of the nation should he importuned to proceed further with the Reformation, and that, among other reasons, lest the Church of England should remain " polluted with Popish dregs and offscourings, or afford any ground of complaint to the neighbour Churches of Scotland and France." Further information on this subject will be found in the note below.* * Since attempts have been, and are still made, to represent the divines of Zurich as having been satisfied with the leng'.h to which reformation was carried in the Church of England, it is necessary to show that the very reverse is the truth. Those who have access to the work, and can read the language, we would recommend to peruse in full the letters sent by Grindal and Home to Bullinger and Gualter, and the answers returned by these divines, as they appear in Burnet's Records, B. vi. Nos. 75, 76, 62, 83, 87. Those who cannot read the original, may form some idea of their contents from the translated Summary, iii. pp. 462 — 476. Grindal, whose scruples were never removed, and who therefore wrote frequently and anxiously to foreign divines to obtain their sanc- tion to the course he was pursuing, had, in conjunction with Home, written to Bullinger and Gualter, requesting further counsel regard- ing the propriety of their remaining in the Church of England. Perceiving, most probnbh-, the wounded state of the consciences of their brethren in the Lord, Bullinger and Gualter wrote a soothing v reply, saying as much as they conscientiously could in favour of remaining in their cures. When the Anglican prelates received this answer, they at once saw that the judgment of those eminent foreign divines would go far to stop the censures which the Puritans pro- nounced against their conforming brethren ; and although the letter was strictly private, they published it. As soon as Bullinger and Gualter were apprised of this act, they wrote a letter to the Earl of Bedford, one of the leaders of the Puritan party, complaining of the breach of confidence of which Grindal and Home had been guilty, and explaining the circumstances in which their letter had been written, deploring that it had been made the occcasion of further per- secution against their dear brethren in Christ (the Puritans,) and urg- ing upon the good Earl to proceed strenuously in purifying the Church ol* England of the dregs of Popery, which, to their bitter grief, they found were still retained within her. When Horn and Grindal learned the feelings of their continental correspondents, they sent them a most submissive and penitential apology. In reply, Bullinger and Gualter mentioned several of those errors still existing in the Church of England, which they urged all her prelates to reform; such as subscriptions to new articles of faith and discipline, theatrical singing in churches, accompanied by the "crash of organs," baptism by women, the interrogations of sponsors, the cross, and other su- perstitious ceremonies in baptism, kneeling at the communion, and the use of wafer bread (which Strype informs us was made like the THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXXV11 Such, then, was the judgment deliberately formed and often repeated, even of those Anglican High Church prelates, regarding the constitution and usages " singing- cakes" formerly used in private masses, Life of Parker, ii. 32 — 5,) the venal dispensations for pluralities, and for eating flesh meat in Lent, and on "fish days," (which dispensations were sold in the archbishop's court,) the impediments thrown in the way of the marriage of the clergy, the prohibition to testify against, to oppose or refuse conformity to those abuses, the restricting all ecclesiastical power to the prelates; and conclude by imploring them, "in the bowels of Jesus Christ," to purge the temple of God from such Popish abominations. In reply to this faithful appeal, poor Grindal and Home write a very penitent and submissive letter, which we cannot read over at this day without the most painful emotion at the condi- tion to which these men of God were reduced between their desire to serve God in the gospel of his Son, and their scruples of conscience against the antichristian impositions to which they were subjected. The drift of their letter was to show that they had no power to reform the evils complained of, (and which they condemn and deplore as much as their correspondents,) and that either they must remain as they are, or abandon their benefices, and see them filled by Papists, who would destroy the flock of Christ. In conclusion, they promise — but we must give their promise in a literal translation — " We shall do the utmost that in us lies, as already we have done, in the last sessions of parliament and of convocation, and that, even although our future exertions should be as fruitless as the past, that all the errors and abuses whicli yet remain in the Church of England shall be corrected, expurgated and removed, according to the rule and standard of the word of God." In a preceding part of their letter they had said, that " although they might not be able to effect all they desired, they should not yet cease their exertions until they had thrust down into hell, whence they had arisen," certain abuses which they mention. And are these, then, the men who are to be regarded as approving of the extent to which reformation had been carried in the Church of England ? We have given the sentiments of the divines of Zurich at the greater length, because some of their letters are, till this day, perverted, as they were at the time when they were written. Had this been done only by Collier, Heylin, and their school, we should not take any notice of it in our present sadly limited space. But when such writers as Strype, Cardwcll, and Short, lend their names to palm such im- positions upon the public mind, it is necessary at once to show what was the real state of the case. Dr. McCrie (Life of Knox, note R.) has charged the Anglican prelates with having given " partial repre- sentations" to the foreign divines for the purpose of obtaining their sanction to the state of matters in England : and any man of com- petent knowledge of the subject, who reads over their letters, must be painfully aware, that, although they may not have designed it, yet, as was so very natural in their circumstances, they did write in a manner which could not but lead their correspondents into the grossest mis- takes. XXXviii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATIOX. of the Church of England. We should much deepen the impression we desire to produce upon our readers, had we space also to give the sentiments of the more evangelical prelates; of Parkhursj, for example, who, in a letter to Gualter in 1573, fervently exclaims, — •'•'Oh, would to God, would to God, that now at last the people of England would in good earnest pro- pound to themselves to follow the Church of Zurich as the most perfect pattern;"* or of his scholar and fellow-prelate Jewell, who calls the habits enjoined upon the ministers of the Church of England, " thea- trical vestments — ridiculous trifles and relics of the Amorites," and satirizes those who submitted to wear them as men " without mind, sound doctrine or morals, by which to secure the approbation of the people, and who, therefore, wished to gain their plaudits by wear- ing a comical stage dress."t But it is unnecessary. The following passage from a High Church writer of the present day concedes all we desire to establish. After having condemned the Erastianism of Cranmer, and the want of what he terms " catholic" feeling and spirit in his coadjutors, and having denounced Hooper as " an obstinate Puritan — a mere dogged Genevan preacher," (the most opprobrious epithets the writer can bestow,) and Coverdale as " a thorough Puritan and Genevan, who officiated at the consecra- tion of Archbishop Parker in his black gown" (in italics, to indicate the sacrilegious profanation of the act — we wonder whether it invalidated his share, or the whole of the proceeding,) the writer proceeds thus : — " The immediate successors, however, of the Re- formers, as often happens in such cases, went further than their predecessors did, and were more deeply imbued with the feelings of the day. The Episcopate, in the first part of Queen Elizabeth's reign, were successors of" Hooper and Coverdale, almost more than they were of Cranmer and Ridley ; indeed, it was » Strype's An. ii. 286-342. + 'See many such passages in Dr. McCrie's note last referred to, and the letters in Burnet's Records. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXXix only her strong Tudor arm that kept them within decent bounds," (that is, that kept them from assimi- lating the Church of England to the other Reform- ed Churches. ) " The greater part of them posi- tively objected to the surplice — including Sandys, Grindal, Pilkington, Jewell, Home, Parkhurst, Ben- tham, and all the leading men who were for sim- plifying our Church ceremonial in that and other respects, according to the Genevan, ( that is, Pres- byterian) model; Archbishop Parker almost stand- ing alone with the queen in her determination to up- hold the former." (And we have already seen that he was about as little enamoured of them as his co- adjutors.) After having referred to some of Jewell's letters to the foreign divines written against the Anglican cere- monies, the writer makes an observation which ought to be ever present to the minds of those who read the censures of Jewell and his contemporaries. "It was no Roman Catholic ritual, we repeat, of which he thus expressed himself, but our own doubly reformed prayer-book — the divine service as now performed.'''' * Who now are the lineal descendants and proper re- presentatives of the Anglican Reformers? — the Puri- tans who desired further reformation, or those who so loudly praise our "Catholic Church, our apostolic establishment," and vigorously resist every attempt to amend the most glaring corruptions in the Church of England ? We wish the evangelical party would ponder the answer that question must receive : — we say, the evangelical party, for we are aware that high churchmen, if they moved at all, would move in the direction of Rome. Having thus shown the opinions of the prelates regarding the constitution and ceremonies of the Church of England, let us now show the opinions of the inferior clergy: And here one fact may stand for all. In the year 1562, a petition was presented to the lower house of convocation, signed by thirty- two members, most of them exiles, and the best men * British Critic for October 1842, 330, 331. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. in the kingdom, praying for the following alterations in the service of the Church of England. 1. That organs might be disused, responses in the " reading psalms" discontinued, and the people allowed to sing the psalms in metre, as was the custom on the conti- nent, and had also been practised by the English exiles, not only when there, but after they had re- turned to their native land, and as was also the case among the Puritans when they non-conformed to (for they never seceded or dissented from) the Church of England, of which they could never be said to have been bona fide members. 2. That none but minis- ters should be allowed to baptize, and that the sign of the cross should be abolished. 3. That the impo- sition of kneeling at the communion should be left to the discretion of each bishop in his own diocese ; and one reason assigned for this part of the petition, was, that this posture was abused to idolatry by the igno- rant and superstitious populace. 4. That copes and surplices should be disused, and the ministers made to wear some comely and decent garment, (such as the Geneva gown, which all the early Puritans wore.) 5. That, as they expressed it themselves, " The min- isters of the word and sacrament be not compelled to wear such gowns and caps as the enemies of Christ's gospel have chosen to be the special array of their priesthood." 6. That certain words in Article 33, be mitigated, which have since been omitted alto- gether. 7. That saints' days might be abolished, or kept only for public worship, (and not as was then the case for feasting, jollity, superstition, and sin,) after which ordinary labour might be carried on. This petition was eventually withdrawn, and an- other very much to the same purpose substituted for it. This second petition prayed for the following alterations: — 1. That saints' days be abolished, but all Sundays, and the principal feasts of Christ be kept holy. 2. That the liturgy be read audibly, and not mumbled over inaudibly, as had been done by the massing priests. 3. That the sign of the cross in bap- tism be abolished as tending to superstition. 4. That THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xli kneeling at the communion be left to the discretion of the ordinary. 5. That ministers may use only a surplice, or other decent garment in public worship, and the administration of the sacraments. 6. That organs be removed from churches. After a protracted and vigorous debate, these arti- cles were put to the vote, when forty-three, most of them exiles, voted that the petition be granted, and only thirty-five against it; thus leaving a clear ma- jority of eight in favour of a further reformation. When, however, proxies were called for, only fifteen appeared for, while twenty-four appeared against the petition, being, on the whole, fifty-eight for, and fifty- nine against, leaving a majority of one for rejecting the prayer of the petition.* There is one point mentioned in the minutes of convocation, an extract from which is given, both by Burnet and Cardwell, which must be kept in view, to enable us to arrive at a correct conception of the sentiments of those who voted against the above articles. In the minute, it is distinctly mentioned, that the most of those who voted against granting the prayer of the petition, did so, not upon the merits, but only from a feeling that since the matters in debate had been imposed by public authority of parliament and the queen, it was not competent for convocation to take up the subject at all. Thus, the motion for which they really voted was, not that the abuses complained of should be continued, but that the con- vocation had no power to alter them. A second sec- tion of those who voted against the articles, was composed of those who had held cures under Ed- ward, and had a hand in the public affairs of his reign, and, who having remained in England during the reign of Mary, had. not seen the purer churches on the continent, and regarded the reformation of Edward as sufficiently perfect. A third section of the majority consisted of those who held benefices under Mary, and who were of course Papists in their * Strype's An. i. 500 — 6. Burnet iii. 454, 455. Records, Bk. vi. No. 74. Collier, vi. 371—3. Cardwell's Hist, of Conf. 117—120. xlii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. hearts, and would therefore vote against any further reformation. After Ave have thus analyzed the par- ties, and weighed, instead of numbering, the votes, and when, besides, we bear in mind that a majority of those who heard the reasoning upon the matters in dispute, voted for further reformation, it is easy to see on whose side truth and justice lay. There is, besides, another point to which Dr. Card- well has called our attention,* which we regard of the very highest importance, and to which, conse- quently, we call the special attention of our readers. It is this, that although, since the time of Burnet and Strype, it has been always said that the number of those who voted for the Articles was fifty-eight, yet, when we count them fairly, they are fifty-nine, pre- cisely the number who voted against them. Now, if we give the prolocutor (the same as our moderator,) a casting vote, Nowell, dean of St. Paul's, who was prolocutor of that convocation and voted in favour of the Articles, and would of course give his casting vote on the same side, this would give a majority in favour of further reformation. But how are we to account for the fact that, if thus the numbers were equal, that fact should not be known to the members ? We should be glad to hear of any other way of solving the difficulty, but the only mode of doing so that occurs to us, is to suppose that Parker or the queen had recourse to the artifice employed by Charles I. in the Scottish parliament, viz., concealed the roll and declared that the majority was in their favour, while it was against them, as was clearly seen when the original came into the hands of the public. That Parker was capable of the manoeuvre, no man who knows his character can for one moment question: And that Elizabeth would feel at the least as little scruple in doing so as Charles I., he that doubts may consult the note at the foot of the page.t * Vt supra, p. 120, note. t In 155(J a bill passed through parliament authorizing the queen to restore to their former cures, such of the returned exiles as had been unlawfully deprived ; that is, by Mary on account of their Protes- THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xliii From this induction of facts it is most abundantly manifest that the prelates and the great majority of the leading members of the lower house of convoca- tion, were decidedly in favour of a further reforma- tion. It only further remains to finish this branch of our argument, that we show the feelings of the lead- ing statesmen of the kingdom. This may be done in the following passage from one who is certainly a competent enough witness so far as knowledge is con- cerned, and whom no one will accuse of any partiali- ty towards the Puritans. After stating that several of the bishops were in favour of the Puritans, Hallam* goes on to say, "They," the Puritans, "had still more effectual tantism. " Yet," says Strypc, (Annals i. 99,) "I do not find it was enacted and passed into law." It must therefore have been clandes- tinely suppressed by Elizabeth, who both hated and feared the Pro- testantism of the exiles. She acted very much in the same way in regard to the re-enacting of Edward's statute in favour of clerical marriages, (Ibid. 118.) The convocation of 1575, among other arti- cles of reformation, breathing the spirit of Giindal who was just then raised (o the primacy, passed the following, that none but ministers lawfully ordained should baptize, and that it should be lawful to marry at any period of the year : but Elizabeth cancelled both. (Strypc's Grindal, 2!)0 — 1.) We need not, however, multiply in- stances in which Elizabeth exercised this power, as it is admitted on all hands that she both claimed and exercised it. (Cardwell's Documentary Annals, ii. 171 — 2, note.) The case most in point is the following, along with the liberty we have already seen she took with the first draft of the liturgy. Our readers are aware of the controversy as to how the celebrated clause, ("the Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,") crept into the Twentieth Article of the Church of Eng- land, when it occurs neither in the first printed edition of the Arti- cles, nor in the draft of them which was passed by convocation, and which is still in existence, with the autograph signatures of the mem- bers. It is now the universal belief that Elizabeth inserted this clause, as well as cancelled the whole of the Thirty-ninth Article, whose title sufficiently indicates its contents, viz. "the ungodly ftmpii) do not cat the body of Christ in the sacrament of the sup- per," a dogma which Elizabeth, who believed in transubstantiation, could not admit. (See Lamb's Historfcal and Critical Essay on the thirty-nine Articles, p. 35, &c. Cardwell's Hist, of Conf. 21,22, note. Cardwell's Synodalia, i. 38, 39, note. Cardwell's Doc. An. ii. 171, note. Bishop Short's Sketch, Slc, 327, note.) The person who could thus act was certainly capable of falsifying the votes of convo- cation, 1562. * Constitutional Hist, of England, i. 250, 257. xllV THE ANGLIC AX REFORMATION. support in the Queen's council. The Earl of Leices- ter, who possessed more power than any one, to sway her wavering and capricious temper, the Earls of Bed- ford, Huntington, and Warwick, regarded as the steadiest Protestants among the aristocracy, the wise and grave Lord Keeper Bacon, the sagacious Wals- ingham, the experienced Sadler, the zealous Knollys, considered these objects of Parker's severity (the Puritans) either as demanding a purer worship than had been established in the Church, or at least as worthy, by their virtues, of more indulgent treatment. Cecil himself, though on intimate terms with the arch- bishop, and concurring generally in his measures, was not far removed from the latter way of thinking, if his natural caution and extreme dread, at this junc- ture, of losing the Queen's favour, had permitted him more unequivocally to express it." Mr. Hallam by no means does full justice to the sentiments of Cecil. No one can read his correspon- dence with the Puritans, and his private letters to the prelates, without being satisfied that that great states- man fully concurred in all the general principles of the former. In regard again to " The upper ranks among the laity, setting aside courtiers and such as took little interest in the dis- putes," these, says Mr. Hallam, " were chiefly divided between those attached to the ancient Church, and those who wished for further reformation in the new. I conceive the Church of England party, that is, the party adverse to any species of ecclesiastical change, to have been the least numerous of the three, (that is, i Puritan, Popish, and Anglican,) during this reign, still excepting, as I have said, the neutrals who com- monly make a numerical majority, and are counted along with the dominant religion. . . . The Puritans, or at least, those who rather favoured them, had a majority among the Protestant gentry in the Queen's days. It is agreed on all hands (and is quite manifest) that they predominated in the House of Commons. But that house was (then) composed, as THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Xlv it has ever been, of the principal landed proprietors, and as much represented the general wish of the com- munity when it demanded a further reform in reli- gious matters, as on any other subjects. One would imagine by the manner in which some (that is unscru- pulous high churchmen) express themselves, that the discontented were a small fraction, who, by some un- accountable means, in despite of the government and the nation, formed a majority of all the parliaments under Elizabeth and her two successors." Who now then constituted the real Church of Eng- land party? Elizabeth chiefly — a host in herself — aided by all the Popish, immoral and irreligious per- sons in the kingdom, whether lay or clerical. Lest our readers should fancy that we have been all this time describing merely the transition state of the Church of England before she became fully or- ganized as she is now established, — a state which is interesting in the present day only as it serves to in- dicate to a philosophic inquirer, in the same manner as a fossil does to a comparative anatomist the by- gone condition of some primeval state of society; — in order to prevent such a mistake, we beg leave to re- mind our readers that we are describing the present constitution of the Church of England as by law estab- lished. The acts of supremacy and uniformity are still in operation, and the Anglican Church, in all the principles on which it was based, and in all points of practical importance, continues as it stood at the death of Elizabeth. Nay, we hesitate not to assert, that it is now nearer to the Church of Rome than it was then. Of all the alterations demanded by the Puritans, the only one of any practical moment was made at the Hampton court conference, when the "royal theologian," certainly not to please the Puri- tans, forbade any but ministers to administer bap- tism. But this improvement is more than counter- balanced by the anti-protestant alterations made upon the prayer-book by the convocation of 1661, and that for the express purpose of rendering it for ever im- possible for the Presbyterians to think of entering the « Xlvi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Church of England. Of these alterations, one may be mentioned as showing the animus of that convo- cation, next to that of 16S9, the most infamous, not even excepting that of 1640, that ever assembled in England. Down to that period there was compara- tively but little of the apocrypha prescribed in the calendar, and even that little, by an "admonition" prefixed to the Second Book of Homilies in 1564, the olficiating clergyman was not only authorized to omit and substitute in its place' some more suitable portion of canonical Scripture, but he was recommended to do so.* The convocation of 1661, however, and the act of uniformity based upon their proceedings, not only introduced other portions of the apQcrypha into the daily lessons, but rendered it imperative upon every clergyman to read them.t We have paid some little attention to the subject, and have no fear that we shall be contradicted by any competent judge, when we affirm that the constitution and formularies of the Church of England are now less Protestant than they were left by Parker, Whitgift, and Elizabeth. The progress of enlightened opinions, and the in- fluence of a close contact with the evangelism of the Anglicamnon-conformists, and of the Church of Scot- land, have, it must not be concealed, to some extent, practically modified the constitutional influence of the Anglican formularies. Put how slight, the influence of these disturbing causes upon the minds of Anglican churchmen are, in comparison with the intense mo- mentum of their own constitution, may be estimated by any man who will study the history of Laud and his times, the history of the Restoration, of the Revo- lution, and in our own times, ponder over the unpar- alelled rapidity with which Puseyism has circulated, the wide spread ramification, and the all but universal reception to which it has already attained ; a circum- stance that must be unaccountable to those who are * Cardwcll's Hist, of Conf. 21, 22, note. t Cardwcll's Hist, of Conf. 378 — 392, where the various altera- tions then made in the liturgy may be read at large, or the " Syno- dalia" by the same writer, ii. 633 — 686, where copious extracts from the original minute may be seen. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xlvii unacquainted with the constitution and history of the Church of England, but of the easiest possible solu- tion to those who are. Challenging contradiction, we once more affirm that, without altering one single canon, injunction, or rubric, or displacing one clause in her constitution, nay, only honestly and constitu- tionally carrying them out to their legitimate conse- quences and practical results, the Church of England might be made so to approximate to the Church of Rome, that it might matter little to a real Bible Pro- testant into which of them he might be required, under pain of persecution, to incorporate himself. Had the Puseyite leaders, instead of moving forward as they have avowedly done to take their stand upon the principles of the Church of Rome, contented them- selves with working out the constitutional though partially dormant principles of the Church of England, their success would be all but certain. If they are ever defeated, it must be through the consequences to which this false movement must inevitably lead. The once all dominant cry, " No popery," is not yet so powerless, despite of all that has happened, but that many men who would blindly embrace whatever was proved to be bona fide Church-of-Englandism, will be shocked when required openly to embrace undisguised Romanism. We have found, then, that without a single excep- tion, all the first prelates of Elizabeth were dissatisfied with the constitution of the Church of England; that the most of them deliberated long and painfully be- fore they could be induced to accept preferments within her pale ; and that the motive which principally induced them to conform was a hope that they might thus be able to complete the Reformation.* There * So little was Cranmcr satisfied with the state of the Church of England in his day, that he " had drawn up a book of prayers an hundred times more perfect than that which was then in being," (Edward's second liturgy,) and if the lung had been spared a little longer, it is agreed on all hands it would have been introduced along with many other alterations. See Dr. Cardwcll's Two Praver- Books, &c. Compared, preface, 34-6. And yet the present prayer- book, as we have seen, is more Popish than that which Cranmer would reform. xlviii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. were others, however, still more enlightened, who saw further into the intentions of Elizabeth, and who would not accept of any benefice in the Anglican Church until they saw her further reformed. Among these, not to speak of those who are known as avowed Puritans, may be mentioned Bishop Coverdale,* and Fox the martyrologist. Parker used every means to induce Fox to conform, in order that the great influence of his name might prevail upon others to follow his example. "But the old man, producing the New Testament in Greek, 'To this,' saith he, 'I will subscribe.' But when a subscription to the canons was required of him, he refused, saying, ' I have nothing in the Church save a prebend at Salis- bury, and much good may it do you if you will take it away.' "t The best part of the inferior clergy again, who conformed, did so in the hope that the prelates whom they knew to be of their own sentiments would, now that they were elevated to places of power, be able to accomplish the further reformation which all so very ardently desired. Of all the true Protestants, not one would have consented to accept a preferment in the Anglican Church, if he had been at the outset aware that no further reformation was to be accom- plished. What, then, it may be asked, continued to retain them in her communion, when they found that they could not reform that Church? It is a delicate question, but we have no hesitation in rendering an answer. The deteriorating influence of high stations of honour, power, and wealth, has been rendered pro- verbial by the experience of mankind; but never was it more disastrously manifested than by Elizabeth's first bishops.^ Not one of them had escaped the cor- * Strype's Ann. ii. 43; Life of Parker, i. 295, 297. t Fuller's Ch. Hist, ii 475. t Cecil, writing to Whitgift about filling up some bishoprics then vacant, says, " he saw such worldliness in many that were otherwise affected before they came to cathedral churches, that he feared the places altered the men." Strype's Whitgift, i. 338. He makes very much the same complaint to Grindal in 1575. Strype's Grin- dal,281. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xlix rupting influence of their stations.* Having so far overcome the scruples they at first entertained against conformity, not it must be feared without doing vio- lence to their convictions, it was but natural that they should entertain not the most kindly feelings towards those whose consistency of conduct not only would degrade them in their own eyes, but open up afresh the wounds yet raw in their consciences. The apos- tate is ever the most vindictive persecutor of his for- mer brethren. Besides, no one can fail to have noticed that when a man has irretrievably committed himself to a cause which he formerly opposed, he is compelled, by the necessity of his position, to become more stringent and inflexible in his proceedings than the man who is now pursuing only the course on which he first embarked. Bishop Short, in a passage already quoted, has candidly admitted, that "when Parker and the other bishops had begun to execute the laws against non-conformists, they must have been more than men if they could divest their own minds of that personality which every one must feel when engaged in a controversy in which the question really is, whether he shall be able to succeed in carrying his plans into execution." We could assign other reasons for the conduct of Elizabeth's first bishops, but we entertain too high a regard for what they had been, to take any pleasure in exposing their faults. What now would these great and good men do were they, with their avowed principles, when they returned from exile, to appear in our day? Would they praise the Church of England as "our primitive and apostolic Church, — the bulwark of the Reforma- tion,— the safeguard of Protestantism, and the glory of Christendom?" as some who boast of being their successors continue to do. Would they even accept cures in the Church of England, knowing, as all her ministers now do, that no further reformation is so much as to be mooted, — nay, that it must not be * See a painful letter on this subject from Sampson to Grindal. Strype's Parker, ii. 376, 377. D 1 THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. so much as acknowledged that it is required? He knows neither the constitution of the Church of Eng- land, nor the character of the reformers, who hesitates for one moment to answer, and with the most marked emphasis, they xoould not. And what a lesson of solemn warning do the con- sequences of a compromise of principles, as seen in the subsequent history of the Church of England, read to our own ministers in their present arduous struggle. The second set of bishops appointed by Elizabeth were, without a single exception, men of more Erastian sentiments, of more lax theology, of more Popish tendencies, than their predecessors. The first prelates had been trained amid the advancing reformation of Edward, and among the Presbyterians on the continent, and had imbibed the sentiments of their associates. But their successors had been trained in the Church of England, and bore the impress of her character. And such would also be the case in our own Church, were our ministers, by an unhal- lowed submission, to yield to the antichristian invasion of the Church's rights and liberties now attempted. To these our ministers, God has committed a glorious cause. May they be found worthy to maintain it. Their deeds are before men and angels. Future his- torians shall record their acts, and inscribe their names in the glorious muster-roll of martyrs and confessors, or denounce them to eternal infamy. We shall watch their proceedings with an interest which the shock of armed empires would not excite in our bosoms, and, by God's grace, shall lend our aid to make known to posterity how they have fought the good fight and kept the faith. The arena of their struggle may ap- pear obscure and contracted. But itjj is the Ther- mopylae of Christendom. On them, and on their success, under God, it depends, whether worse than Asiatic barbarism and despotism are to overwhelm Europe, or light, and life, and liberty, to become the birthright of the nations. May the Captain of the host of Israel ever march forward at their head. May the blue banner of the covenant, unstained by THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Li one blot, be victorious in their hands, as it was of yore. May the sword of the Lord, and of Gideon, now unsheathed, never return to its scabbard, until the Church of Scotland shall have vindicated her rights, and established her liberties on an immovable basis. No surrender ! No compromise ! Better the mountain side, like our fathers, and freedom of communion with our God, than an Erastian establishment, which would no longer be a Church, — than a sepulchral temple, from which the living God had fled. We return from this digression, (for which we make no apology, — we would despise the man that would require it,) to relate the internal condition of the Church of England at and after the accession of Elizabeth. One fact will prove, to every man who regards " Christ crucified as the power of God and the wis- dom of God unto salvation," that the Church of Eng- land was at this time in the most wretched condition imaginable, both moral and spiritual. Of nine thou- sand four hundred clergymen, of all grades, then bene- ficed in that Church, and all, of course, Papists, being the incumbents of Mary's reign, only one hundred and ninety-two, of whom only eighty were parochial, resigned their livings; the rest, as much Papists as ever, and now, in addition, unblushing hypocrites, who subscribed what they did not believe, and sub- mitted to what they could not approve, remained in their cures, and became the ministers of the Protes- tant (?) Church of England.* We should do these nine thousand two hundred and eight who remained in their cures, an honour to which they have no claim, were we to compare them to the most ignorant, scan- dalous, and profligate priesthood at present in Europe. Many of them did not understand the offices they had been accustomed to " mumble" at the altar. Some * The following is Strype's list of those who resigned,— viz., 14 bishops, 18 deans, 14 archdeacons, 15 heads of colleges, 50 pre- bendaries, 80 rectors, 6 abbots, priors, and abbesses, in all 192. Annals, i. 106. Burnet, ii. 620, makes them only 189. Collier, vi. p. 252, following, as is his wont, Popish authorities, when they can add credit to their own Church, makes them about 250. lii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. of them could not sign their names, or even read the English liturgy. Yet into the hands of these men did Elizabeth and her prelates commit the immortal souls of the people of England. And if at any time the people, shocked at the immoralities and Papistry of their parish priest, attended ordinances under some more Protestant minister in the neighbourhood, they were compelled, by fines and imprisonment, to return to their own parish church. When, in the course of a few years, several of these papistico-protestant priests had died, and others of them had fled out of the kingdom, there were no properly qualified ministers to replace them. Patrons sold the benefices to laymen, retaining the best part of the fruits in their own hands. Thus the parishes remained vacant. Strype, speaking of the state of the diocese of Bangor in 1565, says, "As for Bangor, that diocese was much out of order, there being no preaching used." And two years afterwards the bishop wrote to Parker, that " he had but two preach- ers in his whole diocese," the livings being in the hands of laymen.* In 1562 Parkhurst of Norwich wrote Parker, in answer to the inquiries of the privy council, that in his diocese there were 434 parish churches vacant, and that many chapels of ease had fallen into ruins.t Cox of Ely, in 1560, wrote the archbishop, that in his diocese there were 150 cures of all sorts, of which only "52 were duly served," — many of them, of course, only by readers, — 34 were vacant, 13 had neither rector nor vicar, and 57 were possessed by non-residents. "So pitiable and to be lamented," exclaims Cox, "is the face of this diocese: and if, in other places, it be so too," (and so it was,) '•most miserable indeed is the condition of the Church of England.":]: We never can think of the condition of England, — when thus darkness covered the earth, and thick darkness the people, and when, emphati- cally, the blind led the blind, — without admiring grati- * Strype's Parker, i. 404, 500. t Strype's Parker, i. 143, 144. t Strype's An. i. 539, 540. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. liii tude to that God who did not altogether remove his candlestick, and leave the whole nation to perish, through the crimes of their rulers, civil and eccle- siastical. In order to keep the churches open, and afford even the semblance of public worship to the people, the prelates were compelled to license, as readers, a set of illiterate mechanics, who were able to read through the prayers without spelling the hard words.* The people, however, could not endure these immoral, base-born, illiterate readers; and then, as if the mere act of ordination could confer upon them all the re- quisite qualifications, "not a few mechanics, altogether as unlearned as the most objectionable of those eject- ed, were preferred to dignities and livings."!" The scheme, however politic, failed, through the inde- corous manners, and the immoral lives, and the gross ignorance, of these upstart priests. £ And then an order was issued to the bishop of London to ordain no more mechanics, because of the scandals they had brought upon religion ;§ but the necessity of the case compelled the provincial bishops still to employ lay readers, and ordain mechanics to read the prayers. Such was the condition of England when Parker, partly goaded on by the queen, and partly by his own sullen despotism, commenced a course of persecutions, suspensions, and silencing against the Puritans, who were the only preachers in the kingdom. In January 1564, eight were suspended in the diocese of London. It was hoped that this example would overawe the rest, and three months afterwards the London clergy were summoned again to subscribe to the canons, and conform to all the usages of the Church of England ; but thirty refused, and were, of course, suspended. || A respite of eight months was given to the rest; and then in January 165G they were cited, and 37 having refused to subscribe, were suspended.!! These, as we * Strype's An. i. 202, 203. || Strype's Grindal, 144, 146. + Collier, vi. 264. IT Ibid. 154. t Strype's Parker, i. 180. § Strype's Grindal, 60. Collier, vi. 313. liv THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. may well believe, were, even in the estimation of Parker himself, and, indeed, as he acknowledged, the best men and the ablest preachers in the diocese.* The insults offered, and the cruelties inflicted upon these men, would, had we space to detail them, in- tensate the indignation of our readers against their ruthless persecutors. The silencing of such preachers, and the consequent desolation in the Church excited the attention of the nation. All men who had any regard for the ordi- nances of God, were shocked at the proceedings of the primate, and bitter complaints were made of him to the privy council. Elizabeth herself ordered Cecil to write him on the subject. Parker sullenly replied, that this was nothing more than he had foreseen from the first, and that when the queen had ordered him to press uniformity, "he had told her, that these precise folks would offer their goods, and even their bodies to prison, rather than they would relent."! And yet Parker, who could anticipate their conduct, could neither appreciate their conscientiousness, nor respect their firmness. The persecutions commenced in London soon spread over the whole kingdom. We have already seen the most destitute condition of the diocese of Norwich, in which four hundred and thirty-four parish churches were vacant, and many chapels of ease fallen into ruins. Will it be credited, that in these circumstances thirty-six ministers, almost the whole preaching min- isters in the diocese, were, in one day, suspended, for refusing subscription to the anti-christian impositions of the prelates?| This is but a specimen of what took place throughout the kingdom. And when the peo- ple, having no pastor to teach them, met together to read the Scriptures, forthwith a thundering edict came down from the primate, threatening them with fines and imprisonment if they dared to pray together or read the word of God. In a certain small village a revival took place, under the ministrations of a reader, * Strypc's Parker, i. 429. tStrype's Parker, i. 448. J Ibid. ii. 341. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. so illiterate that he could not sign his own name. As always happens under such circumstances, the people formed fellowship meetings. No sooner was this known than they were summoned to answer for such violations of canonical order. In a simple memorial, which would melt a heart of stone, these pious peasants stated to the inquisitors, that they only met together in the evenings, after the work of the day was over, to devote the time they formerly misspent in drinking and sin, to the wor- ship of God, and the reading of his word. Their judges were deaf to their petitions and representations, and forbade them absolutely to meet any longer for such purposes, leaving it to be inferred, by no far-fetched deductions, that a man might violate the laws of God, without impunity; but wo be unto him that should break the injunctions of the prelates.* And what was the crime for which these Puritans were suspended, sequestered, fined, imprisoned, and some of them put to death? Simply because they would not acknowledge that man, whether prelate, primate, or prince, has authority to alter the constitu- tion of God's church, to prescribe rites and modes of " will-worship," and administration of sacraments, different from what He had appointed in his word. Nothing but gross ignorance, or grosser dishonesty, will lead any man to say, as has been said, and con- tinues to be said down to this day, and that not by ministers of the Church of England alone, but by others of whom better things might be expected,!" that the Puritans refused to remain in their ministry merely because of the imposition of " square caps, copes, and surplices;" or even, which are of higher moment, because of the " cross in baptism," and kneeling at the communion; these things being considered simply in themselves. What they condemned and resisted was the principle, that man has authority to alter the economy of God's house. " Considering, therefore," said the ministers of London in 1565, in a defence * Strype's Parker, 381-5. t See Orme's Life of Owen, commented on by Dr. McCrie in his Miscellaneous Works, pp. 465, 466. Ivi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. they published of their own conduct, " considering, therefore, that at this time, by admitting the out- ward apparel, and ministering garments of the Pope's church, not only the Christian liberty should be mani- festly infringed, but the whole religion of Christ would be brought to be esteemed no other thing than the pleasure of princes, they (the London ministers) thought it their duty, being ministers of God's word and sacraments, utterly to refuse" to submit to the required impositions. But if the prelates were deter- mined to proceed in their infatuated career, then these enlightened servants of God professed their willing- ness " to submit themselves to any punishment the laws did appoint, that so they might teach by their example true obedience both to God and man, and yet to keep the Christian liberty sound, and show the Christian religion to be such, that no prince or poten- tate might alter the same."* When Sampson and Humphreys were required to subscribe and submit to the prescribed impositions, they refused upon the following, among other ac- counts:— " If," they said, " we should grant to wear priests' apparel, then it might and would be required at our hands to have shaven crowns, and to receive more Papistical abuses. Therefore it is best, at the first, not to wear priests' apparel. "t It was the prin- ciple involved in these impositions they opposed. And well are we assured, that had it not been for the resistance to the first attempts to enslave the con- science, which were made by these glorious confessors and martyrs, other and still more hateful abuses of Popery would have been perpetuated in the Angli- can church. Only grant the principle, that man has the right to make such impositions, and where is the application of the principle to find its limit? And as to the stale objection, that these men relin- quished their ministry for frivolous rites and habits, it is enough to reply, that the objection is not founded upon truth. * Apud Strype's An. ii. 166, 167. t Strype's Parker, i. 340. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Ivii " As touching that point," (the habits,) says Cart- wright, " whether the minister should wear it, although it be inconvenient; the truth is, that I dare not be au- thor to any to forsake his pastoral charge for the in- convenience thereof, considering that this charge (the ministry) being an absolute commandment of the Lord, ought not to be laid aside for a simple incon- venience or uncomeliness of a thing which, in its own nature, is indifferent. . . . When it is laid in the scales with the preaching of the word of God, which is so necessary to him who is called thereunto, that a Avoe hangeth on his head if he do not preach it; it is of less importance than for the refusal of it we should let go so necessary a duty."* We might challenge their accusers, whether Brown- ist or Prelatist, to show us sentiments more enlight- ened or more consistently maintained, since the world began. We have said so much upon this point, because we do not mean at present to enter upon a formal defence of the Puritans, although we may, perchance, do so elsewhere, and at greater length, hereafter, if God spare us. We have done this also to prevent our readers from being carried away by the oft-repeated libels of pert pretenders to liberality, or of servile con- formists to hierarchical impositions, against the best men that England has ever produced. The universities did little or nothing to provide ministers for the necessities of the times. The condi- tion of Oxford at the accession of Elizabeth was deplorable in the extreme.t In 1563 Sampson, Hum- phreys, and Kingsmill, three Puritans, were the only ministers who could preach, resident in Oxford ;J and as if to deliver over that university to the unrestrained sway of Popery, the two former were ejected, while Papists swarmed in all the colleges. In one college, (Exeter,) in 1578, out of eighty resident members, * Rest of Second Replie to Whitgift, ed. 1577, p. 262. t Sec Jewell's Letters to Bullmger and Peter Martyr on the State of Oxford ; Burnet's Records, bk. vi. 48, 56. t Strype's Parker, i. 313. Iviii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. there were only four professed Protestants.* When- ever a Puritan was discovered, he was instantly- expelled; but never, — so far as we could discover, and we paid attention to the point, — never, for mere Popery, was one Papist ejected, from either cure or college, throughout the whole reign of Elizabeth. Oxford continued thus the stronghold of Popery; and instead of providing ministers for the Church of Eng- land, it provided members for Popish colleges " be- yond the seas."t It is instructive, not less to the statesman and the philosopher, than to the divine, to find the self-propagating power of error, and the ten- dency to conserve corruption, which has been mani- fested in that celebrated seat of learning. Whenever Popery is assailed, it uniformly finds a safe retreat in Oxford. In the reign of Edward, Cambridge had received a larger diffusion of the gospel than the rival university. Almost all the first prelates of Elizabeth had been educated on the banks of the Cam, and all the princi- pal preachers of the same period had been trained in the same place. Cambridge, in fact, along with Lon- don, was the head quarters of Puritanism, not less among the undergraduates, than the heads and mem- bers. From a faculty which had been granted by the Pope to that university, to license twelve preachers annually, who might officiate in any part of the king- dom, without having their licences countersigned by the prelates, Cambridge seemed destined to be the sal- vation of England. The Protestant prelates, however, could not tolerate a licence to preach, which even their Popish predecessors had patronized, and never ceased until they had deprived Cambridge of its privi- lege. Not satisfied with this prevention of preaching, Parker and his successor determined to root out Puri- tanism from its stronghold ; and as they had silenced its preachers in London, so they silenced its professors at Cambridge. Cartwright, Johnson, Dering, Brown, Wilcox, and their fellows, were expelled, some of * Strype's An. ii. 196, 197. t Ibid. 390, 391. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lix them imprisoned, and some of them driven into ban- ishment. The salt being thus removed, the body sunk into partial corruption. Of Cambridge, however, it is right that it should be recorded, that whatever of Protestantism England possesses, it owes to that uni- versity. How singular it is, that after the lapse of three centuries, the two English universities should, at this day, retain the distinguishing features which characterized them at the Reformation. In order to supply as much as they possibly could some instructors for their parishes, the Anglican pre- lates established in their dioceses what was called " prophesyings," or " exercises," that is, monthly or weekly meetings of the clergy for mutual instruction in theology and pulpit ministrations; and the plan was found to work so admirably, that, as Grindal told the queen in 1576, when she commanded him to sup- press the prophesyings, and diminish the number of preachers, " where afore were not three able preach- ers, now are thirty meet to preach at Paul's Cross, and forty or fifty besides able to instruct their own cures."* The prophesyings, however, were suppressed, and the people left to perish for lack of knowledge. On a sur- vey of the condition of England at the time, nothing can more strongly convince a pious mind of the super- intendence of a gracious Providence, than that the kingdom did not sink into heathenism, or at least remain altogether Popish. The moral character of the Anglican priesthood was of a piece with their ignorance and Popish ten- dencies. This subject is so disgusting, and the disclo- sures we could make so shocking, that we hesitate whether it were not better to pass by the subject in total silence. We may give an instance or two, how- ever, as a specimen of what was the almost universal condition of this clergy, and our specimens are by no means the worst we could adduce. Sandys of Wor- cester, in his first visitation in 1560, found in the city * Strype's Grindal, Rec. B. ii. No. 9, p. 568. We recommend to our readers to peruse the whole of that noble letter, the noblest that was ever addressed to Elizabeth. ix THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. of Worcester, five or six priests, " who kept five or six whores a-piece."* And were they suspended? Our author gives not one single hint that they were. But had they preached the gospel at uncanonical hours, or saved sinners in uncanonical garments, they would not only have been deposed, but fined, impri- soned, and perhaps banished or even put to death. The laws of God might be violated with impunity, but wo unto him who broke the laws of Elizabeth and Parker. Again, in 1559, at a commission ap- pointed to visit the province of York, comprising the whole of the north and east of England, with the diocese of Chester, which includes Lancashire, " the presentments," that is, the informations lodged against the incumbents " were most frequent, almost in every parish, about fornication, and keeping other women besides their wives, and for having bastard children."t " As to Bangor, that diocese was much out of order, there being no preaching used, and pensionary con- cubinacy openly continued, which was an allowance of concubinacy to the clergy by paying a pension (to the bishop, or his court,) notwithstanding the liberty of marriage granted." And Parker himself was openly charged with having " such a commissioner there as openly kept three concubines.''^ This, let it be noticed, was not a libel by " Martin Marprelate," but an official report from a royal commission presented to the privy council. While Puritans crowded every pestiferous jail in the kingdom for merely preaching the truth as it is in Jesus, these infamous priests filled every parish in England. Let any man assert that we have given the only, or the most scandalous in- stances we could rake up from the polluted sewer of the early Anglican church history, and we shall give him references to fifty times as many more ; for we decline polluting our pages with such abandoned pro- fligacy. One of the most fruitful sources of those enormous * Strype's Parker, i. 156. t Strype'e An. i. 246. t Strype's Parker, i. 404. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Ixi evils under which the Church of England at this time groaned, was that prolific mother of all corruption, patronage, which has never existed in a Church with- out corrupting it, and which threatens, if God inter- pose not, to destroy our own beloved Zion. In 1584, "a person of eminency in the Church" gives a fearful picture of the evils which "the devil and corrupt patrons" had occasioned to the Anglican establish- ment. "For patrons no w-a-days," he says, "search not the universities for most fit pastors, but they post up and down the country for a most gainful chap- man; he that hath the biggest purse to pay largely, not he that hath the best gifts to preach learnedly is presented."* And what is the difference between this state of matters and what has existed among our- selves, but that the patron, instead of selling his pre- sentations for money, has bestowed them in return for votes for his nominee to parliament, for support in gaining the lieutenancy of a county, or (as now seems the current price) for support in "swamping" the present majority in our General Assembly? The bishops were just as corrupt in the disposal of the benefices in their gift as the lay patrons. Curtes of Chichester, for example, was charged by several gentlemen and justices of peace of his diocese, among other malversations of office, with keeping benefices in his gift long vacant, that he might himself pocket the fruits, and selling his advowsons to the highest bidder.t After a visitation of his province, Parker writes Lady Bacon, that "to sell and to buy benefices, to fleece parsonages and vicarages, was come to that pass, that omnia sunt venalia;" that all ranks were guilty of the practice, "so far, that some one knight had four or five, and others, seven or eight benefices clouted together," and retained in their own hands, the parishes all the while being vacant; while others again set boys and servants "to bear the names of such livings," and others again bargained them away < Strype's An. ii. 146. Ibid. Whitgift, i. 368. t Ibid. 117. Ixh THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. at a fixed sum per year. And," he adds, "this kind of doing was common in all the country."* When the Simonists came for orders or institution, they sometimes were rejected by the more conscien- tious prelates, on account, not indeed of their Simony, which, so far as we have noticed, never happened, but on account of their gross ignorance and scandal- ous lives. But the patrons, and these dutiful sons of the Church, anticipating by three centuries, the prac- tices with which we are, alas, but too familiar in our own day, were not thus to be defrauded of their "vested rights" and "patrimonial interests." They commenced suits in the civil courts, and harassed the bishops with the terrors of a quare impedit, and of a praemunire. They did not always, however, put themselves to that trouble. Some of the presentees at once took possession of their benefices without waiting for orders, (as we shall bye and bye show,; and set themselves to read prayers, and administer quasi sacraments, or what was much more congenial to their tastes, to cultivate their glebes; varying the monotony of attending "farmers' dinners" by occa- sional other indulgences much less "moderate;" an example this, which (barring the last part.) we take leave most humbly to commend to those unpopular presentees who are not fortunate enough to get pre- sentations to parishes within that paradise of mode- ratism, the synod of Aberdeen, or the presbytery of Meigle. In consequence of this state of matters, pluralities and non-residence became universal. Nor could it well be otherwise when the prelates set such exam- ples as that we are about to adduce before men by no means disinclined to follow them. We could show * Strype's Parker, i. 495-8. By the 22d apostolical canon, the 2d council of Chalcedon, and the 22d Trullan canon, Simonists, if pre- lates, or priests, or deacons, were to be deposed and excommunicated. Pray, what becomes of the "apostolical succession" in the Church of England, if these canons are held valid? And if the canons are re- jected, pray, on what other foundation does the Church of England stand ? THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxiii several examples of pluralism such as never, we are persuaded, was witnessed in any other Church. The case of the following Jacobus de Voragine, however, may stand for all. From the frequency and the urgency of the complaints that came up to the privy council regarding the state of the diocese of St. Asaph, a commission was appointed in 1587 to visit it. The visitors, on their return, laid the following report be- fore the high commission court, viz., that "most of the great livings within the diocese, some with cure of souls and some without cure, are either holden by the bishop (Hughes)" himself in coinmcndam," or by non- residents, the most of whom were laymen, civilians, or lawyers in the archbishop's court, through which dispensations to hold commendams were obtained. The prelate kept to his own share sixteen of the richest benefices. Fourteen of the same class were held by the civil lawyers, of course as fees for grant- ing him dispensations to hold the rest. There was not a single preacher within the diocese, the " lord bishop only excepted," but three. One of the resident pluralists holding three benefices, two of them among the richest in the diocese, kept neither " house nor hospitality," but lived in an ale house. The prelate also sold (some on behoof of his wife, some on that of his children, and some on his own) most, if not all, the livings in his gift, besides those reserved in his own hands. He would grant the tithes of any living to any person who would pay for them, reserving for the support of an incumbent what would not maintain a mechanic; in consequence of which the parishes remained vacant. In his visitations he would compel the clergy, besides the customary "procurations," as they are called, (that is, an assessment upon the clergy to pay the ordinary expenses of a prelate during a visitation through his diocese,) to pay also for all his train.* Our readers will not be surprised to hear that this wholesale dealer in tithes and benefices was amassing * Strype's An. iii. 435, 436, and iv. Ap. No. 32. lxiV THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. a handsome fortune and purchasing large estates, be- sides dealing in mortgages and other profitable specu- lations. But they will be surprised to hear that no commendam could be held without a dispensation from the archbishop's court, and that while hundreds of parishes throughout England were vacant for want of ministers to supply them, and while hundreds more were so poor that they could not support a minister,* Parker was accustomed to grant dispensations to pre- lates to hold commendams, for the purpose of being able to maintain what he so much loved and com- mended to others, viz., "the port of a bishop ;"t and they may also be surprised, that is to say if they are not so well acquainted with the primate as we hap- pen to be, when we tell them that Parker was paid a sort of per centage upon all these dispensations; not that we insinuate that this had any share in inducing him to grant them, although his own maintenance of the "port of a bishop" entailed upon him no trifling expense. 1 Our readers will now be prepared to receive the * There are in England 4543 livings, if livings they can be called, under L. 10. See an extract from a document from the state paper office on the value of all the benefices in England in Collier ix. Rec. No. 99. "Tlio Church of England probably stands alone," says Bishop Short, "in latter times as exhibiting instances of ecclesiastical offices unprovided with any temporal support." Sketch, &c. p. 188. "The extreme poverty which has been entailed on many of our livings," he says again, "is one of the greatest evils which afflicts our Church property," p. 509. And he says elsewhere, that if it were not for the number of persons of independent fortune who take orders in the Church of England, (allured of course by the higher prizes,) many of the cures must remain vacant. The manner in which the Church of England, and our own Church also, were pillaged at the Reformation by our benevolent friends the patrons, is an inviting sub- ject for a dissertation, but we must not enter upon it here. t For this purpose, he granted to Cheney a dispensation to hold Bristol in commendam with Gloucester. And for precisely the same purpose, he granted Bletliyn of LandafF a dispensation to hold the archdeaconry of Brecon, the rectory of Roget, a prebend in LandaiF, the rectory of Sunningwell, and in addition, "to hold alia quacunque, quotcunquc, quiiliacunqiie, not exceeding L. 100 per an." Strype's Parker, ii. 4J1, 422. t As a specimen of the manner in which Parker maintained the "port of a bishop," the reader may consult Strype's Parker, i. 378 — 380, 253, 254 ; ii. 278, 296, 297, &c. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxV following account of the state of the Church and king- dom of England, drawn up by the industrious Strype* from the papers of Cecil: — "The state of the Church and religion at this time (1572) was but low and sadly neglected. . . . The churchmen heaped up many benefices upon them- selves and resided upon none, neglecting their cures. Many of them alienated their lands; made unreason- able leases and wastes of their woods; granted re- versions and advowsons to their wives and children, or to others for their use. Churches ran greatly into dilapidation and decay, and were kept nasty and filthy, and indecent for God's worship. . . . Among the laity there was little devotion; the Lord's day greatly profaned and little observed; the common prayers not frequented ; some lived without any ser- vice of God at all; many were mere heathens and atheists; the queen's own court an harbour for epi- cures and atheists, and a kind of lawless place because it stood in no parish ; — which things made good men fear some bad judgments impending over the nation." And yet ministers of the Church of England can find no terms sufficiently strong in which to praise the reformation in their own Church, or dispraise that in the other Protestant churches. It may not be improper, although we have scru- pulously confined ourselves to Church of England authorities, to give the testimony of a contemporary Puritan as to the condition of that Church about 1570:— " I could rehearse by name," says our author, " a bishop's boy, ruffianly both in behaviour and apparel, at every word swearing and staring, having ecclesi- astical promotions — a worthy prebend (prebendary?) no doubt. I could name whoremongers being taken, and also confessing their lechery, and yet both enjoy- ing their livings and also having their mouths open, and not stopped nor forbidden to preach. I know * Life of Parker, ii. 204, 205. E lXVi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. also some that have said mass diverse years since it was prohibited, and upon their examination confessed the same, yet are in quiet possession of their eccle- siastical promotions. I know double beneficed men that do nothing but eat, drink, sleep, play at dice tables, bowls, and read service in the Church, — but " these infect not their flocks with false doctrine, for they teach nothing at all."* Where is the man who ponders over these state- ments that will not sympathize with the bishop of Sodor and Man, in the reflection with which he closes his history of the reign of Elizabeth? — "The feeling which the more attentive study of these times is cal- culated to inspire," says Dr. Short,t "is the conviction of the superintendence of Providence over the Church of Christ." Assuredly but for the watchful provi- dence of the God of all grace, the Church of Christ in England could never have survived the reign of Elizabeth. There is just one subject more to which we must allude before we bring the lengthened sketch of the Anglican Reformation to a close ; and we do so in order to show our readers that if "apostolical succes- * Parte of a Register, p. 8. See also passim, the first of the Mar Prelate Tracts, just reprinted by Mr. John Petheram, bookseller, 71 Chancery Lane, London. The Mar Prelate Tracts having been written in a satirical style, were disclaimed by the stern and severe Puritans of the times, but so far as facts are concerned, we hold them perfectly trustworthy. We have read through Martin's Epistle, just published, and will at any time, at five minutes' warning, undertake to establish by positive or presumptive evidence the substantial, and in the great majority of cases the verbal, truth of any important fact it contains. Mr. Petheram intends, should he receive sufficient en- couragement, to reprint by subscription, in a neat cheap form, several of the old Puritan tracts, such as The Troubles at Frankfort, Ad- monition to Parliament, Parte of a Register, and others exceedingly valuable, but so exceedingly rare, that not one in a hundred of our readers can ever have seen them. Mr. Petheram illustrates these tracts by judicious antiquarian notes, that add greatly to their value. We recommend our readers in the strongest terms to possess them- selves of these curious and valuable productions, and trust Mr. Petheram may receive such encouragement in his spirited enterprise as may induce him to reprint even larger works of the old Puritan divines. t Sketch, &c. p. 318. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Ixvii sion," or an uninterrupted succession of ministers canonically baptized, and prelatically ordained and consecrated, be essential to the being of a Church, then the Church of England not only cannot prove that she has this essential qualification, but we can prove that she has lost it, at least to an extent that invalidates all her pretensions to its possession. We have some time ago shown, that, on canonical principles, baptism is valid only when it is adminis- tered by a minister canonically, that is, as it is com- monly understood, prelatically ordained ; and that without such baptism a man's orders, however canoni- cally conferred, are null and void, inasmuch as he wanted a qualification which is essential as a sub- stratum for orders subsequently received. Ministers of the Church of England, if they would prove that they possess an apostolical succession, must first prove that all through whom baptism and orders have de- scended to them have themselves been canonically baptized and ordained. But how can this be proved in the presence of such facts as the following ? Mid- wives, about the period of the Reformation, were, it would appear, frequently guilty of changing infants at birth, strangling and beheading them, and bap- tizing them in what were called cases of necessity, with perfumed and artificial water, and "odd and profane words" and ceremonies. On these accounts it was deemed necessary not only to bind them over to keep the peace towards these " innocents," but to grant them a species of orders, by which they might be admitted among the subaltern grades of the hier- archy. Parker, for example, in 1567, grants to Elea- nor Pead, a license to administer baptism, (having first exacted of her an oath of canonical obedience) of the following tenor, — « Also, that in the ministration of the sacrament of baptism, I will use apt, and the accustomed words of the same sacrament, that is to say, these words following, or the like in effect, < I christen thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' and none other profane words."* * Strype's An. i. ii. 242—3. lXViii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Now, without being so hypercritical as to maintain that, Parker, in calling the words "I christen thee," &c. "profane words," as in the above sentence he necessarily does, seems himself to acknowledge the invalidity of such pretended sacrament; and without maintaining that the omission of the scriptural term "I baptize," and the substitution of the unscriptural and heretical term "I christen," invalidates the whole act, (even had it been performed by Parker himself) but granting that these irregularities derogate nothing from the validity of the ordinance, as performed by the said Eleanor, we yet beg leave to demand of every pretender to the apostolical succession in the Anglican Church, to prove to our satisfaction that some of his ghostly fathers were not "christened" by Eleanor Pead, or some of her "sage" sisterhood; and if they were, then to show us any authority whatever that such " sage femme" has to administer baptism any more than the Lord's Supper; and finally, if he contends that Eleanor Pead did, or could possess such authority, then we ask on what ground could she be inhibited from performing the other acts of the minis- try, or why deacons, priests, and prelates are at all necessary, seeing an apostolical succession of mid- wives is just as sufficient as that of prelates or Popes? We trust these remarks may not be considered very unreasonable. But we possess ample evidence that midwives were not the only uncanonical administrators of sacraments during the Anglican Reformation. We have already shown that the bishops were persecuted, both by patrons and presentees, when ordination and institu- tion were refused to unqualified candidates.* But we have now to show that many of those whose only objects in getting a " living," was what the term so expressively signifies, on meeting with patrons, whose only desire was to make the most of their "patri- monial rights, and vested interests," not, indeed, in the patriotic form of " swamping" a noble-minded majority, who will neither be bullied nor bribed into * See for example Strypc's Parker, ii. 84 — 87. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxix a sacrifice of the rights and liberties of Christ and his people, (that plan was reserved for Scottish patrons in the nincteenlh century) but in the more substantial, though not more offensive shape, of getting a good price for the presentation, or a long lease, or fee-simple pos- session of the best part of the benefice, had recourse to a plan which we again beg leave to recommend to those of our unpopular "moderate" preachers who may happen to have got into the good graces of our Dukes of Richmond, our Earls of Kinnoul, and our Sir James Grahams; that is, in plain terms, these Anglican intrusionist presentees, without troubling prelate or primate for orders, at once, in simple virtue of their civil presentations, not only took possession of the temporalities, but set themselves to perform all clerical acts, as ministers of the parishes. Are we wrong in thinking, as we really do, it were more manly and rational for those who maintain that a pre- sentation, in ordinary circumstances, necessarily leads to ordination, at once to take possession of their bene- fices, in virtue of a warrant from the Court of Session, rather than trouble themselves and others for ordina- tions (so termed) from men who have no power to confer orders but in virtue of warrants from the civil courts? If, when the Church hath withdrawn the orders she conferred, the Court of Session can confer orders of its own (for that is the true state of the case,) why not remain satisfied with a civil title to a civil right, or with orders from the civil court rather than an unmeaning ceremonial at the hands of its nomi- nees? But leaving these suggestions to be pondered on by those whom they may concern, wc return to the history of " unordained ministers" in the Church of England. Let us just present a sample of the numerous cases we could refer to by simply searching through the notes extracted by our own hand from the works of the "industrious Strype." In 1567, in a visitation of the cathedral of Norwich, it was discovered that one of the archdeacons (a part of whose functions it is to institute, or as we call it, to induct, into benefices) lXX THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. and a prebendary were not in orders at all.* In 1568, the bishop of Gloucester wrote Parker that he had dis- covered in his diocese two men who had " adminis- tered the communion, christened infants, and married people, and done other spiritual offices in the Church, and yet never took holy orders. One of them had counterfeited that bishop's seal, and the other was perjured."t In 1574, there was "one Lowth, of Carlisle side, who, though he had for fifteen or six- teen years exercised the function, yet he proved to be ordered neither priest nor minister.";): He was dis- covered in consequence of some irregularity in his conformity, which led to his examination, and in con- sequence of which he was discovered to be a mere layman. Had he conformed, like so many more who were in similar circumstances, he might perhaps, lay- man though he was, have risen to the bench. In 1832, the bishop of St. David's wrote to Walsingham that he found in his diocese "divers that pretended to be ministers, and had counterfeited divers bishops' seals, as Gloucester, Hereford, LandafF and his pre- decessors, being not called at all to the ministry." There must have been at least four of them, and they had been in their cures " by the space of eight, ten, twelve, and some fourteen years."§ "But among the scandalous churchmen in these days (1571,) the greatest surely," says Strype,|| who, however, knew far too much to be very confident in his assertion, — " the greatest surely was one Blackall He had four wives alive He had intruded himself into the ministry for the space of twelve years, and yet was never lawfully called, nor made minister by any bishop. . . . He was a chopper and changer of bene- fices," (that is, he was successful in getting a variety of presentations to benefices in various parts of the country, into which he intruded himself, without ask- ing the leave or concurrence of any prelate — a very frequent occurrence at the time,) " little caring by * Strype's Parker, i. 492. t Ibid. i. 534. 1 Ibid, ii. 400. Life of Grindal, 275—6. § Strype's Life of Grindal, 401. || Annals, iii. 144—5. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxxi what ways or means so (as) he might get money from any man. He would run from country to country, and. from town to town, leading about with him naughty women, as in Gloucestershire he led a naughty strumpet about the country, (nick) named Green Apron. He altered his name wherever he went, going by these several surnames, Blackall, Barthall, Dorel, Barkly, Baker!!" Was there ever a church upon the earth in which such a monster as this could exist, in which such atro- cious irregularities, and not only irregularities, but criminalities, could be openly perpetrated for the space of twelve years, without censure or detection, but the Church of England alone ? And are we now, in blind unenquiring submission to " bulls" from Oxford, or London or Lambeth, in spite of such infamous facts open to the whole world, — are we, renouncing the characteristic attributes of man, and resigning the direction of our judgments, and the interests of our souls into the hands of the successors, not of the apos- tles, but of such miscreants as Blackall, to receive, as the only commissioned messengers of Heaven to our land, the ministers of the Church of England ? So common in fact was the practice of taking possession of benefices without orders, and when the right of pos- session was at any time questioned, to forge letters of orders, that in 1575, that is, seventeen years after the Anglican Church was settled under Elizabeth, the mat- ter was brought before convocation, and it was en- acted, that " diligent inquisition should be made for such as forged letters of orders," and " that bishops certify one another of counterfeit ministers."* The reason of this last enactment was, that when one of these "counterfeit ministers" was detected in one dio- cese, he fled into another, and so little unity of action was there, or can there ever be, in a prelatic regimen, (unlike our Church courts) that the same course of "counterfeit ministry" might be gone through in suc- cession in all the dioceses in England. * Strype's Grindal, 290. One of these was e.g. summoned before the convocation of 1584. Strype's Whitgift, i. 398. IXXli THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. What now, we repeat, becomes of the claim to the apostolical succession, so confidently and offensively put forth by ministers of the Church of England? " Even in the memory of persons living," says arch- bishop Whately,* "there existed a bishop, concerning whom there was so much mystery and uncertainty prevailing, as to when, and where, and by whom he had been ordained, that doubts existed in the minds of many persons whether he had ever been ordained at all," . . and from the circumstances of the case, and from the fact that such doubts did prevail in the minds of well-informed persons, it is certain "that the cir- cumstances of the case were such as to make manifest the possibility of such an irregularity occurring under such circumstances." Such an irregularity, then, as a man not only officiating in the lower grades of the ministry, but even rising to the primacy of the Church of England, without ever having been in orders, or rather such a subversion of the very first elements of an apostolical constitution, was not confined to the dark and troublous period of the Reformation, when the whole framework of society was dissolved into its first rudiments, and every species of irregularity not only might, but as we know did occur, but the very same " unchurching" irregularities have existed in the Church of England down through every age of its history, "till within the memory of persons now living." Any one who will look at a "genealogical tree," and observe how many wide spreading and far distant branches may spring from one stem, will easily perceive how a very few such unordaiued or " coun- terfeit ministers" as we have referred to, and shown to have existed in the Church of England, were amply enough to have destroyed all apostolical succession in the kingdom. Such withered branches could not transmit any portion of the "sacred deposit." All who have succeeded to them are no successors of the apostles; and we challenge any, and every minister in the Church of England to prove to us that he has not received all the orders he ever possessed, through some of these Eleanor Peads, Lowths of Carlisle side, * On the Kingdom of Christ, p. 178. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxxiti or Blackalls — a glorious parentage, certainly, of which they have great reason to be vain. We have not, for our own part, been very much ad- dicted to boast of our ancestry, albeit it contains names of whose call and commission from Heaven Ave have no more doubt than we have of those of the apostle Paul. We have commonly found, in private life, that such boasting is very much a characteristic of upstart parvenus, and we have yet to learn that it is greatly different in regard to official descent. Should occasion, however, demand, we have no great dislike to pay a visit to the Herald's College, and demon- strate to our Southern neighbours that we have no such bar sinister in ours as defaces their clerical es- cutcheon. May we therefore drop a hint to certain parties, that, however they may do it in private, where no one may mark their confusion, they should be specially chary how, in public, they turn up any ec- clesiastical " Debrett." Much as they decry, and often as they twit our Wesleyan friends, he must have a peculiarly constituted taste, indeed, who would not prefer even genuine " Brumagem orders" to sach as have been forged by such ghostly progenitors as they boast of. We had purposed to show multifarious* and other irregularities in the organization of the Church of England. We have, however, more than exhausted our present space. But should God grant us health we may soon return to the subject, for we can assure our readers we have only broken ground, and simply tested the range and capabilities of our ordnance. It is assuredly in itself no grateful task to rake up the errors of the dead, and expose the defects in our neighbours' ecclesiastical constitution. But it has become necessary. We have now no option. The Church of England has now, for years, unprovoked, unresisted, poured upon us such torrents of abuse, from her lordliest prelates to her obscurest curates, — she has vilified all we held sacred, insulted all we held dear, and we must either tamely submit to see our beloved Church covered with infamy, or hurl back the foul missiles upon the aggressors. lxXlV THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. An observation or two in conclusion. We have, upon this occasion, confined our remarks to the history of Elizabeth's first prelates. The second set became much less pious and Protestant, and consequently we have selected the period most favourable to the Church of England. This is clearly implied in a passage we have given from the British Critic, and we may here- after prove it, should any call it in question. Our authorities have been exclusively from Church of England writers; not certainly because we deemed them more trustworthy than others, for no man of any pretensions to candour will dispute, as Bishop Short has remarked,* that members of other com- munions cannot be supposed to be more prejudiced against her than her own members are in her favour. We have selected this course, because we have found her own writers establish all that we desire in order to accomplish our end. When they write against the Church of Scotland, will they follow our example ? If they do, it will present a new phasis in the contro- versy. Hitherto they have taken as their authorities work* written by non-jurors, and Scottish prelatic sectaries, the most unscrupulous controversialists that ever disgraced a cause that had little indeed to com- mend it. W e have said that the Church of England, in every thing of importance, stands now precisely where she stood at the demise of Elizabeth. This may be called in question by those who know not the facts of the case. We therefore appeal to the follow- ing testimony of one of her living prelates. " The kingdom," says Bishop Short,t " has, for the last two hundred years, been making rapid strides in every species of improvement, and a corresponding altera- * Sketch, &c. sect. 419. t Sketch of the History of the Church of England, 2d edit. pp. 436-7. Note. This is a work which we recommend to our readers. That we do not agree with Dr. Short in many of his statements we have not concealed. But we should do him injustice if we did not say, that although his work is brief, too brief, and not free from faults, from which we never expect to see a history of the Church of England, by one of her own ministers, altogether exempt, still it is incomparably the best work on the subject which an Anglican clergyman has ever produced. THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxXV tion in the laws on every subject has taken place; during this period nothing has been remedied in the church^ (the italics are ours.) So grievous are the abuses which the anomalous constitution of the Anglican church has entailed upon her, that Dr. Short hesitates not to say, (with his usually inter- jected " perhaps," whenever he gives utterance to an unpalatable sentiment) that "the temporal advan- tages which the establishment possesses, are, perhaps, more than counterbalanced by the total inability of the church to regulate any thing within herself, and the great want of discipline over the clergy ; . . . . while the absurd nature of our ecclesiastical laws ren- ders every species of discipline over the laity not only nugatory, but when it is exercised, frequently unchris- tian, ridiculous, and in many cases very oppressive," as in the case of excommunication, by which a man is deprived, not only of all ecclesiastical privileges, but even of civil, yea, of all social rights. Some of our readers may be inclined to ask, if all these things be in reality so, how does it happen that good, pious, enlightened men remain in the commun- ion of the Church of England? Now this is a question that ought not to be asked, and being asked, ought not to be answered. We judge no man. To his own master he standeth or falleth. We can, however, assign one reason, which, besides the all-powerful one of the prejudices of education, is sufficient to account to our own mind, and that without any im- putation against them, for such men remaining in, the Anglican church, and that is, total ignorance of her character and constitution. Let not this insinuation startle our readers. We shall prove that such ignor- ance exists. Dr. Short, in the preface to his work, (p. 1 ) assigns as the reason that led him to commence his history, that he « discovered after he was admitted into orders," and when engaged as tutor in his college, " that the knowledge of English ecclesiastical history which he possessed was very deficient He was distressed that his knowledge of the sects among the philosophers of Athens was greater than his infor- mation on questions which affect the Church of Eng- lxxvi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION'. land." Dr. Short's is no singular case. The ignorance of Anglican ministers upon the history and constitu- tion of their own church would astonish our readers. A memorable instance of this has recently come to light in this city, and we allude to it because the well-known conscientiousness and high character of the party con- cerned give the instance all the greater authority. The Rev. D. T. K. Drummond, for whom personally we entertain the very highest respect, has shown, in one of his recent tracts, that he never, till within the last few days, had examined, or at least understood, the canons of that sect of which he was a minister; or at all events, that he was ignorant of what it re- gards as by far the most important part of its services, — the communion office. Mr. Drummond was, for years, a minister in that body, and it does not ap- pear that a shadow of suspicion ever crossed his mind that its constitution contained anything either positively erroneous, or sinfully defective ; indeed his character is a sufficient guarantee that no such thought ever found harbourage in his breast, for had he but entertained the suspicion, he would not have remained one day in that communion. And yet in the consti- tution and liturgical offices of that sect there existed all the while a plague-spot so deadly, that, on its dis- covery, Mr. Drummond is compelled, as he values his own soul, to come out of Babylon, that he be not a partaker of her sins and punishment. Such will also be the result to which pious ministers in the Church of England will be brought, should they ever unpre- judicedly and dispassionately examine her constitu- tion. And should Mr. Drummond, as we doubt not he will, continue his investigations in the spirit in which he has commenced them, we shall be aston- ished, indeed, if his love of truth, and of Him who is the truth, does not lead him to renounce all commu- nion with the Church of England, as he has already done with the Scottish prelatic sectaries. A sifting time is at hand; and when the breath of the living God has blown over the thrashing floor of the Church, we confidently anticipate that only the chaff shall remain in the Church of England. THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS OF PUSEYITE EPISCOPALIANS TO THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY INDEFENSIBLE: WITH AN INQUIRY INTO THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPACY AND THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION: IN A SERIES OE LETTERS TO THE REV. DR. PUSEY. By JOHN BROWN, D.D. " Nothing has so effectually thrown contempt upon a regular sue cession of the ministry, as the calling no succession regular but what was uninterrupted, and the making the eternal salvation of Chris- tians to depend upon that uninterrupted succession, of which the most learned can have the least assurance, and the unlearned can have no notion, but through ignorance and credulity." Hoadly. " They who would reduce the Church to the form of government thereof in the primitive times would be found pecking towards the Presbytery of Scotland : Which, for my part, I believe in point of fovernment cometh nearer than either yours (the Popish) or ours of Ipiscopacy to the first age of Christ's Church." Lord Digby. CONTENDS. LETTER I. Ungenerous and unprovoked attack by Puseyite Episcopalians on Presbyterian Churches. — Alarming- view presented by the former, of the spiritual condition of the latter. — Necessity imposed on Presbyterians to defend their principles., 17 LETTER H. Exclusive claims of Puseyite Episcopalians to the Christian ministry by no means of recent origin. — Saravia not the author of them, but Laud. — Account of the principal individuals in the Church of Eng- land who have brought them forward at different periods, when they considered her to be in danger. — Their doctrines proved to be con- trary to her principles, from the Thirty-nine Articles, the writings of the Bishops who composed her Formularies, and their immediate successors, their conduct towards Presbyterian Churches, the Char- ter granted by Edward the Sixth to these Churches in London, and the establishment of Presbytery by Elizabeth in Jersey and Guernsey, 21 LETTER III. These doctrines condemned in the strongest terms by the most dis- tinguished Protestant Statesmen after the Reformation; Cecil, the Lord President of Queen Elizabeth's Council, Sir Francis Knollys, and Lord Bacon, and denounced as " a Popish conceit," by the leading bishops and clergy. — Dissimilarity between the Church of England, beyond whose pale, and that of the Church of Rome, Puseyites deny that there is any hope of salvation, and the Apos- tolic Church, in the extent of its bishoprics, the civil power exercised by its prelates, the multitude of its ceremonies, and " its want," ac- cording to its own acknowledgment, " of a godly discipline,". . .38 8 CONTENTS. LETTER IV. Extracts from the Oxford Tracts asserting the doctrines of Puseyite Episcopacy to be the doctrines of Scripture. — A contrary opinion avowed by the whole of the bishops and clergy who were zealous for the spiritual improvement of the Church for five hundred years before the Reformation, by the whole of the Protestant Churches at that memorable period, and by eight thousand Protestant ministers, who subscribed the Articles of Smalkald, which declare that bishops are not superior to presbyters by divine right. — Improbability that these distinguished individuals and the whole Protestant Churches were wrong, and Puseyite Episcopalians right, 61 LETTER V. Presumptive evidence that diocesan bishops have not been appointed by God, because the only bishops mentioned in Scripture among the standing ministers of the Church are presbyters, and no passage can be produced specifying the qualifications required in bishops as distinct from presbyters. — This inexplicable, if there was to be an order of ministers, denominated bishops, superior to presbyters. — Presbyter, a name of higher honour than bishop. No minister of an inferior order distinguished by the name of a minister of a superior order. — Deacons never called presbyters, but presbyters always represented as bishops — The powers of ordination and government ascribed in Scripture to presbyters. — Wickliffe held the principles of Presbytery, and maintained that Scripture gave no countenance to diocesan Episcopacy, 71 LETTER VI. Additional evidence that the principal Reformers of the Church of England rejected the divine right of Episcopacy, and pleaded for that form of ecclesiastical polity, chiefly on the ground that they considered it as better adapted to absolute monarchy. — Testi- monies against the divine right of Episcopacy, and acknowledging that Presbytcrianism is sanctioned by Scripture, from the writings ofTindal, Barnes, Lambert, Cranmer, Tonstall, Stokesly, Jewel, Redman, Robertson, George Cranmer, Willet, Bedel, and Lord Digby, 85 LETTER VII. The argument for diocesan Episcopacy, from the different orders in the ministry under the Jewish dispensation, examined, and proved to be more favourable to Popery than to Prelacy. — As far as it establishes the latter, it furnishes a precedent merely for a CONTENTS. 9 single bishop in a nation, with far more limited powers than those of any modern bishop. — No resemblance between the powers and functions of the Jewish priests and Levites, and those of priests and deacons in Episcopalian Churches. — Argument acknowledged to be inconclusive by some of the leading defenders of Episcopacy,. . .93 LETTER VIII. The argument of Dr. Brett and Bishop Gleig for diocesan Episcopacy from the different orders in the ministry, during our Lord's minis- try, inconclusive. — The Old Testament Church had not then ceased to exist, nor was the New Testament Church established. — Their account of the ministry which was instituted at that time not sup. ported by Scripture, contrary to the representations of it given by the Fathers, and so far as it furnishes a pattern of the Gospel minis- try, would warrant the appointment of a single bishop over the Universal Church. — Archbishop Potter's hypothesis equally unsatis- factory, and would lead to a similar conclusion, 102 LETTER IX. The same argument, as stated by Bishop Bilson, Mr. Jones, and Bishop Skinner, invalid. — Upon their hypothesis there would be no deacons in the Church. — No higher powers were possessed at that time by the Apostles than by the Seventy; and the different cir- cumstances mentioned by Archbishop Potter, to prove the supe- riority of the former, do not establish it. — The office of the Seventy seems to have terminated with their mission, or, at furthest, at the death of the Saviour, and consequently they could not be an order in the Christian Church Ill LETTER X. The argument of Archdeacon Daubeny and Bishop Gleig, for the order of bishops, from the extraordinary office assigned to the Apos- tles in the New Testament Church, proved to be fallacious. — It no more follows from what is said in Matthew xxviii. 20, that there are to be Apostles till the end of the world, than from what is said in Ephcsians iv. 11-13, that there are to be New Testament Pro- phets and Evangelists till that time. — That office proved to have ceased as to its peculiar powers with those who were first invested with it, because no one since their death has possessed the quali- fications which it required, nor has been called to it in the way in which they were appointed, nor has been instructed by inspiration like them in the truths which lie was to deliver, nor could perform miracles. — Sutelivc, Willct, Barrow, and others, deny that bishops succeed Apostles in their peculiar powers, 121 1 10 CONTENTS. LETTER XI. As presbyters can perform the work of "discipling the nations" by preaching- and baptizing till the end of the world, and are the highest order of standing ministers mentioned in the New Testa- ment, they are entitled to be considered as the successors of the Apostles. — This acknowledged by Willet. — The report that the Apostles divided the world into different parts, and that each of them laboured in one of them as its bishop, proved to be fabulous, though repeated by Bishop Gleig. — It cannot be inferred from the application of the name Apostles by the Fathers to some of the bishops that the latter succeed the Apostles, for they give it also to presbyters, and even females. — Refutation of the argument for Episcopacy from the appointment of James to the Bishopric of Jerusalem. — Quotations from spurious writings of the Fathers, in support of this fiction, by Bishop Gleig and the present Curate of Derry exposed, 133 LETTER XII. Bishop Bilson represents the argument for Episcopacy, from the powers conferred on Timothy and Titus, as "the main erection of the Episcopal cause ;" and Bishop Hall declares, that if it fails, "he will yield the cause, and confess that he has lost his senses." — None of the Fathers during the first three centuries represent them as diocesan bishops; and Willet, Stillingfleet, and Bishop Bridges acknowledge them to have been extraordinary ministers, or Evan- gelists.— Nature of the office of Evangelists, as illustrated by Scrip- ture and the writings of the Fathers. — Different from that of dio- cesan bishops, and superior to it. — Diocesan bishops never said to have been associated with Evangelists or Apostles in any act of jurisdiction or government, though Presbyters repeatedly took part with them in such acts. — No notice of diocesan bishops as an order existing in their days. — The argument in every point of view in- conclusive, 156 LETTER XIII. Examination of the argument for diocesan Episcopacy, from the Angels of the seven Asiatic Churches. — Refutation of it as stated by Milner, who would restrict the superintendence exercised by bishops to ten or twelve congregations, a plan which would create in England a thousand diocesan bishops. — Refutation of it as stated by Bishop Gleig, who represents these Angels as single individuals and prelates. — The name Angel borrowed from one of the ministers of the Jewish synagogue, who had no authority over other syna- CONTENTS. II gogucs, and was not the sole or chief ruler of his own synagogue. — Remarkable blunder of Bishop Russel respecting the Angel of the synagogue and its other officers,/or which he is praised by the Rev. Mr. Sinclair. — If the Angels of the Churches were single persons, no evidence that they were diocesan bishops. — Three arguments to prove that they were not single individuals, but representatives of the whole ministers of the different Churches, as each of the stars mentioned in Rev. i. represented the ivhole of the ministers of each of the Churches, who shed their united light on the members. — Striking remarks of Lord Bacon on the unprecedented powers vested in bishops, and on their being allowed to exercise some of them, without any appeal, by lay. chancellors, 178 LETTER XIV. Apostolical succession. — If the Apostles were neither diocesan bishops themselves, nor ordained such bishops, the apostolical succession, as explained and claimed by Puseyite Episcopalians, never began. — Waving that objection, as far as there was a succession, it was pre- served to Presbyterian Churches before the Reformation, as unin- terrupted as to Episcopalian Churches ; and since that time it has been preserved as regularly in the former, by Presbyterian ordina- tions, as in the latter by Episcopal. — Unfounded allegation by Spottiswood and others, that the adoption of Presbytery at Geneva originated in a wish to assimilate the government of the Church that of the State, and that this led to the adoption of that form of ecclesiastical polity in other countries. — The contrary proved from the reasoning of Farcl with Furbiti, who preceded Calvin, and is considered by many as the modern father or reviver of Presbytery. — Eusebius acknowledges that he could not trace the succession in many of the early Churches. — Jewel and Stillingfleet confess that it cannot be traced in the Church of Rome, from which many of the ministers of the Church of England have derived their orders, 190 LETTER XV. The succession destroyed in all those instances in which individuals who had only Presbyterian baptism, and were not rcbaptizeri, joined Episcopalian Churches, and were made presbyters and bishops. — Confirmation cannot remedy this defect, because, as Cranmer admits, "it was not instituted by Christ," nor was the Redeemer himself, or any individual mentioned in the New Testa- ment, confirmed, and because, as some of the leading English Re- formers acknowledged, "it is a domme ceremony," and " has no promise of grace connected with it." — Butler, who had only Presby- terian baptism, and was not rebaptized, made a bishop, baptized many, who were afterwards ministers, and made a number of bishops. — Seeker, who had only the same baptism, made Primate 12 CONTEXTS. of England, ordained many presbyters, and a number of bishops, and baptized two kings, who for a long time were heads of the Church. — Tillotson, though the son of a Baptist, and though there is no evidence that he was ever baptized, or ordained a deacon, made Archbishop of Canterbury. — Succession destroyed for more than two hundred years in the important Church of Alexandria, and in the early Church of Scotland, in consequence of the ordina- tions by the Culdce presbyters. — Account of the presbyters of Iona, their evangelical doctrine, their Presbyterian government, and the acknowledgment of their ecclesiastical authority by the Clergy of Scotland 216 LETTER XVI. The succession destroyed in the early Church of England, in conse- quence of the ordination of its first bishops by Scottish presbyters. — Scottish missionaries who were ordained by presbyters, acknowledg- ed by Usher to have Christianized the greater part of England. — The Presbyterian Culdean Scottish Church asserted in the twelfth century, before an assembly of English bishops and nobles, to be the Mother Church of the Church of England, and not contradicted. — An Archbishop of Canterbury in that century never consecrated, and a Bishop of Norwich consecrated by a presbyter who was an archdeacon. — Succession destroyed in the Church of Ireland through the ordination of many of its clergy by the Scottish Culdee presbyters. — Eight individuals who never had any orders, Archbishops of Armagh, and Primates of all Ireland. — Succession destroyed among the Scottish Episcopalians, who, according to Dr. Pusey, are not a Christian Church. — Their first prelates in 1610 never baptized, and their orders irregular. — The orders of their next bishops in 1661 uncanonical, and those of the usage bishops, from whom their present bishops derive their orders, pronounced by the college bishops in 1727 to be null and void, 246 LETTER XVII. The Church of Denmark, as its first superintendents were only pres- byters, and after the Reformation received imposition of hands only from Bugenhagen, a single Lutheran presbyter, without the sue- cession, and upon the principles of Dr. Pusey, not a Christian Church. — The same, too, the condition of the Church of Sweden, and of all the foreign Protestant Churches which have only super- intendents.— Superintendents both among Lutherans and Calvin- ists, when appointed to their office not ordained anew, but appointed merely the chairmen or moderators of presbyters, by whom they may be deposed. — Their Churches, of course, not Christian Church- es.— Account of the ancient Scottish superintendents, whose office is misrepresented by Episcopalians. — The Church of Prussia not a Church, nor the Protestant Churches of France, Geneva, Switzer- land, Holland, America and Scotland. — The Presbyterians in Ire- CONTENTS. 13 land and Great Britain, with the Methodists and Independents, not phurches, and their members without any covenanted title to salva- tion.— The succession destroyed in the Church of Rome. — Pagans baptized some who became ministers — laymen ordained to be bishops — bishops often ordained to Sees which were not vacant. — This the case with Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 272 LETTER XVIII. Additional evidence that the succession has been lost in the Church of Rome. — Boys ordained to be Bishops, and striplings made Popes. — Atheists and avowed infidels raised to the Popedom. — Papal canon, that "if a Pope should carry with him innumerable souls to hell, no man must presume to find fault with him." — Simoniacal ordinations declared void by the canons of many Coun- cils, and yet for eight hundred years there were many such ordina- tions, both in the Western and Eastern Churches. — Idiots, and per- sons, "who, when they read, prayed, or sang, knew not whether they blessed God or blasphemed him," ordained to be bishops. — Multitudes of the most immoral individuals, some of whom " drank wine in honour of the devil," made Popes and Bishops, 286 LETTER XIX. The Bible the only standard by which we are to regulate our opinions respecting faith and practice, the orders in the ministry, and the rites and ordinances of the Christian Church. — This the doctrine of the Bible itself, and of the early Fathers, each of whom rejected the opinions of the other Fathers on every subject when not sup- ported by Scripture, or contrary to its statements. — This the doc- trine, too, of Luther, and of the most eminent Reformers of the Church of England. — The Fathers not safe guides respecting the meaning of Scripture on other subjects besides Church govern- ment.— Numerous instances of the gross misinterpretation of the plainest passages in the writings of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and Jerome. — Numerous instances abo of their departing from the doctrine of the Apostles on some of the leading points of evangeli- cal belief, and of their introducing into the Church superstitious rites and idolatrous observances. — This acknowledged by Whitgift and Cox. — Presumptive proof which it presents that they might depart as far from the original form of ecclesiastical government which was appointed for the Church, 305 LETTER XX. Extraordinary opinion of the Oxford Tractarians, that the Scriptures, though a rule of faith, are not a rule of discipline and practice, and that the latter is to be found in the traditions of the Fathers, along with the Scriptures. — This an impeachment of the perfection of L4 CONTENTS. the Scriptures in opposition to their own explicit statements, and a mean of virtually adding to the institutions which they prescribe to the Church, in opposition to their express and solemn warnings. — The traditions of the Fathers not a safe guide, because those who deliver them were weak, inexperienced, and fallible men, though they lived near to the Apostles ; and if the Scriptures, which were written by men who were inspired, are not sufficient to direct us, we can have no assurance that when we are following these tradi- tions we arc not embracing error. — As much danger of our doing this, and of our making void the institutions of Christ, by our not trusting in the Scriptures exclusively, but adopting what is recom- mended by the traditions of the Fathers, as there was to the Jews of making void the law of God by following the traditions of the elders, because they lived near to the prophets, instead of trusting exclusively in the writings of the prophets. — Eusebius and So- crates condemn some of the traditions of the Fathers, and others of them such as even Puscyites would reject, 324 LETTER XXI. If the reasoning employed in the two preceding letters be well founded, it will not follow that diocesan Episcopacy received the approbation of the Apostles, though it could be proved that it existed in the age next to the apostolic, unless it could be demonstrated that they had expressed their approbation of it in their writings ; but it cannot be proved that it existed in that early age. — The mere catalogues of bishops, to which Episcopalians appeal, will not establish this, un- less they can show that these bishops had the same powers which belong exclusively to their prelates. — This, however, they have never yet done ; and Jerome declares, that even toward the end of the fourth century the power of ordination alone distinguished a bishop from a presbyter. — In his Commentary on Titus, and his Epistle to Evagrius, he represents bishops and presbyters as the same, not only in name, but in authority, and diocesan Episcopacy as a mere human institution, introduced by the Church to prevent schism. — He describes it farther as adopted by degrees, as divisions arose in different Churches or nations, by a decree of each of the Churches, and not of any general council ; and as having com- menced, not at the time of the schism in the Church of Corinth, referred to by Paul in his first Epistle to that Church, but after the writing of the third Epistle of John, and the death of the Apostles. — This represented as the opinion of Jerome, as stated in his writ- ings, by Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and the most eminent foreign Reformers, by the Wirtemburg Confession and the Articles of Smalkald, and by Jewel, Willet, Whitaker, and many other learned and distinguished divines of the Church of England, 339 LETTER XXII. While the constitution of the Church, as settled by the Apostles, is acknowledged by Jerome to have been Presbyterian, he seems to CONTENTS. 15 have approved of a modified Episcopacy as a human arrangement for the prevention of schism. — This remedy acknowledged by Gra- tius to have increased, in place of repressing the evil. — Invalidity of the objection to Presbyterian principles, that they were held by Arius, who denied the divinity of Christ, inasmuch, as though he might err on the latter point, it would not follow that he erred on every other ; for he agreed in many things with Episcopalians, and especially with those of them who condemn prayers for the dead. — Hilary, Augustine and Chrysostom admit the identity of presbyters and bishops. — Clemens Romanus mentions only two orders of ministers, and never refers to diocesan bishops. — No re- ference to them in the Epistle of Polycarp. — The short Epistles of Ignatius proved to be corrupted, so that no dependence can be placed on their statements respecting the orders in the ministry ; and even admitting them to be genuine, no such powers are ascribed in them to bishops as are possessed by modern diocesan bishops, 363 LETTER XXIII. No allusion to the powers of diocesan bishops in the writings of Her- mas. — Nor any notice of such ministers, or of the sign of the cross in baptism, or of confirmation, by Justin Martyr. — No reference to them by Irenaeus, who speaks of the ministers who maintained a succession of sound doctrine from the time of the Apostles in the different Churches, alternately as presbyters and bishops. — The Churches of Gaul describe him as a presbyter, nine years after he was Bishop of Lyons, in the Epistle which they sent with him to the Bishop of Rome, considering it as the most honourable name which they could give him. — Irenaeus represents Polycarp as a presby- ter.— No such powers as those of diocesan bishops ascribed to bishops in the writings of Clemens of Alexandria, or Tcrtullian, or Origen. — Examination of the writings of Cyprian, whose language respecting the dignity of bishops is frequently extravagant. — Proofs of his erring grievously on other subjects, so that it would not be wonderful if he had erred also on this. — Evidence, however, even from his Epistles and other writings of the early Christians, that presbyters, botli in his day, and for some time afterwards, could not only ordain, but sit in councils and even preside in them. — Pas- sages in Cyprian's writings, which furnish more plausible argu- ments, not only for bishops, but for a Pope, than any which are to be found in the preceding Fathers, 389 LETTER XXIV. Reply to the argument for Episcopacy, that there was always impa- rity among the orders in the ministry under the preceding dispen- sations, and there ought still to be imparity under the New Testa- ment Dispensation. — This proved to be a begging of the question, and that we must learn from the Scriptures themselves whether 16 CONTENTS. imparity was to continue among the ministers of the Gospel. — Dr. Raynolds acknowledges, that " those who had been most zealous for the Reformation of the Church for five hundred years before that event," did not believe in the divine institution of Episcopacy. — Dr. Raynolds and Hooker admit this to have been the doctrine of the Waldensian Churches, and of Huss and his followers, who had no minister superior to presbyters. — This proved to be the highest order of their ministers by the testimony of their own pastors, and other authorities. — Calvin and Beza, according to Dr. Raynolds, Hooker, and Hcylin, denied the divine right of Episcopacy, and this confirmed by their writings. — The rest of the leading foreign Re- formers rejected it, though Mclancthon would have submitted to bishops, and even a Pope, for the sake of peace. — Zanchius unfairly claimed by Episcopalians as approving of the powers possessed by their bishops. — The foreign Protestant Churches without bishops, not from necessity, as Episcopalians allege, but from principle. — This proved by Jeremy Taylor 412 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. LETTER I. Ungenerous and unprovoked attack by Puseyite Episcopalians on Presby' terian Churches. Alarming view presented by the former, of the spirit- ual condition of the latter. Necessity imposed on Presbyterians to defend their principles. Reverend Sir, — You cannot feel surprised, that, as a minister of the Presbyterian Church, I should ad- dress you on a subject of paramount importance to Presbyterians in general, and especially to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, namely, the validity of our orders, the efficacy of the sacraments, as we adminis- ter them to our people, and the covenanted title of the pious individuals who belong to our communion to the blessings of salvation. You concede the charac- ter of a true Church to the Church of Rome, though it is stated in your homilies, that, " for the space of nine hundred years, it has been so far aside from the nature of the true Church, that nothing can be more;" and yet you deny it to us and our Presbyterian breth- ren. And the least offensive terms in which you are accustomed to speak of us, are like those employed by the late Archbishop Magee, when he said of us, as compared to the Papists, that, " while they had a church without a religion, we had a religion without a Church." I have waited with anxiety to see whether these charges would be repelled by any of your leading IS LETTERS ON dignitaries, and whether they would speak of us in the same terms of brotherly kindness in which Cran- mer spake of Knox, when he recommended him to be one of King Edward's preachers, for spreading the true religion in England: or in which Parker, Grindal, Whitgift, and Hooker spake of the orthodox Presby- terian Churches in their day; or whether they would evince the same spirit which was displayed by Bishop Hall, Dr. Carlton, and Dr. Ward, when they sat as the representatives of the Church of England in the Synod of Dort, of which the president was a Presby- terian, and the majority of the members were minis- ters and elders of Presbyterian Churches. But I have unhappily been disappointed; and while no friendly voice has been raised on our behalf by any of your bishops or your superior clergy, we continue to be de- nounced as destitute of any right to the honourable character of Christian ministers, because we have not derived our orders from diocesan bishops, who were regularly baptized, and received their orders from other bishops, in an unbroken succession from the Apostles. Our Churches are asserted to be unworthy of the name; our sacraments are represented as with- out virtue, and our people as only " midway" between the favoured members of Episcopalian Churches, "and the heathen, who are without God, without Christ, and without hope in the world." And on a recent occasion, when our title to the very name of a Chris- tian Church was directly questioned in the committee of the Society for propagating Christian Knowledge, neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the Bishop of London, though among the most moderate of your prelates, said a word in support of it, but instructed their friends merely to move the previous question. You will not then think it strange, that when no one else will undertake our defence, we should attempt it ourselves; and while we acknowledge willingly your National Church to be a Church of Christ, should state he grounds on which we claim that character to our own Church, and to the rest of the orthodox Presby- terian Churches, which, though they have not dioce- PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. IS san, possess, we are persuaded, scriptural bishops, and enjoy as full}'' as any churches the means of salvation. I am aware, that if you were able to establish your position, it would be attended by the most serious and alarming consequences to the great majority of the Protestant Churches; and that they could not too soon either enter your communion, or apply to your Church to furnish them with bishops; for the only alternative, as far as is revealed in Scripture, would be diocesan Episcopacy, or perdition. How melan- choly would be the feelings which it would awaken in our breasts, respecting the numerous Presbyterians who lived in England in former times, whose Calamys, Pooles, Howes, Henrys, Wattses, and Doddridges could no longer be regarded as Christian ministers, nor the most pious individuals who were connected with their churches, as having had any well founded hope of future happiness, as well as respecting the whole of the learned and excellent individuals among Presbyterians, Methodists, Independents, and Baptists in the present day. How affecting would be the state of the sainted martyrs of the Scottish Church in former ages, and of her Chalmerses, Gordons, and other dis- tinguished clergy, and of her pious people at the pre- sent time ; as well as of the ministers and members of our Dissenting Churches, all of whom would be labouring under a fearful delusion, as to the validity of their orders, and the efficacy of their privileges; and who would not only be living without the means of grace, but without the smallest prospect, from aught that is revealed in the sacred Scriptures, of their being received when they die into the abodes of blessedness! How painful would be the condition of the Presby- terians in Ireland, the effects of whose labours for the religious and moral regeneration of their country, especially in Ulster, will bear to be compared with those of the clergy, who received their orders from diocesan bishops, in any district of England, but whose Blairs, and Livingstons,* and Lelands, and • Blair and Livingston, with other eminent ministers of the Church of Scotland, laboured for a considerable time in Ireland. 20 LETTERS ON PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. Plunkets,* of former times, as well as their Cookes, Hannahs, Stewarts, and Edgars in the present day, cannot he recognised as Christian ministers; nor can the members of their churches have any thing better to trust in at last, than God's uncovenanted mercy. And how dismal would be the state of the Presbyte- rians in France, who amounted, at one time, to a third part of the nation, and who numbered among their clergy, Daille, La Roque, du Moulin, and Blonde], and among the members of their communion, Marga- ret of Navarre, several princes of the blood, Coligny, du Plessis, and other distinguished individuals; and of the churches of Geneva, Switzerland, Holland, and the North American States, as well as of the Luther- ans on the Continent, who have only superintendents, and not diocesan bishops. Surely an opinion which leads to such consequences, and which unchristianizes at once the living and the dead, and takes from them all covenanted hopes of salvation, would require to he sustained by the most convincing reasoning; and it must be due at once to the memory of the one, and to the comfort of the other, to examine the evidence on which you maintain your position. I remain, Reverend sir, Yours, &c. * The father of Lord Plunket, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was a Presbyterian clergyman. See Philip's Specimens of Irish Eloquence, p. 357. And Lord Campbell, who succeeded him, was the son of a Scottish Presbyterian minister, and had only Presbyte- rian baptism ; so that both these Judges, though keepers of the con- science of the Sovereign, according to Dr. Puscy and Mr. Gladstone, could not be Christians, or have any hope of salvation. 21 LETTER II. Exclusive claims of Puseyite Episcopalians to the Christian ministry, by no means of recent origin. — Saravia not the author of them, but Laud. — Account of the principal individuals in the Church of England who have brought them forward at different periods, when they considered her to be in danger. — Their doctrines proved to be contrary to her principles, from the Thirty-nine Articles, the writings of the bishops who composed her Formularies, and their immediate successors, their conduct towards Presbyterian Churches, the charter granted hy Edward the Sixth to these Churches in London, and the establishment of Presbytery by Elizabeth in Jersey and Guernsey. Reverend Sir, — I am aware that your views of the spiritual condition of Presbyterian Churches, though startling to those who never heard them before, are by no means new. As Papists are accustomed to deny to your Church the name of a Church, and ad- dress the most alarming statements to her members, to induce them, if possible, to join their communion; so some of her more violent and indiscreet defenders have, at different periods, imitated their example, and attempted to terrify the Presbyterians of their day to enter within her pale, telling them that yours was the only Protestant Church in our native country, the ministers of which have authority from Christ to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, and in which they can attain any covenanted title to sal- vation. If we may judge, however, of the measure of success which will attend your labours from the amount of theirs, it will be small indeed; and you will be far more likely to add to the converts to the Church of Rome from the Church of England, than to diocesan Episcopacy from the Presbyterian Churches. I lament to hear that the former has been the case to an appalling extent, and that there is reason to fear it will rapidly increase; for, as O'Connell remarked with great exultation, in a recent debate in the British Parliament, " you and your followers are on your way to Rome."* And I am firmly persuaded, that * How much is the conduct of Dr. Pusey, as well as his writings, fitted to promote this painful result, when, as he acknowledges, he 22 LETTERS ON if sentiments like yours continue to spread among the clergy of your Church, and are propounded as openly, and if not the smallest cognisance of them in the way of censure is taken by your bishops, and if some who maintain them, as in the case of Dr. Hook, are even promoted to new ecclesiastical honours, it may injure her materially, in the estimation of a number of her most pious members, and may constrain them in a short time to leave her communion. The first person in your Church, according to Voe- tius,* who avowed your opinion, was Adrian Sara- via, who was at one time a pastor of the Flemish Church, but became a convert to Episcopacy, and who, in a treatise which he published on degrees in the ministry, applied the same language to his former brethren, which is applied to your clergy, in common with the ministers of all other Protestant Churches, by the Church of Rome. It is but fair, however, to acknowledge, that this statement is controverted by Archbishop Whitgift, who says in a letter to Beza, that " his (Saravia's) purpose was wholly undertaken without the injury or prejudice of any particular Church, and was designed merely to prove that it was agreeable to Scripture, and should be adopted in England."! And this exposition of his sentiments seems to be confirmed by what is said by Saravia himself, who declares, in his answer to Beza, that he " admitted and excused what was done by the rest of the Reformed Churches, in regard to their polity, and did not blame or condemn them."} fell on his knees lately at the elevation of the Host in a Popish chapel in Dublin. He says, indeed, that he did not worship the consecrated wafer, but was desirous only to show his respect for it. How he can reconcile this with his remaining a minister of the Church of England, whose homilies speak of the Church of Rome in the lan- guage quoted p. 17, or with the apostolic admonition, that " we should abstain from all appearance of evil, and do nothing to hurt the con- science of a weak brother," I cannot comprehend. * Politiae Ecclesiastical, pars secunda, p. 837. See, too, Discourse on the Union between Scotland and England, p. 137. t Strype's Life of Whitgift, pp. 409—424. t " Factum Ecclesiarum Reformatarum accipio et excuso, non in- cuso nec exprobro." In his letter published by Strype, (Life of Whit- PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 23 But though he did not adopt, to their full extent, your intolerant views, they were embraced in part by a few of his cotemporaries, who, according to Sadeel, an early Reformer, contended for the necessity of Episcopal ordination, while they acknowledged the foreign " Reformed Churches to be true Churches of Christ."* They were avowed, however, without any limitation, by Archbishop Laud, who, as far as I can discover, was the first individual in the Church of England that maintained them openly, and who, according to Queen Henrietta, " had the heart of a good Catholic."t And though you have lately rob- bed him of the honour of giving a name to the party who profess his sentiments, and who are now deno- minated Puseyites,you ought certainly to resign it, for you, Dr. Hook, Mr. Newman, and Mr. Gladstone, are only his followers. "In July 1604," says Prynne, " hee proceeded batchelour in divinitie. His suppo- sition, when he answered in the divinity schooles for his degree, concerning the erncacie of baptisme, was taken verbatim out of Bellarmine, and hee then maintained there could bee no true Church without gift,) p. 424, he says of Presbytery, which he calls " a new mode of governing the Church," " that it was to he borne with till another that was better could be obtained." * " Veras Ecclesias Christi," Treatise de Legitima Ordinatione Ministrorum, p. 542, of his works, tie represents Dr. Pusey's doc- trine as held at that time to its full extent only by Papists, and reject- ed by the whole of the Reformers. t It is remarkable that even Heylin, though an admirer of the Archbishop, and a fierce Anti-Calvinist, says in his life of Laud, p. 252, in reference to the changes in favour of Popery, which took place under his primacy, " The doctrines are altered in many things; as for example, the Pope not Antichrist, pictures, free will, &c. the thirty-nine articles seeming patient if not ambitious of some Catho- lic sensn." What a faithful representation of the interpretation given of them in the present day, as to many things, by Dr. Pusey, Archdeacon Wilberforcc, Mr. Gladstone, and many others. As far as relates to the doctrine of the Articles on the leading points of evangelical belief, the testimony of Bishop Carlton is deci- sive. " I am well assured," says he, in his Examination of Mon- tague, p. 49, " that the learned bishops who were in the Reformation of the Church, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, did so much honour St. Augustine, that, in the collecting of the articles and homilies, and other things in that Reformation, they had an especial respect unto St. Augustine's doctrines.'''' 24 LETTERS ON diocesan bishops, for which Dr. Holland (then Doc- tor of the chaire) openly reprehended him in the schooles for a seditious person, who would unchurch the Reformed Churches beyond the seas, and sow a division between us and them who were brethren, by this novell Popish doctrine."* And when he was elevated to the primacy, he censured Bishop Hall for admitting that the foreign Protestant Churches were Churches of Christ; " a concession," he affirmed, (and you and Mr. Gladstone 1 have no doubt will agree with him,) " which was more than the cause, of Epis- copacy would well bear."t It was the doctrine of Bishop Montague, who was at one time Archbishop Laud's chaplain, for he asserts expressly that " ordi- nation by Episcopal hands is so necessary, as that the Church is no true Church without it, and the ministry no true ministry, and ordinarily no salvation to be obtained without \t."X It was the opinion of Durel, Beveridge and others, in the end of that century, for we are told by the younger Spanheim, who had laboured without success to reconcile them and the Presbyterians, that " he was little solicitous" about what they thought of a proposal which he had made to them for that purpose, " because to such a degree of perverseness had matters been carried by some of them, that they declared that out of the Episcopal communion there was no ordination, nor ministry, nor sacraments, nor Church, nor faith, nor salva- tion.'^ It was held by Dr. Hickes, who used the fol- lowing extraordinary language respecting the Church of Scotland: "Such a Church I think altogether as unworthy of the name of a Church, as a band of rebels in any country, who have overthrown the con- stitution of it, would be of the name of a kingdom, state, or republic, because such a pretended Church * Prynne's Breviate of his Life, p. 2. t Breviate, p. 399. t Montague's Origines Ecclesiastical, p. 463 — 464. § " Seu jam Hierarchies ha?c conditio probaretur, seu minus, Spanhemius scapham, scapharn dixit, parum sollicitus quid Monta- cutius, quid Durellus, quid Bcveregius," &c. Letter against Van der Way en, p. 110, note. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 25 is not only a variation from the Catholic Apostolic Church, but a sworn destructive confederacy against it, even the abomination of desolation in the house or kingdom of God, of which their pastors are not minis- ters, but most malicious enemies, — not pastors, but wolves of the flock."* And without dwelling on the names of Law or Dodwell, in regard to the last of whom, it is surprising that Bishop Burnet should have erred so egregiously, as to say that it was he who gave rise to this conceit,"t I may briefly notice, that it was maintained by Mr. Jones, the projector and patron of the British Critic, who affirms, that it was as impossible for any one to be saved out of the Episcopal Church from future wo, as it would have been for Noah and his family to have been saved from the deluge out of the ark. And it was strenu- ously defended by the late Archdeacon Daubeny in his Guide to the Church, who, in 1803, gave a remarkable proof of his adherence to your principles, for he refused to obey the orders of his primate to read a prayer on the national fast, because it recog- nised as true Churches the different Presbyterian Churches, in which act of contumacy he was follow- ed, I believe, by his colleague, Dr. Spry.J It is pos- sible, however, that Archbishop Laud and you, with Mr. Percival, Mr. Gladstone, and others of your fol- lowers, may be right, and more liberal Episcopalians may be greatly in the wrong, and you may be acting under the influence of the truest kindness when you tell us, that as our ministers did not receive their * Preface to his Treatise on the Priesthood and the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, p. 200. In the same spirit, Wetmore, in his Vindi- cation of the Professors of the Church of England in Connecticut, pp. 2'J — 30, describes Presbyterian Churches as resembling, " in the mystical body of Christ, excrescences or tumours in the body natural, or perhaps as fungosities in an ulcerated tumour, the caling away of which by whatever means tends not to the hurt, but to the sound- ness and health of the body." t History of his own Times, vol. ii. p. 603. t With a strange inconsistency, he acknowledged, at the same time, as Christian ministers some foreign missionaries, who had only Lutheran orders. " The legs of the lame," as Solomon remarks, " are not equal." 26 LETTERS ON orders from diocesan bishops, regularly baptized and ordained in an unbroken series from the Apostles, they cannot be considered as Christian pastors, nor can their ministrations have any efficacy, nor can our peo- ple have any covenanted title to salvation. Now, the first observation which I have to offer on this doctrine is, that whether it is true or false, it is not the doctrine of the Church of England. The best way to ascertain the doctrine of a Church on any subject, is to examine what is said on it in her public formularies, in the writings of the individuals by whom they were drawn up, and of those who suc- ceeded them, and the course she pursued during the best and purest period of her history, when she acted honestly in accordance with her principles. Now, if we try your opinion by any of these tests, it appears to me to be destitute of the least semblance of support, and to be directly opposed to the doctrine of your Church respecting other Protestant Churches. The only things essential to a Christian Church, according to your 19th Article, are, "the pure preaching of God's word, and the due administration of the sacraments, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of neces- sity are requisite to the same." Now, the experience of centuries furnishes proof which you will not easily answer, that the word may be preached as purely by Presbyterian ministers as by those who have been ordained by diocesan bishops. Even Daubeny speaks with the highest respect of the writings of Doddridge, who never had Episcopal orders ; and Archdeacon Wilberforce confesses, that it was by the perusal of one of them, the Rise and Progress, that his own vene- rable father was led to become pious; and he will not, I presume, venture to deny, that the very same doctrine may be preached to their hearers, by Presbyterian ministers, which has been so signally blessed, when it is met with in their writings.* And, * No work published by any Episcopalian divine, during the last century, has been so much honoured in the conversion of sinners, in all countries where Christianity is professed, as that invaluable trea- tise. Many ministers and members of the Church of England, as PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 27 in regard to Presbyterian baptism, Mr. Gladstone at least ought to acknowledge its validity; otherwise his father, who was baptized by a Presbyterian, and was never re-baptized, would evidently be unchristianized, and could have no hope of salvation. Besides, as you acknowledge baptism by midwives, captains of ships at sea, and Popish priests, though some of the latter, as Jewel informs us, have been so ignorant as to use these words, when administering that ordinance, which are not to be found in any language, " Ego te baptizo in nomine Patria, Filia, et Spirita Sancta*," and as the Church of Rome, which you so much admire, accord- ing to the 36th and 23d canons of the Canon Law, considers baptism, even by Pagans, in case of neces- sity, as valid, I cannot see on what ground you can question the validity of Presbyterian baptism. It is declared, indeed, in your 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." But it is added, " those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called to that work by those who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." Upon which Bishop Burnet remarks, when commenting on the words, " those that are law- fully called and sent," (and his exposition was approv- ed of by Archbishop Tillotson, Bishop Stillingfleet, and other prelates,) "the article does not resolve this into any particular constitution, but leaves the matter open and large for such accidents as had happened, and such as might still happen. They who drew it up had the state of the different Churches before their eyes that had been differently constituted from their own." And says Bingham, your great anti- quary, " Episcopal divines have no need to have Epis- copal government put into the article (the 19th) as a well as others, have confessed, that it was the means of awakening their first serious convictions about salvation. * Defence of his Apology, p. 206. 28 LETTERS ON third note of the Church, though the good men, the Broivnists, were once for having discipline made a third note of the Church, and so aggrieved for the want of it, that," as you do toward us, " they un- churched the Church of England."* " In all their disputes with the Papists they never require more than these two notes of the Church, namely, the preaching of the pure word of God, and the due ad- ministration of the sacraments, according to Christ's ordinance, as stated in the 19th Article."! Agreeably to which, Hooper remarks, (Declaration of Christ and his Offices, c. 11,) "The commune wealthe of the trew Churche is knowyn by these two markes, the preach- ing of the Gospele, and the right use of the sacra- ments." If the language, however, of your formu- laries is so very general that it may be applied to Pres- byterian as well as to Episcopalian Churches, and if they were drawn up in this way, as is acknowledged by these prelates, and that distinguished antiquary, to avoid the smallest appearance of imputation against the validity of the orders of the former Churches, it cannot certainly be the doctrine of your Church that Presbyterian ministers ought not to be considered as Christian ministers, and that their people can have no covenanted hope of salvation. * Frencli Church's Apology for the Church of England, vol. ii. of his works, p. 727. t Page 726. The same view of the meaning of the 19th Article is given by Bishop Tomline, who represents Dr. Pu«ey and Mr. Glad- stone's sentiments as opposed to the principles of the Church of Eng- land, and held only by the Church of Rome. " In like manner," says he, in his Elements of Theology, vol. ii. p. 325, " we often speak of the Church of England, of Holland, of Geneva, and of the Lutheran Church, and all these different Churches are parts of the visible Catholic Church. It is well known that the Church of Rome considers itself as the only Christian Church; but, on the other hand, we extend the name to any congregation of faithful men in the which the "pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. The adherence, therefore, to the fundamental principles of the Gospel is sufficient to constitute a visible Church." And he adds, p. 326, " Upon the same principle we forbear to inquire what precise additions or defects in the administration of the sacraments ordained by Christ annul their (fficacy." PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 29 This view of the principles which I attribute to your Church is confirmed by the fact, that neither Cranmer, nor any of your leading Reformers who drew up the forty-two articles of Edward, nor Jewel, who bore a principal part in reducing them to thirty- nine in the reign of Elizabeth, believed in the divine origin of Episcopacy, but taught expressly, that in the days of the Apostles, bishops and presbyters con- stituted only one order. I shall show afterwards that this was the opinion of Jewel; and it was undeniably that of Cranmer and his fellow Reformers, for Bishop Burnet has preserved a paper subscribed by him, the Archbishop of York, eleven bishops, and many doc- tors and civilians, in which they say, that " in the New Testament no mention is made of any degrees or distinctions of orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops." Nor is it any objection to this statement, that it is affirmed in the preface to the Book of Ordination, that " from the Apostles' time there have been three orders, bishops, priests and deacons;" for it is said only that they were from or after their time, but not in their time. But if they admit distinctly that the superiority of bishops to presbyters was a matter of mere expedi- ency, and not of divine institution, will it be believed, for a moment, by any candid individual, that they could intend to teach in your articles the doctrine which you advocate, namely, that Presbyterian min- isters, however orthodox and pious, are not Christian ministers, and that their people are only midway between you and heathenism? And that such cannot be the doctrine which is sanctioned by your formularies will be manifest, I apprehend, if you look into the writings of the men who made them, and give them credit for ordinary honesty and consistency, or into the writings of their successors for seventy years, and attend to their con- duct either towards Presbyterian ministers, or Pres- byterian churches. If Cranmer, for instance, had held your views, and had intended to introduce them into the Articles, would he have "sent letters," as 30 LETTERS ON Strype informs us, "to Bullinger, Calvin, and Me- lancthon, disclosing to them his pious design to draw up a book of articles, and requesting their counsel and furtherance?" Or would he have appointed Knox, along with Grindal, to examine it before it was adopted? Or would he have submitted the Prayer Book to the Genevese Reformer, or said to him, that " he could do nothing more profitable to the Church than to write often to the King?" Or would he have made two of his friends, Bucer and Martyr, the first Protestant Professors of Theology in Oxford and Cambridge?' Would any of the bishops have recommended that the youth should be examined in his catechism after evening prayers? (Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 91.) Or would his insti- tutes, as is mentioned by Bayle, " have been placed in the parish churches, that the people might read them, and in each of the universities, that after the students had finished their course of philosophy, those of them who were intended for the ministry might be first of all lectured from that book?" If Edward the Sixth, and his bishops and counsellors, had enter- tained your views and Mr. Gladstone's, and had considered them as taught in your Articles, would he have granted a charter to the Church of the Germans in London, though they were not Episcopalians, allowing them, among other things, "to exercise their own proper rites and ceremonies, and their own pro- per peculiar ecclesiastical discipline — that a Church instructed in truly Christian and apostolical opin- ions and rites, and grown up under holy ministers, might be preserved 7t If Elizabeth and her prelates, and the enlightened statesmen who directed her counsels, had believed that your sentiments accorded * Strype's Life of Cranmer, pp. 407-413; Council Dook and Strype's Cranmer, p. 273 ; Nicholl's Comment, on the Book of Com- mon Prayer, Preface, p. 5; Gerdesii Hist. Reformationis, torn. iv. p. 365; Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p 91. Peter Alexander also, a minister of the Protestant Church of France, and other foreign Pro- testant clergymen, received prebends from Cranmer. t Some excellent observations on this charter may be met with in an Essay on the Loyalty of Presbyterians, published in 1713. PUSEVITE EPISCOPACY. 31 either with Scripture, or with the Articles of your Church, would she have passed an act in the thir- teenth year of her reign, as is mentioned by Strype, " by which the ordinations of the foreign Reformed Churches were declared valid, and those that had no other orders were made of the same capacity with others to enjoy any place in the ministry within England, merely on their subscribing the Arti- cles?"* Would she have interposed in behalf of the Reformed Churches, when the Lutheran princes threatened to persecute them, because they refused to subscribe the Form of Concord, denominating them " Pious Churches," or proposed that they should meet with deputies from the Churches of Scotland, Basil, Embden, Bremen, &c. and draw up a common Confession of Faith, which was to be reviewed by Gualter, and Beza ;t or, as is stated by her successor and Dr. Heylin, would she have "established the French Presbyterian Church" in the islands of Jer- sey and Guernsey? J If Archbishop Parker, and the bishops of his day, had concurred in your exposition of the doctrines of your Church, would they have approved of the Second Helvetic Confession? (Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 488); or would his successor Grin- dal have applied to the magistrates of Strasburgh, in behalf of the Dutch Church in that city, representing its members as " members of Christ ?" or to the Lords of the Council for a contribution to Geneva, " for the relief of that poor town, which had served for a nursery unto God's Church, as well as for the main- tenance and conservation of true religion?" or would he have sustained the orders of a Scotsman of * Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 514. t Blondel's Actcs Authentiqucs des Fglises Reformers de France, Germanie, Grande Bretagne, Pologne, Hongrie, Pais Has, touchant la Paix el Charite Fraternelle; edit. 1655, pp. 61-62. Elizabeth sent an ambassador to a meeting of the deputies of these Churches at Frank- fort. { In regard to the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey, see her letter to the baillie and jurats of the former, in Fade's Account of Jersey, p. 123. When a synod of the Churches met, June 28, 1576, and drew up their plan of Church government, the Governors of the island attended and ratified it by their signatures ; pp. 124-125. 32 LETTERS ON the name of Morison, " according," as he expressed it, " to the laudable form a?id rile of the Reformed (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland ?* And with- out quoting at length the sentiments of Jewel ;t of Bishop Cox, who, in a letter to Gualter in 1565, speaks of the Church of Geneva as a Church of God, and its ministers as faithful ministers; % of Hooker,§ and of Sutclive, who, in his treatise on the Church, maintains, that " that is an orthodox and truly Catho- lic Church, which, though dispersed throughout Eng- land, Scotland, Germany, France, and other countries, is united by a harmonious confession of the Christian faith;" and of Bridges, who says that "the difference of these things, (i. e. the manner of orders, offices, rites, and ceremonies,) concerning ecclesiastical gov- ernment, is not directlye materiall to salvation, neither ought to break the bond of peace and Christian con- cord, "|| may I solicit your attention to the opinion of Archbishop Whitgift, who was likely to be as well acquainted with the doctrine of your Articles, as you, or Dr. Hook, or any of your followers? " The essentiall notes of the Churche," says he, " be these only, the true preaching of the worde of God, and the right administration of the sacramentes, for, as Master Calvine sayth, in his booke against the Anabaptistes, This honour is meete to be given to the worde of God, and to his sacramentes, that wheresoever we see the worde of God truely preach- ed, and God accordyng to the same truely wor- shipped, and the sacramentes withoute superstition administered, there we may without all controversie conclude the Churche of God to be. The same is the opinion of other godly and learned writers, and the judgment of the Reformed Churches, as appeareth by their Confessions. So that notwithstanding govern- ment, or some kynde of government, may be a parte * Strype's Grindal, p 271. t Defence of the Apology, p. 28. t Strype's Annals, vol. i. Appendix, p. 57. § Ecclesiastical Polity, book iii. p. 152. II Defence of the Government of the Church of England, p. 87. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACV. 33 of the Church, touching the outward forme and per- fection of it, yet it is not such a part of the essence and being, but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of government, and there- fore the kynde of government is not necessarie unto salvation."* It is true, that after his elevation to the Primacy, he first suspended and then deposed Tra- vers, because he had not received ordination from a diocesan bishop; yet it was not because he regarded Presbyterian orders as invalid in a religious point of view, but because he considered Episcopacy as best adapted to the civil constitution of England;^ for he declared expressly, that " he did not pinch at any Church that used Presbytery, so that they had the consent of the civil magistrate ;"1 and that "he did not condemne any Churches where that govern- ment was lawfully and without daunger received, but had only regard to whole kingdomes, especially this realme, wbere it could not," he supposed, " but be dangerous,"§ because Elizabeth was an absolute monarch, and would admit no control either in Church or State. I might show how much your sentiments about the meaning of the Articles differ from those of James the First and his counsellors, for, in 1615, he sent Du Moulin to the Presbyterian Synod of the Isle of France, to urge them to unite with the other Protes- tant Churches who were sound in the faith, and ready to acknowledge each other as Christian Churches, and to exercise mutual forbearance, in so far as they dif- * Defense of his Aunsvvere to Cartwright's Admonition, p. 491. t See a number of passages in the Defense immediately before p. 658. Notes on Trav'ers' Reasons, Append, to Strype's YVhitgifl, p. 108. t Defense of the Aunswere, p. 633. § Defense of the Aunswere, p. 658. In p. 658, 659, he attempts to prove that " there is no one ccrtaine kinde of government in the Churche which must of neccssitie be perpetually observed ;" and in p. 389, that "the externall government of the Church must bee accord- ing to the form of government used in the commonwealth," which goes to the opposite extreme of error to the opinion of Dr. Pusey and the Papists. 3 34 LETTERS ON f'ered, about ceremonies and Church government.' And he issued a proclamation at the same time, con- firming the establishment of Presbyterianism in Jersey and Guernsey, "after the pious example of his sister Elizabeth, and for the advancement of the glory of Jllmighty God, and the edification of his Church.^X " He is blind," said Bishop Andrews, though a high Episcopalian, " who does not see churches existing without it, (Episcopalian Church government,) and he must have a heart as hard as iron, who can deny them salvation. "X "Your praise," said Dr. Carlton in the Synod of Dort to the ministers of the Church of Holland, " is in all the Churches."§ " In doctrine and the profession of the orthodox faith," says Dr. Cra- kenthorp, " there is no difference between us and the Reformed Churches; and while we agree in this, we can easily forbear with each other as to ceremonies and government."|| And without quoting at length from the writings of Dr. Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, who acknowledges that " there lived in the Church of England many reverend and worthy men, which did not reject the Presbytery ;"1T of Dr. Field, who, in his treatise on the Church, employs a whole chapter to prove against Cardinal Bellarmine, a strenuous de- fender of your opinion, that the Reformed Churches, "whose ministers were ordained only by presbyters, did not cease, on that account, to have any ministerie at all;"**, and of Bishop Davenant, who says, "we * See the Escrit de M. du Moulin, Envoye de Londres au Synode Provincial de l'lsle de France, in Blondel's Actes Authentiques, p. 72—74. t He declares them to be "true and lawful Churches," because they were not in England, but in part of the duchy of Normandy, for toleration was then unknown in Britain among the Episcopalians, though it was practised among the Presbyterians in Holland. X Respon. ad Secundam Epist. Molinasi, inter opera, p. 35. § Brandt's History of the Reformation, vol. iii. p. 4 — 6. y Defcnsio Ecclesioe AnglicanEe contra de Dominis, p. 254. He says, p. 255, to de Dominis, who had censured the Church of Eng- land for endeavouring to effect a union between herself and the other Reformed Churches, "neither you yourself nor any other could have bestowed on her a finer encomium." IT Eleuthcria, p. 90. ** Chap. 39, book 3. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 35 account of them, (the Scottish, Irish, and all other forraigne Churches of the Reformation,) as our breth- ren in Christ, and doe solemnly protest that we enter- tain a holy and brotherly communion with them,"* I shall notice only further, the sentiments of Arch- bishop Usher and Bishop Hall, who were certainly as likely to be acquainted with the true meaning of your Articles, as you, Mr. Newman, Mr. Gladstone, or any other of your followers. " For testifying my communion with these Churches," (those of France and Holland,) said the first of these prelates, "which I do love and honour as true members of the Church Universal, I do profess, that with like affection, I should receive the blessed sacrament at the hands of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I should do at the hands of the French ministers if I were in Charenton."t And, said the second, " Blessed be God there is no difference in any essential matter between the Church of England and her sisters of the Refor- mation ; we accord in every point of Christian doc- trine without the least variation ; their public Confes- sions and ours are sufficient conviction to the world of our full and absolute agreement : the only differ- ence is in the forme of outward administration, where- in we are so far agreed, that we alt pro/ess this forme not to be essential to the being of a Church, (though much importing the well or better being of it, accord- ing to our several apprehensions thereof,) and that Ave do all retain a reverent and loving opinion of each other, in our own several ways ; not seeing any reason why so poor a diversity should work any alienation of affection in us towards one another.";): I might easily have added many other testimonies from your most eminent writers during the first sixty years of the seventeenth century, but I trust that what has been produced will be considered as sufficient to au- thorise me to maintain, that there is not a fact more * Drury's Fides Calholica, p. 41. t Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh on certain points, p. 113. t Peace Maker, vol. iii. of his Works, p. 560. LETTERS ON clearly established in the history of your Church, than that the sentiments which have been expressed by yourself and your followers, respecting the ministers and members of Presbyterian Churches, are in direct opposition to her fundamental principles. You may tell me, I am aware, with the late Arch- deacon Daubeny, that " if I read over the 9th, 10th, and 11th canons, I will find that no meetings, assem- blies, or congregations of the King's born subjects, but those of the Established Church, may rightly chal- lenge to themselves the name of true and lawful Churches."* But you must surely know, that these canons Avere never confirmed by act of Parliament; that they were passed by the Convocation, when the principle of toleration was unknown, and that now, when it is recognised by the law of the land, they are virtually neutralised. The men who made them did not deny that Presbyterian Churches in other coun- tries were true and lawful Churches, but maintained merely that they were not so in England, because they imagined that the Sovereign might model as he pleased the government of the Church, and the only polity which ought to be established there was that of diocesan Episcopacy, because it was best fitted to promote absolute monarchy. Such, we have seen, were the sentiments of Whitgift, and others of your bishops. Such were the sentiments of Downam, who observes, in the defence of his famous sermon, seven years after the passing of these canons, " the King indeed doth say, that it is granted to every Christian king, prince, and commonwealthe, to prescribe to their subjects the outward form of ecclesiastical regi- ment which may seem best to agree with the form of their civil government.'^ Such were the senti- ments of Lord Bacon, whom James at one time con- sulted frequently in regard to the Church. " 1 for my part," says he, "do confess, that in revolving the Scriptures, I could never find, but that God had left the like liberty to the church government, as he had * Appendix to his Guide to the Church, p. 270 t Page 8. PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 37 done to the civil government, to be varied according to time, and place, and accidents. The substance of doctrine is immutable, and so are the general rules of government ; but for rites and ceremonies, and for the particular hierarchies, policies, and disciplines of Churches, they be left at large."* And, says James himself, " I protest upon mine honour, I mean it not generally (the name of Puritan,) of all preachers or others that like better the single form of policie of our Church, (the Church of Scotland,) then of the many ceremonies in the Church of England, that are per- suaded their bishops smell of Papal supremacie, that the surplice, the corner cap, and such like, are the outward badges of Popish errors. No, I am so far from being contentious about these things, (which, for my own part, I ever esteemed indifferent,) as I do equally love and honour the learned men of either these opinions."t But if such were the sentiments of the King himself, and of some of his principal advisers, and of the leading members of both Houses of Convo- cation, who made these canons, can you seriously believe it to be the doctrine of these men, or the doc- trine of your Church in the present day, that none but clergymen who have received their orders from dio- cesan bishops, in an unbroken series from the Apos- tles, are Christian ministers, and that none but the members of Episcopalian Churches have a covenant- ed title to the blessings of salvation ?f I remain, Reverend Sir, yours, &c. * Considerations touching the Pacification of the Church, address- cd to King James, vol. iii. of his Works, p. 15U. + Basilicon Doron, p. 144 of his Works. 1 James no doubt endeavoured afterwards to crush the Presbyte- rians, but it was owing entirely to their refusing to submit to his absolute authority, in religious as well as civil matters, arid to the gross flattery which he received from the bishops, while the former spoke to him openly and honestly, when they could not agree to his claims. " I have ever," said Bishop Barlow, (preface to his account of the Hampton Court Conference, p. 2,) " accounted the personal commendation of living princes in men of our sort a verball symony" And yet compare with this remark the adulation which he acknow- ledges was paid to James at this conference by the Episcopalians, p. 20— G2, 83—84. Bancroft fell on his knees and said to him, "I protest iny heart mcltcth for joy that Almighty God, of his singular 38 LETTER III. These doctrines condemned in the strongest terms by the most distinguish- ed Protestant Statesmen after the Reformation; Cecil, the Lord Presi- dent of Queen Elizabeth's Council, Sir Francis Knollys, and Lord Bacon, and denounced as " a Popish conceit," by the leading bishops and clergy. Dissimilarity between the Church of England, beyond whose pale, and that of the Church of Rome, Puseyites deny that there is any hope of salvation, and the Apostolic Church, in the extent of its bishoprics, the civil power exercised by its prelates, the multitude of its ceremonies, and " its want," according to its own acknowledgment, " of a godly disci- pline." Reverend Sir, — I trust that it has been proved in the preceding letter, that so far were your principles from receiving the smallest countenance from the clergy of your Church, for seventy years after the time of the Reformation, they were spoken of gene- rally in terms of the strongest and most decided dis- approbation. Nor were these feelings confined to your leading dignitaries, but were expressed by some of the most talented and distinguished among the laity; and, in particular, by some of the most illustri- ous of Elizabeth's ministers, who constituted the pil- mercy, hath given us such a king-, as since Christ's time hath never been." And said Chancellor Egerton, " I have never seen the king and priest so fully united in one person." Upon which it was observed by Warburton, that " Sancho Panza never made a better speech, nor more to the purpose, during his government." Nay, in the pre- face to the edition of the works of James, which was published by Bishop Bilson, a. d. 1616, during the life of that monarch, he con- cludes one of i he most fulsome pieces of flattery that was ever writ- ten, by raising him in one respect above Solomon! How justly these praises were bestowed, may be learned from James's " Counterblaste to Tobacco," to which he had a great aversion, and his Treatise on Demonologie, the last of which is represented by the bishop as " a rare piece for many precepts and experiments, both in divinitie and naturall philosophic." The following is a specimen of his wisdom and learning, taken from the titles of some of the chapters of the lat- ter work, and the illustrations are not less worthy of the man who was superior to Solomon. " The forme of the conventions of witches, and of their adoring of their master;" book ii. chap. 3. " What are the ways possible, whereby the witches may transport themselves to places farre distant;" chap. 4. " Why there are more women of that craft than men;" chap. 5; and, "What sort of folkes are least or most subject to receive harm by witchcraft;" chap. 6, &c. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACV. 39 lars of her political greatness, and whose extensive acquirements, even in theological learning, present a very striking and instructive contrast to t hose of Mr. Gladstone, as far as we can judge from his writings. So far was Cecil from approving of your sentiments, that he urged his Mistress to attempt that general union among Protestants to which I have already alluded, without any regard to their different forms of ecclesiastical polity. So little did another of her most enlightened counsellors sympathise with your views, that when Archbishop Sandys endeavoured to deprive Whittingham of the deanery of Durham, because he had received only Presbyterian orders, it failed. And when the attempt was renewed, " it again," says Strype, " fell to the ground ; the Lord President ob- serving, with some warmth, before the Archbishop and the other members of the Commission, that he could not in conscience agree to deprive him for that, for it ivould be ill taken of all the godly and learn- ed at home and abroad, that we should allow," as you propose, " of the Popish massing priests in our ministry, and disallow of ministers made in a Reformed Church.''''* So greatly was Lord Bacon opposed to your opinion, when it was brought for- ward by some in the days of Laud, that he speaks of it in terms of decided reprobation. " Yea, and some indiscreet persons," says he, " have been bold in open preaching to use dishonourable and derogatory speech and censure of the Churches abroad, and that so far, as some of our men, (as I have heard,) ordain- ed in foreign parts, have been pronounced to be no lawful ministers. Thus we see the beginnings were modest, but the extremes are violent, so as there is almost as great a distance now of either side from itself, as was at the first of one from the other."t And in 1588, when Bancroft, in his sermon at Paul's Cross, advocated only the divine institution of Episco- pacy, without unchurching the Presbyterian Churches, * Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 523. t Advertisement touching the Controversies of the Church of Eng- land, Works, vol. iv. p. 426. 40 LETTERS ON it excited the astonishment of Sir Francis Knollys, Queen Elizabeth's kinsman, who had never heard such doctrine propounded before; and upon writing to Dr. Reynolds, he received a long and able confuta- tion of it, which I am firmly persuaded you have never seen, and which cannot be too generally perus- ed by the members of your Church in the present day. Not only, however, was your opinion condemned by the clergy and laity of your Church, at the period referred to, but it was considered as one of the pecu- liar and most obnoxious tenets of the Church of Rome, by which she was distinguished from the whole of the Protestant Churches. Papists, you know, say of their Church, that it alone is the true Church in which you will meet with the real apostolical succession and the means of salvation. "Nevertheless," says Jewel, "in this they triumph;" and it is the very language which is employed by your followers respecting the Church of England to British Presbyterians, " that they bee the Church ; that their Church is Christ's Spouse, the pillar of truth, the arke of Noe, and that without it there is no hope of salvation."* And Professor Nichol Burn, in an address to James the First, gives thanks to God, " be- cause of his infinite gudness, he had granted him knowlege to his aeternal salvation, delivering him out of the thraldome and bondage of that idolatrous Cal- vinisme, (Presbytery,) with the quhilk, alace, manie, be ane blind zeal, ar fraudfullie deceavit, to the lament- able perdition of their awin saulis, except be earnest repentance spedelie they returne to their spiritual mother, the halie Catholic Kirk."t Now, it is impos- sible to conceive stronger terms than those in which your Reformers reprobate the idea, that communion either with the Church of Rome, or any other Epis- * Apology, part 4. chap. 9. divis. 2. See, too, part 6. chap. 20. divis. 1. t Disputation concerning' the Controversit Headdis of Religion, hulden in the rcalme of Scotland, the zear of God ane thousand five hundred and fourscoir zcirs, &c, by Nicol Burne, p. 2. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 41 copalian Church, is necessary to salvation, or that orders derived from diocesan bishops are necessary, on the part of faithful pastors, to give efficacy to their ministrations, or to entitle their Churches to the hon- ourable character of Christian Churches. " There- fore," says Jewel to Harding the Jesuit, " we neither have bishops without church, nor church without bishops. Neither doth the Church of England this day depend of them whom you often call apostates, as if our Church were no Church without them. Not- withstanding, if there were not one of them, (the clergy who had received their orders from diocesan bishops,) nor of us (the bishops) left alive, yet will not therefore the whole Church of England flee to Lovaine" for orders. And he declares, that in such circumstances pious laymen might renew the succes- sion* " The Pape," observes Whitgift, (and it is remarked by Strype, that his Aunswere to Cartwright may be justly esteemed and applied to as one of the public books of the Church of England,t) "The Pape says, that to be subject to him is of necessitie unto salvation; so do not our archbishops. "J " Here is the difference between our adversaries the Papists and us," says Willet. " They say it is of necessitie to be subject to the Pope, and to bishops and arch- bishops under him, as necessarily prescribed in the word; but so doe not our bishops and archbishops, which is a notable difference between the bishops of the Popish Church and of the Reformed Churches. Let every Church use that forme which best fitteth their state: in external matters every Church is free, not one bound to the prescription of another, so they measure themselves by the rule of the word."§ And, * Defense of the Apology, p. 129-130, &c. It deserves to be remembered, that Strype says, " it was composed and written by the reverend father as the public confession of the Catholic and Christian faith of all Englishmen, wherein is taught our consent with the Ger- man, Helvetian, French, Scotch, Genevan, and other Reformed Churches." Annals, vol. i. p. 251. t Strypc's Whitgift, p. 42. t Defense of his Aunswere, p. 382. § Willet's Synopsis Papismi, Appendix to the Fifth General Ques- tion. 42 LETTERS ON says Downam to a Puritan who had animadverted on his sermon, " the Popish opinion is farre different from that which I hold; for they hold the order and superiority of bishops to be jure divino, implying thereby a perpetual necessitie thereof. Insomuch that where bishops are not to ordaine they thinke there can be no ministers or priests, and consequently no church. I hold otherwise. Wherefore my opinion being so different from the Popish conceit, who seeth not that the judgment of onr divines which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposed to mine?" Nor was the difference less forcibly characterised by Dr. Holland, when he denounced your opinion, as stated by Laud, as " a novell Popish doctrine." If your divines, however, till the days of Downam, con- sidered that opinion as " a Popish conceit," and " a novel Popish doctrine," and the opposite principle as constituting " a notable difference" between your Church and the Papists, I trust you will not consider me as wanting in charity, if, under the sanction of such high and venerable authority, I represent you in the character which they would unquestionably have assigned to you, had they been living at present, namely, as a patron of Popery, and to express my astonishment that you and your followers should be allowed to continue in the communion of your Church. But you may tell me, that though it is a Popish, it is nevertheless a scriptural doctrine, for the Church of which we read, Eph. ii. 20, as having been founded by the Apostles, and out of which there is no salva- tion, contained in it bishops, priests and deacons, and it is only when a Church resembles the Church as it was then constituted in the orders of its clergy, and its form of government, that it is entitled to be con- sidered as a Church of Christ. You must prove, how- ever, before you deduce this inference, that the Church which is there referred to, and out of which it is declared, in other passages, there is no salvation, is the visible Church possessing in all respects the very form of external government which was at first estab- lished. The Church of England at the time of the PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 43 Reformation, as I have already showed you, did not think so, nor was it the opinion of any of the Protes- tant Churches. " There are two kyndes of govern- ment," said Whitgift; "the one invisible, the other visible; the one spiritual!, the other external!. The invisible and spirituall government of the Church is, when God by his spirite, gyftes and ministerie of his worde, doth governe it by ruling in the hearts and consciences of men, and directing them in all things necessarie unto everlasting life. This kinde of gov- ernment indeed is necessarie unto salvation. The visible and external government is that which is exe- cuted by manne, and consisteth of external discipline and visible ceremonies, practised in that Church." And then, after remarking that " the worde necessarie signified eyther that without the which a thing cannot be, or that without the which it cannot so well and conveniently be," he adds, " I confesse, that in a church collected together in one place, and at hbertie, government is necessarie in the second kind of neces- sitie, but that any one kind of government is so tieces- sarie, that ivithout it the Church cannot be saved, I utterlie denie."* And he was justified in doing so, for it is not to faith produced only by the preaching of a diocesan bishop, or of clergymen ordained by him, that salvation is promised in the Scriptures, but to true faith produced by the preaching of any pious ministers who have received their orders through a regular channel. It is not to repentance resulting from the instructions only of Episcopalian clergy- men deriving their orders from diocesan bishops, that forgiveness is promised through the blood of the cross, (Acts iii. 19; xi. 18;) but to sincere repentance, whoever may be the ministers whose impressive state- ments and touching appeals, accompanied by the influ- ences of the Holy Spirit, have implanted it in the heart. And it is not to holiness attained only under the ministry of Episcopalian clergymen, but of all evangelical pastors, that the Almighty has declared, Heb. xii. 14, that the individual who possesses it shall * Defense of the Aunswerc, p. 81. 44 LETTERS ON " see the Lord." But perhaps I am wrong in sup- posing that you will admit that faith, or repentance, or personal holiness, can be attained without the j)ale of Episcopalian Churches, and that to your other tenets this must be added, (I shall be glad if you disclaim it,) that nothing which can be regarded as spiritually good can result from the labours of Presby- terian ministers.* But if there be no revealed or covenanted hope of salvation to the members of a church, unless she con- tinue in the state in which the primitive Church was left by the Apostles as to the orders of her clergy, and government, and worship, is there no reason to fear as to their personal salvation to the ministers and members of the Church of England? Does she remain in the state of the Apostolic Church, both as to the offices and distinctions which exist among her ministers ? The most eminent individuals who laboured zealously for the purification of the Church, from the earliest ages till the time of the Reformation, would not have thought so, for they have declared it as their opinion, that in the time of the Apostles there were only two orders of ministers in the Church, bishops or presbyters, whose office appeared to them to be the same, and deacons, and that there ought still to be no more. Such was the opinion of the author of the work entitled Aetates Ecclesiae, which, according to Flaccius Illyricus, was written long be- fore the Reformation. t Such was the opinion of the * I would like to know whether Puseyites believe that the pious conversation of wives, who are Presbyterians, is likely to win their husbands to the faith, and love, and obedience of the Gospel, accord- ing to the statement of Peter, in his 1st Epistle, iii. 1, or whether it must be expected to fail, because they have never had Episcopal bap- tism, and are not in communion with Episcopalian Churches. And I would wish also to be informed, whether they believe the conversa- tion of pious Presbyterians can do no good to others in health or sickness, or when they happen to visit them on their beds of death. I take it for granted that they are persuaded there is no reason to hope that the preaching of the most pious Presbyterian ministers can lead to the conversion of a single sinner. t " Distinguitur autem juristis ipsa primitiva ecclesia in primam et secundam unde Dist. 93. legimus, &c. The Primitive Church is distinguished by the jurists into the first and second. In the first PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 45 celebrated Archbishop of Armagh, the great reformer of his day, usually denominated Ricardus Armacanus, who, though himself a dignified Episcopalian, bears a striking testimony to Presbyterian principles, as characterizing the Apostolic Church, for he observes, that " in the writings of the Evangelists or Apos- tles, no difference is to be discovered between bishops and simple priests who are called Presbyters, whence it follows that their power in all things is the same, and they are equal from their order."* Such, too, was the opinion of Wicklif, the harbinger of the Reformation in England, for one of his principles, which was controverted at great length by Wood- ford, was, that, "in the time of the Apostle Paul, two orders of clergy were reckoned sufficient for the Church, priests and deacons; nor were there in the days of the Apostles any such distinctions as those of a pope, patriarchs and bishops."t And what, per- primitive Church, the office of bishops and priests, as well as the names, was the same. But in the second primitive Church, the names and offices begun to be distinguished. Therefore the names presbyter and bishop were entirely of similar import, and their power was the same, for the churches were governed by a common council of priests. Therefore, as there was no difference from the beginning, the prelates ought not to carry themselves too haughtily above the priests." * " Non invenitur in Scripturis Evangclicis aut Apostolicis aliqua differentia inter episcopos et simplices sacerdotes qui appellantur Presbyteri, &c. Lib. 5. ad Quaest. Armcnorum. He flourished in the fourteenth century. t "Quod tempore Apostoli Pauli sufficiebant ecclcsia? duo ordines clcricorum, sacerdos et diaconus, ncc fuit tempore Apostolorum dis- tinctio papa?, patriarcharum, episcoporum." Woodford quotes against him a decree, as he terms it, of C lemens Romanus, and adds, " In quibus verbis sicut Clemens distinguit inter presbytcrum et diaco- num, sic inter episcopum et presbyterum," and prosecutes the argu- ment very fully. Sec the whole disputation in the Fasciculus Rerum Expet. et Fugiend., published at Cologne, in 1535, by Orthunius Gratius, and republished by Edward Brown. 1600, vol. i. p. 209, from which it is evident that Wicklif must have been a Presbyterian, Henricus dc Jota also, or according to others, dc Hcuta, who taught at Vienna in 1371, and who is highly celebrated by Gerson, Chancel- lor of Paris, asserts, " that the reservation of causes to the popes and bishops was a matter not of divine but human appointment, for all priests have equally the power of the keys. Reservationem istam casuum jam papis et episcopis usitatam non divini, sed humani juris 46 LETTERS ON haps, will have more weight with you than the opin- ion of these reformers, as they appear to have been Presbyterians, even Jewel himself, when he wrote his Apology, does not seem to have thought so; for, says he, " in St. Hierome's time, there were metro- politans, archbishops, archdeacons, and others. But Christ appointed not these distinctions of orders from the beginning."* Here, then, is one point of very great importance, in which there is a striking differ- ence between your Church and the Apostolic Church. Again does your Church resemble that Church in respect to her ceremonies, guarding against the error which was pointed out by the Redeemer, when he said, " In vain do they worship me, teaching for doc- trines," in regard to my service, " the commandments esse : Omnes enim sacerdotes aequale jus clavium habere." Is not this Presbytcrianism ? Atto, Bishop of Verceil in Italy, who, according to Ughellus, flourished about the middle of the tenth century, says, in his treatise on the judgment of bishops, published by D'Achery in the eighth vol. of his Spicilegium, "the order of bishops and that of presbyters were not two different orders in Paul's time, but were distinguished afterwards." Francowitz, or Flaccius Illyricus, in his Catalogus Tcstium Veri- tatis, fol. 1793, tells us, that Florentinus, when speaking of the here- sies of Petrus de Corbaria, and John and Michael Cesanas, of the order of the Minorites, mentions as one of them, that " all priests, of whatever grade, by the institution of Christ, have equal authority, power and jurisdiction. Quod sacerdotes omnes, cujuscunque gradus existant, sunt aequalis authoritatis, potestatis et jurisdictionis insti- tutione Christi." They lived in the fourteenth century. The copy of the Catalogus, from which I quote this and some of the other testimonies to Presbyterian principles, belonged to Archbishop Leigh- ton. Marsilius Patavinus, who lived a. d. 1324, is said, in the Catalo- gus Testium Vcritatis, p. 488, to have maintained this opinion in his treatise, entitled, Defensor Pacis, " that all bishops and priests are equal. Omnes episcopos et sacerdotes esse aequales." * Defense of the Apology, p. 92. "Concerning this work," says Strype, (Annals, vol. ii. p. 490,) " three great princes successively, Queen Elizabeth, King James and King Charles, and four arch- bishops, were so satisfied with the truth and learning contained in it, that they enjoined it to be chained up and read in all parish churches throughout England and Wales." Mocket, Archbishop Abbot's chaplain, mentions many more dis- tinctions among the clergy of the Church of England than Bishop Jewel. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 47 of men?" Jewel observes, "The old father S. Augus- tine, complaineth of the multitude of vain ceremonies, wherewith he even then (beginning of the fifth centu- ry) saw men's minds and consciences overcharged."* And yet, according to Hooper and Cecil, you have a greater number of them in the Church of England than were to be found either in the Jewish Church, or in the Christian Church in the days of Augustine. " Further," says the former, " to augment the ceremo- nies of the Churche, and bring in a new Judaisme and Aaronicall rites, is against this commandment, (the fourth). As the bishopes hath usyd the matter, there be more ceremonies in the Churche of Christ than were in the Churche of the Jewes, as it shall easily apere to him that will confer our Churche with the bookes of Moses."t And says the latter to a noble Italian at Rome, whom he wished to convert from Popery, "Yea, as for external discipline, I can assure you, our Church is more replenished with ecclesias- tical rites than was the primitive Church in Jive hundred years after Christ. Insomuch as the Church of England is, by the Germans, French, Scots, and others that call themselves reformed, thought to be herein corrupted, for retaining so much of the rites of the Church of Rome. "J But if this is really the case, (and he could not be mistaken,) it constitutes a very great and serious difference between the worship of your Church and the Apostolic Church. § * Apology for the Church of England, part 5, chap. iii. di vis. 5. t Declaration of the ten holy commandments. I Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 533. § We are told by A'Lasco, in his Treatise de Ordinatione Eccle- siarum Peregrinarum in Anglia, published a. d. 1555, and dedicated to Sigismund, King of Poland, that Edward the Sixth and his Coun- cil were anxious to accomplish a far more extensive reformation of the Church of England than has ever been effected. " When I was called by that King," says he, " and when some laws of the country stood in the way, that it was not possible that the rites of public di- vine worship used under Popery should be immediately purged out, though it was what the King himself desired; and while I was earn- estly standing up for the churches of the foreigners, at length it was his pleasure that the public rites in the English churches should be reformed hi/ certain degrees, as far as it could possibly be got done for the laws of the kingdom. But that strangers, who were not so strict- 48 LETTERS ON You restrict your clergy, in their public services, to forms of prayer which were never employed in the Apostolic Church, though they prevent your ministers from applying to the Spirit, as a Spirit of grace and supplications, to suggest intercessions to them, accord- ing to this part of his blessed character, (Romans viii. 26, 27,) which they may present for their people, and though, as Bishop Wilkins remarks, "prayer by book is commonly flat and dead, and has not that life and vigour to engage the affections, as when it proceeds immediately from the soul itself; and set forms do especially expose people to lip service and formal- ity."* And he might have added, that they want ly obliged by the laws of the country in this matter, should have churches granted them, wherein they might freely perform all things according to apostolical doctrine and observation only, without hav- ing any regard to the rites of the country, that by this means it would come to pass that the English churches would be excited to em- brace apostolical purity, with the unanimous consent of all the states of the kingdom. " The king himself, from his great piety, was both the chief author and defender of this project. For, though it was almost universally acceptable in the King's Council, and though the Archbishop of Can- terbury himself promoted the thing with all his might, yet there were some who took it ill, and would have showed more reluctance to it, had not the King given them a repulse, both by his authority and the reasons he gave for this design. The churches of strangers being accordingly allowed, upon condition, or rather with a liberty, that all things in them should be ordered according to the doctrine and prac- tice of the Apostles, the care of them, by the authority of the King and Council, was committed to me, and I was commanded to choose such colleagues for myself, as I should judge fittest for that service, that their names might be inserted in the King's patent. Cum ego quoque per regem ilium vocatus essem," &c. Such is the statement of A'Lasco, whom Edward and his counsel- lors denominated in the patent, "homo propter integritatem et inno- centiam vitoe et morum, et singularem eruditionem, valde Celebris." He published his book about tour years afterwards ; and his state- ment accords with the appointment of thirty-two commissioners by Ed- ward, (of whom A'Lasco was one,) to draw up the Reformatio Legum Eeclesiasticarum. That work was stopped, in consequence of the death of the King, and little progress was made in the reformation of the Church under Elizabeth. Many of the bishops, during the reign of that Princess, lamented it greatly; but it gratified the Papists, and is still a source of great satisfaction to them, for one of their bishops declared lately, that " he loved the Church of England, because she was the least reformed of all the Reformed Churches." * Gift of Prayer, by Bishop Wilkins, p. 9, 10. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 49 that variety which is suited to the ever varying cir- cumstances both of the private Christian, and of the Church at large ; and that it is equally uncomfortable to hear the very same prayers repeated annually, for forty, or fifty, or sixty years, as it would be to hear the very same sermons repeated annually for a similar period. Besides the prayer-book you use, and on which you will suffer no alterations, as Edward the Sixth said in his letter to the Kentish rebels, is just "the old Popish service translated into English," which James the First, you know, denominated at one time '•' an ill-said mass." In administering baptism, you make the sign of the cross on the forehead of the child, though it was nei- ther made on the forehead of the Saviour at his bap- tism, nor of any other individual who is mentioned in the New Testament, and though, as Barlow acknow- ledges, in his account of the conference at Hampton Court, no example of it can be produced before the days of Tertullian, when, as is proved by the author of Ancient Christianity, Sir Peter King, and others, many gross superstitions had been introduced into the Church. And if you tell me that it was adopted at a very early period, I reply, with Bradshaw, " so are many other Popish traditions, (for the mystery of ini- quity soon began to work) ; and if on that ground we are to retain it, why do we not give the baptised milk and honey? for this was practised along with the other. Why do we not bring offerings for the dead? for Ter- tullian, the first of the fathers that ever mentioned the cross, doth establish these and the sign of the cross by one and the self-same warranty. Besides, if upon the fathers' tradition we use the cross, then must we receive and use it as they have delivered it unto us, that is, with opinion of virtue and efficacy, not only in the act of blessing ourselves, and in expelling oj devils, but even in the consecration of the blessed sacrament. For the first, Tertullian is witness, saying, at every passage, at every setting forward, at every coming in and going out, at putting on of our clothes, shoes, &c, we stamp our forehead with the 4 50 LETTERS ON sign of the cross."* And surely, if you make the sign of the cross in baptism on the child's forehead, because the fathers did it, you are bound equally to make it on your own forehead, when you put on or off your hat, or coat, or any part of your dress, or your shoes; and for the very same purpose, namely, to chase away devils; and I have not yet heard that you have come so far as this in your imitation of the ancient Church. Nor do you use that sign even in baptism as it was employed by the fathers, for, as he further remarks, " it is apparent that Cyprian, Augus- tine, Chrysostom, and others, in those times, did con- secrate the element [or water) therewith, and did not cross the child's forehead, but referred that unto the bishop's confirmation, so that our crossing the in- fant's forehead, and not the element of baptism, is a meere novelty"! In this respect, therefore, you differ both from the apostolic and the ancient Church. * Treatise on Worship and Ceremcnies, p. 114. He adds, "for chasing of devils, Jerome counselleth Demetrius to use the cross," (Epist. ad Demctrium ;) "and with often crossing guard thy forehead, that the destroyer of Egypt find no place in thee." Lactantius saith, (lib. 4, cap. 24,) "Christ's followers do by the sign of the cross shut out the unclean spirit." Chrysostom, on Psalm 109, says, "the sign of the cross guardeth the mind; it taketh revenge on the devil; it cureth the diseases of the soul." t "Neither will that place of Tertullian de Resurrectione Carnis prove the contrary." " The flesh," says he, " is washed, that the soul may be purged; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be con- secrated ; the flesh is signed, that the soul may be guarded ; the flesh is shadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be by the spirit enlightened ; the flesh doth feed on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be filled and fatted of God. In which words he, joining together diverse ceremonies of the Christians, doth indeed mention the signing of the faithful; but it may be as well referred to confirmation, expressed by imposition of hands, as to baptism, un- derstood by washing of the bod}', and that on beUer reason, for it is more than probable that the sign of the cross was not yet used in bap- tism, seeing Justin Martyr, in Defens ad Anton., and Tertullian, de Baptismo et de Corona Mililis, do describe the form of baptism used in those times, and yet make no mention of the cross therein, which in all likelihood they would not have omitted if it had been used therein, especially Tertullian, who in that place speaketh of the cross as used out of baptism in the ordinary blessing of themselves." He says, in his Treatise on Kneeling in the Sacrament, p. 94, of the preceding work, that " Papists themselves call the Church of England, for retaining this and other Popish Ceremonies, Puritan PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 51 You lay the stipulations in baptism, not on the parents, who are enjoined by the Almighty to "bring up the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," but on god-fathers and god-mothers, who seldom see them, in regard to which even the Epis- copalian clergy at Aberdeen confess, " we have no precept orv example of it in the Holie Scripture; yea, some of our learned divines affirm that it was insti- tuted by Pope Higinus."* You represent every one who is baptised as regen- erated, or, in the language of your Catechism, as " made thereby a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven." And Archdeacon Wilberforce affirms, that " the seed of grace," which was implanted in his father at baptism, was preserved; while his father himself acknowledges, that, till he met with Doddridge's Rise and Progress of Religion, and it was blessed to him by God, he was dead in trespasses and sins. And yet you are informed in Scripture that Simon Magus, though baptised by an Apostle, whose orders surely would be valid- continued " in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity." And as Frith remarks, "if a Jew or an infidel (as has sometimes been the case) should say that he dyd beleve, and beleved not in deede, and upon his words were baptised in deede, (for no man can judge what his heart is,)"t he could not be in the state described in your Catechism, for it is distinctly stated, that while he who believeth shall be saved, "he who believeth not shall be damned." You receive the communion at an altar like the Papists, and not at a table like Christ and his Apos- Papistical," and appeals in proof of it to the Conccrtatio Cathol. Ecclcs. in Argum. In the Almanac Spiritual, an old Waldensian Tract, published by Leger, in his Hist, des Eglises Vaudois, p. 65, the sign of the cross in baptism is condemned. " Le signe de la croix sur l'enfant a la poitrene et au front." And the Churches of the Waldenses were "the cradle" of the Churches of the Reformation. * Duplies to the Answers of some Reverend Brethren concerning the Covenant, p. !)7. t See Ills Myrrour or Looking-Glasse, wherein you may beholdf the sacrament of Baptisme described, Works, p. 91. 52 LETTERS ON ties, and the early Christians, and you take it kneeling, though they took it in the posture which was common at meals. This is certainly surprising, since as Peter Martyr, who was to have been one of your first pro- fessors of divinity, says, " Kneeling at the sacrament was introduced on account of transubstantiation, and the real presence."* And it is still more extraordinary in a Protestant Church, if it be true, as is mentioned in the notes by Alexander de Hales, that the Pope, when he communicates, does it sitting, because the Apostles communicated sitting. In this respect also you differ widely from the Apostolic Church, and are less scriptural in your worship than the very Pope.t * Per transubstantiationem et realem presentiam invecta est in ccclesiam. Colum. sect 21. t " At the least," says the author of the Re-examination of the Five Articles of Perth, " kneeling was left free in the days of King Edward the Sixth. The Papists making a stir about want of reve- rence to the sacrament at the second reviewing of the book of Com- mon Prayer, kneeling was enjoyned upon this reason that the sacra- ments might not be prophaned, but holden in a holy and reverential estimation. This was done by the directors and contrivers of the book, partly to pacify the Papists, partly because their judgment was not cleare in this point." " That supper had all silting in common together, saith Chrysos- tom, as he is quoted by that writer, p. 19. CEcumenius hath the like. This is not to eat the Lord's supper, says he. He meaneth that supper which Christ delivered when all his disciples were present. For in that supper the Lord and all his servants sat to- gether." " The two thousand soldiers," he remarks, p. 24, "who were re- conciled to the Emperor Mauritius about the year 590, by means of Gregorius, Bishop of Antioch, receaved the sacrament sitting vpon the ground, as Evagrius reporteth." (Evag. lib. 6, cap. 13.) " Dr. Lindsay alledgeth the like done to the Scottish armie at Ban- nockburn, in the dayes of King Robert Bruce." (Soe his Defence, p. 53-54.) "Balsamon, upon the nineteenth canon of the Concilium Trullan- um, saith, the devouter sort, upon Saturday at midnight, sat in the kirke, and did communicate. Alexander de Hales, in the second part of his tractate concerning the masse, sayth, the Pope communicateth sitting, in remembrance that the Apostles at the last supper commu- nicated sitting. Si quaeratur quare Dominus Papa sedendo commu- nicat, &c. " That the Waldenses sat will appear from Balthazar Lydius. And Luther, expounding the epistle upon St. Stephen's day, saith, Christ so instituted the sacrament, that in it we should sit at the sacrament. But all things are changed, and the idle ordinances of men are come PUSEVITE EPISCOPACV. 53 You bow during the reading of the Gospels at the name Jesus, and not at the name Christ or Immanuel, or any of the other names of the Redeemer, or any of the names of the other persons of the Godhead, justi- fying your adoration of that particular name, which never appears to have received that external token of homage in the apostolic age, by an erroneous inter- pretation of Philippians, ii. 10. And yet you are aware that Archbishop Usher, one of your most dis- tinguished prelates denied that the practice could be founded on that passage, and "wondered at some learn- ed men's assertions, that it was the exposition of all the fathers upon it. And as the wise composers of the Liturgy gave no direct injunction for it there, so in Ireland he withstood the putting it into the canons in 1634."* "I think the place to the Philippians," says Bishop Babington, " not well understood, hath and doth deceive them. The place is borrowed from the Prophet Isaiah, and therefore, by conference, evi- dent that the word name signifies power, glory, hon- in place of divine ordinances. Zuinglius, setting down the forme of celebration used at Berne, Zuricke, Basile, and other neighbour townes, sayth, sitting and harkening with silence to the word of the Lord, we eat and drink the sacrament of the supper. We have put down altars," says A'Lasco, " and use a table, because it agreeth bet- ter with a supper, and the Apostle hath given the title of a table to denominate the Lord's supper. And again, the terms supper and table of the Lord very familiar with the Apostle Paul, seerne to re- quire sitting rather standing, kneeling or passing by." " The Bishop of Chester," says Calderwood, in his strictures on the Perth Assembly* p. 19, admits that it is true Christ did adminis- ter the sacrament in a kind of sitting gesture, and that in the same gesture the Apostles did receive it." Defense, p. 248. " Is it said that we should kneel in this ordinance, because we worship God in it ? Then we should do so in praise, and when we swear an oath. God has a right certainly to appoint the gestures which he requires in every act of worship. Is it alleged that it is called a sacrifice, and therefore we should kneel ? Upon the same principle, then, we should kneel when we give alms, for it too is call- ed a sacrifice, or when we praise," &c. " Dionysius Alexandrinus," says Mr. Anderson, in his Answer to the Dialogue between the Curate and the Countryman, p. 57, " is the earliest that Dr. Cave can find, that makes mention even of standing ; but of kneeling, not a syllable to be heard for many hundred years after. * Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh on certain points, p. 132. 54 LETTERS ON our, and authority, above all powers, glories, honours, and authorities; and bowing the knee signifieth sub- jection, submission, and obedience of all creatures to his beck, rule and government, for what maleriall knees have things in heaven, hell, fyc. ? This knew the an- cient father Origen, and therefore, writing on the 14th of the Romans, where these words be, again saith, Non est carnaliter hoc accipiendum. These words are not to be taken carnally, as though things in hea- ven, as the sun, moon, angels, &c. had knees or tongues, but that all things shall be subject to him."* And says Dr. Fulk, in his Reply to the Rhemists, "it is certain that the bowing of the knee at the sound of the name of Jesus, as it is used in Popery, (and it is the same in your Church, and among the Scottish Episcopalians,) is not commanded nor prophesied in this place, (Phil, ii.) but it pertaineth to the subjection of all creatures to the judgment of Christ, when not only Turks and Jews, which now yield no honour to Jesus, but even the devils themselves shall be constrained to acknow- lege that he is their Judge." And he adds, " Capping or kneeling at the name of Jesus is superstitiously used in Popery, in sitting and not veiling at the name of Christ, Emanuel, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and bowing only at the name of Jesus." And yet such is the practice which is followed by your Church, though, while you bow with the knee when that name is mentioned, you do not confess with the tongue that Jesus is Lord; and in this, as well as the multitude of your other ceremonies, of which Cecil speaks, you resemble the Popish but differ very wide- ly from the Apostolic Church.t * See him on the Creed, p 169. t It is plain from Bishop Burnet's Sermon before the House of Commons in 1688, and his Letters, p. 46, that a number of the first Protestant bishops were anxious to have many of these ceremonies abolished, but did not succeed. And says Strype, (Annals, vol. i. p. 162 — 164.) Parker, Grindal, Cox, Sandys and others, urged a num- ber of arguments to Elizabeth for laying aside altars, and using ta- bles in the communion, as approaching most nearly to the institution of Christ, but she would not listen to them. Bishop Pilkington, in a letter to the Earl of Leicester, (Append, to Strype's Parker, p. 41,) gives the following account of the reasons PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 55 And omitting many other things on which it would be easy to enlarge, does the extent of your bishoprics correspond to that of the bishoprics in the early Church, even admitting that their bishops were diocesan pre- lates? This, you must be sensible, is a point not only of great, but of paramount importance; for, if you as- sign to your bishops an amount of duty which it is impossible for them to perform, and not only twenty or thirty, but even a hundred times more than was expected from any of the primitive bishops, you an- nihilate completely the efficiency of their office, and have bishops only in name. And yet such is the case with almost the whole of yonr bishoprics. In Philip- pi alone, where the number of Christians could not be great, we are informed, (Philippians, i. 1,) that " there were several bishops." Bishop Burnet acknowledges that Cenchrea, the seaport of Corinth, formed a bish- opric distinct from that of Corinth, and that the little village of Bethany, about a mile from Jerusalem, had a bishop of its own.* And Fuller confesses, that a long time afterwards, " some of the bishops' seats in Palestine were such poor places as they were ashamed to appear in a map. For in that age bishops had their sees at poor and contemptible villages."t The bish- opric of Polycarp was so small, that he could be ac- why so many Popish ccremonis Lave been retained by the Church of England. " They have so long continued," says he, " and pleased Poperic, which is beggerlie patched upp of al sorts of ceremonies, that they culd never be rotcd out sins, even from many professors of the truth." And said Bishop Parkhurst to Gualter, (Strype's An- nals, vol. ii. p. 186,) "Would to God once at last al the English peo- ple would in good earnest propound to themselves to follow the Church of Zuric, (Presbyterian) as the most absolute pattern." But how much more happy would it have been for the church of England in the present day, if she had followed the model proposed by Hooper in his Treatise entitled the Declaration of Christ and his Offices. " It is no rcproache of the dead man," said he, " but mync opinion unto all the world that the Scripture solely and the Apostelles' Churche is to be folowed, and no man's authoritie, be he Augustine, Tertullian, or other cherubim or seraphim. Unto the rules and canones of Scrip- tures must man trust, and rcforme his errors thereby, or else he shall not reform himself, but rather deform his consciens." * See his Observations on the 1st and 2d Apostolic Canons, p. 48. + History of the Holy War, p. 46. 56 LETTERS ON quainted by name with the different individuals who were tinder his superintendence. " Let your assem- blies," said Ignatius to him, " be more frequent ;" or as it is rendered by Archbishop Wake, " let them be more full; inquire after all by name; despise not the man-servants nor maid-servants; but let not these be purled up with this circumstance."* And in the extensive diocese of Neocsesarea, in the middle of the third century, there were only seventeen Christians, and these probably all residing in the city. In the time of Cyprian, Sage admits that there were only eight presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage, three of whom, on one occasion, voted for him, and one against him.t In the time of Cornelius, in the third century, there were only forty-six presbyters in the Church of Rome, all of whom, according to Dod- wel, did not preach; and even in the fourth century, according to Optatus, it contained little more than forty parishes,:}; or a considerably smaller number than in the Scottish Presbytery of Glasgow, who are under one moderator or president. Victor Uticensis says, that in the fifth century there were nearly as many bishops as there were parishes in one of the provinces of Africa; and Bishop Burnet allows that in the time of St. Augustine there were about five hundred bish- ops in a very small district. § And if it be a fact, as is stated by Dr. Hammond, on the authority of Ter- tullian and Justin Martyr, that the early Christians received the Eucharist from the hand of the bishop, it is evident that his charge could not be large. || But * n&xr&Tsgcv r»(i)s^!u ytt&Baeat, &c. " Where he evidently re- commends to him to examine, at their usual meetings, into the state of every individual who was under his care, and not merely, as is alleged by Sclater in his Original Draught of the Primitive Church, p. 79, " to matriculate them in a register." The latter circumstance, moreover, would have been much less fitted to elate the men and maid servants than the special notice which, o.n the former supposi- tion, Ignatius exhorted him to take of them at their public meetings. t Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, p. 348. t Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6, cap. 43. Optatus contra Parmen. lib. 2, 40. 6 Conference, p. 348. II "Sic tt Tertullianus de Cor. Mil. Non de a'iorum quara de PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 57 while such was the extent of the primitive bishoprics, how different is the size of most of your dioceses! Calderwood remarks, that " the bishopric of Lincoln hath devoured many bishoprics which were in the time of the Saxons, and howbeit it hath been greatly impaired, yet there are twelve hundred and forty- seven parish churches in it at this day."* " The bish- oprick of York," too, he says, " hath devoured many lesser bishoprics next adjacent, as Cambden relateth in his Britannia." And the bishopric of London con- tains a million and a half of souls, all of whom, with their clergy, are placed under the oversight and spir- itual jurisdiction of a single individual, which is as great an absurdity is if there were only a single physician, however eminent, to watch over their health, and cure their diseases, or a single magistrate or judge to administer justice to them, in matters which affected their temporal interests. The same observation applies to many of the other bishoprics, the duties of which are far beyond the powers of the best of your prelates. And as you will not contend that any of them are possessed of a hundred times more mental or physical energy, or learning, or piety, than Polycarp, or Irenaeus, or Cyprian, or Cornelius, while they have a hundred times more work, you are bound to admit that this also is a point fraught with the most injurious consecmences to religion, in which you have departed very grievously from the more judicious arrangements of the early Church. prncsidentium manu Eucharistiam sumimus, quod idem sub 7rgwraTw nomine affirmat Justinus Dissert. 3, cap. 7, par. 5, et Dissert. 4, cap 17, par. 14." Illud autem a Tertulliano, &c. * See his English edition of his Altar of Damascus, p. 84, which lie afterwards enlarged and published in Latin. My friend, the late Dr. Andrew Thomson of Edinburgh, was in error when he said, in his life of Calderwood in Brewster's Encyclopedia, that the only copy of the English edition in existence was one which belonged to our mutual friend, Dr. McCrie, as there is at least another belonging to the University of Glasgow, from which I have taken the above quo- tation. It is a small octodecimo. The d iocese of Lincoln contains still, 1 believe, one thousand and seventy parishes, or as many as there are in the whole of Scotland, and all under the superintendence of one bishop. 5S LETTERS ON I have only further to remark, that in addition to the numerous and overwhelming duties of their spi- ritual function, you impose upon them others, as British peers, when they attend in Parliament, and deliberate on important political questions, which must secularise their minds, involve them unnecessa- rily in civil discussions, and alienate a considerable portion of that time which ought to be devoted entirely to their sacred vocation. And yet nothing can be more contrary to the injunctions of Scripture, which calls upon them to " give themselves wholly'''' to the latter; or to the apostolic canons, the eighth of which declares, " we have already decreed that a bishop or presbyter, or deacon, ought not to interfere in public administrations; but ought to employ him- selfentirely in ecclesiastical matters. Either, there- fore, let him be persuaded not to do so, or let him be deposed."* Nothing, too, is more strongly repro- bated by your Reformers, though, as Cartwright re- marks, "if they had to exercise both offices, it is to be ascribed to the tyme, — because the cloudes which Popery had overcast our land with could not be so quickly put to fiight."t " They know," says Hooper, " that the primitive Churche had no souch bishops as be now a daie, as examples testifie, until the time of Silvester the First. "t " Looke upon the Apostles cheffelie, and upon all their successoures for the space of four hundred years, and then thou shalt se good bishoppes, and souch as diligentlie applied that pain- ful office of a bishope to the glorie of God, and honour of the realmes they dwelt in, for they applied all the wilt they had unto the vocation and ministerie of the Churche. Our bishopes have so mouch witt, they can rule and serve, as they say, in boothe states of the Churche, and also in the civile policie, when one * Et/o-xotsc » ,Tgs3-/3uTS£s<', n Slftuwsj &c Consult tlic notes of Zona- ras on this canon. It is mentioned also by Cyprian in his Treatise de Lapsis, p. 278, as one of the sins of his time, which had provoked God to send a persecution on the Church. t Second Reply to Whitgift, p. 30. t Treatise on the Commandments, p. 182. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 59 of them is more than any man is able to satisfie, let him do all waies his best diligens."* " They are otherwise occupied," says Latimer; "some in King's matters, some of the Privie Councell, some are Lord's of the Parliament. Is this their duetie ? Is this their office?"] And says Jewel, after stating that " the bishop's charge is to preach, to minister sacra- ments, to order priests, to excommunicate, absolve, &c, you must remember, M. Harding, that all other privileges, (as Lords of Parliament,) passed amto the clergie from the Prince, and not from God; for from the beginning you know it was not so. "% So sensible, accordingly, were the other Protestant states, at the time of the Reformation, of the incompatibility of such power with the office of the clergy, that they provided against it; and the only prelates of whom I have ever heard, who would have had leisure to exercise it, if it had been lawful, were these bishops among the Scots Episcopalians, who were ordained by Dr. Ross before his death, without any diocese, (for there was none to give them,) and merely to keep up the succession. "Their warmest admirers," says the late Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen, " have de- nominated them Utopian bishops; and in their farci- cal consecration by the Doctor and others, they were solemnly made the depositaries of no deposit, com- manded to be diligent in do-ing no work, assiduous in teaching and governing no people, and presiding in no church — in short, they were husbands married to no wives."§ If this letter had not already been too far extended, I might notice your want of a godly discipline, which, as Burnet admits, is " owned in the Preface to the Office of Commination," and which, though you have been praying for it annually on Ash Wednesday since the days of Edward the Sixth, you have never yet * Treatise on the Commandments, p. 184. t Sermon on the Plough, fol. 12. t Defense of the Apology, p. 550. See, too, the Apology itself, part v. chap. 3, divis. 7. § Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 355. 60 LETTERS ON obtained. I might have adverted to the practice of your bishops in transferring their power of juris- diction to lay-chancellors, in regard to which, it is remarked by Bishop Bedel, that " it is one of the most essential parts of a bishop's duty to govern his flock, and to inflict spiritual censures on obstinate offenders, and he can no more delegate this power to a layman, than he can delegate a power to baptize and ordain."* And even Whitgift admits that the power of excommunication " was in the beginning joyntly in the bishop, dean and chapter alone;" that afterwards " through custom, it was appropriated to the bishop, and that it was solely by the authority of the civil lawes" that he was latterly permitted to devolve it on an official or vicar-general, chosen from the laity. t And with respect to the visitations of archdeacons, it is confessed by Bishop Burnet, that " they were an invention of the later ages, in which the bishops, neglecting their duty, cast a great part of their care upon them. Now," he adds, " their visitations are only for form and for fees; and they are a charge upon the clergy; so when this matter is looked into, I hope archdeacons, with many other burdens that lay heavy on the clergy, shall be taken away. "J It is unnecessary, however, to add to these details; and I shall only further remark, that if, according to your opinion, there must be a resem- blance in great and leading points between any Church in the present day and the primitive Church, before the former can be entitled to the name of a Church, and its members have any covenanted hope * See his Considerations for better establishing the Church of England. t Strype's Whitgift, p 93, and Appendix, p. 33. t History of his OwnTimes, vol. ii p. 642. He says also, p. 636, " No inconvenience could follow on laying aside surplices, and regu- lating cathedrals, especially as to the indecent way of singing prayers, and of laymen reading the Litany. All bowings to the altar have at least an ill appearance, and are of no use ; the excluding parents from being sponsors in baptism, and requiring them to procure others, is extremely inconvenient, and makes that to be a mockery, rather than a solemn sponsion, on too many." PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 61 of salvation, it suggests considerations which are fitted to awaken very painful feelings in the ministers and members of the Church of England. I remain, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. LETTER IV. Extracts from the Oxford Tracts asserting the doctrines of Puseyite Episco- pacy to be the doctrines ofScripture. — A contrary opinion avowed by the whole of the Bishops and clergy who were zealous for the spiritual improvement of the Church for five hundred years belbre the Reforma- tion, by the whole of the Protestant Churches at that memorable period, and by eight thousand Protestant ministers, who subscribed the Articles of Smalkald, which declare that bishops are not superior to presbyters by divine right. — Improbability that these distinguished individuals and the whole Protestant Churches were wrong, and Puseyite Episcopalians right. Reverend Sir, — I have referred, in the conclusion of the preceding letter, to the acknowledgment which has been annually made by your Church for nearly three hundred years, of her want of " a godly disci- pline." And justly may she do so, for it must be evident to any one who reflects for a moment on the small number of individuals who are entrusted with the superintendence of her ministers and members, and who alone have the power to correct the errors and heresies of the one, and the immoralities of the other, that all which she possesses of this important privilege, so essential to the spiritual prosperity of a Church, is little more than the name. I admit the respectability of many of her bishops, but I would ask any candid and impartial judge, whether twenty- seven prelates, or rather twenty-seven lay-chancellors, can exercise such an oversight of seventeen thou- sand clergy, as to their principles and conduct, and about sixteen millions of laity, or at least the large proportion of them who belong to your communion, as was done by the rulers of the primitive Church 62 LETTERS OX over her ministers and members, and as is indispen- sable to the welfare of every Church? And yet such is the whole amount of superintendence which is pro- vided in your Church for this important end, and which, if Episcopalian church government, as has often been alleged, be far better fitted than Presby- terian polity for preventing schism, and promoting orthodoxy, and unity, and spirituality, ought to ren- der your Church the most sound and united and spiritual Church that is to be met with in Britain. But how does the actual state of your Church cor- respond with these anticipations? So far from being free from schism and discord, and remarkable for her unity, is she not torn with dissensions, which are spreading further and further, from day to day, throughout the whole of your cities and towns and parishes? Nor do they relate merely to externals, like those which divide some other Churches, but to the fundamental principles of religious truth and Scriptural Christianity. And in place of the exercise of a godly discipline toward those who are infusing into her some of the worst and most deadly principles of Popery, and who are attempting to overthrow her as a Protestant Church, not a single bishop has put forth his power to expel these heretics, and cut them off from the body whose spiritual health they are seriously injuring. Yes, sir, you are allowed to retain your professorship, though, by your own confession, you prostrated yourself lately in a Popish chapel at the elevation of the host. And Mr. Newman and others retain their livings, though they have been pleading for the mass, and recommending the resto- ration of auricular confession, and advocating re-union to' the Church of Rome. What would the spirits of Cranmer and Latimer say of such conduct, if they were permitted to speak to us? And in what light would it have been viewed by Cecil and Walsing- ham, who gloried in your Church as the bulwark of Protestantism? But perhaps it does not arise from any want of fidelity on the part of your prelates, but from their want of power, and the utter insufficiency PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 63 of Episcopalian church government to correct such an evil. How different was the course which was pursued a few years ago by the Church of Scotland towards Mr. Irving and his followers, when, after endeavouring in vain to reclaim them from their heresies, she deposed them from the ministry,* and arrested their errors within the pale of the establish- ment. Happy would it be for the Church of England and the cause of Protestantism if similar measures were adopted by your bishops; and never was there a time when it was more imperatively the duty of her pious members to labour and pray that the Lord would restore to her a godly and vigorous and salu- tary discipline. But whatever may be the apparent defects and im- perfections in the constitution and discipline of your National Church, there is one thing you allege of the very highest importance, in which she has a decided advantage over Presbyterian Churches. Her clergy, you affirm, having derived their orders from diocesan bishops, in an uninterrupted series from the Apostles of Christ, must be considered as his ministers, and her ordinances as his ordinances, and her members as his members, children of God, and inheritors of the king- dom of heaven. But the ministers of these Churches having received their orders only from Presbyters, who, in your opinion, had no right to bestow them, cannot be regarded as invested with that sacred and venerable character, nor can their sacraments have any virtue, nor their members any covenanted title to salvation. And so far from acknowledging them as Christian Churches, you represent them as occupying the very same position with the temple of Samaria, which was not recognised by the God of Israel, and denounce their clergy, when they ordain others to the office of the ministry, as involved in the guilt, and * Presbyterians do not believe in the indelibility of the clerical character, as maintained by the Church of Rome and the Church of England, but think, that if, ;is is stated, Acts i. 25, even an Apostle " fell from his office by transgrcssiott" the same 111111"; may happen to an inferior minister. 64 LETTERS ON likely to be subjected to the doom of Corah, Dathan and Abiram, who wished to extend the powers of the priesthood to the whole of the heads of the families of Israel. That I may not, however, appear to charge you with sentiments which you do not really entertain, I beg to appeal to the following extracts from the Ox- ford Tracts, to which I have reason to believe that you are a principal contributor. " It is not merely that Episcopacy is a better or more scriptural form than Presbyterianism, (true as this may be in itself,) that Episcopalians are right and Presbyterians are wrong, but because the Presbyte- rian ministers have assumed a power which was never intrusted to them. This is a standing condem- nation from which they cannot escape, except by arti- fices of argument, which will serve equally to protect the self authorised teachers of religion."* " Samaria has set up its rival temple among us. — Had not the Ten Tribes the school of the prophets, and has not Scotland at least the Word of God ? Yet what would be thought of the Jew who maintained that Jeroboam and his kingdom were in no guilt? Consider our Lord's discourse with the woman of Samaria: Ye worship ye know not what; we know what we worship. Can we conceive his making light of the difference between Jew and Samaritan ?"t v< The parties which are separated from and oppo- sed to the Church, may be arrayed into three classes: 1. those who reject the. truth; 2. those who teach a part, but not the whole trutb ; 3. those who teach more than the truth; i. e. 1st, Socinians, Jews, Deists, Atheists ; 2d, Presbyterians, Independents, Metho- dists, Baptists, Quakers; 3d, Romanists, Swedenbor- gians, Southcotians, Irvingites. " Churchman, whoever thou art, that readest the follies and errors of the second and third classes, into which the pride of man's heart, and the wiles of Sa- tan, have beguiled so many of those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, first, give to God great » Oxford Tracts, No. 7, p. 2. t No. 47, p. 4. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 65 thanks for having preserved you a member of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which teaches the way of God in truth, neither handling the word of God deceitfully like the second class, nor following cunningly devised fables like the third ; and (with reference to the second and third classes, as well as the first,) pray that God would be pleased so to turn their hearts, and fetch them home to his flock, that they may be saved, together with his true servants, and be made one flock under one shepherd."* "Here is the difference between such persons as have received their commission from the bishops, and those who have not received it, that to the former Christ has promised his presence shall remain; that what they do on earth shall be ratified and made good in heaven. But to those who have not received this commission, our Lord hath given no such promise. A person not commissioned from the Bishop may use the words of baptism, and sprinkle or bathe with water, on earth, but there is no promise from Christ that such a man shall admit souls into the kingdom of heaven. A person not commissioned may break bread, pour out wine, and proceed to give the Lord's supper, but it can afford no comfort to any to receive it at his hands, because there is no warrant from Christ to lead communicants to suppose, that while he does so here on earth, they will be partakers of the Saviour's heavenly body and blood. And as to the person himself, who takes upon himself Avithout warrant to minister in holy things, he is all the while treading in the steps of Korah, Dathan and Jibiram, whose awful punishments we read of in the Book of Numbers, "t Now, on this statement, I would offer the following observations: In the first place, it is founded on the assumption, that an order of ministers, denominated bishops, has been instituted by Christ, who are not only distinct from, but superior to, presbyters, and to whom alone he has committed the powers of ordination, confirma- * No. 35, p. 6. + No. 35, p. 3. 5 66 LETTERS OS tion and discipline. But this is a position, which, as you question my orders and those of my brethren, I am compelled to controvert, (and you have provoked the discussion,) and the utter groundlessness and fal- lacy of which I shall endeavour afterwards to estab- lish more fully. I shall remark only in the meantime, that such an order was not discovered in Scripture, as I have already showed you, by Cranmer and others of your leading reformers, for they admitted the va- lidity of Presbyterian ordination. It was not discov- ered by Usher, one of your greatest theologians, who was surpassed by none in his acquaintance with the writings of the early Christians. " I asked him also his judgment," says Baxter, "about the validity of Presbyterian ordination, which he asserted, and told me that the king asked him, at the Isle of Wight, where he found in antiquity that presbyters alone ordained any? And that he answered, I can sbow your Majesty more, even where presbyters alone suc- cessively ordained bishops, and instanced in Hierome's words, Epist. ad Evagrium, of the presbyters of Alex- andria choosing and making their own bishops, from the days of Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius."* It was not discovered by Willet, whose Synopsis Papis- mi is said to have been approved of by the bishops^ for he represents the vesting of the powers of ordi- nation, confirmation, and government exclusively in bishops, as mere human inventions for their aggran- disement. " To the ecclesiastical policie in the ad- vancing of the dignitie of bishops," says he, u these things (of human appointment) doe pertaine. First of all St. Hierome saith of confirmation committed only to bishops, — Disce hanc observationem, &c. Know that this observation is rather for the honour of their priesthood, than by the necessitie of any law." Ad- vers. Luciferian. " Secondly, The Counsell of Aquisgrane, cap. 8, saith. that the ordination and consecration of min- isters is now reserved to the chief minister only for amhoritie sake. * Baxter's Life by himself, p. 206. t Acta Regia, p. 289. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 67 " Fourthly , The jurisdiction of the Church, which, in time past, Hierome saith, was committed to the Senate or College of the Presbyters, was afterward, to avoyd schisme, devolved to the bishop. And of this senate mention is made in the Decrees, Caus. 16, Qusest. 1, cap. 7. As the Romanes had their senate, by whose counsell every matter was dispatched, so we have our senate, the companie of elders. " Fifthly, St. Ambrose saith, 1 Tim. iii., a bishop and a presbyter have but one ordination, for they are both in the priesthood. And St. Hierome saith, that in the Church of Alexandria, the presbyters did make choice of one whom they placed in a higher degree, and called him their bishop, like as if an armie should chuse a general, or the deacons should choose an industrious man, whom they make their archdea- con; Hierome ad Evag. So it should seem that the very election of a bishop in those days, without any other circumstances, ivas his ordination."* And so far was Dr. Field, one of the most eminent men of his day, from adopting your opinion, that he says of the fathers, " who made all such ordinations voide as were made by presbyters, that it was to be under- stood according only to the strictness of the canons in use in their time, not absolutely in the nature of the thing; which appears in that they made all ordina- tions sine titulo to be voide, all ordinations of bish- ops ordained by fewer than three bishops with the Metropolitane, and all ordinations of presbyters by bishoppes out of their own churches, without special leave."t It was rejected by the whole of the Pro- testant Churches at the time of the Reformation, almost all of whom united in setting aside diocesan Episcopacy, while the few who retained it, adopted it, not because it was of divine institution, but from * Page 277. t Treatise on the Church, book iii. p. 158. Consult also chap. 39, where he proves, in opposition to Bellarmine and to Dr. Pusey, that those churches among the reformed, whose ministers were ordained only by presbyters, do not cease, on that account, " to have any min- i$terie at alt." 68 LETTERS ON considerations of expediency. Nor did they abolish it from necessity, as some have assorted, but from principle, for, as Jeremy Taylor acknowledges, they could easily have had bishops if they had wished for them. Such is the statement even of Heylin, one of the most bitter opponents of Presbytery that ever appeared, for, says he, in his answer to Burton, " if, by your divines, you meane the Genevian doctors, Calvin and Beza, Viret and Farellus, Bucan, Ursinus, and those others of forreine Churches whom you esteem the onely orthodox professors, you may affirm it very safely, that the derivation of Episcopal! autho- rity from our Saviour Christ is utterly disclaimed by your divines. Calvin had never else invented the Presbytery, nor with such violence obtruded it on all the Reformed Churches; neither had Beza divided Episcopatum into divinum, human, and Satanicum, as you know he doth."* And snch is the statement of Le Blanc, one of the professors at Sedan, who, though he allows that your opinion had crept into the Church of England when he wrote, says, that " the rest of the reformed, and the divines of the Confessio7i of Jlvgsbitrgh, agree in thinking that there is no difference, by divine institution, betiveen bishops and presbyters ; but as the names are given in Scripture to the same persons, so the office is the same."t This statement is confirmed as to the Re- formed Churches, not only by their several Confes- sions,:); but by the important fact, which is mentioned * Pages 64, 65. t " Ceteri vero reformati, et etiam Augustana? confessionis theologi communiter sentiunt nullam esse jure divino dittinctionem inter episcopum atque presbyterum, sed ut nomina ilia in Scriptura sunt synonyma atque invicem permutantur ita quoque rem plane eandem esse; eminentiam autem illam episcoporum supra presbyteros quae a multis seculis in ecclesia Christiana obtinet, volunt esse tantum juris positivi et ecclesiastici sensimque per gradus in ecclesiam introduc- tam," &c. De Grad. et Distinc. Minist. Eccles. p. 36. His theses are generally acknowledged to be stated and illustrated with grent candour. t The Helvetic Confession says, that all ministers of the Word have equal power and authority, cap. 18. " Data est autem omnibus in ecclesia ministris una et aquaiis potestas sive functio. Certe ab initio episcopi vel presbyteri ecclesiam communi opera gubcrnarunt. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 69 by Caldenvood in his MS. History of the Church of Scotland, namely, that the second Helvetic Confession Nullus alteri se prastulit, aut sibi ampliorem potestatem dominiumque in episcopos usurpavit." The same is the language of the French Confession, the thirtieth article of which is in these words: "Credimus omnes veros pastores ubicunque locorum collocati fuerunt, eadem et cequali inter se potes- tate esse praeditos sub unico illo capite, summoque et solo universali Episcopo Jesu Christo. And in their Discipline, cap. 1, art. 18, they reject " nomina superioritatis, quemadmodum seniorum synodi, su- perintendentium, et similia." The Order of Geneva says, sec. 2, "Primum quatuor sint ordines vel species ministrorum quas Dominus noster ad regimen ecclesia? sua? ordinariam instituit, nempe pastores, turn doctores, postea seni- ores, quarto diaconi. Propterea si ecclesiam cupimus bene ordinatam et servatam in integro oportet istam observare regiminis formam." The Belgic Confession says, Art. 31, " Coeterum ubi sint locorum verbi Dei ministri eandem illi atque sequalem omnes habeant turn potestatem, turn autoritatem, ut qui sint oeque omnes Christi unici illius episcopi universalis et capitis ecclesire ministri." The first article agreed upon by the National Synod at Embden, in the year 1571, was, "Nulla ecclesia in aliam, nullus minister in alium, nec senior vcl diaconus in alios sive seniores, sive diaconos ullam exercebunt dominationem." The VVirtemburgh Confession says, in the chapter de Ordinc, " Docet autem Hieronymus eundem esse episcopum et presbyterum. Quare manifestum est nisi presbyter instituatur in ecclesia ad minis- terium docendi, nec presbytcri, nec episcopi, nomen recte usurpare qucant " The first Danish Confession, which was drawn up by Taus- sanus, the head of the Lutherans, and which received the sanction of the State in 1537, and was afterwards translated into Latin by Pontanus, says, " Veri episcopi sive sacerdotes, qui iidem omnes sunt, (true bishops or priests, who are ull the same,) nihil aliud sunt quam verbi divini administri, nec eorum est curare ea qua; ad mundi pom- pam vel poliliam spectant. Altertitrum horum aut descrendum aut faciendum." And it is mentioned by Gerdesius, Hist. Evangel. Re- novat., vol. iii. p. 412, that the King of Denmark, as Duke of Hol- stcin, in 1538, subscribed the Articles of Smulkald, which, as wc shall sec immediately, declare that bishops and presbyters arc the same by divine appointment. And it would seem from what is mentioned by Messcnius in his Schondia Illustrata, torn. 5, p. 54, that it was superintendents who were settled aller the Reformation in Sweden, as well as Denmark. " Rex Gustavus," says he, "nihil motus, aliis Sueonum tumultibus jam sedatis, nuptiarum molitur eclebrationem, illaquc cum requireret Arclii-Pra:sulis officium, convocati regni clcri ad 24 Junii diem Stockholmiae mandat Primatem eligere. Quocirca 4 nominatis can- didatis, nimirum, M. Magno Stregncnsium Episcopo; M. Laurentio Andrea; Doctore, Joanne Upsalensium Decano, et M. Laurentio, ibidem ludimagistro, vota fcruntur et colliguntur, pluraque ideo nactus competitor ultimus quod elcctores Lutherani cssent plurcs, quam 70 LETTERS ON " was allowed and subscrived not only by the Tigu- rines themselves, and their confederates of Berne, by Scaphnsia, Sangallia, Rhetia, Millan, and Viemia, but also Geneva, Savoy, Polonia and Hungaria. In this Confession, superiority of ministers above ministers is called ane human appointment ; confirmation is judged to be a device of men, which the Kirk may want without dammage ; baptisme by women or mid- wives condemned."* And it is confirmed by the famous Articles of Smalkald, which affirm expressly, that, " by divine right, there is no difference between a bishop and a pastor or presbyter, that orders com- municated by the latter are valid, because of divine right, and that the power of jurisdiction or govern- ment belongs to all pastors or presbyters, and has been unlawfully and shamefully appropriated to them- selves by diocesan bishops."t And we know that these articles were subscribed, not only by three Elec- Catholici, ac ejusdem ipsemct professionis foret, Archi-superintendens salutatur. " Ita electum consequitur ccclesia Upsalensis Archi-superintcnden- tem. Nominatos quoque habuit superintendentes Lincopensis, Sca- rensis, atque Wexoniensis, non inaugurates. Quos proptcrea velut solennitati, regiarum etiam neccssarios nuptiarum, jubet Rex Gusta- vus, 12. Augusti 1531, suscipere consccrationem non archiclectum." Afterwards they assumed the name of bishops. * Vol. ii. p. 25. t In the Article dc Episcoporum Potestate et Jurisdictione, after quoting the words of Jerome, in his Epistle to Evagrius, and in other parts of his writings, the Reformers say, (Osiander's Epitome of Church History, torn. 6, pars 1, p. 299,) " Hie docet Hieronymus, distinctos gradus episcoporum et presbytcrorum sive pastorum tan- turn humana aut/ioritate constitutes esse; idque res ipsa loquitur, quia officium et mandatum plane idem est, et sola ordinatio postea discri- men inter episcopos et pastores fecit. Sic enim postea institutum fuit, ut unus episcopus ordinaret ministros vcrbi in plurimis ecclesiis. "Quia autem jure divino nullum est diserimen inter episcopum et pastorem, non est dubium ordinationem idoneorum ministrorum a pastore in ecclesia factam jure divino ratam et probatam esse." And they say with regard to jurisdiction, p. 301, " Constat jurisdictionem illam communem excommunicandi reos manifestorum criininum per- tinere ad omnes pastores, et earn episcopos iijratinice ad se solos ad qusestum suum turpiter explendum attraxisse." And they add, p. 302, "Cum igitur banc jurisdictionem episcopi tyranniee ad se solos transtulerint eaque turpiter abusi sint — certe licet banc furto et vi ablatam jurisdictionem rursus ipsis adimere et pastoribus ad quos ea de mandato Christi pcrtinet restituere," &c. PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 71 tors, forty-five Dukes, Marquesses, Counts, and Ba- rons, the Consuls and Senators of thirty-five cities, but by Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and Fagius,and about eight thousand other clergymen."* If these things, however, are so, and if neither the founders of your own Protestant Church, nor the most eminent minis- ters of the other Protestant Churches for many years after the Reformation, who enjoyed so much of the teaching of the Spirit, and studied so successfully the word of God on other subjects, could discover the smallest evidence for diocesan Episcopacy, and pro- nounced it to be entirely a human institution, I would press it most earnestly on your serious consideration, whether it does not furnish at least a very strong pre- sumption that you are likely to be wrong when you maintain, in opposition to their united opinion, with the Church of Rome, that Preshyterian ministers can- not be regarded as Christian ministers, and that their people can have no covenanted title to salvation. I remain, Reverend sir, Yours, &c. LETTER V. Presumptive evidence that dincesan bishops have not been appointed by God, because the only bishops mentioned in Scripture among the stand- ing ministers of the Church are presbyters, and no passage can be pro- duced specifying the qualifications required in bishops as distinct from presbyters.— This inexplicable, if there was to be an order of ministers, denominated bishops superior to presbyters. — Presbyter, a name of higher honour than bishop.— No minister of an inferior order distinguished by the name of a minister of a superior order. — Deacons never called pres- byters, but presbyters always represented as bishops.— The powers ul ordination and government ascribed in Scripture to presbyters — Wick- liff held the principles of Presbytery, and maintained that Scripture gave no countenance to diocesan Episcopacy. Reverend Sir, — But even though I should concede to you, for the sake of argument, that an order of ministers, superior to presbyters, and denominated * Vincent. Place. Syntagma de Scriptis ct Scriptor. Anonymis. 72 LETTERS ON bishops, is sanctioned by Scripture, it remains for you to show that the difference between them is so very great, as to authorise you to unchristianize every Church, the ministers of which have been ordained only by presbyters; and yet, so far are you from being able to prove this, that the contrary seems to be established by two important considerations. In the first place, not only are bishops distinguished some- times by the name of presbyters, but presbyters are denominated bishops, though in one of the principal passages in which they are designated by that name in the original language, our Episcopalian translators have substituted the term u overseers." Thus, in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, we are told, that " from Miletus, Paul sent for the elders or presbyters of the Church, and said to them," according to Wickliff's version, " Take ghe tent to ghou and to al the flok in Avhich the hooli goost hath set ghou bischoppes to reule the Church of God, which he purchased with his blood."* And that it is presbyters who are here represented as bishops is admitted by the Church of England herself, for in the form of ordering of * I have already produced evidence, that AVicklifF held Presby- terian principles with regard to the government of the Church. Flaccius Illyricus, or, as is stated by Czvittinger, in his Specimen Hungariffi Literature, p. 153, the celebrated Francowitz, one of the three Centurists of Magdeburgh, who wrote under that name, says, in his Catalogus Testium Veritatis, p. 493, that he taught " tantum duos ministrorum ordines debere esse nempe presbyteros ct diaconos." And Dr. Allix says, p. 222, of his Remarks on the Albi- genses, " that even Knighton was obliged to acknowledge that one half, yea, the greater part of the people of England owned his doc- trine." I may further appeal to the following decisive testimony by Wal- singham, who flourished a. d. 1440, which puts it beyond a doubt that Wicklitf was a Presbyterian. " Lollardi," says he, in his His- tory of England, p. 339, '« per idem tempus in errorem suum plu- rimos seduxerunt, et tantam prsesumpserunt audaciam ut eorum pres- byteri more pontificum novos crearent presbyteros asserentes (ut fre- quenter supra retulimus) quemlibet sacerdotem tantam consecutum potestatem ligandi atque solvendi, et cetera ecclesiastica ministrandi quantam ipse Papa dat vel dare potest." " Unum audacter assero," said WicklifF, as quoted by Neal in his History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 3, note, " One thing I boldly assert, that in the primitive Church, or in the time of the Apostle Paul, two orders of clergy were thought sufficient, viz. priest and deacon ; and PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 73 priests, published in 1549, she appointed this passage to be read to them to point out their duty. But if they are denominated bishops, it seems evidently to follow that they must be little inferior to them, or to speak more correctly, that they must be equal to them; for if you would infer the equality of the Son and the Spirit to the first person in the Godhead, because the same names are given to them which are applied to the Father, I would be glad to know on what principles you can prove that a similar equality must not exist between presbyters and bishops. Nor is it any answer to this to say, as has been often done by Episcopalians, that even Apostles are sometimes denominated presbyters; 1 Pet. v. 1; for though some of the ministers in the primitive Church who were of a superior order were called occasionally by the name of ministers of an inferior grade, because they could discharge their duties, I am not aware of any instance, (and I call upon you to produce one if you are able,) in which a minister who belonged to an inferior order was designated by the name of a minister of a higher order, to the exercise of ivhose powers he was completely unequal. Deacons, for instance, are never represented as presbyters or bishops, and yet presbyters are often denominated bishops. And, I do also say, that in the time of Paul,/«i£ idem presbyter atque epis- copus, a priest and a bishop were one and the same." Even Nicol Burne, the Papist, translates the passage referred to in the text, (Acts xx. 28,) "Tak tent to zour selfis and the hail flok over the quhilk the Halie Ghaist hes apoyntit zou bischops to gov- erne the kirk of God, quhilk he hes conquesed with his blude;" p. 107, of hi? Disputation. Miles Coverdale renders it, " Take hede, therefore, unto your selves, and to all the floeke among the which the Holy Goost hath set you to be bishoppes to fede the congregacion of God, which he hath purchaced thorou his oune bloude." The Bishops of Gaul and Germany, in their Epistle to Anastasius, quoted by Illyricus or Francowitz, p. 41, of his Catalogus, render it, " posuit episcopos;" and the same version is given by Stephens, Diodati, and even Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 377, book 7, or rather by Dr. Gauden, who wrote the last three books of that work. And says the learned Hoornbeck, in his Notes on Usher's Reduced Plan of Episcopacy, p. 51, " Versio /Ethiopica pro episeopis habet papis. Elenim apud vcteres, papa pro episcopo venit, Cypriano Pap®, Augustino Papa?," &c. 74 LETTERS ON secondly, not only is the name of bishops bestowed upon presbyters, but the very same qualifications are required from them, (Tit. i. 5 — 9.) for the dis- charge of their office; and I challenge you to produce any passage of Scripture where a single attainment, intellectual or moral, is demanded from a bishop which is not exacted from a presbyter.* Now, if a presbyter is designated by the name of a bishop, and must have all his qualifications, I would be glad to be informed on what ground you maintain that he is not equal to a bishop, for, as is proved in the notes, the former is even a name implying higher honour. Or if there be any difference, whether it can really be so great as to warrant you to affirm that Churches * Dr. Whitby observes, on Titus i. 7, "Hence, say the Greek and Latin commentators, it is manifest that the same person is called a presbyter in the 5th, and a bishop in the 7th verse." Hoornbeck, in his Notes on Usher, shows that the term presbyter implies greater honour than that of bishop, which renders it very strange, if the office of a bishop was intended to be superior to that of a presbyter, that the latter should receive the name expressive of greater dignity. " Neque dubium esse potest," says he, p. 47, " quin ab Judaeis nomen presbyterorum ad Christianos, et ex ipsorum politia in ecclesiam defluxerit, prout apud illos semper honoratissimi fuerunt, ci Trqtrf&uTigH, Tg£7,.£yT££;i Tut lovSmtti, Actor, xxv. 15; rrgsrii/Tsgs; Tea f&gzuK, Act. iv. 8; Trgtr&vtigu tcv xa.™, Matt. xxi. 23, et alibi. Atque ita apud Judseos lonze dignius nomen -revri-j-it^-.u, t;u Zakan, quaru rriTiiniv, hetzen, ita perperam in voce episcopi supra presbyteros, glorianiur qui deprimere hos volunt infra episcopum, et coguntur tamen presbyteris in ipso nomine relinquere monumentum pristina atque majoris dignitatis. Hesychius, n^rfc-j-Txi oi trriu'A honorati, et jrgs^ri/Ts^sc /jLi.^uv 9gsw/i>T6gcr, major et prudentior. Inde senioris nomen in alias linguas defluxit ad significandum Dominum, Signor, Seigneur, Sir. De ipsis Chinensibus in praefatione ad Atlantem Sini- cum Martinus Martinius inquit, quod tota apud cos honoris ratio a senectute petitur: nos honoris titulos a familiee dignitate aut mune- ris amplitudine, illi a sola senectute desumunt, quo seniorem quem- piam vocas, eo dignior appellatio est, qua in re tamen suos habent gradus." It is worthy of remark, that even Hooker, or Bishop Gauden, acknowledges that the bishops referred to in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were only presbyters. " Timothy and Titus," says he, " having by commission episcopal authority, were to exercise the same in ordaining not bishops, the Apostles themselves yet living, and retaining that power in their own hands, but presbyters, such as the Apostles at the first did create in all the Churches. Bishops by restraint, only James at Jerusalem excepted, were not yet in being." Eccles. Polity, book 7. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 75 which are governed only by presbyters are not Chris- tian Churches, and that their members are only " mid- way between you and heathenism." You may tell me, however, that even admitting the equality, or rather perfect identity, of bishops and presbyters, there were ministers in the Church from the very beginning of a superior order, which was intended to be permanent, and that where these are not to be found in the present day, the Church which wants them cannot be considered as a Christian Church. But I would like to be informed among which of its ministers at that early period you find the individuals who belonged to that order. If it was among the Apostles and the Evangelists, Timothy and Titus, I deny that you are entitled to represent them as belonging to such an order, for I shall endea- vour to show you that they were extraordinary office- bearers, without any fixed abode or particular charge, who were raised up merely to found and organize the Church. And if I shall succeed in establishing this in a future part of the discussion, it will no more fol- low, that after they had fulfilled their commission, and had rested from their labours, they were to be succeeded by others with similar powers, than that the same extraordinary powers which had been vested by a king in special commissioners, for organizing the government of a particular country, were to be exer- cised afterwards by some of its magistrates, when the arrangements were completed. And if it is among its ordinary ministers that you find the individuals who were connected with that order, I will be happy if you will name them. Paul did not discover them in the Church of Ephesus, for he called upon its pres- byters to feed and govern, (noi^aivtiv),* the Church of * See Mat. ii. G ; Ucv. ii. 27, xii. IS, where our translators render the same word " rule." While many Episcopalians have acknowledged, that as presbyters are represented as bishops in Scripture, they were the same as bishops, or rather the only bishops among the ordinary ministers, Charles Leslie denied it in the following rambling remarks, which Bishop Russcl, it would seem, thought perfectly conclusive, for he has quoted them in the Appendix to his Sermon on the Historical 76 LETTERS OX God, over the which the Hohr Ghost "had made them bishops." Peter did not discover them among the Evidence for Episcopacy, p. 49. " If our opponents will say, (because they have nothing left to say,) that all London, for example, was but one parish, and that the presbyter of every other parish was as much a bishop as the Bishop of London, because the words Ewx;t;; and T\£i?Z-jTi^:t, bishop and presbyter, are sometimes used in the same sense, they may as well prove that Christ was but a deacon, because he is called, Rom. xv. 8, Cucucortie, which we rightly translate a minis- ter." But upon this I remark, that the Redeemer is not called a deacon in that passage, though presbyters are denominated bishops in many parts of the New Testament; nor could he, for he neither served the tables of the poor, nor did he baptise, (John iv. 2,) like the deacons in the Episcopalian churches, and consequently the argu- ment fails. Besides, the presbyters of the different parishes in Eng- land are never called bishops, and could not be so designated, which proves no less clearly the groundlessness and capriciousness of the observation, while the presbyters of the New Testament are distin- guished by that name, and the same qualifications are not only re- quired from them as from bishops, but no other bishops are ever spoken of among the standing yninisters of the Church. " Bishop," he adds, " signifies an overseer, and presbyter an ancient man, or elder man ; whence our term of alderman. And this is as good a foundation to prove that the Apostles were aldermen, in the city acceptation of the word, or that our aldermen are all bishops and apostles, as to prove that presbyters and bishops are all one, from the childish jingle of the words." In reply to which I would only observe, without using that severity of language which it well deserves, that we are at issue, not merely on the general meaning of the terms bishop and presbyter, but upon their meaning as applied in Scripture, not to civil, but eccle- siastical office-bearers; and we consider ourselves as entitled to con- clude, from the reasons mentioned above, that presbyters are equal in power to bishops, because they are called bishops, while deacons are equal neither to presbyters nor bishops, because they are never called by these names, just as presbyters are not equal to Apostles, because they are never represented in Scripture as Apostles. The cases, therefore, are evidently not in point, and the argument which appears to have delighted Bishop Russel, as well as his own remarks about Cicero and Hector, whom he makes out to be two bishops, is utterly useless. It would have been a little more to his purpose if he could have proved, by way of analogy, that the common council- men of London, or any other city, were called aldermen, or that the baillies of Edinburgh or Glasgow were called provosts, (though even that would not settle the question about the meaning of scriptural ecclesiastical terms ;) but that illustration, I presume, did not occur either to him or the bishop. With regard to his observation on the term grace, as applied now to dukes, which was formerly given to kings, it also is not in point, feeble as it is; for, as far as I know, it never was given to both in the same age, a king being addressed as his majesty, as soon as a duke began to be addressed as his grace. And with regard to the PUSEVITE EPISCOPACV. 77 ministers to whom he wrote his first Epistle, for the highest order which he mentions among them, ch. v. 1, is that of presbyters." Nor did John discover them even among the angels of the Churches of Lesser Asia, whose name, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, was derived from one of the ministers of the Jewish synagogues, who had no authority beyond his own congregation, and was but ill adapted to be the emblem of a bishop, who had not only authority, but the sole authority, over the ministers and members perhaps of a thou- sand synagogues. Besides, as the seven candlesticks which were seen by that Apostle represented not merely one, but the whole of the congregations of these seven Churches, so it is plain that the seven angels represented not merely seven diocesan bishops, but the whole of the ministers in these different Churches. This is plain from what is said to the angel of the Church of Smyrna, ch. ii. ver. 10; for while he is addressed in the end of that verse as if he were a single person, and is exhorted to "be faithful unto death," and is assured that he will " receive a crown of life," he is addressed in the first part as if he represented a plurality of persons; for says the Redeemer to him, " and the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days." And it is evident that these persons cannot be the ordinary members of the Church, but the ministers, otherwise the reward would be promised, not to the individuals who were faithful unto death, notwithstanding their sufferings, but to other individuals who did not suffer at all. And as the latter supposition is utterly inadmissible, it is obvi- ous that the angel of the Church of Smyrna must have term Imperator, applied to the general of a Roman army, when he was in command of it, and to tlie Roman emperor, who was chief captain of all the armies of the empire, and whoso title always remained while he lived, it will be a better analogy, though not an argument, to fix the meaning of the scriptural term bishop, when it is proved from the Bible, that among the standing ministers of the Church, there were to be two orders of bishops — one of a higher grade, like the Roman emperor, and another of a lower, like the generals of armies or of divisions. 78 LETTERS ON represented not merely one minister denominated a bishop, but the whole of the ministers of that early Church, just as the angel whom John saw, ch. xiv. 6, "flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people," did not represent only a single minister, but a number of ministers, who, at the period referred to, were to engage in that work. And the same thing is stated no less distinctly of the angel of the Church of Thyatira, who is addressed in these terms, ii. 24, " But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, (as many as have not this doctrine," &c.,) evidently implying that he was not a single individual, but the representative at least of a plurality of persons. And as there is not the slightest allusion to an order of ministers superior to presbyters, among the ordinary and permanent ministers of the Church, in any part of the New Testament, so an incontrovertible proof that no such order was either instituted before the death of John, as has often been affirmed, or was intended to be instituted, is furnished by the fact, that nothing is said of the qualifications which are required in the ministers of that order, to enable those who are to appoint and ordain them to judge whether they are fit for that high office. And this is the more inexpli- cable, on the supposition that such an order was to be established in the Church, as we have a particu- lar statement of the qualifications of presbyters or parochial bishops, (Tit. i. 5-9,) and even of deacons, (1 Tim. iii. 8-13;) while the office of diocesan bishops, according to Episcopalians, is incomparably more im- portant, inasmuch as they have the sole power of ordination and confirmation, and of the inspection and government of hundreds of congregations; and are far more efficient than Presbyterian ministers or Presbyterian Church courts for preventing schism, and promoting the peace and unity of the Church. I call upon you, then, to produce such a statement of the qualifications which are necessary in the indivi- duals who are to occupy that exalted station; and if, PTISEYITE EPISCOPACV. 79 like the whole of the defenders of your ecclesiastical polity for the last two hundred years, you fail to do this, it presents a strong and unanswerable argument, to prove that the order of diocesan bishops has not been instituted by God. I might show you, in short, that as presbyters are the highest order of ministers next to the Apostles and Evangelists mentioned in the New Testament, and the only ministers whom it recognises as bishops, so it represents them as exercising the whole of those pow- ers which you appropriate to your prelates. While no instance of ordination is said to have taken place by any of the angels of the Asiatic Churches, whom you allege to have been bishops, we have incontro- vertible proof that it was performed by presbyters. The case, for example, of Paul and Barnabas, recorded Acts xiii. 1-3, is considered by Archbishop Wake, Dr. Hammond and others, as an instance of ordination; and yet it was performed not only by prophets, the second class of extraordinary ministers, (Ephes. iv. 11,) but by teachers or presbyters. And even though it should be admitted that it was not ordination, it was the next thing to it, for they were set apart by prayer and fasting, and the imposition of hands, the usual exercises which accompanied ordination, to a very solemn work, namely, the discharge of their ministry among the Gentiles. And it was they who ordained the Evangelist Timothy, for he is exhorted by Paul, (1 Tim. iv. 14,) "not to neglect the gift that was in him," or, according to the meaning of that expression in a parallel passage, (Ephes. iv. 7, 8, 11.) the office which had been conferred upon him " with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Nor does the word translated the presbytery denote, as has been affirmed, the presbyterate or office of the presbyters, for that unquestionably " had no hands," but, accord- ing to the uniform meaning of the term, Luke xxii. 66, Acts xxii. 5, &c, a company or assembly of presby- ters. Nor were they diocesan bishops as others have asserted, for, as Dr. Forbes, a candid Episcopalian, acknowledges, "the word will not admit of that inter- so LETTERS ON pretation, unless you understand by it simple presby- ters; and whether the Apostle speaks of Timothy's ordination as a presbyter or as a bishop, it was pres- byters who composed the presbytery who performed it."* And it is not more difficult to conceive of his having been ordained by presbyters, though he was an Evangelist, than of presbyters having ordained Paul at Antioch, though he was an Jipostle; or of their having set him apart along with Barnabas, not merely to a temporary mission, but to the great work of preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles. If it be alleged that Paul took part in the ordination of Timothy, or rather that he alone ordained him, because he exhorts him, (2 Tim. i. 6,) to "stir up the gift of God which was in him by the putting on of his hands," and that the presbytery merely assented or concurred when they laid on their hands, as the pre- position fiita, seems to signify, I remark, first, that there is no evidence of any other person than the pres- bytery having taken part in the ordination; for the gift to which the Apostle refers in his second Epistle more probably denotes that extraordinary faith which could remove mountains, (1 Cor. xiii. 2,) or that extra- ordinary fortitude which triumphed over difficulties, and which, like other supernatural gifts, was com- municated sometimes by the laying on of his hands; Acts xix. &c. This agrees better with the exhorta- tion to stir up the gift which was in him, if it be under- stood in that sense, than if it be taken in the other, for we cannot comprehend how he could "stir up" an office. And it agrees also better with the words of Paul in the following verse, where he adds, " For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of poiver, and of love, and of a sound mind." I call upon you then to prove that the Apostle took any part in the ordina- tion of Timothy; and if you are able to establish this, * After remarking that the word translated Presbytery signifies "Consessus Presbyterorum," he adds, "sic enim in Novo Testamen- to passim et apud antiquissimos scriptores ecclesiasticos usurpatur hoc vocabulum. Quod autem nonnulli hoc loco interpretati sunt coe- turn episcoporum, nisi per cpiscopos intelligas simplices presbyteros, ?iolenta est interpretatio et sensus insolens," &c. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 81 you will do what has not been done by any of your predecessors. And, 2dly, if he engaged in this trans- action, I challenge you to show that he did any thing more than as one of the presbytery. The Apostles, you know, acted occasionally not as extraordinary but as ordinary ministers. They officiated as deacons, when they served the tables of the poor before the office of deacon was instituted. And as they repre- sent themselves sometimes as presbyters, (1 Pet. v. 1,) so they seem to have acted in that character in the Council of Jerusalem, for they assumed no superiority over the presbyters, the latter having come together, as well as the Apostles, " to consider of the matter;" and when the decision was pronounced, " after no small dissension and disputation," it was denominated "the decrees," (Acts xvi. 4,) not only of the Apostles, but of the presbyters. Paul, then, for any thing you can prove to the contrary, if he had any thing to do with the ordination of Timothy, might do it merely as one of the presbytery, in which case it must be evi- dent that your argument fails. And you have no right to allege that he laid on his hands authorita- tively, and the rest of the presbytery only to express their concurrence, because Timothy is said to have received his office " with (i*tta) the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," while he is represented as receiving another gift (2 Tim. i. 6.) " by the hands of the Apostle." Mma, you must be sensible, frequently denotes instrumentality, as in Acts xiv. 27, and xv. 4, where Paul and Barnabas are said to have declared all things that God had done " with them," i. e. as his instruments to accomplish them; and such also is the sense in which it appears to be taken in 1 Tim. iv. 14, intimating that the instrumen- tality by which Timothy received his office from the great King and Head of the Church was " the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," or, as they are denominated by Dr. Forbes, the Consessus Presbyte- rorum. And no hint is given, that when they laid on their hands one of them did it authoritatively, and the others merely to express their consent, and you can- 6 S2 LETTERS ON not produce a single instance where any thing like this was done in the age of the Apostles. I trust, then, I may affirm of the whole of these evasions which have been employed by Episcopalians to set aside the argu- ment from this memorable passage for Presbyterian ordination, that they are utterly groundless; and I would say to you in the words of Whitaker, one of the most learned of your ancient divines, which he addressed to Bellarmine, when he denied like you the validity of our orders, "this place serveth our par- pose mightily, for we understand from it that Timo- thy had hands laid upon him by presbyters, who at that time governed the Church by a common coun- cil."* It would be easy to show, that agreeably to what is stated by that able writer, the government of the Church was committed to presbyters. It was not a diocesan bishop, but the rulers of the Church of Cor- inth whom Paul commanded to cast out from their communion the incestuous person, (1 Cor. v.) It was the presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, of whom there appears to have been a number, (and who therefore could not be diocesan prelates, as there could be only one of them in the same city,) whom he exhorts not merely to feed, but govern, noipavuv, that part of the Church of God; Acts xx. 17 — 28. Presbyters, as we have seen, sat in the Council of Jerusalem along with the Apostles, and united with them in pronouncing the decision, BoypaA It is of * Controv. 2, Quaest. 5, cap. v. p. 509. t The same view of the powers of presbyters is given by Bishop Jewel in the Defence of his Apology, p. 527. " JTe say," he observes, "the priests and deacons waited only upon the bishops, but sentence in council they might give none. This tale were true, M. Harding, if every your word were a gospel. Cut S. Luke would have told you far otherwise. For, speaking of the first Christian council holden in the Apostles' time, he saith thus, Apostoli et Seniores, &c. The Apostles and Elders met together, to take order touching this mat- ter. And again, in the conclusion, Placuit Apostolis et Senioribus, &c. ; it seemed good to the Apostles and Elders, together with the whole Church. Here you sec the Apostles and Elders give their voice together. Nicephoius saith, Athanasius, being not a bishop, but one of the chief deacons of Alexandria, was not the least part of PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. S3 them that he says to the Thessalonians, (1st Thess. v. 12, 13,) (for they are represented as ministers who laboured in preaching the word,) " And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake." It is of the same class of ministers, and not of diocesan bishops, who seldom preach, that he says to the Hebrews, (Hebrews xiii. 7vj " Remem- ber them which have the rule over you, which have spoken unto you the ivord of God; whose faith fol- low, considering the end of their conversation." And it is impossible to conceive a more explicit testimony to their ecclesiastical authority, than that which he gives in his first epistle to Timothy, (v. 17,) where he says, " Let the elders," or presbyters, " that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." And though he says to the Evangelist in the nineteenth verse, " Against an elder" or presbyter " receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses," as I shall show you more fully afterwards, he could not intend to exclude the presbyters from judging of the case, or they would not have been rulers ; or when the Evangelist judged of it along with them, to assign to him a power superior to theirs, or he would have invested him with authority superior to what was claimed by the very Apostles in the Synod of Jerusa- lem. And it can no more be inferred from what is mentioned in that verse, that he alone was to receive an accusation against a presbyter, and judge of it, when we connect it with what is said in the seven- teenth verse, than that he alone was to " give attend- ance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, to preach the word, and be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine," &c. because he was enjoined by the Apos- thc Council of Nice, (Niccph. lib. 8, cap. 15.) Tcrtullian saith, Pre- sident probati Seniores, &c. The judges in such ecclesiastical assem- blies, be the best allowed Elders, having obtained that honour not for money, but by the witness of their brethren," &c. S4 LETTERS ON tie, (1 Tim. iv. 13, 2 Tim. iv. 2,) to attend to the per- formance of these duties. And though he command- ed him, (1 Tim. v. 22,) to "lay hands suddenly on no man," it is evident that it could not be the design of Paul to represent it as a power peculiar to Timo- thy, and which he was not to exercise along with the presbyters, since he had stated expressly in the pre- ceding chapter, that the Evangelist himself had been ordained by presbyters. Besides, every ordination of a bishop which was performed by Timothy, if he acted merely as a bishop, and made it alone, would have been invalid upon the principles of Episcopa- lians ; for, according to Bishop Beveridge on the second Apostolic Canon, three bishops are indispen- sable on ordinary occasions, and not less than two can do it in cases of necessity. And if Paul alone ordained Timothy, and did so merely as a bishop, Timothy's ordination, too, must have been invalid. If such, however, are the powers which are assign- ed to presbyters, it is certainly surprising that you should compare the conduct of Presbyterians, when they ordain their clergy, to that of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who assumed the powers of the priests, and taught even the common people to do the same, and insinuate so plainly that they will share in their punishment. I had supposed, that from your situa- tion as Professor of Hebrew, you could not fail to be acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and would have known that these rebels did not belong to the priesthood at all, the first of them being only a Le~ vite, or an assistant of the priests, and the two others being of the tribe of Reuben. And yet they per- formed the highest functions of the priesthood, and informed the congregation that they too might per- form them, and that the sacerdotal office was unne- cessary, because " they were all holy," as well as Moses and Aaron. And will you venture to say, after the statements which have been produced from the Sacred Scriptures, that Presbyterian ministers are not ministers, and that they tell the members of their congregations that they may preach, baptize, ordain, PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 85 and bear rule, and do every thing which is performed by their instructors and rulers? Such, sir, was the sin of these ancient transgressors. Will you, Mr. Newman, Mr. Percival, or Mr. Gladstone, say it is ours? It is melancholy to see such charges, which were wont to be heard only from the advocates of Popery in former times, brought forward in the mid- dle of the nineteenth century by the ministers and members of your Protestant Church against their Presbyterian brethren. It is difficult to speak of them in the terms which they deserve; and I owe it to myself, and to the cause which I defend, that I should not attempt it, but pass them over in silence. I remain, Reverend Sir, yours, &c. LETTER VI. Additional evidence that the principal Reformers of the Church of England rejected the divine right of Episcopacy, and pleaded for that form of eccle- siastical polity, chiefly on the ground that they considered it as better adapted to absolute monarchy. Testimonies against the divine right of Episcopacy, and acknowledging that Presbyteriariism is sanctioned by Scripture, from the writings of Tindal, Barnes, Lambert, Cranmer, Ton- stall, Stokesly, Jewel, Redman, Robertson, George Cranmer, Willet, Bedell, and Lord Digby. Reverend Sir, — If you were able to prove that the Christian ministry is to be found no where except in Episcopalian churches, because they alone have pos- sessed it in an uninterrupted succession through dio- cesan bishops from the days of the Apostles, and that none but these bishops are able to preserve it, it would be exceedingly alarming to Presbyterian churches. Their ministers, as you allege, would be unworthy of the name; their services would be productive of no spiritual benefit; their sacraments would communi- cate no grace, and their members could not too soon renounce their fellowship, and apply for admission S6 LETTERS ON" into your more favoured churches. But before they do so, there are two important points on which you must give them complete satisfaction: 1st, That God has instituted the order of diocesan bishops to pre- serve the true apostolical succession, and that they alone can do it; and, 2dly, that that succession has never been broken, but exists entire in Episcopalian churches, whether Popish or Protestant, so as to give perfect validity to the acts of its ministers. I propose, accordingly, to examine the evidence in support of these positions, and if it fail as to either, we shall not only be prevented from joining your communion, but it will be impossible to see how any one can do it; for it will follow upon your principles, that there can neither be a Church, nor a Christian minister, nor even a single individual with a revealed or cove- nanted title to salvation, at present in the world. You will consider me perhaps as more bold than prudent in attempting to controvert the first of these positions, for Archdeacon Daubeny had said, that ;' the most famous leaders of the Presbyterians, Blon- del and Salmasius, had failed, and he would venture to predict, that no Dissenter" or Presbyterian Church- man, " of learning and character would now choose to enter the field against a Churchman of the same description, on the subject of Church government."* You will permit me, however, to place in opposition to the first part of his opinion respecting the success of these writers, that of a much more able and com- petent judge, the celebrated Ernesti, who, in his MS. Lectures on Church History, which were never pub- lished, but which, through the kindness of a venera- ble departed friend, who was one of his students, I have been permitted to peruse, made the following remarks on their two principal works: "Salmasius wrote an admirable book that same year upon bishops and presbyters, under the name of Walo Messalinus, in which he ably replied to Petavius. But afterwards another combatant made his appearance in this con- * Appendix to his Guide, pp. 18, 19. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACV. 87 troversy, who handled this argument still more elabo- rately, namely, David Blondel, a Dutch divine, and one most thoroughly conversant in these matters. He published his book at Amsterdam in the year 1646, under the title of an Apology for the Opinion of St. Jerome respecting bishops and presbyters, and no where is the subject discussed with such ability. Hammond replied to him in four dissertations, which were published at London in 1651, but in these he has said nothing to the purpose."* And in regard to the latter, I shall briefly observe, that as I write for truth and not for victory, no consideration of a personal nature shall prevent me from inviting a fair, and full, and dispassionate inquiry into a point of such high and paramount importance, as you are disposed to represent it to the Christian Church. I have stated already, as a negative argument against the institution of the order of diocesan bishops, that no account is delivered in Scripture of the quali- fications which are necessary to fit them for their of- fice, which appears to me unaccountable if their office was to be permanent, and not merely temporary, like those of Apostles and Evangelists. And I have re- ferred to the opinion of a number of your Reformers, as well as of many eminent individuals several hun- dreds of years before the Reformation, who united with the Presbyterians of the present day in declaring their conviction, that bishops had no superiority to presbyters by divine appointment, and that wherever it existed it was a mere human institution. But in addition to these, I beg to subjoin a few extracts from others who occupied a distinguished place among your martyrs and your most learned dignitaries, and who, after studying profoundly the Sacred Scriptures, have left their testimony to this great and leading principle of Presbyterians, that not merely the names of presbyters and bishops are applied indiscriminately to the same individuals, but that there ought to be no * Huic opposuit Hammondus dipsertationibus quatuor quae prodic- rnnt Londino 1651. Scd iis nil effecit, &c. ss LETTERS ON pre-eminence of the one above the other, as far as can be ascertained from the Word of God. Can any thing, for instance, express this more strongly than the following quotation from the works of Tindal,,who is usually denominated the Apostle of your Reformation? " The Apostles," says he, "fol- owyng and obeying the rule, doctrine and command- ment of our Saviour Jesus Christ, their Master, or- deined in his kingdom and congregation two officers ; one called after the Greeke worde Bishop, in English, an Oversear, ivhich same was called Priest after the Greeke, Elder in English, because of his age, discre- tion and sadnesse, (gravity,) for he was nigh as could be alway an elderly man. And this oversear did put his handes unto the plow of God's worde, and fed Christe's flocke, and tended them onely without look- ing unto any other businesse in the world." And " another officer they chose, and called him Deacon after the Greeke, a Minister in English, to minister the alms of the people unto the poore and nedy."* "A byshop," says Barnes, "was instituted to in- structe and teach the cytie, and therefore he might have as much underneath him as hee iccre able to preach and teach to. And if in one place of Scrip- ture they be called Episcopi, in divers other places they be called Presbiteri."t "As touching priesthood," says the godly Lambert, "in the primitive Church, when vertue bare (as an- cient Doctors do deem, and Scripture, in mine opinion, recordeth the same) most room, there tvere no more officers in the Church of God than bishops and dea- cons, that is to say, ministers, as witnesseth, beside Scripture, full apertly, Hierome, in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul ; whereas he saith, that * Practise of the Popishe Prelates, p. 345. of his Works. Consult, too, the section in the following page, entitled, " By what means the Prelates fell from Christ." This view of the office of the deacons corresponds exactly with what is said of the end for which it was appointed, Acts, vi. and with the sentiments of Presbyterians, and differs from those of Episcopalians, who have changed also this part of the institutions of Christ. t Works, 213—221. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 89 those whom we call priests were all one, and none other but bishops, and the bishops none other but priests, men ancient both in age and learning, so near as they could be chosen."* I would like to know if this is not Presbyterianism. It deserves likewise to be noticed, as is mentioned by Neal, that even in the reign of Edward the Sixth, <(the form of ordaining a priest and a bishop was the same, there being no express mention, in the words of ordination, whether it was for the one or the other office. And though this," says he, " has been altered of late years, since a distinction of the two orders has been so generally admitted, yet it was not the received doctrine of these times."t * Fox's Monuments, vol. ii. p. 33G. t Hist, of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 64. "Of these two orders only, that is to say, priests and deacons," says the Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, "Scripture maketh ex- press mention." "Even Tonstall and Stokesly," says Sheerwood, in his Answere to Downam, p. 21, "latterly writt in their letters to Cardinal Poole. S. Jerome, say they, as well in his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, as in his Epistle to Evagrius, showeth that those primacyes, long after Christ's ascension, were made by the device of men." "And in the margin," he adds, " this note is set, Difference between bishops and priests how it came in." " The bishops and priests," said Cranmer, (Appendix to Burnet's Hist, of the Reform., vol. i. p. 223,) " were at one time, and were no two things, but both one. office in the beginning of Christ's religion." "They be of like beginning," said Dr. Redmayn, "and at the be- ginning were both one, as St. Hierome and other old authors show by the Scripture, wherefore one made another indifferently." The Bishop of London, and Drs. Robertson and Edgworth, stated it as their opinion, that "they saw no inconvenience, though it were granted that in the primitive Church the priests made bishops ;" Bur- net, vol. i. Append, p. 225. And says Dr. Cox, who acted a conspic- uous part both under Edward the Sixth and Elizabeth, " Although by Scripture," (as S. Hierome saith,) "priests and bishops were one, and therefore the one not before the other ; yet bishops as they be now were after priests, and therefore made of priests." Ibid. p. 224. I may add, that Stillingfleet makes the following candid statement respecting the opinion of Cranmer, and mentions the ground on which he concurred in consenting that Episcopacy should remain. "Thus we see," says he, (Irenicum, part 2, chap. 8,) "by the testimony chiefly of him who was instrumental in our Reformation, that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery of divine right, but only as a prudent constitution of the civil magistrate for the better governing of the Church." 90 LETTERS OS " But what meant M. Harding heere," says Jewel, "to come in with the difference betweene priests and bishops? Thinketh lie that priests and bishops hold only by tradition ? Or is it so horrible an heresie, as hee maketh it, to say that by the Scriptures of God a bishop and a priest are all one ? Verely, Chrysostome sayth, betweene a bishop and a priest in a manner there is no difference. S. Hierome saith, somewhat in rougher sort, I heare there is one become so peevish, that he setteth deacons before priests that is to say, bishops; whereas the Apostle plainly teucheth us, that priests and bishops be all one." ' And omitting what is stated by Stillingfleet, of the sentiments of Whitgift, Cousins, and Bridges, it would appear from what is said by Mr. George Cranmer, a relation of the Archbishop, that the majority even of your most eminent clergy held Presbyterian principles, or were favourably disposed towards them after the accession of Elizabeth. " It may be remembered," he observes, a that at the first the greatest part of the learned in the land were either eagerly affected or favourably inclined that way. The books then writ- ten for the ?nost part savoured of the disciplinary style : it sounded every where in pulpits, and in com- mon phrases of men's speech : the contrary part began to fear they had taken a wrong course ; many which impugned the discipline, (Presbyteriau Church gov- ernment,) yet so impugned it, not as being the better form of government, \m\ asnot being so convenient for * Defense of his Apology, p. 202. It has been alleged, I am aware, that this account of his sentiments must certainly be incorrect, because he advocated warmly the cause of Episcopacy, in a paper about Metropolitans, which was published under his name, by Whitgift, after his death. This quotation how- ever, which is undoubtedly his, and the sentiments of which he never disavowed during his life, as well as other passages equally striking, which might easily have been added, will speak for themselves. And it is not a little surprising, if that paper was his, that he should be classed by Hooker, or rather Bishop Gauden, among those who be- lieved that Episcopacy was a mere human institution, (Eccles. Polity, book 7, p. 395,)and that both he and Whitgift should be represented by Willct, who lived after them, (Synopsis, p. 273,) as holding that opinion. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 91 our Stale, in regard of dangerous innovations there- by likely to grow."* And even under the reign of James, the adherents to Presbytery seem to have been very numerous among the best of the laity, for says Downam, "Which things, when I consider h^w fewe among the people (in comparison) do care for religion, and of those few how many are (I am sory to speake it) schismatically, i. e. presbyterially disposed, doe make my heart to sorow, and my bowels to yearne in commiseration of them."t And while it was de- nied by Willet, that " the distinction of bishops and priests is by the commandment and institution of Christ and his Apostles,"^ it was acknowledged at a still later period by Bishop Bedell, one of the most distinguished prelates who ever adorned your Church, that " bishops and presbyters were precisely the same." When Waddesworth, accordingly, objected to the reformers, " Yea, but in France, Holland and Germany, they have no bishops, Bedell replied, First, what if I should defend they have ? Because a bishop and a presbyter are all one, (these Churches had only presbyters,) as S. Jerome maintains, and proves oute of Holy Scripture, and the use of Antiquity. Of which judgment, as Medina confesseth, are sundry of the ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin ; S. Am- brose, Augustine, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophylact, which point I have largely treated of in another place against him that undertook Master Alabaster's quarrel. "§ And in addition to these testimonies to Presbyterian prin- ciples by your martyrs and reformers, and many of your bishops who approved of Episcopacy on the ground only of expediency, I may mention the frank and candid confession of the gallant Lord Digby, a zealous royalist and friend of your Church in the days of Charles the First. "They," said he, '-who would reduce the Church to the form of government thereof * Letter to Hooker, February 1588, prefixed to the Ecclesiastical Polity. + Preface to his Sermon. t Synopsis Papismi, p. 27G. § Bedell's Life, p. 453. 92 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. in the primitive times, would be found peeking to- wards the Presbytery of Scotland." Which, he ob- serves to his relative, Sir Kenelm, a bigoted Papist, "for my part I believe in point of government cometh nearer ihan either yours or ours of Episcopacy to the first age of Christ's Church."* If such, however, were the sentiments of these illustrious individuals upon the point in question, and more illustrious individuals never adorned your Church; and if they included, as we have seen, ex- clusively of those who were formerly mentioned, not merely a few scattered dissentients from the general body, but your holiest martyrs during the reign of Henry, your most distinguished reformers during the reign of Edward, and " the majority of the learned" during the greater part at least of the reign of Eliza- beth, as well as Wickliff, and Huss, and the other venerable men who laboured zealously for the puri- fication of the Church for hundreds of years before the Reformation, two important consequences seem necessarily to result from it. In the first place, what- ever may be the principles of some of your divines in the present day, it is contrary to the doctrine of your early fathers, and of the pillars of your Church, to maintain that Episcopacy is of divine institution; and, 2dly, if the arguments which have been adduced in later times, in support of this position, could not sat- isfy the minds, not only of a Cranmer and a Cox, but of a Jewel, and a Reynolds, and a Pilkington, and a Hooper, it presents a very strong and natural pre- sumption, that they are destitute of the force which you are disposed to ascribe to them. I am, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. * See his Letter to Sir Kenelm, as quoted by Crofton on Re-ordina- tion, p. 18. 93 LETTER VII. The argument for diocesan Episcopacy, from the different orders in the ministry under the Jewish dispensation, examined, and proved to be more favourable to Popery than to Prelacy. — As far as it establishes the latter, it furnishes a precedent merely for a single bishop in a nation, with far more limited powers than those of any modern bishop. — No resemblance between the powers anil functions of the Jewish priests and Levites, and those of priests and deacons in Episcopalian Churches. — Argument acknowledged to be inconclusive by some of the leading defenders of Episcopacy Reverend Sir, — The first of those arguments which have been advanced by the advocates of diocesan Episcopacy in support of their principles, has been derived from the constitution of the Old Testament Church; for as there was a hierarchy under the Jew- ish, they contend that there ought to be one under the Christian dispensation; "the bishop as supreme gov- ernor answering to the high-priest under the law; the presbyters and deacons to the priests and Levites as subordinate ministers in it."'* Now, upon this strange analogy, as stated by Daubeny, and Hooker, and Jones, and made the basis of an argument, from mere imagination, for your ecclesiastical system, with- out any authority from Scripture, I would make the following remarks. In the first place, it is relinquished by some of the most enlightened defenders of Episcopacy as com- pletely untenable. " From these superior and inferior degrees among the priests and Levites under Moses," says Bishop Bilson, "happily may no necessarie consequent be drawne to force the same to bee observed in the Church of Christ." And after stating three reasons for that opinion, he adds, " Lastly, the services about the then sanctuarie and sacrifices, (which none might doe but Levites,) were of divers sorts, and therefore not without great regard, were there divers degrees established amongst them; though to serve God even in the least of them was honourable. Now, in the * Guide to the Church, p. 34, 35. 94 LETTERS ON Church of Christ, the word and sacraments committed to the pastors and ministers have no different services, and so require for the service thereof no discrepant offices."* And says Willet to Bellarmine, when he made use of this argument, u The high-priest in the law was a figure of Christ, who is the high-priest of the New Testament and chiefe shepheard, 1 Pet. v. 4; and therefore this type being fulfilled in Christ, can- not properly be applied to the external hierarchie of the Church." Besides, "it was untrue that all things were governed onely at the will of the high-priest, for the other priests also were their assistants, and did debate matters in councell with them."t 2dly, It is never intimated in Scripture that the ministry under the New was to be modelled after the ministry of the Old Dispensation. If it had been intended by God that there should be a threefold order in the Christian ministry, corres- ponding to the orders in the Jewish priesthood, it would certainly be stated in some part of the New Testament, or the names of the ministers of the Jew- ish orders would have been given to the ministers of the Christian Church. Some Apostle acting in the character of a prelate, or some diocesan bishop would have been called a high-priest, some presbyter a priest, according to the practice of the Church of Rome and of your Church, and some deacon a Levite, as bap- tism in the opinion of some eminent commentators is denominated circumcision, Coloss. ii. 11 — 13, because it succeeded that ordinance. I have never, however, met with any intimation of the intention of the Al- mighty to assimilate the ministry of the New Testa- ment Church to that of the Old, or with any passage where the names of the different orders of the latter are applied to the former, and if you have been more fortunate, I will thank you to mention it. We read, indeed, of a high-priest, and a great High-Priest, under the Gospel dispensation; but he is the great minister •Treatise on the Perpetuall Government of Christ's Church, p. 12, 13. t Sjnopsis Papi mi, Appendix to the Fifth General Controversie. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 95 of the Upper Sanctuary, and not any minister of the Church below.* And we are told of a priesthood, a holy priesthood, and a royal priesthood,t and yet it is not composed of presbyters, according to your in- terpretation and that of the Church of Rome, but of all true believers who offer to God spiritual sacrifices. And though it is mentioned by Paul, (Heb. viii. 5,) that " the ancient priests served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things," yet he does not mean to tell us that they were intended to be a type of the Christian ministry. It may be the tabernacle which is referred to in that passage, as in Heb. ix. 9, as the example and shadow; and the phrase may be trans- lated, " who serve (the tabernacle) the example and shadow of heavenly things," as they are elsewhere represented as serving it, Heb. x. 10. And even though we should adopt another version, and render the clause, " who serve for the example and shadow of the heavenly tilings," it will not warrant the ana- logy for which Episcopalians contend ; for the hea- venly things are not the different orders in the Chris- tian ministry, but, as is elsewhere stated, (Heb. v. 1,2, ix. 6-12,) the ministry of the Redeemer, our great High-Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, and the effects of his intercession. If not the smallest hint, then, is to be met with in Scripture, that it was the intention of God to model the ministry of the Christian Church after that of the Jewish, it is plain that this argument completely fails. And if, as is mentioned by Semon- ville, the Jews did not consider it " as absolutely ne- cessary to have recourse for ordination to the Nasci or Prince of the Sanhedrim, but the elders who had received imposition of hands had a right to commu- nicate it to others,"^ their practice as to the mode of * Heb. ii. 17, iii. 1, iv. 14. See Scbtnidii Concord, on the word t 1 Pet. ii. 5-9, Rev. i. 6, &c. See Schmidius on the words ifftus and ujnTn/Ax. t Lea Docteurs Juifs neanmoins rcmarquent, itc., torn. i. p. 470, des Ceremonies et Coutumes Religieuses. It is asserted by Bishop Grleig, (Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. p. 109,) tliat "as the Jews weic accustomed to a bierarcby, and tbe 96 LETTERS ON" conferring orders, and their sentiments respecting the powers vested in elders, resembled more nearly those of Presbyterians than those of the friends of diocesan Episcopacy. In the third place, if the analogy be sanctioned in the New Testament, and the ministry of the Christian is to be assimilated to that of the ancient Church, it will furnish an argument for the Papacy, and not for your form of ecclesiastical polity. You are aware that there was only a single indi- vidual in the highest order of the Jewish hierarchy, and that he acted as high-priest to the whole people of Israel. Several high-priests are indeed mentioned occasionally as living at the same time, but, as is remarked by Ravius, they were either those who, though they had held that office, were deposed by the Romans, and retained only the name, or the heads of the twenty-four courses of priests of the second order, who, except as the presidents of these courses, differed only nominally from the common priests.* And as Gentiles to a Pontifex Maximus, and as they saw the worship and discipline of the Church conducted by the three orders of apostles, presbyters and deacons, they could not fail to believe that all these orders were to be permanent, if not expressly taught the contrary by the inspired writers." But they would not require to be told this, if, as will be proved afterwards, the qualifications mentioned in Scripture as necessary for the apostolic office, could not be attained by others after the death of these who first held it Besides it is a more natu- ral inference, that as the practice of ordination, the most important part of ecclesiastical government, was borrowed from the Jews, and as it was performed among them not only by their Nasci or the Pre- sident of the Sanhedrim, as the representative of that body, but by any three of their elders, they could not fail to believe, unless they were told the contrary, that the same thing would be done in the Christian Church. I know that Cyprian and others of the fathers argue for assimila- ting the orders in the Christian ministry to those in the Jewish. But they traced a resemblance also, as might be easily proved, between it and the officers of an army, and the governors of an empire; and latterly, when the clergy became more ambitious, they assumed the names of exarchs and other political dignitaries, and claimed similar powers. * " Of all these priests," says Ikenius, in his Antiquitates Hebraic® p. 106, "the head and chief was denominated the high-priest, and of these, by the law of God, there could be only one at a time, ' Qualis ex lege Dei eodem tempore non nisi unicus crat,' " &c. And says PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 97 this office was held only by a single individual, so he acted as high-priest not only to the nation of Israel, as has sometimes been asserted, but to the whole ancient Church, whatever might be its extent. That Church, it is admitted, consisted indeed principally of a single nation; but still it included also the people of the Gibeonites, and many other Gentiles, and their number at some times seems to have been very con- siderable.* Nay, whatever might be the proselytes who should be converted to the faith of the God of Israel, and however distant their dwellings from the land of Canaan, they were to be members of a Church which had only a single high-priest. If we are to follow, therefore, the model of the Jewish hierarchy, we must adopt a form of ecclesiastical polity different from yours, and from that of all the other Protestant Ravius, in his MS. Lectures on that excellent compend, with which I was favoured by the same friend from whom I received Ernesti, " it is most certain that there could be only a single high-priest at a time; nor is it at all inconsistent with this that the writers of the New Testament speak of several who were co-existing at once, as in Luke iii. 2, John xviii. 13, of Annas and Caiaphas. It is plain from Matthew xxvi. 3, that it was the latter alone who was high-priest; but they were wont also to continue the name to such of the high- priests as had been deprived of that dignity by the Romans, which was the case with Annas, or Annanus, who had been degraded from the honour by Valerius Gratus, of whom it is recorded by Josephus, Antiq. lib. 18, cap. 2, sec. 2, that after he had been sent by Tiberius into Judea, lie changed the high-priests almost every year. Besides these, there are sometimes included among the high-priests those who, in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14, are denominated the chiefs or heads of the priests, as is evident from Acts v. 24, where they are called (ut, while the high-priest receives the name only of /sfst/c. Pon- tiricim maximum non nisi unicum fuisse certissimum est," &.c. See, too, Carpzovius, p. 99 of his Apparatus Antiquitatum, who says, " Ea tempestate crebra Pontificatus translatio, et mercatura, quam in conferenda hac dighitata agebant Prasides Syrire, plures efficeret A^(Sie/?, unum officio, ca;tcros nomine gaudentes." And examine Dr. Mill's Prolegomena, Nos. 1105 and 1184. The Sagan, it is well known, was only the substitute of the high- priest. There was never more than one of them at a time, and he commonly officiated only when the high-priest was prevented by ill- ness or impurity from discharging his duty. The account given in the Jerusalem Talmud, of the lour trifling services in which he acted for the high-priest, is altogether fanciful. * Esther viii. 17, Acts ii. 5-10. Moses yEgyptius in Assurebiab, Derek xiii. fol. 137. 7 98 LETTERS OX Episcopal Churches, whose bishops must be laid aside, and though in some respects similar, different even from Popery, and from every other form of ecclesias- tical government which has been witnessed by the world. We would assuredly have a bishop, but there would not be another on the face of the earth; and all the cardinals would be dismissed, all the metropo- litans would be discarded, and all the vicars-apostolic, with a single exception, would be done away; for though the high-priest had a deputy, he had no more than one; — and upon that single Supreme Universal Pontiff would devolve the performance of every act of confirmation, ordination and jurisdiction, not only in a particular country, such as England, or France, or Russia, or China, supposing it to be evangelized, but throughout the whole Catholic Church. Such, sir, is the tendency of this boasted analogy between the polity of the Christian and the Old Testament Churches, — an analogy, I confess, which, if you were able to establish it, would be completely subversive of Presbyterian purity, but which would be equally fatal to Episcopal pre-eminence, and even to Popish supremacy, and which would introduce a system not only impracticable in itself, but in a great measure dissimilar to every other government which has ex- isted in the Church. Such, accordingly, is the light in which it has been viewed by the Papists, who have derived from it, they imagine, an irresistible argument for a universal bishop. " In the synagogue of the Jews," said Costernus, the Jesuit, "in which, as in its first lineaments, the majesty of the Catholic Church was shadowed forth, there was only one Aaron with his posterity, who was set over the sacred and spiritual concerns of the people, and that not merely as a teacher, or superintendent of cere- monies, but as a true prince, with power and autho- rity."* And said the Jesuits of Posnania, " We may derive from the Old Testament no feeble argument for * " In Judaeorum nempe synagoga, in qua tanquam primis linea- mentis majestas Ecclesiae Catholicae adumbrata fuit, &c. Enchir- idion Controversiarum, p. 123. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 99 the successor of St. Peter, for as there was under that dispensation only one supreme pontiff in succession, first Aaron, then Eleazar, and then others, why ought there not to be a successor to the high-priest of the New Testament, St. Peter?"* And if they could prove that it would be possible for any individual, assisted by a deputy in case of indisposition, to discharge that office, and that the polity of the Old was appointed to be retained under the New Dispensation, their reason- ing would be unanswerable. And such, too, is the light it was regarded in, not only by the Puritans,t but even by Stillingfleet, who candidly acknowledges, that " those who would argue from Aaron's power, must either bring too little or too much from thence ; — too little, if we consider his office was typical and cere- monial, and as high-priest, had more immediate re- spect to God than men, Heb. v. 1, and therefore Eleazar was appointed over the several families dur- ing Aaron's lifetime, and under Eleazar, his son Phine- has; — too much, if a necessity be urged for the con- tinuance of the same authority in the Church of God, which is the argument of the Papists, deriving the Pope's supremacy from thence. "% And, in short, I would remark, that though you could obviate these difficulties, and establish this analogy, it would furnish you at most with the mere shadow of an argument, and scarcely even with that in favour of Episcopacy. As there was only one high -priest for the whole land of Israel, all that you could deduce from it would be merely that there ought to be one diocesan bishop in every national Church. Nay, this single high- priest was invested with his office by the inferior * Disputationcs, p. 1G3-164. t Bradshaw's English Puritanism, p. 40, of liis Treatises on Wor- ship and Ceremonies. { Irenieum, p. 174. Carpzovius, who was a Lutheran superintendent, says, p. 66 of his Apparatus, " Scripture is ignorant of this threefold typical comparison between the orders of the Old and of the New JJis. pensation, for which the author (Goodwin, in his Moses and Aaron; contends, and which has been the fruitful source of the errors of the Papists. Triplicem autem illam quarn auctor in medium attulit," &c. 100 LETTERS OX priests,* and latterly by the Sanhedrim :t from which it would evidently follow, that not only ought presby- ters, but even the bishops who presided over every country, to be ordained by presbyters. And it does not appear from Scripture that the power of jurisdic- tion was vested in him exclusively, but he exercised it along with the other priests.^ And it is observed by Ikenius, that after the return from the Captivity, even when he was president of the Sanhedrim, he was subject to that court, § and was occasionally judged * If it be alleged that he might perhaps be consecrated by the Sagan, who probably would be anointed and made nearly equal to the high- priest, upon his being raised to that dignity, it is remarked byRavius, in his Lectures on Ikenius, that " the office of Sagan, was introduced only during the later and more corrupt times of the Jewish State. Patet haud obscure originem muneris sequiori aevo deberi." And it is stated by Carpzovius, that he had no unction as Sagan besides what he possessed as a common priest. t '' The installing the high-priest into his office," says Dr. Ligl.t- foot, vol. i. p. 905, '• was by the Sanhedrim, who anointed him, or when the oil failed, (as there was none under the second Temple,) clothed him with the high-priestly garments." And says Ikenius, p. 110, " The high-priest was invested with his office by the great Sanhe- drim. Pontiles autem M. a Synedrio ML constituebatur." t The superiority of the sons of Aaron to the different families of the Levites, which is mentioned by Hooker, p. 382, will not prove the contrary, for his sons were only priests of the second order. Nor can it be inferred, as he imagines, from the nomination of Amariah, the priest, to be chief over the judges for the cause of the Lord in Jerusa- lem, 2 Chron. xix. 11 ; for as Bishop Patrick, in his exposition of the passage, and Carpzovius, in his Antiquities, p. 551, observe, he was only the president or moderator of the assembly of priests who were to judge of sucli matters. Nor can it be deduced from what is asserted by Josephus, when he says, "Priests worship God continually, and the eldest of the stock are governors over the rest. He doth sacrifice unto God before others; he hath care of the laws, judgeth of contro- versies, eorrecteth offenders ; and whosoever obeyeth him not is con- vict of impiety against God." In the Jirnt place, even allowing that he speaks of the high-priest, and not of the eldest priest of each oft' e families, or of the chief priests of the twenty-four courses, (and the latter seems to be more probable,) the authority which he ascribes to him might be possessed by him merely as president of the Ecclesiasti- cal Sanhedrim. And, 2dly, he does not represent that authority as bestowed upon him by God, but says merely that it was possk>sed by the priests of his day. § " Plerumque etiam," says he, p. 117, (perhaps in the first part of this remark he is not altogether accurate,) " licet non semper in Syne- drio praesidebat, ceterum tamen huic collegio subjectus erat, et ab illo judicabatur." Ravius mentions an instance of this in the case of Simon the Just. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 101 by it; and consequently the bishop would be entitled only to preside in an assembly of his presbyters, and, like the high-priest of the Jews, would be subject to their authority. And as he would have none of those prerogatives which you claim for your bishops, so there was a variety of privileges which belonged to the high-priest that could not be enjoyed by such a minister under the Gospel dispensation. None but the high-priest was permitted to enter into the presence of God, once a year, in the Holy of Holies, and intercede for the for- giveness of thesins of the people. But you will scarcely, I presume, appropriate such a privilege to any bishop in the present day. He alone applied by Urim and Thummim for supernatural direction in cases of emer- gency. But it is no longer the prerogative of any minister, whatever may be his rank, to obtain such counsel in a similar way, when a nation or a church is encompassed by difficulties. He was distinguished from the priests of an inferior order by a more copious unction. But there is not the smallest difference, as far as I know, in the imposition of hands on the head of a bishop, from what takes place when they are laid on the head of a presbyter. And though, according to Archbishop Potter, " the proportion of tithes allotted to the high-priest was equal to what three or four thousand Levites lived upon,"* you will scarcely, I suspect, obtain for a bishop, either in your own Na- tional Church or in any other, an income equal to that of three or four thousand of your inferior clergy. And yet, if the Christian ministry is to be modelled after the ministry of the ancient Church, you are bound to maintain the resemblance in this, as well as other im- portant particulars. In every point of view, there- fore, the analogy fails, and scarcely affords even the shadow of an argument for diocesan Episcopacy. It would be easy to prove, that as there is a striking dissimilarity between the high-priest of the Jews and the bishops of your Church, so the same remark holds * Discourses of Church Government, p. 425. 0 102 LETTERS ON true respecting their priests and your presbyters, and their Levites and your deacons. Four thousand of the Levites were appointed as porters to guard the gates and passages into the Temple, after they ceased to be required to carry the tabernacle and its utensils ; 1 Chron. ix. 17, chap, xxiii. 4, 5. Are any of your deacons employed in this way about your churches or cathedrals? And four thousand were appointed to be singers, and six thousand to be officers and judges. Are occupations like these assigned to any part of that order of your ministers? Besides, as Junius remarks, " as the wants of the poor and the afflicted were pro- vided for in a different way by the law of God than by the office of the Levites, it is impossible that dea- cons" (whose office was instituted to attend to the temporal wants of the poor, and not, as among Epis- copalians, to preach and baptize,) " can answer to the Levites of the former dispensation. And as ecclesias- tical government was committed by the law to an assembly of priests, and not merely to one high- priest,"* it is obvious that your presbyters do not correspond to their priests. I am, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. LETTER VIII. The argument of Dr. Brett and Bishop Gleig for dioeesan Fpisropncy from the different orders in the ministry, during our Lord's ministry, inconclu- sive.— The Old Testament Church had not then ceased !o exist, nor was the JNevv Testament Church eslahlished. — Their account of the ministry which was instituted at that time not supported by Scripture, contrary to the representations of it given by the fathers, and so far as it furnishes a pattern of the Gospel ministry, would warrant the appointment of a single bishopover the Universal Church. — Archbishop Poller's hypothesis equal- ly unsatisfactory, and would lead lo a similar conclusion. Reverend Sir, — The next argument in support of your ecclesiastical polity is derived from the alleged * " Diaconiae usus non fuit in Veteri Testainento quia rebus pau- perum et alflictorum alia via lex Dei prospexerat," &.C. Consult him de Cler.,cap. 14, note 13 and 11. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 103 gradation of orders which existed in the Church dur- ing the ministry of the Saviour. Your principal writers state it variously, each of them distrusting it in the particular form in which it had been proposed by others. And they had good reason to do so, for in the three different forms in which it has been presented successively, I shall endeavour to show that it is equally inconclusive. The first of them which I shall notice is that by Dr. Brett, who observes, that " there were three orders of ministers in the Christian Church while Christ was on earth ; that is, himself, the head and chief minister or bishop; the twelve Apostles, who were next unto him, answering to the priests or second order; and then the seventy disciples, as an order below the Apostles, and answering to the deacons."* And says the late Bishop Gleig, in an article which he wrote in the Anti- Jacobin Review, " During the time of our Saviour's sojourning upon earth, he was himself the supreme governor of his little flock, and had under him two distinct orders of ministers, the twelve and the seventy. This was exactly according to the model of the Jew- ish Church, and could not fail to be considered by the Apostles as the model after which they were to frame the Church of Christ."t Now upon this I would remark, 1. That none of the characters which are assigned by these writers to our Lord, his apostles and disciples, are ascribed to them in Scripture. It is easy, I am sensible, for an ingenious mind to trace a resemblance between the Redeemer, the Apos- tles and the seventy disciples, and the hierarchy under the Old, and diocesan Episcopacy under the New Dis- pensation ; but none of these characters are ever attri- buted to them, nor is there the slightest intimation that the alleged gradation which existed at that time in the ministry of the Church was intended to be the model of the Christian ministry. It is a remarkable fact which overturns this hypothesis, that our Lord is * Divine Right of Episcopacy, p. 17, sect. 8. t Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. p. 110. 104 LETTERS ON never represented as a bishop while he sojourned upon earth, and that the only instance in which he was distinguished by that name, (and it is applied to him figuratively,) was after his ascension to heaven* Nor did he perform any of the peculiar functions of a bishop. He preached the word; but this is done by presbyters, and very seldom by bishops, who, if, ac- cording to this argument, they are appointed to resem- ble him in regard to their power, bear little resem- blance of him in the diligent performance of this important duty. He not only did not baptize, (John iv. 3,) but did not confirm those Avho were baptized by his disciples, for the only individuals on whom he laid his hands and blessed them, except such as were the objects of his miraculous power, were little chil- dren, whom he took up into his arms. He never exer- cised any ecclesiastical discipline ; and though he instituted ordinances, and gave their commission to the Apostles, and afterwards to the seventy, yet it was not as a bishop, but as the head of his Church — send- ing them forth as his Father sent himself, or as it is elsewhere expressed, (Heb. iv.) as the Son of God who was " over his house," and distitict from it, and who had a right to appoint its ministers and insti- tutions. And as such was the character in which he sent forth his Apostles while he was with them on earth, and in which he renewed their commission after he rose from the dead, so it was in it also, and not as a diocesan bishop, that he gave his commission to Paul, (Acts ix., Gal. i. 1,) to the office of an Apostle after he ascended to heaven. Nor are the Apostles represented as corresponding to priests during the life of their Master, or performing any of the peculiar duties of presbyters, for they neither administered the Eucharist, nor took part with him in any act of eccle- siastical discipline. And the seventy are never com- pared to deacons; and though they preached the word, it was no part of their duty to take charge of the poor, which was the principal, if not the only end for which that office was instituted in the primitive Church ; * 1 Peter ii. 25. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 105 Acts vi. It is plain, therefore, that the argument founded on this alleged imaginary resemblance be- tween our Lord the King and Head of his Church, and a diocesan bishop, which is revolting to the feel- ings of a pious mind, and between the Apostles and presbyters, and the seventy disciples and deacons, is utterly worthless; for no such resemblance is men- tioned in Scripture, nor are such characters ascribed to them, nor are they represented as intended to fur- nish a model of the future ministry of the New Tes- tament Church. The futility of this reasoning will further appear, when it is considered that the Old Testament Church had not then ceased to exist, nor was the New Testa- ment Church established till after the resurrection of the Redeemer. The truth of this observation is so candidly acknow- ledged and so clearly demonstrated by a zealous Epis- copalian of a former age, that it is unnecessary to trouble you with any additional proof of it. " But how can this prove a solid advantage to him," says Bishop Sage of Principal Rule, " so long as it is im- possible for him to make it appear so much as prob- able, that S. Cyprian believed the LXX as making a distinct college from that of the XII, to have had any standing office in the Christian Church, in which they were to have a constarit line of successors? No intimation, no not the slenderist insinuation of such a belief in any of his writings. On the contrary, it is to be presumed that one of his abilities and diligence in searching the evangelical records could hardly have missed to observe that ivhich is so obviously observ- able in them, I mean that the Christian Church teas not, could not be founded till our Lord was risen, seeing it was to be founded on his Resurrection. Our martyr (as appears from his reasonings on divers occasions,) seems very well to have known, and very distinctly to have observed, that the Jlpostles them- selves got not their commission to be governors of the Christian Church till after the Resurrection. And no wonder, for this their commission is most ob- 106 LETTERS OX servably recorded, John xx. 21,22,23, — no such thing any where recorded concerning the LXX. Nothing more certain than that commission, which is recorded Luke x. did constitute them only temporary mis- sioned, and that for an errand which could not possi- bly be more than temporary. That commission con- tains in its own bosom clear evidences that it did not install them in any standing office at all, much less in any standing office in the Christian Church, which was not yet in being when they got it. Could the commission which is recorded Luke x. any more constitute the LXX standing officers of the Christian Church, than the like commission, recorded Matt. x. could constitute the XII such standing officers? But it is manifest that the commission recorded Matt. x. did not constitute the XII governors of the Christian Church, otherwise what need of a new commission to that purpose after the Resurrection ? Presumable therefore it is that S. Cyprian did not at all believe that the LXX had any successors, office-bearers in the Christian Church, seeing it is so observable that they themselves received no commission to be such office-beraers."* But if such be the case, it must be absurd in the extreme to talk of the Apostles as suc- ceeding our Lord, and of the presbyters as succeeding the Apostles, and of the deacons as succeeding the seventy disciples in the administration of a Church which was not then in existence; and the absurdity must be increased, if the seventy had only a tempo- rary commission even during the ministry of the Re- deemer. In the third place, the illustrations of this resem- blance which are given by the fathers, whose authori- ty is so highly respected by Episcopalians on other subjects, and especially on the constitution of the Christian Church, are in direct opposition to the hy- pothesis of these writers, It is remarked by Junius, that the fathers never re- present the Christian ministry as modelled after that * Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, p. 235. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 107 of the Church in the days of the Saviour, in conse- quence of a divine command, but merely because the Church, of its own accord, had resolved to do so. "How then," says he, "you will ask, did they affirm that the latter succeeded the former? By human appointment, and not by any divine institution, — by analogy and imitation, and not from any particular obligation which was binding on the Church."* And as such is the way in which they represent the minis- try in the Christian Church as succeeding the ministry in the days of our Lord, so it deserves to be noticed particularly, that in illustrating the succession they leave him entirely out of the parallel, and never inti- mate that he corresponded to the bishops, the Apos- tles to the priests or presbyters, and the seventy to the deacons, but assign to the Apostles during the life of Christ the place of bishops, and to the seventy that of presbyters. Such, as is acknowledged by Downam, was the opinion of Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine ; for, says he, " with this distinction of Anacletus those unsuspected fathers agree, who hold that these two degrees of ministers were ordained by Christ, when he appointed twelve Apostles, whose successors are the bishops, and the threescore and twelve disciples, whom the presbyters succeed. "t And again he observes, that "it is the judgment of many of the fathers, who holde that our Saviour Christ, in ordayning his twelve Apostles, and his seav- enty-two disciples, both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospell, instituted the two degrees of the ministe- rie, bishops answering to the high-priest, and presby- ters answerable to the priests."! And such also was the opinion of Chrysostom,§ Bede,|| and many others. * Quomodo ergo jnquies dixerunt hos illis succcdcre, &c. de Cleric, cap. 14, not. 15. t Defence of his Sermon, booke iii. p. 32. t Booke iv. p. 48. His assertion, indeed, is opposed to that of Ju- nius ; but it will be found, upon turning to the fathers referred to, that the latter is in the right. § See his Homily de Prodit. Judae. II Consult him upon Luke, lib. iii. cap. 42. I am aware that a different view has been given by a few of the 10S LETTERS ON If we attach any weight, then, to the opinion of the fathers, as stated even by Episcopalians, it is plain that the Redeemer cannot be considered as occupying the place merely of a diocesan bishop. And I would observe, in the last place, that if he were only a bishop, so far as it furnished an argu- ment for an order superior to priests and deacons in the Christian ministry, it would prove by far too much. It would demonstrate, indeed, that there ought to be such an order, but it would be an order which could include only a single individual, and on that individual would devolve not only the duties of ordi- nation and confirmation, but of jurisdiction and dis- cipline throughout the universal Church. But as an argument which leads to such obvious absurdities contains within itself its own refutation, it must be upon very different grounds that you will maintain the cause of diocesan Episcopacy, and persuade us to embrace your favourite doctrine, that where there is no bishop there can be no Church. It is alleged, however, by Archbishop Potter, that this argument may be proposed in a different way, fathers of the persons represented by the seventy, who make them correspond to the Chorepiscopi, of whom it is said by Balsamon, upon the 14th canon of the Council of Neocesarea, that "they had privi- leges superior to those of presbyters, t/.«/jv* jc*/ taut* vafatafjkM nrigx T5« ifgic; f^svTfr," and by Beveridge, in his notes on the 13th canon of the Council of Ancyra, Bingham in his Antiquities, vol. i. p. 173, and Hammond contra Blondel, Dissert, iii. cap. 8. that they were of the Episcopal order, but ordained only by a single bishop, and subject to the bishop of the city in whose diocese they resided. Such is the account of the seventy, which is delivered by the Council of Neoces- area, in the canon which I have now quoted; for they tell us that "the Chorepiscopi," or country bishops, "were a type,'' or exhibited a resemblance of the seventy, " li Si X&^sTis-xoTrsi it?i fxii ut ti/tsv tccy e2J^juni'ATi." And such was the opinion of Balsamon, Zonaras, Aris- tenus, and Simeon Logothetes, as appears from their annotations upon that canon. The last of these interpretations, indeed, contradicts the first, and shows how little importance ought to be attached to the judgment of the fathers, as to matters relating to the constitution of the Church. According to this view of the Chorepiscopi, presbyters icere not represented amonf5gtov -t<~v artoato\uv.,, And ill his Epistle to the Trallians he denominates them "the Sanhedrim of God, and the owSie^o* of the Apostles." While I maintain, then, that the office of the Apostles has ceased, I contend that their successors are ordi- nary ministers, denominated presbyters or pastors and teachers, who are the highest order mentioned in the New Testament, and who are completely equal to the performance of the work of preaching and bap- tizing, in which they were to have successors, and that with them the Saviour has promised to be pre- sent till the end of the world. It has been mentioned in these letters as one of the circumstances which distinguished the Apostles from * Synopsis, p. 269. PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 137 diocesan prelates, and which proves that their office is extinct, that while the latter are restricted to a par- ticular district, and cannot go beyond it, the former were bishops of the world. But this is contradicted by Bishop Gleig, who observes after Downam," "not to insist on the reports of antiquity, that they divided the earth among them; it will be sufficient on this occasion to appeal to St. Paul, whose testimony, when direct, the greatest zealot for novel opinions will hardly dare to controvert. Now, this Apostle assures us, Ro- mans xv. 20, that he strove to preach the Gospel not where Christ was named, lest he should build on an- other man's foundation; and as he quotes the author- ity of Isaiah for his conduct, it is not possible that the other Apostles conducted themselves differently."t But before the Bishop had retailed the fable about the division of the earth among the Apostles, or founded upon it, he ought to have considered whether he could reply to what had been said about it by Still ingfleet. " As for the division of provinces among the Apostles," says the latter, after a long train of most convincing reasoning, " mentioned in ecclesias- tical writers, though as to some few they generally agree, as that Thomas went to Parthia, and Andrew to Scythia, John to the Lesser Asia, &c. yet as to the most, they are at a losse where to find their provin- ses, and contradict one another in reference to them, and many of them seem to have their first original from the fable of Dorotheus, Nicephorus, and such writers.''^ And said Ernesti in his MS. Lectures, " There is an opinion that the Apostles agreed among themselves to divide the earth into twelve parts, and to assign one to each Apostle; but it is fabulous, and savours of the traditions of the Jews, who report that Noah divided the earth into three parts, and distribu- ted them to his sons by lot. Our author (one on whom he was commenting,) appeals in support of it to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Can any one sup- * Defense of his Sermon, book iv. p. 52. t Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. ; Critique on Campbell's Lectures, t Ircnicum, p. 237. 138 LETTERS ON pose that Eusebius delivers this? But he produces a passage from the Commentaries of Origen upon Gene- sis. If men, however, would explain it aright, no such fiction could be deduced from it. He says there, *a£a8offi{ t^ft, i. e. the ancients give out, or there is a report. Now, the term *a£aooeii{ is employed in Scrip- ture, and particularly by Paul, as denoting what is taught or recorded; and part accordingly of the naga- Soais is taken from Scripture; for the account of the place where Peter laboured is borrowed from the in- scription of his first Epistle, the account of the labours of Paul from his writings, the account of the minis- tration of John from the first chapter of the Apoca- lypse, and the rest from uncertain and uninspired productions. Besides the word nxixtvai. has been rendered, 'they divided by lot,' but not very correctly, for it means often what is assigned to us by Provi- dence; and if so translated in this passage, it would signify merely, that they had received as their tot the different places which ivere the scenes of their labours, or, in other words, were led by Providence to preach in I hem, for the propagation of the Gospel. From this misinterpretation, accordingly, has arisen the whole of this fiction; and yet nothing can be more groundless, for Paul taught in the Lesser Asia, in Greece, in Thrace, and in Italy, and of course could not have been restricted to any particular place. Very similar to this is another opinion, which main- tains that each of the Apostles was confined to a certain place, and which is not only without any foun- dation in Scripture, but contrary to the notion of an Apostle, who was a universal pastor, while a bishop was the minister only of a particular place. This last opinion is pretended to be drawn from a passage in Paul, where he calls the Churches which he had founded his xavw, 2 Cor. x. ;* and says that some had gone beyond their own xavtuvj and encroached upon his, i. e. when he founded a Church during any of his journeys, he was unwilling that it should be claimed * Rendered by our translators " measure." f " Measure." PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACV. 139 by another, for such is the import of his words, v. 15, not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours. This xav^v, therefore, could not be any particular portion assigned to Paul, but the Churches of which he had laid the foundation in his journey from Asia to Europe, and the honour of founding which he would not allow should be arro- gated by another."* I would only add farther, that Paul informs us, Rom. i. 5, that " he had received grace and apostle- ship for obedience to the faith among all nations, for the name of Christ." And if this was the end for which he had been invested with his office, can any one believe that he would restrict himself to the super- intendence of a particular district, so as that he could neither preach nor exercise jurisdiction beyond it? Besides, though he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, he often preached to the Jews, and addressed to the Chris- tians from that nation in every quarter of the world one of his Epistles. And, in like manner, Peter, though he was the Apostle of the circumcision, was the first of the Apostles who preached to the Gentiles, and must frequently afterwards, if he visited Rome, as Papists assert, have ministered to their churches. And as to the remark of Paul, that " from Jerusalem and round about Illyricum he had fully preached the Gospel of Christ, yea, and had so strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest he should build on another man's foundation," it is not in the least inconsistent with his officiating as an Apos- tle in every quarter of the world which it was in his power to visit. It is obvious from the facts which have been just now mentioned, and from his addressing an Epistle to the Christians at Rome, though he had never seen them, that an Apostle might both preach the Gos- pel and write Epistles to Churches which had been collected hyjothers. And his preaching at Rome, after he arrived at that city, as well as in other Christian Churches which had been previously formed, clearly * "Opinio est Apostolos inter se consensissc de partiendo inter se orbe terrarum," &c. 140 LETTERS ON demonstrates that it was not from any division of provinces which had taken place among the Apostles, but from some other reason, such as that it was more especially the business of an Apostle to plant than to water Churches; and, according to the prediction of Isaiah, quoted by Bishop Gleig, to spread the Gospel as extensively and rapidly as he could, that he refrain- ed usually " from building on another man's founda- tion." It is asserted by the Bishop and others of your de- fenders, that the apostleship could not be peculiar to the twelve and to the Apostle of the Gentiles, because "the words of Paul, Gal. i. 1, inform us, as clearly as language can express any thing, that when he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians, there were in the Church Apostles who had been ordained to their office, 6v av- 6£u,7tov, by the ministry of man. Such we think, was Barnabas, who, though he had been employed in the work of the ministry before St. Paul himself, is never styled an Apostle till after hands were laid upon him at Antioch, by the immediate direction of the Holy Ghost. Such certainly was Epaphroditus, whom St. Paul styles the Apostle of the Philippians, and who, according to the Doctor's man of discernment, Hilary the deacon, was constituted their Apostle by St. Paul himself,' who therefore commands them ' to receive him in the Lord, and to hold him in reputation.' Such likewise were those brethren who were styled, (2 Cor. viii. 23,) arfofoxoi exx\rtaiuv, 5o|at x^tjov, Apostles of the Churches, the glory of Christ. And such undoubtedly were Timothy, Titus, Sosthenes, and Silvanus, whom Paul so frequently associates with himself as his partners, fellow-helpers and brethren; and to the two first of whom he assigns such offices at Ephesus and Crete, as, by the confessions of all parties, evince them to have been of an order superior to presbyters. Hence it is that we read of false Apostles, (2 Cor. xi. 13,) and of some who said they were Apostles, and were not, but v/ere found liars, (Rev. ii. 2 ;) for as * The words of Hilary are, "Erat enim eorum Apostolus ab Apos- tolo factus." PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 141 none of those liars, could possibly pretend to be St. Paul, or any of the twelve, all of whom were dead before that period, we must of necessity infer that they practised their imposition upon their knowledge, that there were then in the Church many true Apos- tles, the Apostles 8i' ave^uttov, or by the ordination of man."t Now, I would remark upon this passage, that as it does not contain the slightest proof that the greater part of the individuals to whom it refers were denomi- nated Apostles in the proper sense of the word, or that any one of them is so designated who had not seen the Lord after his resurrection, and who could not exhibit the signs of an Apostle by working mira- cles, it will not warrant the conclusion, that others who wanted the qualifications for the apostleship, which were before mentioned, were elevated to that high office, and were appointed to be the fellow- labourers and successors of the Apostles. Calderwood imagines that an exception as to the name ought to be made in regard to Barnabas; for he observes, "In what manner he was called to the apostleship does not appear, and yet that he was an Apostle, and of the same rank with Paul, is evident from many cir- cumstances. He is denominated an Apostle, without any limitation of the meaning of the word, Acts xiv. 4-14; and was sent to the Gentiles, with the same authority with Paul ; Acts xiii. Others were in their company, and yet Barnabas is mentioned always as the equal of Paul, and not merely as an assistant. The inhabitants of Lystra considered Barnabas as Jupiter, Acts xiv. 12, and Paul as Mercury. He is always distinguished from the other companions of Paul, both during their journey among the Gentiles, and when they went up to the Council at Jerusalem. And the controversy which took place between them, so as that they were obliged to separate, as well as the power of choosing as his assistant John, whose surname was Mark, which was exercised by Barna- bas, proves that he was an Apostle, and not an Evan- * Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. 142 LETTERS ON gelist."* But if he was really an Apostle, there is reason to believe, that as he was one of the seventy disciples, as is acknowledged by Cavet and other Epis- copalians, he would see the Redeemer after his resur- rection. And we know that he performed miracles; Acts xiv. 1-4, 14. As to the case of Epaphroditus, it is plain, not only from our own and other translations, but from what is acknowledged both by Whitby and Willet, that he is denominated artojcaoj, because he was the " messenger" who carried the contributions of the Philippians to Paul. " Concerning the instance of Epaphrodilus," says the latter, " he is called their Apostle, i. e. messenger, because he brought the be- nevolence of that church unto Saint Paul ; Phil. iv. 18. And so this word J/postle is taken both in the civill and canon law, in so much that letters dimissorie, * " Barnabas quo modo vocatus fuerat rton constat. Extra ordinem tamen in Apostolorum numerum co-optatus est." Altare Damasce- num, p. 157. tUistoria Literaria, p. 11. Clemens Alexandrinus, in his Stro- mata, lib. ii. p. 300, makes the same statement ; " o Si tmv ifi&ofjMx.ovta. m mi truvt^yo; rcu Tla.u\Qv." And in p. 273, 274, he called him an Apostle, " A7T05-T&A05 Bagva/Sac." It deserves, however, to be mentioned, that Calvin, in his Com- mentary on Acts xiii. 4, says, " Quum Lucas Barnabam Apostolum cum Paulo vocat nominis significationem longius extcndit quam ad primarium ordinem quern instituit Christus in sua Ecclesia : qualiter Paulus Andronicum etJuniam inter Apostolos insignes facit. Proprie autem loquendo evangelistae erant," i. e. the name of the Apostle is given to him in a more extended sense than when it is applied to the twelve and Paul. He adds, indeed, " Nisi forte quia Paulo additus erat collega Barnabas, utrumque in pari officii gradu statuimus: ita Apostoli titulus vere in ipsum competet," i. e. unless, as he was added as a colleague to Paul, we assign to him the same rank, in which case he may receive the name of an Apostle. Gersom Bucer, how- ever, very properly observes, (Dissert, de Gubern. Eccles., p. 480,) that the latter remark must be taken in a restricted sense, for, says he, "Calvinus loquitur de ilia legatione quam Paulus interveniente Ecclesiae Antiochenae judicio ac moderamine cum Barnaba pera- gendam susceperat, non de tola Apostolatns functione, ad quam im- mcdiata prorsus auctoritate Christi e coelo consilium suum expro- mentis segregatus fuerat." If Barnabas then was an Apostle, in the sense in which Calderwood understands the term, it is plain, from what is stated in the text, that he had some of the principal qualifi- cations for that office. But if he was called by that name, as I am disposed to think, merely because he was sent on the same long and important mission with Paul, then he was not an Apostle in the highest sense of the word, but only an Evangelist. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACV. 143 granted in the cause of appeale, by him from whom the appeale is made, are called (apostoli,) letters of dismissing or sending the cause to him to whom the appeale is made; Decrett. p. 2, Cause 2, Quaest. 6, cap. 24, sext. decret. lib. 2."* And says the former, " it is noted by Theodoret and others of the fathers, that Epaphroditus, mentioned in this Epistle (that to the Philippians) as their messenger, ch. ii. 15, iv. 18, was also their bishop ; though, I confess, the words, tov dKosoxov vpav, your Apostle, do not prove it."t And while it is evident to any one who peruses the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, that the brethren referred to by Paul, ch. viii. 23, are represented as anoatoxoi, as our translators were satisfied, merely because they were messengers ;% so if we are to infer that there * Synopsis Papismi, p. 274. t Preface to his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Philippians. t Jeremy Taylor, 1 am aware, maintains the contrary in his Asser- tion of Episcopacy, p. 19, and observes in proof of it, " They are not called the Apostles of these Churches, to witt, whose almes they car- ried, but simply t*.nKr,vim of the Churches, viz. of their own, of which they were bishops. For if the title of Apostle had related to their mission from these Churches, it is unimaginable that there should be no terme of relation expressed." But how could it be necessary to distinguish them in that way, when it is said of one of them, v. 19, that he had been chosen of the Churches to travel with Paul and his companions with the grace or contribution which was "administered by the Apostle to the glory of the same Lord, and the declaration of their ready mind?" And as there is no term of relation coupled with vuixxtTim, if we are not guided by what is there mentioned, must not this writer's latter remark strike equally against his own interpreta- tion ? 'idly, He says, " It is very cleare, that although they did in- deed carry the benevolence of the severall Churches, yet St. Paul, not these Churches, sent them. And we have sent with them our bro- ther." &c. But how this is clear it is difficult to perceive, since it is stated in that verse that these Churches had actually " chosen hint and sent him." And certainly, if he was selected for that purpose by these Churches, nothing can be more natural, than that, according to the import of the word which was adopted by our translators, though they were zealous Episcopalians, he should be denominated, on that account, their messenger or amo-Tn^c;. And 3dly, he remarks, " They are called Apostles of the Churches, not going from Corinth with the money, but before they came thither, from whence they were to be dispacht in legation to Jerusalem. [If any enquire ofTitus or the brethren, they are the Apostles of the Churches, and the glory of Christ.]" But as other Churches besides that of Corinth were send- ing to the relief of the saints at Jerusalem, and as these brethren had been appointed by them to carry their contributions before they came 144 LETTERS ON were more Apostles than twelve with Barnabas and Paul, because there were some in the end of the first century " who said that they were Apostles, but were not," it will follow upon the same principle, that there must have been more Messiahs than one, because our Saviour foretold, that after he left the world, " there should arise false Christs and false prophets." Nor will it avail to tell us that Epaphroditus and these brethren are represented by the fathers as apostles and bishops, for they appeal in support of it to Scrip- ture, where no such statements are to be met with. And when we consider that even Barnabas discovers in the three hundred and eighteen male servants who were circumcised by Abraham, a prediction that the Saviour was to die upon a cross,* that Irenaeus affirms to Corinth, they might very properly be represented as their messen- gers or oawreXM, before they either arrived at that place, or left it for Jerusalem. It is stated in short, by Downam, in his Defence of his Sermon, book iv. p. 70, that " Apostoli, used absolutely, is a title of all cmbas- sadours sent from God, with authority apostolicall, though, x*t' sJ^jtv, (by way of eminence,) given to Paul and Barnabas, and the twelve Apostles." And he farther maintains, that though when used abso- lutely, it is a title of all such " embassadours — yet, when used with reference to particular churches, it doth signifie their bishops. And in that sence, Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians." But this distinction will not hold, for Paul reminds the Corinthians, (1 Cor. ix. 2,) though he had the title of the Apostle, according to this author, «t' ^>Xni "that if he was not an Apostle unto others, yet doubtless he was to them," which, according to this observation, would reduce him to be merely the Bishop of Corinth. See, too, Causabon, E.tercit. 14, p. 313. * " Learn all things more fully," says he in his Epistle. " Abraham, who first practised circumcision, looking forward through the Spirit to the Son of God, performed this rite, receiving the mysterious infor- mation from three letters. For it says that Abraham circumcised three hundred and eighteen men of his house. What, then, was the in- struction which was imparted to him by this' Observe first, the eighteen, and then the three hundred. The eighteen are denoted by ix, which point out Jesus. And because the cross by which we were to obtain grace resembles T, which marks three hundred, therefore he adds three hundred. Bu tico letters, thenfore he denotes Jesus, and by the third his cross. He who has implanted within us the engraf- ted gift of his doctrine knows that no one has ever learned from me a more certain truth, but ye are worthy to receive it. Ma'srs st/r ratva, i-i^i 7r%iT Gauden, the author of the three spurious books of the Polity, necessarily falls. If it be maintained with Bilson, that whatever may be the meaning of this passage, " all the fathers with one mouth affirme the Apostles both might bee, and were bishops,*'* I answer with Valesius, that when they are so denominated, it is not to be strictly under- stood.t Nay, it is observed by Whitaker, that " it almost borders on insanity, to assert that Peter, or any other of the Apostles, was properly a bishop, for they possessed the very highest ecclesiastical autho- rity, and the office of a bishop is nothing to that of an apostle."± And says Dr. Barrow, " The office of an apostle and a bishop are not in their nature well consistent : For the apostleship is an extraordinary office, charged with the instruction and government of the whole world. Episcopacy is an ordinary stand- ing charge affixed to one place. Now, he that hath such a general care can hardly discharge such a par- ticular office, and he that is fixed to so particular an attendance, can hardly look well to so general a charge. A disparagement to the apostolical ministry for him (Peter) to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome, as if the King should become mayor of London — as if the Bishop of London should be vicar of Pancrass."§ When the fathers, therefore, speak of the Apostles as bishops, they can mean merely, that wherever they came they exercised the authority which toas latterly assumed by bishops, but which belonged every where to the apostolic office; and in this sense of their words, the Apostles might exercise that authority in ten, twenty, or fifty places, and yet they hud not as many bishoprics. Nay, this authority might be exercised * Pcrpctuall Government, p. 226. t 11 Tiie Apostles," says he, in his Notes on Eusebius, Eccles. Hist, book 3, cap. 14, " were extraordinary ministers, and were not reckoned in the number of bishops. Apostoli vcro extra ordinem erant," &c. t " Hoc enim non multum distat ab insania dicere Petrum fuisse proprie Episcopum, aut reliquos Apostolos. Summam enim minis- terii authoritatem habuerunt. Munus Episcopi nihil est ad munus Apostolicum." De Pontif., Quaest 2, cap. 15. § Pope's Supremacy, p. 120, 121. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 149 by more than one of them at once* in the very same place, as in the case of Paul and Peter at Rome.t And it is an established principle among Episcopa- lians, that there cannot be more than a single bishop in one city. No argument, accordingly, can be drawn from these expressions of the fathers to prove that the Apostles were diocesan bishops. But it is asserted by Bishop Gleig, and many of the Episcopalians of former times, that St. James at least must have been a bishop of this description, because " he is expressly said by Hegesippus, (apud Euseb. lib. ii. cap. 23,) to have been constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles. St. Ignatius, who suf- fered martyrdom in the year 107, affirms (Epist. ad Trail.) that St. Stephen was deacon to St. James; and Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about the year 192, is quoted by Eusebius, (lib. ii. cap. 1,) as saying, that immediately after the assumption of Christ, Peter, James and John, though they had been highest in favour with their Divine Master, did not contend for the honour of presiding over the Church of Jerusalem, but with the rest of the Apostles chose James the Just to be bishop of that Church. In the fourth century we find Jerome, a man of great learning and research, affirming, (de Script. Eccles.) that immediately after the passion of our Lord, St. James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles; and St. Cyril, who was himself bishop of that Church in the year 350, and therefore an authentic witness of its records, expressly says, Catech. 16, that St. James was the first bishop of that city."| Now, upon this I would remark, 1. That it is exceedingly questionable whether he * Bilson, in his Perpetuall Government, p. 20G, affirms, that Peter was Bishop, first of Antioch, and afterwards of Rome, in which he is supported by a number of the fathers; and the author of the Chro- nicon Alcxandrinum, quoted by Cotelcrius on the Apostolic Constitu- tions, lib. 7, cap. 46, assigns to him the see of Jerusalem before it was committed to James. But upon the principle stated above, he and his brethren must have had many bishoprics. t Eusehii Eccles. Hist. lib. iii. cap. 1 ; lib. iv. cap. 1. t Anti-Jacobin, vol. 9. 150 LETTERS ON was out of the twelve, or of the seventy disciples. We are informed of a James by Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist, book i. ch. 12,) "who was one of tbe seventy, and of the brethren of our Lord." And it is observed by Valesius on the place, that " many of the ancients were of opinion that the James who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve, but of the seventy: Thus, Gregory Nyssene, in his second Oration upon the Resurrection of Christ; Clemens, in the second Book of his Constitutions, ch. 59, and in the first Book of his Recognitions, near the end, p. 20; Dorotheus, in his Book upon the Apostles and Disci- ples of the Lord, and Michael Glycas, in the third part of his Annals." And he adds, " Paul seems to favour this opinion in his Epistle to the Corinthians, for in his enumeration of those to whom the Saviour appeared after he rose from the dead, after mention- ing the twelve Apostles, and five hundred others, he subjoins, afterwards he was seen by James and the other Apostles. Paul therefore distinguishes James from the twelve Apostles, and in this sense Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 4 and 14,) (to whom Bishop Gleig ascribes an opposite opinion erroneously,) understood this passage of St. Paul."* But if James was only one of the seventy, and consequently but a presbyter, it weakens exceedingly the credibility of the story, for there are few, I presume, who will believe that such an inferior minister would be raised to an honour, which, according to the third of the authors quoted by the Bishop, was superior to what was possessed by the chief of the Jlpostles. But granting, even, that he was an Apostle, I ob- serve, in the second place, that the authorities on which this report is delivered are unworthy of credit. The first of them is a fragment of Hegesippus, which has been preserved by Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist, book ii. chap. 23,) but which, though often quoted by Epis- * " Multi quippe cx veteribus Jacobum frutrem Domini," &c. The same, too, was the opinion of the author of the Apo*tolic Constitutions, lib. 6, cap. 12, and lib. 8, cap. 4, as well as of Hammond and Bishop Taylor. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 151 copalians, is undeserving of attention. It tells us, indeed, that " he received the government of the Church of Jerusalem along with the Apostles;"* but adds at the same time, that " he alone could enter into the Holy of Holies," though he was not the high-priest; "that he was buried near the Temple," though the Jews buried only without the gates of their cities; — and that "his tomb was still standing in the second century," though not a stone of Jerusalem was left standing upon another after it was taken by the Romans. If it blunder, however, as to these and other important particulars which are pointed out at length by Scaligert and Valesius,J it must be as un- worthy of our belief as to what it says about the for- mer, were it susceptible of the interpretation which has been put upon it by the Bishop. And if its leading authority be overthrown, the others must fall with it. The second of his quotations is not to be found in the editions of Ignatius by Vossius or Usher, but only in a corrupt edition, which every one who is beyond a sciolist in these matters knows to be spurious! But how the Bishop, who has been held out as a man of the highest attainments in professional learning, and who talks so contemptuously of the acquirements of his opponents, could have fallen into this mistake I cannot understand; and can account for it only on the supposition, that he copied it from the works of some of the older Episcopalians, from whom, in common with many of his brethren in the present day, he has often copied his arguments without due examination of his authorities, and being unacquainted with Igna- tius, though he refers to him frequently, could not detect the error.§ * It is observed by Salmasius, in his Walo Messalinus, p. 193, that, even allowing this passage to have all the credibility which could be desired, it merely affirms that he received the government of this Church with, and not from, the Apostles, //er* m a.-rroTrohav, and that the same also are the readings of Theophanes and Rufinus. t Animadv. in Eusebii Chronol. p. 178. t Examine especially what he says about the contradiction between Hegesippus and Joscphus. § It is remarkable that Bishop Tomline, who boasted of having examined more than sixty volumes of the Fathers, when preparing his 152 LETTERS ON" The third of his authorities contains its own refu- tation, for if Peter, James and John were previous- ly Apostles, and consequently superior to any local bishop, how can it be said that they did not "contend, t7fi8i*a?f35at," or, as it is translated by Downam,* " did not arrogate to themselves the honour of being Bishop of Jerusalem, but resigned it to James the Just?" Would not this, as is observed by Dr. Bar- row upon another occasion, when contending with the Papists, be like the humility of a sovereign prince, who would not be solicitous about the honour of being made "a justice of the peace ?"t or, as it is expressed by Sutclive, would it not be like the lowli- ness of a king, " who was not ambitious of being created a questor, or any other inferior magistrate And if it be urged with Downam that herein James differed from the rest, for to him at the first, before their dispersion, the Church of Jerusalem was assign- ed, while the others did not receive their provinces till afterwards, " neither did he travaile, as the rest, from one country to another, being not confined to any one province, and whereas they having planted Churches, when they saw their time, committed the same to certain bishops, yet James, abiding all his time at Jerusalem, committed that Church to no other,"§ I answer, it has been proved already that the whole of this story about the division of provinces is fabulous; and even those who believe it cannot inform us when the division took place, Photius affirm- ing that James was ordained by the Saviour,|| and Xicephorus Callistus that he obtained his diocese, first from the Saviour, and afterwards, as some report, from the Apostles.!! And if Paul be right when he Refutation of Calvinism, quotes a passage also from the spurious Ignatius, p. 288. Did he read by deputy ? * Defense of his Sermon, lib. iv. p. 60. t Pope's Supremacy, p. 84. } " Nuin rex creari solet quaestor," &c. De Pontif. lib. ii. cap. 1. § Defense of his Sermon, lib. iv. p. 57, 58. II Epist. 117, p. 158. IT Lib. ii. p. 196. Eusebius candidly acknowledges, Eccles. Hist., lib. iv. cap. 5, (though he lived only in the fourth century,) that he had not been able to discover how long James, and a number of the PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 153 appeals to his abundant labours and extensive travels, (2 Cor. xi. &c.) as a proof that "he was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles;" and if the present honour, as well as future reward of ministers of every order will be proportioned to their labours, (1 Cor. iii. 8, &c.) the second and third of these reasons must be completely nugatory. I shall only add, that as Stil- lingfleet observes, " the power of James was of the same nature with that of the Apostles themselves. And who," he demands, "will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to the office of ordi- nary bishops? James, in all probability, did exercise his apostleship the most at Jerusalem, where by the Scriptures we find him resident; and from hence the Church afterwards, because of his not travelling abroad as the other Apostles did, according to the language of their own times, fixed the title of bishop upon him."* The latter observation presents a satisfactory bishops of Jerusalem who succeeded him, were in possession of their sees ; and if so, can we depend on the testimony of such writers as affording satisfactory evidence that the alleged apostolical succession was never broken in the course of eighteen hundred years? * Irenicum, p. 321. The passage, moreover, which is quoted by Bishop Gleig from Jerome's Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, is not genuine ; for it is observed by Erasmus in his notes upon that work, as well as by Dr. Cave in his account of Jerome, (Hist. Lite- rar., p. 221,) that the lives of James and of Simon the Canaanite, were added to it by some later author ! Here then wc have another very humiliating proof of the Bishop's copying from some preceding writer, and of the inaccuracy with which he was chargeable amidst all his apparent learning. And as to the passage from Epiphanius, it cannot influence a single individual possessed of ordinary powers of reflection, for he tells us in Haeres. Nazaraeorum, that James was accustomed to wear a plate of gold upon his forehead, — a fiction like that which is related by Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist. lib. v. cap. 24,) respecting the Apostle John, and which illustrates sufficiently the value of his testimony. Boyd, also, in his Treatise on Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 93, (and he makes great pretensions to extensive and accurate investi- gation into his authorities,) falls into the same blunder with Bishop Gleig, in attributing this part of the " Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers" to Jerome. And he quotes, apparently with a firm convic- tion of its truth, a report mentioned by Chrysostom, of ''the Saviour having ordained, (I presume with the imposition of hands,) and ap- pointed his brother James the first bishop of Jerusalem," before he ascended to heaven! p. 92. 154 LETTERS ON and natural reply to the later authorities referred to by the Bishop and other defenders of your ecclesiasti- cal polity; and I trust it will appear from what is stated below, that their scriptural arguments in sup- port of the Episcopacy of James are equally inconclu- sive.* It is observed by Downam, that "when the Apos- tles ceased to travaile in their olde days and rested in some chief citie where they had laboured, they were reputed bishops of that place, though some of them perhaps were not properly bishops."t But if their commission as Apostles still remained to them, as will scarcely be denied, it is impossible to imagine any good reason why even a single individual among them could then be degraded from his office, and re- duced to the rank of a bishop, merely because, from the infirmities of age, he was less able to travel at large and perform its duties. It is remarked by Bil- son, that " though the Apostles were more than bish- ops, yet they were more also than presbyters; and yet Saint Peter could tell how to speake, when hee called himselfe avf<5rpf(T,3vttpof, a presbyter as well as others.":); He has failed, however, to show that any of the Apostles ever called himself ewin«sxo7tos, or a diocesan bishop, as well as other diocesan bishops; or that such an order of ministers was appointed, and was included, like all other inferior orders, in the * If James, as is observed by Stillingfleet, exercised his apostleship principally at Jerusalem, for a variety of reasons, and commonly resided there, it will explain the whole of the Scriptures which have been quoted by Episcopalians to prove that he was merely a bishop, without reducing him to that order. " And who knows not," says Augustine, "that the dignity of an apostle is to be preferred to that of any bishop? Quis nescit istum Apostolatus principatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum ?" (Dc Baptismo, lib. ii. cap. 1.) It will account, in particular, for the way in which he is spoken of, Acts xii. 17; xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 12. And when he said, Acts xv. 19, " /»«, wherefore my sentence is," he evidently laid claim to no more power than was exercised by Peter or any other member of the Council, for " the decrees" of the Council are denominated not merely the decrees of James, but " of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem." Acts xvi. 4. + Defense of his Sermon, lib. iv. p. 57. t Perpetual! Government, p. 227. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 155 apostolate, and consequently, it is not an argument in point. And it is stated by the same prelate, that " bishops are fastened to one place, not by the force of their name, but by the order of the Holy Ghost, who sent Apostles to oversee many places, and settled pastors to oversee one. And, therefore, the Apostles were bishops, and more than bishops, even as John was more than a prophet, and yet a prophet."* But it is plain, that if we are to have bishops in the pre- sent day, because the Apostles were bishops, as far as this argument is concerned, their episcopate must resemble that of the Apostles. The Apostles, how- ever, were not confined to any particular place for the exercise of their authority, but might officiate not only in fifty or a hundred places, but in every quarter of the world. And as no such power could be con- ceded either to your bishops or to any other, the argument which has been founded on the extraordi- nary authority conferred on the Apostles, when they founded the Church, for similar power throughout future ages to diocesan bishops, an order of ministers never mentioned in Scripture, totally fails, and you are not entitled to maintain, that where that order does not exist, there can be neither Church, nor ministry, nor any hope of salvation. J I remain, Reverend sir, Yours, &c. * Perpctuall Government, p. 227. t Even Bellarinine, though a Papist makes the following candid statement of the difference between apostles and bishops. " Bish- ops," says he, "have no part of the true apostolic authority. Apos- tles could preach and found churches in even/ part of the world, as ap- pears from the last chapters of Matthew and Mark. Bishops cannot do this. Apostles, as all confess, could write canonical Epistles. Bishops cannot do this. Apostles had the gift of tongues and the power of working miracles. This does not belong to bishops. Apos- tles had jurisdiction over the whole Church. This is not possessed by bishops. Null.im habent cpiscopi partem verae Apostolicae auctori- tatis," &c. De Pontif. Roman., lib. iv. cap. 25. 156 LETTER XII. Bishop Bilson represents the" argument for Episcopacy, from the powers conferred on Timothy and Titos, as "the main erection of the Episcopal cause ;" and Bishop Hall declares, that if it fails " he will yield the cause, and confess that he has lost his senses." — None of the Fathers during the Jirst three centuries represent them as diocesan bishops; and Willet, Stil- lingfleet, and Bishop Bridges acknowledge them to have been extraordi- nary ministers, or Evangelists — Nature of the office of Evangelists, as illustrated by Scripture and the writings of the Fathers. — Different from that of diocesan bishops, and superior to it. — Diocesan bishops never said to have been associated with Evangelists or Apostles in any act of juris- diction or government, though Presbyters repeatedly took part with them in such acts. — No notice of diocesan bishops as an order existing in their days. — The argument in every point of view inconclusive. Reverend Sir, — The next argument in support of diocesan Episcopacy is derived from the powers which are represented as having been committed to Timothy and Titus; and from the terms in which it is men- tioned by two of the most eminent and learned of your prelates, it would seem that they attached to it the very highest importance, and considered it as irre- sistible. " This, indeed," said Bilson, " is the main erection of the Episcopal power and function, if our proofes drawn from these ministers stand, or subver- sion, if your answere be good. For if this faile, wel may bishops claime their authoritie by the custome of the Church; by any divine precept expressed in the Scriptures they cannot."* And said Bishop Hall, " I demand what is it that it stood upon, but these two particulars, the especiall power of ordination, and power of the ruling and censuring of presbyters; and if these two be not clear in the charge of the Apostle to these two bishops, one of Crete, the other of Ephe- sus, I shall yield the cause, and confess to want my senses."t I propose, accordingly, to examine " this main erection of the Episcopal function," the over- throw of which, if I shall succeed in accomplishing it, ought to lead you to abandon that lofty claim of divine * Perpetuall Government, chap. xiv. p. 300. t Hall's Episcopacy by Divine Right, book 2, p. 26. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 157 right for your ecclesiastical polity which you have built upon it; and if you possess the candour of the last of these prelates, " to yield the cause," though you should not, like him, if you maintain it any longer, "admit that you would want your senses." This argument, then, (and as 1 am anxious to do it justice, I have selected the most comprehensive state- ment of it that I have met with, namely, that by Bishop Downam,) has been proposed in the following terms: " But we are also," says he, " to show the places where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordained bishops, and first out of the Scriptures. For by the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothe and Titus, it is appa- rent that hee had ordained Timothe Bishop of Ephe- sus, and Titus of Creet; the Epistles themselves being the verie patterns and precedents of the episcopall function. For, as the Apostle had committed unto them episcopall authoritie, both in respect of ordina- tion and jurisdiction, which in the Epistles is pre-sup- posed, so doth he by those Epistles informe them, and in them all bishops, how to exercise their function. First, in respect of ordination, as Tit. i. 5; I left thee in Creet, that thou shouldst ordaine presbyters in every citie, as I appointed thee. 1 Tim. v. 22, Impose hands hastily on no man ; neither be partaker of other men's sinnes. Secondly, in regard of jurisdiction, not onely over the people, but also over the presbyters; appoint- ing them to be both guides and censurers of their doc- trine, as 1 Tim. i. 3, I required thee to continue in Ephesus, that thou shouldest commaund some that they teach no strange doctrine, neither that they attend to fables, &c. 2 Tim. ii. 16 ; Tit. i. 10-11, iii. 9 ; and also judges of their person and conversation, as 1 Tim. v. 19, 20, 21, Against a presbyter receive not an accu- sation, but under two or three witnesses," &c* Now, upon this I would remark, in the first place, that even admitting their interpretation of the different passages contained in this extract, they have no right * Sermon on the Function of Bishops, p. 72-74. 15S LETTERS ON to claim similar powers to ordinary ministers, like diocesan bishops, in the present day, unless they had proved that Timothy and Titns were only ordinary ministers of the very same order, and were to be suc- ceeded by others till the end of the world. It is this which constitutes the very strength of the argument, and as it has never yet been proved, but only taken for granted, and as I think that the contrary is estab- lished by evidence which cannot be controverted, the argument fails. You profess to respect the opinions of the fathers, and I challenge you to produce a single passage from the writings of any of them, during the first three centuries, in which they say that they con- sider them to have been bishops. Dr. Whitby could not do it,* and I have been equally unsuccessful, and I shall wait till I see whether 3^ou are more fortunate. Chrysostom, in a passage which is quoted from him by Mocket, Archbishop Abbot's chaplain, acknow- ledges that they were evangelists.t Such, too, was the opinion of Willet, who says, " It is most like that Timothie had the place and calling of an evangelist, whose office was to second the apostles into their ministerie, and to wuter that which the Apostles had planted.^! "They were but very few," says Stil- lingfleet, " and those in probability not the ablest, who were left at home to take care of the spoil ; the strong- est and ablest, like commanders in an army, were not settled in any troop, but went up and down, from this company to that, to order them and draw them forth ; and while they were, they had the chief authority among them, but as commanders of the army, and not as officers of the troop. Such were evangelists, who were sent sometimes into this country, to put the churches in order there, sometimes into another ; but wherever they were, they acted as evangelists, and not as fixed officers. And such were Timothy and Titus, notwithstanding all the opposition made to it, as will appear to any that will take an impartial sur- * Preface to the Epistle to Titus. t Tractat. de Politia Anglican. t Append, to the 5th General Controv., Quest. 3. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 159 vey of the arguments on both sides."* And says Bishop Bridges, whom no one will suspect of a lean- ing to Presbyterianism, " The same Philip is called an Evangelist ; so was Tirnothie ; 2 Tim. iv. 5. Such was Titus, Silas, and manie other. This office also, with the order of the Jjpostles, is expired, and hath no place. Likewise, as wee doo plainlie see, that the gifts of healing, of powers or miracles, and of diverse toongs, have long since ceased in the Church ; so the offices of them which were grounded upon these gifts must also cease, and be determined."^ And what is still more important, such, likewise, is the express declaration of Scripture, for Paul enjoins Timothy, (2 Tim. iv. 5,) to "do the work of an evangelist;" and it is evident that the duties which he prescribes to him are the same with those which were assigned to Titus. The office of an Evangelist was the third of the three great extraordinary offices which were instituted by the Redeemer, for founding and organizing the primitive Church, and which are represented by Paul, (Eph. iv. 11,) as distinct from that of the ordinary standing ministry, which was to be occupied by pas- tors and teachers. Those who were invested with the former office, though properly the helpers or as- sistants of the Apostles, whose function was to cease with that of their masters, approached very nearly to the latter in rank, acted as their substitutes on many occasions, and when executing their commands, seem to have been permitted to exercise almost equal au- thority. Hence, while they are described by Tertul- lian as " apostolic men,"| and by Jerome as " the sons of the Apostles, "§ Augustine designates them very happily by a most expressive name, signifying literally, " the substitutes of the Apostles, who were almost ecpial to theni."|| Sometimes, as in the case * Irenicum, p. 340. t Defence of the Government of the Church of England, book i. p. 68. t Lib. 4, Advers. Mar. " Viri Apostolici." ij Filii Apostolorum ; Comment, in Iesai. cap. 65. || Suppares Apostolis ; Pernio 146, de Tempore. 160 LETTERS ON of Timothy, they appear to have received an imme- diate and supernatural call; for Paul refers to "the prophecies which went before respecting him;" inti- mating, probably, that it was the will of God he should be appointed to his office, as the Holy Ghost said to the prophets and teachers at Antioch, " Separate me Barnabas and Paul for the work whereunto I have called them." We know, too, that they were endow- ed with the power of working miracles, for it is men- tioned, (Acts viii. 6-8,) that " the Samaritans' with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip (the Evangelist) spake, hearing and seeing the mira- cles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them; and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city." And we have reason to believe, that the same supernatural gifts which were possessed by him were communicated to the rest of the evangelists ; in addition to which, Bilson admits, that in common with the prophets, they " had these two (other) gifts, the revealing of secrets, and discerning of spirits, (though in lesse measure than the Apostles,) which served chiefly to distinguish who were fit or unfit for the service of Christ's Church."* Sometimes, as in the case of Philip, when he preached in Samaria, they came before the Apostles, and founded churches, and the Apostles succeeded them, and organized these * " Nam cum primum ecclc-siae plantarentur," says Bilson, in the Latin translation of his Treatise on Church Government, p. 125, " etiam i 11 i qui credebant in divinis Scripturis et mysteriis adeo ty- rones fuerunt et rudes ut ad populum docendum et regendum nulli fuerint idonei, nisi qui Apostoli, per manuum suarum impositionein variis Spiritus Sancti donis instrucrent, et ad illud inunus exequen- dum aptos efficerent ; in Samaria recens ad fidem conversa prorsus ad Evangelii praedicationem et ecclesiae gubernationem inermes et inepti fuerunt donee Petrus et Joannes eorum aliquos Spiritus Sancti vir- tute, per manuum imposilionem donantes alios prophetas, alios pas- tores, alios doctores, mirabiliter effecerant; quemque donis ad func- tionem necessariis adornantes." So little did he see in this passage, which evidently does not refer to confirmation, to warrant that rite which none of the Apostles or of the ministers of the Apostolic Church ever performed, but which is one of those human inventions that are practised in the Scottish and English Episcopalian Churches. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 161 churches; and as the last writer admits, laid their hands on some of the converts, not to confirm them, as Episcopalians assert, but to communicate to them spiritual gifts, that they might be qualified immediately for becoming the pastors of these churches.* And at other times evangelists came after the Apostles; and when the latter had planted, the former, as in the case of Apollos and Titus, " watered and set in order the things which were wanting, ordaining elders in every city." Such is the view which was presented of their office in the New Testament, and it is con- firmed by a well-known passage of Eusebius. "At the same time," says he, "flourished Quadratus, who, together with the daughters of Philip, was famous for the gift of prophecy, and besides them, many others who occupy the principal place among the successors of the Apostles. These persons being the venerable disciples of such men, built up the churches in every place of which the foundation had been laid by the Jlpostles, promoting more and more the preaching of the Gospel, and scattering through the world the salu- tary seed of the kingdom of heaven. For many of the disciples of that period, whose minds were in- flamed by the word with the most ardent attachment to the true philosophy, fulfilling the commandment of their Saviour, divided their substance among the poor, and having been sent forth with authority, performed the office of evangelists to those who had never heard the word of faith, being most desirous to preach Christ unto them, and to deliver to them the writings of the divine Gospels. These men having laid the foundations of the faith in some remote places, having ordained also others to be pastors over them, and having committed to their care the cultivation of xohat they had themselves begun, hastened to other countries and nations, being accompanied by the grace and power of God."t It seems impossible, therefore, to deny that the office of evangelists was * See preceding note. t " Twv Si x*ru Towv'.vt SiAXi/Jt^iyrcei x%i Kc/^iTO?," &.C. Ecclcs. Hist., lib. iii. cap. 37. 11 162 LETTERS ON extraordinary and temporary, like that of the Apostles, and not only different from, but greatly superior to that of modern diocesan bishops. And it is certainly contrary to all the acknowledged rules of reasoning to found an argument on the powers of ministers of a higher order, (the Suppares Apostolorum,) who were richly endowed with supernatural gifts, and who were able to perform miraculous works, for similar powers to inferior ministers, who are destitute of the one, and who cannot perform the other, — ministers too, of an order to which there is no allusion in the Epistles which are addressed to Timothy and Titus, or in any other part of the sacred volume, and who in no sense of the word, when it is used as a distinctive official title, can be called evangelists. I will be told, however, by Bishop Gleig, that "the word tvayyixi^r^, rendered an evangelist, is unques- tionably derived from ed'o^e jugu ; but that word, says Dr. Campbell, relates to the first intimation that is given to a person or people, that is, when the subject may be properly called news. Thus, in the Acts, it is frequently used for expressing the first publication of the Gospel in a city, or a village, or amongst a particular people. If this be essential to the radical import of the verb, of which, indeed, there can be no doubt, then it follows that an evangelist, considered as a distinct character, could only be one, whether apostle, elder, deacon or layman, who first carried the glad tidings of the Gospel to an individual or a peo- ple. Hence it is that of the seven deacons none is called an evangelist but Philip, because he alone of the whole number is mentioned as having carried the glad tidings of the Gospel beyond the limits of Judea, within which those tidings were first told by Christ and his Apostles. Hence, too, it appears, that those whom St. Paul says Christ, after his resurrection, gave as evangelists for the work of the ministry, must have been men miraculously inspired with the know- ledge of the Gospel, and impelled by the same heavenly impulse to communicate that knowledge to those to whom it was news. But in this sense Timothy and PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 163 Titus could not be evangelists to the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, because St. Paul had preached the Gospel in those churches before them, and had even ordained presbyters in the Church of Ephesus."* Now, upon this I would remark, that according to the principle which is here laid down, (and it is only an old evasion of our reply to the argument for diocesan Episcopacy from the powers committed to Timothy and Titus,) an evangelist was not a distinct office-bearer intrusted with a particular function in the primitive Church, but any one who first made known the Gospel in a city or country, whether it was a woman, or a layman, or a deacon, or a pres- byter, or a prophet, or an Apostle. Nay, the angels must have been evangelists, when they brought the glad tidings to the shepherds of Bethlehem; and An- drew and Philip, even bp/ore they were baptized, when they brought them to Peter and Nathanael; and the Samaritan woman,\vhen she communicated them to her townsmen. Nothing, however, can be more inconsistent than this with the description which is given of an evangelist, either in Scripture or in the writings of the fathers. In the former, as has been mentioned, he is represented as an extraordinary minister, ivith a particular office, distinct from that of any other minister; for, says Paul, Eph. iv. 11, " he gave some, apostles, some, prophets, some, evan- lists, and some, pastors and teachers." But how he could be said to have given only some to be evange- lists, if they did not constitute a separate order, and if every minister of every order in that early age, and every minister throughout future ages, and even every man, and woman, and child, who first made, known these glad tidings to a single individual, was really an evangelist, and performed all that was meant by that word, as Dowuara and Bishop Gleig and others con- tend, I cannot comprehend. And how could Saravia blunder so egregiously, as to infer from this passage, that " there were distinct orders among the ministers * Ninth vol. of the Anti-Jacohin Review. 164 LETTERS OS of the Gospel, the Apostles being prophets, evange- lists, teachers and pastors: and the evangelists being prophets, pastors and teachers," &lc* Philip is called an evangelist, not immediately after he preached the Gospel in Sar?iaria, but long afterwards, Acts xxi. S; and not because he was the first who preached the Gospel in that city, but because ''having used the office of a deacon well, he obtained for himself a good degree," and was promoted to the office of an evan- gelist. Besides, as evangelists not only sometimes went before the Apostles, and were the first who preached the Gospel in a place; but as Willet and Eusebius state, sometimes also came after them, like Apollos, (1 Cor. iii. 6,) "and seconded them in their ministerie, watering that which they had planted," or organizing the churches which they had founded, and " setting in order the things which were want- ing," the latter was a part of the office of an evange- list, which Timothy and Titus could do; and which office, in all its parts, Timothy was expressly enjoined to perform; 2 Tim. iv. 4. This objection, therefore, to the order of extraordinary early ministers, to which We assign these distinguished fellow-labourers of the Apostles, is utterly groundless. And if they are to be ranked among the evangelists, no claim can be urged from the powers which they exercised in their high office for similar powers to diocesan bishops, who are never said to have been associated with them while they lived, either in ordination or jurisdiction, and who are never represented as the ministers who were to succeed them in the exercise of their authority after they left the world. It is plain also from the fact, that neither Timothy nor Titus was confined to any particular diocese, but was constantly employed in travelling with the Apos- tles and assisting them in their labours, or in planting or watering different churches, that they were evan- gelists and uot bishops. * Gradus Ministror. Evangel, consec. ita distinctos fuisse," &.C. ad. cap. i. Bez. de divers, grad. Minist. Evangel. PUSEVITE EPISCOPACV. 165 " Episcopacy," says Dr. Barrow, " is an ordinary standing charge, affixed to one standing place, and requiring a special, attendance there* But evange- lists, as is stated by Eusebius, after having founded or organized churches in one place, hastened to another. It is impossible, accordingly, to read what is said of Timothy and Titus in the New Testament, without perceiving that they were evangelists, for they had no more any fixed and settled charge than the Apos- tles themselves, but were constantly moving from place to place. Thus, it is mentioned respecting Timo- thy, that as soon as he was ordained to the ministry, (Acts xvi.) he travelled with Paul through Phrygia, Galatia, Asia and Mysia, from which they came to Philippi, and after remaining there for a time he was sent to Corinth, where he preached to that Church, (2 Cor. i. 19,) and then returned to the Apostle. They went together from Philippi toThessalonica and Berea; and Paul having proceeded to Athens, Timothy soon followed him, and was by and by despatched again to Thessalonica, to confirm and water the Church in that city. Michaelis thinks that the Apostle wrote his first Epistle to him when he left him at Ephesus, after he himself was obliged to leave it, (Acts xix.) to re-establish order in that Church, to fill the ecclesias- tical offices, and to oppose the false teachers;" and he considers it as evident from what is mentioned in the third chapter, that " no bishops had then been ap- pointed among them." This took place when Timothy was young, (1 Tim. iv. 12,) or, according to the opin- ion of the most eminent critics, when he was about twenty-six or twenty-seven years of age, and several years before the last interview of the Apostle with the presbyters of Ephesus, (Acts xx.) whom he addresses as bishops, v. 28, without representing them as under the Episcopate of Timothy. And as not a word is said of his being the Bishop of Ephesus, or of his being bound to reside there; so his stay there was short, for he accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, followed him to Rome, (Colos. i. 1,) was imprisoned there, and * Pope's Supremacy, p. 82. 166 LETTERS ON liberated shortly before the Apostle was liberated, (Heb. xiii. 23,) from which he proceeded very pro- bably to Philippi. And the same observation applies to Titus, whose residence in Crete appears to have been short; for Paul tells him, (ch. iii. 12,) that "when he sent Tychicus or Artemas to him, he wished him to come to him to Nicopolis," and who laboured also among the Churches in Macedonia and Dalmafia, as well as at Rome and Corinth.* If the scene, however, of the labours of these ministers changed so frequently, and if they were constantly moved from place to place at the pleasure of the Apostles, and as Hilary expresses it in his own most apposite language, " had no cathe- dral seat, evangclizabant sine cathedra," what must we think of this main erection of diocesan Episco- pacy, since it is evident from these facts that Timothy and Titus were not bishops, but were among the chief of the evangelists? It has been asserted, I am aware, by Downman, that, " although upon special and extraordinary occa- sions they were by the Apostles called to other places, as his or the Churches' necessity required ; yet Ephesus and Crete were the place of their ordinary residence, where they both lived and died. Paul," says he, " willeth Timothe, (1 Tim. i. 3,) 7t£oai,permanere, (the word is significant,) to abide still, or to continue at Ephesus ; and he left Titus not to redresse things in Creet for a brunt, and so to come away, but that he shuld (Tit. i. 5,) trtiSiweOuoat, continue in reparasing what should be amisse, and still keep that Church as it were in reparation. "t But nothing can be deduced from the term trti8iue,9u>eai which will warrant that statement; for, as is acknowledged by Anselmof Can- terbury, it denotes merely that he was to perfect the organizing of the Churches which had been begun by Paul;J and the way in which he was to do this was » 2 Cor. vii. 5, 6; 2 Tim. iv. 10; 2 Cor. vii. 13, 15; viii. 6, 12, 18. t Sermon, p. 76. t " At ea inquit, quae desunt corrigas, id est, ut ea quae a me cor- recta sunt, et necdum ad plenam veri lineam sunt redacta a te corri- gantur, et normam aequalitatis recipiant." PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 167 by "ordaining presbyters in every city." And not a word is to be met with about his continuing there any longer; and for any tiling that is afterwards recorded respecting him, one might as consistently conclude with Aquinas, from 2 Tim. iv. 10, that he was Bishop of Dalmatia, as infer from this passage, with modern Episcopalians, that he was Bishop or Archbishop of Crete. And as to the term Tt^oafii ivai, 1 Tim. i. 3, so far from proving that Timothy was to reside perma- nently at Ephesus, it does not furnish the smallest ground for that assertion. It signifies in general to remain, but whether for a shorter or longer time, must be ascertained from other circumstances. Sometimes it denotes continuance in a place for a number of days, (Acts xviii. 18;) sometimes for three days, (Math.xv. 3 ; Mark viii. 2 ;) and sometimes for scarcely three hours, (Judges iii. 15, Septuagint.) And as such is its general signification, so it is evident that in the passage in question it can denote only a temporary residence ; for if Ephesus had been allotted to Timo- thy as his diocese, Paul would not have " besought," but would have commanded him " to remain in it." " How ingenious," says Daillee, " is the passion for the crosier and the mitre, which in a few plain words has discovered such mysteries! For where is the man, who, using only his natural understanding with- out the fire that affection imparts to it, would have ever found out so many mitres as those of a bishop, and an archbishop,* and a primate in these two expres- sions, Paul besought Timothy to remain at Ephe- sus? Who, without the aid of an extraordinary passion, could have divined a thing so fine and so marvellous, and could have imagined, that to entreat a man to abide in a city, was to appoint him the bishop of it, archbishop of the province, and primate of the whole country? Without exaggeration, the cause of these hierarchical gentlemen must be reduced to great straits when they are obliged to have recourse to such pitiful arguments. As to myself, considering matters coolly, I should have concluded on the con- * Some of the fathers make him an archbishop. 168 LETTERS ON trary, from the Apostle beseeching Timothy to remain at Ephesus, that he could not have been Bishop of Ephesus. For to what purpose would it be to entreat a bishop to remain in his diocese ? Is not this to beseech a man to continue in a place to which he is tied down? I should not have thought it strange if he had been entreated to leave it, had there been need for his services elsewhere. But to beseech him to stop in a place of which he had the charge, and which he could not quit ivithout displeasing God and neglect- ing his duty, to say the truth, is a request which is not a little extraordinary, and which evidently sup- poses that he had not his duty much at heart, since he needed to be besought to do it. But however that may be, it is very certain that to beseech a man to remain in a place does not signify that he is consti- tuted the bishop of it.'"* It cannot therefore be inferred from these passages, that either Timothy or Titus was merely a bishop. And when it is recollected, that at the time when some of the fathers began to represent Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus, and say that he was appointed to his see by Paul, they assert that another bishop, named John, was appointed to the same bish- opric by the Apostle John, who was Primate of all Asia, in which also others associate Timothy with him,t it increases the absurdity, and shows the despe- rate state of the cause which depends on such support, and yet the defenders of which are continually boast- ing that theirs are the only Apostolic Churches, out of which you cannot enjoy the Christian ministry, nor a covenanted title to the blessings of salvation. It will not follow that Timothy was not an evange- * Sermon 1, sur l'Ep. I. a Timothee, p. 22. t It is said in the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. 7, cap. 46, that " when Timothy was made fiishop of Ephesus by Paul, John was made bishop of it by the Apostle John, tjic Si E^tryj Ti/x'Aen ftm xitcd Uivxcu, ImautK Si vir' iucu laxttiu" ■ Cotelerius indeed attempts to show that it means only that John succeeded Timothy, and rejects the idea stated in Mttaphraste apud Syrium, and in the martyrdom of Timothy, Codex 254, Bibliothecae Photii, that John the Apostle came after Timothy in the Episcopate of Ephesus and Asia. But he allows that he was Primate of Asia during the bishoprics of Timothy and the other John, and the whole statement appears very ridiculous. PtTSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 169 list, as has sometimes been alleged, because he was ex- horted ( 1 Tim. iv. 1 3,) to " give attendance to reading." Daniel did so, (Dan. ix. 2, &c.) though he was a pro- phet; and Paul did so, though he was an Apostle, (2 Tim. iv. 13;) and while I admit that his learning has been frequently overrated,* yet he seems to have been * It has been asserted by Cave, in his Life of this Apostle, c. 8, p. 428, that lie was not only acquainted with Jewish learning-, but with the philosophy and the more elegant accomplishments of the Greeks, and that he was thus prepared tor being the Apostle of the Gentiles, and for fighting the most learned of the Greeks with their own wea- pons. And the same was the opinion of Witsius, (Mcletem. Leid. in Vita Pauli,) of Pfaffius, (Dissert, de Apostolo Paulo, p. 2, 3,) of Wind- heim, (Dissert, de Paulo, Gentium Apostolo, contra Th. Morganum, Hal. 1745,) and of many others. But it is proved by Thalmannus, ia an able Dissertation de Eruditione Pauli Apostoli, edit. Lipsiae, 1769, that while he had a very considerable portion of Jewish learning, there is no satisfactory evidence of his high attainments in Grecian literature. His being educated at Tarsus, where, according to Strabo, (Geograph. lib. xiv. p. 463,) there were more celebrated schools of philosophy than at Athens or Alexandria, will not prove it; for, as is observed by that author, p. 22, though a Jew in the present day were to be born and educated at Halle, or Leipsic, it would not follow that he must have studied eloquence, or philosophy, or mathematics, under any of the professors in these cities. His style furnishes no evidence of it; for this, as is acknowledged even by Cave, (Hist. Liter., p. 8,) is pronounced by the ancients to be rough and unadorned ; and if it be a little superior to that of his fellow-apostles, it is sufficiently ac- counted for upon other principles by Thalmannus, p. 45-47. It is not supported by what is said of him by Longinus in the Codex Evan- geliorum Bibliothccae Vuticanae; for, as is remarked by Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca, lib. iv. c;ip. 31, p. 445, that fragment seems to have been the production of a Christian. And it cannot be established by his quoting, in a few instances, some of the Grecian poets. As is observed by Bengclius, Gnomon ad Tit. i. 12, he never names Aratus, Menander, or Epimenides; and all certainly who have picked up and repeat sentiments from authors, especially when these sentiments have become proverbs, are not to be considered as acquainted with their writings. How many, for instance, of the Romans may have been able to repeat such sentences as these, "Homo sum, humani nihil a mealienum puto;" "Mors aequo pulsat pede paupcrum tabernas rcgumque turres," and yet never have perused the writings of Terence or Horace? And. in like manner, says Werenfelsius of Paul, (Dis- sert, de Stilo Nov. Test. torn. i. Oper. p. 315,) " Potuit haec a Graecis conversis accepissc, potuerunt hi versus, certc 7ri£ct/ui*v redolentcs in vulgus noli esse." In short, it was contrary to the rules of the Phari- sees that any of their sect should study Grecian literature. (See Josephus, Antiq. Jud. 20. 9; Talmud in Tract. Mesch. Solah. c. 9, n. 14; and the Gemara, on the place where it is announced, that " who- soever taught his son the philosophy of the Greeks was to be ac- 170 LETTERS OS continually adding to his knowledge, and unquestion- ably the same thing might be useful to an evangelist. Nor will it at all affect the title of Timothy to be considered as an evangelist, as Thomas imagines, that he is commanded "not to neglect the gift that was in him, which was given him by prophecy, with the lay- ing on of the hands of the presbytery," for "the clerk of the peace," says he, "might as well make justices, or captains make colonels," as a court of presbyters could make "an evangelist."* Bilson supposes that Timothy was ordained twice, first as a presbyter; and if this was done, as is stated, 1 Tim. iv. 14, by a court of presbyters, it proves that presbyters may ordain presbyters; and next as an evangelist, by the Apostle Paul, for he admits that he was an evangelist. "Every one," says he, "by the ancient discipline of Christ's Church, before hee could come from ministring to gov- erning in the Church of God, received thrice, or, at the least, twice imposition of hands. The like, if any man list, he may imagine of Timothie, that the good report which the brethren of Lystra and Iconium gave of him unto Paul, whereupon hee would that Timothie should goe foorth, grew upon triall of his faithfull and painfull service in a former and lower vocation, for cursed.") Consult Wagenseil ad 1. c. edit. Surenhus, p. 307; Light- foot, vol. ii. p. TOG; and Wetstein upsn Acts vi. 1. Nor is it any objection to this, that Josephus, though a Pharisee, acquired this learning, for it was after he had been carried captive to Rome, and was not under his former restrictions. And not only has this view of the attainments of Paul been taken by Melancthon, (Disput. Orat. in Epist. ad Rom.) by Grotius, (Comment on 1 Cor. ii. 1,) by J. A. Turretine, (Dissert. Theolog. torn. i. sec. 11,) and by Ernesti, (Opusc. Crit. et Phil. p. 201 ;) but, as is proved by Thalmannus, by Origen in his Philocal. c. 15, by Chrysostom, in his 1st and 3d Homilies on the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says that Paul was unacquainted with Grecian learning; and in his 4th Homily on the 2d Epistle to Timothy, where he observes, " Hebraicam tantum lin- guam calluisse, Graecam ignorasse ;" and by Jerome, Epist. ad Algas, qu. 10, and Epist. ad Hedypiam, qu. 11. But though he had not that measure of Grecian learning which has frequently been ascribed to him, lie unquestionably had a more than ordinary acquaintance with Jewish learning, for he profited in the knowledge of it, as he tells us, " above his equals ;" and he seems to have laboured to increase it, by reading whenever he had an opportunity. * Answer to James Owen on Ordination, p. 17, 18. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 171 which hee had imposition of hands, and that mooved Paul to take him along with him, and when hee saw his time, to impose hands on him for a greater calling. For it is not credible that Paul would impose hands on him at the first step, to place him in one of the highest degrees, being so young as he was, without good experience of his sober and wise behaviour in some other and former function."* There appears, however, as far as we can judge from what is men- tioned in Scripture, to have been only one ordination performed by a court of presbyters, at which, if Paul was present, and took part in it, he must have acted only as a presbyter, and, as Daillee suggests,t officiated as its president. And certainly, if the Apostles sat in the Council of Jerusalem along with the presbyters, and assumed no more authority than they, and issued its decrees in the name of the presbyters as well as their own, why might not Paul act as a presbyter along with other presbyters at the ordination of Timo- thy? And if an army, as we know, have often made an emperor, though they were greatly his inferiors; and if prophets and teachers, or presbyters, made Barnabas an Apostle at Antioch, as Bishop Gleig acknowledges; for " it was after that," he says, "that he was called an Apostle;" it would be exceedingly strange if a court of presbyters, guided by the pro- phecies which went before respecting Timothy, point- ing him out as a fit person for the high office which he was destined to fill, could not ordain him to be an evangelist. I presume that no one in the present day will main- tain that Timothy and Titus were bishops, the first of Ephesus, and the second of Crete, because they are dis- tinguished by these titles in the postscripts of the Epis- tles which were addressed to them. Dr. Mill admits that these postscripts were added by Eustathius, bishop of Silica, in Egypt, in the middle of the fifth century ; and Home confesses, that whoever was the author, he was either grossly ignorant, or grossly inattentive. And * Perpctuall Government, p. 94. t Sermon 31, sur l'Epitre 1. a Timothee, p. 296, 297. 172 LETTERS ON it might as consistently be asserted, on the authority of the author of the Scholastic History, that Timothy was Bishop of Lystra, because he resided there for some time, and laboured in the Gospel, as that he was Bishop of Ephesus. If it be urged with Downam, that, to prevent us from imagining that what was ad- dressed to these ministers, " was spoken to them as extraordinary persons, (whose authority should die with them,) but to them and their successors to the end of the world, Paul straightway chargeth Timothe, that the commandements and directions which he gave him should be kept inviolable, (1 Tim. vi. 13, 14,) untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and therefore, by such as should have the like authority unto the end;"* I reply with Stillingfleet, "this is easily answered ; for, first, it is no way certain what this command was which Paul speaks of. Some un- derstand it, of fighting the good fight of faith; others, of the precept of love; others, most probably the sum of all contained in this Epistle ; which I confesse im- plies in it, (as being one great part of the Epistle,) Paul's directing of Timothy for the right discharg- ing of his office. But, granting that the command re- spects Timothy's office, I answer, secondly, it manifest- ly appears to be something personal, and not suc- cessive, or at least nothing can be inferred for the ne- cessity of such a succession from this place'which it was brought for, nothing being more evident than that this command related to Timothy's personal ob- servance of it. And therefore, thirdly, Christ's appear- ing here is not meant of his second coming to judg- ment, but it only imports the time of Timothy's de- cease. So Chrysostom, pix^ *£ t^tnu v-txe,*- *rfi tioSov.t So Estius understands it, usque ad exitum vitae,J and for that end brings that speech of Augus- tine, Tunc unicuique veniet dies adventus Domini, cum venerit ei dies, ut talis hie extat, qualis judican- dus est illo die.§ And the reason why the time of his * Sermon p. 74. t "Till the end, till thy departure." t " Till the end of life." § " Then the day of the coming of the Lord will arrive to each, PUSEYITE EPISCOPACT. 173 death is set out by the coming of Christ, is tra p.a'Kxov avtov fiityfi^);, as Chrysostom, and from him Theophy- lact, observes, to incite him the more both to diligence in his work, and patience under sufferings, from the consideration of Christ's appearance. The plain mean- ing of the words, then, is the same with that of Rev. ii. 20, Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. Nothing, then, can be hence inferred, as to the necessary succession of some in Timothy's office, whatever it be supposed to be."* And if it be alleged, again, with Downam, that "their being evangelists did not hinder them from being bishops, when ceasing from their travailling about, they were assigned to these particular church- es; and that this is proved by the testimony of Zuin- glius, who saith (in Ecclesiaste,) that Philip the Evan- gelist, who had beene one of the deacons, was after- wards Bishop of Caesarea;"t I answer, that if Timothy and Titus were not made bishops till they had ceased from travelling, then as, they travelled frequently after they they had performed what was prescribed to them at Ephesus and in Crete, they could not, even upon this author's own showing, have been bishops of either of these places. Besides, it is never stated in Scripture that any evangelist in his old age was assigned permanently to any particular place, and reduced to the rank of a diocesan bishop ; which, as Dr. Barrow observes, if it were to take place in regard to an Apostle in his old age, " would be such an irregularity, as" if any of your bishops, or of the humbler bishops of the Scottish Episcopalians, who now arrogate to their Church the lofty title of the Reformed Apostolic Catholic Church in Scotland, was in his old age " to be made a deacon !"X when the day shall come to him on which he will be judged as he is in tli is world," referring probably to the judgment which is spoken of, Hcb. ix. 27. * Irenicum, p. 183, 184. Consult, too, Dr. Whitby on the place, t Defense of his Sermon, p. 96, lib. 4. t Pope's Supremacy, p. 120. IWark is denominated by some of the latter fathers first Bishop of Alexandria, but it is merely in accommodation to the sentiments 174 LETTERS ON I have only further to remark, with regard to the powers of ordination and jurisdiction, which were committed by Paul to Timothy and Titus, that it will by no means entitle you, though you were able to prove that they alone exercised them in Ephesus and Crete, to claim similar powers to any of your bishops. Both of them were of an order very near to that of the Apostles, appointed for special and temporary purposes, and far superior to diocesan bishops. And it would cetrainly be strange if the ministers of a lower order, even admitting you could shoio from other passages that they were instituted by Christ, should exercise powers belonging to a higher order, without producing any warrant permitting them to assume them after that order had ceased, or any evi- dence of their having been allowed to exercise them along with these ministers while that order existed. And it is still more strange that these powers should be claimed for that lower order, since you have never yet proved from other parts of Scripture, that it was appointed by the Redeemer, either before or after he ascended to heaven. And at the same time I would observe, that it lias never yet been demonstrated that Timothy and Titus exercised these powers by them- selves alone, without allowing presbyters to unite with them in ordination or jurisdiction, or that, when they exercised them along with presbyters, they did it in any higher character than that of presbyters. Paul, indeed, tells Timothy (1 Tim. v. 22,) that he was to " lay hands suddenly on no man;" and Titus, (ch. i. 5,) that he had " left him in Crete, that he might ordain Presbyters in every city, as he had appointed him." But it no more follows that either of these evangelists was to exercise this power alone in Ephe- about bishops which prevailed in their own times ; for we have un- doubted evidence, that after he founded that church, he still retained his office as an evangelist, travelling about and preaching the Gospel, and founding churches in other places. It is stated that he did so alter this in nearly the whole of Egypt, and in many parts of Africa, by the writer of the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius ; by the Legend. Aut. cap. 57 ; by the Centur. Magdeburg, Cent. i. lib. 2, cap. 10 ; and by Baronius in his Annals, torn i. p. 695. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 175 sus and Crete, than it would follow from the words of our Lord to Peter, (Mat. xvi. 19,) " I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," that the power of which they were the symbol was committed exclusively to thut. Jlpostle. Theophylact says of the latter, " although it is said only to Peter, I will give thee, yet the same was given to all the Apostles." And the. same is the language of many others of the fathers, and of all Protestant expositors. Not a sin- gle instance of the ordination of a presbyter by one individual, whether he was an apostle or evangelist, can be produced from the New Testament; and if it was never done even by an apostle, as far as appears from Scripture, on what ground are we to believe that it was done by either of these evangelists? Be- sides, if presbyters ordained an apostle at Antioch, as Bishop Gleig admits, and if Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, it is plain, as VVillet observes, that it " cannot be gathered from these words, lay hands suddenly upon no man, that Tirnothie had this sole power in himself, for the Apostle would not give that to him which he did not take to himselfe, who associated unto him the rest of the presbyterie in the ordaining of Tirnothie, 1 Tim. iv. 14, but he speaketh to him as the chiefe." Nor would Timothy and Titus find any difficulty in pro- curing presbyters, to unite with them in ordaining other presbyters, since Paul had preached in Ephesus for more than two years, and had laid his hands (Acts xix.) on twelve men, who not only spoke with tongues, but prophesied, and who having been admit- ted into the ministry, could take part with Timothy in ordaining others; and Titus would be assisted by Zenas and Apollos, who were with him in Crete, (Tit. iii. 13.) And though the Apostle says to Timothy, (1 Tim. v. 19,) "against a presbyter receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses," it will not prove that he alone was to judge of it. For, as Willet again remarks, "though he speak by name to Tirnothie, directing his speech to him as the chiefe, yet he excludeth not the rest, as the Holy Ghost writing 176 LETTERS ON to the angel and chiefe pastors of the seven Church- es, Apoc. ii. 3, implyeth the rest of the ministers and Church there, as may appear by the matter of the Epistles, wherein the faults of the lohole Church are reproved, and their virtues commended." And says Whitaker, "to receive an accusation is to report the evil to the Church, and to bring the culprit to judg- ment, and publicly to reprove him, which may be done not only by superiors, but by equals and inferiors. Thus, in the Roman Republic the knights sat in judg- ment not only upon plebeians, but upon senators and patricians."* We know, too, that presbyters exer- cised jurisdiction along with Timothy at Ephesns, for Paul speaks of them (1. Tim. v. 13,) as " worthy of double honour because they ruled well, especially if they laboured in the word and doctrine." And they are represented as exercising the same power among the Thessalonians, (1 Thes. v. 12, 13,) and Hebrews, (Hebrews xiii. 7.) And it is mentioned as one of the qualifications of the bishop or presbyter whom Timo- thy was to ordain at Ephesus, that he must be "blame- less, one that ruled ivell his own house; for if he knows not how to rule his own house, how should he take care of the Church of God?" or, as Dr. Ham- mond paraphrases the words. " he would be unfit to be made a governor of the Church of God." And says Paul to Titus, "a bishop" or presbyter "must be blameless as the steward of God," or, as the same commentator paraphrases it, "as becomes one that hath the government of God's family entrusted to him." But if presbyters were associated with evan- gelists in jurisdiction as well as ordination, (and they would not otherwise be represented as governing the Church,) you have no right to assert that these powers were exercised exclusively by the latter. If presbyters, too, were permitted to share in them then, when that order existed, they must retain them still when that order has ceased, as government must al- ways continue in the Church, and they alone remain, * Accusationem admitterc, Sec. Controv. 4, quaest. 1, cap. 2. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 177 while the former have ceased to exercise them along with them. And as you have failed to prove that diocesan bishops existed at that time, in the early- Church, or were permitted, like presbyters, to unite with evangelists in ordination or jurisdiction, they can have no right at hast from divine institution to exercise these powers in the present day; and "the main erection of Episcopacy" having failed, I leave it to candid judges to say, whether you and your follow- ers, instead of telling us that out of your churches there is no salvation, would not act a wiser and more consistent part, if you were to confess with Bilson, " that though bishops may found their claims on the custome of the Church," which I shall by and by examine, " on any divine precept expressed in Scrip- ture they cannot."* I am, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. * " It is doubtful," says Salmeron, though a Roman Catholic, (Disput. 1. on 1 Tim.) " if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus ; for al- though he preached and ordained some to the ministry there, it does not tbllow that he was the bishop of that place ; for Paul preached there above two years, and absolved the penitents, and yet he icas no bishop. Add, that now and then the Apostle called him away unto himself, and sent him from Rome to the Hebrews witli his Epistle. And in the second Epistle he commands him to come unto him shortly. Timothy was also an evangelist of that order; Eph. iv. He gave some Apostles, some evangelists," &c. So that Dorolheus says in his Synopis, " that Timothy preached through all Greece, but stay- ed at Ephesus, not to be bishop, but that in the constituted Church of Ephesus he might oppose the false Apostles. It appears, therefore, that he was more than a bishop, although for a time he preached in that city as a pastor, and ordained some to the ministry. Hence it is that some call him Bishop of Ephesus." 12 178 LETTER XIII. Examination of the argument for diocesan Episcopacy, from the Angels of the seven Asiatic Churches. — Refutation of it as staled by Milner, who would restrict the superintendence exercised by bishops to ten or twelve congregations, a plan which would create in England a thousand diocesan bishops. — Refutation of it as slated by Bishop Gleig, who represents these Angels as single individuals and prelates. — The name Angel borrowed from one of the ministers of the Jewish synagogue, who had no authority over other synagogues, and was not the sole or chief ruler of his own syna- gogue.— Remarkable blunder of Bishop Russel respecting the Angel of the synagogue and its other officers, for which he is praised by the Rev. Mr. Sinclair. — If the Angels of the Churches were single persons, no evidence that they were diocesan bishops. — Three arguments to prove that they were not single individuals, but representatives of the whole ministersof the different Churches, as each of the stars mentioned in Rev.i. represented the whole of the ministers of each of the Churches, who shed their united light on the members. — Striking remarks of Lord Bacon on the unprecedented powers vested in bishops, and on their being allowed to exercise some of them, w ithout any appeal, by lay-chancellors. Reverend Sir, — The last argument in support of diocesan Episcopacy, which has been advanced by the advocates of your ecclesiastical polity, has been taken from the angels of the seven Asiatic Churches. And certainly, if its strength corresponded to the con- fidence with which it has been stated, at least by some of these writers, it would be perfectly irresistible. And there is none of them who has mentioned it with more of that feeling, as if it could not be controverted, than even the excellent Milner. Having been accus- tomed to Episcopacy from his earliest days, and imagining that it was indispensable to the order and well-being of the Christian Church, he talks of this argument and of the system which he rests upon it, in the following terms: " Toward the end of the first century, all the Churches followed the model of the mother Church of Jerusalem, where one of the Apostles was the first bishop. A settled presidency obtained, and the name of angel was first given to the supreme ruler, though that of bishop soon succeeded. That this was the case with the seven Churches of Asia is certain. The address of the charges to him in the Book of the Reve- PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 179 lation demonstrates his superiority." After which he adds, " Could it be conveniently done, it may per- haps be true, that a reduced Episcopacy, in which the dioceses are of small extent, as those in the primitive Church undoubtedly were, and in which the president residing in the metropolis exercises a superintendency over ten or twelve presbyters of the same city and neighbourhood, would bid the fairest to promote order, peace, and harmony."* Now, upon this I would remark, that it is certainly surprising he should have believed the fable which has been already refuted, about one of the Apostles having become bishop of Jerusalem; though it must be evident to any one who is at all acquainted with ecclesiastical history, that with all his piety he is some- times too credulous. Such a descent from the office of an Apostle, whose diocese was the world, Mat. xxviii. 19, to that of a bishop, whose diocese was to be Jerusalem, as Jewel observes, would have been in direct opposition to the command of Christ, and would have been as extraordinary, as Dr. Barrow remarks, as if the King of Great Britain were to become Lord Mayor of London. Besides, it is not supported by any testimony which is worthy of belief, and which could warrant him to employ it as the basis of an argument ; and I shall by and by endeavour to show that his other assertion, " that toward the end of the first century all the Churches followed the mo- del of the mother Church of Jerusalem," and had dio- cesan bishops, is equally unfounded. Writers in the fourth and fifth centuries might call these early minis- ters bishops, according to the custom of their own times, but no historical evidence can be produced of their exercising the powers of your bishops; and as has already been stated, not a father can be mentioned from the first three centuries who even denominates Timothy or Titus a bishop. I would further notice, that as he does not attempt to prove, but merely affirms, that the charges to the angels demonstrate their superiority to the other ministers of the Asiatic * Vol. i. p. 161, 1G2. ISO LETTERS ON Churches, I shall pass them over at present, and con- sider them afterwards as they are referred to by another of the defenders of Episcopacy. And as to the extent of the dioceses which he would assign to bishops in the present day, I would briefly observe, that while none of these angels, admitting them, for the sake of argument, to be diocesan bishops, would have under his care the ministers of ten or twelve of the neighbouring churches, a proposal to reduce the bishoprics of your Church within similar limits, and to oblige your prelates to preach, and to restrict their dioceses to ten or twelve parishes, is a measure of reform, which, though it assimilate them more nearly to the primitive bishops, would call forth feelings of the greatest consternation throughout the whole of your Establishment. Archbishop Usher, you are aware, brought it forward formerly, and it did not succeed, and it is less likely to be accepted if it were to be brought forward at present. In the diocese of Lincoln, in place of one you would have nearly a hundred bishops; and throughout the whole of your dioceses they would amount to a thousand. Your bishops would cease, as in other Protestant countries, to be spiritual lords, for they would outnumber the peers; or they would sit in the Legislature by a few representatives chosen from among themselves ; or, as others might prefer, they would be represented both in the Lords and Commons, (and the privilege might be extended to other Protestant Churches,) by some intelligent and experienced members of your communion, chosen, like the representatives of your three Universities, by your bishops and dignitaries, and a select number of your inferior clergy.* But it * " I have heard," says the author of a pamphlet published in 1641, " that divers abbots voted in Parliament as anciently as bishops. Yea this answerer hath informed me that anciently the bishops were assisted in Parliament," before it was divided, " by a number of mitred abbots and priors;" p. 33. And Sir Edward Coke informs us in his Commentary on Littleton's Institutes, sec. 138, that "he found in the Parliament rolls twenty-seven abbots and two priors." In all causes affecting the Church which come before the Supreme Court of Denmark, two bishops are now allowed to sit in that court. In all other causes they are not permitted to judge. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 181 is obviously unnecessary to speculate on these matters, as such a proposal as is thrown out by Mr. Milner will never be entertained. And yet it is upon this ground alone that he pleads for Episcopacy; for, as it exists in your Church with all the overwhelming duties of your dioceses, and the secular duties which devolve on your bishops, the superintendence which they exercise must in a great measure be nominal. Bishop Gleig however contends, like most Episco- palians, that the angels of these churches were single persons, acting, not as Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen had supposed, as the moderators of the presbyteries belong- ing to the churches, but in their individual capacity; and he thinks it plain, both from the name bestowed on them, and the duties required from them, that they were diocesan bishops. " Had Dr. Campbell," says he, "taken the trouble to search the Old and New Testaments on this occasion, and to compare Scrip- ture with Scripture, he would very soon have found that the application of the name ayyt^ofto a person in the ministry or priesthood is by no means peculiar to the mysterious book of the Apocalyse. Thus (Mai. ii. 7,) the Jewish high-priest is by the Seventy called ayytxoi Kugtou 7tavtoxgato£os ; and St. Paul, in his Epis- tle to the Galatians, says, " that he was received by them as an angel of God." Now, as the Jewish high- priest, compared with the other priests and Levites, was certainly much more than a mere chairman, and as no man will pretend that in the Churches of Gala- tia, St. Paul was only the first among his own order, is it not natural to infer that the angels of the seven Churches were likewise something more than mere chairmen or moderators, especially as the charges given to them cannot be reconciled with equity upon the hypothesis advanced by Dr. Campbell? If indeed they were vested with the authority which the Apostle gave to Timothy and Titus over the Churches of Crete and Ephesus; if they had each a right to take cogni- sance of heretical doctrine, to admonish the heretic, and, in case of pertinacity, to reject him from the com- munion of the Church; if they only had authority to 1S2 LETTERS 0>" ordain presbyters and deacons in the several cities of Asia; if they were enjoined not to admit any man to the order of deacons till after competent trial, nor to ordain an elder or presbyter till after he had acquitted himself well in the deaconship; if they were autho- rized to receive accusations against presbyters, and to rebuke them before all when found guilty 5 if such were the powers of the Asiatic angels of the Churches, and such their duty resulting from those powers, then indeed, but not otherwise, were the orthodox and virtuous angels of the Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira properly reproved for suffering to be taught under their jurisdiction the doctrines of the Nicolai- tanes, of Balaam, and of Jezebel."* But upon this statement of the argument, (and I have selected it as one which was greatly praised soon after it was published, and as one of the most plausible which I have met with,) I would beg to submit the following observations: No argument can be founded on the term angels as applied to the ministers of these Churches, to show that they were invested with jurisdiction over the rest of the ministers, and the instances to which the bishop refers in proof of this are not in point. It is not of the high-priest, as he alleges, that Malachi says, ch. ii. 7, that " the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and the people should seek the law at his mouth, for he was the messenger" or angel "of the Lord of Hosts," but of every priest ; and it is astonishing that a man who was lauded for his high professional attainments by his brother prelates, and especially for this article, should not have seen it. Lowth accordingly remarks on the passage, " As it was the priests' duty to under- stand the meaning of the law, so the people were required to resort to them for instruction in any diffi- culty that arose concerning the sense of it; see Lev. x. 11, Deut. xxii. 9. For this reason the Levites had forty -eight cities allotted to them among the several tribes, that the people might more easily consult them upon every occasion. See Numb. xxxv. 7." Besides, * Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 183 if it had been the high-priest who was meant, it would not have served the bishop's purpose, for he had no jurisdiction over the other priests ; and though pre- sident of the Sanhedrim, he had only his casting vote, and was even himself subject to their authority. And when Paul says to the Galatians, ch. iv. 14, that they had " received him" at first "as an angel of God," he surely never intended to tell them that they had received him as a bishop! for he was far higher than a bishop, but as if he had been really a messenger sent to them immediately from the heavenly ivorld, just as he says, ch. i. 8, " But though we or an angel from heaven (sure- ly not a bishop) preach any other Gospel to you let him be accursed." And certainly it is impossible to see any thing in the term angel itself which is applied to these ministers, or in the corresponding term of stars which is employed respecting them, or in what is said of them in the latter character, (ch. i. 20,) which would lead us to suppose that they were superior to the other ministers of these churches, or had any juris- diction over them. Every other minister of these Asiatic Churches who preached the Gospel, and who shed spiritual light on the minds of the members, had as good a title to the metaphorical name of an angel who brought the message of reconciliation, and every one of them who communicated that light to the name of a star, as a diocesan bishop ; and compared at least to modern prelates, who seldom preach, he had a pre- ferable claim. And I cannot believe that it was pre- lates alone, whom, as the stars of these churches, the Redeemer held in his right hand to protect and defend them, any more than that it was they alone who were angels or messengers, because it ivas to them alone that he had committed the message of salvation. Such is the view which is given of these terms by some of the more candid Episcopalians, and in par- ticular by Dr. Lightfoot, a man who had. few equals in scriptural knowledge and Jewish learning; and if he be right in his account of the source from which the first of these terms was taken and applied to the ministers of Christian churches, it overthrows the 184 LETTERS ON argument which has been founded on it, for any thing like superiority on the part of the angels of the Asia- tic churches over the rest of the ministers of these churches. " Besides these," (the three rulers of the synagogue,) says he, " there was the public minister of the synagogue, who prayed publicly, and took care about the reading of the law, and sometimes preached, if there were not others to discharge that office. This person was called Sheliach Zibbor, the angel of the church, and the Chazan or bishop of the congregation. Certainly the signification of the word bishop and angel of the church had been determined with less noise, if recourse had been made to the proper foun- tains, and men had not vainly disputed about the meaning of words, taken I know not whence. The service and worship of the Temple being abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the worship and public adoration of God used in the synagogues, which was moral, into the Christian Church ; to wit, the public ministry, public prayers, reading God's word, and preaching, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of the Gospel were the very same, the angel of the church, and the bishop which belonged to the ministers in the synagogues."* As the She- liach Zibbor, then, or angel, or bishop of the syna- gogue, had no authority beyond the single congre- gation in which he ministered, and as he exercised that authority along with the rulers of the synagogue, (though he was not the chief ruler,)t it is plain that * Vol. ii. of his Works, p. 133. t Bishop Russel, in his Sermon on the Historical Evidence for Episcopacy, p. 31, attempts to construct an argument for that form of ecclesiastical polity, from the term angel of the churches, but blun- ders exceedingly respecting the place of the Sheliach Zibbor in the Jewish synagogue, as well as of the other officers. And yet the Rev. Mr. Sinclair, in his Dissertation on Episcopacy, p. 43, says that he coincides with him, and that " on all questions connected with Jew- ish antiquity, the Bishop's views must be acknowledged of the highest authority." " This mode of phraseology, it deserves to be remarked," says Dr. Russel, " is borrowed from the usages of the Jewish syna- gogue, where the person who presided in divine worship, usually called the ruler of the synagogue, was not unfrequently denominated the angel of the congregation. He had under him, also, two classes of ministers, corresponding to the priest and deacon of the Christian PITSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 185 the application of the name angel to the minister of each of these Asiatic churches, even supposing him to be only a single person acting on his own individual capacity, furnishes no proof that he had authority over the ministers of other congregations or Chris- tian synagogues, and much less would it justify any bishop in the present day for being invested with authority over a hundred or a thousand ministers, and as many congregations. As to the censure which is pronounced on some of the angels for suffering false teachers, and their being enjoined to pursue a different course, it remains to be proved, that the acts which they were blamed for not performing, and which they were commanded to per- form afterwards, were acts of jurisdiction. And though this should be allowed, it will by no means follow that these angels might not have been the moderators of the presbyteries of these churches, and that letters might not be addressed to them, as in the present day, assemblies; and, in other respects, there are so many points of resem- blance, as to remove all doubt that the ecclesiastical model recom- mended by the Apostles was raised upon the platform of the Lcvitical establishment." Now, upon this I beg to remark, in the first place, that the syna- gogue was not a part of the Levitical establishment, but was intro- duced afterwards, so that in the Bishop's argument there is evidently a non-sequitur, there being something in the conclusion which is not in the premises, idly, It will surprise the reader to learn, after the encomium pronounced on Dr. Russel by Mr. Sinclair, that though there were three rulers in every synagogue, none of them was ever called the angel of the synagogue, or its bishop, but they v/ere entirely distinct from that minister, as every one knows who has directed his attention to Hebrew antiquities! See Dr. Lightfoot; Godwin's Moses and Aaron, p. 71. Home, in his Introduction, vol. iii. p. 242, says, ■* Next to the Ag^io-uv^yay,;, or ruler of the congregation, was an offi- cer, whose province it was to offer up public prayers to God for the whole congregation: hence he is called Sheliach Zibbor, the angel of the church, because, as their messenger, he spoke to God for them." His other duties arc described by Dr. Lightfoot, who also represents him as next to the rulers, or to the chief ruler. And, in the third place, so far were there from being " two classes of ministers" under him, corresponding to presbyters and deacons, there was only one, according to Home, who had the charge of the sacred books; or, according to Lightfoot, (who does not mention that officer,) three deacons, two of whom collected the alms for the poor, and the third distributed them. 1S6 LETTERS ON as the chairmen or representatives of these presbyte- ries, expressive either of censure or approbation, which they were to communicate to the presbyters; for, as was long ago remarked by an old writer, "why may not the Senate be saluted in the Consuls, Parliament addressed in the Chancellor, or the House of Com- mons in an epistle to the Speaker?"* But as I do not consider them as acting in their individual capacity, either as the moderators of their presbyteries, accord- ing to Dr. Campbell's hypothesis, or as diocesan bish- ops, the objection which has been urged against them in the former character, though it had possessed a force of which I conceive it to be destitute, would not apply to my opinion. And as to the assertion of the Bishop, that these angels must have been authorised to ordain presbyters and deacons, it is unnecessary to notice it, as not a word is said in any of the Epistles respecting the exercise of such powers by any of these ministers. I would farther remark, that " the titles of angels and stars," so far from denoting "single men," as Archbishop Potter maintains,t " which," he thinks, " puts it beyond dispute" that they were bishops, appear to be intended to represent the whole of the ministers of these early churches. Such was the opinion of the celebrated Dr. Henry More, who says, " Methinks it is extremely harsh to conceit that these seven stars are merely the seven bishops of any par- ticular churches of Asia, as if the rest were not sup- ported or guided by the hand of Christ; or as if there were but seven in his right hand, but all the rest in his left. Such high representations cannot be appropria- ted to any seven particular churches whatsover." " And by the angels," he says, " according to the Apocalyptick style, all the angels under their presi- dency are represented or insinuated. "J And this opinion is confirmed when we look into the epistles which were addressed to these angels, and into the * Principal Forrester on Episcopacy, p. 73. + Church Government, p. 147. t Exposition of the Seven Churches, Works, p. 724. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 187 first chapter of the Book of Revelation. Each of these ministers is represented, indeed, in the singular number, as a star and an angel. But each of the seven churches is represented also in the singular number, chap. i. 20, as one candlestick with different branches, shedding light around them, in the cities where they were placed, though as Sclater thinks he has proved in his Original Draught of the Primitive Church, and as Episcopalians in general affirm, it was composed, at least, of several congregations. But if each of the candlesticks represented the ivhole of the congregations in the city, which formed toge- ther one Church, why may it not be supposed that with equal propriety the whole of their ministers may be described as forming one star, the different parts of which, combined in one great luminous body, dis- pensed those rays of spiritual light which illuminated these congregations, and that the ivhole of their min- isters were represented by one angel or messenger, as they all delivered the same message of salvation to guilty men? And if there be any difficulty in conceiving that one angel should represent the whole of the ministers of the congregations in each of these cities, as they would amount probably to four or six, we have only to turn to the 14th chapter of this very book, v. 6, where John tells, that " he saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the ever- lasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people;" which angel represents not merely a single minister, though the term literally denotes, like each of the angels of the churches, a single individual, but thousands of ?}iinisters. Since it is evident, therefore, that each of the angels of the seven churches may possibly be intended to represent the whole of the ministers of the congregations which were connected with it; and since it is as probable that this was the case, as that each of the candlesticks represented perhaps four or six congregations forming that Church, it is proper that we should examine the epistles themselves, and ascertain whether the angels 188 LETTERS ON are to be considered as addressed in their individual capacity as diocesan bishops, or as representing the whole of the ministers of these churches. And that the latter is the character in which we are to view them, will appear, I apprehend, from the following considerations: In the first place, if the angels are addressed only as single individuals, and not as the representatives of the whole of the ministers of the different churches, then the rest of the ministers are never referred to at all. Now, this certainly would be a strange omission in epistles descriptive of the state of the churches, when you consider their number as contrasted with a single diocesan bishop, and their corresponding in- fluence on the members of the churches for good or evil. In Ephesus, especially, the church seems to have been large from its very commencement, for the value of the magical books burnt by its members is said to have been fifty thousand pieces of silver. And at the time of Paul's last visit to them they had a number of presbyters, whom he calls upon to perform the duty of bishops; (Acts xx. 22.) Nor were they the bishops or presbyters of the neighbouring church- es, as some have affirmed, for, as Dr. Whitby observes, on Acts xx. 1 7, this is plainly contrary to the text. And as he farther says, " Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Theodoret, CCcumenius and Theophylact knew no- thing of Paul's sending to any other bishops besides those of Ephesus; for otherwise they could not have argued, as they do from this place, that these persons could not be bishops, properly so called, because there could be only one bishop in one city." And if such was the number of the presbyters in that Church at that early period, we have reason to be- lieve that it would be still greater at the time when this epistle in the Book of Revelation was addressed to the angel. If the angel, however, did not represent these numerous presbyters, or the whole of the minis- ters and was merely a single person like a diocesan bishop, then they are never noticed for good or evil in this Epistle, though their conduct must have had a far PUSEYITE EPISCOPACV. 189 more powerful influence than that of the bishop. And this is the more unaccountable, that it is asserted by- Episcopalians the people are noticed in two of the Epistles, while not a word is said in any of them re- specting the presbyters. 2t nisi addatur doctrinae Veritas et pura vitae conversatio." Parker de Politeia Ecclesiast. p. 163. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACT. 289 ed to one of his intimates that he did not believe the immortality of the soul."* And yet it is from men like these that you and your followers derive that dio- cesan apostolical succession in which you so much glory. And we are informed by Jewel, in his Apo- logy for your Church, that "Pope Liberius was an Arian," and undeified his Saviour; that "Pope John thought very lewdly and Avickedly of the immortality of the soul, and of the life to come ; and that, as Ly- ranus saith, many Popes have renounced the Chris- tian faith and become Apostates"! The following, too, is the doctrine of the Church of Rome respecting the power of the Popes. "We," says Innocent III., "according to the plenitude of our power, have a right to dispense with all right;"! upon which Bellarmine remarks, that "should the Pope enjoin vice, and for- bid virtue, the Church would sin, if she did not believe virtue to be evil, and vice to be good."§ " Nor was this at all wonderful," says Bower, "for Cardinal Za- barel, who nourished near four hundred years ago, writes, that in his and in the preceding times, the Popes had been persuaded by their flattering divines that they might do whatever they pleased, even such things as were in themselves, and with respect to others, unlawful ; and so could do more than God himself."^ And says one of the Papal canons, " Should a Pope be so wicked as to carry with him innumerable souls to hell, let no man presume to find fault with him, or reprove him, because he who is to judge all men is judged of none. "IT Nay, such was the blasphemy practised in that Church, in which the Papists, according to Jewel, "had left almost nothing * Theor. IV. t Apology, p. 91, 92, vol. vii. of the Fathers of the English Church, t Inn. III. Decret. Greg. lib. iii. tit, 8, c. 4. § Bellarm. de Pontific. Rom. lib. iv. cap. 5. II Zabar. de Schism. H " Si Papas suae, &c. Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6. " Dost thou not know," said Paul the Second to the auditors of the Rota, "that all laws arc lodged in our breast. Sentence is given, and all shall obey it. Iam l'ope, and have a power to approve or condemn at my pleasure the actions of all other men." Platina et Summont. torn. iii. p. 474. 19 290 LETTERS ON like a Church," that as he elsewhere remarks, "they impudently solicited the Virgin Mary, that she would remember she was a mother ; that she would be pleased to command her son, and that she would make use of the authority she had over him."* But if such was the doctrine respecting the power of the Popes which was taught at one time in the Church of Rome, from which you have derived the succession, (and it has never been recalled, as might naturally have been expected, till the present day, for she claims the attri- butes of infallibility and immutability,) and if such was the blasphemy which she openly tolerated, I ask you whether the imposition of the hands of men, who avowed these sentiments, claimed these powers, and connived at these heaven-daring and revolting sins, could preserve the succession ? Nor is my position less clearly and conclusively established by the numerous instances of the most dis- graceful simony which prevailed both in the Western and Eastern Churches. " It has been generally allow- ed," says Dr. Forbes, .*ivi us T»v Xi/Vv/av KXi bj/x sL/jLa. to- xaif» t»c ajjac s-gis^ijic. El Tts iTirxiTi; * T(i7 SuT«gv; rraga, tx» tcu xv^h-j i.amfn Tut in t» Si/y/a," &c. Bishop Beveridge, in his Annotations, p. 16, says, "Fructus qui apud Graecos a sacerdote wxrywrai benedicuntur sunt uva, ficus, malagranata, oli- vae, poma, mala Pcrsica, ct pruna." The form of benediction both in the Greek and Latin Church is subjoined. i OomiL 3, torn. ii. p. 318. t Ibid. p. 365. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY". 323 least esteemed community of orthodox Christians among us, whichever that may be, if taken in the mass, and fairly measured against the Church Catholic of the first two centuries, would outweigh it deci- sively in Christian wisdom, in common discretion, in purity of manners, and in purity of creed."* If these things, however, are so, I leave it to any impartial judge to say, whether it would at all sur- prise him to discover, upon examining the writings of the fathers, that they had departed by degrees from that particular form of ecclesiastical polity which was approved by the Apostles. They left the doctrines which they had heard from these venerable and holy men, or fiom the lips of their disciples, and adopted very dangerous and erroneous opinions on some im- portant points of the Christian faith. And they cor- rupted those simple religious ordinances which these inspired and distinguished ministers of the Redeemer prescribed to the Church for the admission of its mem- bers, and the regulation of its worship, and introduced a variety of superstitious rites and unscriptural ob- servances, which constituted the foundation of that monstrous system of will-worship and idolatry which rose at length to such a fearful height in the Church of Rome. And if they deviated so far in both these respects from the principles and practice of the origi- nal founders of the Christian Church, it is incumbent on you to show, that they might not deviate as widely in two or three centuries from their form of polity, till they established, in the first place, diocesan Episco- pacy, and afterwards the Papacy, in the last of which instances I trust you are not yet prepared to deny that they departed from the Apostles. And till you are able to do this, you can no more infer, from the early existence of diocesan Episcopacy, though you could * Page 110. "Those," says this admirable writer, p. 191, "who have known what it is with a hand warm with health, io take within their own the hand of a corpse, know how the chill ascends to the heart and enters the soul. Of this sort is the feeling with which, if the mind be quickened by scriptural pitty, it makes its first acquaint- ance with the body of ancient Christianity." 324 LETTERS OX prove it by the strongest historical evidence, that it received the sanction of these holy men, than you are entitled to infer, from the early existence of these er- roneous opinions on subjects of very grave and solemn importance, or of these superstitious rites and idola- trous observances, that the latter were approved by the same individuals, and that the one were to be preached in opposition to what they had expressly staled in their writings, and the others were to be practised throughout future ages in the Christian Church. I remain, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. LETTER XX. Extraordinary opinion of the Oxford Tractarians, that the Scriptures, though a rule of faith, are not a rule of discipline and practice, and that the latter is to be (ound in the traditions of the Fathers, along with the Scriptures. — This an impeachment of the peritenon of the Scriptures in opposition to their own explicit siatements, and a mean of virtually adding to the institutions w hich they prescribe to the Church, in opposition to their express and solemn warnings. — The traditions of the Fathers not a sale guide, because those who deliver them were weak, inexperienced, and fallible men, though they lived near to the Apostles; and if the Scrip- tures, which were written by men who were inspired, are not sufficient to direct us, we can have no assurance that w hen we are following these traditions we are not embracing error. — As much danger of our doing this, and of our making void the institutions of Christ, by our not trusting in the Scriptures exclusively, but adopting what is recommended by the traditions of the Fathers, as there was to the Jews of making void the law of God by following the traditions of the elders, because they lived near to the prophets, instead of trusting exclusively in the w ritings of the prophets. — Fusebius and Socrates condemn some of the traditions of the Fathers, and others of them such as even Puseyites would reject. Reverend Sir, — The language which is employed by many of the writers of the Oxford Tracts, respect- ing the exclusive claims of your National Church (Papists and Scottish Episcopalians excepted) to the honourable character of a Christian Church, is such as is fitted to awaken emotions of no ordinary kind in the minds of Protestants, and would require to be jus- tified by the most powerful arguments. " She is PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 325 sprung," they affirm, " from the very Church which Christ set up at Jerusalem, and none of the sects (for all others are sects) have this great gift. There is not one of her bishops who cannot trace his right to guide and govern Christ's Church through a long line of predecessors, up to the favoured persons who were consecrated by the laying on of the holy hands of St. Peter and St. Paul. This is a fact which Dissenters from the Church of England do not, and cannot deny. Her ministry is an appointed condition of the salva- tion of the elect" in Britain. They alone have a " warrant which marks them exclusively for God's ambassadors," and " they are a perpetual earnest of communion with the Lord at his table to those who come properly prepared to his table. Christ prays only for those who believe in him through the word of the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops. If men would be disciples or Christians, they must be baptized by apostolical (episcopal) authority in the name of the Holy Trinity. And if they would take and eat Christ's body, they must take and eat the bread and drink of the cup blessed by those who have authority to bless it, in remembrance of him. And in Churches which have not the Episcopal succession, the gracious assistance of the Holy Spirit cannot be so certainly depended upon, as for other sanctifying purposes, so for the guiding the mind to doctrinal truth; nor can they have the same reason to expect the presence of the Saviour."* In short, within those favoured Churches which have diocesan bishops, ac- cording to these writers, there is spiritual light, like the physical light in the land of Goshen, which was the abode of the Israelites during one of the plagues, while in other Churches where these guardians of truth and bulwarks against error are not to be seen, like the rest of Egypt at that eventful period, there is " darkness that may be felt." And what is the ground on which they advance these lofty and intolerant claims in behalf of Episco- * 4lh, llth, 29th, 30th, 35th, 40th and 57th Tracts. 326 LETTERS OX pacy, at which Cranmer, and Jewel, and Hooker would have blushed, and employ such language respecting other Churches, where the fruits produced both among the old and the young, by the labours of their ministers, will bear to be compared with those of the ministers of Episcopalian Churches? It is partly the different arguments from Scripture which have been already considered, and which will by no means warrant these haughty assumptions and un- charitable conclusions, and partly an argument of a very different kind from the testimony of antiquity, to prove that Episcopacy was approved by the Apostles, which is one of the most extraordinary that I have ever met with in support of that position. " In the first place," says the author of one of the Tracts, " let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Episcopacy is in fact not at all mentioned in Scrip- ture, even then it would be our duty to receive it. Why? Because the first Christians received it. If we wish to get at the truth, no matter how we get at it, if we get at it. If it be a fact, that the earliest Christian communities were universally Episcopal, it is a reason for our maintaining Episcopacy, and in proportion to our conviction, it is incumbent on us to maintain it." " Nor can it be fairly dismissed as a non-essential, an ordinance indifferent and mutable, though formerly existing over Christendom; for who made us judges of essentials and non-essentials? How do we deter- mine them ? Does not its universality imply a neces- sary connection with Christian doctrine? But it may be urged, that we Protestants believe the Scriptures to contain the whole rule of duty. Certainly not: they constitute a rule of faith, not a rule of practice; a rule of doctrine, not a rule of conduct or discipline. Where (e. g.) are we told in Scripture that gambling is wrong? or again, suicide?" (Tract 45.) "And," says Bishop Russel, " Augustine farther reminds us, that many things which are not to be found in the writings of the Apostles, nor in the councils of later ages, yet because they are observed by the whole Church, are believed to have been delivered and PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 327 recommended by their authority."* And again, " There are many things which the Universal Church holds, and which for this reason are rightly believed to have been commanded by the Apostles, although they are not found written. "t Upon this argument, however, which is adduced repeatedly in others of the Tracts, and on which considerable stress is laid by the writers, I would briefly remark, 1st, It is certainly strange for any Protestant to maintain that the Scriptures are a rule of faith, but not of practice ; a rule of doctrine, but not a rule of conduct or discipline. You at least will surely admit that we need an unerring and infallible rule to direct us as to our duty, as well as an infallible rule to guide us as to our faith. And you unquestionably ought to be prepared to acknowledge that we require such a rule in regard to discipline ; for if there be only one ministry which Christ has appointed, to which alone he has promised his presence, the existence of which is " a condition of our salvation," and the members of which are the only accredited " ambassadors of hea- ven ;" and if he himself has warned us against follow- ing the prescriptions and commandments of men in our religious services, in what a state must we be, if he has not furnished us with a guide on which we can unhesitatingly depend, to point out to us the different orders in that ministry, and those rites and ordinances which he himself has instituted, and which alone he will bless! Now, where is that unerring rule to be found, if it is not contained solely and exclusively in the Holy Scriptures? Everything which they reveal is guaranteed to the Christian as free from the small- est mixture of error, because it was written by holy men of God, who were moved by the Holy Ghost. But if he is to trust only in part to them, and in part * Sermon, p. 4-1. " Multa quae non inveniuntur in Uteris coruni neque in conciliis postcriorum, ct tamen quia per universam custodi- untur ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita et conunendata creduntur." De Bap. contra Donatistas, lib. ii. c. 7. + " Sunt inulta quae universa tenet ecclesia, et ob hoc ab Apostolis praccepta bene creduntur, quanquarn scripta non reperiantur ;" lib. v. c. 7. 328 LETTEKS OX to the writings and traditions of the fathers, — weak, uninspired and fallible men, — he can have no assu- rance that he will be preserved from error, any farther than he follows what is contained in the former, and, for aught that he knows, may be permitted to fall into it, when he follows the latter. Few will deny that it would have been a great imperfection in the Old Tes- tament Scriptures, and an unfailing source of error and superstition to the ancient Jews, if they could not have collected full information from their sacred writings respecting the orders of their priesthood, and their rites and ceremonies, but had to obtain it in part from the traditions of their elders, many of whom lived along with the prophets, or at least as near to them as the early fathers did to the Apostles. And will any one deny that it would be an equal imperfection in the New Testament Scriptures, as a rule of discipline, and a similar source of error and superstition to the Chris- tian Church, if they did not present to her complete information respecting the orders in the ministry, and her rites and ordinances, without obliging her to have recourse to the traditions of the fathers, or to adopt any thing which is not sanctioned in their pages, though it may have been received universally by the ancient Church ? Besides, ninety out of a hundred of ordinary Christians are not able to read the writings of the fathers, and judge for themselves in regard to the ministry, and the rites and ceremonies which ex- isted in the early days of the Church. And though the learned may be assisted by the testimony of these writers in their inquiries into the authenticity and ca- nonical authority of the books of Scripture, yet it is not in this way, but by the internal and experimental evidence for these books, that the former are satisfied in regard to their inspiration. But while they are satisfied in this way as to that momentous point, there is no internal or experimental evidence by ivhich they can ascertain whether bishops, as an order of ministers, superior to presbyters, have been appoint- ed by Christ; and when they see how little they preach and labour, that Christ may be formed in the PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 329 hearts of the thousands and hundreds of thousands who are committed to their care, many of them are led to a very different conclusion. Nor have they any such evidence to convince them that the form of the cross in baptism, and others of your ceremonies, to which I have formerly alluded, were instituted by Christ, or appointed by the Apostles ; and consequent- ly, if the Scriptures in themselves are not a perfect and infallible rule of practice and discipline, as well as of faith, they are left without the means of forming a judgment, on the correctness of which they can rely with comfort, respecting the ministry, and rites, and ordinances of the Church. 2dly, The Scriptures represent themselves as a per- fect rule, not only of faith but practice, and to affirm that any part of Christian duty, or any thing relating to the constitution or ordinances of the Christian Church, without which our obedience to the will of Christ would be defective and incomplete, was omitted by the Apostles to be inserted in their writings, and must be learned from the fathers, is in direct opposi- tion to some of their most express and explicit state- ments. " The law of the Lord," says David, " is per- fect, converting the soul : the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart : the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; (Ps. xix. 7, 8.) And again he observes, (Ps. cxix. 105,) "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." And says Paul, in a passage which was quoted in the preceding letter, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works ;" (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.) Nay, we are expressly enjoined not to " add to God's word," as a rule of practice ; (Deut. iv. 2, 12, 32 ; Rev. xxii. 19;) as would virtually be the case, if we were to receive as a supplement to what was delivered by the Apostles in their different Epistles, some new com- 330 LETTERS ON mandments, or rites, or ceremonies^ which they com- municated to the fathers, and which have been handed down by tradition. And they may justly claim for themselves the high character of a perfect rule of prac- tice and discipline ; for while the words of the fathers are often weak, and foolish, and blended with error, their words " are pure words, as silver tried in a fur- nace of earth, seven times purified." They set before, us a perfect and spotless example in the holy life of the blessed Redeemer, and we have only to consider how he would have acted in any situation in which we happen to be placed, and to walk in his steps. And they set before us also the example of the apos- tolic Church, perfect at its institution in its ministers and ordinances, and call upon us, if we would witness similar results to those which it produced, while we look up by humble and earnest prayer for the influ- ences of the Spirit, to adopt it as our model as to preaching, and government, and worship, and disci- pline. It does not indeed specify suicide among the sins which it forbids, but it commands us in general to " do no murder," and consequently warns us against self murder. And it does not particularize the sin of gambling, but it admonishes us against fraud, and every kind of deceit, and enjoins us to " provide things honest in the sight of all men." But if it exhibit to us a law which is faultless and complete in all its re- quirements, an example which is spotless, and distin- guished by the highest and most transcendent excel- lence, and a pattern of a church which is perfect, at least as far as relates to its constitution, and ordinances, and discipline ; and if it warns us solemnly against adding to its words, it is utterly inconsistent with all these statements to tell us that we may learn from the writings of the fathers some order in the ministry, or * Paul indeed mentions some words of the Redeemer which are not contained in the Gospels, Acts xx. But they do not relate to any new commandment; and though we cannot depend on the fathers, we have perfect confidence in his statement, because he was an inspired man, and was directed bv the Spirit to repeat them in the hearing of Luke, that they might be recorded in his History. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 331 some rite or ordinance which was recommended or expressly enjoined by the Apostles, though not the smallest notice of it is to be met with in their Epistles. 3dly, There is not a reformer, either of your own Church or of any Protestant Church with which I am acquainted, who did not hold it to be a fixed and fundamental principle, that we ought to admit nothing as to the Christian ministry, or the rites, and ordinances, and discipline of the Church, which, though supported by tradition, was not sanctioned by Scripture. Your own Reformers wished to act upon it as far as they were permitted, but were unhappily prevented. And there was no Church which acted on it so thoroughly and effectually as the Church of Scotland, which pro- cured for her among many of the foreign Protestant Churches the honourable name of the best reformed of all the Reformed Churches.*' And, in short, I would remark, that if the general adoption by the ancient Church of any order in the * I might appeal to many testimonies from the Reformed Churches on the Continent, expressing their respect for the Church of Scotland, but I shall quote only the following from the Harmony of Confessions : " Est Scoticanae Ecclesiae privilegium rarum prae multis in quo etiam ejus nomen apud exteros fuit celebre, quod circiter annos plus minus 54. sine schismate nedum haeresi unitatern cum puritate doctrinae servaverit et retinuerit. Hujus unitatis adminiculum ex Dei miseri- cordia maximum fuit quod paulatim cum doctrina Christi et Aposto- lorum disciplina sicut ex verbo Dei praescripta est una fuit rccepta, et quain proxime fieri poluit secundum earn totum regimen ecclesiasti- cum fuit administratum. Hac ratione omnia schismatum atque er- rorum semina, quamprimum pullulare aut se exerere visa sunt, in ipsa quasi herba et partu sunt suffocata et extirpata, i. e. It has been the rare privilege of the Church of Scotland above many other churches, for which it is celebrated among strangers, that for about fifty-four years it has preserved and retained unity along with purity of doc- trine without schism or heresy. It was a great mean of promoting this unity through the mercy of God, that along with the doctrine of Christ, it embraced also by degrees the discipline or jiolitij of the Apos- tles, as it was prescribed in the word of God, according to whicli, aa nearly as possible, their whole ecclesiastical government was adminis- tered. In this way all the seeds of schisms and errors, as soon as they appeared to spring and vegetate, were choked and rooted out in the very blade." Such was the testimony which was then borne not only to the doctrine, but the worship and constitution of the Church of Scotland, and the superior efficacy of Presbyterian principles for pre- venting schism and repressing heresy. 332 LETTERS ON Christian ministry, or rite, or ceremony, prove that it must have received the sanction of the Apostles, though they neither appointed it, nor mentioned it in their writings, it Avill prove at the same time that all those opinions respecting the doctrines of religion, however unsound, and all those practices, however superstitious, which prevailed generally in the ancient Church from the earliest ages, though not referred to in their Epistles, must have met with their approba- tion. They must have approved in particular of those heresies about free will, and those gross and extra- vagant notions about the Millennium, with which, according to Whitgift and Ernesti, the whole of the fathers from Justin Martyr were tainted.* They must have approved also of the practice of praying for the dead, though none of them seems to have ob- served it: and though they represent the state of those who are departed, after their present course of trial is finished, as immutably fixed, for they tell us that they will be judged according to their ivorks, and declare, in the parables of the pounds and the talents, that the rewards of grace which will be bestowed on the righteous will be proportioned to the measure of their religious attainments, and to the amount of their ser- vices ivhile they ivere living upon earth. And yet these prayers were offered by the early fathers, not merely for the dead who were truly pious, but in some instances for the unconverted; for the following were the terms in which Ambrose prayed for Valentinian, who, according to the author of Ancient Christianity, died "uninitiated, unregenerate, unjustified, that is, unbaptized; solve, igitur, Pater Sancte, munus servo tuo." And says Dr. Field, whom you quote as a high * "It appears manifestly out of this book of Ircnaeus, quoted by you," says Chillingworth, Religion of Protestants, Bishop Patrick's edition, p. 352, "that the doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his judg- ment apostolick tradition, as also it was esteemed (for ought appears to the contrary) by all the doctors, and saints, and martyrs of or about his time, for all that speak of it, or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded, are for it; and Justin Martyr professeth that all good and orthodox Christians of his time belietid it, and those that did not he reckons amongst heretics." PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 333 authority when he favours your sentiments, "Epipha- nius answers, that though the prayers of the living cutte not off the whole punishment of sinne, (from the impenitent,) yet some mercie is obtained for sin- ners by them, at least/or some mitigation or suspen- sion of their punishment, of which opinion, as I have showed before, many other were as well as Epipha- nius." And even when they were offered for the saints, it was not merely to commemorate their vir- tues, as some have asserted, or to express only a passing wish, as you would insinuate, but according to Cyril, in an extract which was given from him in a former letter, as "a great assistance to them." And they must have approved likewise of prayers to the dead, though no such intercessions were ever offered by them, as far as appears from their writings, while they remained upon earth, and though they must have been aware that the saints in the other world, unless they were omniscient and omnipresent, could not hear them. Nor were these prayers merely apos- trophes, as you are desirous to represent them ;* for, * "The addresses in the fourth century being rather apostrophes to the blessed saints who were at the moment before the minds of those who used them, than systematic requests for their intercession." Letter from Dr. Pusey to Dr. Jelf, on the Articles treated in Tract 90, p. 119. Would Dr. Pusey have the goodness to say whether the following expressions, used by Ephrcm, the Syrian, to the Virgin, are only an apostrophe? "Be present with me now and always, O Virgin, Mother of God, Mother of Mercy, beneficent and kind. "O Virgin, Lady, Mother of God, who didst carry Christ our Saviour and Lord in thy womb, / repose in thee all my hope, and I trust in thee who art higher than all heavenly powers." "Adesto mini nunc et semper, O Virgo, Dei Genetrix, mater misericordiae, benigna et elemens. "Virgo, Domina Dei Genetrix, quae Salvatorem Christum et Domi- num nostrum in utero portasti, in te spem meain omnem repono, etin te confido, quae sublimior es omnibus coelestibus potestatibus." (De Sanct. Dei Gen. Virgin. M. Laud.) Bishop Ridley, immediately before he suffered, seems to have imagined that departed saints might pray for the living. "Brother Bradford," says he in a letter to that martyr, February, 1555, "so long as I shall understand that thou art in thy journey, by God's grace, I shall call upon our heavenly Father, for Christ's sake, to see thee safely home; and then, good brother, speak you, and pray for the remnant that are to suffer for Christ's sake, according to that thou shall know more clearly." See his Life by Ridley, p. 572. 334 LETTERS OX as I stated formerly, they applied to them to assist them in recovering stolen goods, and to protect them at sea, and to deliver them from the licentious, as in the case of the nun who prayed to the Virgin to rescue her from Cyprian, when before his conversion he attempted to seduce her. And so great was the confidence which they had in the prayers of departed saints, that the following are the terms in which thev were mentioned by Nazianzen: "I am persuaded," says he, in his 19th oration, when speaking of a mar- tyr, "that our father's intercession now avails us more than his teaching did ivhilepresent ivith us in the body, now that he has got near to God, has shaken off the fetters of the body, and freed from the mud of earth approaches naked the naked and most pure mind." I might extend these observations to other superstitious rites and practices which prevailed very generally in the early Church, and which neither you nor Bishop Russel would be disposed to maintain were approved by the Apostles. But if you admit that the errors in regard to doctrine, and the supersti- tious practices to which I have just now alluded, can- not be considered as having obtained their sanction, though they prevailed so generally in the early Church, you have no right to draw a different con- clusion respecting diocesan Episcopacy, or any of the rites and ceremonies of your Church, though you could prove that they existed from the earliest times, and were as generally adopted, unless you could de- monstrate at the same time that they are mentioned in the Scriptures as having been instituted by the Re- deemer, and as possessing the high and authoritative sanction of these illustrious ministers of the only King and Head of the Church. I have only farther to observe, that in rejecting any order in the Christian ministry, or any religious rite which rests merely on tradition, however early, and is not sanctioned by Scripture, we are only following the example of the fathers, who acted upon this principle, and rejected opinions and religious customs which were common in their day, though they rested PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 335 on traditions which were asserted to have come down from the age of the Apostles, but were not supported by Scripture: Eusebius, for instance, gives that very reason for condemning the doctrine which was taught by Papias respecting the Millennium, and which was adopted as generally by the early fathers, as, accord- ing to your statement, even diocesan episcopacy, namely, that it rested only on unwritten tradition, from the days of John, and had received his appro- bation. "Moreover," says he, "the same writer alleges something as from unwritten tradition, viz. some strange parables and doctrines of onr Saviour, and some other fabulous things ; and amongst the rest, he says, that after the resurrection there shall be a thousand years, wherein Christ shall reign on earth bodily. But he appears to me, through a misunder- standing of the Apostle's discourse, to have taken what was spoken mysteriously in a different sense from the true meaning. For he was of a very weak judgment, as appears from his writings. He was, notwithstanding, the author of this opinion to most of the ecclesiastical writers who succeeded him, for Irenaens and those who favoured his opinion looked only to his antiquity."* Irenaeus, too, as he is quoted by the same historian, says, respecting the controversy about the time of keeping Easter, that " this difference did not arise first in his age, but long before, in the time of their fathers, who, as is probable, being neg- ligent in their government, delivered to their posterity a custom which had crept in only through simplicity and ignorance. "t And, says Socrates, the historian, "neither the more ancient nor later fathers, who were disposed to follow these Jewish rites, had any cause to raise so great contention for the keeping of Easter and such holy days, the observation of which is not enjoined in the Gospel," (I trust that you and the rest of the Tractarians, as well as the Scottish Episcopalians, will mark this,) "was altogether legal," i. e. ceremonial. " They did not consider that after * Lib. iii. cap. 39, " Kai HKKt h o ecun;," &.C. t Lib. v cap. 24. 336 LETTERS ON the Jewish religion was changed into that of the Chris- tians, the strict observation of the law of Moses, and the shadows of future things, were entirety abolished, which may be thus most surely evinced. For by no law of Christ is it granted to Christians to observe Jewish customs. Yea, the Apostle expressly forbade it, not only setting aside circumcision, but admonishing them that about feast days there should be no con- tention. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, confirm- ing the same declaration, he says, " the priesthood being changed, there is also a change of the law." After which he adds, when accounting for the ap- pointment of such holy days as you observe in your Church, without any authority from Scripture, "surely the Apostles and Evangelists never imposed a yoke upon those that became obedient to the doctrine of faith, but Easter and other holy days were left to the choice and equity of those who in such days had re- ceived the benefits. IVherefure, seeing men love holy days because they bring them some respite from their labours, different individuals in different places, fol- lowing their particular inclinations, according to a certain custom, celebrated the memory of our Sa- viour's passion. For neither our Saviour nor his Apostles by any law ordained that it should be ob- served; neither did the Gospel nor the Apostles threaten us with a mulct, punishment, or curse, as the law of Moses was wont to do the Jews."* And yet * Lib. v. cap. 22. "It is not," says Bishop Russel in his Sermon, p. 40, "the keeping of those fasts and festivals which commemorate the great events of our holy reiigion, that constitutes the real difference between Episcopalians and other Christians, for in many parts of the Continent they observe the principal festivals and fasts of the Church, as regularly as do the Episcopalians among whom we live." But even Socrates, as we see, declares that there is no warrant for such festivals in Scripture, nor any law appointing them. And the ances- tors of the Continental Protestants condemned them, though, with a strange inconsistency, as James the Sixth remarked, even at Geneva they retained " Yule and Pasche." " In a National Synod," says the author of the Re-examination of the Five Articles of Perth, p. 208, " holden at Dort, anno 1578, of the Belgick, Almaine and French Churches, we have these words : ' Optanduin foret nostros sex diebus laborare, et diem solum dominie um celebrate? Among the articles agreed upon and concluded, concerning ecclesiastical policic in the PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 337 the keeping of Easter on one day was asserted by Polycarp and the Eastern Church, as was formerly noticed, to be supported by a tradition respecting the opinion and practice of the Apostle John ; and the keeping of it on a different day, as was done by the Romish Church, was supported by a tradition res- Palatinat, anno 1602, wc have this following: "Omnes feriae per annum et festi dies tollendi e medio. All the festival! dayes through the year are to be abolished" Bucer, howbcit, not one of the preci- sest reformers, upon Matthew ii. hath tlicsc words, as I find him cited by Amesius in his Fresh Suit, p. 360, "I would to God that every holy day besides the Lord's day were abolished. That zeal which brought them first in was without all warrant or example of the Scripture, and oncly followed naturall reason to drive out the holy dayes of the Pagans, as it were to drive out one nail with an- other." "Farellus and Viret," it is elsewhere remarked, " removed all ho'y dayes out of the Kirk of Geneva, as Calvin testifies, (Epist. 118.) The same decree which banished Farellus and Calvin out of Geneva brought in other holy dayes. They were all again abrogate except the Sabbath day. Howsoever, after came in the keeping of Pasche, and the Nativity. Calvin was so far from liking of holy dayes, that lie was slandered of intention to abolish the Lord's day. Yea, Luther himselfe, in his book de Bonis Operibus, set forth anno 1520, wished that there were no feast days among Christians but the Lord's day. And in his booke to the Nobilitie of Germanic, he saith, Consultum esse, &c. it were expedient that all feast days were abrogate, the Lord's day only retained. Howsoever forraigne divines in their epistles and councils speak sometimes sparingly against holy dayes, when their advice was sought of Kirks newly risen out. of Popery, and greatly distressed; they never advised a Kirk to resume them when they were removed, neither had they leisure to consider nar- rowly the corruption of every error that prevailed in their time, the work of reformation was so painful to them." And the following are the terms in which Bishop Hooper repro- bates all such festivals, though neither Cranmer nor he could get them abolished in the Church of England. " It is against this com- mandment," (the fourth,) says he, "to kepc or dedicate ony fast to ony sainct, of what holinis soever he be. Therefore saith the law, ye shall celebrate the fest unto the Lord ; Exod. xxiii. This honor shuld be gyven only unto God. In the Old Testament Idas no fest ever dedicated to ony sainct, neither in the New. It happened after the deth of the Apostellcs, as it is written in Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 15, and bi tter auctorite have they not that be the auctors of these holy dayes, the which the Consel of Lugd. hath geven us. They have not above two hundred and seventy three yers in aigc, and is the levyn of the Pope." Such is the Bishop's account of the origin of Bishop Russcl's holy days, for which he praises the Church of Eng- land and the Scottish Episcopalians. Declaration of the Ten Holy Commandments, p. 115. 22 338 LETTERS ON PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. pecting the opinion and practice of Peter and Paul, handed down from the time of these Apostles. But if the fathers themselves, for whom you profess such deference, rejected opinions and religious rites which rested merely on unwritten traditions, however early, and however general, but which were not sanctioned by Scripture, we are only following the example which they have set us, when we reject the claims of diocesan Episcopacy, and all your rites, even though you should be able to show that they existed generally in the Christian Church from the earliest ages, and were recommended by traditions extending backwards to the very days of the Apostles, unless you can prove that they are recommended or ap- pointed in the Word of God.* I remain, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. * Even Cyprian uses the following- language respecting a tradition, of which he disapproved: " Unde est ista traditio ? Utrumne dc dominica et evangelica auctoritate descendens, an de Apostoloruin mandatis atque Epistolis veniens?" Epist. 74, ad Pompon, p. 192. And says Whitaker of the whole of the early fathers, (and he was one of the most learned and distinguished theologians that ever filled the high situation of Professor of Divinity in the University of Cam- bridge,) " We may warrantably reject all human testimonies, and insist upon some clear Scripture testimony. For this is the constant sense of all the Catholic fathers, that nothing is to be received or approved in religion which is not supported by the testimony of Scripture, and which cannot be proved and confirmed out of these sacred writings. And very deservedly, since the Scripture is an abso- lute and sufficient rule of truth." Treatise against Bellarmine, Con- trov. ii. quaest. 5, cap. 6. p. 506. 339 LETTER XXI. If tlio reasoning employed in the two preceding letters be well founded, it will not follow that diocesan Episcopacy received the approbation of the Apostles, though it could be proved that it existed in the age next to the apostolic, unless it could be demonstrated that they had expressed their approbation of it in their writings; — but it cannot be proved that it ex- isted in that early age. — The mere catalogues of bishops, to which Epis- copalians appeal, will not establish this, unless they can show that these bishops had the same powers which belong exclusively to their prelates. — This, how ever, they have never yet done ; and Jerome declares, that even toward the end ol the fourth century the power of ordination alone dis- tinguished a bishop from a presbyter. — In his Commentary on Titus, and his Epistle to Ev agrius, he represents bishops and presbyters as the same, not only in name, but in authority, ar.d diocesan Episcopacy as a mere human institution, introduced by the Church to prevent schism. — He de- scribes it further as adopted hi/ degrees, as divisions arose in different C/iurr/,es or nations, by a decree ot each of the Churches, and not of any general council, and as having commenced, not at the time of the schism in the Church of Corinth, referred to by Paul in his first Epistle to that Church, but after the writing of the third Epistle of John, and the death of the Apostles. — This represented as ihe opinion of Jerome, as staled in his writings, by Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and the most eminent foreign Reformers, by Ihe Wirtemburg Confession and the Articles of Smalkatd, and by Jewel, Willel, Whitaker, and many other learned and distinguish- ed divines of the Church of England. Reverend Sir, — I have endeavoured to show, in the preceding letter, that though you could succeed in proving diocesan Episcopacy to have existed in the Church in the very age next to the Apostles, and that it had been regarded subsequently as an apostolic institution, we would be justified in refusing to it that high character, unless it could be demonstrated that it was sanctioned by Scripture. And I have attempted to prove that it has no such sanction, presbyters being the highest order of office-bearers among the standing ministers of the Christian Church, who are represented as bishops, and no one being ever called by that name who was a diocesan bishop. Nay, not only are pres- byters denominated bishops, and the same qualifica- tions required from them that are necessary in bishops, but, as the celebrated Armacanus remarks, when Paul enumerates the different orders, he mentions no middle order between the presbyter-bishop and the deacon. " It is evident," says he, after quoting the words of the Apostle to Timothy about bishops and deacons in 340 LETTERS ON his first Epistle, that " between the episcopal," or pres- byter episcopal " order, and that of the deacon, there is no middle order, since if there were any, we cannot doubt that that illustrious Doctor, who, as he tells the Galatians, ch. i., received his Gospel from Christ him- self, would have instructed his beloved disciple Timo- thy respecting it, and would have given him rules in regard to it, as he gave him respecting the higher and lower orders,"* Such an omission is altogether inex- plicable, on the supposition that presbyters, who are represented as bishops, were inferior to them, and were to constitute only a middle order. And if you can account for it, and for the want of the slightest notice of the qualifications which are required in such bishops, that those who aspire to that high office may know whether they are fit for it, and those to whom they apply for ordination may know whether they ought to grant it, you will have the honour of per- forming what has never yet been accomplished by any of the former defenders of Episcopacy, from the time of Epiphanius till the present day. I am aware that the present curate of Derry, one of the most zealous though not the most intelligent and judicious advocates of your ecclesiastical polity, ob- jects to our reasoning, when we infer the equality, if not the perfect identity, of presbyters and bishops; because presbyters are distinguished by the name of bishops, just as we infer the equality of the Son to the Father in the ever-blessed Godhead, because the highest names characteristic of divinity which are bestowed on the first are applied to the second person in the Trinity. "The man," says he, "who would rest his cause (the proof of the divinity of the Son) upon it," i. e. the application to him of these names, " would be subjected to a logical defeat, for he would * " Constat quod inter ordinem episcopalem et inter ordinem dia- conatus non est ordo mcdius, quoniam si quis esset, non dubium, quin iste Doctor maximus, qui suum Evangelium recepit a Christo, ut ipse scribit ad Gal. i., suum dilectum discipulum Timotheum de isto ordine instruxisset, et ei regulam dedisset, sicut de superiori et inferiori regulas dedit." Ric. Armacan. lib. ii. quaest. Armen. cap. v. fol. 84. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 341 be at once open to the reply, that if Christ be God, because he is called God, magistrates and princes are, for a similar reason, gods; that if Christ be God, because styled God, Baal and Ashtaroth are, for a similar reason, gods."* Now, I would ask this writer, who is equally rash in his remarks on some of the leading doctrines of theology, as in some of his argu- ments in defence of Episcopacy, where he finds the highest names which are applied to the Supreme and Eternal God given to angels, or magistrates and prin- ces, or to Baal and Ashtaroth? Any of them may be called 0ft>s but I challenge him to produce a single passage where he is called o 0sos, a name which even Socinians and Arians admit is peculiar to the Supreme God. And yet that name is bestowed on the blessed Redeemer by God the Father, (Hebrews i. 8,) by the Apostle Paul, (Romans ix. 5,) and by the Apostle Thomas, (John xx. 28,) as well as in other passages. And any of them may be distinguished by other inferior names, which are applied occasionally to the persons in the Godhead. But I call upon him to point out a single passage where they are called Jehovah, that incommunicable name, which is represented by the Psalmist as peculiar to him who is " the. most high over all the earth," (Ps. lxxxiii. 18,) or, as it is ex-, pressed by Dr. Waterland, who, in his masterly wri- tings on the divinity of the Saviour, will be acknow- ledged by most to have thought as closely and argued as ably as the curate of Derry, "which is a word of absolute signification, and is the incommunicable name of the one true God."t And yet we know that that name is given to the Redeemer by God the Father, (compare Ps. cii. 12, 26, with Hebrews i. 8, 10, 12,) and by the Apostle John, (compare Isaiah vi. 1-3, 10, with John xii. 37, 39, 41,) as well as in other pas- sages. The argument, therefore, for the supreme and eternal divinity of the Son, from his being represented by these names, is perfectly conclusive; and if we are * Sec his Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 24. t Defence of some Queries relating to Dr. Clark's Scheme of the Trinity, p. 57. 342 LETTERS ON right in inferring, in opposition to Mr. Boyd, his equality to the Father from his receiving these names, as was maintained by Bishop Bull, Dr. Waterland, and Bishop Horsley, we are justified in inferring the equality of presbyters to scriptural bishops, because they are represented as bishops. And as no other bishops, or standing ministers, under any other name, are mentioned in the New Testament, we are war- ranted further in drawing the conclusion, that, as far as is revealed in the sacred volume, they are the highest order of Christian ministers appointed by the Redeemer, and the only bishops. You will tell me, however, that diocesan bishops existed universally in the Christian Church from the earliest ages, and that for fifteen hundred years Epis- copacy was regarded as an apostolic institution. Such I am sensible was the statement of Bancroft, Chilling- worth, and Leslie, in former times; and such is the statement which has been made recently in almost every page of the Oxford Tracts, and in terms of the boldest and most confident assertion, as if it did not admit of a single doubt, or of the smallest contradic- tion. I propose, accordingly, in concluding these let- ters, to inquire into the fact; while, if it should even correspond to the statement, since the Apostles them- selves have never told us that they sanctioned it, I would object to the inference, that diocesan Epis- copacy was a divine institution. Now, in examining this statement, I beg to premise, that it will not be enough to convince me of its accu- racy, though you should bring forward lists of different individuals in after times denominated bishops, who occupied the Sees in the various quarters of the Chris- tian Church from the very age which was next to the Apostles till the present day. It Avill not satisfy me that they were diocesan bishops, to tell me merely that they had the names of bishops; but I must have more precise, and distinct, and full information from unexceptionable witnesses as to the extent of their j)oivers, and must see that they were the same as to ecclesiastical matters which are possessed by your PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 343 bishops, and which are exercised by the prelates among the Scottish Episcopalians. I must see that they were not merely the moderators or chairmen of the councils of presbyters in the different churches, who were only the primi infer pares, the first among equals, chosen annually like the Ae,z°v*ts ETtuvvpot. at Athens, each of whom was denominated in his turn the Archon for the year, and presided over the rest ; which, according to some, as was formerly mentioned, is the only principle on which you can explain the apparently contradictory accounts given by the fathers of the order of succession among the first four bishops of the Church of Rome. And I must see that even afterwards, when a change was introduced, they were not merely standing moderators with the name of bishops, because they summoned when they thought fit the councils of the presbyters to meet and delibe- rate about the affairs of the Church, and possessing only the powers of the annual moderators. All this must be ascertained ; and it must be proved that the authority committed to the bishops was far more ex- tensive than was vested in these moderators with the designation of bishops, and was equal to that which has been conferred upon your prelates, before the ar- gument, brought from the lists of bishops in the dif- ferent Churches, can have the smallest weight to con- vince me of the fact asserted in your statement, and that of other Episcopalians, namely, that diocesan Episcopacy existed universally in the Christian Church from the earliest ages. Now, I request to know, whether you or Mr. Boyd can give me this informa- tion? He has furnished the names of the bishops of two of the Asiatic Churches,* and said very properly, that " it was surely unnecessary to pursue that line of proof any further;" and as he produced nothing more as a proof, it was unquestionably right that he should stop. .Will he have the goodness to accompany it in the next edition, or in some future publication, witli a well-attested account of the extent of the powers which were entrusted to these ministers? * Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 114-117. 344 LETTERS ON I feel it to be the more necessary to obtain this in- formation, because it was common with the fathers, as was proved formerly in one of these letters, to re- present the Apostles as the bishops of Churches in which they had laboured for a time, though they sus- tained a much higher and more important character, and to ascribe to their successors the very same powers which were exercised by these distinguished early ministers ; and the same language is used in the fourth and fifth centuries respecting Timothy, and Titus, and others of the Evangelists. It is plain, however, that any list of bishops in one of these Churches which begins either with an Apostle or an Evangelist, commences with an error, and is conse- quently vitiated ; for being a minister of a greatly superior order, he could not sink into a bishop. And as his name ought never to have been placed on the list of these ordinary ministers, so it is not enough to present to me a catalogue of those who succeeded him, but you must furnish me with a distinct and well-authenticated account of the extent of their powers ; and you are not to take for granted, that because they were bishops, they were invested with the same amount of spiritual authority over other ministers which he could exercise in virtue of his high and extraordinary office, while he was engaged in founding and organizing these Churches. Besides, Bishop Burnet admits that "the names of bishop and presbyter are not only used for the same thing in Scripture, but are also used promiscuously by the writers of the two first centuries."* And it is evi- dent from the writings of Irenaeus, and of others of the fathers, that his observation is just, and that Bishop Russel is mistaken when he affirms,! that "immediately after the demise of the Apostles, the term Bishop was applied (appropriated) to their suc- cessors in the government of the Church," or diocesan prelates. So far was this from being the case that Irenaeus represents presbyters as preserving the very succession from the Apostles in the episcopate, and as * Conference, p. 310. t Sermon, p. 30. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 345 the bishops whom it was foretold by the prophets that God would give to the Church. "Wherefore," says he, in his Fourth Book against Heresies, c. 43, " we ought to hear those presbyters who are in the Church, who have the succession from the Apostles, and who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received the gift of the truth according to the plea- sure of the Father."* And he says, in the following chapter, "Such presbyters the Church nourishes, of whom also the prophet says, I will give thee thy princes or rulers in peace, and thy bishops in right- eousness.! But if presbyters were the ministers who preserved the succession in the episcopate from the Apostles to the days of Irenaeus, and who were then considered as the bishops whom God had promised to give to the Church, how is this consistent with their being no longer bishops, nor the bishops pre- dicted by the prophets, and subordinate to a higher order of ministers, who long before that time had be- come the only bishops? And, in short, it is indispen- sable that you should furnish us with this information about the powers of the bishops, whose names are in the lists of the early Churches, that we may see whether they were really distinct from presbyters, and if so, how far they were superior ; for it would appear from what is mentioned by Jerome, that even in the fourth century they were greatly inferior, in respect to their authority, not only to your prelates, but even to those of the Scottish Episcopalians. Your bishops possess the exclusive power of ad- ministering confirmation, exercising jurisdiction, and conferring orders, but it was not so with the bishops, nearly three hundred years after the death of the Apostles ; for, says that father, and he was not con- tradicted by Epiphanius, or any of his contempo- raries,) "what does a bishop perform, (ordination * "Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt prcsbytcris obaudirc opor- tet, his qui successioncm habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum episcopatus successione charisma vcritatis ccrtum secundum placitum Patris acccpcrunt." + "Tales presbytcros nutrit ecclesia, de quibus et propheta ait, Et dabo principes tuos in pace, et episcopos tuos in justitia." 346 LETTERS ON excepted,) which a presbyter cannot do?"* But if the bishops who lived at such a distance from the Apostles were distinguished from presbyters only as to the power of ordination, and not as to the powers of confirmation or jurisdiction, which are possessed exclusively as well as the former by modern bishops, it presents a very strong additional reason why, along with the names in the list of bishops in the second century, you should furnish us with an exact account of their powers, that we may see whether at that time they differed from presbyters even as to the power of ordination, which, in the days of Jerome, appears to have been their only peculiar privilege. Jerome, however, who is acknowledged univer- sally to have been the most learned of the Latin fathers, and whose veracity, I believe, has never been questioned, makes another statement of far greater importance respecting diocesan Episcopacy, namely, that even in the comparatively limited form in which it existed in his time, it was not appointed by Christ, nor sanctioned by the Apostles ; and while he repre- sents it as a mere human institution, mentions the circumstances which led to its introduction. But as I write only to ascertain what is truth, and not for victory, and as I would be sorry to impute to him a single sentiment which he did not really hold, or to deduce from his words a single inference in favour of my principles which they do not fairly warrant, I take the liberty to select from his writings the following passages : "Let us attend carefully," says he in his Commen- tary on Titus, "to the words of the Apostle, (Titus, i. 5,) that thou shouldst ordain presbyters in every city, as I have appointed thee. Pointing out after- wards what sort of presbyters should be ordained, he says, if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c. ; after which he adds, for a bishop must be blame- less, as the steward of God. A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop ; and before, through the in- * " Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus quod presbyter non faciat?" PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 347 stigation of the devil, there were different parties in religion, and it was said among different people (or states,) I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common council of presbyters. But afterwards, when every one thought that those whom he had baptized belonged to himself, and not to Christ, it was determined throughout the whole world, that one chosen from the presbyters should be placed over the rest, to whom the care of the whole Church should belong, and the seeds of schisms should be taken away. " If any one should think that this is merely my opinion, and not the doctrine of the Scriptures, let him read again the words of the Apostles to the Phi- lippians, ' Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, grace to you and peace,' &c. Philippi is a single city of Mace- donia ; and certainly in one city there could not be several bishops, as they are now denominated, or of the kind that now exist. But because at that time they called the same persons bishops who were pres- byters, he has spoken indifferently of bishops as of presbyters. " If this should still appear doubtful to any one, un- less it be confirmed by another testimony, it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when the Apostle had come to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called the presbyters of the same Church, to whom afterwards he said among other things, Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath placed you bishops, to feed the Church of God, which he has purchased with his blood. Observe carefully, that when calling the presbyters of that one city Ephe- sus, he afterwards denominated the same persons bishops. If any one is willing to receive that Epistle to the Hebrews, which is ascribed to Paul, there also the care of the Church is divided among a plurality of rulers ; for says he, Obey them who have the rule over you, and be subject to them, for they watch for your souls, as those who must give an account, &c. And 348 LETTERS ON the Apostle Peter, who received his name from the firmness of his faith, speaks in the same way in his Epistle, saying, the presbyters who are among you, I beseech, who am your fellow presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, &c. The object for which we state these things, is to show that among the an- cients, presbyters and bishops were the same; but that by little and little, that the plants of dissensions might be plucked up, the whole care of the Church was committed to one. As the presbyters, therefore, know that they are subject by the custom of the Church to him who is placed over them, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters, more by custom than by any real appointment of the Lord ; and that they ought to govern the Church along with the presbyters, imitating Moses, who, when he alone was to preside over the people of Israel, chose seventy, with whom he might judge the people."* Again, he says in his Epistle to Evagrius, " I hear that a certain individual has discovered such madness, as to place deacons above presbyters, that is, bishops; for when the Apostle plainly teaches that presbyters are the same persons who are also bishops, who can endure that a minister who waits only on the tables of the poor, and widows, should in his pride exalt him- self above those at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are made ? Hear a testimony in proof of this." After which he quotes the different passages referred to in his Commentary on Titus, and then adds, " Do these testimonies of such men appear to you of little weight ? Let the evangelical trumpet sound in your ears, the son of thunder whom Jesus loved, who drank copiously the streams of doctrine from the breast of the Saviour. The Presbyter to the elect Lady and her children, whom I love in the truth ; and in another Epistle, The Presbyter to the well beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth. And that one was after- wards chosen, who was placed (or presided over, * " Diligenter Apostoli verba attendamus dicentis, ut constituas per civitates presbyteros sicut ego tibi disposui qui qualis presbyter debeat ordinari," &c. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 349 praeponeretur,) the rest, was a remedy which was adopted against schism, lest every one drawing the Church to his party should break it in pieces. For also at Alexandria, from Mark, the Evangelist, to the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, (or, according to Blonde!,* till a. d. 246,) "the presbyters always named as bishop one chosen from among themselves, and placed him in a higher degree, in the same manner as if an army should make an emperor, or the deacons should choose from among themselves an industrious man, and call him Archdeacon." After which he re- marks respecting the terms, presbyters and bishops, which he had said were applied to the same persons, that " the one was a name expressive of age, the other of dignity ; whence, when directions are delivered to Titus and Timothy about the ordination of the bishop and the deacon, the Apostle is entirely silent about presbyters, because the presbyter is comprehended in the bishop."t Now, upon the account which is given in these passages of the rise of Episcopacy by this early father, who lived so near to the Apostles, and of whom Augustine says, that "no man knew any thing which was unknown to Jerome," and Erasmus testi- fies that he was " without controversy the most learn- ed of all Christians, and the prince of divines," I would make the following observations : In the first place, it is a gratuitous and unworthy insinuation of Mr. Boyd, for which he has not pro- duced a particle of evidence, that Jerome was induced to deliver this statement, because " his expectations in life were disappointed, and that disappointment vent- ed itself in the acerbities which mark his writings; or that there was that in the haughtiness or the worldli- ness of the bishops of his time which excited his dis- pleasure. "% No such acerbities appear in these passages, but they express his calm and deliberate opinion as to the origin of Episcopacy ; and if, under * Apologia pro Sententia Hicronymi, p. 7. t " Audio quondam in tantam erupisse vaecordiam ut diaconos pres- byteris, id est, Episcopis anleferret," &.C. t Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 123. 350 LETTERS ON the influence of these feelings, he could deliver a tes- timony respecting a matter of such moment, which he knew to be false, so far from being worthy of being represented by Bishop Hurd as " the most esteemed, as well as the ablest of the fathers/' he would be de- serving of contempt. 2dly, It was the general opinion, not only of the most eminent individuals who laboured for the spirit- ual improvement of the Church before the Reforma- tion, but of the leading Protestants at that memorable period, and for ages afterwards, that the doctrine taught in these passages, is, that bishops are not superior to presbyters by divine appointment, and that the eleva- tion of the former above the latter is a device of men, and not an institution of God. I may refer in proof of this to Laurentius Valla, a noble Roman, and dis- tinguished divine, who, according to Dr. Cave, flourish- ed a. d. 1440, who, in his Commentary on Acts xv. after quoting Acts xx. 28, says, " As to this, that the same persons were presbyters who are here said to be bishops, I need not employ many words, since it is proved by Jerome on Titus."* It was the view of their meaning taken by Luther, who says in his Dis- putation at Leipsic, (torn. i. of his works,) " that Jerome makes bishops equal among themselves, and presby- ters equal to bishops, and that any inequality which took place afterwards arose from custom and expedi- ency."t It was the view of their meaning which was entertained by Melancthon, for, says he, " Jerome plainly testifies that a bishop and a presbyter are not different grades" or orders " by divine right;" % by Cal- vin, who, after remarking that diocesan Episcopacy " was an arrangement introduced by human agree- ment," adds, " Thus Jerome, on the Epistle to Titus, * "De hoc quod iidem fuerunt presbyteri qui episcopi, non est pluri- bus agendum, quod ab Hieronymo super Epistola ad Titum probatur." t "Hieronymus non rnodo episcopos aequat inter se, sed et presby- teros episcopis comparat. Patet itaque re ipsa aequales episcopos inter se et presbyteros, solo usu et ecclesiae causa, alium alii praeferendum." t Tract, de Ordine, torn. ii. Oper. p. 867. " Imo Hieronymus aperte testatur, non esse jure divino diversos gradus episcopum et presby- terutn." PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 351 says, a presbyter is the same as a bishop;" by Bullin- eer, (Decad. 3,Sermo 3); by Zanchius on the Fourth Commandment; by Danaeus, (in Augustini de Haeres., Haer. 53); Chemnitz, (Examen Concil. Trident. Pars 2, de Sacrament, ord.); Junius, (Controv. 5 lib. l,cap. 15,) and many others. Nay, it was the view taken of them in all the Confessions of the Churches of the Reformation. Thus the Wirtemburgh Confession, in the chapter on Order, says, " Jerome teaches that a bishop and presbyter are the same."* And you can- not fail to recollect, that in the quotations which were produced from the Articles of Smalkald, in a former letter, and which were subscribed by so many thou- sands of the foreign Reformers, the very same view is given of their import. " Jerome," say they, " teaches that there is no difference between bishops and pres- byters, but that all pastors are also bishops. And he alleges that text of Paul, (Titus i. 5,) 1 Therefore left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain presbyters in every city."t And again, " Here Jerome teaches that the different degrees of bishops and presbyters were established solely by human authority; and this is evident from the thing itself, for the office and the directions respecting those who are to be appointed to it are the same. "J Nay, such was the view which was entertained of their meaning by many of the most learned and able divines of your own Church. I shall prove immediately that it was held by Dr. Whitaker, who replies triumphantly to the very same objections against this interpretation of these passages, when urged by Bishop Russel,the curate of Deny, and other modern Episcopalians, when they were adduced for- merly by Sanders the Papist, a most zealous defender * " Docct autem Hieronymus eundcm esse et presbyterum." t " Ideoque Hieronymus claris verbis inquit inter episcopos et pres. byteros non esse discrimen, sed omnes pastores et episcopos esse. Et allcgat textuin Pauli, Tit. i.," &c. t " Hie docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus episcoporum et presby- terorum sive pastorum tantum humana authoritute constitutos esse; idquc res ipsa loquitur, quia officium et mandatum plane idem est. Quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter episenpum etpas- torem, nou est dubium, ordinationem ideo eorum ministrorum a pas- tore in ecclesia sua factum, jure .divino ratam et probatam esse." 352 LETTERS ON of the exclusive claims and divine institution of dio- cesan Episcopacy. And I apprehend that it is plain from the following quotation from the Synopsis of Willetj that a similar view of the meaning of Jerome was adopted by himself, and by Jewel and Whitgift. " Amongst the rest," says he, " S. Hierome thus wri- teth: Apostolum perspicue docere, &c. The Apostle teacheth evidently that bishops and py'iests were the same: yet he holdeth this distinction to be necessary for the government of the Church, Quod unus postea electus, est, &c. That one afterwards was chosen to be set over the rest, it was done to bee a remedie against schisme. To this opinion of S. Jerome sub- scribed! Bishop Jewel in the place before quoted,* * The testimony of Willet, whose book, as I showed, was approved by the bishops, establishes the accuracy of the statement which was given in a former letter of the sentiments of Jewel respecting- the origin of Episcopacy, which he regarded, (as was proved) only as a human institution, and furnishes an answer to what is urged to the contrary by Mr. Boyd, (Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 51.) — " I reply," says the latter writer, " in the Jirst place, by saying, that these" (they had been quoted by the authors of the Plea for Presbytery, and are the same nearly as I have referred to) " are not Jewel's words. They are part of a quolation taken from St. Jerome, and given in the quotation imputed to Jewel, as any person who has read even the first clause of that father's epistle to Evangelus (Evagrius!) could not have failed of knowing." Willet was aware of this as well as Mr. Boyd; and yet he affirms, from the manner in which Jewel not only quotes, but applies the words of Jerome, that he was of the same opinion with that father. And certainly the writer who quotes with approbation the words of another must be considered as adopting them. I pre- sume Mr. Boyd does this, when he quotes in this way the authors to whom he appeals in diiferent parts of his work. " In the second place, all that Jewel says is, that it is no heresy to say, that by the Scriptures of God, bishops and priests are all one. And does this prove the Bishop of Salisbury an advocate for Presbytery?" No, cer- tainly ; for Jewel, like Jerome, thought that Episcopacy might be adopted on the principle of expediency, though not as a divine insti- tution. And he admits, like Jerome, not as Mr. Boyd would insinu- ate, that a bishop and a Presbyter are represented in Scripture as all one, because they belong to one order, — the one occupying its higher grade, and the other its lower, — but as one in degree as well as order, or, as he expresses it in another passage, which he quotes with appro- bation from Jerome, one thing ; and this is farther confirmed by his representing them as at first ruling the Church with equal power. " Againe," he observes, (Defense of the Apologie, p. 100,) "Jerome saith, therefore a priest and a bishop are one thing ; and before that PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 353 and another most reverend prelate of onr Church, (Whitgift,) in these words: "I know these names be confounded in the Scriptures, but I speak according by the inflaming of the divell parts were taken in religion, and these words were uttered among the people, I hold of Paul, &c., the Churches were governed of the common advice of the priests." Be- sides, when Harding, as Jewel informs us, p. 196, affirmed, that "they which denied the distinction of a bishop and a priest were condemned of heresie," and appealed in proof of it to the condemnation of the sentiments of Arius by Epiphanins, lib. iii. cap. 75, he charged them with denying any distinction between them to the same extent to which it was denied by Arius. Now, we know that Arius .denied any distinction between them, not only as to order, but as to degree. And Jewel observes, on the margin, with regard to Harding's charge, that "this was an untruth, for hereby both S. Paul and S. Hierome, and other good men, are condemned of heresie ;" plainly showing that he considered them as teaching that, by divine appointment, bishops and presbyters are not only of one order, but of the same degree. As to the two quotations from the Defense, and the passage produced by Mr. Boyd from the Apology, where Jewel says, " We believe that in the Church there are various orders of ministers, some deacons, others priests, others bishops, to whom the instruction of the people, and the care and administration of religion, is intrusted," it contains no con- tradiction to the statement, that, like Jerome, he considered bishops and presbyters the same as to order and degree by divine right, tor he thought also, like him, that it was agreeable to Scripture to adopt a superior order to presbyters on the principle of expediency. And as he acknowledges, in another part of the Apology, that they had re- tained some rites which were not instituted by God, they might be disposed to retain diocesan bishops though not appointed by him. And as to the other passage of the Apology referred to by Mr. Boyd, where Jewel says, "We have approached, as much as possibly we could, the Church of the Apostles, and ancient Catholic bishops and fathers," it is evident from the following sentence, which .Mr. Boyd ought to have quoted, but which he has taken care to suppress, that the bishop is speaking only of their approaching that Church in re- gard to doctrine and worship, and never alludes to the orders among the clergy. So much for Mr. Boyd's allegation of frauds practised against Bishop Jewel. I may add, that the celebrated Dr. Reynolds, of whom Bishop Hall said, that " his memory and reading were near a miracle," and Crack- enthorp, that "to name hirn was to commend virtue itself," confirms this view of the sentiments of Jewel, in opposition to Mr. Boyd; for, says he, in his letter to Sir Francis Knollys, " which untruth, (that Augustine charged Arius with heresy, for asserting that, according to Scripture, bishops and presbyters arc the same,) it may appeare by this, that our learned countryman, of good memory, Bishop Jewel, (Defense of the Apology, part 2, cap. 9, divis. 1, p. 198,) when Hard- ing, to convince the same opinion of heresie, alleadged the same wit- nesses, he cyting to the contrary Chrysostome, Jerome, &c, knit up his answer with these words : All these and other moe holy fathers, 23 354 LETTERS ON to the manner and custome of the Church ever since the Apostles' time;" Defens. Answer. Admonit. p. 3S3.* But if such was the view of the meaning of these passages which was adopted by these eminent and venerable individuals, some of whom continued to adhere to Episcopacy on the ground of expediency, though not of divine right, does it not furnish a strong presumptive argument, whether you reflect on their number, or learning, or piety, that it must be the true interpretation; and if this be really the case, and if the testimony of Jerome respecting the origin of pre- lacy, and the time when it was introduced, be worthy of credit, does it not subvert completely all its claims to the character, which so many of its injudicious friends are so anxious to claim for it, of an apostolic institution? As it is still, however, possible, though not very probable, that this interpretation may be wrong, and as we ought to judge for ourselves, I shall examine very shortly the leading statements contained in these quotations, and the principal objections which were urged against it formerly by some Popish controver- sialists, when they advocated the cause of diocesan Episcopacy, and which have been repeated of late by some of its defenders among Protestant Episco- palians. Now, upon looking into these passages, I appre- hend, that it will appear to an impartial reader, who has no theory to establish, that the following points, bearing very strongly on the question about Episco- pacy, are asserted by Jerome, who, according to Bing- ham, " may be allowed," on many subjects, "to speak the sense of the ancients." together with the Apostle S. Paul, for thus saying, by Harding^s advice must be held for heretikes." And Hooker, in his Ecclesiasti- cal Polity, book vii. p. 395, when speaking of those who believed that " the A/iostles did neither by word or deed appoint it," (diocesan Epis- copacy,) mentions among them, on the margin, Jewel, in his Defens. Apol. part 2, cap. 9 ; and Dr. Fulk, in his Answer to the Rhemish version of the Testament, Tit. i. 5. Surely Dr. Reynolds and Hooker will satisfy Mr. Boyd and his friends on this point. * Page 273. PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 355 1st, That bishops do not belong to a different order from presbyters by divine right, or even to a higher grade in the same order; "because the Apostle, when pointing out what kind of presbyter ought to be or- dained, says, that a bishop ought to be blameless, plainly showing that a presbyter is the same with a bishop, (idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus:") that " it was not merely his private opinion, but the doctrine of Scripture, that a bishop and a presbyter are one, (episcopum et presbyterum unumesse ;) that the same persons who are called presbyters are after- wards denominated bishops,, (presbyteros vocans postea eosdem episcopos dixerit;) and that Paul, when writing about the ordination of bishops and deacons, is entirely silent about presbyters, because they are comprehended under bishops, (de presbyteris omnino reticetur, quia in episcopo et presbyter continetur.") It is evident, therefore, that in his opinion bishops had in no respect any superiority to presbyters by divine right, and that not the smallest sanction of that supe- riority is to be met with in Scripture. Idly, That while presbyters and bishops continued the same, as the Lord had appointed, no one possessed any pre-eminence as to power beyond another, and u the churches were governed by a common council of presbyters." (Communi concilio presbyterorum ecclesiae gubernabantur.) 3d/y, That when bishops were placed above pres- byters, it was to prevent schisms, and they were raised to their superiority only by the custom of the Church, and not by any divine direction, (ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam, episcopi noverinl se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae verilate presbyteris esse ma j ores.) Athly, That this change took place when dissen- sions arose among different people or states where Christian Churches had been planted, and "one said, I am of Paul, another, I of Apollos, another, I of Ce- phas, and another, I of Christ;" to remedy which, 356 LETTERS ON " it was resolved or determined over the whole world, that one should be set over the other presbyters, to whom the whole care of every separate church should be committed. (In toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quern omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur.") 5thly, He does not affirm, as has often been alleged by many Episcopalians, both Protestant and Popish, that this elevation of one of the presbyters above the rest of his brethren took place at once throughout the early Church, when the schism referred to by the Apostle Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians arose in that Church. Had this been the case, an ex- traordinary spectacle would unquestionably have been exhibited to future ages, namely, the inspired and accredited ministers of Christ, the twelve Apostles, along with Paul, allowing the Church at its own pleasure to alter that constitution which they had pre- pared for it under the guidance of the Spirit, and to provide a remedy against the progress of schism which he had not suggested; and their conduct would have excited still greater surprise, as they have never made the most distant allusion to it, or expressed the small- est approbation of it in any of their Epistles. Besides, had it been introduced at that time and received their sanction, Jerome would never have represented it as originating merely in custom, (consuetudine eccle- siae,) and not in divine appointment, (dispositio do- mimca) ; for the approbation of the Apostles, acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit, would certainly have invested it with that high character. He makes no such statement, however, in either of these pas- sages, but asserts distinctly, that as bishops and pres- byters were originally the same, both as to order and power, by the appointment of the Saviour, so they con- tinued the same long after the schism which took place at Corinth, and even during the ivhole of the time referred to in the latest of the apostolic writings ; quoting in proof of this the Epistle to the Hebrews, PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 357 the First Epistle of Peter, and the Second and Third Epistles of John.* And so far from declaring that this elevation of one of the conncil of presbyters took place at once throughout the whole Christian * When Sanders, the Papist, asserted that bishops had been ap- pointed by the Church, after the schism at Corinth, with the approba- tion of the Apostles, though not under their direction, and appealed in proof of it to the testimony of Jerome, Whitaker replied in the fol- lowing- terms: "Respondeo Sanderum plane aut non intelligere, aut non attendere quid Hieronymus velit. Etiamsi enim Apostolis vivis aliqui dixerunt, ego Pauli sum, ego Cephae, ego Apollo, et Hieron. scribit, antiquum diceretur ego sum Pauli, &.C;, tamen Hieronymus non sensit ab Apostolis eum ordinem mutatum esse, sed postea eccle- siae judicio. Id Hieronymus significat cum ait, mox, in toto orbe, decrctum est ut unus ex presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris. Num. hoc ab Apostolis factum decretum est? Hieronymus ipse re- spondeat. Sicut presbyteri (inquit) sciunt, se ex ecclesiae covsuetu- dine episcopo sibi praeposito esse subjectos. Ex ecclesiae consuetu- dine Hieronymus ait, non Apostolorum decreto; turn subnectit, ita episcopi noverint se presbyteris majores consuetudine magis quam dominicac dispositionis vcritate. At si ilium ordinem Apostoli muta- vissent, et presbyteris episcopos praefecissent, et communi prcsby- terorum consilio ecclesias posthac rcgi vetuissent, ea sane dominica dispositio fuisset, utpote a Christi Apostolis profecta, nisi forte quae Apostoli decreverant ea consuetudini non dispositioni dominicae as- cribenda sint. Sed vivis Apostolis nihil est in illo ordine mutatum. Nam ilia ad Corinthios scripta cpistola est, quum Paulus in Macedo- niam agcret; at post hoc tempus Titum rcliquit in Creta, ut presby- teros oppidatim constitueret; Tit. i. 5. Si mutandum ordinem Apos- tolus putasset, non praecepisset constitui in singulis oppidis presby- teros, ncc Hieronymus ex Paulo ; Philip, i. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 5, 7; ex Petro, 1 Pet. v. 1 ; ex Actis, Act. xx. 17, 28 ; ex Joanne, 2 Joh. i. et 3 Joh. i., testimonia attulisset, quibus presbyterum cundem esse cum episcopo demonstraret. Paulus Epistolas suas ad Philippenses, ad Timotheum, ad Titum, et Petrus suam, et Joannes suas scripsc- runt postquam illud Corinthi natum schisma est; et Lucas etiain prcsbyteros Ephesinos post illud schisma a Paulo Miletum acccrsitos esse sbribit. Cum Hieronymus his potissimum locis fretus, (Epist. ad Evagr.) contendat presbyterum parent esse episcopo per omnia, non potuit esse tarn immemor sui ut putarct ab apostolis earn ralioricm rnutatam esse. Sic alibi cum Scripturae testimonia adduxisset quibus episcopum et presbyterum non differrc evineeret, subjicit postea unum electum, qui caeteris praeponcrctur. Si postea electus unus est qui presbyteris superior essct, non ergo Apostoli, sed ecclcsiastica quaedam consueludo aut constitutio differ entiam ilium introduxit" Controv. 4, Quaest. 1, cap. 3, sect. 29. Such is the answer which was given to this Papist in the beginning of the seventeenth century, by this learned professor of divinity, when he brought forward the very same objections to our view of the sentiments of Jerome which are advanced by some of the advocates of Episcopacy in the present, day. 358 LETTERS OS Church, in consequence of the decree of some general council, as Bishop Russel and Mr. Boyd insinuate that we represent Jerome as asserting, " though there is not in the writings of any of the fathers, nor of any other author, ecclesiastical or civil, the slightest re- ference to any such canon or institute,"* we consider him as stating directly the contrary. He describes the progress of the schisms as gradual, for he says that they extended "from people to people," or through different countries, ("in populis,") when every one thought that those whom he had baptized belonged to himself, and not to Christ. And he men- tions expressly that the adoption of the remedy was equally gradual, or, according to his own words, "by little and little,'' (paulatim); and that it was not in consequence of a decree of any general council, hut of a resolution or determination of each of the Churches throughout the whole world, (toto orbe de- cretum,) as the schisms spread, to try the expedient for checking them which had been employed by others. He does not specify the particular time at which it was first tried, but it is plain that it must have been after the apostolic age. He tell us, indeed, that it was " when every one said I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I of Cephas;" but he does not state that it was when this was said at Corinth, but when it was said among different people or in different countries: and he uses the very same expressions to describe the conduct of schismatics in the ages which followed, and even in his own day; for, says he, "we do not all speak the same thing, one saying I am of Paul, another, I am of Apollos, and another, I of Cephas, and destroy the unity of the Spirit," &c.t And as it will not follow from his applying the ex- pressions which were used by the first schismatics at Corinth to the schismatics who lived after the apos- tolic age, that he designed to tell us, in opposition to * Sermon, p. 35. t "Quando non id ipsum idem loquimur, et alius dicit ego Pauli, ego Apollo, ego Cepbae, dividimus Spiritus unitatem, et earn in partes et membra discerpimus;" in Ephes. lib. 2. cap. 4. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 359 the whole of his previous reasoning, that it was at the first of these periods, and not at the last, that this change was made, so it cannot be inferred, as has been done by Episcopalians from his saying to Eva- grius, that "what Aaron, and his sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, the bishops, and presbyters, and deacons might claim to be in the Church,"* he in- tended to represent bishops as superior to presbyters by divine appointment. He had been endeavouring previously, through the whole Epistle, to show, that as presbyters were equal to bishops, by the appoint- ment of Christ, the conduct of deacons, who exalted themselves above the former, was presumptuous and. sinful. And as we cannot believe that he icon Id sub- vert in the end what he had been labouring to es- tablish in the rest of the Epistle, he must have design- ed merely to affirm, that he might check the ambition of the insolent deacon, that the same superiority which was possessed by Aaron and his sons over the Levites under the Old Dispensation, ought to be possessed by presbyters and bishops, whom he had proved to be not only equal, but the very same, under the New Dispensation. And he denominates the latter apos- tolic traditions, from the numerous passages which he had brought in proof of the equality and identity of presbyters and bishops, and their superiority to dea- cons, from the writings of the Apostles. He tells us, in short, as was already noticed, that even in the middle, or rather towards the end of the fourth century, the only thing in which a bishop was superior to a presbyter, was the power of ordination. But if this was really the case, and if bishops after- wards acquired the two additional powers of jurisdic- tion and confirmation, as they now possess them, not by divine right, but by assuming them to themselves, and the clergy consenting from whatever motives, it confirms the truth of his previous statement with re- gard to ordination, which he says they did not origi- * "Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de Veteri Testa, menlo, quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Lcvitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi episcopi, et presbyteri, et diaconi vindicent in Ecclesia." 360 LETTERS ON nally possess, and to which they had no more a title by divine right than to these other powers, but re- ceived it only by the deed of the Church, and not by the appointment of the Lord. It is likely that they attained the two latter powers by little and little, so as not to excite the jealousy of the clergy; and the extent to which they exercised their power in regard to ordination, and to presiding among the presbyters, might be so very small as not to awaken any such feelings in the ministers of the Church, and it might be only by degrees that it reached the height at which it arrived afterwards in the days of Jerome. If such, however, was the amount of their power when it was first conferred on them, it furnishes an answer to the extravagant and declamatory observations of Mr. Boyd, who expresses his astonishment, that " while this transaction (the introduction of diocesan Episco- pacy) was going on, whether originating in one am- bitious individual, or the example of some wonder- fully influential Church, — of which individual or of which Church there is no mention in history, — no note of alarm is sounded, no summons to resistance issued, no remonstrance heard from east to west, calling upon Christians to protect the constitution of the Christian Zion from impending injury and de- struction."* When the bishops assumed the two last of these powers, and when archbishops, partriarchs and primates arose in the Church, he will certainly allow that a very great change took place in its con- stitution, whether originating in a few ambitious in- dividuals, or in any other cause, "of which individuals, and of which cause, there is no mention in history ; nor does it appear that any note of alarm was sounded, any summons to resistance issued, or any remonstrance neard from east to west, calling upon Christians to withstand these changes." But if the latter innovations passed unopposed, and were quietly acquiesced in, and generally adopted, though nothing is recorded of the individuals who introduced them, or of the way in which they were effected, I would like to be in- * Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 156, 157. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 361 formed whether the same thing might not happen, when, according to Jerome, the power of ordination and a perpetual presidency in the councils of the pres- byters were bestowed upon bishops by the deed of the Church. I have only further to remark on the statement of Jerome, that in the only instance which he mentions of the appointment of bishops, after they were first in- troduced, that of the bishops of Alexandria, 'he repre- sents them as made by presbyters, just as the Roman army by its own deed made their emperor, and the deacons made their archdeacon. He does not say whether they ordained them, though this is asserted afterwards by Eutychius. And it is evident that if they were ordained, they alone must have performed it ; for before diocesan bishops were adopted by the Church, who did not receive their office by any divine appointment, but by a mere human arrangement, there could be none but presbyters to consecrate those who were raised to the episcopate, not only in the Church of Alexandria, but in all the Churches. But if, according to Jerome, it was presbyters alone who began the succession, and ordained the first diocesan bishops in all the Churches, from whom the whole of the bishops of the present day, and the whole of their clergy, have derived their orders, the succession has been vitiated at its very commencement, and cannot be rectified; and if Presbyterian orders have no validity, there cannot, upon your principles, be a Church, or a minister, or a single individual who has any revealed and covenanted title to salvation on the face of the earth. The sum, then, of Jerome's observations seems to be this : He affirms it to be a fact, that while the original constitution of the Church remained, and pres- byters were equal to bishops, the Church was govern- ed by a common council of Presbyters; that when that constitution was altered by the introduction of dio- cesan bishops, it was not by divine appointment, but by a mere human arrangement ; that when one pres- byter was elevated above his brethren, and promoted 3G2 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. to the episcopate, it was an expedient to repress schism; that it was introduced by little and little, as dissensions spread among the Churches in different countries, and not all at once,* and was adopted ulti- mately by every Church, in consequence entirely of its own resolution, (decretum;) that even towards the end of the fourth century, bishops were distinguished from presbyters only by the power of ordaining minis- ters, and that when bishops were first made they were not only chosen, but made by presbyters. Now, if these be really facts, and not merely opinions, and we must hold them to be so, unless Episcopalians can show that the testimony of Jerome, "the most esteem- ed of the fathers," was contradicted by his contempo- raries, and by those who succeeded him, (and this has never yet been attempted,) they prove incontestably that Presbyterianism is the original constitution of the Church, as it was settled by the Apostles, and account for the introduction of diocesan Episcopacy; that the latter is an innovation, and a mere human institution; and that Churches which are at present governed by presbyters are far more likely to be free from schisms than other Churches, unless the inven- tions of men are superior to the polity which has been approved by God, because they resemble more nearly the model which he has presented to them in the Sacred Scriptures. I remain, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. * It never entered into the minds of Presbyterians to represent Jerome as saying that bishops were adopted at once through the whole world. Important changes, either in the civil constitutions of rations, or in the creation of a new order of ministers in Churches, and changes, too, exactly resembling each other, were never known to take place to that extent simultaneously, and could not by any possibility so take place; nor does Jerome say that it happened in the instance of which he speaks, but quite the contrary. Besides, he describes the pre-eminence conferred at first on one of the pres- byters above his brethren as so very small that it would awaken no jealousy, and says that it was increased gradually. 363 LETTER XXII. While the constitution of the Church, as settled by the Apostles, is acknow- ledged by Jerome to have been Presbyterian, he seems to have approved of a modified Episcopacy as a human arrangement for the pre\ention of schism. — This remedy acknowledged by Gratius to have increased, in place of repressing the evil. — Invalidity of the objection to Presbyterian principles, that they were held by Arius, who denied the divinity of Christ, inasmuch, as though he might err on the latter point, it would not follow that he erred on every other; for he agreed in many things with Episco- palians,and especially with those of them who condemned prayers for the dead. — Hilary. Augustine and Chrysostom admit the identity of presbyters and bishops. — Clemens Romanus mentions only two orders of ministers, and never refers to diocesan bishops. — No reference to them in the Epistle of Polycarp. — The short Epistles of Ignatius proved to be corrupted, so that no dependence can be placed on their statements respecting the or- ders in the ministry; and even admitting them to be genuine, no such powers are ascribed in them to bishops as are possessed by modern dio- cesan bishops. Reverend Sir, — The quotations Avhich have been produced from the writings of Jerome prove incon- testably, that in the opinion of that distinguished early father the constitution of the Church, as it was settled by the Apostles, was strictly Presbyterian ; and they contain also his testimony to the important fact, (and from his nearness to the period when the change took place, and the absence of every thing like an opposite testimony, it is entitled unquestion- ably to the utmost credit,) that when Episcopacy was introduced, it was a mere human institution for pre- venting schism. But it is only fair to remark, that he approved of that arrangement ; for he says in an- other part of his writings, "The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the highest priest, on whom, if a certain extraordinary and superior authority above all be not conferred, there will be as many dissensions as there are priests."* He appears to me to have erred in that opinion ; for human institutions are cer- tainly less fitted to prevent schisms, and promote at once purity of doctrine, and peace and harmony, * " Ecdcsiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, cui si non exsors quaedam, et ah omnibus eminens datur potcstas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot sacerdotes." Dial, ad Lucifer. 364 LETTERS ON than the form of government which the Redeemer himself has appointed for his Church. And it is far more likely that a number of faithful Presbyterian ministers, residing near each other among their several parishes, will watch over one another, and repress the first beginnings of evil, meeting as they do once a month, or once every two months, in their Presby- teries, and once every six months in their Synods, to which complaints may be carried by any single min- ister, if the rest fail to perform their duty, and once a year in their General Assembly, to whom even the Synod is responsible ; it is far more likely, I say, that they will repress the first beginnings of evil, than a single individual denominated a bishop, who, though equally faithful, has to superintend perhaps four or five hundred, or perhaps a thousand ministers and congregations, and who is responsible to no Synod or General Assembly. And accordingly, as was ob- served by Orthuinus Gratius, the very remedy soon increased the evil; for, "as Origen acquaints us, the Christians," even then, " were divided into so many factions, that they had no name common to them but that of Christian, and they agreed in nothing else but that name; and as Socrates informs us, they were derided publicly in the theatres by the people for their dissensions and sects; and when, as Constantine the Great said, there were so many contentions and con- troversies in the Church, that this very single cala- mity seemed to exceed the miseries of the former times ( of persecution) ; when Theophilus, Epipha- nius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Ruffinus, and St. Je- rome, all of them Christians, all fathers, and all Catholics, contested with each other with most vio- lent and implacable animosity ; when, as Xazianzen saith, the members of the same body consumed one another.,'>* But still, though Jerome erred in that opinion, for these were the schisms which prevailed in the Church after the introduction of Episcopacy, yet it was undeniably his opinion, and that of the fathers of his day, who agreed with him in thinking * Bishop Jewel, Apology of the Church of England, p. 36. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 365 that presbyters and bishops were originally equal, and who corroborated also his testimony, that the Church was then governed by a council of presbyters. "And therefore," says Stillingfleet, "some have well ob- served the difference between the opinions of Jerome and Alius. For, as to the matter itself, I believe, upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Jerome, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius,Chrysostom, Theodorct, Theophylact, were all of Arius' judgment as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive Church ; but here lay the difference. Arius from hence proceeded to separation from bishops and their churches, because they were bishops. And Blondel well observes, that the main ground why Arius was condemned, was for unnecessary separation from the Church of Sebastia, and those bishops too who agreed with him in other things, as Eustathius the bishop did; whereas, had his mere opinion about bishops been the ground of his being condemned, there can be no reason assigned why this heresie, if it were then thought so, was not mentioned either by Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen or Evagrius, before whose time he lived, when yet they mention the Eustathiani, who were contemporaries with him. Jerome, therefore, was not ranked with Arius, because, though he held the same opinion as to bishops and presbyters, yet he was far from the consequence of Arius, that all bishops were to be separated from."* Having mentioned Arias, who is often thrown up to us as the first who maintained the identity of bishops and presbyters, and who erred at the same time so greatly in denying the supreme divinity of the Saviour, I would briefly remark, that many have entertained doubts of his having really embraced that fearful heresy. It is unnecessary for me, however, to enter on that question, as the last of these opinions surely has no connection with the first; and no one will con- tend that because he was wrong in his sentiments on one great point, he was wrong, for instance, in his * Irenicum, p. 276, 277. 366 LETTERS ON views of the inspiration of the Scriptures, or of the difference between virtue and vice, and of the doc- trines of a supreme overruling providence, and of a future judgment; and that we ought to reject the lat- ter as well as the former because he held them. Arius entertained the very same opinion of the identity of bishops and presbyters with Jerome and others of the orthodox fathers, to whom I shall refer immediately, and defended it with much ability, even according to the statement of Epiphanius, by the very same argu- ments; while the very first of the arguments of Epi- phanius for diocesan bishops is a begging of the ques- tion, and the rest are so weak, that most Episcopalians would be ashamed of them. Arius denied also, that under the New Testament Dispensation Ave are bound to observe the fasts of the Church and other festivals which are kept by your own and other Episcopalian Churches, and reasoned very forcibly in support of his position. Epiphanius maintained the opposite opinion, and argued in proof of it from Paul's going up to Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost, and from his con- forming to other Jewish rites, which if at all conclu- sive, would have justified the Church in the days of that father, and in succeeding ages, in circumcising as well as baptizing the children of Jewish converts, be- cause Paul circumcised as well as baptized Timothy, and in keeping the new moons, as well as other Jew- ish holy days. And Arius contended against prayers for the dead; for, said he, " if prayers can assist those who have departed this life, no one in future will need to live piously, or to do good, but he will require only to attach to himself some friends in whatever way he chooses, and prevail with them by money or entreaties to intercede with God for him, that he may sustain no disadvantage from his evil conduct, and may be delivered from the punishment of his aggravated offences." While Epiphanius boldly vindicated the practice to an extent to which I presume you would scarcely follow him, declaring, that " they prayed not only for the righteous, but for sinners, to whom they PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 367 implored mercy from the Lord;"* and that "their prayers were useful to them, though they could not extinguish all their faults."t Now, as no consistent Protestant Episcopalian would hesitate for a moment to condemn the practice of praying for the dead, be- cause Arius was one of the first who ventured to oppose it, so no Presbyterian will hesitate in the least, or feel at all ashamed to adopt his views respecting presbyters and bishops, or fasts and festivals in honour of the martyrs, when they are supported by Scripture, though you should establish by evidence which can- not be controverted, that he entertained unsound and unscriptural sentiments respecting the divinity of Christ.:): * "Nam et justorum pariter et peccatorum mentionem facimus; pcccatorum quidem ut iis a Domino misericordiam imploremus." t "Caeterum quae pro mortuis concipiuntur preces iis utiles sunt, tametsi rion omncs culpas extinguant." t " The argument," says Dr. Reynolds in his letter to Sir Francis Knollys, "which he (Dr. Bancroft, who had represented Augustine as charging Arius with heresy, for asserting that, according to Scrip- ture, bishops and presbyters are the same,) bringeth to prove it are partely overweake, partly untrue; overweakc, that, p. 18, 19 and 6!), he beginneth with, out of Epiphanius; untrue, that he adjoynetli of the general consent of the Church. For though Epiphanius do say that Aerius his assertion is full of folly, yet he disproveth not the reason which Aerius stood on out of the Scriptures; nay, he dealelh so in seeking to disprove it, that Bellarmine the Jesuit, (torn. i. cont. 5, lib. 1, cap. 15,) though desirous to make the best of Epiphanius, whose opinion herein he mainteyneth against the Protestants, yet is forced to confesse that Epiphanius his answer is not at all the wisest, nor any way can fit the text." " As for the general consen^of the whole Church, which D. Ban- croft saith, condemned that opinion of Arius, for an heresy, and him- self for an heretike, because he persisted in it, that is a large speach: but what proof hath he that the whole Church did so? It appeareth, he saith, in Epiphanius. It doeth not; and the contrary appeareth by S. Jerome, and sondry others, who lived, some in the same time, some after Epiphanius, even S. Austin himself, though D. Bancroft cite him as bearing witness thereof likewise. I grant S. Austin, in his book of Heresies, ascribeth this to Aerius for one, that he sayd, Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni : But it is one thing to say, there ought to be no difference betwixt them, (which Aerius saying, condemned the Churches' order, yea, made a schisme therein, and so is censured by S. Austin, counting it an heresle as in Epiphanius he took it recorded, himself, as he witnesseth, (de Heres. ad quod vult Deum in praefatione,) not knowing how far the name of heresie should be stretched,) another thing to say that by the word of 36S LETTERS OX I have said, that a number of the early fathers in the age of Jerome adopted his views of presbyters and bishops; and among these I would refer only to the following: " In the bishop," says Hilary, " are all orders, be- cause he is the first priest, that is, the prince of priests, and a prophet and evangelist. The things which were written by the Apostle do not correspond in all respects with the ordination which is now in the Church, be- cause they were written at the beginning, or first age of the Church. For he calls Timothy, who had been ordained a presbyter by himself, a bishop, because at first presbyters were denominated bishops, so that one dying, the next succeeded him. In fine, in Egypt, the presbyters (according to some) confirm, (consignant.) or (according to others) ordain. But, because the fol- lowing presbyters were found to be unworthy of the first place, the plan was changed, a council ordaining, God there is no difference betwixt them, but by the order and custome of the Church, which S. Austin (Ep. 19,) saith in effect himsclfe; so far was he from witnessing this to be heresy, by the general consent of the whole Church. Which untruth, how wrongfully it is fathered on him and on Epiphanius, (who yet are all the witnesses that D. Ban- croft hath produced for the proofe thereof, or can for ought that I know,) it may appear by this, that our learned countryman of good memory, Bishop Jewel, (Defense of the Apology, part ii. cap. 9, divis. 1. p. 198,) when Harding, to convince the same opinion of heresie, alledged the same witnesses, he cyting to the contrary Chrysostome, Jerome, Austen, and Ambrose, knit up his answer with these words; All these, and other more holy fathers, together with the Apostle S. Paul, for thus saying by Harding's advice, must be held for heretikes. And Michael Medina, ;de Sacrif. Nc^m. Orig. et ConSrm., lib. i. cap. 5,) a man of great account in the Counsell of Trent, more ingenuous herein than many other Papists, affirmcth not only the former ancient writers alleadged by Bishop Jewel, but also another Jerome, Theo- doret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Theophilact were of the same mind, touching this matter, with Aerius. With whom agree likewise CEcumenius, (in 1 Tim. iii. ;) and Anselmus, Archbishop of Canter- bury, (in Epist. ad Tit.;) and another Anselmus, (Collect, Can. lib. vii. cap. 87 et 127;) and Gregorie, (Policar, lib. ii. tit. 19 and 39;) and Gratian, (Can. legimus, dist. 39, cap. Olimp. ;) and after them bow many, it being once enrolled in the canon law for sound and Catholike doctrine, and thereupon publikely taught by learned men, (Author. Gloss, in cap. dist. citat, &.C.;) all which do bear witnes against D. Bancroft, of the point in question, that it was not condemn- ed for an heresie, by the general consent of the whole Chorch," &c. See the letter at large, which is worthy of a careful perusal. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 369 that not priority of order, but merit, should guide them in the appointment of a bishop, which was to be made by the judgment of many priests, lest one who was unworthy of it should rashly usurp the office, to the offence of many."* And again, he remarks on 1 Tim. iii, "After the bishop, he gives directions about the ordination of the deacon. Why ? because there is only one ordination of a bishop and a presbyter, for each of them is a priest ; but the bishop is the first, so that every bishop is a presbyter, not every presbyter a bishop ; for he is a bishop, who is the first among the presbyters. In fine, he mentions that Timothy had been ordained a bishop, but, because he had no other before him, he was a bishop. "t But, if he state expressly that presbyters were at first denominated bishops; that the individual who afterwards received that name by way of eminence was only the first pres- byter,and succeeded to his situation at first by seniority of order, and subsequently by the votes of his fellow presbyters; that his ordination, and that of the other presbyters, was the same, and he received no new consecration when he was made a bishop, and that in Egypt, when the bishop was absent, presbyters either confirmed or ordained, I leave it to any impartial judge to say whether he must not have considered the con- stitution of the primitive Church to have been strictly Presbyterian. In like manner, the author of the Questions on the Old and New Testament, which are bound up with the works of St. Augustine, but which Blondel thinks were written by Hilary, the deacon, says, " Paul shows that a presbyter is meant when he speaks of a bishop, for he points out to Timothy, whom he had made a presbyter, what kind of a person he should ordain a bishop. For what is a bishop but the first presbyter; that is, the highest priest ? In fine, he speaks of them * " In episcopo omncs ordines sunt, quia primus sacerdos est, hoc est, princcpsest saccrilotum, ct prophcta, et evangeliata," &c. t " Post episcopum diaconi ordinutioncin subjicit. Quarc, nisi quia episcopi et presbyteri una ordinatio est, utcrque eniiu sacerdos est, sed episcopus primus est," &c. 24 370 LETTERS OX as his fellow-presbyters and fellow-priests. Does a bishop call the deacons his fellow-ministers ? No, as- suredly, for they are greatly his inferiors. In Alex- andria and all Egypt, if a bishop be wanting, a priest consecrates or ordains. That there is a great distance between a deacon and a priest is evident from the Acts of the Apostles."* But if, as this writer de- clares, Paul meant bishops when he spake of presby- ters, if the bishop was only the first presbyter, and if presbyters ordained when the bishop was absent ; and if, as he further asserts, (Quest. 46,) no one could act in the room of a minister who held any office, if he was not possessed of power to execute that office, it is plain that he must have regarded bishops and presby- ters as nearly the same, and that his sentiments must have been similar to those of Jerome. "Although," says Augustine to Jerome, " accord- ing to the names of honour which custom has now introduced into the Church, the office of a bishop is higher than that of a presbyter, yet in many things Augustine is inferior to Jerome,"t where he represents the superiority of the former to the latter as originat- ing merely in custom. " If it is asked," says Prima- sius, Bishop of Adrumetum, who was a disciple of Augustine, " why the Apostle, in 1 Tim. iii. made no mention of presbyters, but comprehended them under the name of bishops; it was," he replies, "because they are the second and nearly the same degree, as he shows when writing to the Philippians; for he addresses his Epistle to the bishops and deacons, though one city could not have a plurality of bishops. %" And, says Chrysostom, in his 11th Homily, "omitting the order of the presbyters he passes to the deacons. And * " Presbyterum autem intelligi episcopum probat Paulus Apostolus quando Timotheum quem ordinavit presbyterum instruit qualem de- beat creare episcopum. Quid est enim episcopus nisi primus presby- ter? Nam in Alexandria et per totam -Egyptum, si desit episcopus, consecrat presbyter," &c. + " Quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit episcopatus presbylerio major sit," &c. Epist. 19. ad Hieron. t " Quaeritur cur de presbyteris nullam fecerit mentionem, sed eos in episcoporum nomine comprehenderit : quia secundus, into pene unus est gradus, sicut ad Philippenses," &c. PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 371 why so ? Because there is not much difference be- tween bishops and presbyters ; for presbyters are or- dained for the instruction and government of the Church ; and the same things which he said to bishops apply to presbyters ; for in ordination alone they are superior to presbyters, and appear to be above them."* But admitting that these writers agree with Jerome, and the difference between them, if there be any, is extremely small, let us consider very shortly what is said on this subject by the early fathers. And here I must repeat a former remark, that it will not avail the cause of Episcopacy, though we should meet with the names of bisbops, priests and deacons, unless it be distinctly stated, that the powers which were possessed by the primitive bishops correspond to those which are claimed at present by diocesan bishops. The first of these is Clemens Romanus, whose first Epistle to the Corinthians is perhaps the purest pro- duction of Christian antiquity, though his argument for the resurrection from that of the Phoenix is so weak and contemptible, that we would scarcely have expected it to have been used by a man who was entitled to the high character which is ascribed to him by Episcopalians."! It deserves, however, to be * " To rm Tr^iT&inifm ray/ua cupae," &c. Homily on 1 Tim. iii. 1. Thcodorct, too, says, "The Apostle calls a presbyter a bishop, as wc showed when we expounded the Epistle to the Philippians, which may be also learned from this place ; for, after the precepts proper to bishops, he describes the things that agree to deacons. But, as I said, of old they called the same men Loth bishops and presbyters" + " Let us consider," says he, " that wonderful type of the resur- rection, which is seen in the Eastern countries, that is to say, in Arabia. There is a certain bird, called a Phoenix : of this there is never bat one at a time, and that lives five hundred years; and when the time of its dissolution draws near, that it must die, it makes it- self a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices; into which, when its time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But its flesh, putrefy- ing, breeds a certain worm, which, being nourished with the juice of the dead bird, brings forth feathers; and when it is grown to a perfect state, it takes up the nest in which the bones of its parent lie, and carries it from Arabia into Egypt, to a city called Helio- polis: and Hying in open day, in the sight of all men, lays it upon the altar of the sun, and so returns from whence it came. The priests then search into the records of the time, and find that it re. 372 LETTERS OX noticed, that it is neither addressed to a bishop, but to the Church of Corinth ; nor is there the slightest notice of him in any part of the Epistle, but he speaks always of their rulers, ( Tr^OtTTdlTI," &c. T " T» tow iAiov Myiftivn h/ai^x tt&vtuv 7ro\w H ay^ov; fjawnuii im to nun," &lc. 392 LETTERS ON the days of Justin, it does not present the faintest re- semblance of diocesan Episcopacy, either in the orders of its clergy, or its rites and ceremonies. The highest of its ministers was the president of a congregation which met for worship in one place, either in the cities or in the country, and not a word is mentioned of his ruling over presbyters, or of his being of a superior order. Nor is there the slightest reference to the sign of the cross in baptism, or to the rite of confirmation, as administered by the hands of any minister before those who had been baptized, were admitted to the Eucharist. It follows, of course, that this celebrated Apology, though presented publicly to the Roman Emperor, and capable of being detected as to all its omissions, kept back an important part of the truth ; or diocesan bishops, and these rites and ceremonies, did not then exist. Or, at all events, it is obvious, that to whomsoever you appeal in support of that order, and these unwarrantable additions to the di- vine institutions, it cannot be to Justin. Nor is the testimony of Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, whose work against heresies, according to Baronius. was written in the year 180, and according to Blondel, in 185, at all more favourable to diocesan Episcopacy. He speaks, indeed, in some passages of the orthodox doctrine having been preserved in the different Churches by a succession of orthodox bishops from the time of the Apostles; but he never says that they were invested with the poivers of diocesan bishops, nor mentions even a single instance in which any of them exercised them. And yet, till this is proved, no argument can be deduced in support of Episcopacy from his denominating them bishops. Be- sides, while he says in one place that the faith was preserved by succession of bishops, he tells us in an- other that it was preserved by successions of pi-es- byters ; plainly intimating, as was formerly observed, that he considered presbyters as bishops, and that he looked upon the presbyter, who was called bishop by way of eminence, as nothing more, as Hilary says, than the president or moderator of the council of pres- I I PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 393 byters, or the first among his equals. Thus, while he says, (hook iii. ch. 3,) "We can enumerate those who were constituted bishops by the Apostles in the Churches, and their successors, even to us, who taught no such thing,"* he says, (book iii. ch. 2,) " When we challenge them (the heretics) to that apostolical tra- dition which is preserved in the Churches through the succession of the presbyters, they oppose the tradi- tion, pretending that they are wiser than not only the presbyters, but the Apostles also."t While he says, (book iv. ch. 53,) " True knowledge is the doc- trine of the Apostles, according to the succession of bishops, to whom they delivered the Church in every place, which doctrine has reached us, preserved in its most full delivery," he says in the 43d chapter, " Obey those presbyters in the Church who hove succession, as ivc have shown, from the Apostles, who, with the succession of the episcopate, received the gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.''^ While he says, (book v. ch. 20,) " These are far later than the bishops, to whom the Apostles delivered the Churches ; and this we have carefully made manifest in the third book;"§ he says, (book iv. ch. 44,) " We ought therefore to adhere to those presbyters who keep the Apostles' doctrine, and together with the order of the presbyterate, (cum ordine presbyterii,) show forth sound speech. Such presbyters the Church nourishes; and of such the pro- phet says, I will give them princes in peace, and bishops in righteousness." While in his 3d book, ch. 3, he says, " The Apostles, founding and instructing that Church, (the Church of Rome,) delivered to Linus the * " Et liabemus annumcrare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt cpiscopi," &c. t "Cum autem ad earn iterum traditioncm, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur provo. camus eos,"