■K 
 
^ 
 
 .%^ 
 
 m- 
 
 No. 
 
 MBRARY 
 
 PRI]\C'ETOj¥, H. J. 
 
 S A M I ' K 1. A a N Ji W , 
 
 yn ^- ^. "I 1' M 1 1. < u K. I, I' H I A. FA. 
 
 Lrt/er O "^ ^ 
 
 IBV 670 .E5 1838 
 Emory, John, 1789-1835. 
 jThe Episcopal controversy 
 
 reviewed 
 
 .^' 
 
 IT ^ y 1 
 
THE 
 
 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY 
 
 REVIEWED. 
 
 BY JOHN EMORY, D. D. 
 
 LATE ONE OF THE BISHOPS OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 EDITED BY HIS SON, 
 
 FROM AN UNFINISHED MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY T. MASON AND G. LANE, 
 
 FOR TrtE METHODIST EPISCOPAI, CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE OFFICE, 
 200 MULBERRY-STREET. 
 
 /. Collord, Printer. 
 1838. 
 
Entered according to act of Congress, in llie year 1S3S, Ijy 
 T. Mason & G. Lane, in the clerk's ollice of the Southern 
 District of New-York. 
 
PREFACE TO EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY, 
 
 BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 The late period at which this work is presented to 
 the pubhc, and the unfinished state in which it appears, 
 will be best explained by a brief statement of the cir- 
 cumstances attending its composition and publication. 
 About ten or twelve years since, when the economy of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church was assailed by foes 
 from within, the author of the present essay undertook 
 its defence in a tract entitled " A Defence of our Fathers, 
 and of the original Organization of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church," &c. That work passed through several 
 editions, and as the demand seemed likely to continue, 
 the publishers requested the author to prepare a revised 
 edition. This he appears, at one time, to have contem- 
 plated, as a copy was found interleaved, apparently for 
 that purpose. Subsequently, however, he seems to 
 have been satisfied, from his own observation and the 
 opinion of others, that, inasmuch as the controversy 
 which had elicited the original work was dying away, 
 while the attacks upon the organization of the church, 
 both openly and secretly, were perhaps increasing in 
 other quarters, it would be better to prepare an entirely 
 new work, in which the government of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church should be defended, not merely 
 against the cavils of a particular party or sect, but 
 against all opposition ; and its entire accordance with 
 Scriptural authority and primitive usage be established 
 by a full investigation of the subject of episcopacy in 
 general, and of Methodist episcopacy in particular. 
 Such was the plan of the present work : the sudden 
 death of the author left it but partially and imperfectly 
 executed. The manuscript contained only a discus- 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 sion of the subject of episcopacy in general, in a reply- 
 to " An Essay on the Invalidity of Presbyterian Ordina- 
 tipn, by John Esten Cooke, M. D.," and a part of a reply 
 to a tract entitled " Episcopacy tested by Scripture," by 
 Dr. H. U. Onderdonk, then assistant bishop of Pennsyl- 
 vania. Whether it was intended to notice any other 
 works on the opposite side, may be doubted, as the 
 first afforded an opportunity to examine the argument 
 from the Fathers, the second the argument from Scrip- 
 ture. Why an answer to these two works, one of 
 which was published in 1829, and the other in 1830, 
 was delayed until 1835, the year of the author's death, 
 none will inquire who have any knowledge of his ardu- 
 ous and incessant engagements, first, in establishing the 
 Methodist Book Concern on the basis on which it has 
 since stood, and subsequently, in discharging the still 
 more responsible and absorbing duties of the episcopate ; 
 especially w^hen it is farther considered that it would 
 take some time to satisfy him, that arguments, which ap- 
 peared to him so untenable, could ever have possessed 
 the influence which they seem to have exerted on some 
 minds. 
 
 This may suffice in regard to the circumstances 
 under which the essay was written. It may be expected 
 that some explanation will also be given of the delay of 
 its publication. To some, however, and certainly to the 
 editor himself, a more interesting inquiry may be, why, 
 since it is acknowledged to be imperfect, it is published 
 at all. Immediately after the author's decease the 
 manuscript was examined, and being found incomplete 
 was laid aside, not to meet the rude gaze of those who 
 can pardon no imperfection however unavoidable, but as 
 a memorial of the last efforts of one, every relic of whom 
 was precious. Some time after, however, several inti- 
 mate friends of the deceased, of high standing in the 
 church, desired to read the manuscript, and after pe- 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 nising it strongly urged its publication, as being suffi- 
 ciently complete to subserve the interests of the church. 
 If, therefore, the reputation of his father, or the cause 
 of the church, should suffer by the publication of an 
 unfinished essay, the editor's apology must be, that his 
 own inclination has yielded to the requests of those 
 who, both by their official station and superior judg- 
 ment, had a claim upon his deference. 
 
 The principal object of the editor in discharging the 
 duty thus imposed upon him, has been to follow the ori- 
 ginal, without any additions or alterations other than 
 those which were necessary, and which are marked as 
 such. This scrupulous accuracy has occasionally led 
 to repetition, wdiich by no means characterized the au- 
 thor's usual style. The careful reader, however, will 
 observe that this occurs principally in the quotations ; 
 and will find a sufficient explanation in the fact, that 
 these quotations were not written out in the manuscript, 
 but only referred to, so that the repetitions would not 
 appear until the work was prepared for the press. 
 
 As to the subject matter itself of the essay, it will, 
 perhaps, become the editor to say but little. There are 
 two thoughts, however, which he would desire the 
 reader to bear in mind while reading this or any similar 
 tract. The first is, that no arginnent is of any avail in 
 the controversy with the Methodist Episcopal Church, un- 
 less it prove not merely that episcopacy is a proper form 
 of church government, (for this she herself asserts, and 
 adopts it as her own,) but also, that no other form of 
 government is admissible ; nay, more, no other form of 
 episcopacy than that which is founded upon a distinct 
 order of bishops, deriving their authority through an un- 
 interrupted succession from the apostles. 
 
 The second thought is, that the manner in which 
 efforts are now made to establish the high-church claims 
 on the foundation of Scripture, is calculated to lead to 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 great evil. Not that we object to the attempt to test 
 the question by Scripture, (for undoubtedly this is the 
 only criterion that should be admitted by Protestant 
 Christians, and we only regret that high-churchmen 
 have not submitted to it before,) but to the mode of 
 carrying it out, by making incidental hints and obscure 
 intimations the basis of what are alleged to be import- 
 ant doctrines. This course, (which has been adopted 
 m regard to many other dogmas, and with a zeal pro- 
 portioned to the deficiency of evidence for them,) what- 
 ever success it may promise at first, cannot fail to be 
 ultimately pernicious to rehgion in general, and of 
 course to the particular party which pursues it. And it 
 might be well for ultraists of every denomination to 
 consider what would be gained by securing the sanc- 
 tion of Scripture, if, in the very attempt, we impair the 
 authority of Scripture itself ; like shipwrecked mariners, 
 who, by their imprudent eagerness sink the long boat on 
 which they fondly relied for escape. In conclusion, the . 
 editor regrets the necessity of taking any part in those 
 controversies by which the Christian church is dis- 
 tracted and her strength divided, at a time when all lier 
 forces ought to be combined against the armies of the 
 alien. But it must be remembered that in this dispute 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church stands on the defen- 
 sive. She interferes not with the claims of other deno- 
 minations to be regarded as members of the spiritual 
 body of Christ, but she dare not surrender her own. 
 She, with others, now stands where the early gentile 
 Christians stood in opposing the Jewish bigotry of the 
 temple, and where the ancestors of the present Protest- 
 ant high-churchmen stood in resisting the usurpations of 
 papal Rome ; nor will she abandon this post of honour 
 until cxclusionists of every class have surrendered 
 their peculiar claims to the covenant mercies of God. 
 Dickinson College, May 25,1838. R.E. 
 
EPISCOPACY. 
 
 The field over whicli the episcopal controversy has 
 been spread is one so wide, and marked by the tracks of 
 those who have traversed it in so many various and 
 even cross directions, that he who would thread its 
 mazes without danger of missing the narrow path of 
 truth will require, to use a phrase of Dr. Jortiti's, more 
 than Ariadne's clew. This consideration of itself, not 
 to mention others which might be named, would deter 
 me from my present undertaking, (which I most sin- 
 cerely wish were in the hands of those who have both 
 more leisure and aljility for the task,) were it not that 
 the continued, or, more properly, the recently renewed 
 attacks, both public and private, of those who set up a 
 claim of divine right to monopolize all ecclesiastical 
 authority, and even the covenant mercies of our Saviour 
 himself, oblige us to expose the futility and the arro- 
 gance of their pretensions, and to vindicate the grounds 
 on which, having received help from God, we continue 
 to claim a place, be it even the humblest, among the 
 lawful churches of Christ. In the prosecution of this 
 design, earnestly imploring, both for myself and the 
 reader, the guidance of a safer clew than Ariadne's — 
 that wisdom from above whic?i is promised to all that 
 lack and ask — I purpose to divide the following tract 
 into two parts. 
 
 In the first, I shall consider the subject of episcopacy 
 generally ; and in the second, that of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in particular."^ 
 
 * [The reader will perceive that this second part of the author's desiga 
 was never acc-o:npliyhe(l, and the first has been left incumi)lcte. The author's 
 views, however, of Methodist episcopacy may be in some degree gathered 
 from his *' Defence of our Fathers." — Ed.] 
 
8 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 OF EPISCOPACY IN GENERAL. 
 
 Claiming, as the Methodist Episcopal Church does, 
 to be not only a lawful church of Christ, but a lawful 
 episcopal church, it is plain that our controversy is not 
 with episcopacy itself, as a form of church polity. 
 Our opponents, indeed, evince a great inclination to the 
 begging of this question, and too many among our- 
 selves inconsistently, though inadvertently, strengthen 
 them in the sophism, by conceding to them, both in 
 conversation and in writing, the exclusive title of 
 Episcopalians. This ought to be corrected, and the 
 various churches of Christendom distinguished by their 
 proper titles. At least each should not be forgetful 
 of its own proper designation, nor yield the undue 
 influence of even the exclusive name to those who 
 would and do make unmerited advantage of it: for, as 
 has been well remarked, though names are but sounds, 
 yet those who are conversant in the history of man- 
 kind will readily allow that they have greater influence 
 on the opinions of the generality of men than most 
 people are aware of.^ The episcopal form of church 
 polity is ours also. We admit and adopt episcopacy. 
 We admit its agreeableness to the constitution of the 
 Christian church in the apostolical age. But still thfe 
 question remains. What is episcopacij? Not what is it 
 that Papists and other high-church exclusionists are 
 
 * [The reader will be pleased to see, in this connection, the opinion of 
 Coleridge on this subject, as expressed in note 56 of the " Aids to Reflec- 
 tion," where he is objecting to the ordinary application of the words Unita- 
 rian and Catholic : — 
 
 " Convinced, as I am, that current appellations are never wholly indifferent 
 or inert ; and that, when employed to express the characteristic belief or 
 object of a religious confederacy, they exert on the many a great and con- 
 stant, though insensible, influence, — I cannot but fear that in adopting the 
 former ['the name wliich the party itself has taken up'] I may be sacrificing 
 the interests of truth beyond what the duties of courtesy can demand or 
 justify." — Ed.] 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 9 
 
 pleased to denominate thus at this day, — but what is 
 episcopacy in the New Testament sense of the term or 
 of the thing ? To the pure and sufficient light of the 
 Holy Scriptures on this subject, our high-church oppo- 
 nents generally seem to think it necessary to add that 
 also of the writings of the Christian fathers, as they are 
 styled. Without resorting to this source, indeed, it is 
 absolutely impossible for them- — even those few of thena 
 who profess to confine the argument to the ground of 
 Scripture — to complete their chain. Without this an 
 essential link is w^anting, as I shall hereafter take occa- 
 sion to show in regard to a modern writer of this class. 
 But, although we deny that there is any necessity for 
 this resort, in any inquiry regarding any point of essen- 
 tial Christian doctrine, morals, ordinances, or church 
 polity, — believing as we do, and as all Protestants ought 
 to do, in the perfection and entire sufficiency of Scrip- 
 ture alone on every such question, — yet I shall not 
 object to follow some of them even into this branch of 
 the inquiry, — satisfied as I am that their cause can gain, 
 no just support from this collateral branch of evidence, — 
 so long as it shall be confined to the Christian writings 
 of the age immediately succeeding that of the apostles, 
 and of which neither the genuineness nor the integrity 
 can be fairly questioned. By the aid of these lights, 
 my object is to review^ the grounds which have been 
 taken in reg-ard to the essential constitution of a lawful 
 episcopal church of Christ. And if, where so much may 
 be said, and has been said, by learned, wise, and good 
 men, on opposite sides, there be a strong presumption 
 of probability, as in most similar cases, that truth lies in 
 the middle and not in either extreme, I trust to be able 
 to show that it is precisely this ground — a ground both 
 liberal and safe — that is occupied by the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. 
 
 The writers on the high-church side, in general, make 
 up their issue between diocesan episcopacy, in their 
 
10 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 sense of it, as an intrinsically and essentially distinct 
 and superior third order by divine appointment, without 
 which there can be no true Christian church nor valid 
 Christian ministry or ordinances, and parity — that is to 
 say, the presbyterian doctrine, strictly, of but one order 
 of Christian ministers. Let it be distinctly understood, 
 however, that this is not the issue between them and us. 
 We do indeed admit the validity of presbyterian ordina- 
 tion ; but not the presbyterian doctrine of parity. We 
 cannot feel at liberty to go so far toward this as even 
 the present assistant bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dr. H. 
 U. Onderdonk* We dare not say with him, " If we 
 cannot authenticate the claims of the episcopal office, 
 "we will surrender those of our deacons, and let all 
 jiower be confined to the one oflice of presbyters."! By 
 no means. The Scriptural evidence for the order of 
 deacons, as an order of ministers distinct from that of 
 presbyters or bishops, is too plain to be thus lightl}'- 
 treated. The directions of St. Paul to Timothy, (1 
 Tim. iii, 8-13,) not to mention other passages, are too 
 explicit and solemn to allow us to surrender this order 
 in any event. Let it stand on its own ground, whether 
 we can authenticate that of bishops or not ; "for they 
 that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to 
 themselves a good degree," to which their title ought 
 not to be made dependent on the claims of others to 
 any other degree. 
 
 I ought, indeed, to do the last-quoted author the justice 
 to say, and I do it with pleasure, that he subscribes not 
 to the extreme opinion that episcopacy is essential to the 
 being of a church. t I wish that what he says in some 
 other parts of the tract cited could fairly be reconciled 
 with this candid and commendable concession, which 
 
 * [The reader will recollect that this was written before the death of tho 
 then bishop of Pennsylvania, Dr. White. — Ed.] 
 
 t Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 11. |Ibid., p. 5. 
 
iLPISCOrAL COXTrvOVKRSY UEVIEWED. 11 
 
 his sense of truth, aft.'r all his iuvestiirations, compelled 
 him to make. In one respect he seems to go far beyond 
 even the venerable senior l)ishop of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, whose assistant he is. Dr. White, "^^ 
 with that leading champion of high church, Hooker, 
 distinctly admitted the plea of ''the exigence of ne- 
 cessity," for departing from the fancied apostolical suc- 
 cession in the high-church sense ; and I have not un- 
 derstood that this admission has ever been retracted, 
 although the pamphlet containing it, which M-as origin- 
 ally published in 1783, was republished in the city of 
 his own residence, under the auspices of some of his 
 own e[)iscopal charge, within a few years past, and 
 although the authority of his o[)inion, as an arcjumentum 
 ad hominem, has been repeatedly referred to in this con- 
 troversy. His assistant. Dr. O., on the contrarj', seems 
 to think that his (Dr. O.'s) essay settles the point that 
 episcopacy, in his sense of it, is a " divhie appoint- 
 ment," and then affirms that, from such an appointment, 
 " no plea can be strong enough to release us."t The 
 word "no" he himself makes emphatic, as is here done. 
 Indeed, on tliis ground, and in the same note, p. 40, he 
 seems to suppose — where the sacraments cannot be ob- 
 tained through such an apostolic mxinistrj^, that is to 
 say, through the high-church succession contended for — 
 it would be Ijetter to dispense with them altogether, as 
 being "not absolutely, but only generally, necessary to 
 salvation." Does this writer then really think that there 
 is just as plain Scriptural evidence, (for to this single 
 ground of argument he sets out with professing strictly 
 to confine his essay,) of an unbroken series of high- 
 church bishops from the apostles down to himself, by 
 divine appointment, — not excepting Alex. VI., of Rome, 
 and other similar liidvs of the chain, — and that conform- 
 ity to this pattern is of universal and perpetual obliga- 
 
 * Case of the Episr.opal Cliiirc-lics in the United States Considered, 
 t Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, p. 40. 
 
12 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 tion, as that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's 
 supper are of divme mstitution and thus bindmg-? It 
 may be answered, perhaps, that the very supposition of 
 *' Scriptural" evidence of such a thing involves an utter 
 and palpable absurdity. I grant it. But who is it that 
 gives occasion for the absurdity 1 Does not the writer 
 alluded to place the obligation of conforming to a minis- 
 try claiming exclusive title through that alleged succes- 
 sion, on a ground not merely equal, but even superior to 
 that which binds us to the observance of the sacraments 
 themselves ? And yet he himself concedes, in the com- 
 mencement of his essay, that no argument is worth 
 taking into the account that has not a palpable bearing 
 on the Scriptural evidence of episcopacy ; — nay, that 
 episcopacy itself (and certainly then the prelatical suc- 
 cession) is not essential to the being of a church. The 
 high-church succession against the sacraments ! And 
 Dr. Onderdonk, a Protestant, thinks, if we cannot have 
 both, that we ought rather to give up the latter ! Is 
 that succession then " absolutely" necessary to salvation 
 or only "generally" so, on his own principles? Is the 
 evidence that diocesan bishops, in the high-church 
 sense, should uninterruptedly succeed to the office and 
 powers of the apostles, and the observance of this order 
 in the churches be imperatively binding, by divine ap- 
 pointment, through all time, as plain from Scripture, 
 (the only ground of argument on the question " worth 
 taking into account,") as that the sacraments are of 
 divine institution and thus imperatively binding?* I 
 am not arguing with Quakers, but with Protestant Epis- 
 copalians. What answer do they give ? Until it can be 
 answered in the affirmative, an essential link in Dr. O.'s 
 wire-drawn chain is clearly wanting. Could it even be 
 supplied, which it never can, still the claims of the pre- 
 
 * [This sentence is stricken out in the original, but as its place has not 
 been supplied, and as something of the kind is necessary to the construction 
 of the succeeding sciitences, it is here restored. — Ed.] 
 
EPISCOrAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 13 
 
 latical succession and of the sacraments would only- 
 stand on equal ground. As it is, we admire that any 
 Protestant, at least, can for a moment hesitate between 
 them."^ 
 
 How much more "apostolical" and rational are the sen- 
 timents of Dr. White, now the senior bishop in the same 
 church and in the same diocese. Indeed, as he assumes, 
 ^' even those who hold episcopacy to be of divine right con- 
 ceive the obliijation to it to be not bindincr when that idea 
 would be destructive of public worship." " Much more," 
 he justly continues, " must tliey think so who indeed vene- 
 rate and prefer that form as the most ancient and eligi- 
 ble, but without any idea of divine right in the case. 
 This," he adds, "the author [Dr. White] believes to be 
 the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in 
 America, in which respect they have in their favour, 
 
 * That the reader may have an opportunity to judge whether I have in 
 any manner misunderstood Dr. O. on this important point, I subjoin the whole 
 passage, remarking only, in addition, that by " the apostolical or Scriptural 
 ininistry,'' I of course understood him to mean that of tiie uninterrupted high 
 church succession for wiiich he contends, and which he allows " to be divine.^ 
 His language is, — 
 
 " It is due to our discussion to add a few remarks on the question whether 
 necessity will justify a departure from the apostolical or Scriptural ministry, 
 or the instituting of a new ministry where that cannot be obtained 1 Oa 
 this subject the first point to be determined is, what is ' necessity' ? ' Abso- 
 lute necessity,' to assume the functions of the ministry, never can exist; sal- 
 vation is not indissolubly connected with the offices of a pastor ; the sacra- 
 ments are not absolutely, but only ' generally necessary to salvation,' — those 
 who cannot obtain them not being required to partake of them. Difficulties 
 long insuperable, preventing the attainment of an important object, form the 
 next species of 'necessity,' and that which is usually referred to in this 
 argument. An.d here several questions arise. Are the difficulties insupera- 
 ble ? Have they been long- insuperable ] Is the object so important as to 
 justify deviation from an institution allowed to be divine? There should be 
 no reasonable doubt on either of these points. 
 
 " In our opinion the last of the above questions can never be justly answered 
 in the affirmative ; no plea can be strong enough to release us from divine ap- 
 pointments. What God has instituted for his church he will preserve in his 
 church, and diffuse through it, till the institution be abrogated by him or is 
 about to be so. This appears to us so clear a dictate of faith, so funda- 
 mental a religious truth, that we will not argue for it ; it is an axiom, or, at 
 least, an undeniable postulate ; and it ought to settle the whole matter." Page 
 40, note E. [The words in italics are printed as in the original.— Ed.] 
 
14 EPISCOI'AL COXTROVEllS'Y REVIEWED. 
 
 unquestionably, the sense of tlie Church of Eiig-land, 
 and, as he beheves, the opinions of lier most dis- 
 tinguished prelates for piety, virtue, and abilities.""- 
 Again : — To make any particular form of church go- 
 vernment, though adopted by the apostles, miaUerably 
 binding, Dr. White maintains, " it must be shown en- 
 joined in positive precept."! He remarks farther that 
 Dr. Calamy having considered it as the sense of the 
 church [of England], "in the preface to the ordinal, 
 that the three orders were of di^dne appointment, and 
 urged it as a reason for nonconformity, — the bishop, 
 [Hoadly,] with evident jiroprietij, remarks that the ser- 
 vice pronounces no such tiling ; and that, therefore, Dr. 
 Calamy created a dilRculty where the church had made 
 none — there being 'some difference,' says he, 'between 
 these two sentences : — Bishops, priests, and deacons are 
 three distinct orders in the cluu-ch Inj divine cqipoint- 
 ment, — and, From the apostles' time there have been, in 
 Christ's church, bishops, priests, and deacons." " The 
 same disthiction," says Dr. White, "is actually drawn 
 and fulhj proved by Stillingticet in the Irenicum." 
 
 " Now," continues Dr. White, " if the form of church 
 government rest on no other foundation than ancient 
 and apostolical practice, it is humblj^ submitted to consi- 
 deration whether Episcopalians will not be thought 
 scarcely deserving the name of Christians should they, 
 rather than consent to a temporary deviation, abandon 
 every ordinance of positive and divine appointment."^ 
 
 Now I suppose that Dr. W. and the "distinguished 
 prelate" to whom he refers, to go no farther, had proba- 
 bly examined both the Scriptures and the fathers with 
 as much care and capacity as Dr. 0., or even as Dr. 
 Coohe, — a medical gentleman devoted to a different pro- 
 fession, — who, " after six weeks' close inquiry," as he 
 informs us, jumps to such " a thorongh conviction" as 
 
 * Case of tlic Episcopal Church in the UnitocI States Considered, p. 2i'. 
 t Ibid. I Ibid., p. 22 and note. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 15 
 
 leads him to undertake to enlighten the world with a 
 book of such episcopal ultraism as would not discredit 
 Rome itself, — such a one as not even the ablest pre- 
 lates of the Church of England, in the judgment of Dr. 
 White, himself concurring, with all the predisposing and 
 surrounding circumstances to bias them to that side, and 
 after more than six years of "' close inquiry," would 
 have had the temerity to usher into the world. True 
 learning, sanctilied by piety, is always modest. And if 
 there be any question debated among Christians on 
 which their moderation ought to appear to all men, this 
 is one ; — a question, not concerning the vital and funda- 
 mental doctrines of our holy religion, nor even the 
 essential being of a Christian church, — but merely con- 
 cerning its form of polity, as different branches of the 
 church, in different times and in different places and 
 circumstances, may conceive the same to be most con- 
 sonant to the principles and objects of Christianity, and 
 best calculated to promote vital and practical godliness 
 in the earth. 
 
 But I beg pardon. This is not Dr. C.'s ground. His 
 system admits of no such moderation. Althouirh a very 
 recent convert to it, at the time of undertaking his book, 
 he goes far beyond Dr. Onderdonk, Dr. White, and the 
 most distinguished, pious, virtuous, and able prelates of 
 the mother Church of England itself. With him it is a 
 question of life or death, neck or nothing, church or no 
 church. Indeed, the language which, over and over, he 
 quotes w^ith approbation, as "most unexceptionable," 
 seems, to my poor apprehension, to be little, if any, 
 short of absolute blasphemy. It is almost too revolting 
 to be repeated. Of this I shall afford the reader an 
 opportunity to judge in the sequel ; remarking here, by 
 the way, that this gentleman might as hopefully under- 
 take to persuade this generation to adopt the sentiments 
 of the famous "Apostohcal Constitutions," which, as 
 the learned Archdeacon Jortiu remarks, " repeat it over 
 
16 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 and over, lest Christians should chance to forget it — 
 that a bishop is a god, a god upon earth, and a king, 
 and infinitely superior to a king, and ruling over rulers 
 and kings." '' Here is strange language indeed ! even 
 far beyond all eminencies and hoUnesses."* In the judg- 
 ment of an eminent critic,! the sentiments contained in 
 the " Apostolical Constitutions" bear a very near resem- 
 blance to those in the epistles attributed to Ignatius and 
 cited by Dr. Cooke. According to these, indeed, the 
 reverence due to Christ himself is less than that which 
 is due to the bishop. That which we owe to Christ is 
 made the measure of the reverence due to " the dea- 
 cons," — the lowest order ; while " the bishop'' is to be 
 reverenced " as the Father," — evidently meaning God 
 *' the Father," — ^in whose place he is alleged to preside 
 in the church. Could any language more clearly betray 
 the hand of the forger of some later age ? Will any 
 friend of the holy and humble Ignatius — ^the disciple of 
 John, whose epistles are the very model of simplicity, — 
 will any such believe that that plain and pious man, on 
 the very eve of martyrdom, and himself a bishop, would 
 have used such lansruaore, and uro^ed and illustrated it 
 again and again, that we might be sure not to mistake 
 or forget it ? It is incredible ; or, if credible, it stamps 
 the name of Ignatius with a stigma from which we 
 would fain rescue it. Before Dr. C.'s pattern of episco- 
 pacy can be embraced, (for what he quotes as " most 
 unexceptionable," will be taken as his own,) we must 
 believe that St. Paul made a great mistake when he 
 drew the picture of the man of sin sitting in the temple 
 of God as God ; for this, we have now to learn, is the 
 very character of a true Christian bishop, though not 
 such a one as Paul describes to Timothy, nor as his son 
 Timothy himself Why, then, should we any longer be 
 offended with the style of "our lord god, the pope"? Is 
 
 •Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, pp. 154, 156. 
 tDr. Campbell. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 17 
 
 it any worse than {horresco referens) our lord god, the 
 bishop 7* 
 
 Consistently enough with the above, the Ignatius of 
 Dr. C is guilty of the profanity of staking his own soul 
 as, '^ security for them that submit to their bishop, with 
 their presbyters and deacons ;" (the latter classes of 
 whom, however, be it remembered, being themselves 
 bound to obey their bishop as " the source of all autho- 
 rity ;")t averring that "whatsoever he [the bishop] shall 
 approve of, that is also pleasing unto God;'^ and accord- 
 ingly, in another place, " that we ought to look upon the 
 bishop even as we would do upon the Lord himself^ 
 Epistles to Polycarp, the Smyrneans, and the Ephe- 
 sians. AppendLx:, pp. 6, 22, 24. 
 
 Fine times, truly, for bishops, if these doctrines can 
 be made to prevail ; (and a new and certain way to 
 heaven, which neither our Lord nor any of the apos- 
 tles ever discovered, — implicit obedience to the bishop ;) 
 especially, if we add one other very remarkable dictum 
 of this Ignatius, as adduced by Dr. C, viz. : — " The 
 more any one sees his bishop sikfit, the more let him 
 revere him." Ibid., p. 6. That is, it would seem, the 
 
 * It may be proper to mention, for the information of general readers, that 
 there are two sets of epistles in the name of Ignatius : one denominated the 
 larger, and the other the shorter or smaller. The larger are given up by 
 critics as confessedly interpolated ; which demonstrates that some forger did 
 make free with the name of Ignatius. The smaller, Dr. C. pronounces "most 
 unexceptionable, and — written in the very spirit of an ardently pious Chris- 
 tian," p. 67. Yet, only two pages before, he had quoted Dr. Lardner with 
 applause as saying that, after a careful comparison of the two, he was of 
 opinion that " even the smaller epistles may have been tampered with by the 
 Arians, or the orthodox, or both," p. 65. 
 
 He then asserts that the interpolations in these epistles respected the 
 Arian controversy, which had nothing to do vvith the subject of church 
 government ; and immediately afterward adds, " It is evident, therefor*^, that 
 there is not the slightest ground to suspect the interpolation of pa.^sages to 
 favour episcopacy." I do not at all perceive the force of this logic, and 
 shall hereafter take occasion more fully to expose its futility. But the 
 eulogy of Dr. C. warrants at least the inference that he considers whatever 
 these epistles contain on the subje.3t of episcopacy as " most unexceptiona- 
 ble." This is sufficient for my present purpose. 
 
 t Dr. Cooke, p. 19. 
 
 2 
 
18 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 more he resembles the "dumb dogs" denounced hy 
 Isaiah, and, consequently, the less he resembles the 
 prophets who were commanded to "cry aloud" and 
 " spare not," lifting up their " voice like a trumpet ;" or 
 Bishop Timothy, whom Paul charged to "preach the. 
 word, — instant in season and out of season ;" " reprov- 
 ing, rebuking, exhorting ;" or Paul himself, who "taught 
 publicly and from house to house, — testifying both to the 
 Jews and also to the Greeks — warning every one, night 
 and day, wdth tears ;"- — the less, I say, a bishop, accord- 
 ing to Dr. C.'s favourite Ignatius, resembles these, the 
 more he ought to be revered. On this singular senti- 
 ment, Dr. Campbell well remarks : — Consequently, if, 
 like the Nazianzene monk celebrated by Gregory, a 
 bishop should, in praise of God, devote his tongue to an 
 inviolable taciturnity, he would be completely venera^ 
 ble. This, as the same able author adds, one would be 
 tempted to think, originated from some opulent ecclesi- 
 astic, who was by far too great a man for preaching ; 
 at least, it seems an oblique apology for those who have 
 no objection to any thing implied in a bishopric except 
 the function.'^ 
 
 Now, to perfect the claims of such lords over God's 
 heritage, with their subject presbyters and deacons, no- 
 thing more would seem to be wanting but to persuade 
 the Christian w^orld that "without these there is no 
 CHURCH." And these are the identical words which Dr. 
 C triumphantly alleges from Ignatius, and puts in capi- 
 tals as throwing " a blaze of light on the subject."! 
 They do, indeed, — a burning blaze — quite enough to 
 consume the argument. They assert more than Dr. 
 Onderdonk believed — with Dr. C.'s book before him — 
 
 * Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, p. 102. Nearly akin to this was 
 the injunction to the English bishops in the reign of Edward VI. They 
 were enjoined to preach four times a year, unless they had a reasonable 
 excuse, deal's History of the Puritans, vol. i, p. 91. 
 
 tibid., p. 20. See also p. 19. 
 
 2* 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED- 19 
 
 or Dr. White, the senior bishop of the same church, or 
 the great body of the most distinguished bishops, or 
 others, among Protestant EpiscopaUans, in Europe or 
 America."^ Yet to such a sweeping conclusion Dr. C 
 suddenly leaps over the heads of all thesCj assuring us, 
 at the same time, that he had always been in the habit 
 of requiring strong evidence upon any subject, and never 
 yielding assent to any thing that was not supported by 
 it. This, then, I suppose, may be regarded as a speci- 
 men of his incredulity without strong evidence ; although 
 eminent and candid critics have been compelled to 
 admit that much of what has been imposed upon the 
 world in the name of the meek and holy Ignatius is 
 demonstrably spurious, and that, in consequence, so 
 great a degree of uncertainty has been thrown even 
 upon the rest as to render it extremely difficult even for 
 those most deeply versed in ecclesiastical antiquities 
 and literary criticism, after many years of close investi- 
 gation, to distinguish w^hat is genuine and true from 
 what is interpolated and false. Let it be distinctly un- 
 derstood that what is above said, or may hereafter be 
 said, for I shall resume this point in another place, is by 
 no means intended to detract in the least from the just 
 merits of that aged and venerable martyr, whose name 
 and memory are entitled to the highest respect; but, for 
 this very reason, to save him, if possible, as Dr. Camp- 
 bell observes, " from a second martyrdom in his works, 
 through the attempts not of open enemies, but of de- 
 ceitful [I would rather say, of credulous, or injudicious] 
 friends."! 
 
 Unlimited and implicit subjection then, as has been 
 shown, on the part of the whole people, not only to the 
 bishop, but to the whole clerical order, is the doctrine 
 of Ignatius as quoted and underwritten by Dr. C, — 
 
 * [At this part of the manuscript there are memoranda indicating that the 
 author intended to say more upon the subject. — Ed.] 
 t Lectures, p. 103. 
 
20 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 urged too, as it is, by the supreme motive of thereby 
 infaUibly securing their salvation, on the pledge of his 
 own soul for it. 
 
 In the progress of that species of absolute episcopal 
 lordship, hj divine right, for which Dr. C. pleads, he 
 undertakes to show, p. 99, that terms, corresponding 
 with the model of those alleged from Ignatius, w^ere 
 used in Tertullian's time also, conveying the very idea 
 that a bishop ruled as "a king" and "master." At 
 p. 47, he quotes from Hilary too, w^ith apparent approba- 
 tion, after Dr. Bowden,that "the bishop is the vicegerent 
 of Christ, and represents his pe?'so?i."* The legitimate 
 and natural fruit of such doctrines began to exhibit it- 
 self, and laid the true foundation of the papacy, so early 
 as in the days of Jerome, in the fourth century. This 
 may be seen in a passage quoted from Jerome by Dr. 
 C. himself, though for a very different purpose. Of 
 some of the bishops even of that time, Jerome testifies 
 that, " as if placed upon some lofty eminence, they 
 scarce deign to see mortals and to speak to their fellow- 
 servants," p. 113. Lofty, indeed! And if the senti- 
 ments cited by Dr. C. as " most unexceptionable," can 
 be triumphantly established, and on the basis of divine 
 right, similar fruit, in process of time, (such is poor 
 human nature,) must and will again appear. And how far 
 civil liberty itself could long be safe under such a sys- 
 tem of absolute spiritual despotism, bound upon the 
 neck of the prostrate people by the supreme sanction 
 of divine appointment, the history of the past must in- 
 struct us, or wc must remain uninstructed, or learn from 
 sad experiment. 
 
 I am truly glad, however, for the sake of our com- 
 mon Christianity, and especially for the sake of the 
 
 * One of these vicegerents and representatives of Christ, in the lineal 
 succession, Bishop Bonner, of Enfjland, was in the habit of beating his 
 clergy corporally when he was displeased with any thing. See Bishop Bur- 
 net's Abridgment of the History of the Reforraation, p. 262. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 21 
 
 clerical order, and, above all, of the episcopal, that Dr. 
 C. is not a clergyman. In my poor opinion, a work 
 could scarcely be devised calculated more seriously and 
 justly to prejudice the whole clerical, and especially the 
 episcopal cause, — and through that the cause of Chris- 
 tianity, — although I am far from believing that Dr. C. 
 intended this. It has been his zeal in the service of 
 a newlj adopted communion that has probably led 
 him to overshoot his mark. And the chief wonder 
 is that any clergyman, and, above all, any bishop, 
 unless indeed it were he of Rome, should eulogize 
 or recommend such a work ; — or how any Christian 
 people^ with the New Testament in their hands, can 
 favour or countenance a book which places them, by 
 the alleged authority of Heaven itself, under the yoke 
 of a spiritual domination thus absolute, unlimited, and 
 degrading. 
 
 It is related, among other ancient ecclesiastical 
 legends, of a certain monk whom Satan would have 
 drawn into heresy by asking his opinion on a certain 
 point, that he prudently answered, " Id credo quod credit 
 ecclesia." [I believe what the church believes.] But, 
 said Satan, thinking to ensnare him, " Quid credit eccle- 
 siaT [What does the church believe?] The wary 
 monk replied, " Id quod ego credoT [What I believe.] 
 And thus, says Jortin,^ if Nestorius would have slept 
 in his own bed, he should have said, "7^ credo quod 
 credit sanctissimus Ci/riUus." [I believe what the most 
 holy Cyril believes.] Cyril was bishop of Alexandria 
 in the fifth century. Implicit faith, indeed, is the very 
 correlative of implicit obedience, — the necessary result 
 of an absolute episcopacy, by divine right, and the 
 genuine seed of all the monstrosities of the papacy 
 itself How different from the doctrine of *' the great 
 Paul," — " Not for that we have dominion over your 
 
 •Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, p. IQ. 
 
22 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 faith:" and of Peter, — "Neither as being lords over 
 God's heritage." 
 
 But what makes the matter still worse, if worse can 
 be, as if Dr. C. were determined to push his scheme of 
 episcopal sovereignty to the utmost possible extreme of 
 autocratical absolutism, he not only exhibits bishops as 
 holding, by divine title, such actual lordship over. God's 
 heritage generally, but over the presbyters in particular, 
 of whom the bishop is "judge and punisher," and against 
 whom, however " partially" he may act, — in other 
 words, tyrannize and sin, — " there is no redressJ^ The 
 inspired Paul himself, had Timothy acted thus after he 
 was constituted a bishop, it would seem according to 
 Dr. C, would have had no authority to correct him, or 
 to redress the presbyters ; and the appeal even of Paul 
 must have been "to God" alone. Such are bishops 
 after Dr. C.'s pattern ; and consequently, I suppose, 
 were Paul himself or the whole college of apostles still 
 on earth, with all their plenary powers, they would be 
 incompetent to afford a particle of redress to any poor 
 presbyter, deacon, or laic, against the partiality or 
 tyranny of any bishop in this succession, though he 
 were an Alexander VI., — a very Nero among the popes 
 themselves,^for, against such "there is no redress.""^ 
 
 *If it seem incredible to the reader that any man, in the 19th century, can 
 think of imposing: such a scheme of episcopacy upon Protestant Christians, 
 I refer him to the whole passage in Dr. C.'s book, p. 8, — remembering that 
 it is to be taken in connection with his theory of Timothy's episcopate at 
 Ephesus by the ordination of Paul, and the " most unexceptionable" powers 
 of a bishop elsewhere alleged by him, as above shown. What a system is 
 here ! Even the most strenuous advocates of tlie high church nonjuring 
 bishops of England, who maintained the indefeasible, hereditary, divine 
 right of kings, and the absolute unlawfulness of resistance on the part of the 
 people, under any provocation or pretext whatever, yet admitted that a bishop 
 xnight be deposed by an ecclesiastical council. Many Papists, too, admit 
 this in regard even to the pope. But, if Bishop Timothy " act partially," 
 and, of course, sin, in this or in any other way, for the principle is the same, 
 what is the remedy? An appeal to PauH Nay: his "apostolical rod" 
 must not touch the hishop. What then T An appeal to the whole college 
 pf apostles in councill Equally vain. The "rod" of the whole of them 
 is unequal to this exigence, " There is no redress, and the appeal of Paul 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 23 
 
 A favourite position of the advocates of episcopal 
 ultraism is, that the divine Founder of the Christian 
 ministry intended, in its original institution, to conform 
 it to the model of the Jewish priesthood and temple ser- 
 vice. According to this theory it is alleged that the 
 episcopate succeeds to the rank and prerogatives of the 
 high-priesthood, while the presbyters take the place of 
 the priests, and the deacons of the Levites. The 
 groundlessness of this alleged parallel has been often 
 exposed, and yet there are not wanting writers who 
 continue to repeat it. Mosheim, indeed, charitably ad- 
 mits, as "highly probable, that they who first intro- 
 duced this absurd comparison of offices so entirely 
 distinct, did it rather through ignorance and error than 
 through artifice and design ;" though, as he remarks, the 
 notion when once introduced, being industriously propa- 
 gated, produced its natural pernicious effects, and was 
 made a new source both of honour and profit to the doc- 
 tors who had the good fortune to persuade the people 
 into the belief of it. 
 
 If the Christian church was constituted on the plan 
 of any Jewish model, there is much stronger evidence 
 that it was that of the synagogue than that of the tem- 
 ple. This has been, as many think, very successfully 
 demonstrated by Stillingfleet and others. I shall not, 
 however, trouble the reader with a detail of the argu- 
 ments which sustain this position; but shall content 
 
 is to God." So says Dr. C, and, be it remembered, according to him, the 
 episcopate of Timothy, by divine right, is the one only essential model of a 
 valid Christian episcopacy — without which there can be no true church, mi- 
 nistry, or ordinances — throughout the world, and until the appearing of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 But, were it even admitted that an oppressed presbyter might appeal to 
 an ecclesiastical council, how, according to Dr. C, would it be necessary 
 that it should be composed 1 
 
 [A portion of what is here given in the form of a note seems to have been 
 intended to take the place of a part of the text, but, as the necessary altera^ 
 lions were not made in the manuscript by ihe author, the whole is here 
 inserted, though liable, in some degree, to the charge of repetition. — tEd.] 
 
24 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 myself with the single observation that, if the parallel 
 be a correct one, — one founded in divine appointment 
 as the allegation is, — then it is a most unfortunate one 
 for Protestant Episcopalians ; for, most unquestionably, 
 in the alleged model there was but one high priest, and 
 could be but one, legitimately, at a time. Consequently 
 the pattern is violated in its most important and essen- 
 tial features, — in its very head, — if there be more than 
 one bishop at a time over the whole Christian church, 
 as there was but one high priest at a time over the 
 whole Jewish church. At any rate, nothing short of one 
 supreme, universal bishop can at all satisfy the parallel. 
 Now this argument would be very appropriate, and enti- 
 tled to the merit of consistency at least, in the mouth 
 of the pope or of his partizans. But how it can serve 
 the cause of Protestant Episcopalians, who maintain 
 not only an unlimited plurality but the perfect official 
 equality of all bishops throughout the world, is more 
 than I have wdt to penetrate. How the hereditariness 
 of the Jewish high-priesthood is legitimately reconciled, 
 in the parallel, with the celibacy of the Romish priest- 
 hood, I have not understood. A Protestant pope, 
 should one ever be set up, might more consistently put 
 in a claim for this feature in it. 
 
 Again, however, I am reminded that Dr. C. stops not 
 at the pattern even of the high-priesthood of Aaron. 
 The supreme, controlling power of " Moses," with the 
 subordinate rule of the seventy elders, he thinks " a 
 form of government as much like the episcopal as one 
 thing can be like another," p. 116. If he means the 
 papal episcopal, some analogy must be granted, so far 
 at least as to the "form" of one and one only supreme 
 earthly chief over the whole people. But if the pro- 
 iestant episcopal be meant, then even the trace of 
 analogy must be denied ; and I should suppose all 
 Protestants^ Dr. C, I am sorry to say, excepted, would 
 join in the denial. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 25 
 
 Indeed Dr. C. seems not satisfied that even Moses' 
 government was that of the archet}qie in the divine will 
 and preference. Have we then not yet reached his ulti- 
 matum of individual absolutism I It seems not. In his 
 opinion that part of the model which consisted in the 
 appointment of elders to assist Moses "was not the plan 
 God instituted for Moses." This he expressly asserts ; 
 and then, that there may be no mistake about it, imme- 
 diately adds in the succeeding sentence, " He [God] set 
 him [Moses] over the people alone," p. 117. The mean- 
 ing, doubtless, is, — Set him alone over the people. He 
 seems even dissatisfied with the meek and diffident 
 Moses for beseeching "God to give him help to rule 
 over the people ;" and adds that, although the request 
 w^as granted, it was, nevertheless, with " marked dis- 
 pleasure" on the part of the Almighty. The whole 
 paragraph, in connection with the preceding, demon- 
 strates, to the best of my understanding, that Dr. C. 
 would have thought it better if Moses had continued to 
 rule the people " alone" without the help of elders. 
 And if so in the Jewish type, as alleged, why not in 
 the Christian antitype ? If his holiness, the sovereign 
 pontiff, ever saw or shall yet see this argument, it might 
 well bring from him an offering of gratitude to the au- 
 thor, bat how it can from any protestant bishop, elder, 
 deacon, or laic, I must again profess myself utterly at a 
 loss to imagine. Scarcely less gratitude, one would 
 think, is due from Rome for the very strong testimony 
 alleged out of Irenseus, by Dr. C, in behalf of that 
 " greatest, most ancient, and universally known church, 
 founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glo- 
 rious apostles, Peter and Paul." — ''For with this church," 
 [Dr. 0. himself marks it emphatically, as is here done,] 
 on account of its greater pre-eminence, it is necessary that 
 every church should agree ; that is, those which are in all 
 respects faithful,'' pp. 71, 72. If the argument be a 
 good one in the episcopal controversy, wdiy not in every 
 
26 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 other? Thank you, protestant Dr., might Rome well 
 say. 
 
 I have heard of a Protestant Episcopal clergyman, 
 not one thousand miles from where I write, who, in 
 labouring to seduce one of our ministers from his fidel- 
 ity to his own church, I regret to say it, by the merce- 
 nary temptation, among other means, of a vacant parish, 
 (a species of conduct in which there is too much reason 
 to believe he has not been singular,) alleged in argu- 
 ment that the Protestant Episcopal Church in this 
 country is the chief barrier to the progress of the Pa- 
 pists ; and ours a hinderance to the successful resistance 
 of this barrier. And this gentleman, I believe, was also 
 an admirer and recommender of Dr. C.'s book. With 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church and its clergy gene- 
 rally, we neither seek nor desire controversy. We 
 should be most happy to agree with them, especially in 
 withstanding sin and Satan in every form. But if the 
 extravagant pretensions of Rome are ever to be suc- 
 cessfully resisted, surely we may say of the work be- 
 fore us, — 
 
 " Non talibus armis, nee defensoribus istis," 
 
 After drawing such a picture of episcopacy, and at- 
 tempting to establish it on such a basis, Dr. C. remarks, 
 — "Of this state of things in the church, evidence more 
 and more abounds as we progress through the third 
 century. For this he assigns the following curious rea- 
 sons : — "Because," as he continues, "more and more 
 learninof was enlisted in the cause of the Christian reh- 
 gion, and because more of the writings of the fathers 
 of the succeeding centuries have been preserved." It 
 seems not to have occurred to him, or at least not to 
 have been judged expedient to be mentioned to his 
 readers, that it was rather "because" of the increasing 
 corruptions and usurpations that ensued, through which 
 the whole face of the church was changed, and tho 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 27 
 
 bishops of the succeeding ages, leaving the simpUcity 
 of their predecessors, were elevated to the rank, the 
 titles, the immunities, and the powers of sovereign lords. 
 To deny this fact, one must either be ignorant of all 
 history or shut his eyes against its clearest light. 
 
 The seeds of this state of things were sown, I grant, 
 though probably without even dreaming of their ulti- 
 mate fruit, at a comparatively early period. Even 
 Ctjprian, the famous bishop of Carthage in the middle 
 of the third century, whose writings are as confidently 
 cited by some eminent men against the exclusive claims 
 of diocesan episcopacy by divine institution, as by others 
 for them, seems, undesignedly, to have at times used 
 language in the florid style of his country and age, 
 which Papists allege as containing the very essential 
 principles of the popedom. I say undesignedly, — be- 
 cause Cyprian himself showed this in his own noble 
 resistance of the imperious Stephen of Rome. One of 
 the famous sayings of Cyprian, as alleged in the no 
 less famous Council of Trent, was, that throughout 
 the whole Christian church "there is hut one hishop- 
 ricke, and every bishop holdeth a part thereof in soli- 
 
 This ingenious and fruitful idea was more largely 
 developed and amplified in the same council by Father 
 Laynez, general of the Jesuits. That saying of Cy- 
 
 * Historie of the Councell of Trent, by Fra Paolo Sarpi, p. 599. There 
 is a singular expression seeming to look this way, tliough obscurely, in one 
 of the epistles of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabius, bishop of Antioch. 
 He is speaking of his rival, Novatus, as Eusebius names him, (or Novatian, 
 according to Moslieim,) whom he berates most roundly, and, among other 
 things, remarks as follows : — " Wherefore this jolly defender of the gospell 
 was ignorant that there ought to be but one bishop in the catholicke [universal] 
 church." (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, lib. vi, ch. 42. The original 
 Greek of Eusebius, as quoted by Lord King, is, " Ovk ijinararo iva eTTLaiwTTov 
 deiv Etvai tv Ka6o?uK^ eKK?.T]aia." And his reference is to chap, xliii, accord- 
 ing to the Greek original.) Why did Cornelius style the Church of 
 Rome the Catliolic Church ? Did Cyprian borrow the idea, or did Cor- 
 nelius take it from Cyprian ? Tliey were contemporaries and correspond- 
 ents. 
 
28 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 prian, he argued, " is to bee expounded that th§ whole 
 power is placed in one pastor, without division, who 
 doth impart and communicate it to his fellow-ministers 
 as cause doth require. And in this sence Ciprian ma- 
 keth the Apostolique Sea like unto a roote, an head, a 
 fountaine, and the sunne ; shewing-, by these compari- 
 sons, that jurisdiction is essential in that alone, and in 
 others bj derivation or participation. And this is the 
 meaning," he adds, " of the words so much used by- 
 antiquity, that Peter and the pope have fulnesse of 
 power, and the others are of their charge." As a mat- 
 ter of curiosity, it may perhaps gratify the reader to see 
 a little more of the Jesuit general's amplification of the 
 idea of Cyprian. "And that he [the pope, continues 
 the general] is the onely pastor, is plainely proved by the 
 words of Christ, when he said. He hath other sheepe 
 which he will gather together, and so one sheepfold 
 should be made, and one shepheard. The shepheard 
 meant in that place cannot be Christ, because he would 
 not speake in the future, that there shall be one shep' 
 heard, himself then being a shepheard, and therefore it 
 must be understood of another shepheard which was to 
 be constituted after him, which can be no other but 
 Peter and his successors." To cap the climax of this 
 argument, the ingenious general, criticising that passage 
 of Christ to Peter, " Feed my sheep," avers that the 
 term " sheep" there signifies " animals, which have no 
 part or judgment in governing themselves."^ I by no 
 means intend to insinuate, however, that this criticism 
 is concurred in by Dr. C. ; for, although he maintains, as 
 "most unexceptionable," the sentiment alleged from 
 Ignatius of implicit subjection to the bishop, as " in the 
 place of God," yet it is, I presume of course, as men, 
 and not as brute " animals ;" — although I must confess, 
 on farther thought, that such a yoke would seem to be 
 
 * Ilistorie of the Counccll of Trent, by Fra Paolo Sarpi, p. 611. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 29 
 
 rather more galling on the necks of rational and Chris- 
 tian men than even on those of brute " animals."^ 
 
 But as Dr. C. makes the testimony of Ignatius, iden- 
 tified as he thinks it with that of Polycarp and Irenaeus 
 afterward, a main pillar of his castle, I am not yet done 
 with this father. The epistles ascribed to him are the 
 first of the ecclesiastical writing of antiquity which 
 mentioned bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as three 
 distinct orders in the Christian church. He is supposed 
 by some to have written about the sixteenth year of the 
 second century ; and by some even earlier. Dr. C. 
 quotes the opinion of Dr. Lardner, as before stated, that 
 his smaller epistles as well as the larger may have been 
 tampered with by the Arians or the orthodox, or both ; 
 and from this, after a little preparation of the reader, in 
 regard to the Arian controversy, he skips to the conclu- 
 sion, — " It is evident, therefore, that there is not the 
 slightest ground to suspect the interpolation of passages 
 to favour episcopacy." Now, to me, this is strange 
 logic. How the admission that they may have been 
 tampered with in one important respect makes it " evi- 
 dent" that there is not the slightest ground to suspect 
 that they have been tampered with in any other, I can- 
 not perceive. Let the argument be put into form, and 
 it runs tlms : — 
 
 The larger epistles of Ignatius are certainly spurious ; 
 and even the smaller may have been tampered with by 
 the Arians or the orthodox, or both. 
 
 Therefore, it is evident that there is not the slightest 
 ground to suspect that they were ever interpolated on 
 the subject of episcopacy. 
 
 * After Christianity became the established and ruling religion, tumults, 
 seditions, and even massacres, sometimes took place at the elections of 
 bishops. This was the natural result of such doctrines of episcopal dignity 
 and supremacy. See Jortin's Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, 
 p. 414. 
 
30 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 And yet this is very much the manner in which Dr. 
 C. draws conclusions and makes assertions in various 
 places of his book. 
 
 The interpolations of the epistles of Ignatius being 
 admitted by eminent and candid critics of all parties, it 
 cannot be safe to found any decision in this controversy 
 on the testimony of an author with whose works tran- 
 scribers have confessedly made so free. If they were 
 interpolated with regard to important doctrines, w^hy 
 may they not have been also in regard to church polity? 
 Did not the indisputable progress of clerical usurpation, 
 and especially of episcopal domination and arrogance, 
 in the following ages, aiford at least an equal temptation 
 to such 2)ioiis frauds ? The ''Apostolical Constitutions'^ 
 is also a work of antiquity, pretended to have been 
 written even by the twelve apostles and St. Paul toge- 
 ther with Clemens for their amanue?isis. It is a work, 
 too, the sentiments of which on episcopacy, as I have 
 before shown in a quotation from Dr. Jortin, are obvi- 
 ously similar to those ascribed to Ignatius ; and it is 
 not a little remarkable, in this connection, that such cri- 
 tics as Le Clerc and the " learned and ingenious" 
 Bruno, as Dr. Jortin testifies, had a suspicion that an 
 Arian bishop of the fourth century, Leontius, was the 
 inventor or the interpolator of these Constitutions also.'^ 
 For, be it remembered that, not long after their rise in 
 the fourth century, the Arians not only had their 
 bishops, but, through the favour of Constantine in his 
 latter days, and especially of his son Constantius, be- 
 came the dominant sect. And how likely the Arian 
 as w^ell as the orthodox bishops of that and some fol- 
 lowing ages may have been to perpetrate such imposi- 
 tions on the ignorant may be conjectured from the state 
 assumed by this said Arian prelate, Leontius. It is cer- 
 
 * Dr. Campbell thinks they were a compilation probably begun in the third 
 century, and ended in the fourth or fifth. Lectures, p. 99. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEAVED. 31 
 
 tain, says Jortin, that he carried his head high enough ; 
 and sent word to the empress Eusebia, who is said to 
 have been haughty, that he would not comply with her 
 request and pay her a visit, unless she would promise 
 to bow down before him and receive his blessing, and 
 then to stand up while he sat, until he should give her 
 leave to sit down ; which put the lady into a violent 
 rage.* 
 
 Now even the Apostolical Constitutions might be of 
 service on several accounts, as they contain many 
 things undoubtedly true, in regard both to the doc- 
 trines and the discipline of the ancient church ; but the 
 whole are so blended with insertions of a later date that 
 it is now beyond human skill, as the last-named eminent 
 critic remarks, to make the separation with any certainty. 
 And, should their authority appear only ambiguous, as 
 he had before observed, it would be our duty to reject 
 them, lest we should adopt, as divine doctrines, the com- 
 mandments of men. This is precisely our view of the 
 epistles ascribed to Ignatius. That he did write epistles, 
 shortly before his martyrdom, is not in the least doubted. 
 Neither is it disputed that what he wrote, especially in 
 res^ard to facts within his own knowledg-e, or to the 
 traditions received from the apostles or their contempo- 
 raries, could we separate with any certainty what is 
 genuine and authentic from what is spurious and false, 
 would be entitled to high regard. Against our oppo- 
 nents, indeed, in this controversy, whatever is to our 
 purpose in the testimony even of Ignatius, a witness of 
 their own introduction, may well be urged ; for though, 
 as Dr. Campbell judiciously remarks, the work ascribed 
 to him is, with reason, suspected to have been interpo- 
 lated with a view to aggrandize the episcopal order, it 
 was never suspected of any interpolation with a view to 
 lessen it.f 
 
 •Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, p. 156. 
 
 t Dr. Jortin, after rejecting altogether the larger epistles ascribed to Igna- 
 
32 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 Among the arguments which render suspicious the 
 integrity of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius, as regards 
 church pohty, the following are advanced by Dr. 
 Campbell : — 
 
 " What makes his testimony the more to be suspected 
 is, first, because the forementioned distinction [of three 
 orders] is so frequently and officiously obtruded on the 
 reader, sometimes not in the most modest and becoming 
 terms, as was the manner of the apostles, when speak- 
 ing of their own authority ; and obedience is enjoined 
 to the bishop and presbyters, even where the injunction 
 cannot be deemed either natural or pertinent, as in his 
 epistle to Polycarp, who was himself a bishop. Secondly, 
 because the names bishop and presbyter are never used 
 by him for expressing the same office, as they had been 
 uniformly used by all who had preceded him, and were 
 occasionally used by most of the ecclesiastic writers of 
 that century. Thirdly and principally, because Poly- 
 carp, a contemporary and surviver of Ignatius, in a letter 
 to the Philippians, quoted in a former discourse, pointing 
 out the duties of all ranks, pastors and people, makes 
 mention of only two orders of ministers, to wit : presby- 
 ters and deacons, in the same manner as Luke, and 
 
 tius as clearly spurious, adds the observation, that although the shorter are, 
 on many accounts, preferable to the larger, yet he would not affirnri that even 
 they had undergone no alteration at all. — Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, 
 vol. i, p. 227. The same author says that " Origen, and other ancient Chris- 
 tians, ascribe to our Saviour this saying : — Tiveafte 6oKifj,oi TparrE^iTai, ra/iev 
 aiTodoKifjai^ovTEc, to (h koIov «re7f,Yovref ; that is, act like skilful haiikers, reject- 
 ing what is bad, and retaining what is good. This precept," continues the 
 archdeacon, " is proper for all who apply themselves to the study of religious 
 antiquities. Good and bad money is offered to them ; and they ought to 
 beware of the coin which will not pass current in the republic of letters and 
 in the critical world, and of that which is found light when weighed in the 
 balance of the sanctuary." Ibid., pp. 420, 421. This advice, whether truly 
 handed down from our Saviour or not, is worthy of a man of letters and a 
 Christian divine ; and the latter part of it especially the plainest reader may 
 follow, and will do well to follow, though he may not have the good fortune 
 to be of the republic of letters, or conversant with the critical world. Let 
 him weigh lu the balance of the sanctuary, then, the extravagant episcopal 
 ultraism which Dr. C. so often alleges from the sophisticated Ignatius, as 
 essential to the very being of a church, and the result is not feared. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 33 
 
 Paul, and Clement had done before him; nay, and 
 recommends to the people submission to them, and only 
 to them, in terms which, I must say, were neither pro- 
 per nor even decent, if these very ministers had a supe- 
 rior in the church to w^hom they themselves, as well as 
 the people, were subject. To me, the difference between 
 these two writers appears by no means as a diversity in 
 style, but as a repugnancy in sentiment. They cannot 
 be both made applicable to the same state of the church ; 
 so that we are forced to conclude, that in the v/ritings 
 of one or the other there must have been something 
 spurious or interpolated. Now I have heard no argu- 
 ment urged against the authenticity of Polycarp's letter 
 equally cogent as some of the arguments employed 
 against the aathenticity of the epistles of Ignatius. And, 
 indeed, the state of the church, in no subsequent period, 
 can well account for such a forgery as the epistle of 
 the former to the Philippians ; w^hereas the ambition of 
 the ecclesiastics, for which some of the following cen- 
 turies were remarkable, renders it extremely easy to 
 account for the nauseous repetition of obedience and 
 subjection to the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, to be 
 found in the letters of Ignatius."^ 
 
 Again : — " It is not only what we find singular in them 
 for so early a period, relating to the different orders of 
 ministers in the church, which has raised suspicions of 
 their authenticity, or, at least, of their integrity ; there 
 are other causes which have co-operated in producing 
 the same effect : one is, the style, in many places, is not 
 suited to the simplicity of the times immediately suc- 
 ceeding the times of the apostles. It abounds with 
 inflated epithets, unlike the humble manner of the 
 inspired writers ; and in this, as in other respects, seems 
 more formed on that which became fashionable after 
 the acquisition of greater external importance, which 
 
 • Lecture on Ecclesiastical History, pp. 96, 7. 
 
 3 
 
34 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 opulence never fails to bring, and after the discussion 
 of certain theological questions agitated in the third and 
 fourth centuries, to which we find, sometimes, a mani- 
 fest allusion. What I am eroinor to observe has much 
 the appearance of anachronism, which often betrays the 
 hand of the interpolator. The expression, the church 
 which is 171 Syria^ occurs twice. Now nothing can be 
 more dissimilar to the dialect which had prevailed in the 
 apostolic age, and which continued to prevail in the 
 second century. Except when the church denoted the 
 whole Christian community, it meant no more than a 
 single congregation.""^ Now there were many churches 
 in Syria in the days of Ignatius, and many bishops. 
 Indeed when, through the increase of converts, a bishop's 
 parish came to contain more people than could be com- 
 prehended in one congregation, the custom continued, 
 in contradiction to propriety, of still calling his charge a 
 church, in the singular number. But it was not till after 
 the distinction made between the metropolitan and the 
 suffragans, which was about a century later, that this 
 use originated, of calling all the churches of a province 
 the church (not the churches) of such a province. To 
 this they w^ere gradually led by analogy. The metro- 
 politan presided among the provincial bishops, as the 
 bishop among the presbyters. The application of the 
 term was, after the rise of patriarchal jurisdiction, 
 extended still further. All that was under the jurisdic- 
 tion of the archbishop, or patriarch, was his church. 
 
 But it is not the style, only, which has raised suspi- 
 cion ; it is chiefly the sentiments. " Attend to the 
 bishop," says Ignatius to Polycarp, "that God may 
 
 * Lord King says that he found the word church once used by Cyprian 
 [about the middle of the tliird century] for a collection of many particular 
 churches; but that, except in this instance, he did not remember ever to have 
 met with it in this sense in any writings, either of Cyprian or the rest of the 
 fathers ; but, whenever they would speak of the Christians in any kingdom 
 or province, they always said, in the plural, the churches; never in the 
 singular, the church, of such a kingdom or province. — Pp. 4, 5. 
 
 3^ 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 35 
 
 attend to you. I pledge my soul for theirs who are 
 subject to the bishop, presbyters, and deacons. Let my 
 
 part in God be with them. Avnipvxov eyu tuv vnoraaco/xevuv t(j 
 
 emaKo-Jui K.T.}..; wliicli Cotolerius renders Devovear ego pro 
 Us qui subditi sunt episcopo, &lc. Admit that, from his 
 adopting the plural of the imperative npoGexere, in the 
 beginning of the paragraph, he is to be considered as 
 addressing the congregation of Smyrna, and not the 
 bishop to whom the letter is directed, is there nothing 
 exceptionable in what he says ? Was it the doctrine of 
 Ignatius, that all that is necessary to salvation in a 
 Christian is an implicit subjection to the bishop, presby- 
 ters, and deacons? Be it that he means only in spi- 
 ritual matters, is this the style of the apostles to their 
 Christian brethren ? Was it thus that Ignatius exhibit- 
 ed to his followers the pattern which had been given by 
 that great apostle, who could say of himself and his 
 fellow apostles, appealing for his voucher to the people's 
 experience of their ministry. We preach not ourselves, but 
 Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants, for 
 Jesus' sake.'"'^ 
 
 On the contrary, as the same author continues a 
 little after, "is it not his predominant scope, [that of the 
 assumer of Ignatius' name,] in those letters, to preach 
 himself and other ecclesiastics, inculcating upon the 
 people the most submissive, unlimited, and blind obe- 
 dience to all of the clerical order ? This is an everlast- 
 ing topic, to which he never slips an opportunity of 
 recurring, in season and out of season. The only con- 
 sistent declaration wliich would have suited the author 
 of these epistles, must have been the reverse of Paul's. 
 We preach not Christ Jesus the Lord, but so far only as 
 may conduce to the increase of our influence, and the 
 exaltation of our power ; nay, for an object so import- 
 ant, we are not ashamed to preach up ourselves your 
 
 •Lectures on Ecclesiastical History,~pp. 100-102. 
 
36 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEAVED. 
 
 masters, with imbounded dominion over your faith, and 
 consequently over both soul and body."^ 
 
 Such, in the judgment of Dr. Campbell, are the 
 epistles which Dr. C. regards as "most unexception- 
 able," and which, as before said, constitute a main 
 pillar of his hierarchal edifice. 
 
 To strengthen this pillar, moreover, he endeavours to 
 make cut that the testimony of Polycarp and Irenseus 
 is identical with that in these epistles. 
 
 Polycarp was a contemporary and surviver of Igna- 
 tius. His writings, in the order of time, w^ere between 
 those of Ignatius and Irenceus ; and he suffered martyr- 
 dom probably a little before the middle of the second 
 century, or soon after ; for chronologists do not exactly 
 agree on this point.f Dr. C. quotes him as saving in 
 his epistle to the Philippians, " The epistles of Igna- 
 tius which he wrote unto us, together with what others 
 of his have come to our hands, we have sent to you, 
 according to your order ; which are subjoined to this 
 epistle ; by which you may be greatly profited, — for 
 they treat of faith, and patience, and of all things that 
 pertain to edification in the Lord Jesus.":]: This, with 
 his strong attestation of Ignatius's personal worth and 
 triumphant end. Dr. C. says, " show that Polycarp com- 
 pletely agreed with Ignatius in relation to the great 
 concerns of the church. All that we see, therefore, [he 
 continues,] in the passages in Italics in the epistles of 
 Ignatius, [that is, what Dr. C. puts in Italics in these 
 epistles, as printed in his appendix,] stands supported 
 by the evidence of Polycarp, as completely as if he had 
 himself written those epistles.":|: 
 
 Hold, dear sir. This is another conclusion too hastily 
 
 * Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, pp. 100-102. 
 
 t There is also considerable diversity ainonn^ critics as to the exact date 
 of Polycarp's epistle. Dr. Jortin says it is supposed to have been written 
 A. D. 107 ; Dr. Campbell that it must certainly have been written a con- 
 siderable time before the middle of the second century. 
 
 X p. 70. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 37 
 
 sprung to. It is a mere petitio priticipii, — a sheer 
 begging- of the question. It must first be proved that 
 all those passages were in the copy of those epistles 
 which came under the eye of Polycarp ; for this, you 
 ought to be aware, is disputed, for reasons already given. 
 Until this difficulty, therefore, is removed, this argu- 
 ment is deficient in an essential link. 
 
 The same remarks are applicable to Dr. C's attempt 
 to identify the testimony of Irenseus with the passages 
 which he has marked as specially observable under the 
 name of Ignatius. It must first be proved that Irenseus 
 ever saw them. This foundation of the argument must 
 be established before the superstructure can stand. 
 
 But let us now review the evidence which these early 
 fathers furnish against the system of Dr. C. For, as 
 has been already observed, even the epistles of Igna- 
 tius in this respect are not supposed to have been inter- 
 polated ; since, for this the state and progress of eccle- 
 siastical affairs in the following ages evidently furnish 
 no probable motive, as they plainly did for such 
 freedoms on the opposite side. 
 
 Before I proceed to this, however, I beg leave to 
 remind the reader that there was one other earlier Chris- 
 tian father, after the apostles, of whose writings Dr. C. 
 seems content to make but little use : I mean Clemens 
 Romanus — Clement of Rome. The writings of this 
 father are characterized by Dr. Campbell as " the most 
 respectable remains we have of Christian antiquity, 
 next to the inspired writings." He then proceeds thus : 
 " The piece I allude to is the first epistle of Clemens 
 Romanus to the Corinthians, as it is commonly styled, 
 but as it styles itself, ' The Epistle of the Church of 
 God at Rome to the Church of God at Corinth.' It is 
 the same Clement whom Paul (Philip, iv, 3) calls his 
 fellow-lal)ourer, and one of those whose names are in 
 the book of life. There we are told, chap, xlii, that 
 * the apostles, having preached the gospel in countries 
 
38 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 and towns, constituted the first-fruits of their ministry, 
 whom they approved by the Spirit, bishops and deacons 
 of those who should beheve.' And in order to satisfy 
 us that he did not use these words in a vague manner, 
 for church officers in general, but as expressive of all 
 the distinct orders that were established by them in the 
 church, he adds : ' Nor was this a new device, inas- 
 much as bishops and deacons had been pointed out 
 many ages before, — -for thus says the Scripture, " / will 
 constitute their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons 
 infaithP ' The passage quoted is the last clause of the 
 17th verse of the 60th chapter of Isaiah. It is thus ren- 
 dered in our version : ' I will make thine officers peace, 
 and thine exactors righteousness.' Whether this vene- 
 rable ancient has given a just translation, or made a 
 proper application of this prediction, is not the point in 
 question ; it is enough that it evinces what his notion 
 was of the established ministers then in the church. 
 And if (as no critic ever questioned, and as his own 
 argument necessarily requires,) he means the same by 
 bishops with those who in the Acts are called npcapwepot, 
 whom the apostles Paul and Barnabas ordained in every 
 church, and whom Clement in other parts of this epistle 
 also calls npsapvTFpot, — namely, the ordinary teachers ; it 
 would seem strange that the bishop, properly so called, 
 the principal officer of all, should be the only one in 
 his account of whom the Holy Spirit, in sacred writ, 
 had given no previous intimation. Nay, do not the 
 words of this father manifestly imply that any other 
 office in the church than the two he had mentioned, 
 might be justly styled a new device or invention? 
 Dr. Pearson, in his Vindicise Ignatianae, insists much 
 that whenever any of the fathers purposely enumerate 
 the different orders in the church, they mention always 
 three. If the above account given by Clement is not to 
 be considered an enumeration, I know not what to call 
 it. If two were actually all the orders then in the 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 39 
 
 church, could he have introduced the mention of them 
 by telhng us he was about to give a hst or catalogue, 
 or even to make an enumeration of the ecclesiastical 
 degrees ? Is this a way of prefacing the mention of so 
 small a number as two ? It is this writer's express de- 
 sign to acquaint us what the apostles did for accommo- 
 dating the several churches they planted, in pastors and 
 assistants. And can we suppose he would have omitted 
 the chief point of all, namely, that they supplied every 
 church with a prelate, ruler, or head, if any one had 
 really been entitled to this distinction ? 
 
 " If it should be urged that under the term eTnaKonot, both 
 functions of bishop and presbyter are comprehended, it 
 is manifest that, as it was the writer's scope to mark the 
 different offices established as being predicted by the 
 prophets in. the Old Testament, there cannot be a 
 stronger indication that there was then no material, if 
 any, difference between them, and that they were pro- 
 perly denominated and considered as one office. The 
 appellatives also by which they are denoted, are inva- 
 riably employed by him in the plural number as being 
 equally applicable to all. It is said in chap, i, roic 
 riyovfievoic v,uuv viroTaaao/xEvoi, Submitting to your govcmors or 
 guides. It is remarkable also that the word yyovfievoc, here 
 used in the plural of all their pastors, is one of those terms 
 which came afterward to be appropriated to the bishop. 
 Nay, since it must be admitted, that in the New Testa- 
 ment, as well as in the ancient Christian monument just 
 now quoted, the words eTnaKonoc and npea^vrepoc are not 
 occasionally, but uniformly, used synonymously; the 
 very discovery that there was not any distinctive appel- 
 lation for such an office as is now called bishop is not 
 of inconsiderable weight to prove that it did not exist. 
 We know that every other office, ordinary and extraor- 
 dinary, is sufficiently distinguished by an appropriated 
 name. 
 
 " But I cannot help observing further concerning this 
 
40 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 epistle of Clement, that though it was written with the 
 special view of conciliating the minds of the Corinthians 
 to their pastors, commonly in this letter called presby- 
 ters, some of whom the people had turned out of their 
 offices, or expelled {awo ttjq emoKonric) from their bishoprick, 
 as his words literally imply, there is not the most distant 
 hint of any superior to these TTpeaiSvTEiooi, wdiose proper 
 province it was, if there had been such a superior, to 
 inspect their conduct and to judge of it; and whose 
 authority the people had treated most contemptuously, 
 in presuming, without so much as consulting him, to 
 degrade their presbyters. It was natural, it was even 
 unavoidable, to take notice in such a case of the usurpa- 
 tion whereof they had been guilty upon their bishop — 
 the chief shepherd, who had the oversight of all the 
 under shepherds, the presbyters as well as of the people, 
 and to w^hom alone, if there had been such a person, 
 those presbyters were accountable for their conduct. 
 Yet there is not so much as a syllable in all this long 
 letter that points this way. On the contrary, he 
 argues from the power with which those presbyters 
 themselves were vested, and of which they could not 
 be justly stripped whilst they discharged faithfully the 
 duties of their office. I will appeal to any candid person 
 who is tolerably conversant in the Christian antiquities, 
 whether he thinks it possible that in the third century 
 such a letter, on such an emergence, could have been 
 written to any Christian congregation by any man in 
 his senses, wherein there was no more notice taken of 
 the bishop, who was then, in a manner, every thing in 
 his own church, than if he were nothing at all. And 
 that there was so great a difference, in less than two cen- 
 turies, in people's style and sentiments on this article, 
 is an uncontrovertible proof that in that period things 
 came to stand on a very different foot. This ej)istle 
 of Clement, who was a disciple of Paul, appears indeed 
 from one passage to have been written so early as before 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 41 
 
 the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, and conse- 
 quently before the seventy-second year of Christ, accord- 
 ing to the vulgar computation. And if so, it was written 
 before the Apocalypse, and perhaps some other parts 
 of the sacred canon. Nothing, therefore, that is not 
 Scripture, can be of greater authority in determining a 
 point of fact, as is the question about the constitution 
 of the apostolical church.""^ 
 
 It is proper to note here, that Dr. Campbell afterward 
 adds a general observation, to which he invites the 
 attention of the judicious and candid, that what he has 
 advanced does not affect the law^fulness, or even, in 
 certain circumstances, the expediency of the episcopal 
 model ; but only exposes the arrogance of pretending 
 to a jus divimim, [a divine right.] He is satisfied (as 
 he continues, with a manly and Christian frankness 
 worthy of all commendation and of more general imita- 
 tion) that no form of polity can plead such an exclu- 
 sive charter as that phrase, in its present acceptation, 
 is understood to imply, — that the claim is clearly the 
 offspring of sectarian bigotry and ignorance. — That in 
 regard to those polities which obtain at present in the 
 different Christian sects, he ingenuously owns that he 
 has not found one of all that he has examined, w^hich 
 can be said perfectly to coincide with the model of 
 the apostolic church. Some indeed are nearer, and 
 some are more remote ; but this we may say with free- 
 dom, that if a particular form of polity had been essen- 
 tial to the church, it would have been laid down in a 
 different manner in the sacred books. — That the very 
 hypothesis, in his opinion, is repugnant to the spiritual 
 nature of the evangelical economy, and savours grossly 
 of the conceit with which the Jews were intoxicated of 
 the Messiah's secular kingdom, — a conceit with which 
 many like-minded Christians are intoxicated still. f 
 
 • Lectures, pp. 70-72. \lb., pp. 73, 74. 
 
42 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 Let it be observed also, that I quote Dr. Campbell 
 freely, not because I agree with him in all respects, but 
 because, in the main points in this controversy, as 
 between high church and us, his able work fully sus- 
 tains our views as above stated. 
 
 I now return to Ignatius. In speaking of his epistles 
 Dr. C. remarks, p. 18, that " in every instance the bishop 
 is mentioned in such terms as show that he w^as the only 
 one in the church addressed." This Dr. C. marks em- 
 phatically, as is here done. The assertion is a very 
 extraordinary one, and, I suppose, cannot have been 
 intended to convey the meaning- which the face of it 
 imports. For if the reader will turn to the epistles, he 
 will find, on the contrary, that "in every instance," 
 except the epistle to Polycarp, it is "the church" that 
 is addressed. And although Dr. C. maintains that with- 
 out a bishop, such as he describes, there is no church, 
 yet I am not aware that he has yet taken upon himself 
 to assert that the bishop alone is " the church." 
 
 But, passing- this obscure passage, as perhaps merely 
 wanting in felicity of expression, is it not singular that 
 Ignatius, in addressing Polj^carp, himself a bishop, and 
 a disciple of St. John, should say to him, '■'Hearken 
 unto the hishop, that God also may hearken unto you. 
 My soul he security for them that suhnit to their bishop, 
 with their presbyters and deacoyis^ Yet so Dr. C. cites 
 him ; and this is one of the passages which he specially 
 marks with Italics, as above. ^ The passage itself, in 
 such an epistle, is foisted as impertinently as the lan- 
 guage is profane, and the sentiment antichristian. 
 
 Dr. C. refers to Dr. Miller, as observing that several 
 of the early fathers " expressly represent presbyters as 
 the successors of the apostles : among others Ignatius'^ 
 And afterward adds, " The reader may easily determine 
 how far this assertion is correct, by turning to the 
 
 • Appendix, p. xxiv. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 43 
 
 passages in Italic letters, in tlie appendix to these 
 pages. "^ 
 
 Well, I have done so : — confining myself to the pas- 
 sages marked by Dr. C. himself. And what does the 
 reader suppose is the result I Is he at all prepared to 
 anticipate that several of these very passages expressly 
 confirm Dr. Miller's assertion l If, considering the bold- 
 ness with which Dr. C. makes the reference, he deem 
 this incredible, then I assure him that I quote them as 
 they stand in Dr. C.'s own appendix, and as marked by 
 himself; except that I put in small capitals the words 
 which represent presbyters as successors of the apostles, 
 which Dr. C. leaves in Italics, in common with the rest 
 of the passage. 
 
 In the epistle to the Magnesians, sect. 6, Ignatius 
 says, "/ exhort you that ye study to do all things in 
 divine concord : your bishop presiding i?i the place of God, 
 
 YOUR PRESBYTERS IX THE PLACE OF THE COUNCIL OF 
 
 THE APOSTLES, a?id yoiir deacons most dear to me being 
 intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ. ''j 
 
 In the epistle to the Tralhans, sect. 2, he says, " For 
 whereas ye are subject to your bishop, as to Jesus Christ, 
 ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but 
 according to Jesus Christ. It is therefore necessary, that 
 as ye do, so 7vithout your bishop you shoidd do nothing : 
 
 ALSO, BE YE SUBJECT TO YOUR PRESBYTERS, AS TO THE 
 
 APOSTLES OF Jesus Christ OUR HOPE ; iji whoM if we 
 walk, we shall be found in him. The deacons also, as 
 being the ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ.'" X 
 
 Again : in the same epistle to the Trallians, sect. 3, 
 he says : ^^ In like manner let all reverence the deacons 
 as Jesus Christ, and the bishop as the Father, and the 
 
 PRESBYTERS AS THE SANHEDRIM OF GoD, AND COL- 
 LEGE OF THE APOSTLES. "t 
 
 In the epistle to the Smymeans, he says : " See that 
 
 * Dr. C. p. 19. t Appendix, p. x. :^Ib., p. xii. 
 
44 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 ye all follow your hishop, as Jesus Christ, the Father ; 
 and THE PRESBYTERY AS THE APOSTLES ; and reverence 
 the deacons as the command of God.''''* 
 
 An examination of the above passages may aid the 
 reader in forming a judgment of the incautiousness, to 
 use no stronger term, with which Dr. C. makes the 
 most positive and extraordinary affirmations. Of that 
 cited above from the 6th section of the epistle to the 
 Magnesians, he says, " Take the whole together, and 
 the meaning is precisely the reverse of that which 
 Dr. Miller represents it to be," p. 19. Now Dr. Miller's 
 statement was, that Ignatius in that passage represents 
 presbyters as the successors of the apostles. This then, 
 at j)resent, is the single question ; and Dr. C. must be 
 held to it. Does that whole passage of Ignatius, taken 
 together, represent presbyters as the successors of the 
 apostles, or does it represent " precisely the reverse ?" 
 The former is Dr. Miller's assertion, the latter is Dr. C.'s. 
 I leave the reader, after looking back at the passage, to 
 judge between them. 
 
 Dr. C. himself, indeed, very soon afterward, p. 20, 
 seems smitten with the conviction that Ignatius does 
 "represent the presbyters as standing in the place of 
 the apostles." For he there adds, (after mentioning 
 Dr. Miller's farther quotation of the 3d section of the 
 epistle to the Trallians also,) " If these passages repre- 
 sent the presbyters as standing in the place of the 
 apostles, they place the bishop as far above them as he 
 could by any language be represented to be." I grant 
 it: — even as far — I pause, and am shocked to repeat 
 such language, — yes, even as far as God is above the 
 apostles ! Certainly language cannot go higher. It is 
 indeed, reader, a sober verity. Dr. C. himself, a little 
 after, on the same page, repeats with manifest approba- 
 tion: "They represent the bishop as standing in the 
 place of God." 
 
 • Appendix, p. xxii. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 45 
 
 Such then is a Christian bishop, according to the 
 epistles of Ignatius, which Dr. C. pronounces " most 
 unexceptionable ;" and such, consequently, in the judg- 
 ment of Dr. C, is a Christian bishop still, " standing in 
 the place of God, as far above presbyters, — and cer- 
 tainly, of course, above deacons, laics, and the whole 
 church beside his single self, — as God above the apos- 
 tles !" If deeds of ineffable atrocity may be expressed 
 as outheroding Herod, surely the challenging of such 
 insufferable, even infinite pre-eminence for the episcopal 
 dignity and authority, may not in appositely be branded 
 as outpoping (if I may coin this term for the special 
 occasion) the pope himself. 
 
 In truth, it is very far worse than popery. For, 
 according to popery, there is but one supreme sovereign 
 bishop, the absolute ruler of the whole church. But 
 according to this scheme, each and every bishop is such 
 within his diocese, of whatever extent. And thus the 
 entire church of Christ on earth must be subjected, if 
 this notion prevail, to the absolute domination of an 
 unlimited number of popes, instead of one, — against 
 whom, however arbitrary, partial, or oppressive their 
 acts may be, there is no redress, and no appeal but to 
 God.^ 
 
 In remarking on the writings of Cyprian, bishop of 
 Carthage, about the middle of the third century. Dr. 
 Jortin observes, that there are many passages in them 
 containing high notions of episcopal authority and eccle- 
 
 * See Dr. Cook's draft of the episcopate of Bishop Timothy, the model 
 by divine title, on his plan, of all succeeding hishops, p. 8. In the Litany 
 of the Church of Eng-land there was formerly this petition, — " From the 
 tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good 
 Lord deliver usy By order of Queen Elizabeth, who was somew iiat ten- 
 derly concerned not to offend the pope, tliis passage was struck out. But 
 surely Protestants of the present day may most rationally, most scripturally, 
 and most devoutly pray, — From an episcopal scheme, which claims by divine 
 right the elevation of fallen, fallible men to such dignity and power above 
 their fellow-men, their fellow-Christians, and their fellow-ministers, good 
 Lord deliver us ! 
 
46 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 siastical jurisdiction. " While he strenuously opposed 
 the domination of one pope," continues the learned and 
 ingenious archdeacon, " he seemed in some manner to 
 make as many popes as bishops, and mere arithmetical 
 naughts of the rest of the Christians ; which yet, I 
 believe," he adds, " was not his intent."* 
 
 Charity would lead us to hope as much of the inten- 
 tions of Dr. C. 
 
 Whatever rank then Dr. C. may be disposed to assert 
 for such bishops as he contends for, if presbyters stand 
 in the place of the apostles, this is enough for us. We 
 neither ask nor wish any thing more or higher. And 
 whether this be not the explicit testimony of those epis- 
 tles of lo^natius which Dr. C. avers to be g-enuine and 
 most unexceptionable, I shall submit to the judgment 
 of the reader, after laying before him the following 
 recapitulation of the specific clauses touching this point. 
 
 " Your preshjters in the ijlace of the coimcil of the 
 apostles.''' Epistle to the Magnesians, sect. 6. 
 
 That is, as the preceding clause demonstrates, '^ your 
 presbyters [presiding] in the place of the council of the 
 apostles." 
 
 ^^ Also he ye subject to your presbyters as to the apos- 
 tles of Jesus Christ our hope.'''' Epistle to the Trallians, 
 sect. 2. 
 
 ^^ And the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and 
 college of the apostles.''^ lb., sect. 3. 
 
 That is, as the context shows, Let all reverence the 
 presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and college of the 
 apostles. 
 
 " And the presbytery as the apostles.''^ Epistle to the 
 Smyrneans, sect. 8. 
 
 That is, as the context here also demonstrates, See 
 that ye all follow the presbytery as the apostles. 
 
 I remark here by the way, and shall have occasion to 
 
 • Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, p. 415. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 47 
 
 notice it again, that by the " presbytery," in this place, 
 is incontestably meant— not an office — but tlie body of 
 presbyters, as contradistinguished from the bisliop and 
 the deacons, severally, and from them both together. 
 The reader will please bear in mind this ancient use of 
 the term by an apostolical father, as Dr. C. contends, 
 a disciple of the apostles, and so near the apostolic age. 
 It will be important in the argument in another place. 
 
 It may be proper also to observe at this stage, that it 
 is not my purpose, or my place, to volunteer in the vin- 
 dication of Dr. Miller. In the main point, — the validity 
 of ordination by presbyters, — that eminent divine and 
 we entirely agree. In others we differ, and, I trust, 
 aijrce to differ ; neither of us refrarding- a difference of 
 judgment or practice in matters of polity, a sufficient 
 occasion for schism among Christians, in the true Scrip- 
 tural sense of this term ; but still recognising' the com- 
 munion of each other as within the covenant mercies 
 of the Father of mercies, and the comprehensive pale 
 of the catholic church."^ 
 
 I may be permitted here also to say, that a very large 
 portion of Dr. C.'s authorities and arguments against 
 the Presbyterian scheme of parity, as advocated by 
 Dr. Miller, are entirely irrelevant and harmless, as will 
 hereafter be show^n,t in regard to the Methodist Epis- 
 copal polity, which recognises both an order of bishops, 
 officially superior to presbyters, and the order of dea- 
 cons as ministers of Christ. 
 
 In combating Dr. Miller, Dr. C. occasionally avails 
 himself of a reference to Methodist usages, to help out 
 his argument. For example : — from the language of 
 Ignatius to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, charging him 
 to let his assemblies be more full, — to inquire into all 
 by name, — and not to overlook the men or maid Ser- 
 
 * See note B, Appendix. [Never written. — Ed.] 
 
 t [This the author probably designed to do in the second part of his 
 Essay, which, as has been already stated, was never written. — Ed.] 
 
48 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 vants ; Dr. Miller contends that the bishop of that day 
 v^^as the pastor of a single church, and not a diocesan 
 in the modern sense. Dr. C. answers, " This can be 
 done without personal acquaintance. The preachers 
 of the Methodist travelling connection on many circuits 
 have above a thousand, and on some twelve or fourteen 
 hundred persons under their care, sometimes spread 
 over circuits of fifty or sixty miles in extent, and they 
 inquire into all hij name, — not overlooking the men and 
 maid servants, — everij four weeks.'''' '^ This is certainly 
 a high compliment to us. I only wish it were strictly 
 merited. 
 
 But if our economy, — may I say, without seeming to 
 assume too much, our excellent economy, — helps Dr. C. 
 out in one instance, does not justice require that Dr. 
 Miller should have the benefit of it in another? for it 
 is in truth a middle ground, which certainly solves very 
 many of the difficulties between the two extremes, and 
 on which the contending parties might happily meet, 
 were there mutually that disposition to Christian con- 
 cord which we should be happy to see prevail. Dr. C 
 says, for example, in another place, that if Dr. Miller 
 could establish one of his statements alluded to, ''he 
 would make a difficulty which he would find it not easy 
 to solve. For no presbyter, the pastor of a church, has 
 a presbytery, or council of presbyters, in his church, 
 who are his brothers and colleagues.'' i 
 
 Now, if Dr. C. or Dr. M. will look again into the 
 usage of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they will find 
 an easy solution of that difficulty also. The very thing 
 alleged by Dr. C. as never existing, exists at this mo- 
 ment among us, in New- York, in Baltimore, in Charles- 
 ton, in Cincinnati, and in many »other places which 
 might be named. 
 
 The next ancient Christian writer to whose testimony 
 
 * Page 26. f Page 79. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED, 49 
 
 reference is made in this controversy, is Poly carp* 
 Dr. C. indeed seems not to have found much in this 
 father to his purpose, although he wrote after Ignatius, 
 and consequently might be expected to speak still more 
 strongly on the distinction of the three orders, if it then 
 existed, since it is well known that after it once obtained 
 footing it never retrograded, but steadily advanced till 
 the completion of the entire hierarchal structure. 
 
 It is true, as I have before remarkedj that Dr. C, 
 claims the testimony of Polycarp as identical with that 
 of Ignatius, in consequence of some general expres- 
 sions of the former in regard to the epistles, and the 
 personal w^orth of the latter. In answer to this, I have 
 above said that all the arguments which go to disprove 
 the genuineness, or at least the integrity, of the epistles 
 ascribed to Ignatius, serve equally to render it at least 
 entirely uncertain whether Polycarp ever saw them as 
 we now have them, and especially those very passages 
 on which Dr. C. mainly relies, which are especially sus- 
 picious, and consequently cannot be fairly made the 
 ground of any certain argument. But, even supposing 
 it otherwise : then, according to Dr. C.'s own showino-, 
 we have the additional testimony of Polycarp that 
 presbyters stand in the place of the apostles. In proof 
 of which I refer the reader to the quotations made 
 above, from Dr. C.'s own edition of Ignatius's epistles. 
 And this, I repeat, concedes all that we have the slight- 
 est inclination even to ask in the arg-ument. 
 
 Dr. C. urges the fact that if the epistles of Ignatius 
 " represent the presbyters as standing in the place of the 
 apostles, they place the bishop as far above them as 
 he could by any language be represented to be :" p. 20. 
 What, then, will he say to the testimony of Polycarp, 
 who, throughout his whole epistle to the Philippians, 
 
 * Dr. Miller places Polycarp in clironolonrjcal order before Ignatius. Dr. 
 Campbell, however, more correctly I think, remarks that the writings of 
 Ignatius are supposed to have preceded those of Polycarp. Lectures, p. 73. 
 
 4 
 
50 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 speaks of two orders only of -ministers, viz., presbyters 
 and deacons, never even naming that of bishop, — but, 
 on the contrary, enjoining tlie people to be subject to 
 their presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ. 
 Could he, by any language, have represented any order 
 higher than this ? and had he known any order in the 
 church then superior to that of the presbyters, to which 
 they themselves owed subjection, could he, even de- 
 cently, have adopted the highest possible similitude to 
 illustrate the obedience due to their order? Nay, farther, 
 when in the same epistle he lays down the duties and 
 qualifications of deacons and presbyters, wherein every 
 thing befitting judges and governors is included, and 
 those of tlip people also throughout the epistle, is it not 
 unaccountable that he should never even mention or 
 allude to w^hat was proper on the part of the higher 
 order, or on the part of the presbyters, deacons, and 
 people, toward such higher order, if he knew of any 
 such then existing ? Let common sense answer these 
 questions."^ 
 
 * A specimen of the facility with which Dr. C. begs a question, when he 
 can find no more logical mode of settling it, is furnished in a remark which 
 he makes respecting Polycarp, p. 84. He had just observed that Dr. Miller 
 roundly admits, in the outset of his reference to this father, that Polycarp 
 speaks of two orders of ministers ; and then adds, — " and when we know 
 that he himself belonged to a third." Now does not Dr. C. " know" that 
 this is the very point in debate 1 Yet nothing is more common than such 
 dogmatizing throughout his book. Another similar instance just strikes my 
 eye, near the same place, p. 85. He had just referred again to what is 
 alleged from Ignatius, "in support of the three orders;" and then adds, 
 " that we could not have any thing of an opposite character from Polycarp, 
 is evident from the circumstance of his being himself bishop of the churck 
 at Smyrna, with presbi/ters under him^ Is evident ! In what school of 
 logic has such arguing been learned "? If the simple fact that Polycarp was 
 bishop, superintendent, overseer, or rector of the church at Smyrna, with 
 presbyters under him, proves conclusively that he was therefore necessarily 
 of a third order of ministers, by divine right, inherently and essentially dis- 
 tinct from and superior to the order of presbyters, then the controversy is 
 ended. But surely it cannot be necessary to remind the reader, if it be to 
 remind Dr. C, that this is still the precise point in dispute. Tlie very 
 same sophism is used by Dr. C. on the next page (86) in regard to Cle- 
 ment. I will only add bore, that the whole of his effort, pp. 8,4, 85, to 
 account consistently with his (Dr. C.'s) sclieme, for Polvcarp's omission of 
 
 4^- 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 51 
 
 I cannot say, with Dr. C, that I think the represent- 
 ing of any order in the church as standing in the place 
 of God, or the reverence and obedience due to it, by 
 that which we owe to the Ahuighty, " most unexcep- 
 tionable." For my own part, I humbly think such com- 
 parisons, whether in Ignatius or in Polycarp, very 
 exceptionable. But then, if one early father thought 
 proper to use them in reference to bishops, and another, 
 his contemporary, who was also an apostolical father, 
 and the disciple of an apostle, did so in like manner in 
 reference to presbyters, is not the argument from their 
 au<"hority and language quite as good in the latter case 
 as in the former l 
 
 In regard to the form of polity, however, the fact is, 
 that the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, as w^e have 
 them, cannot both, as Dr. Campbell remarks, be made 
 applicable to the same state of the church. 
 
 The difference between them is not a diversity in 
 style, but a repugnance in sentiment : so that we are 
 forced to conclude that in the writings of one or the 
 other there must have been something spurious or inter- 
 polated. "Now," continues the same able critic, "I 
 have heard no argument used against the authenticity 
 of Polycarp's letter equally cogent as some of the argu- 
 ments employed against the authenticity of the epistles 
 of Ignatius. And, indeed, the state of the church, in no 
 subsequent period, can well account for such a forgery 
 as the epistle of the former to the Philippians ; whereas 
 the ambition of the ecclesiastics, for which some of the 
 following centuries were remarkable, renders it ex- 
 tremely easy to account for the nauseous repetition of 
 
 any mention whatever throughout his epistle, of any such supenjr third 
 order, is totally overthrown bv his using the highest similitude possible, as 
 above st.Ued, to illu^'rate the order of presbyters :;nd the obedience due to 
 them ; a similitude, certainly, which he could nttt with any propriety, or 
 even decency, liave applied to this order, had he known any higher in the 
 church. 
 
52 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED'. 
 
 obedience and subjection to the bishop, presbyters, and 
 deacons, to be found in the letters of Ignatius." ^ 
 
 I maj add here, that Irencsus, who is the next of the 
 ancient fathers introduced, testifies of Poly carp, who, 
 as Irenseus affirms, was taught by the apostles, and con- 
 versed with many of those who had seen our Lord, that 
 " he always taught those things which he had learned 
 from the apostles, w^hich he likewise delivered to the 
 church, and which are alone true." Book iii, chap. 3, 
 Against Heresies. In the same paragraph he particu- 
 larly mentions the " most excellent epistle of Polycarp 
 to the Philippians, above cited, from which," he adds, 
 *' they who wish and have regard for their own salva- 
 tion, can learn the character of his faith, and the doc- 
 trine of the truth." 
 
 Such then were Polycarp's views of church order, at 
 least in the apostolical Philippian church, and such Ire- 
 nseus's commendation of the " most excellent epistle" 
 containing them. 
 
 The objection that Polycarp was himself a bishop, 
 will be noticed hereafter. I now proceed to Irenceus. 
 
 At what precise time Irenseus wrote, authors are not 
 agreed. Dr. Campbell says he is supposed to have 
 written about the middle of the second century. Lord 
 King places him about the year 184. And Dr. Miller 
 says he is said to have suffered martyrdom about the 
 year 202. For this even Dr. C. adopts the same date, 
 p. 81. How long it was before his martyrdom that his 
 work against heresies was written, does not appear. 
 There is one passage in the third book, however, which 
 strongly inclines me to adopt the latest of the dates 
 assigfued for him. It is that in which he mentions as a 
 thing observable, that when he was a youth he himself 
 had seen Polycarp ; and states at the same time that 
 Polycarp attained a very great age before his martyr- 
 dom. Now the date assigned for Polycarp's writings 
 
 * Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, p. 97. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 53 
 
 by Lord King is the year 140, and it is probable that 
 they were at least not much earher ; and if so, then 
 that those of Irenseus did not appear till considerably 
 after the middle of the second century, and probably not 
 till toward the latter part of it. Now it is acknow- 
 ledged that by that time a distinction between bishop 
 and presbyters, as of different orders, began to prevail, 
 although it was much less considerable than it became 
 afterward. This fact, therefore, may reasonably be sup- 
 posed to have influenced the style of Irenseus's writings, 
 and accounts for the difference in this respect between 
 him and Polycarp. 
 
 In regard to the character of Ireneeus, and the weight 
 due to his testimony, I wish not to detract from it. 
 Yet, as in all other uninspired human compositions, so 
 also in those of the ancient Christian writers in par- 
 ticular, due allowance must be made for the time and 
 the circumstances in w^hich they wrote, which had a 
 pervading influence both on their turn of thought and 
 their style of expression. And in regard to Irenseus 
 himself, notwithstandino^ Mosheim's commendation of 
 the " erudition" of his books against heresies, for that 
 is the amount of it, another very eminent critic, himself 
 an Episcopalian — I mean Archdeacon Jortin — says of 
 that ancient father, '' I fear it wdll be no very easy task 
 to clear him entirely from the imputation of credulity 
 and inaccuracy."* 
 
 Dr. C, moreover, seems to suppose, or leaves his 
 readers to suppose, that Irena^us wrote in Latin; and 
 hence he appends to his own work the third chapter of 
 the third book of Irenseus against heresies in Latin, 
 without stating that this not only was not the original, 
 but that, even as a translation, it is pronounced by an 
 able judge to be excessively barbarous.j 
 
 * Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i, p. 363. 
 t See Dr. Machine's note, Mosheim, vol. i, p. 177, 
 
54 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED, 
 
 In introducing his quotations from Irenseus, Dr. C 
 says, " The following is a translation of the third chap- 
 ter of the third of those books Against Heresies — " * 
 Would not readers generally infer from this, that he 
 meant a translation from the original ? Whereas, if he 
 would not make an erroneous impression, he should 
 have said, — The following is a translation of a transla- 
 tion : to which, on the authority of Dr. Maclaine, I add, 
 and that an excessively barbarous one. 
 
 Dr. Miller makes a quotation from the fourth book 
 of Irenseus, ch. xliv, which is rendered thus : " We 
 ought therefore to adhere to ihose presbyters who keep 
 the apostles' doctrine, and together with the preshyterial 
 succession, do show forth sound speech. Such presby- 
 ters the church nourishes; and of such the prophet 
 says, I will give them princes in peace, and bishops in 
 righteousness r In his criticisms on this quotation, Dr. 
 Cooke says, " The passage runs thus in Irengeus : 
 * Adhaerere vero his qui,"'&c. f Would not readers 
 generally most fairly and reasonably infer from this, 
 that Dr. C. meant to convey the idea that these were 
 the identical words of Irenseus himself? It may not be 
 amiss then to inform such that this is altogether a mis- 
 take ; Irenseus did not write in Latin at all, but in 
 Greek : and that we have not even an opportunity to 
 compare the barbarous Latin of his translator, in this 
 part of the work, with the original ; since the first book 
 only of Irena3us is extant in the original Greek, the rest 
 being preserved to us only in the barbarous Latin trans- 
 lation. Yet on this Dr. C. would build criticisms and 
 inferences of such immense importance to the very 
 being of the Christian church ! I pray thee have us 
 excused. 
 
 But I will take Dr. C. on his own criticism. The 
 phrase " cum presbyteri ordine,^' from the Latin transla^ 
 
 ♦Page71» t Page 76, no^e. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 65 
 
 tion of Irenreus, is rendered in Dr. Millers quotation, 
 " v.-itli the preshyterial succession.^' Now, says Dr. C, 
 " To bear this signification, there should be an adjective 
 to agree with ordijie, or the noun should be in the plural, 
 pi'eshyterorum. As it stands, it can only mean some- 
 thing belonging to a presbyter. We frequently meet 
 with the expression successiones cjnscoporum, not epis- 
 copi : so, if this passage meant preshyterial succession, 
 or a succession of presbyters, the word used would 
 have been preshjterorwn, not preshyte^i.'"* Well, let us 
 take, then, the following passage from the same Latin 
 translation of Iren^eus, and apply his own rule to it : — 
 " Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem qu?e est ab apos- 
 tolis quae per successiones preshyterorum in ecclesiis cus- 
 toditur, provocamus eos, qui adversantur tradition!, 
 dicent se non solum presbyteris, sed etiam apostolis 
 existentes sapientiores, synceram invenisse veritatem." 
 Lib. iii, cap. 2. Here we have the precise phrase " suc- 
 cessiones preshyterorum,^' which, according to Dr. C, 
 himself, means preshyterial succession. Indeed, if " suc- 
 cessiones episcoponwi" means episcopal succession, as he 
 contends, then " successiones preshyterorum,^' by his own 
 rule, must mean preshyterial succession. He must in- 
 evitably admit both or give up both, or renounce all 
 pretensions to candour in criticism. 
 
 Let it be especially noted here, also, that in the above 
 cited passage from Irenseus, not only are the successions 
 of jjreshytcrs mentioned as the channel through which 
 the apostolic tradition [whether of doctrine or order] had 
 been preserved in the churches, but no notice whatever 
 is taken of any superior order ; an omission, which, had 
 there been any such of the distinct supreme rank 
 which Dr. C. alleges for bishops, would, to say the 
 least, have been extremely unbecoming, and would 
 argue very little in favour of the accuracy of the author, 
 
 • Page 76. 
 
56 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 Granting then that the phrase " successiones episcopO' 
 rwnf is also to be met with, — -what does this prove ? It 
 proves precisely what we believe to be the true and 
 candid view of the subject : that is to say, that even 
 down to the time of Irenseus, and to the end of that cen- 
 tury, either no difference of order was considered as 
 existing between presbyters and bishops, or the differ- 
 ence was regarded as so small and unessential, that 
 these titles w^ere frequently interchanged by the writers 
 of those times. In fact, as Dr. Campbell affirms, and. 
 as the above passage plainly shows, Irenseus talks in 
 much the same style of both. What at one time he 
 ascribes to bishops, at another he ascribes to presbyters. 
 He speaks of each as entitled to obedience from the 
 people, as succeeding the apcstles in the ministry, and 
 as the succession through which the apostolic doctrine 
 and tradition had been handed down. 
 
 That the names bishop and presbyter are often inter- 
 changed by Irenseus, as well as other writers of his 
 time, even to the end of the century, is admitted by the 
 learned Bishop Pearson^ who, however, maintains that 
 this happened only when they spoke of the ministry in 
 general terms, or mentioned those ministers only who 
 had preceded them; affirming that, in regard to their 
 own contemporaries, the offices of individuals are never 
 thus confounded. Dr. Campbell admits the truth of 
 this remark, and considers it a very strong confirm- 
 ation of the doctrine here defended. For what rea- 
 sonable account can be given of this manner (other- 
 wise chargeable wdth the most unpardonable inaccu- 
 racy) but by saying that in the time of the predecessors 
 of Irenseus there was no material distinction of order 
 between bishops and presbyters ; whereas in his own 
 time the distinction began to be marked by peculiar 
 powers and prerogatives. If this had not been the case, 
 it was as little natural as excusable to be less accurate in 
 gpeaking of those that went before, than of those in his 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 57 
 
 own time. Was it ever observed of writers in the fourth 
 and fifth centuries, to come no lower, that they in this 
 manner confounded the ditTerent ecclesiastical offices of 
 the third ? Is Cyprian, for instance, in any succeeding 
 age, styled a presbyter of Carthage, or Rogatian the 
 bishop? Are not their respective titles as miiformly 
 observed in after ajj-es as in their own ? " 
 
 In regard to the passage above mentioned, as cited by 
 Dr. Miller from Irenaeus, book iv, chap, xliv., on which 
 Dr. C. founds his criticism respecting the presbyterial 
 succession, which I have just discussed, he subsequently 
 adds as follows : ^' For the whole amount of it, as it 
 stands, is. To such presbyters (as with the discipline 
 of a presbyter show forth sound speech, &c.) I will 
 give princes in peace, and bishops in righteousness. 
 Certainly" [continues Dr. C] "it would not appear from 
 this form of expression that the presbyter was the 
 bishop." t 
 
 Whether this observation be solid or merely specious 
 may be tested by an allusion to the same place of the 
 prophet, by another moi'e ancient and more immediately 
 apostolical father, — I mean Clement, whose testimony I 
 have before adduced. This father, in his epistle to the 
 Corinthians, before mentioned, states, chap, xlh, that 
 "the apostles, having preached the gospel in countries 
 and towns, constituted the hrst-fruits of their ministry, 
 wdiom they approved by the Spirit, bishops and deacons 
 of those who should believe." And to show that he 
 did not use these words vaguely, but as expressive of 
 the distinct orders established by the apostles in the 
 churches, he adds, " Nor was this a new device, inas- 
 much as bishops and deacons had been pointed out 
 many ages before ; for thus says the Scripture, ' I will 
 constitute their bishops in righteousness and their dea- 
 
 * Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, pp. 100, 101. 
 t Pages 76, 77. 
 
58 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 cons in faith.' ""^ The passage aUuded to is Isaiah 
 Ix, 17. Whether Clement's translation or application 
 of it be correct is not now in question. It is enough 
 for our present purpose that it shows clearly, not only 
 what his opinion but what his knowledge was of the 
 orders of ministers constituted by the apostles in the 
 churches which they planted ; for to do this was his 
 express design. Those whom in this passage he calls 
 bishops, in other parts of the same epistle he calls pres- 
 byters, demonstrating thereby that he uses the two terms 
 interchangeably, as expressive of one and the same 
 order. And most indisputably he speaks of but two 
 orders in the apostolical churches, constituted by the 
 apostles themselves ; at the same time that his express 
 object was to state the ministerial orders in the churches 
 thus constituted. If, then, we interpret Irenseus by 
 Clement, a more ancient father, and the fellow-labourer 
 of St. Paul himself, we must say, in contradiction of 
 Dr. C, that it w^ould appear from his form of expres- 
 sion, — Clement being interpreter, — both that the bishop 
 was a presbyter, and that a presbyter was the bishop ; 
 in a word, that the ministerial degrees in the apos- 
 tolical churches consisted of two orders only, whether 
 called bishops and deacons, or presbyters and deacons. 
 Keeping this in view, as placed in this clear light by 
 the venerable Clement, there remains no difficulty what- 
 ever, on the principles of the Methodist Episcopal polity, 
 in any part of the whole third chapter of the third book 
 of Irenseus, or in any other quotation from that father, 
 even as given in the translation of a translation, fur- 
 nished by Dr. C. 
 
 Dr. C. himself thus sums up his own view of the 
 strongest points, extracted from Irenseus. 
 
 " 1. That the apostles appointed bishops in all the 
 
 * So the passage from Clemept is rendered in Campbell's Lectures, 
 p. 70. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 59 
 
 churches, and left them as their successors to govern 
 THE church. 
 
 2. That the episcopate or bishopric was dehvered 
 to one person, and one bishop only at a time, is ever 
 mentioned as governing the church : thus the apostles 
 delivered the episcopate to Linus, to govern the church at 
 Rome ; Anacletus succeeded him, and after him, in the 
 third place, Clement obtained the episcopate ; and the 
 names of twelve successive bishops are given, who 
 governed that church, each in his day ; as indicated by 
 the expressions, under Clement, under Anicetus. 
 
 3. It is expressly stated that there were successions 
 of bishops in all the churches, and that with the church 
 at Rome, in which the names of twelve successive 
 bishops are given, every church should agree, that is, 
 those which were in all respects faithful. 
 
 4. That Polycarp was taught by the apostles, and 
 was hy them appointed bishop of Smyrna.''''^ 
 
 Again: "Irenseus says," [continues Dr. C] "True 
 knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, &c. according to 
 the successions of the bishops, to whom they (viz., the apos- 
 tles) delivered that church which is in every place ^'' &c.t 
 
 And again : " In the twentieth chapter of the fifth 
 book, speaking of those who derive their authority from 
 the apostles, in comparison with heretics, he says, ' For 
 they are all far behind the bishops to whom the apostles 
 delivered the churches, and this we have with all careful- 
 ness made apparent in the third book.' "f 
 
 Now in all the above, there is nothing whatever in 
 the slightest manner incompatible with the inherent 
 identity of the order of bishops and presbyters, as the 
 existing polity and usage of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, which give to the bishops official superiority 
 among their fellow-presbyters and in the government 
 of the churches, especially illustrate. This any intel- 
 
 • Page 73. t Page 74. 
 
60 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 iigent and candid person who will take the pains to look 
 into them may readily perceive and perfectly under- 
 stand. For it has been proved from Clement, as above, 
 that those whom the apostles constituted bishops in the 
 churches which they planted, and whom they left their 
 successors, delivering to them their own place of 
 government, were of that order of ministers next above 
 deacons, whom Clement sometimes calls bishops and at 
 other times presbyters, and that no other intervening 
 order whatever is mentioned or alluded to throughout 
 his whole epistle. If Irenseus therefore does not con- 
 tradict Clement, we must so understand him also ; and 
 if he does contradict him, then Clement is the better 
 authority of the two. 
 
 But that Irenreus does in fact agree with Clement, 
 there seems to me very plain and positive proof. In his 
 fourth book, chap, xhii, he speaks of " those presby- 
 ters in the church who have the succession, as he had 
 shown, from the apostles ; who, with the succession of 
 the episcopate, received the gift of truth, according to the 
 good pleasure of the Father." This passage Dr. C. 
 does not dispute ; but makes the following very just 
 comment on it : '' That Irenseus was here speaking of 
 bishops is concluded from the word ' episcopate,' and 
 from the reference to what he had said before.""^ Very 
 true. This is exactly our own opinion. And hence it 
 follows inc on te stably, according to this authority, that 
 the true succession from the apostles, and " the succes- 
 sion of the episcopate" itself, is with presbyters, one of 
 them at a time, within his charge, whether less or 
 more, being vested with official superiority in the 
 government of his fellow-ministers and the churches, 
 and yet being intrinsically and inherently but a pres- 
 byter among presbyters, — though occupying the first 
 seat and the first official degree, both in dignity and 
 
 • Page 77. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 61 
 
 authority ; as the speaker of the House of Commons, 
 in Great Britain, who, nevertheless, is still inherently 
 but a commoner among commoners. 
 
 Dr. C himself, indeed, is compelled to admit ''that 
 Irengeus sometimes uses the word presbyter in speak- 
 ing of those who govern the churches ; qui prcesu7it 
 ecdesiis. There are three other passages in which he 
 does the same." * 
 
 Afterward, it is true, he makes an effort to neutralize 
 this admission, on the principle that the apostles were 
 sometimes called elders ; and of the saying of Hilary^ 
 "The bishop is the chief, — though every bishop is a 
 presbyter, yet every presbyter is not a bishop." Very 
 true. This again is exactly our own opinion. And it 
 proves, according to Hilary also, that though everi/ 
 presbyter is not a bishop, yet that some presbyters are 
 bishops ; for this is evidently the drift of the saying. 
 Nor is this in the slightest measure contradicted by what 
 Irenaius says in other places " of the church [of Rome, 
 for example] being governed by the bishop, by one 
 BISHOP AT A TIME ;" or of thoso whose names he men- 
 tions in succession, " who singly governed the church, 
 each in his day.'''' On the plan of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal polity, presbyters do govern the churches " in the 
 sense in which the word prcBsunt is used." And. whe- 
 ther the term be applied to our bishops as general super- 
 intendents, or even to presiding elders within their dis- 
 tricts, or to our ordinary presbyters in charge of circuits 
 or stations in which there may be " many thousands of 
 Christians and numerous presbyters," still it may be 
 strictly said of them, " qui prcesunt ecdesiis,^^ — who pre- 
 side in or over the churches. 
 
 The " most explicit passage on this subject," in the 
 letter of Irenseus to Victor, bishop of Rome, admits of 
 exactly the same solution. And on a careful review of 
 
 * Page 77. 
 
62 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 what has been said, I now repeat the assertion of Dr. 
 Campbell, and what he states has been admitted by 
 Bishop Pearson, that the names bishop and presbyter 
 are often interchanged by Irenseus ; to which I add, 
 that this interchangeable use of them, as essentially the 
 same order, alone reconciles him both to himself and to 
 that still more venerable ancient, Clemens Romamis, 
 who being among the first bishops of Rome itself, the 
 very pattern and model of all other churches, according 
 to Ireneeus and Dr. C, certainly understood the true 
 apostolical order. 
 
 There remains one other " most explicit" passage, 
 adduced by Dr. Miller from the letter of Irenoeus to 
 Victor, bishop of Rome, which I do. not perceive that 
 Dr. C. has noticed. It is as follows : — " Those pres- 
 hijters before Soter, who governed the church, which thou 
 Victor, now governest, [the church of Rome,] I mean 
 Anicetus, Pius, Hiiyginus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus, they 
 did not observe it : [he is speaking of the day of keep- 
 ing Easter:} and those presbyters ivho preceded you, 
 though they did not observe it themselves, yet sent the 
 eucharist to those of other churches who did observe 
 it. And when blessed Polycarp, in the days of Ani- 
 cetus, came to Rome, he did not much persuade Anicetus 
 to observe it, as he (Anicetus) declared that the custom 
 of the presbyters who were his predecessors should be 
 retained." * 
 
 In this decisive passage, those who had. " singly 
 governed the church [of Rome] each in his day,'''' and 
 " in succession," before the time of Victor, who was 
 contemporary with Irenseus, probably between the 
 middle and close of the second century, are uniformly 
 styled presbyters. This seems to me a very strong 
 confirmation of the remark of Dr. Campbell, on the 
 admission of Bishop Pearson above quoted, viz., that 
 
 * Miller's Letters, pp. 152, 153. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 63 
 
 Irenaeus, and other Christian writers of that century, 
 used the names bishop and presbyter interchangeably, 
 in reference to those who had preceded them, because 
 the distinction of these church officers as two orders, 
 although it began, perhaps, to be somewhat prevalent 
 toward the middle of that century, yet had not, even to 
 its close, become by any means so settled as it after- 
 ward did ; and hence the great difference observable in 
 this respect between the style of the Christian writers 
 of the fourth and fifth centuries, for example, to come 
 no lower, and those of the second. 
 
 It cannot be necessary to repeat, in answer to Dr. C, 
 what has so often been said, and is so perfectly obvious 
 to the plainest understanding, that the attributing of 
 superiority in government and official elevation to the 
 individual presbyter constituted bishop, does not in the 
 slightest degree invalidate the remark above made, or 
 the argument founded on it. This is essential to our 
 own hypothesis, and is exemplified both in fact and in 
 language in our own ecclesiastical polity, now before 
 the eyes of the whole community. 
 
 Before I introduce a quotation from another Christian 
 father of the second century, I mean Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus, who flourished about the close of the century, 
 I must remind the reader that confirmation, as well as 
 ordination, is deemed by high churchmen as one of the 
 peculiar acts of a bishop. Dr. Miller had quoted Cle- 
 mens Alexandrinus as saying, in reference to the im- 
 propriety of women wearing false hair, — " On whom 
 or what will the presbyter impose his hand ? To whom 
 or what will he give his blessing ? Not to the woman 
 who is adorned, but to strange locks of hair, and through 
 them to another head." He had then remarked, that it 
 is extremely doubtful whether Clement here alludes to 
 confirmation at all, and that, if he does, it is the first 
 hint in all antiquity of this rite being practised ; and it 
 is especially unfortunate for the high church cause 
 
64 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED, 
 
 that Clement ascribes its performance to 'presbyters. 
 Dr. C, however, admits it as a case of confirmation, 
 and says, p. 87, " Here a presbyter confirms, which 
 being (Dr. Miller argues) the office of a bishop, it is 
 evident that bishops and presbyters are one. To this 
 [continues Dr. C] it is rephed, that in Egypt it was 
 the custom, when the bishop was absent, for the presby- 
 ters to confirm. 'Apud Mgyptum presbyteri conjirmant, 
 si prcBsens non sit episcopus' This very exception [Dr. 
 Cook still continues] proves the rule, that it was 
 the bishop's special duty. It w^as only when he was 
 absent that the presbyters confirmed ; and moreover, 
 the statement that in Egypt this was the custom, implies 
 that it was not the common practice of the church." In 
 the greater part of this passage Dr. C. speaks sensibly 
 and pertinently, and concedes, I think, every thing that 
 we need in the argument. Let it be especially noted 
 that he does not deny that confirmation, as well as ordi- 
 nation, is one of the peculiar acts of a bishop. And 
 then he admits that when the bishop was absent the 
 presbyter confirmed, although it was the bishop's special 
 duty when present. The latter I grant very freely. 
 But if in his absence the presbyter might perform acts 
 otherwise peculiar to him, then this proves that presby- 
 ters possess an inherent capacity for the legitimate per- 
 formance of such acts, — although in churches episco- 
 pally constituted, they are, for the sake of order and 
 harmony, restrained by the custom or law of the church 
 from the performance of such acts where there is a 
 bishop. And this is all we ask. As to the remaining 
 observation of Dr. C. that " the statement that in Egypt 
 this was the custom, implies that it was not the common 
 practice of the church," — I do not think that this is a 
 necessary consequence. It may be, that Clement, being 
 himself an Egyptian, meant to be understood as speak- 
 ing of what was within his own knowledge, without 
 intending to affirm or deny any thing as to the practice 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 65 
 
 in other countries. Analagous phrases, moreover, on 
 other subjects, will show at once that Dr. C.'s inference 
 is not a necessary one from the premises. If it be said, 
 for example, that in America there are persons of all 
 conditions, and a great diversity of soils and climates, — 
 does it by any means follow that, the speaker must 
 necessarily be understood as affirming that this is not 
 the case in any other quarter of the world? Clearly 
 not. No more, I think, is Dr. C.'s inference a neces- 
 sary one from the observation of Clement. 
 
 But be it, for argument's sake, that Clement so in- 
 tended. Still it is thus proved by his testimony, that 
 in Egypt at least, at that early period, this was deemed 
 a legitimate practice : and let it not be forgotten, that 
 besides the many other churches in Egypt, there was 
 that of Alexandria especially, one of the most famous 
 of all the ancient churches, the seat of Christian letters 
 and science, and, next after Rome, the greatest city in 
 the ancient world. That there may have been a diver- 
 sity in some of the usages, and in the polity, in import- 
 ant respects, among the primitive churches even of 
 apostolical plantation, seems highly probable, as well 
 from this instance, according to Dr. C.'s own view of it, 
 as from other considerations. And this, too, is in per- 
 fect accordance with our principles. 
 
 There is one decisive witness, however, whose testi- 
 mony as to the general usage, even down to a much 
 later period, wholly overthrows Dr. C.'s inference from 
 the above passage of Clement. The witness to whom 
 I allude is Jerome, one of the most eminent Christian 
 writers about the close of the fourth century and the 
 beginning of the fifth. I shall hereafter have occasion 
 for a much more particular reference to this father. At 
 present, I merely wish to adduce that well-known 
 passage in his famous letter to Evagrius : — " Quid enim 
 facit, excepta ordinatione, episcopus, quod presbyter non 
 faciat?" "For what does a bishop which a presbyter 
 
 5 
 
66 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 may not do, excepting ordination ?" In regard to ordi- 
 nation, the consideration of this passage will be resumed 
 in another place. At present I confine myself to the 
 point in hand, viz., confirmation. Does not Jerome ex- 
 pressly affirm in the above passage, — for the question 
 is but a mode of strongly affirming, — that even in his 
 time a bishop did nothing which a presbyter might not 
 do, except ordaining ? Nor does he affirm this as an 
 " exception," — as a thing limited to any particular place, 
 — but as a well-known general fact, which would not 
 then be disputed. Yet, plain as this is, and although 
 Dr. C. himself, after Bowden, quotes this very passage 
 in the English, to prove from Jerome that presbyters 
 had not the right of ordaining, so obstinately is he bent 
 on carrying his point, that in the very next paragraph, 
 p. 107, he undertakes to draw an inference from another 
 passage in the same Jerome, also taken from Bowden, 
 that bishops had the exclusive right of conjirmation also ! 
 In other words, Jerome first says explicitly and posi- 
 tively, in the interrogatory form of affirmation, that a 
 presbyter might do any thing a bishop did, except 
 ordination ; and Dr. C. himself quotes and urges this ; 
 yet in the next breath draws an inference from a vague 
 and ambiguous passage, that Jerome's testimony is, 
 that confirmation is the exclusive prerogative of a 
 bishop, as well as ordination, and that presbyters could 
 perform neither ! What may not be forced from a wit- 
 ness if tortured in this way ? 
 
 Just as easy would it be, on this plan of managing 
 testimony, to reconcile Tertullian, whom he next intro- 
 duces, with what he alleges from Ignatius. The latter 
 asserts, according to Dr. C, that where there is not a 
 bishop, priest, and deacon, in his sense, ^Hhere isno church.''^ 
 And Tertullian affirms that where there was none of the 
 clerical order, even laymen both celebrated the eucha- 
 rist and baptized, and served as priests to themselves : 
 for that three persons, though Imjmen, make a church, 
 
 6* 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 67 
 
 " Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers, 
 et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, eccle- 
 sia est, licet laici."^ 
 
 After the above extract, I should suppose that nothing 
 more, certainly, can be necessary to demonstrate that 
 TertuUian at least was not of the sect of high church. 
 But Dr. C. asserts, p. 91, that TertuUian and Irena3us 
 " agree entirely." How then does he reconcile this with 
 a former assertion that Irenseus agrees with what he 
 alleges from Ignatius ? For in regard to the essential 
 constituents of a church, TertuUian and the alleged 
 Ignatius are as diametrically at points as opposites can 
 possibly be ; and things agreeing with one and the 
 same thing ought to agree with each other. 
 
 There is another passage of TertuUian in the follow- 
 ing words : " Superest ad concludendam materiolam de 
 observatione quoque dandi et accipiendi baptismum 
 commonefacere. Dandi quidem habet jus summus sa- 
 cerdos, qui est episcopus. Dehinc presbyteri et diaconi ; 
 non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate propter ecclesisB 
 honorem. Quo salvo, salva pax est. Alioquin etiam 
 laicis jus est."t In English thus : — " It remains that 
 I remind you of the custom of giving and receiving bap- 
 tism. The rig-ht of givino: it belong-s to the hio^hest 
 priest, w ho is the bishop. Then to the presbyters and 
 deacons, yet not without the bishop's authority, for the 
 sake of the honour of the church. This being secured, 
 peace is secured. Otherwise even the laity have the 
 right." Does this also " entirely agree" with what Dr. 
 C. alleges from Ignatius, as to what is essential to the 
 very being of a church by divine institution ? 
 
 It is proper to apprize the reader that TertuUian is 
 not a writer upon whose speculations we should repose 
 implicit confidence ; although as to matters of fact and 
 
 * Exhortatio ad Castitalem. TertuUian was the first of the Latin fathers, 
 about the beginning of the third century, 
 t De Bap. cap. xvii. 
 
68 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 custom he may be regarded as an ordinarily credible 
 witness. The ill usage he received from the ecclesi- 
 astics of Rome is supposed to have contributed to make 
 him a Montanist, and thus, as Dr. Jortin remarks, he 
 lost the title of saint. The same author adds, that 
 though learned for his time he was deficient in judg- 
 ment, and fell into many errors. Yet, in citing him, as 
 I have done above, I have only to say, that if he be 
 good authority for our opponents, then surely it cannot 
 be unfair to turn their own artillery against themselves. 
 Tertullian^s opinion then was that the priesthood itself 
 is not of divine original, since by the gospel law all 
 Christians are priests, and that, consequently, the dis- 
 tinction between the priesthood and laity is of the 
 church's making : — " p'opter ecclesice honor em. — Alioquin 
 etiam laicis jus estr So Dr. Campbell understood him, 
 and so do I ; and it is submitted to the learned reader 
 whether this be not the obvious drift of Tertullian's 
 argument, and the true meaning of the passage cited 
 by Dr. C. Does Dr. C. affirm that in this also Tertul- 
 lian and Irena3us " entirely agree," and does he himself 
 adopt the sentiment ^"^ 
 
 * The mantle of charity which that ingenious and learned critic Dr. Jor- 
 tin casts over the learned African father now under review, with all his 
 defects, may well be commended to the consideration of ecclesiastical con- 
 trovertists and critics, in moderation of that odium theologicum which too 
 often disfigures and disgraces their productions ; at the same time that the 
 cause of truth itself is wounded through the intemperate zeal of overheated 
 friends. After mentioning Tertullian's losing, that is, failing to receive, the 
 title of saint, from the cause above stated, — a title, he adds, which hath 
 been often as wretchedly bestowed as other titles and favours, — he thus 
 continues : — 
 
 " Charity bids us suppose that he lost not what is infinitely more import- 
 ant. Several have thought too hardly concerning him ; never considering, 
 that, with all his abilities, he was deficient in jndgment, and had a partial 
 disorder in his understanding, which excuses almost as much as downright 
 phrensy. He was learned for those times, acute and ingenious, and some- 
 what satirical, hasty, credulous, impetuous, rigid and censorious, fanatical 
 and enlhusiastical, and a bad writer as to style, not perhaps through inca- 
 pacity of doing better, but through a false taste and a perverse aflectation. 
 He fell into many errors : but it is to be hoped that in another world the 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 69 
 
 But if Dr. C. means merely, as is possible, that Ter- 
 tuUian and Iren^us entirely agree as to the succession 
 of the early bishops of Rome, then let us examine this 
 point. Turning back to the translation of a translation 
 of the third chapter of Irenseus's third book against 
 heresies, as furnished by Dr. C, pages 71, 72, I find it 
 there stated, as the tradition of the Church of Rome, 
 that that church was founded " by the two most glori- 
 ous apostles Peter and Paul ;" whereas TertuUian, in 
 his account of the tradition of the same church, omits 
 the name of Paul, and says that it " tells of Clement 
 ordained by Peter.'^ 
 
 Again : Irenseus says, " The blessed apostles [not 
 Peter alone] delivered the bishopric to Linus. ''Tertul- 
 lian says the tradition was that Peter delivered it to 
 Clement.^ 
 
 Again : Irenseus says, that it was after both Linus 
 2ind A?iadetiis ; that " in the third place from the apostles 
 Clement obtained the bishopric"! Whereas TertuUian 
 says he was ordained directly by Peter. Is this what 
 Dr. C. asserts to be an entire agreement ? It strikes me, 
 on the contrary, as widely differing in every particular. 
 
 Now that I am on this point of the successions of the 
 bishops of Rome, it may not be amiss to trace it a little 
 farther. And here, I am sure, the reader cannot but be 
 more forcibly struck with the inexplicable confusion 
 and the irreconcilable contradiction which reign at the 
 very head of the line ; especially when he considers 
 what stress is laid on this thing by the high-church sect, 
 and that after all it is a mere matter of tradition, and of 
 a tradition so ill at agreement even with itself. If such 
 
 mistakes as well as the doubts of poor mortals are rectified, and forgiven too, 
 and that whosoever loves truth and virtue, 
 
 illic postquam se lumine vero 
 
 Implevit, stelln'sque vagas miratus et astra 
 Fixa polo, vidit quanta sub nocte jaceret 
 Nostra dies." 
 
 Remarks on Ecclesias. Hist. vol. i. p. 353> 
 •Dr. C, page 91. t Page 72. 
 
70 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 be the true state of the case with regard to the very 
 fountain spring, what possible certainty can there be in 
 its ramified streams ? And is this a foundation for such 
 a superstructure as high church would rear upon it? 
 
 At the very outset of an attempt to trace this matter 
 farther, the fact presents itself, not only that Tertullian 
 does not affree v/ith Irenceus, but that he does not ag-ree 
 even w^ith himself "His list," says Dr. C.,"^ " is as fol- 
 lows : Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens, Evaristus, &c." 
 Now, but a little before, p. 91, Dr. C. had himself ad- 
 duced a passage from a different work of Tertuliian's, 
 in which it was stated that the tradition was that Cle- 
 ment was ordained to the bishopric by Peter ; whereas 
 in this list he stands in the fourth place in the succes- 
 sion. Irenseus, as has been shown, assigns him the 
 third place. Epiphanius, agahi, differs from Irena^us 
 by making Cletiis the second, instead of Anacletus ; and 
 from Tertullian by omitting A?iadetus altogether ; and 
 still farther, he differs from them all, by giving two 
 Evaristuses in the line — which Dr. C. will have it, is 
 merely mentioning Evaristus's name twice. Nay, Dr. 
 C. himself, in attempting to harmonize Tertuliian's 
 conflicting statements, only makes a bad matter still 
 worse : for he shows that he contradicts the asser- 
 tion and the cherished tradition of the church in Rome 
 itself There, on the spot, the church of the Romans 
 asserted that Clement was ordained the first bishop by 
 Peter. " On the contrary, [says Dr. C.,] he [Tertul- 
 lian] says expressly, ' Hac cathedra, Petrus qua sede- 
 rat ipse, locatum maxima Roma Linum, pnmitm con- 
 sidere jussit.' ' In this chair, in which Peter himself had 
 sat, he commanded Linus, settled in Great lloine, Jirst 
 
 to sit.'" t 
 
 Here is not only confusion itself confounded, but 
 
 •Page 97. 
 
 t rajrp 99. [There are memoranda here indicating that the author in- 
 tended to add more. — Ed.] 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 71 
 
 palpable and irreconcilable contradiction, amidst which, 
 being wholly at a loss which to believe, the only safe 
 alternative seems to be to reject them all ; and especially, 
 as it is altogether uncertain, in fact, whether even Peter 
 himself ever was in Rome.'^ 
 
 Dr. C. indeed has certainly a very fertile imagina- 
 tion ; and conjectures (in which he quotes Cave as sup- 
 porting him) that the difference between Irenoeus and 
 Epiphanius consists merely in rnisspeUing names, — the 
 one writing Cletus and the other Anacletus, but both 
 intending only one and the same person. We prefer, 
 however, to take the history as it stands, without the 
 emendation of either Dr. C. or Cave. For as both Ire- 
 naeus and Epiphanius were men of " erudition," it is to 
 be presumed that they knew how to spell names of such 
 distinction and notoriety, or to copy " a list," which Dr, 
 Cooke takes upon himself to affirm " was kept in each 
 
 * The whole of the traditionary statements (for they are nothing better) 
 imputed to Ireiiaeus and other ancient fathers, respecting the foundation of 
 that " greatest, most ancient, and universally known church" of Rome, " by 
 the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul," have very much the air of 
 the fabrications of a later period. For it is certain, in the first place, that 
 the church of Rome was not the " most ancient," if " the greatest," and in 
 the second place, that Paul was not its founder, as is manifest from his own 
 epistle to that church. The following observations, from Dr. Adam Clarke's 
 preface to his notes on that epistle, place this matter in a clear light : — 
 
 " When, or by whom the gospel was first preached at Rome cannot be as- 
 certained. Those who assert that St. Peter was its founder, can produce 
 no solid reason for the suj'port of their opinion. Had this apostle first 
 preached the gospel in that city, it is not likely that such an event would 
 have been unnoticed in the Acts of the Apostles, where the labours of St. 
 Peter are particularly detailed with those of St. Paul, which indeed form the 
 chief subject of this book. Nor is it likely that tiie author of this epistle 
 should have made no reference to this circumstance, had it been true. Those 
 who say that this church was founded by these two apostles conjointly have 
 still less reason on their side; for it is evident from chap, i, 8, &c., that 
 St. Paul had never been at Rome, previously to his writing this epistle. It 
 is most likely that no apostle was employed in this important work ; and 
 that the gospel was first preached there by some of those persons who were 
 converted at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost ; for we find from Acts 
 ii, 10, that there were then at Jerusalem strangers of Rome, Jews, and pro- 
 selytes ; and these, on their return, would naturally declare the wonders 
 they had witnessed ; and proclaim that truth by which they themselves ha(J 
 received salvation," 
 
72 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 church ;" and that in a matter of such importance th^y 
 used dihgence and care. And if they did not, then their 
 histories are entitled to the less credit. 
 
 In coming down to the time of Cyprian, a favourite au- 
 thority with high-church writers, I have no hesitation to 
 grant, not only that by that time the polity of the Christian 
 churches generally was " episcopal," in the proper sense 
 of this term, as indeed I believe it always was, but that 
 Cyprian and other Christian writers of that age used a 
 style clearly expressive of three official distinctions in 
 the ministry, whether denominated orders, degrees, or 
 by whatever other name they may be called. I am free 
 to admit, also, that down to that time, about the middle 
 of the third century, the powers and prerogatives of the 
 bishops had been steadily advancing, and those of the 
 presbyters gradually depressed, so that even at that 
 period, the style and state of bishops, as compared with 
 other presbyters, presented an aspect very different from 
 that which had been exhibited either in the apostolical 
 age, or in that which immediately succeeded the death 
 of the last of the inspired college. At that period, 
 moreover, and increasingly so thereafter, there are plain 
 indications that presbyters were not only restricted from 
 the actual performance of what was deemed the pecu- 
 liarly sacred function of ordination, at least without the 
 bishop's permission, (and in churches episcopally consti- 
 tuted very properly so,) but that it became very unusual 
 for the bishop to grant this permission ; and, as Dr. 
 Campbell has well remarked, the transition from seldom 
 to never is very natural ; and just as natural, in our 
 w^ays of judging, from w^hat is never done to what can- 
 not lawfully be done. 
 
 The true question, however, and the only true ques- 
 tion, at this stage of the controversy, still remains, and 
 is wholly unaffected by any of the above admissions. 
 It is not whether presbyters actually did ordain at the 
 period in question, either alone or in conjunction with a 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 73 
 
 bishop as his colleague, — but whether it was even then 
 generally judged and admitted that there either is any- 
 thing essential in the character of the ministry itself, or 
 of universal and perpetual obligation in its divine insti- 
 tution, which makes it unlawful, invalid, and null for 
 presbyters to perform this function in churches which 
 have no bishops in fact, or with the permission or by the 
 direction of the bishop in those which have, and where 
 there are no laws, usages, or order of such churches to 
 the contrary. On this question there is not wanting tes- 
 timony in support of our views, even in Cyprian, as 
 much as he was disposed to exalt the episcopal prero- 
 gative, and to bring in an unlimited multitude of popes, 
 while he manfully resisted the arrogant assumptions of 
 one, as above shown. 
 
 Dr. Miller, in reference to the sentiments of Cyprian, 
 had said that he not only repeatedly calls the presbyters 
 of Carthage his colleagues, but that in writing to them 
 when he was himself in exile, he requests them, during 
 his absence, to perform Ids duties as well as their own ; 
 which seems plainly to imply that he considered them 
 inherently capable in his absence, and by his permission 
 or request, to perform wiiatever was deemed peculiar to 
 the office of the bishop when present, as well as their 
 own ordinary functions. Dr. C. answers that Cyprian's 
 words are not quoted ; and that, supplying the defect 
 from Hooker, what Cyprian exhorted and commanded 
 his presbyters to do was, " to supply his room in doing 
 those things which the exercise of religion requires ^"^ 
 I ask then, whether the following, from Cyprian's fifth 
 epistle, be not the place to which Dr. Miller alludes : — 
 " Quoniam mihi interesse nunc non permittit loci con- 
 ditio, peto vos pro fide et religione vestra, fungamini illic 
 et vestris partibus et meis, ut nihil vel ad disciplinam vel 
 ad diligentiam desit." 
 
 • Page 94. 
 
74 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 Will not Dr. C. undertake to affirm that, to supply his 
 (Cyprian's) room " in doing those things which the exer- 
 cise of religion requires^'' is "an exact translation" of 
 ^'fungamini illic et vestris partihus et meis V On the 
 contrary, I appeal to every reader in the least acquainted 
 with the Latin tongue, M^hether it be not an explicit en- 
 treaty to them to perform, in the exigence of his neces- 
 sary absence, the functions peculiar to his office when 
 present, as well as those ordinarily their own ? And had 
 he intended any limitation, and especially if he meant 
 to except the chief function of all — ordination, would he 
 not have said so, or have given some intimation of it ? 
 Instead of this, he gives them but one simple general 
 rule for their guidance, as long as it might be necessary 
 for him to continue absent, and that was to perform the 
 duties of his office as well as their own. And I submit 
 it, moreover, to the unmystified understanding of every 
 reader, whether, if a vacancy had actually occurred, 
 either in the deaconship or the eldership of that church 
 during Cyprian's absence, (which would have made it 
 the more especially desirable that it should be filled,) 
 the above request would not have been a sufficient war- 
 rant, so far as Cyprian's sanction was concerned, to 
 authorize the presbytery to proceed to supply such 
 vacancy by an actual ordination. 
 
 This view of the subject is greatly strengthened by 
 the following passage, in a letter to Cyprian from Fir- 
 milian bishop of Csesarea, one of his contemporaries : — 
 " Quando omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta 
 sit, ubi prcesident majores natu, qui et baptizandi et 
 manum imponendi, et ordinandi possident potestatem."* 
 That is, " Since all power and grace is established in 
 the church, where elders preside, who have the power 
 both of baptizing and imposing hands, and ordaining^ 
 On the original Latin of this passage, as above, the fol- 
 
 •Cyprian's Epis., p. 75. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 75 
 
 lowing remarks of Dr. Campbell are so clear and satis- 
 factory that I add them entire. 
 
 " That by ?najores natu, in Latin, is meant the same 
 with Ttpea^vrepoi Ui Grcck, of whicli it is indeed a literal 
 version, can scarcely be thought questionable. Besides, 
 the phrase so exactly coincides with that of Tertul- 
 lian, who says, ' Probati prsesident seniores,' — approved 
 elders preside, — as to make the application, if possible, 
 still clearer. Indeed, if we were not to consider the 
 Latin, majores natu, as meant to correspond to the 
 Greek TrpeuiSvTepot, the only translation we could give to the 
 phrase used by Firmilian would be, ' where old men 
 preside ;' an affirmation which could hardly ever have 
 been in such general terms given with truth. For 
 when the canonical age of bishops came to be esta- 
 blished, it was no more than thirty ; and it is a certain 
 fact that, both before and after that canon, several were 
 ordained younger. I am far from thinking that under 
 this term, ' majores natu,' those who were then pecu- 
 Harly called bishops are not included, or even prin- 
 cipally intended : but what I maintain is, that, now 
 that the distinction had obtained, the use of so com- 
 prehensive a term seems sufficiently to show that it 
 was not his intention to affirm it of the latter order, 
 exclusively of the former, else he would never have 
 employed a word which, when used strictly, was ap- 
 propriated to the former order and not to the latter. — 
 Thus the name priests, in English, in the plural num- 
 ber, is often adopted to denote the clergy in general, 
 both bishops and priests. But no intelligent person 
 that understands the lang'uao'e, and does not intend to 
 deceive, would express himself in this manner — ' Li the 
 Church of England the priests have the power of bap- 
 tizing, confirming, and ordaining.' Nor could he excuse 
 himself by pretending that in regard to the two last ar- 
 ticles, he meant by the word priests the bishops, exclu- 
 sively of those more commonly, and for distinction's 
 
76 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 sake, called priests. Yet the two cases are exactly 
 parallel; for in Firmilian's time the distinction of the 
 three orders was, though not so considerable, as w^ell 
 known by the Christians in Cappadocia and in Africa, 
 as they are at this day in England." ^ 
 
 These just and forcible observations are also a full 
 answer to a remark which Dr. C. makes, p. 96, on Dr. 
 Miller's reference to the above passage, and which is so 
 frequently repeated throughout his book, viz., " that 
 some writers occasionally used the general term pres- 
 byter, or priest, in speaking of the bishop." That they 
 sometimes used the general term presbyters, or priests, 
 inclusively of the bishop or bishops, is granted. But 
 after that the distinction of three orders became general, 
 as was the case in Firmilian's time, no sensible writer 
 would choose this comprehensive term in describing the 
 functions peculiar to bishops, as contradistinguished 
 from, and exclusively of, presbyters, to whom, strictly, 
 this designation is appropriate. On this point Dr. Camp- 
 bell's illustration seems to me perfectly conclusive. 
 " The name priests, in English, in the plural number, is 
 often adopted to denote the clergy in general, both 
 bishops and priests. But no intelligent person, that 
 understands the language, and does not intend to de- 
 ceive, w^ould express himself in this manner — ' In the 
 Church of England the priests have the power of bap- 
 tizing-, confirming- and ordaining-.' Nor could he excuse 
 himself by pretending that in regard to the last two ar- 
 ticles, he meant by the word priests the bishops, exclu- 
 sively of those more commonly, and for distinction's 
 sake, called j)riests." In regard to the parallel passage 
 of Tertullian, quoted by Dr. Campbell as illustrative 
 of the majores natu of Firmilian, Dr. C. thinks that the 
 phrase, " Praesident probati quique seniores," means 
 " that certain approved old men presided ;" and then 
 
 'Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, pp. 114, 115. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 77 
 
 adds, " and this term is so general that it certainly does 
 not indicate presbyters particularly.""^ If by " particu- 
 larly," Dr. C. means exclusivehj, it is granted. But does 
 this general term exclude presbyters 1 Does it indicate 
 bishops in Dr. C.'s sense of bishops, and bishops only ? 
 This is the true question, and common sense, with 
 common honesty, may answer it. 
 
 In addition to what Dr. Campbell says as to the ren- 
 dering of the phrase " old men," that it imputes to the 
 writer an affirmation which could hardly ever, in such 
 general terms, have been made with truth, — I may cite 
 a passage from one of the letters of Ignatius, as fur- 
 nished by Dr. C. himself: ''Wherefore it will become 
 you also not to use your bishop too familiarly, upon the 
 account of his youth ; not considering his age, which 
 indeed to appearance is young.'''' Epist. to the Magnesians. 
 So also Paul to Timothy, "Let no man despise thy youth." 
 
 As to the observation which Dr. C. somewhere makes, 
 that the period anciently denominated " youth" extended 
 to a considerable age, it is wholly irrelevant ; because, 
 in the first place, the writers of those times would not 
 call old tnen those whom their lang-uao'e and custom 
 classed among the young ; and in the second, the very 
 charges given both by Ignatius and St. Paul show that 
 Timothy and the Magnesian bishop were young in 
 fact, and therefore liable to be treated too familiarly, if 
 their elevated character and conduct did not protect them 
 against it. 
 
 But of all the extraordinary things in Dr. C.'s book, 
 his representations of the views of Jerome surprise me 
 most. Whether he has exhibited them justly and truly, 
 the reader shall have an opportunity to judge. 
 
 I had before occasion to remark, incidentally, that 
 Jerome was a Christian writer of the latter part of the 
 fourth century. " A man," says Dr. Campbell, " who 
 
 • Page 88. 
 
78 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 had more erudition than any other person then in the 
 church, the greatest hnguist, the greatest critic, the 
 greatest antiquary of them all." This will probably not 
 be disputed ; and consequently the reader may well 
 suppose that he was capable of expressing himself in- 
 telligibly on a subject which he professedly took in 
 hand to treat. Now let it be carefully observed, that 
 the question here, for the present, is not whether Je- 
 rome's views were right or wrong, but what were they ; 
 and has Dr. C. correctly and fairly represented them 1 
 In the days of Jerome, then, it seems that some deacon 
 had taken upon him to assert that the order of deacons 
 was superior to that of presbyters. To come at his 
 error, and at the same time to chastise his arrogance, 
 Jerome, in his epistle to Evagrius, says : — '' I hear that 
 a certain person has broken out into such folly, that he 
 prefers deacons before preshjters, that is, before bishops; 
 for when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and 
 bishops were the same, who can endure it that a minister 
 of tables and of widows should proudly exalt himself 
 above those at whose prayers the body and blood of 
 Christ is made ? Do you seek for authority ? Hear that 
 testimony, — Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, 
 to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with 
 the bishops and deacons. Would you have another ex- 
 ample ? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul speaks thus 
 to the priests of one church : Take heed to yourselves, 
 and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made 
 you bishops, that you govern the church which he hath pur- 
 chased with his own blood. And lest any one should con- 
 tend about there being a plurality of bishops in one 
 church, hear also another testimony, by which it may 
 most manifestly be proved that a bishop and presbyter 
 are the same. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that 
 thou shouldst set in order the things that are yvanting, and 
 ordain presbyters in every city, as I have appointed thee. 
 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c. For a 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 79 
 
 bishop must he blameless as steward of God. And to 
 Timothy, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was 
 given thee by prophecy, by the laying on of the hands of the 
 presbytery. And Peter, also, in his first epistle saith, 
 The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am 
 also a presbyter, and a ?vit?iess of the sufferings of Christ, 
 and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed ; 
 to rule the flock of Christ, and to inspect it, not of con- 
 straint, but willingly, according to God ; which is more 
 significantly expressed in the Greek EmaKOTrowTec, that is, 
 superintending it, whence the 7iame of bishop is drawn. 
 Do the testimonies of such men seem small to thee ? 
 Let the evangelical trumpet sound, the so?i of thunder, 
 whom Jesus loved much, who drank the streams of 
 doctrine from our Saviour's breast. The presbyter to 
 th£ elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth. 
 And in another epistle. The presbyter to the beloved Gaius, 
 whom I love in the truth. But that one was afterward 
 chosen, who should be set above the rest, was done as 
 a remedy against schism ; lest every one drawing the 
 church of Christ to himself, should break it in pieces. 
 For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist, to Hera- 
 clas and Dionysius, the bishops thereof, the presbyters 
 always named one, chosen from among them, and 
 placed in a higher degree, bishop. As if an army should 
 make an emperor ; or the deacons should choose one of 
 themselves, whom they knew to be most diligent, and 
 call him archdeacon''' Miller's Letters, pp. 184, 185. 
 
 Again : in his commentary on St. Paul's epistle to 
 Titus, the same very eminent father says : — 
 
 " Let us diligently attend to the words of the apostle, 
 saying, That thou may est ordain elders ifi every city, as I 
 have appointed thee. Who, discoursing in what follows 
 what sort of presbyter is to be ordained, saith, If any one 
 be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c., afterward adds, 
 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, 
 &c. A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop ; and 
 
80 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED- 
 
 before there were, by the devil's instmct, parties in reli- 
 gion, and it was said among the people, / am of Paul, 
 and I of Apollo s, and I of Cej?has, the churches were 
 governed by the common council of presbyters. But 
 afterward, when every one thought that those whom he 
 baptized were rather his than Christ's, it was determined 
 through the whole world that one of the presbyters 
 should be set above the rest, to whom all care of the 
 church should belonsr, that the seeds of schism mig-ht 
 be taken away. If any suppose that it is merely our 
 opinion, and not that of the Scriptures, that bishop and 
 presbyter are the same, and that one is the name of age, 
 the other of offce, let him read the words of the apostle 
 to the Philippians, saying, Paul and Timothy, the ser- 
 vants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that 
 are at Philippi ; with the hishops and deacons. Philippi 
 is a city of Macedonia, and certainly in one city there 
 could not be more than one bishop, as they are now 
 styled. But at that time they called the same men 
 hishops w^hom they called presbyters, therefore he speaks 
 indifferently of bishops as of presbyters. This may 
 seem even yet doubtful to some, till it be proved by an- 
 other testimony. It is written in the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, that when the apostle came to Miletus, he sent to 
 Ephesus, and called the preshyters of that church, to whom, 
 among other thmgs, he said. Take heed to yourselves, and 
 to all the flock over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you 
 hishops, to feed the church of God ivhicli he hath purchased 
 with his own blood. Here observe diligently, that calling 
 together the presbyters of one city, Ephesus, he after- 
 ward styles the same persons bishops. If any will 
 receive that epistle which is wTitten in the name of Paid 
 to the Hebrews, there also the care of the church is 
 divided among many, since he writes to the people, 
 Obey them that have the rule over you, and suhmit your- 
 selves, for they watch for your souls, as those that must 
 give an account, that they may do it with, joy and not with 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 81 
 
 grief, for that is unprqfitahle for you. And Peter (so 
 called from the firmness of bis faith) in his epistle saith, 
 The iweshyters ivhich are among you I exhort, 7vho am 
 also a 'presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, 
 and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed, 
 Feed the flock of God which is among you, not by con- 
 straint, bat willingly. These things I have written to 
 show that among the ancients presbyters and bishops 
 were the same. But, by little and little, that all the 
 seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole 
 care was devolved on one. As, therefore, the presbyters 
 know that by the custom of the church they are subject 
 to him who is their president, so let bishops know that 
 they are above presbyters more by the custom of the 
 church than by the true dispe7isatio7i of Christ ; and that 
 they ought to rule the church in common, imitating 
 Moses, who, when he might alone rule the people of 
 Israel, chose seventy with whom he might judge the 
 people." Miller's Letters, pp. 180-183. 
 
 After carefully perusing the above passages, without 
 reference to any purposes of party or system, can any 
 intelligent and candid reader doubt that Jerome intended 
 (in vindication of the true primitive order of presbyters 
 as divinely instituted, and in correction of the assuming 
 deacon whose presumption was the occasion of the first 
 passage) to assert, 
 
 1. That in the apostolical age, and by the Divine in- 
 stitution, bishops and presbyters were one and the same 
 order : and that what he had written then was expressly 
 to show that " among the ancients" this was the case. 
 
 2. That it was as a remedy against schisms, after 
 that age, viz. : when every one thought that those whom 
 he baptized were rather his than Christ's, that it was 
 determined through the whole world, that one of the 
 presbyters should be set above the rest, to w^hom sub- 
 sequently, and fully so by Jerome's time, the title bishop 
 came to be distinctively appropriated. 
 
 6 
 
82 EPISCOPAL CONTHOVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 3. That the above change in the government of the 
 churches took place, not all at once, but gradually, {pau- 
 latim,) hj little and little. How long it was before it 
 became general or universal not being stated. 
 
 4. That the true footing of the acquired superiority 
 of bishops above presbyters was, that hy the custom of 
 the church, rather than by the true dispensation of Christy 
 they had, hy little and little, been elevated to the official 
 superiority of preside7its, or presiding presbyters, to 
 whom the rest, with their free consent, as seems plainly 
 implied, and for the sake of order and harmony, had be- 
 come subjected. In other words, that this state of things 
 gradually took the place of the original primitive order, 
 and was of the church's making, though for expedient 
 and salutary purposes, and not of Divine institution, or 
 by divine right. 
 
 5. That the presidency or official superiority of 
 bishops, which thus gradually took place in the church, 
 was no other than such as the body of presbyters them- 
 selves could and did confer. In proof of which, and in 
 evidence that this actual practice had not wholly ceased 
 until a comparatively late period, he adduces the noted 
 instance of the famous church at Alexandria, as above 
 recited. 
 
 This summary of Jerome's sentiments, which I beg 
 the reader to compare with the passages above quoted, 
 makes him consistent with himself, and with the express 
 object of his letter to Evagrius, which was to show that 
 presbyters, so far from being inferior to deacons, as 
 some vain deacon had weakly or proudly asserted, were 
 primarily of the same order with bishops. A contrary 
 interpretation, on the other hand, makes his argument 
 incoherent, inconsistent, and subversive of his avowed 
 design. 
 
 Dr. Miller remarks that it might be a matter of sur- 
 prise to learn that some episcopal writers had ventured 
 to say that Jerome merely conjectured that in the apos- 
 
 6^ 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 83 
 
 tie's days bishops and presbyters were the same. What 
 surprise may not justly be excited, to learn that Dr. C. 
 has the controversial hardihood roundly to affirm, and 
 to endeavour to make his readers believe, " that this 
 passage from Jerome, taken as it is offered, [that is, as I 
 understand, taken as quoted by Dr. Miller, and above 
 from him,] plainlij declares that episcopacy [of course in 
 the high-church sense asserted by Dr. C] was esta- 
 bhslied through the whole world by a decree .... in 
 the time of Paul and the other apostles, and conse- 
 quently was done hy them, and is therefore a Divine in- 
 stitution." In other words, as he had said a little be- 
 fore, that it was done " by all the apostles ; originated 
 with these inspired servants of God ; and is therefore 
 a Divine institution, and absolutely binding on all the 
 church." All which, whether directly, or by just and fair 
 inference. Dr. C. asserts he has shown " that this pas- 
 sage from Jerome, taken as it is offered, plainly de- 
 clares.''^* 
 
 That I do not misunderstand Dr. C. seems entirely 
 clear from the various forms and places in which, in 
 substance, he repeats this assertion, and especially from 
 a sentence toward the conclusion of his discussion of 
 this subject, in which he says, — "It is evide7it from the 
 preceding examination of the passages from Jerome, quoted 
 hy Dr. Miller, that he [Jerome^ fully supports the doctrine 
 that episcopacy [of course in Dr. C.'s sense] 7vas esta- 
 blished hy tlie apostlesr\ On which ground, as the very 
 footing on which Jerome "plainly" places the matter, 
 Dr. C. had asserted before that it is " therefore a Divine 
 institution, and absolutely binding on all the church !" 
 
 As the reader may possibly be curious to know by 
 what occult power of the magical art Dr. C, through 
 some twenty large pages, elaborates this extraordinary 
 conclusion, and puts this perfect fool's-cap on Jerome, 
 
 * Pages 102, 103. t Page 117. 
 
84 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 I will endeavour, if I can, to make an abstract of it, — 
 interspersing, by the way, some occasional observations' 
 on the process. 
 
 The grand fulcrum on which the whole lever of his 
 argument rests, is the observation which Jerome makes 
 in hi& commentary on Titus, in which, after saying, " a 
 presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop," he adds, 
 " and before there were, by the devil's instinct, parties 
 in religion, and it was said among the people / am of 
 Paul, I ofApoUos, and I of Cephas, the churches were 
 governed by the common council of presbyters. But 
 afterward, when every one thought that those whom he 
 baptized were rather his than Christ's, it was deter- 
 mined through the whole world, that one of the presby- 
 ters should be set above the rest, to whom all care of 
 the church should belong, that the seeds of schism 
 might be taken away." 
 
 Now, says Dr. C, " the date of the circumstance 
 mentioned by Jerome as having produced the change 
 he speaks of, is easily determined. This circumstance 
 is mentioned in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians^ 
 (i, 12.) — " He then goes into a detail to show the date 
 of that epistle, and concludes thus : " This was there- 
 fore done by the apostles themselves ; and because 
 done by inspired men, it is a divine institution."* The 
 same thing, grounded on the same assumption, he reite- 
 rates over and over, throughout the twenty pages. 
 
 There are three [four] considerations, however, which 
 totally overthrow this main pillar of Dr. C.'s whole 
 arg-ument. 
 
 1. The first is, as suggested by Dr. Miller, that some 
 of the portions of the New Testament from which Je- 
 rome adduces proof that bishops and presbyters were 
 originally the same, were certainly written after the first 
 epistle to the Corinthians. From which it is manifest 
 
 *Page 101. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 85 
 
 that Jerome could not, without palpably contradicting 
 himself, have intended to say that it was just at that 
 time, when that first epistle to the Corinthians was 
 written, that the change took place of which he speaks, 
 and that it was then done by the decree of " all the 
 apostles" themselves, for all the churches " through the 
 whole world." 
 
 2. Dr. C.'s arguments involve anachronisms which 
 convict them of palpable error. In a former part of his 
 work he undertook " to show from the Scripture," that 
 it was in the state of anxiety for the welfare of the 
 Ephesian church, in which Paul left Ephesus to go into 
 Macedonia, as related in the twentieth chapter of Acts, 
 that he committed to Timothy the episcopal charge of 
 that church ; that his first epistle to Timothy, containing 
 " full evidence of ample episcopal authority," — that is, 
 of the ample episcopal authority committed to Timothy 
 by Paul, — " was written in Macedonia, after Paul went 
 there from Greece, and before he rejoined Timothy and 
 the rest of his company at Troas."* 
 
 Now if the reader will take the trouble to look at the 
 twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, he will 
 see indisputable proof that all this was before Paul came 
 to Miletus ; and thence sent for the elders of Ephesus 
 to meet him there. If he will look at page 101 of Dr. 
 C.'s book, he will also find that Paul's placing Timothy 
 over the Ephesian church at that period, is alleged by 
 Dr. C. as one of the instances of the change made in 
 pursuance of the apostolical decree, on the occasion 
 mentioned in first Corinthians. And yet it is on Paul's 
 address to the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, subsequently 
 to Timothy's being made bishop of Ephesus, according 
 to Dr. C, that Jerome founds one of his principal argu- 
 ments for the primitive identity of bishops and presby- 
 ters ! Is it possible, then, that Jerome's views and 
 Dr. C.^s could be the same ? 
 
 • Pages 32-36. 
 
86 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 3. Dr. C. alleges also that Paul " set Titus over the 
 Cretans" " in like manner, and with similar [episcopal] 
 powers :" that is, as he had set Timothy over the Ephe- 
 sians. ''And other apostles [Dr. C adds] did the same 
 in other places.""^ And these episcopal appointments 
 of Timothy and Titus by Paul, with others similar by 
 other apostles in other places, he affirms were the very 
 changes to which Jerome alludes, made " by the apos- 
 tles themselves," at the time mentioned in first Corin- 
 thians i, 12, and yet it was on Paul's epistle to Titus 
 after he was placed in Crete, that Jerome founds his 
 argument that bishops and presbyters w^ere the same in 
 the apostolical institutions and language at the time 
 when that epistle was written ! 
 
 4. The last consideration I shall mention is, that 
 Dr. C.'s interpretation puts on Jerome a perfect fool's- 
 cap. Because his express object was to show that as 
 •presbyters know that it is hij the custom of the church that 
 they are subject to him who is their president, so bishops 
 ought to know that they are above presbyters, more by 
 the custom of the church than by the true dispensation of 
 Christ. The very reverse of which Dr. C.'s construc- 
 tion forces upon him. 
 
 The only rational construction, therefore, which it 
 w^ould seem, in fairness to Jerome, can be put upon his 
 language is, that his reference to the passage in first 
 Corinthians is by way of allusion merely, in the same 
 manaer as we still describe such parties in churches as 
 addict themselves to favourite ministerial leaders, by 
 representing them as saying, " I am of Paul, and I of 
 Apollos, and I of Cephas." 
 
 There was one consequence which Dr. C. found his 
 construction involved in, which, one would think, should 
 have convinced him that he had misinterpreted Jerome. 
 This distinguished father expressly says, that before 
 
 *Pagc 101. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 87 
 
 there were by the devil's instinct such parties in rehgion 
 as he speaks of, " the churches were governed bj the 
 common council of presbyters." No, says Dr. C, "he 
 is certainly wrong in saying that ; even before the divi- 
 sions at Corinth the church was governed by a common 
 council of presbyters, except in subordination to the 
 authority of the apostles.""^ Certainly, Dr. C. ; if Jerome 
 had said so it would have been " certainly wrong ;" and 
 he certainly was sufficiently acquainted with the New 
 Testament to know this, and would never have risked 
 his reputation on so silly an assertion. But he never 
 said so, and the manifest absurdity of it proves that he 
 never meant so ; but that his allusion was to a period 
 subsequent to the apostolical age, when the churches 
 no longer enjoyed the superintendence of inspired guides 
 and rulers ; and when ministers also — not the people 
 merely, as in Corinth — began to form parties for them- 
 selves rather than to make disciples of Christ. Dr. C. 
 might, therefore, have well spared himself the long chain 
 of argumentation by which he gravely labours to dis- 
 prove the imputed sentiment of Jerome. The passages 
 quoted from that very learned father do not express it, 
 and there is the amplest reason to believe that he never 
 entertained it. 
 
 But Dr. C. thinks that he finds a flaw in Dr. Miller's 
 translation of one word in the quotations from Jerome, 
 which he conceives calculated to support the idea " that 
 a long time elapsed before bishops were set over the 
 churches." The word objected to in the translation is 
 " afterward.'^ That this word necessarily implies " a 
 long time" after, I cannot perceive. However, Dr. C. 
 states that the word used by Jerome, according to 
 Jeremy Taylor, is postquam ; on which he then takes the 
 occasion to furnish a critical disquisition of considerable 
 length to prove that postquam does not mean afterrvard, 
 
 •Paffe 117. 
 
88 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 but after that, literally, after which, referring to the time 
 when a thing was done, " as [he continues] in this very 
 case from Jerome." That is to say, Dr. C. here affirms 
 that according to the true critical import of this word 
 'postquam, Jerome meant to be understood that " before 
 that time [viz., that precise period spoken of by Paul in 
 his first epistle to the Corinthians] the common council 
 of presbyters governed . the church ; after that, the 
 bishops."* And yet it has been shown above that it 
 was specially to apostolical epistles written after that 
 time that Jerome refers, in proof that presbyters and 
 bishops were still the same. 
 
 But says Dr. C, '■' postea is the word Jerome would 
 have used if he had meant what Dr. Miller attributes to 
 him."t Well, although I have not Jerome's original 
 work at hand to examine, as it seems neither had Dr. 
 C, yet, as he takes his extract from Jeremy Taylor, I 
 will take mine from Dr. Campbell. Now Dr. Campbell 
 extracts a passage from Jerome, which, if not taken 
 from the same place as that quoted by Taylor, was evi- 
 dently written by Jerome in reference to precisely the 
 same subject and occasion. In that passage, according 
 to Dr. Campbell's extract, postea is the word used by 
 Jerome, and consequently, by Dr. C.'s own admission, 
 means " what Dr. Miller attributes to him." The whole 
 sentence, as quoted by Dr. Campbell, stands thus : — 
 " Quod diUiem. postea [Jerome had been speaking imme- 
 diately before, says Dr. Campbell, of the times of the 
 apostles] unus electus est, qui cseteris prgeponeretur, in 
 schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se 
 trahens, Christi ecclesiam rumperet.":}: 
 
 *Pag;ell5, f Ibid. 
 
 :J: Lect. on Eccl. Hist. p. 118. [" But that one was aflenoard elected 
 to be set over tlie rest was for the prevention of schism, that individuals 
 might not sever the church of Christ by drawing off parties to themselves." 
 The distinction between fostquam and postea is too obvious to justify Dr. 
 C.'s parade of learning in his very unnecessary attack on Dr. Miller's trans- 
 lation. PosU^umn is a conjunctiori ; postea an adverb. They may both 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 89 
 
 By Dr. C.'s own concession, then, this point is settled 
 beyond farther controversy. In another part of the pro- 
 cess under review. Dr. C. asserts that " the express state- 
 ment of Jerome, in the passage quoted by Dr. Miller, 
 [as above given] establishes" the following particulars : — 
 " 1. That the bishops of the primitive church were a 
 distinct order of clergy from those presbytei's who were 
 authorized to preach and administer sacraments, and 
 superior to them." 2. " That each bishop had under 
 him a number of congregations, with their pastors, whom 
 he governed." 3. *' That this kind of episcopacy was 
 considered by the whole primitive church as an institu- 
 tion of Jesus Christ."! (Dr. C.'s numbering of the 
 above particulars is 1, 3, and 5.) 
 
 Now the reader will please observe, that the question 
 here for the present is not whether this was the actual 
 state of things in the primitive church, — that is, in the 
 apostolical age, as is obviously meant, — but whether, in 
 the passage quoted from Jerome by Dr. Miller, and 
 copied above, it is " the express statement of Jerome^'' 
 that it was so, and was so considered ''by the ivhole^^xi- 
 mitive church." This is Dr. C.'s unqualified assevera- 
 tion. But although I have read over the passage in 
 question again and again, and as carefully as I am able, 
 if any one can find in it any such '' express statement 
 of Jerome" as Dr. C. avers it to contain, I must confess 
 that his ocular as well as his mental vision must be 
 strangely different from mine. 
 
 Assuming then that the first and second of the above 
 particulars (Dr. C.'s first and third) are established '' by 
 the express statement of Jerome," his next step in the 
 process is to affirm that another " flows from them," 
 viz., " that these bishops were exclusively invested with 
 
 mean after that, but in different senses, as the English reader will perceive 
 by an example. — '■'After that [jiostquam] presbyters ceased to rule the 
 churr^h, bishops jjoverned it." " Presbyters first governed the church, after 
 that, \J)n.stra,^^ bishops." — Ed.] 
 fPage 104. 
 
90 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 the right of ordaining." To this the answer simply is, 
 that Jerome's express statement estabhshes no such 
 thing as Dr. C. affirms it does in the second particular 
 above mentioned; and consequently, that this farther 
 one said to " flow from" the others is equally imagin- 
 ary. Its foundation being taken away it falls itself, of 
 course. 
 
 In confirmation of his inference, however, Dr. C. re- 
 peats a passage quoted by Dr. Bowden from Jerome, 
 as follows : " For what does a bishop which a presbyter 
 may not do, excepting ordination." And then adds, — 
 " This passage shows plainly that the presbyters had 
 not the power of ordaining, but that this belonged exclu- 
 sively to the bishop."^ It shows plainly that this was 
 the case in Jerome's time, about the close of the fourth 
 century, I grant ; but it shows nothing more. Indeed 
 the whole drift of his argument, and the language he 
 uses, both demonstrate that this was what he meant. 
 He had been expressly proving that no distinction ori- 
 ginally existed between bishops and presbyters ; that 
 they were one and the same order; and that in the 
 church of Alexandria, even down to a comparatively 
 late period, presbyters had constituted their own bishop 
 whenever a vacancy occurred, as the army in the days 
 of imperial Rome made an emperor, or the deacons for- 
 merly an archdeacon-t He then comes down to his own 
 
 * Page 107. 
 
 t With this case before him is it not surprising that Dr. C. should make 
 the assertion he does, pp. 140, 141, that up [down 1] to the time of Euse- 
 bius in the fourth century, there is no case of ordination by presbyters, as he 
 believes, " even alleged" by the opponents of the high-church scheme 1 In 
 contradiction of this, I need only cite that very eminent critic, Dr. Camp- 
 bell, whose works are common in this country as well as in Europe, who, 
 in reference to this very case, thus expresses himself: — " I know it has been 
 said that this relates only to the election of the bishop of x\lexandria, and 
 not to his ordination. To me it is manifest that it relates to both ; or, to 
 express myself with greater precision, it was the intention of that father 
 [Jerome] to signify that no other ordination than this election, and those 
 ceremonies with which the presbyters might please to accompany it, such 
 as the instalment and salutation, was then and there thought necessary to 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 91 
 
 time, using the present tense of the verb, not the past, — 
 "Quid enimyJzceV, excepta ordinatione, episcopus, quod 
 presbyter wolfaciatr " What does a bishop V &c. As 
 if he had said, " Even now, what power does a bishop 
 exercise which a presbyter may not exercise, except the 
 
 one who had been ordained a presbyter before ; that, according to the 
 usage of that church, this form was all that was requisite to constitute one 
 of the presbyters their bishop." Lect. on Eccles. Hist., p. 117. Here 
 then is alleged a series of instances, before the time of Eusebius, in one of 
 the most renowned churches of antiquity, of the ordination in form or in 
 fact even of bishops by presbyters. Yet Dr. C, with his characteristic 
 boldness of assertion, affirms in another place, page 146, that " before the 
 fourth century such a thing [as ordination by presbyters] does not appear to 
 have been thougiit of!" 
 
 But long before Dr. Campbell the same thing was alleged, in terms, if 
 possible, still more explicit, by that most reverend, very learned primate of 
 Ireland, Archbishop Usher. In his letter to Dr. Bernard, that eminent 
 Episcopalian says, — " I have ever declared my opinion to be that episcopus 
 et presbyter, gradu tantum ditTerunt non ordme, [that bishop and presbyter 
 differ in degree only, not in order, ^ and consequently, that in places where 
 bishops cannot be had, the ordination by presbyters stands valid." And in 
 his answer to Baxter the same distinguished prelate says, " that the king 
 [Charles I.] having asked him at the Isle of Wight, whether he found in 
 antiquity that presbyters alone ordained any ? he replied Yes, and that he 
 could show his majesty more, — even ivhere presbyters alone successively 
 ordained bishops : and instanced in Hierom's [Jerome's] words, {Epist. ad 
 Evagrium) of the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own 
 bishops, from the days of Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius." This then 
 was alleged by that very learned episcopal antiquary, not only as a case of 
 ordination by presbyters before the time of i^usebius, but of the successive 
 ordinations of bishops by presbyters for about two hundred years. It shows, 
 moreover, that he understood Jerome exactly in the sense here averred. 
 And it ought not to be forgotten, that, in addition to his pre-eminent qualifi- 
 cations as a critic and antiquary, he was himself an archbishop* 
 
 The Smectymnian divines, in the same age with Usher, alleged various 
 proofs of presbyters ordaining, evidently within the period alluded to by 
 Dr. C.f Smectymnuus was a fictitious name composed of the initial letters 
 of the names of Stephen Marshal, Edward Calamy, Thomas Young, 
 Matthew Newcomen, and William Spurstow. 
 
 The Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, an eminent and venerable minister of the Me- 
 thodist Episcopal Church, alleged the same in his Funeral Discourse on the 
 late Bishop Asbury.;^- It was also alleged in the work entitled " A Defence 
 of our Fathers, and of the original Organization of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church." 
 
 * Dr. C. takes upon him to say, p. 180, that there is no author produced in support of 
 the latter statement, above mentioned, in reference to Archbishop Usher, and yet, in the 
 note to Neal's History of the Punians, the authority for it is distinctly stated. Neal's 
 History of the Puritans, Ain. Ed. vol. ii, pp. 412, 413, note, and the reference there to 
 Baxter's Life, p. 206. 
 
 + Ibid. p. 412. 
 
 j Appendix, pp. 218,219. 
 
92 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 single one of ordaining?" And even this superiority, 
 in the single item of ordaining, according to the tenor 
 of Jerome's whole argument, was "Z>y the custom of the 
 church,'' {consuetudine ecclesice,) rather than by " the true 
 dispensation of Christ ;" that is, of the Church's making, 
 and not of Divine institution. It may not be amiss to 
 observe, that even among the papal doctors and theo- 
 logues in the famous council of Trent, the sentiment 
 last named was precisely the construction put on the 
 language of Jerome ; and it was added that St. Austin, 
 (Augustine,) another very eminent father of that age, and 
 himself a very distinguished bishop, was of the same 
 opinion. Some disputed in the council that " the degree 
 of a bishop was an order ; and others that aboue priest- 
 hood there was nothing but iurisdiction — and some beeing 
 of a middle opinion, that is, that it is an eminent dignitie, 
 or office in the order. The famous saying of St. Hierom, 
 [Jerome,] and the authority of St. Austin, [Augustine] 
 were alleaged, who say that the degree of a bishop hath 
 been most ancient, but yet an ecclesiasticall constitU' 
 tion."^ 
 
 But what is yet most amazing, if any thing in Dr. C. 
 can any longer amaze, after himself quoting a plain ex- 
 plicit passage in Jerome in proof that a presbyter could 
 do every thing that a bishop did, with one single excep- 
 tion, — that of ordination, — in the very next paragraph 
 he says, " It is shown by another passage from Jerome, 
 * that there was also another thing that a bishop did 
 which a presbyter could not do, viz., confirmation: thus 
 in the same breath making Jerome affirm and deny the 
 same proposition. Is it not more probable that Dr. C. 
 misinterprets Jerome in the place last alluded to, and 
 from which he draws his inference, (for it is but an in- 
 ference,) than that that eminent father thus palpably con- 
 tradicts himself? One would suppose that the obscure 
 passage "should rather be interpreted by the plain one. 
 
 * Paul Sarpis' Ili.st. of the Conn, of Trent, p. 591. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 93 
 
 Anotlier conclusion at which Dr. C. arrives, in the 
 logical process under review, is, that " in Jerome's esti- 
 mation apostles and hishops were the samey* 
 
 Now it has been most unequivocally proved above, 
 that "in Jerome's estimation," in the apostles' daj^s, 
 hishops and presbyters were the same : and as things 
 equal to one and the same thing must necessarily be 
 equal to each other, it follows most conclusively that 
 "in Jerome's estimation" apostles and presbyters were 
 the same. If Dr. C. rejects this consequence, I still 
 submit it to the reader. 
 
 All that Dr. C. says in regard to the Alexandrian or- 
 dinations by presbyters, — even of bishops by presby- 
 ters, — will be so completely, and I must think conclu- 
 sively answered in an extract on that subject from an 
 eminent critic, which I shall presently submit to the 
 reader, that I judge it preferable to waive any remarks 
 of my own in regard to it, when others so vastly better 
 than any I am capable of are furnished to my hand. 
 
 I may just observe, by the way, that I have become 
 so familiarized in Dr. C.'s style with such phrases as 
 the following — " it is impossible that they could have 
 been ordained by presbyters," — " neither can it be be- 
 lieved," — " could not possibly have passed unnoticed," 
 &.C., &c., that they no longer occasion me any alarm. 
 And it has particularly occurred to me that, possibly, 
 there may be a wider range in possibility than Dr. C 
 has well considered. 
 
 He adds as a final remark, too, that " Blondel admits 
 that episcopacy was established in Alexandria above a 
 century before this."! We admit more, viz., that it was 
 episcopal all the while, — its bishops being both chosen 
 and ordained, in fact if not in form, by its presbyters, 
 as shall presently be more fully shown. 
 
 But says Dr. C, "It must not be forgotten that Dr. 
 
 •Page 108. tPage 111. 
 
94 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 Miller in this attempt to prove that the second ordination 
 was performed by presbyters, has been driven to admit 
 a second ordinatioif — '' a second ordination to what ?" 
 he exclaims. His own reply is, " To a superior order, 
 necessarily. Certainly [he continues] not to an inferior 
 station, — surely not to the same he then occupied, ne- 
 cessarily, therefore, to a superior."^ Now mark : Dr. 
 C.'s assertion here is, that such a second ordination by 
 'presbyters^ as Dr. Miller had contended was the prac- 
 tice in the Alexandrian church, supposing it to have ac- 
 tually taken place, necessarily constituted a superior order. 
 Be it so ; for we will not dispute about the rvord " order." 
 Whether it be called order, degree, or office, it matters 
 not to us : the thing is what we look at : and Dr. C. has 
 here furnished us, out of his own mouth, a complete an- 
 swer to the main objection which has ever been urged 
 by Dr. C. and his party against the episcopacy of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, which rests precisely on 
 this basis. I wish to add nothing- to what Dr. C. con- 
 cedes in this passage for the complete vindication of our 
 episcopal organization, except, in the words of Jerome, 
 that it is hy the custom of the churchy — an ecclesiastical 
 constitution, — and not pretended to be by divine rights 
 nor of essential or universal obligation. 
 
 The extract that I promised above in support of the 
 views I have taken of the ordinations in the apostolical 
 church of Alexandria for two hundred years or more, 
 and of the true testimony of Jerome, in farther answer 
 to Dr. C.'s remarks on these subjects, I now subjoin. 
 It is from the pen of Dr. Campbell. 
 
 " The testimony which I shall bring from him [Jerome, 
 says this able critic] regards the practice that had long 
 subsisted at Alexandria. I shall give you the passage 
 in his own words, from his epistle to Evagrius. ' Alex- 
 andrise a Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dio- 
 
 *Pa2e 112. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 95 
 
 nysium episcopos, presbyteri semper unum exse electum, 
 in excelsiori gradu coUocatum, episcopum nominabant : 
 quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat : aut diaconi 
 eligant de se quern industrium noverint, et archidiaco- 
 num vocent.' I know it has been said that this relates 
 only to the election of the bishop of Alexandria, and 
 not to his ordination. To me it is manifest that it re- 
 lates to both ; or, to express myself with greater pre- 
 cision, it was the intention of that father to signify 
 that no other ordination than this election, — and those 
 ceremonies with which the presbyters might please 
 to accompany it, such as the instalment and salutation, 
 — was then and there thought necessary to one who had 
 been ordained a presbyter before ; that according to the 
 tisage of that church this form was all that was requi- 
 site to constitute one of the presbyters their bishop. 
 But as I am sensible that unsupported assertions are 
 entitled to no regard on either side, I shall assign my 
 reasons from the author's own words, and then leave 
 every one to judge for himself. Jerome, in the prece- 
 ding part of this letter, had been maintaining in oppo- 
 sition to some deacon who had foolishly boasted of the 
 order of deacons as being superior to the order of pres- 
 byters, — Jerome, I say, had been maintaining that in 
 the original and apostolical constitution of the church, 
 bishop and presbyter were but two names for the same 
 office. That ye may be satisfied that what he says im- 
 plies no less, I shall give it you in his own words — 
 'Audio quondam in tantam erupisse vecordiam, ut dia- 
 conos presbyteris, id est episcopis, anteferret. Nam cum 
 apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse presbyteros quos 
 episcopos, quid patitur mensarum et viduarum minister, 
 ut supra eos se tumidus efierat.' For this purpose he 
 had in a cursory manner pointed out some of those 
 arguments from the New Testament which I took occa- 
 sion in a former discourse to illustrate. In regard to the 
 introduction of the episcopal order as then commonly 
 
96 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 understood, in contradistinction to that of presbyter, he 
 sio-nifies that it did not exist from the beginning, but 
 was merely an expedient devised after the times of the 
 apostles, in order the more effectually to preserve unity 
 in every church, as in case of differences among the 
 pastors it would be of importance to have one acknow- 
 ledged superior in whose determination they were bound 
 to acquiesce. His words are, ' Quod autem 'postea,^ — 
 he had been speaking immediately before of the times 
 of the apostles, — ' unus electus est, qui cgeteris prsepo- 
 neretur, in schismatis remedium factum est, ne unus 
 quisque ad se trahens, Christi ecclesiam rumperet.' 
 Then follows the passage quoted above concerning the 
 church of Alexandria. Nothing can be plainer than 
 that he is giving an account of the first introduction of 
 the episcopate, (as the word was then understood,) which 
 he had been maintaining was not a different order from 
 that of presbyter, but merely a certain pre-eminence 
 conferred by election for the expedient purpose of pre- 
 venting schism. And in confirmation of what he had 
 advanced that this election was all that at first was re 
 quisite, he tells the story of the manner that had long 
 been practised and held sufficient for constituting a 
 bishop in the metropolis of Egypt. It is accordingly 
 introduced thus, ' Nam et Alexandrise,' as a case en- 
 tirely apposite : to wit, an instance of a church in which 
 a simple election had continued to be accounted suffi- 
 cient for a longer time than in other churches, — an 
 instance which had remained a vestige and evidence of 
 the once universal practice. Now if he meant only to 
 toll us, as some would have it, that there the election of 
 the bishop was in the presbyters, there was no occasion 
 to recur to Alexandria for an example, or to a former 
 period ; as that continued still to be a very common, if 
 not the general practice throughout the church. And 
 though it be allowed to have been still the custom in 
 most places to get also the concurrence or consent of 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 97 
 
 the people, this shows more strongly how frivolous the 
 argument from their being electors would have been in 
 favour of presbyters as equal in point of order to bishops, 
 and consequently superior to deacons ; since in regard 
 to most places as much as this could be said concerning 
 those who are inferior to deacons, — the very meanest 
 of the people, who had all a suffrage in the election of 
 their bishop. But, understood in the way I have ex- 
 plained it, the argument has both sense and strength in 
 it, and is in effect as follows : — There can be no essen- 
 tial difference between the order of bishop and that of 
 presbyter, since to make a bishop nothing more was 
 necessary at first (and of this practice the church of 
 Alexandria remained long an example) than the nomi- 
 nation of his fellow-presbyters; and no ceremony of 
 consecration was required but what was performed by 
 them, and consisted chiefly in placing him in a higher 
 seat and saluting him bishop. 
 
 " Add to this, that the very examples this father makes 
 use of for illustration, show manifestly that his meaning 
 must have been as I have represented it. His first in- 
 stance is the election of an emperor by the army, which 
 he calls expressly making an emperor. And is it not a 
 matter of public notoriety that the emperors raised in 
 this manner did, from that moment, without waiting any 
 other inauguration, assume the imperial titles and exer- 
 cise the imperial power ? And did they not treat all as 
 rebels who opposed them ? If possible, the other ex- 
 ample is still more decisive. To constitute an arch- 
 deacon, in the sense in w^hich the word was then used, no 
 other form of investiture was necessary but his election, 
 which was in Jerome's time solely in his fellow- deacons; 
 though this also, with many other things, came after- 
 ward into the hands of the bishop. By this example, 
 he also very plainly acquaints us, that the bishop origi- 
 nally stood in the same relation to the presbyters, in 
 which the archdeacon, in his own time, did to the other 
 
 7 
 
98 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 deacons : and was, by consequence, no other than what 
 the archpresbyter came to be afterward, the first among 
 the presbyters. But does not Jerome, after all, admit 
 in the very next sentence the superiority of bishops in 
 the exclusive privilege of ordaining 1 True : he admits 
 it as a distinction that then actually obtained ; but the 
 whole preceding part of his letter was written to evince 
 that from the beginning- it was not so. From ancient 
 times he descends to times then modern, and from dis- 
 tant countries he comes to his own; concluding that 
 still there was but one article of moment whereby their 
 powers were discriminated. ' Quid enim facit, excepta 
 ordinatione, episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat?' — 
 This indeed proves sufficiently that at that time presby- 
 ters were not allowed to ordain. But it can prove 
 nothing more ; for in regard to his sentiments about the 
 rise of this difference, it was impossible to be more ex- 
 plicit than he had been through the whole epistle. I 
 shall only add, that for my part I cannot conceive an- 
 other interpretation that can give either weight to his 
 argument or consistency to his words. The interpreta- 
 tion I have given does both, and that without any vio- 
 lence to the expression. I might plead Jerome's opinion 
 in this case — I do plead only his testimony. I say I 
 might plead his opinion as the opinion of one who lived 
 in an age when the investigation of the origin of any 
 ecclesiastical order or custom must have been incom- 
 parably easier than it can be to us at this distance of 
 time. I might plead his opinion as the opinion of a 
 man who had more erudition than any person then in 
 the church — the greatest linguist, the greatest critic, the 
 greatest antiquary of them all. But I am no friend to 
 an implicit deference to human authority in matters of 
 opinion. Let his sentiments be no farther regarded than 
 the reasons by which they are supported are found to 
 be good. I do plead only his testimony, as a testimony 
 in relation to a matter of fact both recent and noto- 
 
 7* 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 99 
 
 rious ; since it regarded the then late uniform practice 
 of the churcli of Alexandria, — a city which, before 
 Constantinople became the seat of empire, was, next to 
 Rome, the most eminent in the Christian world. 
 
 " To the same purpose the testimony of the Alex- 
 andrian patriarch Eutychius has been pleaded, who, in 
 his annals of that church, takes notice of the same prac- 
 tice, but with greater particularity of circumstances than 
 had been done by Jerome. Eutychius tells us that the 
 number of presbyters therein was always twelve ; and 
 that on occasion of a vacancy in the episcopal chair, they 
 chose one of themselves, whom the remaining eleven 
 ordained bishop by imposition of hands and benediction. 
 In these points it is evident there is nothing that can 
 be said to contradict the testimony of Jerome. All that 
 can be affirmed is, that the one mentions particulars 
 about which the other had been silent. But it will be 
 said, there is one circumstance, — the duration assigned 
 to this custom, — wherein there seems to be a real con- 
 tradiction. Jerome brings it no farther down than 
 Heracla and Dionysius, whereas Eutychius represents 
 it as continuing to the time of Alexander, about fifty 
 years later. Now it is not impossible that a circum- 
 stantiated custom might have been in part abolished at 
 one time, and in part at another. But admit that in this 
 point the two testimonies are contradictory, that will by 
 no means invalidate their credibility as to those points 
 on which they are agreed. The difference, on the con- 
 trary — as it is an evidence that the last did not copy 
 from the first, and that they are therefore two witnesses, 
 and not one — serves rather as a confirmation of the truth 
 of those articles wherein they concur. And this is our 
 ordinary method of judging in all matters depending on 
 human testimony. That Jerome, who probably spoke 
 from memory, though certain as to the main point, might 
 be somewhat doubtful as to the precise time of the abo- 
 lition of the custom, is rendered even probable by his 
 
100 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 mentioning, with a view to mark the expiration of the' 
 practice, two successive bishops rather than one. For 
 if he had known certainly that it ended with Heracla, 
 there would have been no occasion to mention Diony- 
 sius ; and if he had been assured of its continuance ta 
 the time of Dionysius, there would have been no pro- 
 priety in mentioning Heracla.'^^ But says Dr. C.^ 
 " What the ancient church thought of ordination by 
 presbyters may be gathered from the following state- 
 ments. In the fourth century" — dear sir, be pleased to 
 stop ; if by " the ancient church" you mean the church 
 in the fourth century, when Constantine, " that truly 
 most excellent and admirable emperor," as, after Wolf- 
 gang, you are pleased to call him, had poured in upon 
 the ecclesiastics a flood of wealth and dignities, and the 
 whole hierarchal corps of patriarchs, exarchs, metro- 
 politans, archbishops, bishops, country bishops, arch- 
 priests, priests, archdeacons, deacons, acolyths, exorcists^ 
 and doorkeepers became organized. Indeed the foun- 
 dations of the supremacy of the prince of hierarchs, the 
 pope himself, had become in that age pretty securely 
 established, not indeed by the characteristics which 
 should distinguish a Christian bishop, but by the dazzling 
 magnificence and splendour of his see, which in that 
 century had become an object of such ambition as to be 
 the occasion of the most barbarous and furious civil 
 war between the contending factions of the rival can- 
 didates for the episcopal throne. Apostolical mother of 
 churches ! — "the greatest, most ancient, and universally 
 known," — with which ''on account of thy greater pre- 
 eminence, it is necessary that every church should 
 agree !" This was thy character in the fourth century , 
 and spread the baleful influence of thy conspicuous 
 example throughout Christendom ; and yet it is from 
 acts of the church in that age as " the ancient church" 
 
 * Lect. on Ecclesiastical History, pp. 117-121. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 101 
 
 that Dr. C. brings authorities to settle the question be- 
 tween the rights of presbyters and bishops ! — an age ia 
 which there were not wanting bishops so insufferablj 
 inflated with the arrogant conceit of their lofty pre- 
 eminence, as scarcely to deign to see mortals, or speak 
 to their fellow-servants ! 
 
 But says Dr. C, '' The councils of ' the ancient church' 
 in the fourth century, condemned ordinations by pres- 
 byters as null, because not performed by them who 
 were bishops verily and indeed."^ And how were those 
 councils composed? Dr. C. tells us himself, page 140, 
 " The presbyters had no seat in councils as principals, 
 but might sit as representatives of their hishop ;" that is, 
 when the bishop himself could not be present; as in 
 the case alleged of the bishop of Rome, who, " being 
 unable through age to attend the Council of Nice, was 
 represented by his presbyters."! So that it was by one 
 of the very parties in the question exclusively, — the 
 prelates themselves who composed the councils in those 
 days, by the favour of the emperors who convened them, 
 — that the decisions were made against the presbyters, 
 who were denied a seat except in some instances, as 
 representatives of absent bishops, and of course as sub- 
 ject to their instructions. Were these councils of the 
 apostolical pattern I or are the rights of presbyters to 
 be absolutely concluded by their ex parte sentence ? 
 Yet the very council whose sentence Dr. C. alleges as 
 decisive authority in this question, — the Council of Con- 
 stantinople, — was exclusively thus composed of one of 
 the parties in the controversy I 
 
 Nay, Dr. C. descends even to the councils oii\ie fifth 
 century, and alleges the authority of their decrees to 
 the same effect •.% — a century, early in which (as a speci- 
 men of the manner in which things were carried even 
 
 •Page 146. f Ibid. J Ibid, 
 
102 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 in general councils, in those degenerate days of episco- 
 pal arrogance and domination) the lawless, haughty, 
 and imperious Bishop Cyril presided in an oecumenical 
 council, the transactions of which are branded by the 
 learned Mosheim " as full of low artifice, contrary to all 
 the rules of justice, and even destitute of the least air 
 of common decency."^ And that this was not a mere 
 exception, a singular instance of unbridled lawlessness 
 and violence in the episcopal councils of that age, ap- 
 pears on the authority of the same eminent historian ; 
 who states, that in another general council, held before 
 the middle of that century, in w^hich Bishop Dioscorus, 
 the successor of Cyril, and the faithful imitator of his 
 arrogance and fury, presided, matters were carried on 
 with the same want of equity and decency that had dis- 
 honoured and characterized the proceedings of the one 
 just above named, under the presidency of his prede- 
 cessor. And if the reader can credit it on the authority 
 of the best historians, such was the infamous brutality 
 of this fifth century council, that even a bishop against 
 whom the lordly and dominant Dioscorus had a pique, 
 was publicly scourged iti the most barbarous manner, by 
 THE ORDER OF THE COUNCIL, and died soon after of the 
 bruises inflicted on him in that assembly of jure di~ 
 vino [by divine right] successors of the apostles ! 
 
 After such a relation it can be no matter of wonder 
 that a synod in which such atrocities were perpetrated, 
 came afterward to be denominated '^awodov Itigtpikov,'" a 
 synod of robbers, " to signify that every thing was carried 
 in it by fraud or violence !"t 
 
 I recite such outrages with no pleasure, but with 
 mortification and grief for the Christian name. But 
 since Dr. C. thinks it of importance to his cause to urge 
 the ex parte decisions of synods and councils in that 
 age, it is proper that readers who may not be in the 
 
 * Vol, ii, p. 66. tibid. p. 74, 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 108 
 
 habit of looking into such things should be made ac- 
 quainted with the characters by whom, and the manner 
 in which their transactions were too often governed, as 
 may be w^ell supposed in controversies involving con- 
 flicting claims of ecclesiastical prerogative. As regards 
 the particular case of the presbyter Aerius, who, on the 
 authority of Epiphanius, is stated by Dr. O., p. 146, to 
 have been '' condemned as a heretic," in the fourth cen- 
 tury, because he " maintained that presbyters were 
 equal to bishops, and had a right to ordain ;" together 
 with *' some other doctrines," as Dr. C. adds, — as to his 
 "other doctrines," if they were no worse than that 
 charged in the first count of the indictment against him, 
 above stated, the reader can well imagine what must 
 have been the temper of the assembly that condemned 
 him as a heretic for that cause. He is said, however, to 
 have been a semi-arian ; and in so far as this part of 
 the charges against him is concerned, if it be true, we 
 are certainly no more disposed to defend him than Dr. 
 C. But it may not be amiss for the reader to be re- 
 minded that denunciations of " heresy," and the mad- 
 dog brand of " heretic^' in the age under review and 
 those succeeding it, ought to be received with great 
 caution. The Methodist reader especially, whether 
 Arminian or Calvinistic, will be sensible of the appo- 
 siteness of this admonition, when, if he look into the 
 chronological tables appended to the valuable Ecclesi- 
 astical History of Mosheim by the learned translator, he 
 will find under the head of " Heretics, or enemies of 
 revelation," in juxtaposition with the names of the chief 
 infidels of the eighteenth century, the venerated names 
 of " the Mora'V'ian brethren, and the followers of White- 
 field, Wesley, and others of the same stamp !" Would 
 to God the world were full of " heretics" of that " same 
 stamp." 
 
 One of the leading tenets of Aerius in truth was, 
 *^ that bishops were not distinguished from presbyters 
 
104 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 hy any divi?ie right ; but that, according to the institu-. 
 tion of the New Testament, their offices and authority 
 were absolutely the same."^ It is perfectly certain, 
 also, as Mosheim adds, that this opinion of his " was 
 highly agreeable to many good Christians, who were 
 no longer able to bear the tyranny and arrogance of the 
 bishops of this centurj"| — that is, the fourth century. 
 
 He farther condemned prayers for the dead, with some 
 of the stated fasts and festivals, " and other rites of 
 that nature, in which [as Mosheim remarks] the multi- 
 tude erroneously imagine that the life and soul of reli- 
 gion consists. His great purpose [continues the same 
 historian] seems to have been that of reducing Christi- 
 anity to its primitive simplicity ;" is it then any longer 
 to be wondered at, that in those days he should have 
 been condemned as a " heretac" by the courtly prelates 
 who basked in the beams of imperial favour ? And yet, 
 on the whole, his doctrinal error alone excepted, intelli- 
 gent Christians at this day must think very much better 
 of him than of many of those who condemned him. 
 
 It ought not to be overlooked also that the work of 
 Bp. Epiphanius against heresies, to which Dr. C. refers for 
 authority against Aerius, is characterized by ecclesias- 
 tical critics as a work that " has little or no reputation, 
 is full of inaccuracies and errors, and discovers almost 
 in every page the levity and ignorance of its author.":}^ 
 
 But it is time to make the reader acquainted with the 
 truth of the case in regard to Aerius. This I will do in 
 the language of that distinguished Christian antiquary 
 Dr. (afterward Bishop) Stillingfleet. 
 
 "In the matter itself, [says Stillingfleet,] I believe, 
 upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove 
 
 * Mosheim, vol. i, p. 376. t Ibid. 
 
 JMoslioim, vol. i, p. 341). Dr. Jortin says of Epiphanius that he must 
 have been either a (hipe or a deceiver, and tluit th's is the cirilesl thing we 
 can say of him. That "learned and judicious men, who hnve examined his 
 writings, have been forced to conclude that, with all his learning and piety, [1] 
 he was credulous, careless, censorious, and one loho made no scruple of ro- 
 mancing and misrepresenting.''^ Remarks on Eco. Hist., vol. i, pp. 301, 303. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 105 
 
 true, that Jerome, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Aerius 
 his judgment as to the identity of both name and order of 
 bishops and presbyters in the primitive church ; but here 
 lay the difference. Aerius from hence proceeded to 
 separation from bishops and their churches, because 
 they were bishops. And Blondell well observes, that 
 the main gromid why Aerius was condemned, was for 
 unnecessary separation from the church of Sebastia; 
 and those bishops, too, who agreed with him in other 
 things : whereas, Jerome was so far from thinking it 
 necessary to cause a schism in the church by separating 
 from bishops, that his opinion is clear, that the first in- 
 stitution of them was for preventing schisms ; and 
 therefore, for peace and unity, he thought their institu- 
 tion very useful in the church of God."* 
 
 Thus it appears that in the judgment of this very 
 deeply versed and able critic in ecclesiastical antiquities, 
 and " upon the strictest inquiry," Aerius, if a heretic in 
 regard to the point now in hand — the identity of the 
 order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church 
 — was such in very orthodox company, and even that 
 of the canonized y^/Aer^ and saints. 
 
 There is moreover one bearing of the very cases which 
 Dr. C. adduces, to which he seems not to have adverted. 
 He himself shows sufficiently, that presbyters previously 
 to the prohibitions of the councils alluded to did ordain, 
 and did claim the Scriptural right to do so, in virtue of 
 their order. Why else were the ecclesiastical canons 
 made against this practice ? Why else were such ordi- 
 nations declared null, because performed by presbyters ? 
 The very prohibitions themselves, (as well observed by 
 Dr. Campbell,) the very assertions of those whom they 
 condemned as heretics, prove the practice then proba- 
 bly wearing, but not quite worn out. There was no 
 
 * Irenicum, pp. 276, 277. 
 
106 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 occasion for making canons against ordinations by 
 deacons or by laymen, who did not pretend to such a 
 right. In deference, however, to the Apostle Paul's 
 authority, perhaps the bishop still admitted, and even re- 
 quired the presbyters present to join with him in ordain- 
 ing a presbyter by the imposition of their hands with 
 his, but not in ordaining a bishop. 
 
 As to the case of the foimder of the Novatian sect, to 
 which Dr. C. repeatedly refers, it should be understood 
 that the whole relation of it, as contained in the sixty- 
 third chapter of the sixth book of Eusebius, is made up 
 of the statements of Cornelius, the successful rival and 
 bitter enemy of Novatus, as his own coarse epithets and 
 vulgar abuse plainly show. The usurped domination 
 and impious ignorance of Cornelius are manifest in 
 those same letters of his own, from which Eusebius 
 makes his extracts. He coolly says, for instance : — " In 
 the roomes of the other bishops [that is, of those who 
 had ordained Novatus] we ordained and sent from us 
 such as should succeed them." Not forsooth, as is 
 plain enough, because they were " simple countrymen," 
 as he represents, nor even because they were " some- 
 what tipsie" withal, " and well crammed with victuals," 
 as he also alleges, — but hecause they had ordamed 
 Novatus. 
 
 Again, in the course of the torrent of invectives 
 which he pours out against this late unsuccessful rival 
 in the contest for the episcopal throne in that imperial 
 city, he suggests a doubt, among other things, whether 
 he had ever been canonically baptized, and that after- 
 ward, at any rate, he had not obtained confirmation by 
 the hands of the bishop ; on which he gravely asks 
 this question, — '' Insomuch then as he obtained not 
 that, how came he by the Holy Ghost ?" 
 
 Mosheim, on the other hand, founds his relation of 
 the matter on the authority both of Cornelius in Euse- 
 bius, and of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage. For Mosheim 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 107 
 
 represents that the Roman presbyter was named Nova- 
 iian, who was assisted in his enterprise by Novatus, a 
 presbyter of Carthage, who had come to Rome to 
 escape the resentment of Cyprian, with whom he was 
 highly at variance. So that in reahty all the account 
 we have of the matter is from the bitter enemies if not 
 the persecutors of these two presbyters ; and consider- 
 ing human nature, and the evidence which, alas ! our 
 own times afford, that men as good, perhaps, as some 
 even of the Roman or Carthaginian samts, too often fol- 
 low its unrestrained and unhallowed impulses in such 
 circumstances, we ought perhaps to receive such state- 
 ments with not a few or inconsiderable grains of al- 
 lowance. 
 
 With these preliminary observations, I am now 
 prepared to say, — (1,) that having carefully examined 
 the statements of Cornelius in Eusebius, I am well 
 persuaded that they carry on the face of them conclu- 
 sive evidence that they are the vindictive colourings 
 of a personal enemy, and therefore not to be adopted 
 in gross now without large deductions : and (2,) that 
 Novatus doubtless desired episcopal ordination ; and 
 may have even too anxiously sought it because that 
 was then and there the custom of the church, and canon- 
 ically required, and consequently, without it — in his 
 own apprehension at least — he was not likely to suc- 
 ceed so well. That bishops were then regarded in the 
 Church of Rome as superior to presbyters in jurisdic- 
 tion, and by the ecclesiastical custom and canons, there 
 is no doubt. But that they are so jure divino, by divine 
 institution, remained an unsettled question in that 
 Church, even down to the Council of Trent in the six- 
 teenth century, as any one may see in the long and 
 animated debates upon it, as related by Paul Sarpi, the 
 very able and interesting historian of that renowned 
 assembly. 
 
108 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 As to Dr. C.'s strictures on Lord King, it is not neces- 
 sary to follow him througii the various items which he 
 names in that part of his book, in which he repeats 
 often, as is common with him, what he had previously 
 affirmed again and again. In the very outset of his 
 strictures he falls into the fundamental error which logi- 
 cians denominate ignoratio elenchi, a mistake of the 
 question. " Mr. Wesley [he says] professes in his 
 letter to Mr. Asbury, &c., of 1784, to have founded his 
 belief of the sameness of the office of presbyter and 
 bishop on the arguments of Lord King in his Inquiry 
 into the Constitution, &c., of the Primitive Church."^ 
 Now Mr. Wesley says no such thing ; he made no such 
 profession : and this single observation, so far as Mr. 
 Wesley is concerned, overthrows the whole of what 
 Dr. C. builds on this erroneous foundation; the pure 
 fiction of his own imagination. 
 
 "/ij omnis effusus labor.'''' 
 
 What Mr. Wesley does say in his letter "to Dr. 
 Coke," &c., is as follows : " Lord King's account of the 
 primitive church convinced me, many years ago, that 
 bishops and presbyters are the same order." Mark, the 
 same order, not the same ojice, as Dr. C. asserts of Mr. 
 Wesley's belief. The superiority of bishops in " degree ^^ 
 or official pre-eminence, though not in essential sacer- 
 dotal order, is carefully and explicitly marked by Lord 
 King in many places of his work, and could not have 
 been overlooked, or intended to be confounded, by Mr, 
 Wesley. Dr. C, however, obviously builds his fabric 
 on the erroneous assumption that both Lord King and 
 Mr. W. made no distinction between ministerial order, 
 strictly taken in its technical ecclesiastical sense, and 
 office, grade, or degree, in an order, — as, for example, 
 archpresbyters among presbyters, or archdeacons among 
 
 *Page 150. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 109 
 
 deacons ; or, to repeat a civil illustration, before men- 
 tioned, as the speaker of the House of Commons, — 
 officially superior, and occupying the first seat, and yet 
 but a commoner among commoners. 
 
 That Dr. C. confounds or overlooks this distinction, 
 and that his argument consequently does not meet Lord 
 King's main position, and of course Mr. W.'s, is plain 
 from several passages in his strictures, but especially 
 from the following : — " Lord King [he says] has entirely 
 passed over the objection to his doctrine arising out of 
 the ordination of bishops. Ordination to an office con- 
 veys the idea of introduction into one which the person 
 previously did not hold. If presbyter and bishop was 
 the same office, grade, or order, why were presbyters 
 ordained when they were appointed to a bishoprick? 
 What was the second ordination for ^"^ 
 
 Here he evidently speaks of office, grade, or order 
 as all one and the same thing, and as so treated in 
 Lord King's work. And yet nothing is plainer in the 
 express and frequently repeated language of that author, 
 than that the distinction he makes between order and 
 official grade or degree is the very groundwork of his 
 system. The question, therefore, which Dr. C. so con- 
 fidently asks, viz., "What was the second ordination 
 for?" is answered with perfect ease and consistency, on 
 the principles of Lord. King and Mr. W., and equally on 
 those of the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 Dr. C. himself, indeed, furnishes the answer to his own 
 question ; and nothing can be more appropriate or cor- 
 rect : " Ordination to an office [he says] conveys the 
 idea of introduction into one which the person pre- 
 viously did not hold."^ Exactly so. This is the pre- 
 cise import of ordination as understood by Lord K., 
 and also by Mr. W. and the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 And therefore, while Lord K. explicitly maintains the 
 primitive identity of bishops and presbyters as to the 
 
 •Page 176. 
 
110 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 intrinsic and inherent power of order, he as explicitly 
 states, at the same time, that when a presbyter was 
 advanced to the official degree of bishop — that is, ac- 
 cording to Lord K., was made the actual superintend- 
 ent, inspector, or overseer of any particular church, and 
 of his fellow presbyters (as well as the deacons) con- 
 nected therewith, — he was ordaified to that office by 
 imposition of hands by the neighbouring bishops. But 
 when he says " by the neighbouring bishops,'' the reader 
 must not forget that he still does not at all mean dioce- 
 sati bishops of a distinct order, in Dr. C.'s or the high 
 church sense ; but in his own sense of the term bishop, 
 as above described.^ The same answer, furnished by 
 Dr. C. himself, may very clearly explain to him and to 
 all others why it is that the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 which maintains the identity of bishop and presbyter as 
 to the intrinsic and inherent power of order, still prac- 
 tises a third ordination, when any of her presbyters are 
 advanced to the episcopal degree. It is exactly because, 
 in Dr. C.'s own words, " ordination to an office conveys 
 the idea of introduction into one which the person pre- 
 viously did not hold." 
 
 Having thus cleared the true idea both of the order 
 and the official degree of bishop, as held by Lord King, 
 by Mr. W., and by the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
 the true basis on which, in accordance with this idea, 
 an appropriate ordination to the episcopal office rests, I 
 shall proceed to give the reader a brief synopsis of 
 LordK.'s argumentation and deductions from the Chris- 
 tian fathers of the first three centuries, to which he con- 
 fines his inquiry on the main point in question, viz., the 
 primitive identity of the order of bishops and presbyters- 
 And in the course of it, I am persuaded the intelligent and 
 candid reader cannot but be as forcibly struck with the 
 modestly as with the learned diligence of that distin- 
 
 * See his " Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship 
 of the Priinitive Church," p. 49. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. Ill 
 
 guished layman, whose authorities and logical deduc- 
 tions were capable of producing so great a change in 
 the previously prejudiced high-church mind of such a 
 man as Wesley. It will serve also to show how little 
 justice has been done by Dr. C. to this main point of 
 Lord K.'s argument. It may be proper, first, however, 
 to apprize the reader that Lord King actually and care- 
 fully read and studied the early fathers whom he 
 quotes, and various others, in the Greek and Latin ori- 
 ginals, and not in translations, nor " hy the index,^'' as 
 seems to be Dr. C.'s plan of discovering passages."^ 
 
 In his sixth chapter. Lord King says : " It wall be both 
 needless and tedious to endeavour to prove that the an- 
 cients generally mention presbyters distinct from bishops. 
 Every one, I suppose, will readily own and acknow- 
 ledge it. The great question which hath most deplo- 
 rably sharpened and soured the minds of too many is, 
 what the office and order of a presbyter w^as : about this 
 the world hath been and still is most uncharitably 
 divided ; some equalize a presbyter in every thing with 
 a bishop ; others as much debase him ; each, according to 
 their particular opinions, either advance or degrade him. 
 In many controversies a middle way hath been the 
 safest, perhaps in this, the medium between the two ex- 
 treams may be the truest. Whether what I am now 
 going to say be the true state of the matter, I leave 
 to the learned reader to determin ; I may be deceived, 
 — neither mine years nor abilities exempt me from mis- 
 takes and en-ors ; but this I must needs say. That after 
 the most diligent researches and impartialest inquiries, 
 the following notion seems to me most plausible, and 
 most consentaneous to truth : and which, with a great 
 facility and clearness, solves those doubts and objec- 
 tions which, according to those other hypotheses, I 
 know not how to answer. But yet, however, I am not 
 so wedded and bigoted to this opmion, but if any shall 
 
 *Page 161. 
 
112 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 produce better and more convincing- arguments to the 
 contrary, I will not contentiously defend, but readily 
 relinquish it ; since I search after truth, not to pro- 
 mote a particular party or interest. 
 
 " Now for the better explication of this point, I shall 
 first lay down a definition and description of a presbyter, 
 and then prove the parts thereof. 
 
 *' Now^ the definition of a presbyter may be this : — 
 A person in holy orders^ having thereby an inherent right 
 to perform the whole office of a bishop ; hit being pos- 
 sessed of 710 place or parish, not actually discharging it, 
 without the permission and consent of the bishop of a place 
 or parish. 
 
 " But lest this definition should seem obscure, I shall 
 illustrate it by this following instance : As a curate 
 hath the same mission and power with the minister 
 whose place he supplies, yet being not the minister of 
 that place, he cannot perform there any acts of his 
 ministerial function w^ithout leave from the minister 
 thereof; so a presbyter had the same order and power 
 with a bishop, whom he assisted in his cure ; yet being 
 not the bishop or minister of that cure, he could not 
 there perform any parts of his pastoral office, without 
 the permission of the bishop thereof: so that what we 
 generally render bishops, priests, and deacons, would be 
 more intelligible in our tongue if we did express it by 
 rectors, vicars, and deacons, — by rectors understanding 
 the bishops, and by vicars the presbyters ; the former 
 being the actual incumbents of a place, and the latter 
 curates or assistants, and so different in degree but 
 yet equal in order. 
 
 " Now this is what I understand by a presbyter ; for 
 the confirmation of which these two things are to be 
 proved : 
 
 " I. That the presbyters were the bishops' curates 
 and assistants, and so inferiour to them in the actual 
 exercise of their ecclesiastical commission. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 113 
 
 " II. That yet, notwithstanding, they had the same 
 inherent right with the bishops, and so were not of a 
 distinct specific order from them. Or, more briefly, thus, 
 
 "1. That the presbyters were different from the 
 bishops in gradu, or in degree ; but yet, 
 
 " 2. They were equal to them in ordine^ or in order. 
 
 '' As to the first of these, that presbyters were but the 
 bishops' curates and assistants, inferior to them in de- 
 gree, or in the actual discharge of their ecclesiastical 
 commission ; this will appear to have been in effect 
 already proved, if we recollect what has been asserted 
 touching the bishop and his office : — that there was but 
 one bishop in a church ; that he usually performed all 
 the parts of divine service ; that he was the general dis- 
 poser and manager of all things within his diocess, 
 there being nothing: done there without his consent and 
 approbation.""^ 
 
 He then specifies the various particulars of ministe- 
 rial functions which a presbyter could not perform with- 
 out the bishop's leave ; adding at the close : — " But 
 what need I reckon up particulars, when in general 
 there was no ecclesiastical oflace performed by the 
 presbyters without the consent and permission of the 
 bishop."t 
 
 Having cited his authorities for these statements, he 
 afterward thus proceeds : — 
 
 " So then in this sense a presbyter was inferior to a 
 bishop in degree, in that, having no parish of his own, 
 he could not actually discharge the particular acts of 
 his ministerial function without leave from the bishop 
 of a parish or diocess. The bishops were superior to the 
 presbyters in that they were the presented, instituted, 
 and inducted ministers of their respective parishes ; and 
 the presbyters were inferior to the bishops in that they 
 were but their curates and assistants. 
 
 * Inquiry, &c., pp. 52-55. f ^^S^ 56. 
 
114 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 *' § 3. But though the presbyters were thus different 
 from the bishops in degree, yet they were of the very 
 same specific order with them ; having the same inhe- 
 rent right to perform those ecclesiastical offices which the 
 bishop did, as will appear from these three arguments : 
 
 " 1, That by the bishop's permission they discharged 
 all those offices which a bishop did : — 2, that they were 
 called by the same titles and appellations as the bishops 
 were : — and, 3, that they are expressly said to be of the 
 same order with the bishops. As to the first of these, 
 That by the bishop's permission they discharged all 
 those otHces which a bishop did, — this will appear from 
 that, 
 
 " 1. When the bishop ordered them they preached 
 Thus Origen, in the beginning of some of his sermons, 
 tells us that he was commanded thereunto by the bishop, 
 as particularly when he preached about the witch of 
 Efidor, he says, The bishop commanded him to do it. 
 
 " 2. By the permission of the bishop presbyters bap- 
 tized. Thus writes Tertullian, — The bishop has the 
 right of baptizing, and then the presbyters, but not with- 
 out his have. 
 
 " 3. By the leave of the bishop presbyters adminis- 
 tered the eucharist, as must be supposed in that saying 
 of Ignatius, ' That that eucharist only was valid which 
 was celebrated by the bishop, or by one a]:>pointed 
 by him, and that the eucharist could not be delivered 
 but by the bishop, or by one whom he did approve.' 
 
 " 4. The presbyters ruled in those churches to which 
 they belonged, — else this exhortation of Polycarpus to 
 the presbyters of Philippi would have been in vain : 
 * Let the presbyters be tender and merciful, compassion- 
 ate towards all, reducing those that are in errors, visiting 
 all that are weak, not negligent of the widow and the 
 orphan, and him- that is poor, but ever providing what 
 is honest in the sight of God and man, abstaining from 
 
 all wrath, respect of persons, and imrighteous judg- 
 
 8-^ 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 115 
 
 ment, being far from covetousness, not hastily believing 
 a report against any man, not rigid in judgment, know- 
 ing that we are all faulty and obnoxious to judgment.' 
 Hence, 
 
 " 5. They presided in church consistories, together 
 with the bishop, and composed the executive part of 
 the ecclesiastical court, from whence it was called the 
 presbyteiij, because in it, as Tertullian says, ' Approved 
 elders did preside.' 
 
 " 6. Tliey had also the power of excommunication, as 
 Rogatianus and Numidicus, two presbyters of Cyprian's 
 church, by his order joined with some bishops of his 
 nomination in the excommunication of certain schisma- 
 tics of his diocess. But of both these two heads more 
 will be spoken in another place. 
 
 '' 7. Presbyters restored returning penitents to the 
 church's peace. Thus we read, in an epistle of Diony- 
 sius, bishop of Alexandria, that a certain offender 
 called Serapion, approaching to the time of his dissolu- 
 tion, ' sent for one of the presbyters to absolve him, which 
 the presbyter did according to the order of his bishop, 
 who had before commanded that the presbyters should 
 absolve those who were in danger of death.' 
 
 " 8. Presbyters confirmed, as we shall most evi- 
 dently prove when we come to treat of confirmation, 
 only remark here by the way, that in the days of 
 Cyprian there was a hot controversy whether those that 
 were baptized by heretics, and came over to the catholic 
 church, should be received as members thereof by bap- 
 tism and confirmation, or by confirmation alone. Now 
 I would fain know, whether, during the vacancy of a 
 see, or the bishop's absence, which sometimes might be 
 very long, as Cyprian was absent two years, a presby- 
 ter could not admit a returning heretic to the peace and 
 unity of the church, especially if we consider their posi- 
 tive damnation of all those that died out of the church. 
 If the presbyters had not had this power of confirmation, 
 many penitent souls must have been damned for the 
 
116 EPISCOPAL CONTROVEKSY REVIEWED. 
 
 unavoidable default of a bishop, which is too cruel and 
 unjust to imagine. 
 
 "9. As for ordination, I find but little said of this in an- 
 tiquity ; yet, as little as there is, there are clearer proofs 
 of the presbyters ordaining, than there are of their ad- 
 ministering the Lord's supper. ' All power and grace,' 
 saith Firmilian, ' is constituted in the church, where 
 seniors preside, who have the power of baptizing, con- 
 firming, and ordaining;' or, as it may be rendered, and 
 perhaps more agreeable to the sense of the place, — 
 ' who had the power as of baptizing, so also of confirm- 
 ing and ordaining.' What these seniors were will be 
 best understood by a parallel place in Tertullian ; for 
 that place in Tertullian and this in Firmilian are usually 
 cited to expound one another by most learned men, as 
 the most learned Dr. Cave and others. Now the pas- 
 sage in Tertullian is this, — ' In the ecclesiastical courts 
 approved elders preside.' Now by these approved elders 
 bishops and presbyters must necessarily be understood. 
 Because Tertullian speaks here of the discipline ex- 
 erted in one particular church or parish, in which there 
 •was but one bishop ; and if only he had presided, then 
 there could not have been elders in the plural number ; 
 but there being many elders to make out their number, 
 we must add the presbyters to the bishop, who also 
 presided with him, as we shall more fully show in an- 
 other place. Now the same that presided in church 
 consistories, the same also ordained. Presbyters as well 
 as bishops presided in church consistories, therefore pres- 
 byters as well as bishops ordained. And as in those 
 churches where there were presbyters, both they and 
 the bishop presided together, so also they ordained to- 
 gether, both laying on their hands in ordination ; as St. 
 Timothy was ordained ' by the laying on of the hands of 
 the presbytery :' that is, by the hands of the bishop and 
 presbyters of that parish where he was ordained, — as is 
 the constant signification of the \n oTdi^ p7'eshytery in all 
 the writings of the ancients. But, 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 117 
 
 " 10. Though as to every particular act of the bi- 
 shop's office, it could not be proved particularly that 
 a presbyter did discharge them ; yet it would be suf- 
 ficient if we could prove that in the general a pres- 
 byter could and did perform them all. — Now that a 
 presbyter could do so, and consequently, by the bishop's 
 permission, did do so, will appear from the example 
 of the great St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who, 
 being exiled from his church, writes a letter to the 
 clergy thereof, wherein he exhorts and begs them ' to 
 discharge their own and his office too, that so nothing 
 might be wanting either to discipline or diligence.' 
 And much to the same effect he thus writes them in 
 another letter, Trusting, therefore, to your kindness and 
 religion, which I have abundantly experienced, I exhort 
 and command you by these letters, that in my stead you 
 perform those offices which the ecclesiastical dispe?isation 
 requires. And in a letter written upon the same occa- 
 sion by the clergy of the church of Rome to the clergy 
 of the church of Carthage, we find these words toward 
 the beginning thereof: And since it is incumbent 2ip on 
 us, who are as it were bishops, to keep the flock iti the room 
 of the pastor : if we shall be found negligent, it shall be 
 said unto us as it was said to our careless preceding bishops, 
 in Ezekie] xxxiv, 3, 4, that we looked ?iot after that which 
 was lost, 7ve did not correct him that wandered, nor bound 
 up him that was lame, but we did eat their milk and were 
 covered with their wool. So that the presbyters were, 
 as it were, bishops, that in the bishop's absence kept his 
 flock, and in his stead performed all those ecclesiastical 
 offices which were incumbent on him. 
 
 " Now then, if the presbyters could supply the place 
 of an absent bishop, and in general discharge all those 
 offices to which a bishop had been obliged if he had 
 been present, it naturally follows that the presbyters 
 could discharge every particular act and part thereof 
 If I should say, such an one has all the senses of a 
 
118 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 man, and yet also assert that he cannot see, I should 
 be judged a self-contradictor in that assertion; for in 
 affirming that he had all the human senses, I also af- 
 firmed that he saw, because seeing- is one of those 
 senses, — for whatsoever is affirmed of an universal, is 
 affirmed of every one of its particulars. So when the 
 fathers say that the presbyters performed the whole 
 office of the bishop, it naturally ensues that they con- 
 firmed, ordained, baptized, &c., because those are par- 
 ticulars of that universal. 
 
 " But now, from the whole, we may collect a solid 
 argument for the equality of presbyters with bishops, 
 as to order; for if a presbyter did all a bishop did, what 
 difference was there between them ? A bishop preached^ 
 baptized, and confirmed ; so did a presbyter. A bishop 
 excommunicated, absolved, and ordained ; so did a pres- 
 byter. Whatever a bishop the same did a presbyter. 
 The particular acts of their office were the same ; the 
 only difference that was between them was in degree, 
 — but this proves there was none at all in order. 
 
 " That bishops and presbyters were of the same 
 order appears also from that originally they had one 
 and the same name, each of them being indifferently 
 called bishops or presbyters. Hence we read in the 
 Sacred Writ of several bishops in one particular church, 
 as the bishops of Ephesus and Philippi, that is, the 
 bishops and presbyters of those churches, as they were 
 afterward distinctly called. And Clemens Romanus 
 sometimes mentions many bishops in the church of Co- 
 rinth whom at other times ho calls by the name of pres- 
 byters, using those two terms as synonymous titles and 
 appellations. ' You have obeyed,'' saith he, ' those that 
 were set over you, roic r/yov/ievoic v/juv, and let us revere those 
 that are set over us,'' nfyonyovfievovc rmuv, which are the usual 
 titles of the bishops ; and yet these in another place 
 he calls presbyters, describing their office by their sitting 
 or presiding over us. Wherefore he commands the Co- 
 rinthians to be subject to their presbyters, and whom in 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 119 
 
 one line he calls emaKonoi, or bishops ; the second line 
 after he calls npeapvrepoi, or presbyters. So Poly carp 
 exhorts the Philippians to he subject to their presbyters 
 (md deacons, — under the name of presbyters including 
 both bishops and priests, as we now call them. 
 
 " The first that expressed these church officers by 
 the distinct terms of bishops and presbyters was Igna- 
 tius, who lived in the beginning of the second century, 
 appropriathig the title of bishop, sTna-Konog, or overseer, to 
 that minister who was the more immediate overseer and 
 governor of his ])arish ; and that of TvpeapvTepoc, elder or 
 presbyter, to him who had no particular care and in- 
 spection of a parish, but was only an assistant or curate 
 to a bishop that had : the word etvlgkottoc, or bishop, de- 
 noting a relation to a flock or cure ; TzpEaidwepoc, or pres- 
 byter, signifying only a power or ability to take the 
 charge of such a flock or cure, — the former implying 
 an actual discharge of the office, the latter a power so 
 to do. 
 
 " This distinction of titles, arising from the difference 
 of their circumstances, which we find first mentioned 
 in Ignatius, was generally followed by the succeeding 
 fathers, who for the most part distinguish between, 
 bishops and presbyters, though sometimes, according to 
 the primitive usage, they indifferently apply those terms 
 to each of those persons. Thus, on the one hand, the 
 titles of presbyters are given unto bishops, as Irenaeus 
 in his synodical epistle twice calls Anicetus, Pius, Higy- 
 nus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus, bishops of Rome, trpeaQvTepoi, 
 or presbyters. And those bishops who derived their 
 succession immediately from the apostles he calls the 
 presbyters in the church : and whom Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus in one line calls the bishop of a certain city not 
 far from Ephesus, a few lines after he calls the pres- 
 byter. And on the other hand, the titles of bishops are 
 ascribed to presbyters, as one of the discretive appella- 
 tions of a bishop is pastor. Yet Cyprian also calls his 
 
120 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 presbyters the pastors of the flock. Another was that 
 of president, or one set over the people. Yet Cyprian 
 also calls his presbyters presidents, or set over the peo- 
 ple. The bishops were also called rectors or rulers : 
 so Origen calls the presbyters the go-vernors of the 
 people. And we find both bishops and presbyters in- 
 cluded under the common name of presidents or prelates 
 by St. Cyprian, in this his exhortation to Poraponius. 
 'And if all must observe the divine discipline, how much 
 more must the presidents and deacons do it, who by 
 their conversation and manners must yield a good ex- 
 ample to others?' Now if the same appellation of a 
 thing be a good proof for the identity of its nature, then 
 bishops and presbyters must be of the same order, be- 
 cause they had the same names and titles. Suppose it 
 was-- disputed whether a parson and lecturer were of the 
 same order, would not this sufficiently prove the affirm- 
 ative ? That though for some accidental respects they 
 might be distinguished in their appellations, yet origin- 
 ally and frequently they were called by one and the 
 same name. The same it is in this case, though for 
 some contingent and adventitious reasons, bishops and 
 presbyters were discriminated in their titles, yet origin- 
 ally they were always, and afterward sometimes, called 
 by one and the same appellation, and therefore we may 
 justly deem them to be one and the same order. But 
 if this reason be not thought cogent enough, the third 
 and last will unquestionably put all out of doubt, and 
 most clearly evince the identity or sameness of bishops 
 and presbyters as to order. And that is, that it is ex- 
 pressly said by the ancients that there were but two 
 distinct ecclesiastical orders, viz., bishops and deacons, 
 or presbyters and deacons ; and if there were but these 
 two, presbyters cannot be distinct from bishops, for then 
 there would be three. 
 
 " Now tliat there were but two orders, viz., bishops 
 and deacons, is plain from that golden ancient remain of 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 121 
 
 Clemens Rom anus, wherein he thus writes : — ' In the 
 country and cities where the apostles preached, they 
 ordained their first converts for bishops and deacons 
 over those who should believe. Nor were .these orders 
 new, for, for many ages past it was thus prophesied 
 concerning bishops and deacons : I will appoint their 
 bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.' 
 This place of Scripture which is here quoted is in Isa. 
 Ix, 17. *I will make thine officers peace and thine ex- 
 actors righteousness.' Whether it is rightly applied, 
 is not my business to determine. That that I observe 
 from hence is, that there were but two orders instituted by 
 the apostles, viz., bishops and deacons, which Clemens 
 supposes were prophetically promised long before."^ 
 
 He then quotes a farther passage from the same epis- 
 tle of Clemens to the Corinthians, the object of which 
 was to dissuade an unruly faction in that church from a 
 design which they entertained of deposing their pres- 
 byters. The great argument of Clemens to this end 
 was, that they ought rather to obey their presbyters, 
 and to desist from their disorderly proceedings against 
 them, because the institution and succession of bishops 
 and deacons was from the apostles themselves, which, 
 continues Lord K., " clearly evinces that presbyters 
 were included under the title of bishops, or rather, that 
 they w^ere bishops. For to what end should Clemens 
 exhort the schismatical Corinthians to obey their pres- 
 byters, from the consideration of the apostles' ordina- 
 tion of bishops, if their presbyters had not been bishops? 
 But that the order of presbyters was the same with the 
 order of bishops, will appear also from that place of Ire- 
 nseus, where he exhorts us ' to withdraw from those pres- 
 byters who serve their lusts, and, having not the fear of 
 God in their hearts, contonm others, and arc lifted up with 
 the dignity of their first session ; but to adhere to those 
 
 • Inquiry, &c., p. 57-69. 
 
122 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 who keep the doctrine of the apostles, and with their 
 presbyterial order are inoffensive and exemplary in 
 sound doctrine and a holy conversation, to the inform- 
 ation and correction of others ; for such presbyters the 
 church educates, and of whom the prophet saith, I will 
 give thee princes in peace, and bishops in rig-hteousness.' 
 
 "Now that by these presbyters bishops are meant, 
 I need not take much pains to prove ; the precedent 
 chapter positively asserts it, the description of them in 
 this quotation, by their enjoying the dignity of the first 
 session, and the application of that text of Isaiah unto 
 them, clearly evinces it. No one can deny but that 
 they were bishops, that is, that they were superior in 
 degree to other presbyters, or, as Irenseus styles it, 
 honoured with the first session; but yet he also says 
 that they were not different in order, being of the pres- 
 byterial order, which includes both bishops and pres- 
 byters."^ 
 
 After quoting next a passage from Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus, in proof or illustration of the same point, he thus 
 proceeds : — 
 
 " So that there were only the two orders of deacons 
 and presbyters, the former whereof being the inferior 
 order, never sat at their ecclesiastical conventions, but, 
 like servants, stood and waited on the latter, who sat 
 down on Qpovoi, or seats in the form of a semicircle, whence 
 they are frequently called consessus presbyterii, or the 
 session of the presbytery, in which session he that was 
 more peculiarly the bishop or minister of the parish sat 
 at the head of the semicircle on a seat somewhat ele- 
 vated above those of ' his colleagues,' as Cyprian calls 
 them ; and so was distinguished from them by his pri- 
 ority in the same order, but not by his being of another 
 order. Thus the foresaid Clemens Alexandrinus dis- 
 tinguishes the bishop from the presbyters by his being 
 
 * Inquiry, pp. 71, 72. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 123 
 
 advanced to the rpwro/ca^aJpta, or the first seat in the presby- 
 tery, not by his sitting in a different seat from them. — 
 For he thus writes, ' He is in truth a presbyter of the 
 church and a minister of the will of God, who does and 
 teaches the things of the Lord, not ordained by men or 
 esteemed just because a presbyter, but because just, 
 therefore received into the presbytery, — who, although 
 he be not honoured with the first seat on earth, yet shall 
 hereafter sit down on the twenty and four thrones men- 
 tioned in the Revelations, judging the people.' So that 
 both bishops and presbyters were members of the same 
 presbytery, only the bishop was advanced to the first 
 and chiefest seat therein, — which is the very same with 
 what I come now from proving, viz., that bishops and 
 presbyters were equal in order but different in degree : 
 that the former were ministers of their respective pa- 
 rishes, and the latter their curates or assistants. 
 
 " Whether this hath been fully proved, or whether the 
 precedent quotations do naturally conclude the premises, 
 the learned reader will easily determine. I am not con- 
 scious that I have stretched any w^ords beyond their natu- 
 ral signification ; having deduced from them nothing but 
 what they fairly imported. If I am mistaken I hope I 
 shall be pardoned, since I did it not designedly or volun- 
 tarily. As before, so now I profess again, that if any one 
 shall be so kind and oblio;inor to ffive me better informa- 
 tion, I shall thankfully and willingly acknowledge and 
 quit mine error; but till that information be given, and the 
 falsity of my present opinion be evinced, (which after 
 the impartialest and narrowest inquiry I see not how 
 it can be done,) I hope no one will be offended that I 
 have asserted the equality or identity of the bishops 
 and presbyters as to order, and their difference as to 
 pre-eminency or degree. 
 
 " ^ 4. Now from this notion of presbyters there evi- 
 dently results the reason why there were many of them 
 in one church, even for the same intent and end, though 
 
124 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 more necessary and needful, that curates are now to 
 those ministers and incumbents whom they serve, it was 
 found by experience that variety of accidents and cir- 
 cumstances did frequently occur both in times of peace 
 and persecution, the particulars whereof would be 
 needless to enumerate, that disabled the bishops from 
 attending on, and discharging their pastoral office ; 
 therefore that such vacancies might be supplied, and 
 such inconveniences remedied, they entertained pres- 
 byters or curates, wdio during their absence might sup- 
 ply their places, who also were helpful to them whilst 
 they were present with their flocks, to counsel and ad- 
 vise them. Whence Bishop Cyprian assures us that he 
 did all things by the common counsel of his presbyters. 
 
 "Besides this, in those early days of Christianity, 
 churches were in most places thin, and at great dis- 
 tances from one another ; so that if a bishop by any 
 disaster was incapacitated for the discharge of his func- 
 tion, it would be very difficult to get a neighbouring 
 bishop to assist him. To which w^e may also add, that 
 in those times there were no public schools or univer- 
 sities, except we say the catechetic lecture at Alexan- 
 dria was one for the breeding of young ministers, who 
 might succeed the bishops as they died ; wherefore the 
 bishops of every church took care to instruct and ele- 
 vate some young men, who might be prepared to come 
 in their place when they were dead and gone. And 
 thus, for these and the like reasons, most churches were 
 furnished with a competent number of presbyters, who 
 helped the bishops while living, and were fitted to suc- 
 ceed them when dead.""^ 
 
 Into the next sentiment advanced by Lord King, he 
 seems to have been led by an erroneous reading of a 
 passage in the edition of Tertullian's works which he 
 used, and Mhich I find corrected in one of Dr. Camp- 
 
 * Inquiry, pp. 74-77, 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 125 
 
 bell's lectures on Ecclesiastical History, p. 121. The 
 passage as quoted by Lord K. is, — " Ubi ecclesiastici 
 ordinis non est consessus, et offert, et tingit sacerdos, 
 qui est ibi solus." Exhort, ad Caslitat. p. 457. And from 
 it he deduces the sentiment that although most churches 
 were furnished with presbyters, yet that this was not 
 essential ; a bishop being sufficient, &c. Dr. Campbell 
 says a bishop and " some deacons." The latter is not 
 added by Lord King, but Dr. Campbell shall speak for 
 himself 
 
 " Some have inferred from a passage of Tertullian 
 that, however general the practice w^as in the second 
 and subsequent centuries, of settling in every church 
 all the three orders above explained, it was not uni- 
 versal ; that in parishes where there were but a few 
 Christians remotely situated from other churches, it 
 was judged sufficient to give them a pastor or bishop 
 only and some deacons. The presbyter then being 
 but a sort of assistant to the bishop, might not, in very 
 small charges, be judged necessary. The thing is not 
 in itself improbable, and the authority above-mentioned, 
 before I had examined it or seen a more accurate edi- 
 tion, led me to conclude it real. But on examination I 
 find that what had drawn me and others into this opinion 
 was no more than a false reading of a sentence quoted 
 in a former lecture. In some editions of Tertullian we 
 read, {De Exhort. Cast.,) 'Ubi ecclesiastici ornis non est 
 consessus, et offert, et tinguit, sacerdos qui est ibi 
 solus.' I need not urge that the expression is quite 
 different in all the best manuscripts and most correct 
 editions : this being one of those glaring corruptions 
 which, after a careful perusal, betray themselves to an 
 attentive reader of any penetration. The words, as I 
 have now transcribed them, considered in connection 
 with the subject treated in the context, have neither 
 sense nor coherence in them, whereas, nothing can be 
 more apposite to the author's argument than they are in 
 
126 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 the way formerly quoted, ' Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non 
 est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi 
 solus.' So sensible of this were the two learned critics 
 Petavius and Dodwell, that though both were violently 
 disposed, in their different ways, to pervert the meaning, 
 neither thought proper to avail himself of a variation in 
 the reading which would have removed at once what to 
 them was a great stumbling-block. It is indeed a read- 
 ing which savours more of art than of negligence, and 
 has much the appearance of those inquisitorial correc- 
 tions which were made on several ancient books in the 
 sixteenth century, especially those published in the 
 papal dominions, or where the holy office was esta- 
 blished, in order to adapt the ancient doctrine to the 
 orthodoxy of the day. Now nothing could be more 
 opposite to this, than what seemed to admit that any 
 necessity or exigence whatever could entitle a layman 
 to exercise the function of a priest.""^ 
 
 A few miscellaneous specimens of Dr. C.'s criticisms 
 on Lord K. shall conclude my notice of this part of his 
 book. 
 
 " As for the word diocess, [says Lord K.,] by which 
 the bishop's flock is now usually expressed, I do not 
 remember that ever I found it used in this sense by any 
 of the ancients."! On this passage Dr. C. remarks as 
 follows : — " Socrates, however, who lived in the fourth 
 century, in his account of the Council of Constantinople, 
 says they decreed that the bishop of a diocess, dioscesis, 
 should not pass (be translated) to another church. — 
 The word occurs twice more within the compass of a 
 page. It is evident from its being used in the wording 
 of a law or canon that it was common and well under- 
 stood."t 
 
 The Council of Constantinople was held about fifteen 
 years before the close of the fourth century ; and So- 
 
 •Lect. on Ecclesiastical History, pp. 121, 122. flnquiry, p. 15. $Page 153. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 127 
 
 crates consequently must have written still later. Dr. C. 
 knew that Lord K.'s inquiry was expressly confined to 
 the writers of the ^7*5^ three centuries. Yet he says that 
 a word which Lord K. did not remember to have seen, 
 in the sense mentioned, in any writer of the first three 
 centuries, may be found in three instances in a writer 
 nearly a hundred years later ; and he infers from its 
 being once used in a law about that time, that it was 
 then common and well understood. Does this, were it 
 even so, disprove any thing that Lord K. had said ? 
 
 One of Lord King's sentiments was, that the ancient 
 bishoprics were the same as modern parishes, under the 
 proper pastoral care of the bishop, though they might 
 have been larger in extent of territory, or have covered 
 a greater space of ground. In descanting on this topic. 
 Dr. C, to show his view of the subject, selects the 
 church of Jerusalem, among others, as a specimen of 
 the extent of the ancient churches. And as we have 
 authentic accounts of that church in the only certain 
 church history extant, — the Acts of the Apostles, — I 
 will [subject] Dr. C.'s strictures for a moment to the 
 test of that record.^ 
 
 Among all the writers I have yet looked into, I must 
 say that I have seldom or never met with one who so 
 frequently and so coolly avails himself of the petitio 
 principii (begging the question) as Dr. C. Lord King, 
 in proof of his position that presbyters ordained, ad- 
 duces a passage from Firmilian above quoted. On 
 which Dr. C, after a train of other remarks, makes the 
 following : — " But when, in addition to these consider- 
 ations we have Firmilian's own declaration that in his 
 epistle he is speaking of bishops, contest is at an end."t 
 How at an end ? Is it not the very position of Lord K., 
 sustained by other eminent critics, that the writers of 
 
 * [The author appears to have intended to insert here a criticism of this 
 kind, which he had previously written. It will be found in the Appendix, 
 as it could not well be introduced here. — Ed.] t Page 173. 
 
128 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 that period frequently use the terms bishop and pres- 
 byter interchangeably, — calling the same persons indif- 
 ferently by one or the other name ? But Dr. C.'s mind 
 seems so engrossed with the notion that bishop can be 
 no other than a high church diocesan, that wherever 
 the word occurs, this idea seems with him a matter of 
 course. The following may be given as an instance : — 
 the phrase " majores 7iatu''' in Firmilian is rendered by 
 Lord K. " seniors," or, according to the parallel phrase, 
 " probati seniores f m Tertullian, " approved elders :" and 
 that these approved elders, for reasons which Lord K. 
 assigns, included both bishops and presbyters, he says 
 " must necessarily be understood."* On this statement 
 of Lord K.'s, Dr. C. thus argues : — 
 
 *' It is furthermore to be observed that all Lord King 
 urges on this passage is, that majores ncitu included both 
 the bishop and his presbyters ; and that both they and 
 the bishop ordained together, both laying on their hands 
 in ordination, as Timothy was ordained by the laying 
 on of the hands of the presbytery : that is, by the hands 
 of the bishop and presbyters of that parish where he 
 was ordained, as is the constant signification of the 
 word p7'esbytery in all the writings of the ancients." 
 (Page 62, part i.) By his own account, therefore, a 
 bishop was present at the ordination of Timothy, spoken 
 of in Paul's first epistle to him, and " Paul must have 
 been that bishop."! The reader will observe that his 
 aflarmation is, that as a bishop was present, according 
 to Lord K.'s " own account," it follows of course and 
 necessarily that ''Paul must have been that bishop." 
 And yet nothing is plainer than that, according to Lord 
 K., the bishop was the pastor of that particular church 
 where Timothy was ordained, who, together with the 
 presbyters connected with him in the same church, con- 
 stituted its " presbytery." 
 
 * Inquiry, p. 61 t Page 173. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 129 
 
 On leavinof Lord Kin": Dr. C. descends at once to the 
 age of the Reformation. And in this field it is wonder- 
 ful with what facility he puts to flight whole hosts of 
 " men of first-rate talents and learning," as he is com- 
 pelled to admit they were i'^ and by a few simple 
 dashes of his own more learned, more fearless, or more 
 honest pen, demolishes at once the fair fame of the im- 
 mortal band who jeoparded their lives and every earthly 
 interest to rescue Christendom " from the tyranny of the 
 bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities," as the 
 English reformed litany originally expressed it. 
 
 To the admission of the validity of ordination by 
 presbyters, on the part of many of the most distinguished 
 episcopal writers and dignitaries, both " during the pro- 
 gress of the reformation and since," Dr. C. replies, that 
 at most it was but their opinion formed upon various 
 considerations : — in some, from affection for individuals 
 of the continental reformers ; in others, perhaps in all 
 of the early English reformers, from. Jea?- of the conse- 
 quences of breaking with the non-episcopal churches ; 
 that some *' were not Episcopalians in principle, [not of 
 Dr. C.'s " stamp" certainly,] but were secretly plotting 
 to subvert tlie order of the church :" that " even some 
 bishops were suspected of being opposed to it ;" and 
 finally, that " all were more or less influenced by the 
 fea?' of breaking with the continental reformers."! — So 
 that in all of them, according to Dr. C, this pusillani- 
 mous motive operated either to impair their intellect, or 
 else to destroy their integrity in a matter which, on his 
 scheme, is essential to the very being of the Christian 
 church ! Even the amiable and ti'uhj apostolical and 
 Christian spirit which breathed in the breast of the 
 magnanimous Usher, — who avowed that although he 
 deemed those churches which had no bishops defective 
 in government, yet that he loved and honoured them as 
 true members of the universal church, and that, were 
 
 • Page 179. t Page 178. 
 
130 EPISCOrAL CONTEOYERSY REVIEWED- 
 
 he in Holland, he would receive the blessed sacrament 
 at the hands of the Dutch with the like affection that he 
 would from the hands of the French minister, were he 
 at Clarenton,'^ — even this illustrious primate's motives 
 must fall under Dr. C.'s imputation of weakness or of 
 dishonesty. Nay, the no less amiable and equally apos- 
 tolical and Christian spirit of the continental reformers., 
 who received the English episcopal fugitives from the 
 terrors of bloody Mary " with the utmost cordiality," 
 and treated them " with the greatest friendship and 
 hospitality/' in passing through Dr. C.'s alembic, is 
 strangely transmuted into an auxiliary of his cause. 
 One would suppose, if the characteristics of discipleship 
 established by the Master are to be regarded, that it 
 ought to be considered rather as a proof of the Chris- 
 tian ofenuineness of churches whose leaders and mem- 
 bers breathed such a spirit. — "By this shall all men 
 know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to 
 another:"! a testimony worth ten thousand "passages," 
 genuine or spurious, from St. Ignatius, or any other 
 uninspired saint. This spirit, which reciprocally ani- 
 mated the English and continental churches, in their 
 official and ministerial intercourse with each other, in 
 those golden days of mutual and joint resistance to 
 high church and popery. Dr. C.'s doctrine would and 
 does, at this day, banish from the earth. It is the 
 doctrine of thorough sectarian bigotry and Scriptural 
 schism. For what is schism, in the true Scriptural 
 sense, but the alienation of Christians from each other 
 in heart. And if this be its genuine import, as, on the 
 authority of inspiration, we affirm it is, then whose doc- 
 trine, tested by this infallible criterion, is most schisma- 
 tical, that of Usher, or that of Dr. C. ? In other words, 
 whose is most hostile or friendly to that fundamental 
 principle of Christianity among Christians and churches, 
 — mutual love? whose tends most to conciliate their 
 
 * Letter to Dr. Bernard. t John xiii. 35. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 131 
 
 affections where differences have unhappily arisen, or, 
 by means of uncharitable and dogmatical decisions to 
 widen the breach, and hinder their reciprocal recogni- 
 tion and ecclesiastical intercourse ? Where the former 
 spirit prevails, it is Christian ; where the latter, it is 
 schismatical. 
 
 I know that Dr. C. is pleased to say, that it is " far 
 from being the desire of those who believe that episco- 
 pal [high church] ordination alone is valid, to prevent 
 any qualified person from entering into the ministry."^ 
 And that " they only wish" them to " obtain that" " au- 
 thority" " which is" valid.* That is to say, in effect, 
 " Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, 
 and we forbad him, because he folloivcth not us^ The 
 answer of Jesus is our answer. If the reader please 
 he may look at it, Mark ix, 38, and Luke ix, 49. Can 
 any be so blind as not to discern the very spirit of the 
 sectary lurking under the cloak of Dr. C.'s apparent 
 liberality ? f 
 
 I find little in the remaining part of Dr. C.'s work that 
 is worthy of observation. What he says in reference 
 to Mr- W. and on the Scripture argument, will be no- 
 ticed hereafter.^: It would seem, indeed, according to 
 Dr. C, that not only the Scriptures, and all the ancient 
 Christian writers, but even the master spirits among the 
 continental reformers, (from fear of whom, murk it, 
 according to the same Dr. C., or from affection for whom, 
 the English episcopal reformers had proved recreant to 
 their own principles and to their church, many of them 
 having been corrupted in this respect by the great hos- 
 pitality and friendship of those said continental reform- 
 
 • Pages 147, 148. 
 
 t [Here is a note in the. MS. indicating that the author intended to insert 
 an extract from something which he had previously written. To avoid eon- 
 fusion, it is given in the Appendix. — Ed.] 
 
 \ [Never accomplished, except so far as the Scripture argument is taken 
 up in his reply to Dr. Onderdonk, at the close of this book. — Ed.] 
 
13^ EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 ers during an actual residence among them !) are in 
 favour of the high church scheme. Now this is really 
 passing strange. That they should have been in 
 sentiment and in heart at least decided Episcopalians 
 themselves, and yet, not only by their public acts and 
 writings, but in their intimate, social, and confidential 
 personal intercourse, have so greatly and so injuriously 
 influenced episcopalians against episcopacy ! The in- 
 consistency of these opposite grounds, both taken by 
 Dr. C, is so manifest and glaring, that I am driven to 
 the conclusion that he mistakes his men and mistakes 
 their meaning. The continental reformers, in a noble 
 and commendable reciprocation of the truly Christian 
 and enlightened spirit of the English episcopal reform- 
 ers, undoubtedly admitted the lawfulness of episcopacy, 
 and in certain circumstances its expediency and high 
 "Utility. That there was nothing in it, when properly 
 understood, inconsistent with gospel principles or apos- 
 tolical precept or example : — that it had in fact, pre- 
 vailed in the church generally from a very early period, 
 if not from the days of the apostles ; and that, from these 
 considerations there was nothing in it, thus understood, 
 to offend a good conscience or to require separation from 
 episcopal communion. That those of them who went 
 the farthest meant nothing more, is evident from Dr. 
 C.'s own selected passages from Grotius himself, of 
 whom he makes the largest and strongest use. I need 
 not here repeat what has been so often mentioned by 
 others, that Grotius is believed to have become some- 
 what soured by the ill treatment he received from the 
 Presbyterian churches of Holland. His own language, 
 as quoted by Dr. C. himself, is sufl^cient for my present 
 purpose. The very title of one of the sections of Gro- 
 tius, from which Dr. C. takes a number of his quota- 
 tions, is, " The episcopal superiority is not of Divine 
 command.'''' This proposition he then proceeds to esta- 
 blish by a variety of arguments, and explicitly asserts 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 133 
 
 that what he thus alleges for " the equality of pastors" 
 is " not at all repugnant to the former ;" — that is, to 
 what he had before said on the subject of episcopacy. 
 He shows plainly also, that he understood Jerome in 
 the sense which has been herein represented, and that 
 he himself adopted the same views. "Jerome says, 
 [remarks Grotius,] The bishops became greater than the 
 presbyters, more by custom than by the truth of the Di- 
 vine ordering^ He quotes St. Augustine, bishop of 
 Hippo in the same century, to the same effect, as fol- 
 lows : " The episcopate is greater than the presbyter ate 
 in the name of honour ivhich the practice of the church 
 hath retained.'''' Epist. xix. He admits indeed that when 
 the fathers speak of " custom," they do not exclude that 
 of the apostolical age itself : but contends at the same 
 time that not every apostolical institution or practice 
 is therefore necessarily of Divine command ; of which 
 he alleges several instances, and then continues thus : — 
 " Add also, that the apostles so instituted bishops, that 
 they left certain churches without bishops : Epiphanius 
 acknowledges this: — There 7vas need of presbyters and 
 deacons, for by these two the ecclesiastical offices could be 
 fulfilled ; but when there was not found any one worthy 
 of the episcopate, the place remained without a bishop ; but 
 when there was need, and there were persons worthy of the 
 episcopate, bishops were appointed. Those churches, 
 therefore, as Jerome says, were governed by the common 
 council of presbyters.'''' 
 
 In his notes on some of the above extracts. Dr. C. 
 makes the assertion that we are not only boimd to be- 
 lieve what the apostles, taught, but that " what they did 
 we are bound to practise."'^ 
 
 He observes also, that the apostles did not " command 
 that the church should be governed by the common 
 
 * Page 191. [A note in the MS. here, indicates that the author intended 
 to add some instances to illustrate the absurdity of such a principle. Such, 
 however, will readily present ihemselves to the reader. — Ed-] 
 
134 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 council of presbyters." This is granted, and accord- 
 ingly and consistently, we maintain, that the presbyte- 
 rian model of church polit}'- is no more of essential, uni- 
 versal, and perpetual obligation, by Divine right, than 
 high-church episcopacy. 
 
 If any thing be yet wanting to set Grotius's opinion 
 in a clear light, the following w^ith ordinary persons, 
 though probably not with Dr. C, seem to be sufficient. 
 *' All the ancients [says Grotius] confess that there was 
 no act so peculiarly the bishop's [co7rfirmation, of course, 
 included, Dr. C. to the contrary notwithstanding] that it 
 might not also be exercised by the presbyter, except the 
 right of ordaining." He quotes Chrj^sostom and Jerome 
 to shov/ this, and then adds : — " But although the right 
 of ordaining is taken mv ay from 'presbyters, [mark, 'is 
 tahen away^ not that they never possessed it,] accord- 
 ing" to the opinion of these fathers, which constitution 
 (or law) may be seen in many councils universal and 
 local, [which shows by what means, in his view, the 
 right had been taken away from presbyters,] what 
 nevertheless hinders that we may interpret it so that 
 presbyters could ordain no one without the bishop's 
 consent ?" 
 
 A little after he says, " Yet I do not see how that can 
 be refuted, where there are not bishops, that ordination 
 might be rightly performed even by a presbyter." And 
 again : — " Then, as we have said above, it is doubtful 
 w hether presbyters, who neither have presbyters under 
 them nor a bishop over them, belong to (the order of) 
 bishops, or to (that of) mere presbyters. For Ambrose 
 thus argues of Timothy, — -he, who had no other before 
 him, was a bishop. Indeed, (that we may take an ex- 
 ample from the republic,) many things are lawful to a 
 senate not havino- a kingf, which are not lawful to a 
 senate constituted under a king. Because a senate 
 without a kino- is as it were a king." 
 
 The passage of " Ambrose," above alluded to by Gro* 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 135 
 
 tius, is probably that of Hilary, whose works are always 
 bound up with those of Ambrose, and by some blunder 
 in the editors, says Dr. Campbell, continue to pass 
 under his name. Dr. C. seems also to have taken 
 Hilary as Ambrose. The entire passage is one which 
 I cannot but think entirely refutes the efforts made by 
 Dr. C. in a former part of his work to enlist Hilary in 
 his service. It also explains fully the observation 
 which Dr. C. so often repeats, on the credit of Hilary, 
 that though every bishop is a presbyter, yet every pres- 
 byter is not a bishop. The connection and explana- 
 tion of this very just saying, as given by Hilary himself, 
 Dr. C. is careful to omit. But the reader shall have it 
 in Hilary's own w^ords, from his Commentary on the 
 third chapter of first Timothy ; of which the papal 
 critic Richard Simon says, there are few ancient com- 
 ments on the epistle of St. Paul, and even on the whole 
 New Testament, which can be compared with this. 
 The words are : — 
 
 " Post episcopum tamen diaconi ordinationem sub- 
 jecit. Quare ? nisi quia episcopi et presbyteri una or- 
 dinatio est? Uterque enim sacerdos est. Sed episco- 
 pus primus est ; ut omnis episcopus presbyter sit, non 
 omnis presbyter episcopus. Hie enim episcopus est, qui 
 inter presbyteros primus est. Denique Timotheum pres- 
 byterum ordinaturn significat, sed quia ante se alterum 
 non habebat, episcopus erat."^ 
 
 After such explicit declarations as those above quoted, 
 from Grotius, it surely must be an attempt which pre- 
 sumes not a little on the reader's credulity or ignorance, 
 to undertake to class that eminent man among the sup- 
 porters of Dr. C.^s notions of episcopacy, and not less so 
 
 * See Campbell's Lect. on Eccl. Hist., p. 116. 
 
 [" After the bishop he places the order of deacon. Why 1 unless it be 
 because the ordination of bishop and presbyter is one ] For each is a priest. 
 But the bishop is first ; so that every bishop is a presbyter, not every 
 presbyter a bishop. For he is a bishop who is first among the presbyters. 
 Finally, he declares that Timothy was ordained a presbyter, but because hg 
 ha<l no other before hira, he was a bishop." — Ed. J 
 
136 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 certainly to rank in the same class even Calvin and 
 Beza! The latter of these eminent men, indeed, ac- 
 cording to Grotius, (who was expressly speaking at the 
 same time of " the churches which have no bishops,") 
 thought it ought by no means to be omitted that '"' it 
 was essential that, by the perpetual ordination of God, 
 it was, it is, and it will be necessary that some one in the 
 freshytery, chief both in place and dignity, should preside 
 to govern the proceedings with that right which is given 
 to him by God :" meaning obviously, that in every pres- 
 bytery there should be a presiding presbyter, chief both 
 in place and dignity, to govern the proceedings as presi- 
 dent, with a right to exact the submission required by 
 order and the ecclesiastical constitution, in accordance 
 with the general principle ordained of God, — let every 
 soul be subject to the higher powers, — agreeably to the 
 specific constitution of government under which they 
 live, whether of church or state. 
 
 In fine, Grotius's view of episcopacy ill fact, apart 
 from names and forms, which do not at all alter things, 
 is set forth w^ith the lucidness of a sunbeam, in the fol- 
 lowing emphatic passage : — " And (if with Zanchius 
 [says that very eminent man] I will acknowledge the 
 truth) in reality no men were bishops more than those 
 very men whose authority availed to oppose even the 
 episcopate." 
 
 The above extracts are from Grotius's work on 
 Church Government, in the words of the translations 
 adopted by Dr. C. himself 
 
 In reg-ard to Calvin Dr. C. makes an extract of some 
 length from his Institutes, [book iv, chap, iv, 2,] which 
 I beg leave to submit entire, for a reason which will 
 immediately appear. It is as follows : — 
 
 '' They named all those on whom was enjoined the 
 office of teaching presbyters. These chose one of their 
 number in every city, to whom in particular they gave 
 the title of bishop ; lest from equaUty, as usually hap- 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 137 
 
 pens, dissensions should arise. Yet the bishop was 
 not so superior in honour and dignity, that he had do- 
 minion over his colleagues : but those duties which a 
 consul performs in the senate, that he may report con- 
 cerning matters, collect their opinions, go before others 
 in consulting, admonishing, exhorting, regulate the 
 whole proceedings by his own authority, and execute 
 what may have been determined in common council ; 
 that office the bishop sustained in the assembly of pres- 
 byters. And the ancients themselves confess that it 
 was introduced by human agreement, through the ne- 
 cessity of the times. Thus Jerome, on the epistle to 
 Titus, says : ' A presbj^ter is the same as a bishop. 
 And before that by the instigation of the devil dissen- 
 sions were made in religion, and it was said among the 
 people, I am of Paul, I of Cephas, the churches were 
 governed by the common council of presbyters. After- 
 ward, that the seeds of dissension might be taken away, 
 the whole charge was committed to one. As, therefore, 
 the presbyters know that they are subject by the cus- 
 tom of the church to him who is over them ; so the 
 bishops may have known that they are superior to the 
 presbyters more by custom than by the Lord's appoint- 
 ment, and oug-ht to o-overn the church in common.' He 
 elsewhere, however, teaches how ancient the institution 
 was. For he says, at Alexandria, from Mark the evan- 
 gelist to Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always 
 placed one chosen from themselves in a higher degree, 
 whom they call bishop." — " To every city was allotted 
 a certain region which received its presbyters from 
 thence, and was added to the body of that church. — 
 Every college (as I have said) was subject to one 
 bishop, for the sake of government only and preserving 
 peace ; who so exceeded others in dignify that he was 
 subject to the assembly of the brethren. But if the 
 tract of country which was in his bishopric was so 
 large that he could not fulfd all the duties of a bishop. 
 
138 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 presbyters were appointed in certain places through 
 that country who should discharge his duty in minor 
 matters." 
 
 In the sentence immediately following this extract, 
 Dr. C. says : " In this passage Calvin fully admits the 
 main facts contended for by Episcopalians.""^ He cer- 
 tainly does admit in it the main facts contended for by 
 Methodist Episcopalians ; and if Dr. C. is satisfied with 
 the footing on which Calvin places the subject in this 
 passage, then am I perfectly content here to end the 
 controversy, and to leave every reader for himself to 
 judge and interpret Calvin's language without a word 
 of comment from any quarter. For nothing, to my 
 humble apprehension, could be more diametrically op- 
 posite to Dr. C.'s " main" positions, than those here 
 asserted by that learned and eminent reformer. 
 
 On the same page with the above extract there is a 
 note of Dr. C.'s, which seems to me to be a curiosity in 
 logic. He undertakes to prove that Jerome " did not 
 then confess it, as Calvin says," "that a presbyter is the 
 same as a bishop." He commences, indeed, with say- 
 inof, " accordino- to Dr. Miller :" but concludes with the 
 broad affirmation which I have just stated. What then 
 did Jerome do ? Why, says Dr. C, "He only inferred, 
 and he himself calls it an opinion." That is to say, 
 Jerome's words, according to Dr. Miller, are, — " A pres- 
 byter therefore is the same as a bishop."! And yet 
 Dr. C. gravely and stoutly denies that, even with regard 
 to the primitive period of which Jerome was speaking, 
 this is either a confession or an assertion that a pres- 
 byter was the same as a bishop ! With an author who 
 can allow himself such liberty argument surely must 
 be hopeless. 
 
 To be obliged to read the same things a hundred 
 times over in one small volume is irksome enough ; but 
 
 * Page 198. t Miller's Letters, p. 180. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 139 
 
 to be obli(>-ed to answer them as often would be still 
 more so ; and yet one must do this, or pass by much 
 that Dr. C. says. The very strong terms and phrases 
 " impossible," '' utterly impossible," " the only possibi- 
 lity," " the very idea is absurd," " an absurdity too 
 great to be advocated by any man in his senses," and 
 others similar, which so frequently occur in this gentle- 
 man's production, seem to me neither to add any special 
 grace to style, nor force to argument, and to evince 
 rather more of overweening conceit of his own opinions 
 on the part of the author, than of modest respect for his 
 readers, who — as above said — within the vast scope of 
 bare possibility, might possibly happen to differ from 
 him. 
 
 For example, Dr. C. says, " The only possibility of a 
 breach in the episcopal succession could arise from the 
 bishops at some period of the church laying aside the 
 ceremony of ordination, or allowing other than bishops 
 to ordain bishops. The first idea is an absurdity too 
 great to be advocated by any man in his senses ; and 
 as to the other, w^hen no instance can be produced by 
 the ablest and most learned advocates for presbyterian 
 ordination, in which presbyters laid on hands by per- 
 mission of the church until the year 657 — ."'^ 
 
 Now in regard to "the first idea" in the above pas- 
 sage, I would just remind Dr. C. of " the case of the 
 episcopal churches in the United States" at the close of 
 our revolutionary war; and then let him consider the 
 " Sketch of a Frame of Government," offered by Dr. 
 White on that occasion, in which he says, — " ' In each 
 smaller district there should be elected a general vestry 
 or convention, consisting of a convenient number, (the. 
 minister to be one.) They should elect a clergyman their 
 permanent presidetit ; who, in conjunction with other 
 
 * Page 200. Dr. C. aftenvard, pao^e 210, acknovvledjjes this date to be 
 erronoous, and that what he alludes to here was in the fourlli century, and 
 not in the seventh, as here. 
 
140 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 clergymen, to be also appointed by the body, may exer 
 cise such powers as are purely sipirituBl, particularly that 
 of admitting to the ministry,^ p. 11." 
 
 " Again : ' The conduct meant to be recommended is, 
 to include in the proposed frame of government a gene- 
 ral approbation of episcopacy and a declaration of an 
 intention to procure the succession as soon as conve- 
 niently may be ; but in the meantime to carry the plan 
 into effect without waiting for the succession' Ibid., p. 15." 
 
 " ' But it will also be said,' continues Dr. White, 
 ' that the very name of " bishop''' is offensive ; if so, 
 change it for another ; let the superior clergyma7i be a 
 president, a superintendeiit, or in plain English, and ac- 
 cording to the literal translation of the original, an 
 overseer. However, if names are to be reprobated, be- 
 cause the powers annexed to them are abused, there are 
 few appropriated to either civil or ecclesiastical distinc- 
 tions, which would retain their places in our catalogue.' 
 Ibid., p. 17." 
 
 Is it not plain from the above that Dr. W. did not 
 consider it so perfectly absurd an idea that there might 
 be a valid episcopacy in fact, under whatever name, 
 simply by election, without the usual ceremony of ordi- 
 nation ? It w^ould seem, he must either have meant this, 
 or that there should be an episcopal consecration by 
 presbyters. Dr. C. may take his choice. 
 
 Again : some very learned men have been of opinion, 
 (and I merely mention this in evidence that the idea 
 possibly may not be so utterly absurd,) that the episco- 
 pal church of Alexandria did perhaps actually dispense 
 with the usual form of imposing hands in the creation of 
 bishops, for about two hundred years ; using no other 
 forms than simple election, and the subsequent instal- 
 ment and salutation, as the army created an emperor, 
 or deacons an archdeacon. 
 
 As to the other part of Dr. C.'s alternative, viz., " al- 
 lowing other than bishops [in his sense] to ordain 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY RE VIEWED. 141 
 
 bishops," — he cannot be permitted, without contradiction, 
 to persist in repeating a hundred times over, when at 
 least the long series of such ordinations, virtually or 
 formally, in the ancient apostolical church of Alexan- 
 dria stands recorded, in so many learned pages, an im- 
 perishable refutation of the baseless assertion. Nor is 
 there any evidence that " the church," universal or par- 
 ticular, ever condemned them. As to " the ancient 
 church" of the fourth and fifth centuries, and the coun- 
 cils of that period, they have already been sufficiently 
 considered.* 
 
 The progressive tendency, as the church became 
 more and more corrupt, and the hierarchy more firmly 
 established, to restrict the right of ordaining bishops, is 
 manifest from the fact, admitted by Dr. C.,t that after 
 the rise of metropolitan bishops, they began gradually 
 to claim to themselves this exclusive right. 
 
 Before closing his work, Dr. C. says, " It has been 
 doubted whether the ordination of Archbishop Parker, 
 through whom all the bishops of the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church of England derive their ordination, was per- 
 fectly canonical ; because the persons who ordained him 
 had been deprived of their bishoprics and expelled the 
 country by the Popish party, on the accession of Mary 
 to the crown of England. The question to be settled in 
 this case is, whether a bishop who is expelled from his 
 bishopric by a successful party, in the contest about 
 doctrines which have in all ages agitated the church, 
 is hereby deprived of his character of bishop.":}: 
 
 On this quotation I would ask, (1.) Was the contest 
 of the English reformers with the Church of Rome one 
 merely " about doctrines ?" — Why, then, w^as that peti- 
 
 * Dr. Jortin remarks, that " he who will believe all that he finds related 
 by the writers of the fourth and fifth centuries, should be provided with a 
 double portion of credulity, and have the stomach of an ostrich to digest 
 fables." — Remarks on Eccl. Hist., vol. i, p. 168. 
 
 t Page 207. X Ibid. 
 
142 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 tion inserted in the early litany of the Church of Eng- 
 land, " From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and 
 all his detestable enormities, good Lord, deliver us ?" 
 
 (2.) What does Dr. C. mean by the episcopal " cha- 
 racter V That he does not mean the personal religious 
 or moral character of a bishop is plain. Does he 
 mean, then, that mysterious something which Ro- 
 manists assert to be imprinted in orders, and which 
 some of them define to be " a power to work a spi- 
 ritual effect ?" or, with others of them, does he admit 
 '' the character''' to be merely " a deputation to a special 
 office T* Whether, even according to the former defi- 
 nition, the character may not be lost or taken away, I 
 shall not here discuss. f But if Dr. C. intends it in the 
 
 * The reader may see some curious disquisitions on tiiis subject in Sarpi's 
 History of the Council of Trent, page 593. In the debate in that body on 
 the question of the character, was involved the fundamental point in this 
 controversy, viz., whether in the sacrament of orders, as the Romanists con- 
 sider it, any higher character can be imprinted than that oi priesthood. On 
 this point, even at that period, late in the sixteenth century, the doctors and 
 theologues, prelates, and cardinals, in that famous papal assembly itself, 
 were greatly divided. 
 
 t The reader who desires to know the true "character" of those who 
 filled the " apostolical chairs," both in the eastern and western churches, 
 during a long series of the boasted successions, by divine right, from which 
 high-church ultraists, Greek or Roman, Protestant or Papal, claim exclusive 
 title to minister in holy things, may see it amply and revoltingly enough por- 
 trayed in Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii, pp. 389, 390. The fol- 
 lowing is a specimen : — 
 
 " To those who consider the primitive dignity, and the solemn nature of 
 the ministerial character, the corruptions of the clergy must appear deplora- 
 ble beyond all expression. These corruptions were mounted to the most 
 enormous height in that dismal period of the church which we have now be- 
 fore us. Both in the eastern and western provinces, the clergy were, for 
 the most part, shamefully illiterate and stupid, ignorant more especially in 
 religious matters, equally enslaved to sensuality and superstition, and capable 
 of the most abominable and flagitious deeds. This miserable degeneracy of 
 the sacred order was, according to the most credible accounts, principally 
 owing to the pretended chiefs and rulers of the universal church, who in- 
 dulged themselves in the commission of the most odious crimes, and aban- 
 doned themselves to the lawless impulse of the most licentious passions 
 without reluctance or remorse; who confounded, in short, all difference be- 
 tween just and unjust, to satisfy their impious ambition ; and whose spiritual 
 empire was such a diversified scene of iniquity and violence as never was 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 143 
 
 latter sense, then may it not be lost by deprivation, as 
 in the case of the Protestant bishops, of whom Dr. C. 
 speaks, in the reign of Mary, who were deprived by the 
 existing authority, both ecclesiastical and civil? The 
 case of the bishop of Worcester, who fled to the conti- 
 nent on the death of Mary, and was recognised as a 
 bishop in the Council of Trent, is not parallel. For in 
 the latter case it was the papal church acknowledging 
 its own bishop ; whereas, the former was that of bishops 
 resisting and separating from that mother church from 
 which they had derived their authority, and to which 
 they had owed obedience ; and who, consequently, 
 were schismatics, both on [Dr. C.'s] principles and those 
 of the Church of Rome. 
 
 Dr. Miller quotes a passage from Hilary, a Roman 
 deacon in the fourth century, which he renders thus : — 
 " In Egypt, even at this day, the presbyters ordain in 
 the bishop's absence." No, says Dr. C, the passage 
 does not mean that they ordain, but that they confirm ; 
 the word used by Hilary is " consignant ;" which Ains- 
 worth renders " seal, sign, mark, register, record, confirm, 
 and ratify y Now, continues Dr. C, "there is not one 
 of these words that does not correspond with the real 
 
 exhibited under any of those temporal tyrants who have been the scourges of 
 mankind. We may form some notion of the Grecian patriarchs from the 
 single example of Theophylact, who, according to the testimonies of the most 
 respectable writers, made the most impious traffic of ecclesiastical promo- 
 tions, and expressed no sort of care about any thing but his dogs and horses. 
 Degenerate, however, and licentious as these patriarchs might be, they were, 
 generally speaking, less profligate and indecent than the Roman pontifls. 
 
 "The history of the Roman pontiffs, that lived in this century, is a history 
 of so many monsters, and not of men, and exhibits a horrible series of the 
 most flagitious, tremendous, and complicated crimes, as all writers, even 
 those of the Romish communion, unanimously confess." 
 
 Can the most veteran and indomitable controvertist have the hardihood 
 seriously to undertake to persuade Protestant Christians of the 19th century, 
 that the horrible " monsters" above mentioned, in both the eastern and west- 
 ern hemisphere, were truly " called of God, as was Aaron," — " moved by the 
 Holy Ghost," and throughout their flagitious career enjoyed exclusively the ful- 
 filment of that gracious promise, " Lo, I am with you alway V He who can 
 digest such a fable, must indeed, as Jortin said on another occasion, " have 
 the stomach of an ostrich." 
 
144 EPISCOPAL CONTROYErvSY REYIEVrED. 
 
 signification of confirming by the bishop. — But there is 
 not one of these words that has any reference to setting 
 apart by ordination."^ The reader will not forget that 
 Dr. C. elsewhere denies as stoutly that presbyters 
 anciently confirmed as that they ordained. Here he is 
 obliged to admit it to be Hilary's testimony that they 
 confirmed, in order to avoid admitting it as a testi- 
 mony that they ordained. But then what becomes of 
 the " charactef imprinted in ordination ; if not one of 
 the words used by Ainsworth to express the sense 
 of cojisigno " has any reference to setting apart by or- 
 dination ?" To " sign," to " mark," — have these terms 
 no reference w^hatever to impressing or imprinting a 
 ^^ character?'''' 
 
 But there is much more yet to be said as to the 
 ground on w^hich the regularity of the archiepiscopal 
 ordination of Dr. Parker, through whom all the bishops 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and 
 America claim title, is disputed. In the reign of Henry 
 Vni. the bishops of the Popish party, — although it does 
 not appear that Cranmer (or perhaps the rest) did so, 
 in that reign, as Burnet says, — took out commissions, 
 by which they solemnly acknowledged " That all juris- 
 diction, civil and ecclesiastical, flowed from the king, and 
 that they exercised it only at the king's courtesie ; and 
 as they had of his bounty, so they would be ready to 
 deliver it up when he should be pleased to call for it ; 
 and therefore the king did empower them, in his stead, 
 to ordain, give institution, and do all the other parts of 
 the episcopal function, which was to last during his 
 pleasure."! "By this [says Bishop Burnet expressly] 
 they were made indeed the king's bishops.'^t 
 
 Again : — In the succeeding reign of Edward VI., in 
 the year 1547, the same historian says, "All that held 
 
 * Page 125. 
 
 t Burnet's Abridgment of the History of the Reformation, book i, pp. 
 228, 229. 
 
 X Ibid., p. 229. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 145 
 
 offices were required to come and renew their commis- 
 sions, and to swear allemance to the kinp- : amons" the 
 rest, the bishops came and took out such coiumissions as 
 were granted in the former reig7i, only by those they 
 were subaltern to the king's vicegerent, but there being 
 none now in that office, they were immediately subaltern 
 to the king ; and by them they were to hold their bishop- 
 rics only during the king's pleasure, and were impow- 
 ered in the king's name, as his delegates, to perform 
 all the parts of the episcopal function. Cranmer set an 
 example to the rest in taking out one of those. It was 
 thought fit thus to keep the bisliops under the terror of 
 such an arbitrary power lodged in the king, that so it 
 might be more easy to turn them out, if they should 
 much oppose what might be done in points of religion: 
 but the ill consequences of such an unlimited power 
 beinof well foreseen, the bishops that were afterward 
 promoted were not so fettered, but were provided, to 
 hold their bishoprics during life."* 
 
 In the same reign an act of parliament was passed, 
 " that the conge d'elire and the election pursuant to it 
 being but a shadow, since the person was named by 
 the king, should cease for the future, and that bishops 
 should be named by the king's letters patent, and there- 
 upon be consecrated."! 
 
 " The form of the patent was, That the king appointed 
 such a one to be bishop during his natural life, or as long 
 as he behaved himself w^ell ; and gave him power to 
 ordain or deprive ministers, to exercise ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction, and perform all the other parts of the epis- 
 copal function that by the word of God were committed 
 to bishops, and this they were to do iri the hinges name 
 and hy his authority. ""X 
 
 Among those created bishops by the king's letters 
 patent, by which he was empowered to ordain, and to 
 
 • Buinct's Abridgment of the History of liie Reformalion, book ii, pp. 4, 6. 
 t lb., p. 37. I lb., p. 193. 
 
 10 
 
146 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 perform all the other parts of the episcopal function, in 
 the kirig' s name and by his authority , was Barlow, one of 
 those very persons by whom Dr. Parker was set apart 
 for the office of archbishop.^ Another of them was 
 Scory, and Neal calls Barlow and Scory bishops elect."! 
 He states also, that although Covei'dale and Hodghins, 
 the remaining two, assisted in Parkers ordination, yet 
 they never exercised the episcopal character afterward. + 
 It is certain, moreover, that efforts were made, in the 
 first instarice, to induce three of the Popish bishops rvho 
 had not been depived in the preceding reign to unite in 
 the ordination, and they were first named (viz. Tonstal, 
 Bourn, and Pool) in the warrant which w^as issued by 
 the queen (Elizabeth) for this purpose. This is a de- 
 monstration that the union of three bishops who had 
 not been deprived was then deemed important, if not 
 essential, to the canonical validity of the ordination : 
 otherwise, the warrant, in the circumstances of that 
 time, would never have embraced three Popish bishops. 
 But not one of the bishops who had not been deprived 
 would act. And hence the ordination, from necessity, 
 not of choice, was performed by deprived bishops. 
 
 In this state of facts then the objection to the canoni- 
 cal validity of Dr. Parker's archiepiscopal ordination is, 
 that it was performed by persons who had been legally 
 deprived in the preceding reign, and had not been re- 
 stored. About seven years afterward, indeed, the matter 
 was brought before the British parliament, both houses 
 of which, to silence clamor, confirmed the ordination 
 of Parker, and the ordinations derived from him. But 
 be it remembered, (1,) that this only proves the more 
 strongly the seriousness of the doubts then existing as 
 to the validity of what had been done ; and, (2,) that 
 the confirmation of it by an act of parliament was, after 
 all, but a lay confirmation. 
 
 * Burnet's Hist., &c., p. 193. 
 
 t History of tlie Puritans, vol. i, p. 181. % Ibid. 
 
 10^ 
 
EPiSCOPxVL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 147 
 
 Yet farther: — In another part of his work, p. 149, 
 Dr. C. argues that the consent or intention of the grantor 
 is necessary to the vahdity of a grant ; and builds a 
 similar argument on the understanding of the grantee, 
 at the time of receiving the grant. Now I have proved 
 that in the year 1547 the English bishops took out epis- 
 copal commissions as " subaltern to the king," and to 
 perform all the parts of the episcopal function in his 
 name, and as his delegates:^' On these terms, then, epis- 
 copal authority was both granted and received, and it 
 was so expressly understood and agreed by both parties 
 at the time. The Protestant bishops among these w^ere 
 deprived in the succeeding reign ; and when they took 
 part, in the year 1559, in the ordination of Parker, had 
 never been legally restored. This I believe to be the 
 true state of the case, and shall submit it to the reader's 
 own judgment w'hether, on the principles by wdiich the 
 deprived bishops held their commissions, and those laid 
 down by Dr. C. as above quoted, the episcopal ordina- 
 tion of Dr. Parker was clearly and perfectly canonical 
 and valid. 
 
 * Burnet, Book ii, pp. 4, 5. 
 
148 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 [ Unfinished Remarks on Bishop Onderdonh's tract, entitled 
 " Episcopacy tested by Scripture."] 
 
 In passing to Dr. Onderdonk's tract, the first remark 
 I have to make is, that it is essentially defective in not 
 furnishing at the outset a clear definition of the precise 
 import which he attaches to the term " episcopacy." The 
 manner in which he evidently avails himself of tlie vague- 
 ness of this term throughout his tract renders his whole 
 argument fallacious, and a mere sophism. The ground 
 on which he proposes to build his argument is other- 
 wise excellent, and exactly that on which we desire to 
 meet all opponents; viz., "the Scriptural evidence of 
 episcopacy." Equally excellent is the principle by 
 which he ag-rees that the discussion oug-htto be restricted, 
 viz., that " no argument is worth takino^ into account that 
 has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic^ 
 — the Scriptural evidence." I regret exceedingly, there- 
 fore, that it did not occur to Dr. O., or else that he did 
 not find it convenient, or think it expedient, or even ne- 
 cessary in order to a fair issue, to state with candour 
 and precision what he means by a term of such funda- 
 mental importance in the discussion as to involve within 
 itself, it would seem, some one specific frame of polity^ 
 of -universal and perpetual obligation, by Divine autho- 
 rity, on the whole church of Christ on earth. This 
 capital defect at the very commencement of Dr. O.'s 
 offer of an issue in the argument is the more to be re- 
 gretted, because he undoubtedly knows, not only that 
 the term " episcopacy" is a very vague one in itself, 
 but that it is very variously understood, not only by dif- 
 ferent denominations of Christians, but by different 
 classes of the same denomination, and even within his 
 own. The Romanists have an " episcopacy ;" the 
 Church of England, and the Protestant Episcopal, and 
 some others, an " episcopacy ;" and high and low church 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 149 
 
 Episcopalians among' tliemselves ; the Methodist Epis- 
 copal have an " episcopacy ;" nay, Presbyterians admit 
 and contend for " episcopacy." And I know not, in- 
 deed, any denomination that, in some form and to some 
 extent or other, does not both recognise the principle 
 and practise the thing, viz., some species of ministerial 
 superiority, — graduated or otherwise, — in a superintend- 
 ing care, charge, government, inspection, or oversight 
 of a church or churches. 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, with great deference, that 
 it is Dr. O. himself who inflicts the " forensic injustice" 
 of complicating this " plain topic," by making up an 
 issue so perfectly vague and indefinite that it may be 
 widened or narrowed, stretched or shortened at conve- 
 nience, as circumstances dictate, — to mean, in fact, 
 almost just any thing or nothing. 
 
 If by " episcopacy" be meant that high-church scheme 
 of ecclesiastical polity which maintains that there are 
 three, and only three, essentially distinct ministerial 
 orders, divinely ordained to be universally and perpetu- 
 ally binding on the church of Christ, so that without 
 them there can be no true church or valid Christian 
 ministry or ordinances, and that of these three orders 
 the episcopal, as inherently and essentially distinct and 
 supreme by Divine appointment and right, has alone 
 and exclusively the power and authority to ordain other 
 ministers, — and that all this is apparent from God's own 
 word, as an essential part of the Christian revelation : — 
 then we understand the issue, and are prepared to 
 meet it. 
 
 I must here, however, do Dr. O. the justice to say, 
 and I do it with pleasure, that from this issue he, at 
 least, blenches ; and in so doing, as I humbly conceive, 
 he clearly gives up the essence of the high-church 
 cause, and confesses it to be untenable. It ought not 
 to be forgotten, moreover, that this respectable prelate, 
 the " assistant bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 
150 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED- 
 
 in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania," wrote after 
 Dr. C, with his book before him, and probably under- 
 stood the subject at least as well as the medical gentle- 
 man just named, and was evidently as much disposed 
 to press the high-church pretensions to as great an ex- 
 tent as he conscientiously could. Yet this more candid, 
 more liberal, or better informed opponent, with all his 
 manifest predisposition and bias to the other side, felt 
 himself bound to say that those who "maintain that 
 episcopacy is essential to the being of a church," assert 
 an " extreme opinion," to which he " subscribes not."^ 
 
 Inconsistent, however, as Dr. O, is, in admitting that 
 episcopacy, in his sense of it, is not essential to the 
 being of a church, and yet maintaining that " no plea," 
 not even that of " necessity," will justify a departure 
 from it, — I shall proceed with an examination of the 
 process by which he reaches his conclusions. And in 
 doing so, I must give notice, once for all, that in speak- 
 ing of episcopacy as advocated by him, I do it always 
 in the high-church sense, with the single exception 
 above named, as to its indispensableness to the being 
 of a church. 
 
 Another fatal fallacy which lurks at the very founda- 
 tion of Dr. O.'s argument is the indefinite phrase under 
 cover of which he would introduce the absolutely im'pe-- 
 rative character of episcopacy as a duty of moral obli- 
 gation, in obedience to a Divine ordinance. " If episco- 
 pacy [he says] be set forth in Scripture, it is the ordi- 
 nance of God ; and the citizens professing Christianity 
 are individually bound to conform to it."t 
 
 If it be " set fortli'' in Scripture ! How convenient a 
 phrase ! and why used ? WTiy not say plainly. If it be 
 commanded in Scripture ? Obviously, because it is well 
 
 * Paffe 5. [A note in the MS. here indicates that the author intended to 
 Insert something corres|)onding to what may be found on p. 10. — Ed.] 
 t Page 4, 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 151 
 
 known that it is not so. And why then should we la- 
 bour and exert even the utmost ingenuity of sophistry 
 itself to make the commandment broader than it is ? Is 
 it not, as it stands, "exceeding broad," — exactly as it 
 should be, having neither redundancy nor defect? Who 
 then hatli required it at our hands to add to it, and to 
 narrow the very covenant mercies of the Father of mer- 
 cies 1 May there not be danger on this side as well as 
 on the other? And where, at least, there is so much 
 doubtfulness and difference of opinion among confess- 
 edly wise and good men, as to either extreme, is not a 
 medium, as before said, the more probable and safer 
 ground ? 
 
 The very subtile (I say not subtle) and almost imper- 
 ceptible manner in which Dr. O. would lead his readers, 
 step by step, through the gradations of his argument, 
 from the slenderest premises, is indeed worthy of the 
 " forensic" ingenuity of a special pleader. At a subse- 
 quent stage, he takes the ground, interrogatively, that 
 " a mere hi7it or intimation contained in Scripture, (always 
 excepting what refers to things or circumstances de- 
 clared to be transient, or such in their nature,) though 
 it have not the force of an express command, is — suffi- 
 ciently binding on every servant of God.""^ And although 
 at one time he distinctly disallows " that episcopal 
 claims itnchurch all non-episcopal denominations," and 
 admits that such may be worthy professors of the true 
 religion, accepted of God through the Saviour, and not 
 only not inferior to " the church,''' but even superior to it 
 in both moral and spiritual character, yet in the very 
 next paragraph he assumes that those same " episcopal 
 claims" can be sufficiently proved from Scripture, to 
 make their rejection " a clear contravention of the word 
 of God,'' pp. 6, 7. Now, in the first place, it is denied 
 that there is even any " hint or intimation" in Scripture 
 
 • Page 10. 
 
152 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 that it is '' the Divine will" that high-church episcopacy 
 should be, universally and perpetually, the morally 
 obligatory constitution of all Christian churches. And 
 it is affirmed, on the other hand, that there are very 
 many hints and intimations from which the contrary 
 may be most fairly inferred. And, in the second place, 
 the very resort to mere hints and intimations, by a dis- 
 putant of such ability, and so well read in Scripture, 
 seems a sufficient indication that he was himself con- 
 scious of the extreme scantiness of any better Scripture 
 proofs, and consequently of the extreme questionable- 
 ness and narrowness, to say the least, of the foundation 
 on which he would rear his weighty fabric. 
 
 In regard to Dr. O.'s illustrations of Scripture hints 
 or illustrations, his interpretation of some is denied, and 
 the appositeness and force of others. He says, for ex- 
 ample, — " St. Paul says of the Gentiles, ' These, having 
 not the law, are a law unto themselves :' they had not 
 the positive revealed law, yet the light of nature, which 
 only intimates what we ought to do, but does not spe- 
 cifically prescribe it, was ' a law' to them, having suffi- 
 cient obligation to make its suggestions their duty, and 
 to give those suggestions full authority in ' their con- 
 science :' and surely the hints recorded by the Deity 
 in his word are not inferior in obligation to those affi)rd- 
 ed in his works."* 
 
 Now (1,) by "the law" which the Gentiles had not, 
 Rom. ii, 14, St. Paul evidently meant the written law, 
 as contained in the Old Testament, and (2,) he says no 
 such thing as that " the light of nature" " afforded in his 
 works" — the works of Deity- — " intimates what we ought 
 to do," or " was a law to them," — the Gentiles, — " having' 
 sufficient obligation to make its suggestions their duty, 
 and to give those suggestions /w// authority in their con- 
 Bcience." We deny this whole doctrine. And St. Paul 
 
 • Page 10, 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 153 
 
 plainly shows that he meant no such thing, by adding 
 immediately in the next verse, "which show the work of 
 the law 7vritten in their hearts ." — by the very same hand, 
 doubtless, — for what other hand could do it, — which 
 engraved the commandments on the tables of stone. 
 This was to them, then, a jyositive Divine law, — their 
 authoritative rule of action and of judgment, which they 
 could not shght or violate and be guiltless, or " accepted 
 with God." 
 
 As an illustration of his position, Dr. O. says : — 
 " There is no record of a command to observe a Sab- 
 bath daring the whole antediluvian and patriarchal 
 ag-es ; will it then be alleged that the mere declaration 
 that God * blessed and sanctified the seventh day' did 
 not sufficiently imply that it was the Divine will that the 
 seventh day should be kept holy T* 
 
 Does Dr. O. seriously intend to say, then, that the 
 sanctity of the Sabbath as a Divine institution is not 
 expressly contained in the very words of the institution 
 as recorded by the inspired historian ? The original 
 Hebrew word ty-ip, rendered in our version sanctijied, 
 (literally, made holy,) in the Septuagint is iiytai^ev, (of the 
 same import.) Buxtorf, — " sacrari, consecrari, sancti- 
 ficari, sanctum, sacrum esse vel fieri." Leigh's Critica 
 Sacra, — " Ab usu communi ad divinum separatus, con- 
 secratus," &c. And by Parkhurst (on this place) — 
 " To set apart, separate, or appropriate to sacred or reli- 
 gious purposes, to sanctify, to consecrated 
 
 His second example is from " the rite of sacrifice," 
 respecting which he asks whether " the record of the 
 example of Abel in the antediluvian age, and of those 
 of Noah, Abraham, &c., afterward, were not sufficient 
 intimations from God that to offer this sacramental atone- 
 ment was a duty." The answer to this is, (1,) That 
 ■without a direct revelation from God of his will in this 
 
 * Page 10. 
 
154 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 respect, there is no reason to believe that the idea of 
 offering animals in sacrifice as a sacramental atone- 
 ment would ever have entered into the mind of man, or 
 have been his duty : and, (2,) that hi the cases of Abel 
 and Noah, the Divine pleasure in this specific, definite 
 thing was explicitly signified : and, (3,) that in the case 
 of Abram it was exijlicitly commanded ; see Gen. xv, 
 9, &c. ; and the command contained an epitome of that 
 very law of sacrifices afterward more fully revealed 
 through Moses. 
 
 His third example is from the creation, for each other, 
 of one man and one woman ; and it is asked if this be 
 not a sufficient intimation that polygamy is contrary to 
 the will of God. With our present light this would seem 
 so. And yet this is an unfortunate example for Dr. O.'s 
 theory. For how does he reconcile it with the practice 
 of polygamy by some of those who, under that dispen- 
 sation, stood highest, nevertheless, in the Divine favour? 
 
 His fourth is, that " there is no positive command for 
 infant baptism," and yet a sufficiency, " whether as ex- 
 amples or as intimations," to authorize it. In all the 
 arguments for infant baptism we agree, and urge them 
 for the conviction of others. But we think it is also 
 positively commanded, at least as positively as female 
 communion. The command is to disciple all nations, 
 which Dr. O., it is presumed, will agree to be the true 
 import of the original. Matt, xxvni, 19. And as children 
 are a part of all nations, and may be discipled, they are 
 as clearly embraced in the command as females are in 
 reference to the communion under the term man. And, 
 corresponding with this is the express promise annexed 
 to the ordinance, — " For the promise is to you and to 
 your children," Acts ii, 39 : a term embracing their pos- 
 terity certainly, — ^but as certainly, in our estimation, 
 their offspring then living. 
 
 His fifth is in regrard to the change of the day of rest 
 and devotion, from the seventh to the first. Does he 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTRO\ERSY REVIEWED. 155 
 
 mean to say, then, that the moral obhgation consists in 
 the observance of the first day specifically, or of a se- 
 venth part of time : in other words, is he of opinion 
 that there are sufficient hints in Scripture to constitute 
 the former a Christian law of universal and perpetual 
 obligation, the neglect of which would be sinful, even 
 where the latter, — the seventh day for example, — the 
 laws of any country allowing it, should be sacredly and 
 conscientiously observed ? 
 
 But if Dr. O.'s rule be a good one, it ought to admit 
 of being carried through : and if it be found to prove 
 too much, it must be allowed to be good for nothing. 
 The objection that monarchy is " set forth" in Scripture, 
 as well as episcopacy, he has answered in a note, 
 pp. 43, 44. But some of the very points made in that 
 answer justify, I think, some other objections, to which 
 I do not perceive how that answer, or any other on his 
 principles, can satisfactorily be applied. He says, for 
 example, that monarchy, being an ordinance of man, 
 might be changed by man ; and when the objector urges 
 farther that the Deity himself gave a king to Israel, he 
 answers that it was " in anger." Suppose then we take 
 (1,) the case of a national church — a national ecclesi- 
 astical establishment ; and, (2,) a corresponding esta- 
 blishment by law of the system of tithes. Such, indis- 
 putably, were the institutions which Jehovah ordained 
 for his ancient church and people, — and certainly not 
 in anger. And high churchmen, moreover, and Dr. C. 
 especially, very strenuously and boldly insist upon it 
 that " what Aaron and his sons were, bishops and 
 priests now are." If this analogy be a correct one, is it 
 not a pretty strong " intimation" of what ought to follow, 
 and the " hint" that a national establishment and tithes 
 are, agreeable to the Divine will, as clearly " set forth" 
 in Scripture as some others of Dr. O.'s "examples?" 
 In one of his notes, p. 44, he says, — " It has been said 
 that the appointment of a king for Israel by the Deity, 
 
156 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 is an intimation of the Divine will in favour of royal go- 
 vernment, and that therefore that form of civil maf^is- 
 tracy must he as binding as episcopacy. We reply, (he 
 continues,) that if such an intimation of the Divine will 
 existed, it would unquestionably be binding on Chris- 
 tians." He then proceeds to show that this was not the 
 fact, because a king was given to them " in anger," in 
 consequence of their perverseness and ambition in in- 
 sisting on having one. But this reasoning does not at 
 all apply to the national church establishment and tithes, 
 which, according to Dr. O.'s doctrine of intimations and 
 his reasoning upon it, must be binding on Christians, 
 and, consequently, conformity to these intimations can- 
 not be refused, in nations professing Christianity, "m 
 foro conscienticB, animoque integro^ 
 
 Again : Was it not sufficiently intimated under the 
 Levitical economy, that priests ought not to enter the 
 service of the sanctuary till thirty years of age, and that 
 they ought to be discharged at fifty? Did not our Lord 
 give an example in his own case of not entering on the 
 work of the ministry till thirty years of age ; and of 
 washing the disciples' feet ? Is there not a sufficient in- 
 timation of the Divine approbation of the community of 
 goods in the first Christian church : and in choosing an 
 apostle by lot : Paul's circumcising Timothy : the taking 
 of illiterate men from the common occupations of life for 
 apostles and ministers ? 
 
 Other examples might be adduced, but for the present 
 I shall rest this part of the cause with these. 
 
 In order to prove the duty of obedience to wicked and 
 worthless priests and bishops. Dr. O. alleges that saying 
 of our Lord, " The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' 
 seat," &c., Matt, xxiii, 2. It should be observed, how- 
 ever, (1,) That our Lord simply states the fact, ''they 
 sit," &c., or rather, they "sat;" for in the Greek the 
 verb is in the past tense. (2,) That they occupied that 
 seat by national authority ; and so far obedience was due 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 157 
 
 to them as a national constitution, and as readers of the 
 law and of the prophets. But that he did not mean to 
 say that those wicked men among them who then occu- 
 pied it, did so by Divine appointment or with the Divine 
 approbation, or that the people were bound to render 
 them unlimited obedience, is manifest from his own 
 heavy denunciation of them in that same chapter, and 
 elsewhere, as a very generation of vipers, charging them 
 with even making void the law of God through their 
 traditions and teaching, that they shut up the kingdom 
 of heaven against men, and made their proselytes even 
 doubly more the children of hell than themselves. If, 
 therefore. Dr. O. could ever allege Scripture for the mere 
 fact that " bishops," whether by national law, usage, or 
 usurpation, '' sit in the apostles' seats" still, if they be 
 such a generation as those scribes and Pharisees were, 
 making their proselytes even doubly more the chil- 
 dren of hell than themselves, and making void the law, 
 &c., we should say that they -ought to be denounced as 
 our Lord denounced those whited sepulchres of that day, 
 and the people taught to beware of them, and placed as 
 soon as practicable under the guidance of better teachers 
 than those " fools and blind," however learned, &c. But 
 Dr. O. produces no such scripture as that " bishops sit 
 in the apostles' seats. ""^ And for such a " claim" — a 
 claim which asserts for bishops, however wicked and 
 worthless, erroneous in doctrine, and fatally corrupting 
 in morals — the place of infallible guides, as the apostles 
 were, to whom universal, perpetual, implicit obedience 
 is due, no authority short of a direct and positive " thus 
 saith the Lord," can be allowed ; nor, indeed, does such 
 a thing seem possible, without imputing sin and contra- 
 diction to the Deity himself 
 
 As to Balaam, although he prophesied the truth, 
 though himself " a wicked man," yet Dr. O. certainly 
 
 * Page 5. 
 
158 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED- 
 
 knows who hath said, " Ma7uj will say to me in that day, 
 Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, &c., 
 and then wdll I profess unto them, / never knew you; 
 depart from me," &c., I never appointed, approved, nor 
 acknowledged you as mine. 
 
 In regard to the farther plea for the obligation on the 
 people to continue in subjection to wicked priests, and 
 in communion with wicked churches, from the fact that 
 "the sons of Eli, bad as they were, ceased not to be 
 priests," and that " the Israelites at large were often cor- 
 rupt and idolatrous," yet " never lost their standing as 
 the earthly and visible church, till their dispensation was 
 superseded by that of the Gospel ;"^ there are two an- 
 swers : the first is, that the Jewish institution was of a 
 mixed character, being national and political, as well as 
 ecclesiastical ; and the priests were such by hereditary 
 descent, which Dr. O. might just as well allege as a suf- 
 ficient intimation that it ought to be so still. But the 
 Christian dispensation, being designed for the whole race 
 of man, and to be perpetual, is wholly spiritual, having 
 no connection with any political or national establish- 
 ment whatever. " My kingdom," said its Founder em- 
 phatically, " is not of this world ;" and hence the polity 
 of a Jewish politico-ecclesiastical institution, and the 
 precedents tolerated under it, have no binding force what- 
 ever, since that dispensation has been totally abolished, 
 and is now " superseded" by another, wholly pure and 
 spiritual. 
 
 The second answer is, that Dr. O.'s argument would 
 have been an admirable one for the papal hierarchy at the 
 era of the Reformation, and if it be a just and conclusive 
 one, demonstrates that the Church of England and the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in this country are schis- 
 7natical, and ought to have continued in communion with 
 " the Church" which then was, though all its priests 
 
 * Page 5. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 159 
 
 should even have been as bad as the sons of Eli, and the 
 Church " at large," like the priests, " corrupt," and even 
 " idolatrous :" such seems to me to be the inevitable con- 
 sequence of Dr. O.'s argument, if a good one ; that there- 
 fore the champions of Rome ought not to have been 
 " worsted by the extraneous argument" of the glorious 
 reformers, founded on the corruptions, the oppressions, 
 the false doctrines, (like those of the scribes and Phari- 
 sees who sat in Moses' seat, making void the command- 
 ments of God by their tradition and teaching,) or even 
 the idolatrous character of the Church at large, and the 
 " detestable enormities of its bishops and priests." The 
 argument certainly proves too much for the Protestant 
 cause, and, if a conclusive one, ought manifestly to 
 drive us all back to " the Church" from which our pre- 
 decessors so wickedly separated. 
 
 In proceeding to the second department of his essay, 
 " an exhibition of the Scriptural evidence relating to this 
 controversy," Dr. O. professes to "begin by stating the 
 precise point at issue." This, he says, is " between two 
 systems only, episcopacy, and parity, or the Presbyte- 
 rian ministry :"^ and by " parity," he states that he 
 means that system which " declares that there is but 
 one order" of men authorized to minister in sacred 
 things. We beg leave to repeat, therefore, that between 
 high church and us, this is not the issue. There is a 
 third or middle system, which is that of the Methodist 
 Episcopal polity. This system not only admits but 
 maintains the doctrine of two orders, strictly considered, 
 and a third degree, or grade, officially superior in execu- 
 tive authority and jurisdiction to the body of presbyters 
 out of which and by which it is constituted. To this 
 officially superior order, in a more general sense of this 
 term, is committed, according to this system, also the 
 exclusive and actual authority to ordain, the general 
 supervision, whether in a smaller or larger diocess, and 
 
 • Page 11. 
 
160 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 the chief administration of spiritual discipline, besides 
 enjojing all the powers of the other grades. Yet one 
 cannot go so far with Dr. O. as to say, ''If we cannot 
 authenticate the claims of the episcopal office, we will 
 surrender those of our deacons, and let all powder be 
 confined to the one office of presbyters.'^" 
 
 So far as we are concerned, then. Dr. O.'s statement 
 of the issue is a mere begging of the question. The 
 true issue between him and us is, Is ordination by pres- 
 byters, in any exigence and under any and all circum- 
 stances, wholly incompatible with episcopacy, in the Scrip- 
 tural sense of that term or thing, and in itself, by God's 
 word, unlawful and void 1 Tlie affirmative of this ques- 
 tion is what Dr. O. has to sustain, if his argument is to 
 have any bearing on us ; and, in this view of it, I pro- 
 ceed to an examination of his scripture proofs. 
 
 It is proper here to premise, however, and I beg the 
 reader to bear it in mind, that as Dr. O. distinctly admits 
 that there may be true Christian churches without epis- 
 copacy, it follows necessarily either that episcopacy is 
 not essential to the validity of ordination to the ministry, 
 or that there may be true Christian churches, (and if 
 some, why not all,) 7vitliout any ministers at all. An ar- 
 gument so incongruous must have some flaw, however 
 ingeniously it may be concealed. 
 
 At the outset of this "second department" of his essay, 
 Dr. O. frankly concedes that the name " bishop," in Scrip- 
 ture, is given to presbyters, and that " all that we read 
 in the New Testament concerning ' bishops,' (including 
 of course the words ' overseers' and ' oversight,' which 
 have the same derivation,) is to be regarded as pertain- 
 ing to that grade," viz., the order of presbyters. " The 
 highest grade he [continues] is there found in those 
 called ' apostles,' and in some other individuals, as Titus, 
 Timothy, and the angels of the seven churches in Asia 
 
 * Pasre 11. — A note in the MS. indicates that it was intended here also 
 to insert from page 10, ante. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 161 
 
 Minor, who have no official desio^nation g-iven them. It 
 was after the apostoKc age [he adds] that the name 
 'bishop' was taken from the second order and appro- 
 priated to the first, as we learn from Theodoret, one of 
 the fathers."* 
 
 How is this ? After such a preliminary flourish of 
 trumpets, long and loud, about going into Scripture 
 alone with the naked question, freed from all extraneous 
 considerations, and exclusively of all other sources of 
 authority or argument, we find ourselves, at the very 
 start, referred to " Theodoret, one of the fathers !" What 
 fathers ? Peter we know, and Paul we know ; but in 
 this issue, as offered by Dr. O. himself, who is Theo- 
 doret ? Whatever he may be elsewhere, he is an intru- 
 der here, and cannot be suffered to say one word, good 
 or bad, on either side. 
 
 In his note on the same place, Dr. O. refers to " Vi- 
 delius" also, in support of the same position. We pro- 
 test against his admission also, whether he be episcopal 
 or non-episcopal. We demand a clear field ; the field 
 chosen, proposed by Dr. O. himself — the Scripture 
 alone : and if he find not there sufficient for his pur- 
 pose, without aid, direct or incidental, from any other 
 quarter whatever, his only alternative is to give up the 
 contest. The very fact of his flying off to such '' extra- 
 neous aid," is sufficient indication that he was sensible 
 of the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of connecting 
 his chain without it. He must assume something, or go 
 out of Scripture, or inevitably fail, as we believe, to 
 make out his case. 
 
 This course on the part of Dr. O. is the more surpris- 
 ing, as he himself had previously said of certain unin- 
 spired authorities referred to, " We reject, therefore, this 
 whole extraneous appendage of the controversy before 
 us ;" and then adds, "that the rule applies to the fathers, 
 as much as to later ornaments of the church."! Is it 
 
 *Page 19. t Pages 8, 0. 
 
 11 
 
162 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 not passing strange, then, that withm a few pages after- 
 ward, he should himself attempt to avail himself of the 
 authority of one of those very fathers — nay, a father of 
 the fifth century, and a 'prelate too ! 
 
 No evidence then of any thing that was " taken from" 
 the order of presbyters, " after the apostolic age," whe- 
 ther in name or otherwise, can be admitted in the argu- 
 ment before us. This would be to travel out of the 
 Scripture record ; and by that record alone this cause 
 must be tried. 
 
 Again : Within a few sentences afterward. Dr. O. 
 says, " The original meaning of bishop was only a pres- 
 byter, but the name passed from that middle grade to 
 the highest.""^ Here again we must stop him, unplea- 
 sant and inconvenient as it may be. There is no such 
 evidence in the record, and he must not travel out of it. 
 His assumption, or mere gratuitous assertion, (for the 
 statement amounts to nothing more,) can no more be 
 allowed, under this issue, than the evidence of Theo- 
 doret. 
 
 The name " bishop," then, being given up by Dr. O. 
 as meaning, in Scripture, no higher order than presby- 
 ter, his next resort is, to see " if we can find the thing 
 sought, i. e., an office higher than that of presbyters or 
 elders."t 
 
 If this be "the thing sought," there neither is nor can 
 be any controversy on the subject. That there are in 
 the New Testament higher offices mentioned than that 
 of mere presbyters or bishops, I presume no one can 
 think of questioning. But, unfortunately for Dr. O.'s 
 system, his argument again proves too much. If one 
 higher office can be proved by it, most assuredly several 
 can ; and consequently, on this basis, more than three 
 orders must necessarily be admitted. For example, to 
 repeat a passage above quoted from Dr. O., in which he 
 says, " the highest grade is there found [in the New 
 
 * Page 12. t Ibid. 
 
 11* 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 163 
 
 Testament] in those called apostles, and in some other 
 individuals, as Titus, Timothy," &c. Now (to say 
 nothing at present of the angels of the Asiatic churches, 
 about whom the Scriptures give us so little information) 
 does any unsophisticated reader of the New Testament, 
 who has no system or purposes of party to serve, believe 
 that any '' other individuals"' exercised the same office 
 that the apostles did? Rejecting all regard to mere 
 names, and looking at things and facts, can any thing be 
 plainer than that the offices of Titus and Timothy, for in- 
 stance, (as Dr. O. names these particularly) were inferior 
 to that of Paul ? Thus much on this point here, by the 
 way. It will be resumed hereafter. 
 
 In another place. Dr. O. says of the word " bishop," 
 " In Scripture, it means a presbyter, properly so called ; 
 out of Scripture, according to the usage next to univer- 
 sal of all ages since the sacred canon was closed, it 
 means''^ — Dear sir, you must be pleased to excuse us 
 for interrupting you so frequently — no " usage," any 
 more than other testimony " out of Scripture" has any 
 place here, and you cannot be allowed to introduce it : 
 you yourself have given the challenge to test this ques- 
 tion by Scripture alone, and to that you must confine 
 yourself, or acknowledge yourself " worsted." 
 
 As to the " fact of the existence of episcopacy" in 
 Scripture, — that is to say, that there was, in the apos- 
 tolical age, an official oversight both of churches and 
 ministers, with us there is no dispute. We admit, and 
 maintain, as fully as Dr. O. does or can, that the apos- 
 tles, in common, did exercise such an oversight — an 
 itinerant general superintendency over the whole 
 church, which was an itinerant general episcopacy in 
 fact; and that others under them did exercise a subor- 
 dinate oversight by their appointment and direction ; 
 this we grant with all readiness and pleasure, as we 
 shall do whatever does appear in the Scripture, lead us 
 
 *Page 12. 
 
164 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 where it may. We agree, moreover, that it is a fair 
 inference from this fact, that an official itinerant general 
 oversight, both of churches and ministers, is agreeable to 
 the apostolical practice. But that the office and authority 
 of the apostolate itself have been transmitted, by divine 
 appointment, to any order of men since the apostles, we 
 affirm to be a mere assumption, unsupported by any 
 thing in Scripture, or that can be logically inferred 
 from it. 
 
 Dr. O. takes great pains to prove, what I apprehend 
 no one denies, that there was originally a sacred office, 
 viz., that of the apostles, superior to that of elders or 
 presbyters ; '•' and this [he adds] is substantiating nearly 
 the whole episcopal claim. ""^' 
 
 Is it possible, then, that this is the amount of what 
 Dr. O. has been labouring through sixteen pages to 
 accomplish? Why, if he had simply stated this proposi- 
 tion at the outset, it would, I presume, have been uni- 
 versally admitted ; at least it certainly would by lis. 
 And yet it is so far from " substantiating nearly the 
 whole episcopal claim," of those who arrogantly assert 
 that they occupy now, by divine right and title, the 
 identical office which the apostles did while on earth in 
 the age of inspiration, that it is not even a single hair's 
 breadth advance toward it. So far as Scripture testimony 
 alone is concerned, (and in the argument now before us 
 nothing else can be admitted,) the theory that those now 
 called bishops are successors, by divine appointment, to 
 the apostolate itself, as it was held and exercised by the 
 apostles personally in their lifetime, under a direct com- 
 mission from the Lord Jesus in person, is a mere bare- 
 faced hypothesis, an utterly gratuitous assumption, 
 against taking which for granted " all sound reasoning 
 protests." That the establishment of this high " episco- 
 pal claim," on the part of himself and others, is, how- 
 ever, absolutely essential to Dr. O.'s argument, if he do 
 
 * Page 16. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 165 
 
 not mean to trifle with his readers, is perfectly manifest: 
 and yet how is he to make it out from Scripture, and 
 Scripture alone ? To any one acquainted with Scripture 
 is it not as plain as the brightest shining of the mid-day 
 sun, that it is impossible to do it ? and that Dr. O. has 
 therefore undertaken an absohitely impossible task? 
 
 In preparing for the above conclusion, Dr. O. seems 
 solicitous to enlarge the original college of apostles by 
 embracing within it several, who, strictly speaking, in 
 regard to the thing, the primary apostolate, distinctively 
 understood, have no title to be placed in that rank. . In 
 a former part of his essay, indeed, when it seemed sub- 
 servient to his purpose, he was careful and ready 
 enough to insist that " irregularity in titles and desig- 
 nations is of so frequent occurrence, yet occasions so 
 little actual confusion, that it ought not to be viewed as 
 a real difficulty in the case before us.* Exactly so, say 
 we, in the present instance. It is the thing we seek, — 
 the proper, distinctive, original apostolate, — not the 
 mere name apostle, — which Dr. O. undoubtedly knows 
 is variously used in Scripture, and sometimes in its 
 simple etymological sense, to signify a mere messenger 
 on any occasion or mission whatever. Thus St. Paul 
 says to the Philippians, (ii, 25,) that Epaphroditus, 
 their messenger, [Gr. KnoaToXov, apostle,] had ministered 
 to his wants. Examples need not be multiplied ; as it 
 is believed that no intelhgent and candid reader of the 
 New Testament, both in the Greek and English, will 
 dispute that this term is sometimes used there in its 
 lower, common sense. Yet, as Dr. O. himself well re- 
 marks of some other names, " this confusion is but appa- 
 rent, there is no real or practical difficulty" in the case ; 
 a familiar acquaintance M'ith the Scriptures, with even 
 a moderate degree of attention and care, will enable 
 almost any reader to distinguish readily the proper 
 
 * Page 13. 
 
166 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 apostolical office, in its highest distinctive sense, inde- 
 pendently of mere names. 
 
 When Dr. O. argues, therefore, that " the apostles 
 were not thus distinguished because they were appointed 
 by Christ personally ; for some are named ' apostles' in 
 Scripture who were not thus appointed, as Matthias, 
 Barnabas, and probably James the brother of the Lord, 
 all ordained by merely human ordainers : Silvanus also, 
 and Timothy, and besides Andronicus and Junia others 
 could be added," he evidently violates the just principle 
 by .which he wishes to restrict opponents, and argues 
 from the mere name, without due regard to the proper 
 distinctions of things. 
 
 With regard to Matthias, in what manner Dr. O. 
 would make out that he was not appointed by Christ 
 personally, but was " ordained by merely human ordain- 
 ers," does not appear. He gives us barely his own as- 
 sertion for it ; which cannot be admitted as Scripture 
 evidence. The testimony of that record, on the con- 
 trary, is, that previously to the day of Pentecost, when 
 the vacancy in the apostolate occasioned by the apos- 
 tacy and death of Judas was to be filled, Peter stood 
 up, and after an introductory statement, said, " Where- 
 fore of these men which have companied with us all 
 the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 
 beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day 
 that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to 
 be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they ap- 
 pointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed 
 Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, 
 Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whe- 
 ther of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take 
 part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas 
 by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 
 And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Mat- 
 thias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."* 
 
 * Acts i, 31-26. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 167 
 
 The word " ordained," in the 22d verse of the above 
 passage, may possibly mislead such readers as are not 
 able to examine the passage in the original Greek. 
 Such as are able to do so, however, will be convinced, 
 I am persuaded, by a moment's inspection, that there 
 is no word there in the Greek which can with any 
 propriety be rendered " ordained," in the present ordi- 
 nary acceptation of the term. The words in the 
 Greek, as constructively connected in the 21st and 
 22d verses, are An ysveaeai, — must be. That any ec- 
 clesiastical rite, " by mere human ordainers," such as 
 imposition of hands, &c., was used on that occasion 
 in the appointment of Matthias to fill the vacancy 
 in the apostolate, there is not one single particle of 
 evidence. On the contrary, after Peter's express men- 
 tion of the Lord Jesus in a preceding verse, the in- 
 spired record continues, " And they prayed and said, 
 Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all, show 
 whether of these two tpiou hast chosen, that he may 
 take part of this ministry and apostleship, . . . and they 
 gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and 
 he was numbered with the eleven apostles :" — obvi- 
 ously (if we take this record alone for our guide, as in 
 this argument we must,) without any farther ceremony, 
 or the interposition of any "mere human ordainers" 
 about it. The case was referred, for that peculiar ex- 
 traordinary ofiice, to the direct personal appointment of 
 the Lord Jesus himself This Matthias had, in common 
 with the other eleven who then composed the apostolic 
 college. That it was signified by " the lot" does not at 
 all alter the case ; for whatever was the specific mode 
 of that lot, of which the record does not inform us, it is 
 plain on the face of the account that the apostles re- 
 ferred its result to the infallible decision of the Lord 
 himself; and that theij believed that He himself did so 
 decide that result ; and therefore, without another word 
 
168 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 or farther act on the subject, according to the record, 
 Matthias " was numbered with the eleven apostles." 
 
 Should Dr. O., however, persist in insisting that Mat- 
 thias was ordained to the apostolate "by mere human 
 ordainers," it seems to me that he will inevitably in- 
 volve himself in the heresy of lay ordination, even to 
 the very highest ecclesiastical office. For let any plain, 
 unbiased reader carefully examine the whole account, 
 and we will cheerfully submit it to his judgment whe- 
 ther, whatever of mere human agency there was in the 
 ordination of Matthias to that office, it was not, so far 
 as the record gives us any information, participated in 
 by the whole of the one hundred and twenty disciples. 
 
 In regard to Barnabas, there is by no means clear evi- 
 dence that lie was an apostle, in the highest sense of 
 this term, as the twelve and Paul were. The contrary 
 opinion is held by eminent critics, and seems the more 
 probable one. From a case so doubtful, therefore, no- 
 thing can be inferred with certainty. The manner in 
 which Dr. O. himself says, " probably James the bro- 
 ther of the Lord,'' shows his own uncertainty as to the 
 identity of this pei*son, or the propriety of placing him 
 in this class ; and it will therefore be as useless as it is 
 unnecessary to discuss the question respecting him, on 
 which the most eminent critics are so much at variance. 
 
 But why need I go through the list, since Dr. O. ob- 
 viously takes advantage merely of the name without 
 regard to the thing implied in the apostolical office in its 
 distinctive and highest sense. As to Andronicus and 
 Junia, it is very doubtful whether they were ever named 
 apostles in any sense. Rom. xvi, 7, is, to say the least, 
 a very doubtful passage as to that point. Junia may 
 even have been the name of a woman, the wife of An- 
 dronicus, for avyyevEii, rendered himmen in our version, 
 signifies relatives in general, whether male or female. 
 And that they were " of note among the apostles," most 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 169 
 
 probably means nothing more than that they were highly 
 esteemed by them. 
 
 Silas was a chief man " among the brethren," and " a 
 faithful brother," as Peter supposed.^ And that Timo- 
 thy was subject to the directions of St. Paul, and offi- 
 cially inferior to him, is too plain to be disputed. To 
 attempt, therefore, as Dr. O. does, to class among " apos- 
 tles," distinctively and properly so called, persons whom 
 he alleges to have been " ordained by mere human 
 ordainers," for the sake of establishing the position that 
 those now called bishops occupy by divine right the 
 same office, is to exalt the episcopate at the expense of 
 the apostolate, and thereby, just in the same proportion 
 as this is done, to diminish the credit and the autho- 
 rity of Christianity itself 
 
 The following observations on this subject from the 
 pen of Dr. Campbell, are so much in point that I sub- 
 mit tliem entire to the consideration of the reader. — 
 
 " Many, indeed, convinced . . . that it is in vain to search 
 for the office of bishop, as the word is understood by 
 moderns, in those ministers ordained by the apostles in 
 the churches which they founded, have referred us for 
 its origin to the apostolate itself I have passingly ob- 
 served already that this was one of those extraordinary 
 offices which were in their nature temporary, and did 
 not admit succession. But this point, as so much stress 
 is laid upon it, w^ill deserve to be examined more par- 
 ticularly. 
 
 " The apostles may be considered in a twofold view, — 
 either in their general character as the first pastors of. 
 the church and teachers of the Christian faith, or in 
 what is implied in their special character of apostles of 
 Jesus Christ. In the first general view they are doubt- 
 less the predecessors of all those who, to the end of the 
 world, shall preach the same gospel and administer the 
 same sacraments, by whatever name we distinguish 
 them, bishops, priests, or deacons, — overseers, ciders, 
 
170 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 or ministers. But the question still recurs, whether, 
 agreeably to the primitive institution, their successors, 
 in respect of the more common character of teachers 
 and directors of the churches, should be divided into 
 three orders or only into two? To presume, without 
 evidence, that the first and not the second was the fact, 
 is merely what logicians call a petitio principii, taking 
 that for granted which is the very point in dispute. 
 But if it be alleged, that not in the general character of 
 teachers, but in their special function as apostles, the 
 bishops are their proper successors, the presbyters and 
 deacons being only the successors of those who were 
 in the beginning ordained by the apostles, this point 
 will require a separate discussion. And for this pur- 
 pose your attention is entreated to the following remarks. 
 
 " First, the indispensable requisites in an apostle suffi- 
 ciently demonstrate that the office could be but tempo- 
 rary. It was necessary that he should be one who had 
 seen Jesus Christ in the fiesh after his resurrection^ 
 Accordingly they were all especially destined to serve 
 as eye-witnesses to this world of this great event, the 
 hinge on which the truth of Christianity depended. 
 The character of apostle is briefly described by Peter, 
 who was himself the first of the apostolical col- 
 lejre, as one ordained to be a witness of Christ's 
 resurrection. Acts i, 22 ; a circumstance of which he 
 often makes mention in his speeches, both to the rulers 
 and to the people. See Acts ii, 32; iii, 15; v, 32; x, 
 41 ; xiii, 31. And if so, the office, from its nature and 
 desio-n, could not have an existence after the extinction 
 of that generation. 
 
 " Secondly, the apostles were distinguished by prero- 
 galives which did not descend to any after them. Of 
 this kind was, first, their receiving their mission imme- 
 diately from the Lord Jesus Christ, not mediately through 
 any human ordination or appointment : of this kind, also, 
 was, s'-condly, the power of conferring, hy imposition of 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 171 
 
 hands, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit on whomsoever 
 they would ; and, thirdly, the knowledge they had, by 
 inspiration, of the whole doctrine of Christ. It was for 
 this reason they were commanded to wait the fulfilment 
 of the promise which their Master had given them, that 
 they should be baptized w'ith the Holy Ghost. What 
 pains does not Paul take to show that the above-men- 
 tioned marks of an apostle belonged to him as well as 
 to any of them ! That he had seen Christ after his re- 
 surrection, and was consequently qualified, as an eye- 
 witness, to attest that memorable event, he observes, 
 1 Cor. ix, 1 ; xv, 8 ; that his commission came directly 
 from Jesus Christ and God the Father, without the in- 
 tervention of any human creature, he acquaints us. Gal. 
 i, 1 ; ii, 6. To his conferring miraculous powers as the 
 signs of an apostle, he alludes, 2 Cor. xii, 12 ; and that 
 he received the knowledge of the gospel, not from any 
 other apostle, but by immediate inspiration, Gal. i, 
 11, &c. 
 
 " Thirdly, their mission was of quite a different kind 
 from that of any ordinary pastor. It was to propagate 
 the gospel throughout the world, both among Jews and 
 Pagans, and not to take charge of a particular flock. 
 The terms of their commission are, ' Go and teach all 
 nations ;' again, ' Go ye into all the world, and preach 
 the gospel to every creature.' No doubt they may be 
 styled bishops or overseers, but in a sense very differ- 
 ent from that in which it is applied to the inspector over 
 the inhabitants of a particular district. They were uni- 
 versal bishops ; the whole church, or rather the whole 
 earth, was their charge, and they were all colleagues 
 one of another. Or, to give the same sentiment in the 
 
 words 01 C/hrySOStom, Yagcv vtto deov x^ifiOTovrjdtvTec anoaroXoi apxov- 
 Tff, ovK edvi) Kat TTo2.ei( diadopovr ?.a/x3avovTec, a^^^a iravTcg koivt/ ttjv ockov- 
 fievTjv efiniarevdevTer. * Tho apOStlcS WCrO COUStitutcd of God 
 
 rulers, not each over a separate nation or city, but 
 all were intrusted wilh the world in common.' If so, 
 
172 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED- 
 
 to have limited themselves to any thing less would have 
 been disobedience to the express command they had 
 received from their Master, to go into all nations, and to 
 preach the gospel to every creature. If, in the latter 
 part of the lives of any of them, they were, through age 
 and infirmities, confined to one place, that place would na- 
 turally fall under the immediate inspection of such. And 
 this, if even so much as this, is all that has given rise to 
 the tradition (for there is nothing like historical evidence 
 in the case) that any of them were bishops or pastors of 
 particular churches. Nay, in some instances it is plain 
 that the tradition has orio-inated from this sinsfle cir- 
 
 o o 
 
 cumstance, that the first pastors in such a church were 
 appointed by such an apostle. Hence it has arisen that 
 the bishops of different churches have claimed (and 
 probably with equal truth) to be the successors of the 
 same apostle. 
 
 " Fourthly, and lastly. As a full proof that the matter 
 was thus universally understood, both in their own age 
 and in the times immediately succeeding, no one on the 
 death of an apostle was ever substituted in his room ; 
 and when that original sacred college was extinct, the 
 title became extinct with it. The election of Matthias 
 by the apostles, in the room of Judas, is no exception, 
 as it w^as previous to their entering on their charge. 
 They knew it was their Master's intention that twelve 
 missionaries, from among those who had attended his 
 ministry on earth, should be employed as ocular wit- 
 nesses to attest his resurrection, on which the divinity 
 of his religion depended. The words of Peter on this 
 occasirn are an ample confirmation of all that has been 
 said, both in regard to the end of the office and the 
 qualifications requisite in the person who fills it, at the 
 same time that they afford a demonstration of the ab- 
 surdity as w^ell as arrogance of modern pretenders. — • 
 ' Wherefore of these men which have companied with 
 us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 173 
 
 among us, beginning' from the baptism of John unto that 
 same day that he was taken up from us, must one be 
 ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.' 
 But afterward, when the apostle James, the brother of 
 John, was put to death by Herod, as recorded in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, we find no mention made of a suc- 
 cessor. Nor did the subsequent admission of Paul and 
 Barnabas to the apostleship form any exception to what 
 has been advanced ; for they came not as successors to 
 any one, but were especially called by the Holy Spirit 
 as apostles, particularly to the Gentiles ; and in them, 
 also, were found the qualifications requisite for the tes- 
 timony which, as apostles, they were to give."^ 
 
 The remark of Dr. O. that " neither were the apos- 
 tles thus distinguished because they had seen our Lord 
 after his resurrection, for five hundred brethren saw 
 him,"t is a very singular one. Certainly, it was never 
 meant that all who had thus seen him were therefore 
 apostles, but that none could be apostles who had not 
 thus seen him. 
 
 Again : he says, " And though the twelve apostles 
 were selected as special witnesses of the resurrection, 
 yet others received that appellation who were not thus 
 selected, as Timothy, Silvanus, Andronicus, Junia, 
 &c.,"t received that appellation! True ; as to some at 
 least of those named. But the mere " appellation" is 
 not the tiling we seek : and why does Dr. O. thus con- 
 tinue to endeavour to press into his service a mere name, 
 against the principle by which he wishes to restrict his 
 opponents. The Saviour himself is styled in Scripture 
 " the apostle" of our profession : and from his receiv- 
 ing this " appellation," it would seem, according to 
 Dr. O.'s use of this name in the argument, that, of 
 course, He, and Andronicus, and Junia were of the 
 same order, and held identically the same office, 
 
 • Page 75-78. f Page 15. | Ibid. 
 
174 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 " Nor were the apostles [be continues] thus distin- 
 guished because of their power of working miracles ; 
 for Stephen and Phihp, who were both deacons, are 
 known to have had this power.""^ But the apostles had 
 also the farther powder of conferring the same gift on 
 others. 
 
 But why does Dr. O. separate the characteristics as- 
 signed as distinctive of the apostolate ? No one pre- 
 tends that amj one of the grounds he names was the 
 sole ground of distinction, as his mode of arguing im- 
 plies ; but that there was a combination of the signs of 
 an apostle, to be found in those to whom [the] appella- 
 tion was appropriate in its highest distinctive sense, and 
 in none else. When, therefore, he adds, "It follows, 
 therefore, or will not at least be questioned, that the 
 apostles were distinguished from the elders because 
 they were superior to them in ministerial power and 
 rights,"! — if he means, as it would seem he does, that 
 that single circumstance was the whole and sole ground 
 of their entire and peculiar distinction, it is not only 
 " questioned," but flatly denied. If, indeed, this notion 
 of Dr. O.'s be correct, and the matter was so under- 
 stood by St. Paul and the Corinthian church in his 
 day, is it not surprising that, instead of the course he 
 took to convince them of the legitimateness of his claim 
 to the apostleship, it did not occur to him to say, " Am 
 not I superior to an elder, and therefore, of course, an 
 apostle ?" 
 
 •X- 
 
 Page 15. tibid. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■X- 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 f: 
 
 * 
 
 ■* 
 
 * 
 
 ¥i 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 ■X 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 175 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 [The remarks embraced in this Appendix appear to have been written 
 separately by the author, with a view of incorporating them afterward in 
 their appropriate places in the Essay. They are added here, because the 
 editor desires to present the subject just as it was left by the author, imper- 
 fect as it may be. — Ed.] 
 
 The confidence with which Dr. Cooke, though so recent a convert to this 
 high notion, undertakes to unchurch, as it is termed, all those denominations 
 who deny the necessity or the existence, in lineal descent, of the three 
 ministerial orders which he describes as essentially distinct by divine right, 
 may justify a brief inquiry here into the just and Scriptural import of the 
 term " church." 
 
 The term itself, as well in the Scriptures and in the writings of the an- 
 cient Christian authors as in modern use, has different significations, accord- 
 ing to the subject to which it is applied. The Greek word generally ren- 
 dered church in the New Testament is eKKATjaia, and signifies either (1,) any 
 civil assemblage of people, lawful or unlawful ; or, (2,) when used in 
 reference to the disciples of Christ, the whole Christian community through- 
 out the world ; or, (3,) the Christian community in any particular place, 
 
 as the church of Jerusalem, of Antioch, &c. It has been supposed also by 
 some, in a few passages of Scripture, to signify the place where any Chris- 
 tian society or congregation assembled, — though other able critics doubt this. 
 There are other accommodated significations of the term, which need not be 
 here specified. But it may not be amiss to mention that this term is never 
 used in the New Testament in the singular number in reference to Christians, 
 unless when either the church universal is meant, or some particular church 
 in a single place. When more than one particular church is intended, but 
 less than the whole, the plural form of the word is always adopted ; — as the 
 churches of Galatia, of Asia, of Macedonia, &c. A national, provincial, or 
 diocesan church, in the singular, as the term is now used, is an application 
 of it altogether unknown in the New Testament, or in the Christian writers 
 of the first two centuries, with the exception of two passages in the epistles 
 attributed to Ignatius, which will be hereafter mentioned. In conformity with 
 this statement, one bishop, in the most ancient usage, was uniformly con- 
 sidered as having charge of only one cKKAi/aia, one church, in the singular ; 
 the extent of which was designated by the Greek word napoiKta, in Latin 
 parochia, or paroecia, which answers to the English word parish, and 
 means strictly and properly a neighbourhood. His charge was never deno- 
 minated in those early days dioKyair, a diocese. This term was not used for 
 this purpose till after the Iap.se of. some centuries, when the bishop's charge 
 had become so far extended as to embrace wuthin it many churches and 
 parishes. 
 
176 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 In relation to this subject, Dr. C. has some singular criticisms on the ex- 
 tent of the church of Jerusalem in the apostolic age, of vvliich I am here 
 reminded. — " In Jerusalem," he says, " there were three thousand persons 
 added to the church on the first day the gospel was publicly preached, after 
 the ascent of our Lord : and when Paul went there from Ephesus there was 
 an innumerable company of Christians. When he went, on his arrival, to see 
 James, all the presbyters being present, they said unto him. Thou seest how 
 many tens of thousands of Jews there are which believe. The words in 
 our translation are, thou seest how many thousands : but in the original it 
 is muriades, jnyriads, tens of thousands:'''' p. 154. Afterward, p. 156, 
 assuming as proved what he had before asserted, viz., that these "many 
 myriads," — even " an innumerable company'''' of Christians, belonged at that 
 early period to the church in Jerusalem alone, — he adds, " Hoiv many tens 
 of thousands of believers there were in Jerusalem when Paul went there we 
 cannot exactly say, but it is indisputable that there were many ; let us sup- 
 pose ybtn- only." That is to S3,y, forty thousand only, as a moderate calcu- 
 lation, then statedly belonging to the church of Jerusalem alone; for that 
 this is his meaning I take to be plain from the introduction to his criticisms, 
 section 394. 
 
 But did not the doctor forget that " the multitude" from among whom the 
 three thousand were converted on the day of Pentecost was composed of 
 " Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, 
 and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and x'Vsia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, 
 in Egypt, and in the parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews 
 and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians 1" Accordingly, when Peter addressed 
 them, he said, " Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, — more 
 strictly (6t KaToiKowTec) that sojourn at Jerusalem, — for a large portion of 
 the hearers, as the context demonstrates, were not inhabitants of Judea itself, 
 much less of the city alone. They were the strangers mentioned in verses 
 9, 10, 11, who had come to the feast from the numerous and widely scattered 
 countries there specified. Is it reasonable then to suppose that the entire 
 number of the converts was from among the inhabitants of the city itself; 
 or that ail the converted sojourners continued there afterward, as permanent 
 members of the church of Jerusalem"? This is to me, at least, a new idea. 
 
 He seems to have forgotten, also, that when Paul visited Jerusalem, as 
 stated in the other passage which he cites, (Acts xxi,) it was again during 
 the feast of Pentecost, (as is proved by Acts xx, 16,) on which occasion it 
 is well known that a vast concourse of Jews from all quarters, Christians as 
 well as others, who were then still " all zealous of the law," (v. 29,) re- 
 sorted to Jerusalem, and, consequently, that the " many myriads" here 
 spoken of can by no principle of rational interpretation be confined to the 
 Jewish believers who were stated inhabitants of Jerusalem alone, but must be 
 understood to include those also who came to the feast from the most distant 
 and various places. Indeed the passage Acts xxi, 20, seems to me in all 
 fairness and propriety of construction to include not merely the Jewish believ- 
 ers then present at the feast, from whatever place, but all the Christian 
 believers of that class wherever scattered, who, whether present or not, 
 would undoubtedly hear, through those who were present, of the conduct of 
 Paul ; against whom very many of them were already greatly prejudiced. 
 
 In proof that Dr. C. means that there were at that early period so many 
 myriads of Jewish believers inhabitants of Jerusalem, who statedly attended 
 Christian worship there, I need only cite in addition the minute calculation 
 he makes of the size of a building that would contain '' forty thousand per- 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 177 
 
 sons" " in such a parish as Jerusalem," besides " the crowds of unbelievers 
 who continually attended the preaching of the gospel," p. 156. 
 
 This mode of managing the subject reminds me of an argument of Dr. 
 C.'s in another place, viz., in that long chain by which he undertakes to esta- 
 blish the episcopate of Timothy at Ephesus. One of the links is, that " only 
 five days elapsed from the time of leaving Troas until the day the elders 
 left Ephesus to go to Miletus, to see Paul." But how is this proved ? WTiy 
 simply thus : — the distances between certain places are first judged from the 
 map, and it is then presumed, — in a voyage at sea, and in the state of navi- 
 gation at that period, — that equal distances are sailed in equal times, and 
 that for this notable reason, " the general course being the same, and there- 
 fore the wind equally favourable,'''' p. 37. Now had this been d. steamboat 
 excursion, there might be some tolerable ground for the calculation, — bating 
 accidents. But how " the general course being the same," in a sailboat 
 voyage in the Mediterranean some eighteen hundred years ago, supports the 
 positive conclusion that " therefore the wind was equally favourable" for 
 four days successively, I know not. May it not possibly have fallen calm 
 after three days 1 or have blown less freshly 1 or veered more unfavourably? 
 or even shifted dead a-head ? Does not the merest fresh-water man know 
 that a distance which in some circumstances may be sailed in a day, in others 
 may require a week, or even a month ] At least one would think this 
 " therefore," in Dr. C.'s argument, hardly sufficient for one who " had 
 always been in the habit of requiring strong evidence upon every subject, 
 and never yielding assent to any thing" without it ; and certainly, rather too 
 weak to constitute any part of a foundation for such a system as he labours 
 to build upon it. Although, allowing such criticisms and arguments to pass, 
 with what facility systems may be reared, it is not difficult to understand. 
 
 II. 
 
 The vexed question respecting the original form of government in the 
 Christian church, though not unimportant, is certainly of no such consequence 
 as heated disputants on any side, misled by party prejudices or intemperate 
 zeal, would affect to make it. The declaration of St. Paul that " the king- 
 dom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in 
 the Holy Ghost," is applicable alike to every thing external and circumstan- 
 tial ; and it may be confidently added, as the apostle continues, " for he that 
 in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men." 
 
 But it may be said, perhaps, that this is begging the question ; for the 
 ultra high-church, and Dr. C. among the most forward of that class, in bold, 
 bigoted, often repeated, and e.xtravagant assertions, contends that the form 
 of polity is not a thing external or circumstantial, but of the very essence of 
 a true church. And although no one has ever yet produced, or can produce, 
 a single passage of Scripture which plainly teaches this doctrine, — a thing 
 most marvellous indeed if the doctrine be true ; yet it is urged upon us over 
 and over that Ignatius said so, a venerable bisliop, father, and martyr, and 
 that we ought to believe him, — especially as his testimony was confirmed 
 too, as Dr. C. asserts, by both Polycarp and Irenffius, also venerable fathers, 
 thus making their testimony identical with his ; an assertion which shall be 
 examined hereafter. Now, in the first place, we do not believe that Igna- 
 
 12 
 
178 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 tius ever did say so ; but that some forger of a later age, and of Dr. C.'s 
 sentiments, said it for him. And in the second place, if he even did say it, 
 — yet if he or an angel from heaven taught any doctrine different from or 
 inconsistent with the gospel as contained in the New Testament, we would 
 not believe. That Scripture and tradition combined are the source of faith, 
 is the doctrine of Rome, not of Protestants. The doctrine of Protestants is, 
 that the Bible alone is not only the rule, but a sufficient rule, both of faith 
 and practice. Whatever cannot be proved from this, without reference to 
 any other book, or to any tradition, or human authority whatever, Protest- 
 ants never can consistently receive as an article of faith. And if Dr. C. 
 cannot prove without going out of Scripture, that " there is no church" with- 
 out the three orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as essentially dis- 
 tinct and essentially necessary by Divine appointment ; then his argument. 
 Dr. Onderdonk being judge, is not " worth taking into account." 
 
 Now, that no such thing can be proved /rom Scripture, many of the very 
 ablest writers on the Episcopal side have over and over admitted. The 
 celebrated Dodwell, the very champion of the highest order of high-church, 
 in the case of the nonjuring bishops in the reign of William III., concedes 
 that all the reasoning from which men conclude that the whole model of 
 ecclesiastical discipline may be extracted from the writings of the New Tes- 
 tament is quite precarious ; that there is no passage of any sacred writer 
 which openly professes this design ; that there is not one which so treats of 
 ecclesiastical government as if the writer or the writer's author, the Holy 
 Spirit, had intended to describe any one form of polity as being to remain 
 everywhere and for ever inviolate ; that the sacred penmen have nowhere 
 declared with sufficient clearness how great a change must take place in 
 church government, when the churches should first withdraw from the com- 
 munion of the synagogues ; that they nowhere clearly enough show how 
 much was allowed to the personal gifts of the Holy Ghost, and how much 
 also to places and offices; that they nowhere with sufficient accuracy distin- 
 guish the extraordinary officers who were [not] to outlive that age, from the 
 ordinary who were not to cease till the second coming of Christ ; that all 
 the things then generally known they also suppose known, and never for 
 the sake of posterity explain, minding only the state wherein things were at 
 the time ; that they nowhere professedly describe the ministries themselves, 
 so as to explain either their nature or their extent ; which was surely indis- 
 pensable if they meant to settle a model in perpetuity.* 
 
 If all this be so, as every one who reads the Bible can see for himself, 
 <' What can we conclude," adds Dr. Campbell, " but that it was intended by 
 the Holy Spirit thus to teach us to distinguish between what is essential to 
 the Christian religion, [and to a true church,] and what is comparatively cir- 
 cumstantial, regarding external order and discipline, which, as matters of 
 expedience, alter with circumstances, and are therefore left to the adjust- 
 ment of human prudence ? What can better account for the difference re- 
 marked by Hoornbeck, that the apostles were more solicitous about the 
 virtues than the degrees of the ministers, and more strenuous in inculcating 
 the manners to be observed by them as suitable to their office, and conducing 
 to their usefulness, than copious in describing the form of their government 1 
 
 * I give the entire passage as rendered by Dr. George Campbell, Lcct. on Eccles. Hist., 
 pp. 52, 53 ; where the original Latin of Dodwell may also be seen. And I take pleasure 
 in making a general acknowledgment here, that to Dr. Campbell, one of the ablest and 
 most candid critics that I have yet seen on this subject, I am much indebted in various 
 parts of this treatise. 
 
 12^ 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 179 
 
 The one is essential, the other only circumstantial ; the one invariable, the 
 other not." 
 
 If the very existence of a church, and the validity of the ministry and 
 ordinances of the gospel, be essentially dependant on the doctrine maintained 
 by Dr. Cooke, might we not most reasonably expect to find it so plainly re- 
 vealed in Scripture that he who runs may read ? How else can the perfec- 
 tion of Scripture be asserted ? that it is of itself able to make us wise unto 
 salvation, — that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
 every good work ? And if, moreover, it be alleged to be in Scripture, yet 
 so that even its advocates cannot make it out, confessedl}', but by such a pre- 
 carious chain of far-fetched and subtile deductions as those of Dr. Onder- 
 donk; and still more, if, before the chain can possibly be completed, the pro- 
 found researches of antiquaries, critics, and linguists into the contradictory, 
 the doubtful, and the disputed volumes of the fathers have to be resorted to, 
 does not this of itself afford a strong presumption against it ■? How, then, 
 may it be said, " / thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because 
 thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, but hast revealed 
 them unto babes .?" 
 
 According to the doctrine of high-church, when our Lord charged his 
 disciples to " beware of false prophets," he ought to have established a very 
 different criterion by which to judge them. He ought to have taught us 
 how to trace their spiritual pedigree ; and how to ascertain whether the pre- 
 tenders be lineally descended from an apostle or an apostolical bishop, through 
 an unbroken scries of prelatical ordinations. Do we find any thing of this 
 sort in Scripture ^ Is any such thing even intimated or hinted ? On the 
 contrary, does not our Lord establish a test entirely different ? one of plain, 
 common, and universal application ? one suited to the " poor" and ignorant^ 
 for whom the gospel with all its immunities and ordinances was specially 
 designed, as well as for the learned. " Ye shall know them by their fruits. 
 Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ^ Even so every good 
 tree bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A 
 good tree cannot bring fortli evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth 
 good fruit. Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them," Matt, vii, 
 16, 17, 18, 20. 
 
 I know that ultra high-churchmen, and Dr. C. among them, dispute the 
 sufficiency of this test, and attempt a course of argument to disprove it. 
 But then their controversy is with the Master, who expressly affirms and es- 
 tablishes it. And whether we ought to believe him or them, the reader 
 must judge. According to them, Alexander VI., of Rome, and other similar 
 worthies, indispensable links in their chain of succession, were true ministers 
 of Christ, true Christian bishops by Divine appointment, while Francis Asbury, 
 Adam Clarke, Richard Watson, and the brightest luminaries, living or dead, 
 in the Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist, or Methodist churches, must 
 be held as intruders into the sacred office, and no ministers of Christ. Be 
 it so, by their test. But try them all by the test of Christ, and what will 
 be the result ? Surely a writer must calculate largely on the ignorance or 
 the superstition of his readers to talk of establishing such a theory as Dr. C.'s 
 at the present day. 
 
 When our blessed Lord, after his resurrection, and just bfifore his ascen- 
 sion, commissioned his apostles to go into all the world, &c., he added, 
 *' and lo ! 1 am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." This 
 promise, we are often told, descends to all the true successors of the apos- 
 tles in the gospel ministry, and to none else. It is granted ; and by this tesj 
 
180 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 
 
 also we are willing to be tried. The personal presence of Christ in the 
 flesh, or his presence in miraculous gifts and works, I suppose is nol now 
 pretended by any Protestants. It remains then that the promise is to be 
 understood of his spiritual presence in the personal support and comfort of 
 his ministers, and in giving sanction and success to their efforts for the con- 
 version and salvation of sinful men by the demonstrations of his Spirit. — 
 Are the prelatical monopolizers of the covenant mercies of God, and the 
 presence of Christ, willing that plain people should try their exclusive 
 claims by this test 1* 
 
 " Master," said one of the yet imperfectly instructed apostles to Jesus, 
 " we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because 
 he followeth not us." Jesus answered, "Forbid him not, for there is no 
 man who shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me. 
 For he that is not against us is for us." That contracted spirit of exclu- 
 sionism which regards the party, the cause of the sect, more than the cause 
 of Christ, is not yet extinct. Let him that readeth understand. 
 
 St. John says, " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whe- 
 ther they are of God ; because many false prophets are gone out into the 
 world." But how are we to try them 1 — by a learned and critical investiga- 
 tion of the truth of their claim to an uninterrupted lineal descent from the 
 apostles, through a long line of baptisms and ordinations of a specific cha- 
 racter 1 Do the Scriptures anywhere lay down such a test, or anywhere 
 intimate that such should ever be adopted ] " To the law and to the testimony" 
 then. " If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no 
 light in them." This was the legitimate test under the ancient as well as 
 the present dispensation. A very different one is now deemed requisite by 
 some zealous patronizers of an exclusive hierarchy. Popish or Protestant. 
 
 That any specific form of church government, or mode of authenticating 
 ministers, is not essential to the being of a church, or to the validity of the 
 Christian ministry and ordinances, I take to be plainly the doctrine of the 
 Church of England, if her 23d article be not framed in language designedly 
 ambiguous and deceptive, which ought not to be supposed. That article 
 entitled, Of Ministering in the Congregation, says, " Those we ought to 
 judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by 
 men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call 
 and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." This, says Ur. Campbell, if 
 It mean any thing, and be not a mere identical proposition, of which he owns 
 it has some appearance, refers us ultimately to that authority, however mo^ 
 delled, which satisfies the people, and is settled among them. 
 
 The Episcopal Reformed Church of Scotland, the predecessors of tho 
 high-church nonjurors in that country, in their 19th article, entitled. Of the 
 Notrs of the true Kirk, affirmed that " they [the notes or marks of the 
 
 * It is rnlatctl of the late veneritlile Dr. Pilmoor, of Phitadflphia, that, aftor he had ho.. 
 come a minister of the Protestant Epi.scopal Church, he was in a hirge mixed company, 
 among whom were some of his old friends of the Methodist Episcopal Uhnrch, rather 
 tauntingly indulging himself in self-gratulation on the above-cilcd promise of Christ's pre- 
 sence with his ministers of the regular apostolical succession, of which he had now tho 
 happiness to he one. An old friend, who had often heard him preach in the demonstration 
 of the Spirit and of power, when he was , a plain Methodist preacher, said to him: — 
 " Dr. P., permit me lo ask you one ((uestion, as a candid Christian man. When I heard 
 yon, as a Methodist preacher, preach to the multit\ide on the race-ground, the judges* 
 Ktand heiiig your pulpit, was Christ with you or not ?" The doctor paiised, and then cm-, 
 phatically answered, " Yes, if ever he has been with me, he was with me then." His old 
 friend was satisfied, and so were the company. It was the candid confession of a plain, 
 lioiiest paan, — which plain, honest men kjiew how to appreciate. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 181 
 
 true church] are neither antiquity, title usurped, lineal descent, place ap- 
 pointed, nor multitude of men approving an error." Again, article 23d, 
 0/ the right Administration of the Sacraments : — " that sacraments be 
 rightly ministrate, we judge two things requisite ; the one that they be minis- 
 trate by lawful ministers/, whom we affirm to be only they that are ap- 
 pointed to the preaching of the word, they being men lawfully chosen 
 thereto by some kirk, &c. We fly the doctrine of the papistical kirk in 
 participation of their sacraments, — 1st, Because their ministers are no mi- 
 nisters of Christ Jesus," &c. Here, continues Dr. Campbell, not only is 
 lineal descent expressly excluded, but its very channel is removed, as the 
 Popish clergy are declared (he thinks with too little ceremony and too uni- 
 versally) to be no ministers of Christ. Nay, all that appears externally 
 necessary, according to that episcopal formulary, to constitute a minister, is 
 the choice of some congregation. Far from believing one particular form of 
 ecclesiastical polity to be sacred and inviolable, they say. Art. 21, Of Gene- 
 ral Councils, tSfc, " Not that we think any policy and any order of cere- 
 monies can be appointed for all ages, times, and places." 
 
 Dr. Cooke is careful frequently to remind us that some of the ancient au- 
 thors on whom he relies were martyrs. Is nothing due then to the testimony 
 of the venerable martyrs of that mother church from which his own recently 
 adopted communion claims birth ? What was the language of Rogers, who, 
 though with a wife and ten children, whom he was not even suffered to see, 
 refused a pardon at the stake from those successors of the apostles and vice- 
 gerents of Christ, the then bishops of England T What was the language 
 of Bishop Hooper, whom the popish bishops, Christ's true and supreme mi- 
 nisters by Divine appointment, according to Dr. C, brought also to the stake ] 
 and who was used so barbarously in the fire, that his legs and thighs were 
 roasted, and one of his hands dropped off, before he expired ; — a man not in- 
 ferior to Ignatius himself in piety, or in sufferings for Christ ] When brought 
 before their prelatical judges, they were asked whether they would submit to 
 the church or not. But they answered that they looked on the church of 
 Rome as antichristian* Bishop Hooper, in particular, while in prison, and 
 about two months before his martyrdom, wrote a letter dated December 11, 
 1554, in which are these expressions : — " With us [in England] the wound 
 which Antichrist [the pope or the popish church] had received is healed, 
 and he [the pope] is declared head of the church, who is not a member of i^."f 
 How little idea had this venerable episcopal martyr of the English church 
 that his own ministerial and episcopal character depended wholly on a spi- 
 ritual pedigree which could be traced in a direct line to what he believed to 
 be " Antichrist !" 
 
 It is granted that, for the sake of discipline and order in the settlement 
 of churches, it is proper to limit the power of administering the sacraments 
 of baptism and the Lord's supper to fewer hands than preaching. But if it 
 be required to make up and pronounce y?-o?n Scripture a candid judgment of 
 what is valid in cases of exigence, or what is essential to the being of a 
 church, then can it be doubted that even any private Christian was war- 
 ranted in the apostolical age, and is still if he can, to convert a sinner from 
 the error of his ways, and to leach him the principles of the Christian faith 1 
 Yet were not these two important parts of the apostolical commission ■?— 
 
 * Burnol's Hist.,[Al)riil^mont,] vol. ii, p. 272. 
 j Neal's Hist, of the Puritans, vol. i, p. 139. 
 
182 EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED- 
 
 Would it be amiss to say that they were even the most important 1 Our 
 Lord himself made proselytes and instructed them, but baptized none, — 
 leaving this merely ministerial work to his disciples. Peter was sent to open 
 the door of faith to Cornelius and his family ; but the charge of baptizing 
 them he intrusted entirely to the Christian brethren who attended him. 
 Ananias, a disciple, was employed to baptize Paul. And Paul says himself 
 of his own mission, that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the 
 gospel ; denoting thereby that baptizing, compared with preaching, though a 
 part, was but an inferior and subordinate part, of his charge.* 
 
 In the epistles attributed to Ignatius, the phrase " the church lohich is in 
 Syria'''' occurs twice. This, Dr. Campbell thinks, has much the appearance 
 of an anachronism, which often betrays the hand of the interpolator. Nothing, 
 he observes, can be more dissimilar to the dialect which prevailed in the 
 apostolic age, and which continued to prevail in the second century. Ex- 
 cept when the church denoted the whole Christian community, it meant no 
 more than a single congregation. When, through the increase of converts, 
 a bishop's parish, indeed, came to contain more people than could be con- 
 tained in one congregation, the custom continued of still calling his charge 
 a church, in the singular number. But it was not till after the distinction 
 made between the metropolitan and the suffragans, which was about a cen- 
 tury later, that this use originated of calling all the churches of a province 
 the church (not the churches) of such a province. After the rise of the patri- 
 archal jurisdiction the application of the term was extended still farther. All 
 that was under the jurisdiction of the archbishop as patriarch was his 
 church. ■]" 
 
 That the early fathers entertained no such ideas of the essential charac- 
 teristics of a Christian church, as Dr. Cooke has asserted, out of Ignatius, is 
 plain from a striking passage in Tertullian, who, in the beginning of the 
 third century, explicitly asserted that " three persons, though laymen, make a 
 church.''^ His words are, " Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici:^'' referring 
 in the same place to a known practice even down to his time, viz., that 
 when none of the clerical order could be had, (that is to say, in the exigence 
 of necessity,) even private Christians celebrated the eucharist, and baptized, 
 and served as priests to themselves. " Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est con- 
 sessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi solus^ 
 
 Any person acquainted with the Latin language, and a stranger to the 
 later disputes about sacerdotal orders, would hardly conceive the passage 
 quoted from Tertullian susceptible of any other interpretation than that above 
 given. Yet pains have been taken by persons who, as Dr. Campbell ob- 
 serves, cannot conceive a kingdom of Christ that is not a kingdom of 
 priests, totally to disguise it. Tertullian's argument, in the place cited, 
 obviously is, that in case of necessity even laymen have the right of priest- 
 hood in themselves ; and this argument he confirms by the reference above 
 mentioned to the known and uncensured practice of his time. The argu- 
 ment in this view was to his purpose ; in any other it was utterly futile. — 
 By the way, this passage serves also to show how widely different were the 
 views of Tertullian and the Christian church of that age, from those now en- 
 tertained and asserted by Dr. Onderdonk, in regard to the Christian sacr^r 
 ments in exigences of necessity. 
 
 ♦ See Campbell, Eccles. Hist., pp. C2, C3. 
 t Ihi'l., pp. 100, 101. 
 
EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY REVIEWED. 183 
 
 That these principles are sanctioned hy the earliest practice of the Chris- 
 tian church in the apostolical age, may be deduced from the testimc\ny of 
 Hilary, also a distinguished deacon of the Church of Rome, ia the fourth 
 century, who openly and without censure asserted that " Postquam omnibus 
 locis ecclesiae sunt constitutje, et ofRcia ordinata, aliter composita res est, 
 quam cceperat ; primum enim omnes doccbant, et omnes baptizabant, quibus- 
 cunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio." " Ut ergo cresceret plebs, 
 et multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est et cvangelizare, et 
 baptizare, et scripturas in ecclesia explanare." Comm. on P^ph. iv. [" After 
 churches were established in every place, and offices ordained, things were 
 managed otherwise than at the beginning : for, at first, all used to teach, 
 and all to baptize, on whatever days or seasons there might be occasion." — 
 " That the people might increase and be multiplied, it was at first granted to 
 all to preach the gospel, and to baptize, and to explain the Scriptures in the 
 chaTch."—Ed.] 
 
 I do not say that this is proper where there are organized churches and 
 regular pastors ; but that, when there are not, in circumstances correspond- 
 ing in effect to those of the primitive church at the period alluded to, the 
 principle is still the same ; and that, consequently, there is nothing in the 
 principles of the gospel, or the allowed practice of the apostolical age, 
 making it unlawful, but, on the contrary, much to justify it. This was ma- 
 nifestly the opinion of the Christians who, " except the apostles," were .scat- 
 tered abroad in consequence of the persecution which arose against the 
 church in Jerusalem at the time of Stephen's martyrdom : for they " went 
 everywhere preaching the word." The apostles, it will be observed, re- 
 mained in Jerusalem. All the rest went everywhere preaching the word : 
 and yet there is not the slightest intimation in the history that the apostles, 
 though so recently commissioned directly by their Lord, denounced this 
 course, or manifested any such spirit of exclusiveness as high-church bigots 
 now exhibit. 
 
 [THE END,] 
 
Date Due 
 
WML'^iM A Si