^ h. 
 
f"<f 
 
 €^'^' 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Case, Piyision r t... 
 
 Shelf, Section /^_ 
 
 Book, No, 
 
 BV 670 .M39 
 
 Mason, John Mi t chel 1 , 1770 
 
 1820. , ^^ 
 
 Essays on episcopacy and Tl 
 
ESSAYS 
 EPISCOPACY, 
 
 A.VD THX 
 
 APOLOGY 
 
 roB 
 
 APOSTOLIC OKDER AND ITS ADVOCATES, 
 
 REVIEWED. 
 
 BT THr LATB 
 
 JOHN M. MASON, D. D 
 
 BDITKO BT TBS / 
 
 / 
 
 REV. EBENEZER MA80N 
 
 NEW-YORK : 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE EDITOR BY 
 
 ROBERT CARTER, 58 CANAL-STREET 
 
 PITTSBURGH : THOMAS CARTER, 
 1844. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by 
 
 EBENEZER MASON, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of 
 
 New- York. 
 
 niw-tork: 
 
 TROW & CO., FRIItTZnf; 
 
 No. 33 Ann-Street. 
 
psiaGSi'jj.i 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Editor's Preface, 
 
 Introduction to the Christian Magazine, 
 
 REVIEWS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 V 
 
 i 
 
 I. ESSAYS ON EPISCOPACY. 
 
 The Essays reviewed, . . . . .15 
 Diocesan Episcopacy not sustained by an exami- 
 nation of Scriptural titles, . . .37 
 The Jewish Priesthood, . . . .66 
 The Church in our Lord's time, . . .86 
 New Testament facts, . . . , 104 
 The official character of James, . . . 122 
 The Epistles to the seven churches, . . 133 
 Official character of Timothy and Titus, . . 153 
 The Testimony of the Fathers, . . .208 
 
 II. HOBART'S APOLOGY. 
 
 265 
 

 PREFACE. 
 
 The public have recently been presented with a reprint 
 of " An Apology for Apostolic order and its advocates — in a 
 "series of letters addressed to the Rev. John M. Mason, D. 
 "D., by the Rev. John Henry Hobart, an assistant minister 
 "of Trinity Church," Had the original title been retained, 
 it would have obviated the necessity of stating, that this 
 "Apology " was " occasioned by the strictures and denunci- 
 ations of the ' Christian Magazine.' " The Christian Maga- 
 zine was a periodical, in which certain newspaper " Essays 
 on Episcopacy," collected and published by Mr. Hobart, in 
 a separate volume, were reviewed. These Essays had been 
 called forth by previous writings of Mr. Hobart, and were 
 written by one Presbyterian and four Episcopalians, of 
 which Mr. Hobart was one, The first number of the Review 
 produced such floundering among the admirers of "Apos- 
 tolic order," that forthwith Mr. Hobart, like a bold leader, 
 rushed to the rescue; and to cover his discomfiture, and 
 rally his force, he occupied a very considerable portion of his 
 Apology, with an attack, not upon the "Review of the 
 Essays," but upon all the original articles of the " Maga- 
 zine" itself; which subserved his purpose of diversion ; and 
 upon some subjects,* which had no more to do with the 
 question of " Apostolic order " than a mitred Bishop has to 
 do with an uncovenanted, unauthorized non-Episcopally-or- 
 dained preacher of the gospel. 
 
 This " Apology" was briefly reviewed in the ' Christian 
 
 * See Hobart's Apology, especially Letter xvi. 
 
vi Preface. 
 
 Magazine," but that '* review" was not republished in the 
 collection made of Dr. Mason's works, inasmuch as it 
 was believed desirable, not to recall public attention by a 
 specific reference to a work, which, whatever claims it may 
 possess in the vindication of the Hierarchy, possesses none for 
 self-possession and apostolic dignity. And the grave had re- 
 cently closed over the authors of each. The Editor (Bishop 
 Ives) of this second edition, appears to have been somewhat 
 sensible of this, and assigns, as an apology for its republi- 
 cation, " that the strictures and denunciations which called 
 " forth this triumphant defence of the truth, have recently 
 " been given to the public, in all the ' offensiveness of their 
 '' original forms.' " This apology of the editor needs one in- 
 gredient to made it valid— Trw^//. The Review, which 
 called out Mr. Hobart, has not been recently republished — it 
 was republished twelve years since in the collection of Dr. 
 Mason's works. The volume recently published, was 
 '' Essays upon the Church," not the Episcopal church — and 
 which at the time of their appearance in the Christian Mag- 
 azine, Mr. Hobart pronounced to be the only original 
 article Dr. Mason had not penned. Apology, p. 8. It 
 seems accuracy in facts, and correctness of application, are 
 not necessarily connected with the lawn of the Bishop. 
 
 The re-appearance of the Apology justifies a republication 
 both of the introduction to the Christian Magazine, and of 
 the brief review of the Apology itself That review does not 
 enter into any arguments upon the subject of '' Apostolic 
 order," as the review of the Essays was then in course of 
 publication, in which the arguments contained in the 
 Apology, are necessarily examined. 
 
 We may not extend our remarks upon several points wor- 
 thy of them : the effect which the Review of the " Essays 
 on Episcopacy " produced at the time of its appearance — the 
 almost entire suspension of the controversy for thirty years, 
 till a new and different audience had risen up — the charac- 
 ter of that audience — the reasons which have now given this 
 subject a fresh importance — the notion of the numerical force 
 
Preface. vii 
 
 of Episcopacy.* But we are restrained. We cannot, how- 
 ever, close without noticing the course which the Episcopal 
 controversy is taking. Of late years serious differences 
 have arisen among Episcopalians themselves ; and there has 
 been exhibited tendencies, both in doctrine and in govern- 
 ment, alarming to many within its pale ; and a source of 
 deep regret and solicitude to intelligent and devoted Christ- 
 ians, loithout as well as within its bounds. But more recent- 
 ly, advantage has apparently been taken of incidental events, 
 which under other circumstances would have been unnoticed, 
 (and the publication of this Apology is an instance,) to 
 change the place and character of the contest, from with- 
 in to the outside of the Church ; from a domestic contest to 
 di foreign contest; from a question of Episcopal assumptions 
 over one another, to a question of the institution of the Epis- 
 copal Hierarchy ; — in short, there is an apparent desire to heal 
 internal dissension, by raising the cry, "The Church is in 
 danger " from the attacks of its inveterate opponents outside 
 of its pale. This is a very common artifice; it may succeed. 
 If it does succeed, it will be a sad success over freedom of 
 conscience and intelligent piety ; it will be a success in riv- 
 
 * The arithmetic of " the Church" must be peculiar, and its 
 "Apostolic order" must have a perception like that which pertained 
 to Major Jack Downing's glory spectacles. — They claim a " greater 
 proportion of the Reformed Church," (see Hob. Ap., p. 100, note,) 
 and of the United States too ? Is the proof made up geographically ? 
 We have heard of an incumbent of three parishes, from which he 
 drew near $'2,.500 per annum, without any building in two of them, 
 and if, in the building of the third, all the Episcopal residents of the 
 three parishes should have been collected at the same time, he would 
 have addressed an audience of seven souls ; or is the proof made out 
 numerically as they do in the old country, reckon all with the 
 Church, who from disinclination, as well as necessity, go to no 
 place of worship, not even Episcopal ; and sometimes their statistics 
 amount to a greater number than the parish furnishes inhabit- 
 ants. It was, T suppose, according to the Church's arithmetic, 
 a clergyman in the North of Ireland claimed three fourths of the 
 United States, as Unitarians. But what has numbers to do with the 
 validity of the Episcopal order .' True enough I What .'' 
 
viii Preface. 
 
 eting more strongly spiritual domination, in substituting 
 modes and the opus opcratum for the fruits of the Spirit ; 
 and in ultimately driving out from its fellowship, some who 
 from preference, choice, and even conviction, would rather 
 remain (as a salt indeed) within its communion. Non-Epis- 
 copalians may not, nor need they, decline any examination 
 of their position, either as to principle, or as to results ; and 
 sure we are, it is their duty to give place, no ! not for an 
 hour, to the dogma of unbroken apostolic succession in the 
 Episcopal Church, with all its train of antiquity tradition, 
 ritual imposition, baptismal regeneration, sinning and un- 
 churching arrogance. We have a more sure word of pro- 
 phecy, unto which we would take heed, far better than the 
 prophecies of any Mitred Head, be it that of my Lord Bish- 
 op or of His Holiness the Pope. 
 
 Ebenezer Mason. 
 New-York, Jan. 8th, 1844. 
 
 Note. — The reference, in the Reviews to the " Apology," 
 are to the second edition of that work recently published. 
 
 There has been prepared a full index to. the Review of 
 the Essays, for the convenience of reference. 
 
 A few sentences of the " Introduction to the Christian 
 Magazine," have been omitted for convenience in the pub- 
 lication. A reference to the Magazine will show them to be 
 unimportant. 
 
L\TRODUCTION 
 
 CHRISTIAN MAGAZINE 
 
 Deference to public opinion, and that frank- 
 ness which is generally safe and always honour- 
 able, demand an explanation of the origin, de- 
 sign, and nature of the present work. This is 
 the more expedient, as considerations of some 
 force appear hostile to the undertaking. The 
 vanity of authorship might find ampler means 
 of gratification than the fugitive numbers of a 
 magazine : it is a temper of no amiable cast 
 which delights in measuring the w^eapons of 
 theological warfare. 
 
 Many own the gospel of salvation more from 
 custom than from conviction ; and, accordingly, 
 pass their lives in a dry and sterile profession. 
 Many treat it with indifference under the name 
 of liberality. Many corrupt its doctrines ; fritter 
 away its sense ; and in exchange for the life- 
 blood of its consolation, offer to the pcrisliing 
 soul a vain theory, or a frigid criticism. Many, 
 1* 
 
2 Introduction. 
 
 and that among our youth, to show, in appear- 
 ance, their bravery of spirit, but in reality to 
 shield their lusts, reject it altogether as unwor- 
 thy not only of credence, but even of inquiry. 
 The mischiefs arising from these sources are in- 
 creased by the activity of a " zeal not accord- 
 ing to knowledge." Some, excluding the light 
 of the understanding, place their religion in 
 fervour of feeling. Some clamour incessantly 
 for doctrine; as if the heart had nothing to do 
 in the service of God ; or as if practical holi- 
 ness were a necessary fruit of speculative ortho- 
 doxy. Some, like the self-justifiers of old, " tithe 
 mint and anise and cummin;" and like them, 
 too, " omit the weightier matters of the law, 
 judgment, mercy, and faith ;" little concerned 
 about either " receiving Christ Jesus the Lord," 
 or " walking in him," provided they be exact in 
 their routine of ceremonies. Some, poisoning 
 the gospel in its fountain head, shut out the un- 
 converted from all interest in the invitations of 
 its grace; and, as if the authority of God were 
 to be annihilated with the same blow which 
 fells the hope of the sinner, do, with their might, 
 what Paul declared he and his fellow Apostles 
 did not — "make void the law throuj'h faith." 
 Some appear to lay as much stress upon their 
 external order, as if the key which opens the 
 door of their comnumion, opened, at the same 
 moment, the doors of Paradise; altliough, upon 
 that supposition, it is evident that the "gate" 
 
Introduction. 3 
 
 and '* way" which " lead unto life" are no long- 
 er " straight and narrow." Some, in the oppo- 
 site extreme, account the external order of the 
 house of God a matter of no importance ; and 
 are chargeahle, for this their negligence, wuth 
 countenancing, at least indirectly, violation of 
 their Lord's commandment, invasion of his pre- 
 rogative, and assault upon his truth. And as 
 though all this were not enough, there are not 
 wanting others to lay their axe at the root of 
 entire Christianitv, bv endeavouring to set aside 
 the distinctive character, and the authentic call 
 of the gospel ministry. Addressing themselves 
 to the avarice of one class, to the conceit of an- 
 other, to the credulity of a third, and to the ig- 
 norance of all, it is not wonderful that they 
 should draw many after " their pernicious 
 w^ays." Their proscribing from the ministry 
 all learning, taste, and talents, through an avow- 
 ed jealousy for the glory of divine teaching, may 
 impose for a while upon a guileless Christian, 
 who suspects no harm when the grace of God is 
 extolled; but it will be well if the mask shall 
 be found to have concealed the tendency of their 
 principles from their own view. 
 
 Whether this representation be just or not, is 
 known to every one who has the faculty of ob- 
 servation, and the will to use it. And whether 
 or not such a state of things, conspiriiig w^ith 
 tlie intemperate pursuit of wealth, with the gra- 
 dual relaxation of every social bond ; with the 
 
4 Introduction. 
 
 violence of political ferment; and with the ap- 
 proach of those fearful days which are coming 
 upon the earth, can fail to grieve the serious, to 
 ensnare the unwary, to stumble the thoughtful, 
 to multiply the profane, and to spread '' confu- 
 sion and every evil w^ork," will admit of but 
 one answer. What, then, is to be done? Shall 
 w^e slumber on till the midnight cry awake us, 
 and the season of action be over ? Shall we, 
 because prospects are bad, give up all for lost ; 
 and sit down desponding, till the deluge of 
 abominations sweep us aw^ay 7 God forbid ! It 
 is the dictate of both reason and revelation, to 
 ^^ redeem the time because the days are evil." 
 No man can tell what an extent of ruin the 
 efforts of those, or a considerable number of 
 those, who love '' the truth as it is in Jesus," 
 commencing at this hour, may avert from their 
 families, from their country, and from the church 
 of God. One of the most obvious means of 
 success is the calling their attention to those 
 subjects of faith and practice which derive a 
 new interest from tlie " signs of the times." The 
 precious truths of the gospel must be maintain- 
 ed, vindicated, urged upon their consciences — 
 They must be stimulated where they are slack, 
 and instructed where they are ignorant — They 
 must be taught to contemplate in a juster light 
 than has been common, the nature, and value, 
 of the Redeemer's institutions — They must be 
 put on their guard against the many '^ Anti- 
 
Introduction. 5 
 
 christs" which, in various shapes, are " abroad 
 in the world " — They must be cautioned against 
 those /' swelling words of vanity," and those 
 " fair speeches" of craft, by which they are in 
 danger of being misled — They must learn to 
 explore the foundations not only of that saving 
 truth, but of that comely order, and those costly 
 privileges, which were " once delivered to the 
 saints," and have been consecrated by the blood 
 of martyrs — to '' walk about Zion, and go round 
 about her; to tell the towers thereof; to mark 
 well her bulwarks, and consider her palaces, 
 that they may tell it to the generation follow- 
 ing'^ — They must be able, with meekness and 
 dignity, both to ''give a reason of the hope that 
 is in themselves," and of their opposition to the 
 errors of others — They must be led to a better 
 knowledge of the Holy Scripture than can be 
 acquired from the repetition of elementary prin- 
 ciple, however '' beautiful in its season," or es- 
 sential in its place — They must be persuaded 
 to seek after those ministrations which shall 
 " i'eed them with knowledge and with under- 
 standing ;" and to exert themselves, in the ap- 
 plication of suitable means for procuring to the 
 ministry a succession of " able" and " faithful 
 men," who '' need not to be ashamed, rightly 
 dividing the word of truth" — They must look at 
 Christianity, not merely as it lies in the pages 
 of their Bibles, and their confessions of faith ; 
 but also as it has been embodied in the holy 
 
6 Introduction. 
 
 characters, the active lives, and the peaceful 
 death of their brethren who are gone to the '' re- 
 compense of reward," and whose " faith* it is 
 their duty and happiness to " follow." Their 
 solicitude is also to be excited toward their 
 children. Perhaps there is no obligation dis- 
 regarded with less remorse, or more fatal effects, 
 than that of bringing up youth in the " nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord." Christian fami- 
 lies are as certainly the nurseries of the church 
 upon earth, as she is herself the nursery of the 
 church in heaven. Nor is there a more alarm- 
 ing symptom of her condition than the few, the 
 very few, who tread in the steps of their reli- 
 gious parents. Old Christians are dying off, and 
 a proportionable number of young ones does not 
 step forward to occupy their stations. Wo to 
 that generation by which the testimony of God 
 shall be abandoned ! But wo also to that gen- 
 eration which is preparing the " seed of evil 
 doers" that shall perform the accursed work !*^ 
 They who now fill the Christian church ought 
 to tremble lest at their doors be laid the guilt of 
 rearing an infidel progeny ; and at their hands 
 be required the blood of sons and daughters to 
 be born in ages to come. If any thing vigorous 
 is to be expected in remedying the evil, Chris- 
 tians must pause. They must ask whether or 
 not they do right in courting for their offspring 
 that '' friendship of the world" which is ''en- 
 mity with God :" whether they can now excuse 
 
Introduction. 7 
 
 themselves to their consciences, or will here- 
 after stand blameless before their judge, for 
 their unfaithfulness to the children ''whom he 
 hath given them;" for their connivance at those 
 profligate habits which are carrying pestilence 
 into the bosom of domestic society ; for the piti- 
 able and criminal vanity of qualifying their boys 
 and their girls for entering with eclat into that 
 very world from which the voice of their God 
 has enjoined them and theirs to ''come out and 
 be separate," if they hope to be acknowledged 
 by Him as His " sons and His daughters." 
 
 All these are things of unutterable moment. 
 They must be pondered with solemn regard. 
 They must so mingle themselves wath convic- 
 tion and feeling, and conduct, as to change, in a 
 great measure, the face of the visible church; 
 or there is nothing before us but that desolation 
 which will come "like a whirlwind," and will 
 carry aw ay in its course every individual and 
 denomination that shall be unprepared for the 
 shock. Let no man deceive himself, nor those 
 who listen to Iiim, with vain words. Let him 
 not smile at these forebodings as childish, nor 
 contemn them as fanatical. Let him, at least, 
 before he venture upon such security, hold up 
 the light of revelation to tlie objects which sur- 
 round him, and he will perceive that the alarm 
 is not without cause. Unbelief in suggestions 
 founded upon the word of God, and enforced by 
 his providence, is an ancient folly; " when they 
 
8 Introduction. 
 
 say peace and safety, then sudden destruction 
 Cometh." To ward off, or lighten the impend- 
 ing stroke, every minister of reconciliation 
 should be alert at his post; every Christian pa- 
 rent should redouble his diligence in training up 
 his children ; every man of talents should con- 
 secrate his power; every man of wealth be for- 
 w-ard in offering his substance ; every man of 
 devotion wrestle before the throne of God. 
 
 To throw something into the common scale 
 is the design of the Clwhtian^s Magazine. To 
 require in its numbers an exemplification of all 
 that energy and those excellencies which have 
 just been pronounced indispensable to the 
 Christian weal, would be unreasonable ; as it 
 would demand from a few individuals what can- 
 not be accomplished but by the conjoined piety 
 and labour of thousands. This work will fulfil 
 its task by erecting a standard round which the 
 friends of truth may rally — by discussing topics 
 w^hich may prompt the spirit of research — by 
 diffusing religious information ; and by firm re- 
 sistance to attempts from the press to pervert 
 scriptural principle, or undermine the scriptural 
 institutions. 
 
 In order, however, to avoid unmerited blame, 
 and to preclude misconception with regard to 
 some material articles, the following observa- 
 tions may not be impertinent. 
 
 1. The Prospectus specifies merely the sub- 
 jects which are to be handled; but nothing as 
 
Introduction. 9 
 
 to their order or proportion. The quantity of 
 religious intelligence, in particular, must greatly 
 vary : not only because events do not happen 
 at regular intervals, but because it is often hard 
 to ascertain the truth. The Editor does not 
 dissemble his fears that he shall frequently be 
 unable to gratify, on this point, the laudable cu- 
 riosity of his readers ; and he can tender them 
 no equivalent for occasional disappointment, but 
 his care not to amuse them with fiction instead 
 of fact. 
 
 2. The Magazine will support that Ecclesi- 
 astical government which combines the visible 
 unity of the Churck Catholic with perfect equal- 
 ity of rank among her ministers ; and the chief 
 of those tenets which are known as the doctrines 
 of the reformation. The attacks now made in 
 various directions upon the former, and the 
 odium so industriously heaped upon the latter, 
 have no influence in shaking the editor's attach- 
 ment to either ; nor in deterring him from vin- 
 dicating both before the face of the sun. Deep- 
 ly convinced that in this system of government, 
 and these doctrines of faith, are contained the 
 law of God's house, and the '^ wells of salva- 
 tion," he cannot admit into the Magazine, any 
 thing repugnant to them. That pruriency of 
 debate, w hich sets up falsehood for the pleasure 
 of knocking it down, is a compound, in nearly 
 equal parts, of vanity and weakness. It would 
 be quite as wise and commendable in a physi- 
 
10 Introduction. 
 
 cian to poison liis patient that he might try the 
 force of Iiis antidote. The antidote might be 
 good, and upon the whole successful; hut if by 
 any accident, a life should be sacrificed to his 
 experiments, the fame of his skill would be a 
 costly purchase. There are enough to propa- 
 gate falsehood without the aid of those w^ho 
 should destroy it. The duty of Christians is to 
 confront and repel, not abet the enemy, nor ad- 
 mit him into their camp in order to subdue him. 
 According to its resources, the Christian's Mag- 
 azine will not be backward in strengthening 
 their hands and stirring up their zeal in this 
 contest. It can never descend to altercation ; 
 yet if it should, on any occasion, be so unfortu- 
 nate as to misrepresent persons or things, a cor- 
 rection of the mistake, when demonstrated to 
 the editor, will be thankfully received and cheer- 
 fully inserted. It also engages that while it will 
 maintain and expose error without reserve or 
 scruple, no abuse nor virulence shall pollute its 
 pages. 
 
 3. In reviewing books, considerable latitude 
 must be allowed. 
 
 This part of the work is arduous, as it de- 
 mands more than ordinary self-denial, and can- 
 not be executed without sometimes risking the 
 displeasure even of those whom we have neither 
 interest nor inclination to offend. Authors, in 
 general, are not the most patient or least irri- 
 table of beings. Even good men are apt to be 
 
Introduction. 11 
 
 intractable when they array themselves in 
 print, and to be nearly as much disconcerted by 
 a critical rebuke, as if they had been libelled for 
 a crime. But there is no help for it. Justice 
 must be distributed without " fear, favour, or 
 affection." There is no other way of informing 
 the reader or improving the writer. It is, in- 
 deed, common for reviewers to profess impar- 
 tiality. And if by impartiality be meant, giving 
 to every writer his due, according to one's best 
 judgment, the Christian's Magazine claims to 
 be impartial. But if impartiality consist in 
 strictures on an author's style and manner, and 
 a fair statement of his opinions without deciding 
 on their quality^ then it solemnly disclaims all 
 such impartiality. The very use of a religious 
 Review is to distinguish the " precious" from 
 the " vile." Is it in religion only that we may 
 prevaricate ? In the most tremendous of all 
 concerns that we are to be undecided ? Are 
 we to punish every transgression of literarv 
 law ; and to let slander upon the gospel, and 
 assassination of the souls of men, pass without 
 reproof, lest we should be branded as unchar- 
 itable ? The good Lord deliver us from such 
 charity. It has always appeared to the editor, 
 how plausible soever the appellations be- 
 stowed upon it, to be treason against the high- 
 est allegiance, and to mark the union of cow- 
 ardice and fraud. If, therefore, any one shall 
 hope to see in this Review no discrimination of 
 
12 Introduction. 
 
 religious doctrines; no preference shown to 
 those which guide to the " path of life," over 
 those which lead to " bottomless perdition," he 
 will be much disappointed. Whatever may be 
 its other imperfections, no man shall accuse it 
 of trimming on the points of faith and duty. 
 
 4. As the object of the Magazine cannot be 
 attained without the editor's control over its 
 materials, he will feel himself not only at lib- 
 erty, but under obligation, to make such altera- 
 tions in the pieces which may be offered for in- 
 sertion, as he shall judge expedient. His lite- 
 rary friends will be considered as acceding to 
 this condition in all their communications which 
 shall not be accompanied with a contrary re- 
 quest. When such cases shall occur, and the 
 pieces be thought exceptionable, they will of 
 course be suppressed, and remain subject to the 
 disposal of their authors. 
 
REVIEW 
 
 ESSAYS ON EPISCOPACY 
 
REVIEW. 
 
 A Collection of Essays on the subject of Episcopacy ^ 
 which originally appeared in the Albany Centinel^ 
 and which are principally ascribed to the Rev, Dr. 
 Linn^ the Rev. Mr, Beasley^ and Thomas Y. How^ 
 Esq, With additional notes and remarks, 8vo. p. p. 
 210. New-York, T. k J. Swords, 1806. 
 
 Early in the summer of 1804, the Rev. John 
 Henry Hobart, an assistant minister of Trinity 
 Church, New-York, pubhshed a work, entitled, 
 " A Companion for the Altar : consisting of a short 
 explanation of the Lord^s Supper ; and meditations and 
 prayers^ proper to be used before^ and during the receiv- 
 ing of the Holy Communion^ according to the form 
 prescribed by the Protestant Episcopal Churchy in the 
 United States of America.'^'' This was followed, in 
 the fall of the same year, by another compilation, 
 from the pen of the same gentleman, entitled, « A 
 Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America.'''^ 
 
16 Review, 
 
 These volumes, especially the former, appear- 
 ed, at the time of their publication, not only to the 
 non-episcopal reader, but, if we are correctly in- 
 formed, to discreet Episcopalians themselves, to 
 advance claims which it is extremely difficult to 
 substantiate. 
 
 Of the nature of these claims, the following ex- 
 tract from the Companion for the Altar ^ will give 
 a general idea. 
 
 " The Judge of the whole earth indeed will do 
 right. The grace of God quickens and animates 
 all the degenerate children of Adam. The mercy 
 of the Saviour is co-extensive with the ruin into 
 which sin has plunged mankind. And ' in every 
 nation, he that feareth God and worketh right- 
 eousness is accepted of him.' But where the Gos- 
 pel is proclaimed, communion with the church by 
 the participationof its ordinances, at the hands of 
 the duly authorized priesthood, is the indispensa- 
 ble condition of salvation. Separation from the 
 prescribed government and regular pristhood of 
 the church, when it proceeds from involuntary and 
 unavoidable ignorance or error^ we have reason to 
 trust, will not intercept from the humble, the peni- 
 tent, and obedient, the blessings of God's favour. 
 But when we humbly submit to that priesthood 
 which Christ and his apostles constituted ; when, 
 in the lively exercise of penitence and faith, we 
 partake of the ordinances administered by them, 
 we maintain our communion with that church 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 17 
 
 which the Redeemer purifies by his blood, which 
 he quickens by his Spirit, and whose faithful mem- 
 bers he will finally crown with the most exalted 
 glories of his heavenly kingdom. The important 
 truth which the universal church has uniformly 
 maintained, that, to experience the full and exalt- 
 ed efficacy of the sacraments, we must receive 
 them from a valid authority, is not inconsistent 
 with that charity which extends mercy to all who 
 labour under involuntary error. But great is the 
 guilt, and imminent the danger, of those who, pos- 
 sessing the means of arriving at the knowledge of 
 the truth, negligently or ivilfully continue in a state 
 of separation from the authorized ministry of the 
 church, and participate of ordinances administer- 
 ed by an irregular and invalid authority. Wilful- 
 ly rending the peace and unity of the church, by 
 separating from the ministrations of its authorized 
 priesthood; obstinately contemning the means 
 which God in his sovereign pleasure, hath pre- 
 scribed for their salvation, they are guilty of re- 
 bellion against their Almighty Law-giver, and 
 Judge; they expose themselves to the awful dis- 
 pleasure of that Almighty Jehovah, who will not 
 permit his institutions to be condemned, or his 
 authority violated, with impunity." This from 
 the '• Meditation" for " Saturday evening." p. 
 202—204. 
 
 As we have quoted the passage, rather in order 
 
 to connect the circumstances which gave rise to 
 Vol. Ill, 3 
 
1 8 Review 
 
 the " collection" immediately under review, than 
 to subject it to rigid criticism ; we forbear com- 
 menting on several assertions, in maintaining 
 which the reverend writer, if a little pressed, might 
 perhaps find that he has no ingenuity to spare. 
 We now consider it in reference to the subject of 
 the " Essays." 
 
 Extravagant as such pretensions must seem to 
 those whose convictions are of a different sort, 
 and offensive as they were to individuals whose 
 predilections are certainly not anti-episcopal, no 
 notice, so far as we know, was taken of Mr. 
 Hobart's productions, nor any thing published on 
 the other side, till the summer of 1805. Then a 
 writer, generally supposed to be the Rev. Dr. 
 Linn, introduced into "the Albany Centinel," un- 
 der the head of "Miscellanies, No. ix." some free 
 strictures on the Episcopal claims. He imme- 
 diately met with an antagonist of no mean pow- 
 ers, under the signature of a Layman of the Epis- 
 copal Churchy who is understood to be Thomas Y. 
 How, Esq, To the aid of the latter came the 
 Rev. Frederick Beasley, Rector of St. Peter's 
 Church, Albany, with the venerable name of Cy- 
 prian, Clemens^ or Dr. L. himself, shortly appear- 
 ed in favour of the Miscellanist ; as the battle 
 waxed sore, the band of the hierarchy was joined 
 by two right reverend prelates, the one from this 
 state, as Cornelius ; the other from Pennsylvania, 
 as an Episcopalian ; together with Mr. (now Dr.) 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, It 
 
 HoBART himself, in the twofold form of Detector 
 and Vindex ; while the Miscellanist re-appeared in 
 the characters of Umpire and an Inquirer. By the 
 forces thus marshalled, five against one, the war- 
 fare was protracted till the public grew w^eary, 
 and the printer interposed to effect an armistice. 
 However, that the record and the fruits of so me- 
 morable a campaign might not be lost, the Rev 
 Mr. HoBART did not think it a misapplication of 
 his time, nor a disservice to his church, to gather 
 the pieces of both parties, and repubhsh them in 
 a separate volume with a preface, annotations, 
 and comments of his own. We, accordingly, 
 take up the " collection" as it came from his 
 hands. 
 
 We have heard a suggestion of unfairness in 
 this transaction. We do not see how the charge 
 can be supported, unless the writers on the Epis- 
 copal side have been permitted to alter and amend 
 their essays without extending the same privilege 
 to their opponents. The modification of a single 
 paragraph may cover with ridicule the most for- 
 cible argument which was directed against it 
 before the modification, and v/ould insult the reader 
 by imposing upon him something which was not 
 the subject of remark. Of so degrading an 
 artifice no reputable man ought to be lightly sus- 
 pected. As we have no such suspicion, and as 
 this alone could justify a charge of unfairness, we 
 do not see that Mr. H. is at all reprehensible for 
 
20 Review. 
 
 republishing a set of essays which had been thrown 
 upon the world without any pecuniary restriction, 
 and accompanying them with such criticism as 
 he deemed just. 
 
 Mr. H. observes in his preface, that " the friends 
 of the church and of Episcopacy, however reluct- 
 ant to discuss an important rehgious topic in a 
 public paper, were compelled to resort to the 
 same mode, for defence, which the author ot 
 Miscellanies had chosen for his attack." We la 
 ment, as sincerely as themselves, that a Newspa- 
 per was selected for such a discussion. We la- 
 mented it from the first. We never flattered our- 
 selves that it would operate with a favourable 
 influence either on the cause of truth, or on the 
 social feeling of the community. 
 
 But when Mr. H. and the Layman^ and Cyprian^ 
 all complain of being assaulted in the peaceful 
 exercise of a common right, and thus endeavour 
 to throw the odium of aggression upon the author 
 of "Miscellanies," it is rather over-acting. To 
 exclude all non-episcopalians from " the church 
 which the Redeemer purifies by his blood, and 
 quickens by his Spirit," — to pronounce all their 
 ministrations " irregular and invalid," — to charge 
 them with " great guilt" and threaten them with 
 " imminent danger," for " neghgently or wilfully 
 continuing in a state of separation" from the 
 episcopal church — to represent them as " wilfully 
 rending the peace and unity of the church ; as 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 21 
 
 obstinately contemning the means which God 
 hath appointed for their salvation ;" as " guilty of 
 rebellion against their Almighty Law-giver, and 
 Judge," — to publish all this to the world ; and 
 then most gravely to tell these same non-episco- 
 palians, that there is no attack upon them ; but 
 only a httle wholesome admonition for the edifi- 
 cation of devout episcopahans on the evening be- 
 fore the Holy Communion ! and, moreover, to put 
 on a lofty air, and break out into angry rebuke, 
 toward those who are not satisfied with their ex- 
 planation, is really an improvement in polemical 
 finesse. But hold ! let us look again at these 
 pretty figures of rhetoric, by which thunderbolts, 
 hurled at the heads of opponents, are converted 
 into the gentle dews of instruction and consola- 
 tion to friends — Schismatics, usurpers, renders of 
 the church's unity, rebels against their Almighty 
 Law-giver ! — Verily, if this is no attack upon non- 
 episcopalians, it is so like one, that we need a 
 shrewd interpreter at our elbow, to prevent our 
 mistaking it. " I never," said Jack, of Lord Pe- 
 ter's brown bread, " saw a piece of mutton in my 
 life, so nearly resembling a slice from a twelve- 
 penny loaf 1 !" 
 
 If Mr. H. had intended an attack upon the an- 
 ti-episcopal denominations, in what manner could 
 he have made it ? Not by assailing them individ- 
 ually in the street : not by entering their houses 
 and reading them a lecture on schism : not even 
 
22 Review. 
 
 by preaching against them in his own place of 
 Avorship : for this would be " instructing his own 
 people ;" and if any others should happen to stroll 
 in, he could not help that, more than he could 
 hinder their buying and reading his books ; which, 
 according his own account, he neither desired 
 nor expected. It is the dictate of common sense 
 that if an author print and publish severe reflec- 
 tions upon any body of men, he not only attacks 
 them, but does it in the most open manner possi- 
 ble. If one of our citizens should write and ad- 
 vertise in the Gazettes, a pamphlet, calling all the 
 members of the community, but those of his own 
 sect, traitors and rebels to the government, would 
 Mr. H. or any body else, comprehended in the 
 charge, be satisfied with such an apology as this : 
 u You, have no right, sir, to be offended with any 
 part of my pamphlet. It is true, I have called you 
 a rebel and a traitor, but you should not construe 
 these epithets into an attack upon you ; for the 
 least candour will enable you to perceive that I 
 published my pamphlet for the exclusive use of 
 my own connexions ?" Would this, we ask, con- 
 vince Mr. H. or any one else, and send him home 
 perfectly satisfied to be denounced, as a rebel 
 and a traitor, so often as a zealous partisan might 
 judge it conducive to the edification of his own 
 particular friends? We believe not. Neither 
 will the non-episcopalians be satisfied with Mr. 
 H's. apology for himself They will probably 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 23 
 
 view it as a stratagem, and not a very deep one, 
 to avoid the unpopularity of appearing as the ag- 
 gressor. Some of tiiem, too, may consider Mr. 
 H's. books as the continuance of a system of at- 
 tack which commenced several years ago, when 
 a certain preacher declared to the faces of some 
 of the most venerable ministers in this city, that 
 all clergymen not episcopally ordained, are im- 
 postors ; their commissions, forgeries ; and their 
 sacraments, blasphemy.* 
 
 These aspersions raised a great clamour at the 
 time ; and the repetition of them by Mr. H. and 
 
 * The preacher was Mr. Wright ; the place, St. Paul's church ; 
 the occasion, a deacon's ordination ; and the text, of which, to 
 use his own words, he " took leave," in order to give the poor 
 non-episcopalians a hit, that injunction of our Lord, '■'■Be ye wise 
 as serpents, and harmless as doves.^' That the orator was right in 
 taking this " leave," will hardly be questioned, as he immediately 
 broke through the second precept of his text ; and the consequences 
 proved that he had but little skill in the first. The effusion had 
 more of every thing in the serpent, than his wisdom ; and more 
 of every thing in the dove, than her innocence. 
 
 A circumstance which rendered the attack an outrage, was the 
 care of the episcopal clergy to circulate notice of the ordination, 
 and their solicitude for the attendance of their non-episcopal 
 brethren! One of the latter, who was present, remarked, at the 
 close of the service, with the pith and point of indignant feeling, 
 that "Mr. W. possessed a large stock of confidence, to tell his 
 bishop to his face, that he was an unregenerated man, and no 
 member of the Christian church !" It being well known that the 
 Right Reverend Father in God, Samuel, bishop of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, had been baptized 
 by the Rev. Mr. Dubois, one of the ministers of the Reformed 
 Dutch Church. Therefore,— &c. Alas ! Alas ! 
 
24 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 others, though in more decent language, has been 
 loudly censured, as a violation of all the rules of 
 prudence and charity. Of their prudence we say 
 nothing. And the offence against charity is not 
 the point of difficulty with us. Nor do we think 
 that the author of " Miscellanies," in declaiming 
 against episcopal " bigotry and superstition," has 
 taken the question by the proper handle. These 
 are, at best, ungracious compliments, which, 
 though they may vent the ire of the writer, contri- 
 bute little to the emolument of the reader; and 
 are generally repaid with good will, and with large 
 interest. Truth, can admit of no compromise 
 with error, nor does charity require it. They are 
 the truly charitable v/ho point out the way of life, 
 and warn their fellow men of dangerous mistake. 
 Therefore w^e shall neither dispute the right of an 
 Episcopalian to publish his peculiar sentiments, 
 nor when they happen to bear hard upon others, 
 shall we cry out against their uncharitableness. 
 Oar concern is with their truth or falsehood. 
 And as we are far from impeaching the sincerity 
 of Mr. H. and his coadjutors, whatever we may 
 think of their discretion ; so our criticisms are 
 intended to apply to them solely as authors. For 
 their personal characters, we entertain unfeigned 
 respect. Nor can we be justly charged with vio- 
 lating that respect, though we examine their claim 
 with as little ceremony as they have brought it 
 forward. If the errour be ours, let them overwhelm 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 25 
 
 our darkness with the effulgence of their hght — if 
 the error be theirs, God forbid that any human 
 regards should prevail with us to pass it gently 
 by. With the imperial Stoick, we " aim at truths 
 by which no man was ever injured."^ 
 
 They tell us then, that their " priesthood" is 
 the only " authorized ministry" — that the church 
 in which it officiates, is the only one in covenant 
 with God — that where the gospel is proclaimed, 
 communion with this church, by the participation 
 of its ordinances at the hands of the duly autho- 
 rized priesthood, is the indispensable condition ol 
 salvation — that whatever mercy may be extended 
 to those who labour under involuntary errour, such 
 as negligently or wilfully continue in a state of se- 
 paration from the authorized ministry of the 
 church, and participate of ordinances administer- 
 ed by an irregular and invalid authority, are guilty 
 not only of schism, but of contempt of God's in- 
 stitutions ; of rebellion against his government, 
 and of exposing themselves to his awful displea- 
 sure. In fewer words, their doctrine is, that non- 
 episcopalians are no part of the Christian church ; 
 but are " children of wrath," and without a single 
 hope founded on covenanted mercy. No " re- 
 pentance toward God ;" no " faith toward our 
 Lord Jesus Christ ;" no conformity to his image ; 
 no zeal for his glory, can be of any avail. The 
 
 Z-^tCj tv'v aXv;5£iav i;^' rjg o-j5si5 -x'oi'jroTS i^Xs^t], — Mar. Anton. 
 IJb. J. c. 21. p. 50. ed. Gatakeri. 
 Vol. III. 4 
 
26 Review. 
 
 simple fact of their separation from the " autho- 
 rized," that is to say, from the episcopal " priest- 
 hood," mars their religion, and renders it stark 
 naught ! 
 
 This sweeping sentence oi proscription is soft- 
 ened by representing it as " not inconsistent 
 with that charity which extends mercy to all who 
 labour under involuntary errour." But the relief 
 is not worth accepting. For in the first place, so 
 much is necessary to constitute " involuntary^^'' or 
 as it is elsewhere called, " unavoidable^^'' errour, 
 that the instances in which the plea should be sub- 
 stantiated would be rare indeed. Access to means 
 of instruction precludes it effectually. x\nd as 
 there are few districts where this question can be 
 agitated, without episcopalians, or their priests, or 
 their writings, the errour must almost always be 
 wilful ; in which case the retreat is cut off — and 
 secondly^ we have no ground to expect even this 
 very precarious mercy, but the charity of Mr. H. 
 and his brethren ! Warrant from the word of God 
 they have produced none, and have none to pro- 
 duce. If communion with the authorized, or Epis- 
 copal priesthood, be to those among whom the 
 Gospel is proclaimed, an indispensable condition 
 of salvation, what possible escape can be left for 
 those who reject it ? The very idea of such an 
 escape, however to be effected, is repugnant to 
 that of an indispensable condition. No : if the con- 
 dition be indispensable^ they who reject it must 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 17 
 
 perish. And if they who reject it may still be 
 saved, it is not indispensable : otherwise, the defi- 
 nition might run thus, an indispensable condition is 
 that which may be dispensed with ! The alternative 
 then is, Episcopacy or perdition ! ! Prove this, 
 and there is but one way for us : rush into the 
 arms of the Episcopal Church, and the sooner the 
 better ! Prove this, and for our part, httle as we 
 are inclined to such a transition at present, we 
 will take refuge immediately in her communion ! 
 He is a fool who would put his soul in jeopardy 
 for a single moment, by rejecting an " indispen- 
 sable condition of salvation ;" and risk the loss of 
 Heaven upon the credit of the charity of Mr. H. 
 and Bishop Horsley ! ! We are sure that the 
 drift, and have little doubt that the design, of a 
 number of Episcopal publications is to force plain 
 people into such a conclusion. 
 
 But before the authors can be justified in utter- 
 ing a syllable which onl} looks toward such a con- 
 clusion, they ought to be perfectly certain of their 
 premises. To unchurch, with a dash of the pen, 
 all the non-e*piscopal denominations under Hea- 
 ven ; and cast their members, indiscriminately, 
 into a condition worse than that of the very Hea- 
 then, is, to say the least of it, a most dreadful ex- 
 communication ; and if not clearly enjoined by the 
 authority of God, as criminal as it is dreadful. 
 That all those glorious churches which have 
 flourished in Geneva, Holland, France, Scotland, 
 
28 Review. 
 
 England, Ireland, &;c. since the reformation ; and 
 all which have spread, and are spreading through 
 this vast continent — that those heroes of the truth, 
 who, though they bowed not to the mitre, rescued 
 milhons from the man of sin, lighted up the lamp 
 of genuine religion, and left it, burning with a pure 
 and steady flame to the generation following — 
 that all those faithful ministers, and all those pri- 
 vate christians, who, though not of the hierarchy, 
 adorned the doctrine of God their Saviour, hving 
 in faith, dying in faith ; scores, hundreds, thousands 
 of them going away to their father's house under 
 the strong consolations of the Holy Ghost, with 
 anticipated heaven in their hearts, and its hallelu- 
 jahs on their lips — that all, all were without the 
 pale of the visible church ; were destitute of cove- 
 nanted grace; and left the world without any 
 chance for eternal life, but that unpledged, unpro- 
 mised mercy which their accusers charitably hope 
 may be extended to such as labour under involun- 
 tary or unavoidable errour ; and this merely be- 
 cause they renounced Episcopacy — are positions 
 of such deep-toned horrour as may well make our 
 hair stand up, " like quills upon the fretful por- 
 cupine ;" and freeze the warm blood at its foun- 
 tain. We say this sentance has been pronounced 
 upon millions of the dead and of the living, merely 
 because they were not, or are not. Episcopal. For 
 Mr. H. and his friends have declared in substance, 
 what their famous Dodwell has declared in form. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 29 
 
 that, " the alone want of communion with the bishop^ 
 makes persons aliens from God and Christy and strang- 
 ers from the covenants of promise^ and the common- 
 wealth of Israel r^ 
 
 We shall hardly be accused.of transgressing the 
 bounds of moderation, when we demand for such 
 assertions, proof which demolishes cavil, and shuts 
 the mouth of reply. And if their authors cannot 
 produce it ; if they be not ready with demonstra- 
 tion, such as shall make " assurance double sure," 
 they must abide the consequences of their te- 
 merity. 
 
 What the nature of their proof is, and how it 
 will bear them out, we shall enable the reader to 
 judge before we finish this review. We pause to 
 make two observations. 
 
 1. The writers with whom we have to do, lay 
 upon the form of church government a stress 
 which is not laid upon it in the word of God. We 
 are far from insinuating that the question is of 
 small moment; we are persuaded, on the contrary, 
 that it is of great moment ; and that Christians 
 are chargeable with much sin for the indifference 
 which prevails among them concerning it. We 
 can never grant that the appointments of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ may be innocently neglected; nor 
 
 * That M. H. treads closely after Dodwell, see " Companion 
 for the Festivals and Fasts,'' p. 59. Aud that the author of " me- 
 morial of the late Bishop Hobart," if a judgment may be drawn from 
 his remerks upon these Essays, treads equally close. See " me- 
 morial." 
 
30 Review. 
 
 that any one is excusable for not endeavouring to 
 satisfy himself what these appointments are. But 
 we are very sure that particular views of external 
 church-order, are not the hinging point of salva- 
 tion. Whether a man shall go to heaven or to 
 hell, will be decided by another inquiry than whe- 
 ther he was an Episcopahan, a Presbyterian, or 
 an Independent. The scriptures have fixed that 
 inquiry to this point, whether he was a believer 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ or not ? He that believeth 
 and is baptized^ shall be saved : and he that believeth 
 not, shall be daimied. Again. Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. The reverse 
 is, he that believeth not is condemned already, because 
 he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten 
 son of God. According to these passages, faith 
 in the Lord Jesus as he is exhibited in the Gospel, 
 is "the indispensable condition of salvation." — 
 According to Mr. H. and his compeers, partici- 
 pation of Christian ordinances at the hands of the 
 Episcopal priesthood, is the indispensable condi- 
 tion of salvation. We are not ignorant that in 
 other sections of his book, Mr. H. dwells with in- 
 terest and force, on the necessity of a hving and 
 productive faith. We are glad to see so many 
 things in a strain much more evangelical than 
 pervades most of the ministrations in his church. 
 But this inspires us with the deeper regret on ac- 
 count of the " dead flies" among the precious 
 " ointment." Nor can we suppress our convic- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 31 
 
 tion, that in representing an adherence to Episco- 
 pacy as " the indispensable condition of salvation," 
 himself, and DAUBENY,*and a legion more, have 
 done much tow^ard misleading men's minds as to 
 the foundation of eternal hope. That v^hich 
 wounds the bosom of tender piety, and of which 
 we utterly deny the correctness, is their placing 
 the external order of the church upon a level with 
 the merits of our Lord Jesus, in the article of ac- 
 ceptance before God. We are positively told that 
 soundness in the former is " the indispensable 
 condition of salvation ;" and faith in the latter 
 cannot possibly be any more. Nay, with respect 
 to non-episcopalians, Episcopacy is of primary^ 
 and faith in the Redeemer of secondary^ impor- 
 tance : for we are told again, that " whoever is in 
 communion with the bishop^ the supreme Governor 
 of the church upon earth, is in communion with 
 Christ the head of it ; and whoever is not in com- 
 munion with the bishop, is thereby cut off from 
 communion with Christ :" and this is said to be a 
 " general conclusion" " established" by " the uni- 
 form testimony of ALL the apostolic and primitive 
 writers."* After perusing the paragraph, we were 
 held in suspense between the gaze of astonish- 
 I ment and the swell of indignation. Why, he who 
 is acquainted with facts well knows ; these gen- 
 
 * Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, p. 59. from Daubeny. 
 Quere. How many bow-shots are such writers oflf from the terri- 
 tory of " our sovereign Lord the Pope ?" 
 
32 Review. 
 
 tlemen ought to know ; and, in due season, others 
 whom it concerns shall know. The meaning is 
 not obscure. There is no access to communion 
 with Christ, but through communion with the 
 bishop. Yet, Mr. H. himself being judge, true 
 faith vitally unites its possessor to the Redeemer -* 
 and in this " vital union" originates all commu- 
 nion with him. U^ therefore, faith in Christ pro- 
 duces communion with him, and this communion 
 is inaccessible but through the medium of the 
 bishop, it follows that faith in Christ is impossible 
 where there is no communion with the bishop : 
 and that all non-episcopalians are, of necessity, 
 infidels. And thus our position is proved, that 
 Episcopacy is held up as of primary, and faith in 
 Christ as of secondary, importance. For as both 
 are "indispensable conditions of salvation," that 
 one upon which the existence of the other de- 
 pends, must be the more important of the two. 
 And this is not an example of that sort of priority 
 which obtains in the relation of means to ends ; the 
 use of the former preceding the attainment of the 
 latter ; so that the end, which is the greater, pre- 
 supposes and follows the means, which are the 
 less. The case before us, we say, is not of this 
 sort : because we have access to the testimony of 
 God, which must be believed in order to salva- 
 tion, without going through the gate of Episco- 
 
 * Companion for the Altar ; meditation for Thursday. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 33 
 
 pacy. It may be urged, that faith in Christ in- 
 cludes the principle of obedience to his institu- 
 tions ; and therefore to resist them, is to show the 
 want of that obedience which flows from faith. 
 Doubtless the faith of Christ does include such a 
 principle. But this no more proves particular 
 views of church order, than it proves particular 
 views of any thing else which is regulated by 
 Christ's authority, to be the " indispensable con- 
 dition of salvation." Habitual disobedience to 
 any of his known commands will exclude from 
 his kingdom. Yet there are sins both of ignorance 
 and infirmity which consist with a gracious state. 
 And why an errour about church-government is 
 not to be classed among these, the Bible has as- 
 signed no reason. And if the high church-men 
 will push their own doctrine, it will compel them 
 to excommunicate each other in their turn. For 
 it is no secret that there have been material dif- 
 ferences among them on their favourite theme : 
 and nothing can exceed their confusion and mu- 
 tual contradiction, when they attempt to found 
 their hierarchy on the scriptures. 
 
 At times, we acknowledge, they concede the 
 possibility of " penitence" and a " true faith" out 
 of their church, for it is upon this concession that 
 they rest their charity for the non-episcopalian. 
 But as their concession is in diametrical repug- 
 nance to their argument, it only lets us see that 
 
 Vol. III. 5 
 
34 Review, 
 
 they flinch from, the consequences of their own 
 doctrine. 
 
 Upon the whole, we have the best evidence 
 that they lay an unwarrantable stress upon the 
 form of ecclesiastical order, by erecting commu- 
 nion with their priesthood into an " indispensable 
 condition of salvation." The alarm which they 
 have sounded on this subject, is vox et pr(^terea 
 nihil, mere noise ; and need give no disquiet to the 
 most timid conscience. 
 
 2. Our next observation is, that as Mr. H. and 
 his fellows have denied all communion with 
 Christ, to non-episcopalians they are bound to 
 show, that there is at least, more of the truth and 
 efficacy of the gospel in the Episcopal church 
 than in all other connexions. This is not draw- 
 ing invidious comparisons between Christian de- 
 nominations, but on their own principles, a per- 
 fectly fair comparison between the church of 
 Christ and a set of associations which do not be- 
 long to it. We shall account it no hard task to 
 prove as much of the church of Christ according 
 to our views ; nor ought they. For assuredly, if 
 there is not within his church much more of 
 power and love, and of a sound mind ;" much 
 more of the fear of God ; of " receiving Christ 
 Jesus the Lord" and " walking in him ;" of rever- 
 ential attendance upon his worship ; of domestic 
 and personal godliness ; in one word, much more 
 of the spiritual life, and of that " holiness without 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 35 
 
 which no man shall see the Lord;" if much more 
 of these things be not found icithin his church 
 than without it, ^' what doth it profit ?" Will Mr. 
 H. meet the ordeal ? Will he accompany us from 
 temple to temple, from pulpit to pulpit, from house 
 to house, from closet to closet, and agree, that in 
 proportion as there is little or much of "pure and 
 undefiled religion" in them, their grade in the 
 scale of Christian churches shall be low or high? 
 Is it, then, a fact, that in the church which boasts 
 of the only vahd ministrations, and the exclusive 
 prerogative of being in covenant with God, there 
 is more evangelical preaching; more of Christ 
 crucified ; more plain, close, decisive dealing with 
 the consciences of men, upon the things which 
 belong to their peace, than in many of the chur- 
 ches which she affects to despise ? Is it a fact, 
 that her " authorized priesthood" are more scru- 
 pulous about the preservation of pure communion; 
 that they object more strongly to the admission 
 of mere men of the world ; and are more active 
 in excluding from their fellowship the openly irre- 
 ligious, than are others ? Is it a fact, that they 
 adopt more prompt and vigorous measures to 
 expel from their pulpits doctrine which flies in the 
 face of their avowed principles, and is acknowl- 
 edged by themselves to be subversive of the Chris- 
 tian system ? Is it a fact, that in this " primitive 
 Apostolic" church, the sheep of Christ and his 
 lambs are more plentifully fed with '* the bread of 
 
36 Review. 
 
 God which came down from heaven ?" Or that 
 she has less to attract the thoughtless gay, and 
 more to allure those who become seriously con- 
 cerned about their eternal salvation, than is to be 
 found in hundreds of churches which she virtually 
 " delivers unto Satan ?" Are these facts ? We 
 appeal to them who have eyes to see, and ears to 
 hear ; especially to them who " have tasted that 
 the Lord is gracious." The interrogatories and 
 the appeal are extremely painful: but we are driven 
 to them by the champions of the hierarchy, who 
 appropriate communion with Christ to their own 
 connexions. We, therefore, put them upon their 
 trial before the bar of scripture, of conscience, 
 and of public criticism. We demand the evidence 
 of their exclusive fellowship with the Redeemer ; 
 we demand it for our own sakes ; we insist upon 
 their showing, according to his word, the superi- 
 ority of their practical rehgion both in quantity 
 and quality. If they cannot or will not answer, no 
 rational man will be at a loss for the reason. 
 
 An Episcopal church we do know, in which 
 there are hundreds of ministers, and thousands of 
 their people, who are " valiant for the truth ;" 
 who exemplify in their own persons the loveliness 
 of the Christian character, and who, with respect 
 to themselves, will never shrink from the strictest 
 investigation. Would to God, we could say as 
 much for all non-episcopalians ! But these mem- 
 bers of that church who give, in " the fruits of 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 37 
 
 righteousness," unequivocal proof that the " Spirit 
 of Christ is in them," are not the persons who 
 advance or defend such claims as are set up by- 
 Messrs. Daubeny and Hobart. On the contrary, 
 they most cordially welcome to their bosoms, as 
 heirs with themselves of the grace of life, all those 
 " who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity :" 
 and they are hated, reviled, persecuted, by those 
 very same high churchmen, who, like Mr. H. and 
 his friends are for confining the covenant of sal- 
 vation to their own precincts. 
 
 We have reached only the threshold of the 
 work which we proposed to enter and examine. 
 But if we have detained the reader with prelimi- 
 nary matter, it is because we could not do justice 
 to the subject without it. He is now in posses- 
 sion of facts and reasonings to show that the 
 actual discussions relative to Episcopacy, are not 
 to be classed with those wrangles of party which 
 amuse ignorant zealots, and disgrace sober in- 
 quiry. Nothing less is agitated than the question 
 whether as non-episcopalians, we are to walk in 
 the "faith of the gospel," in "joy of the Holy 
 Ghost," and with a " hope that maketh not 
 ashamed;" or be shut up under condemnation, 
 reprobated by God and man ? As we did not be- 
 gin the controversy; nor engage in it till after 
 long forbearance under multiphed provocation ; 
 and not even then, till we felt ourselves called 
 upon, by an imperious sense of duty, to vindicate 
 
38 Review, 
 
 the perverted truth, and the absurd ordinances, 
 of our master in Heaven; so, having begun, we 
 shall not desist until we shall have exposed those 
 arrogant pretensions, and fallacious reasonings, 
 which are calculated to distress and deceive the 
 hearts of the simple. 
 
 Mr. H. in his preface to this collection, assures 
 the reader that, 
 
 " The author of Miscellanies has, with great industry, col- 
 lected together all the arguments against Episcopacy." p. iv. 
 
 We apprehend that Mr. H's zeal, in this para- 
 graph, has outstripped his caution. A man pro- 
 fesses to have a very extensive and accurate ac- 
 quaintance with a subject, when he pledges him- 
 self to the public, that " all the arguments" on 
 either side of a question relating to it, are con- 
 tained in a work which he has written or edited. 
 And if the work be defective, especially in mate- 
 rial points, he subjects himself to comments most 
 mortifying to his own feelings, most painful to his 
 friends, and not desirable even to his opponents. 
 We, therefore, think, and others may think with 
 us before we shall have done, that Mr. H. ought 
 not to have committed his reputation to the con- 
 sequences of such an assertion. His reserve ought 
 to have been the greater, as he has taken some 
 pains to invite an examination of his scholarship. 
 This en passant. To the book itself. 
 
 " The question of Episcopacy," says the Lay- 
 man in his 9th number, " is a question of fact, to 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. M 
 
 be determined by a sound interpretation of the 
 sacred volume." We join issue with him ; and 
 not only consent, but insist, that the question shall 
 be decided by the scripture alone. We detract 
 not from the respect due to the primitive fathers, 
 nor decline to meet their testimony, as we shall 
 show in proper season. But in fixing the sense of 
 the scripture, their authority is of no more weight 
 with us than the authority of other uninspired 
 men ; that is, we regard not their opinion any 
 further than as it is supported by the strength of 
 their reasonings. The wTitten word is the perfect 
 and exclusive rule of our faith. It would be so, 
 had not a shred of Christian antiquity survived 
 the ravages of time. And if all the fathers from 
 Barnabas to Bernard^ had agreed in reckoning 
 among the institutions of Christ, any thing which 
 is not to be found in the statute book of his own 
 kingdom, it should be no article of our creed ; and 
 should have no more sway in our conscience than 
 an assertion of the Layman himself, or of his cle- 
 rical friends. This being understood, let us see 
 how the lines of evidence run. 
 
 The author of " miscellanies" had, in No. X. 
 argued the identity of presbyters and bishops 
 from the indiscriminate use which the scripture 
 makes of these official terms. His antagonists 
 flout at this argument, with all imaginable con- 
 tempt, through every part of the discussion. It is 
 "literally," say they, " good for nothing:" " too 
 
40 Review, 
 
 feeble to merit a serious reply." It is " wretched 
 sophistry" — " the old and miserable sophistry of 
 names." But wherein does the sophistry con- 
 sist } Why Paul is called an " elder ;" therefore 
 the Presbyterian argument would prove that Paul 
 was no more than a presbyter. Christ himself is 
 called (^laxovo?) diaconos, which is translated a " mi- 
 nister," a " deacon ;" therefore the Presbyterian 
 argument would prove, that Christ was no higher 
 than a deacon. 
 
 " Presbuteros" (f^sg^vrs^og) " signifies an elder man; whence 
 comes the term Alderman. By this new species of logic," 
 (which, hy the way, is at least more than 1400 years old,) " it 
 might be proved," saith the Layman, " that the apostles were, 
 to all intents and purposes. Aldermen, in the civil acceptation 
 of the term ; and that every Alderman is really and truly an 
 Apostle." p. 52, 53. 
 
 If this argument is correct, the Presbyterians 
 show very small, no doubt. And the Layman is 
 not to blame for stigmatizing it as " wretched 
 sophistry." " The miserable sophistry of names." 
 Yet the reader may be induced to pause, when he 
 is told that men of singular acuteness, learning, 
 candour, penetration, and force of mind, have 
 considered this self-same argument, when fairly 
 stated, as altogether unanswerable. There may 
 perhaps, be some policy in trying to run it down 
 with hard words ; for the Layman acknowledges, 
 that the " Episcopalians would give up their cause 
 at once^ if reduced to the necessity of placing it 
 on such a basis." p. 56. Here the secret is dis« 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 41 
 
 closed ; if the argument from the scriptural use 
 of official titles is valid, down goes the Hierarchy! 
 Hlnc nice lacrymcB ! No wonder that the attempts 
 are so incessant to scowl, and scoff, and laugh it 
 out of countenance. It will not, however, be 
 parted with so easily ; and in listening to a good 
 word for it, the reader may begin to think it pos- 
 sible for a little sophistry to trill from other than 
 Presbyterian pens. 
 
 In examining the records of the New Testa- 
 ment, we find that the conversion of a number of 
 individuals to the Christian faith, was followed by 
 their organization into a public society under their 
 proper officers. These officers, without a single 
 exception^ are distributed into the two general 
 classes of presbyters or bishops^ and deacons : the 
 former presiding over the spiritual, and the latter 
 over the temporal, interests of their respective 
 charges. This distinction is marked in the strong- 
 est manner, and is never confounded. Thus to the 
 saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi with the 
 BISHOPS and deacons — a bishop must be blameless — 
 likewise must the deacons be grave, S^'C. 
 
 And that the terms bishop and presbyter in their 
 appHcation to the first class of officers are per- 
 fectly convertible, the one pointing out the very 
 same class of rulers with the other, is as evident as 
 the sun " shining in his strength." Timothy was 
 instructed by the apostle Paul in the qualities 
 which were to be required in those who desired the 
 
 Y9I III e 
 
42 Review, > 
 
 office of a bishop.* Paul and Barnabas ordained 
 PRESBYTERS in cvcvy churcht which they had found- 
 ed. Titus is directed to ordain in every city pres- 
 byters who are to be blameless^ the husband of one 
 wife. And the reason of so strict a scrutiny into 
 character is thus rendered, for a bishop must be 
 blameless. X If this does not identify the bishojj with 
 Xhe presbyter., in the name of common sense, what 
 can do it ? Suppose a law, pointing out the quali- 
 fications of a sheriff were to say, a sheriff must be 
 a man of pure character, of great activity, and re- 
 solute spirit ; for it is highly necessary that a go- 
 vernour be of unspotted reputation, &c. the bench 
 and bar would be rather puzzled for a construc- 
 tion, and would be compelled to conclude, either 
 that something had been left out in transcribing 
 the law ; or that governour and sheriff meant the 
 same sort of officer ; or that their honours of the 
 legislature had taken leave of their wits. The 
 case is not a whit stronger than the case of pres- 
 byter and bishop in the Epistle to Titus. Again : 
 Paul, when on his last journey to Jerusalem, sends 
 for the PRESBYTERS of Ephesus to meet him at 
 Miletum ; and there enjoins these presbyters to 
 feed the church of God over which the Holy Ghost had 
 made them bishops. || It appears, then, that the 
 bishops to whom Paul refers in his instructions to 
 Timothy, were neither more nor less than plain 
 
 • 1 Tim. iii. 1. f Acts. xiv. 23. X Tit. i. 5. H Act. xx. 17. 28, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 43 
 
 presbyters. To a man who has no turn to serve ; 
 no interest in perverting the obvious meaning of 
 words ; one would think that a mathematical de- 
 monstration could not carry -more satisfactory 
 evidence. But conclusive as it would be in every 
 other case, it is in this case, the advocate of the 
 Hierarchy tells us, " good for nothing," because 
 Paul is called an '•'• elder," and Christ a " deacon" 
 as well as a " bishop," and, therefore, if the argu- 
 ment proves any thing, it proves that neither the 
 apostles nor their Lord, were any higher in au- 
 thority than our elders and deacons. 
 
 May we ask whether " bishop," " presbyter," 
 " deacon," signify any thing at all as terms of of- 
 fice, or not ? If they do not, then the scripture has 
 used a parcel of words and names relative to 
 church government, which are absolutely without 
 meaning. This will not be said. Something, there- 
 fore, and something official too, they must mean. 
 We ask again, whether or not they designate pre- 
 cisely any particular officers, as mayor ^ alderman^ 
 recorder^ do in the commonwealth } Or whether, 
 like the term magistrate,, they merely express au- 
 thority in general ; so that no judgment can be 
 formed from them as to the grade, or functions of 
 the offices to which they are annexed } If the for- 
 mer, the assailant of the Hierarchy, its own friends 
 being judges, is invincible, and their citadel is laid 
 in the dust. Of course, they prefer the latter ; 
 and insist that the official title occurring in the 
 
44 Review, 
 
 New Testament, can afford no aid in ascertaining 
 what offices Christ hath instituted in his church. 
 If this is their hope, we much fear that it is a for- 
 lorn hope indeed. 
 
 If our question be not troublesome, we would 
 ask, what is the use of names ? Is it not to distin- 
 guish objects from each other ? To prevent the 
 confusion which must pervade conversation about 
 nameless things ? And to facilitate the intercourse 
 of speech, by compressing into a single term, 
 ideas which, without that expedient, would be 
 protracted through descriptions of intolerable 
 length ? Now if there are not in the New Testa- 
 ment appropriate titles of office which distinguish 
 the several officers from each other, there could 
 havl& been no such titles in use at the time when 
 that book was written? For it would surpass the 
 credulity of infidels themselves, to imagine that 
 the writers, by purposely omitting the particular^ 
 and employing only the general^ terms of office, 
 would throw both their history and their readers 
 into utter confusion. There can be no possible 
 reason for omitting terms characteristic of the 
 several offices, but the fact that no such terms ex- 
 isted. A marvellous phenomenon this ! That an 
 immense society as the Christian church is, should 
 be organized under its proper officers; should 
 ramify itself through all the nations of the earth ; 
 should have every one of its branches regularly of- 
 ficered ; and yet be destitute of names by which 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 4t§^ 
 
 the officers might be correctly known; so that 
 when an official term was mentioned, no ingenui- 
 ty could guess whether an officer inspired or un- 
 inspired, ordinary or extraordinary, highest or 
 lowest in the church, was intended ! ! ! Did any 
 thing like this ever happen in the affairs of men, 
 from father Adam, down to this present A. D. 
 1807 ? Is such a fact consistent with the nature 
 and use of human language ? Is it consistent with 
 the operations or the being of any society what- 
 ever ? If the state of the primitive church with 
 respect to terms of office, were such as the Epis- 
 copal argument represents it, she would indeed, 
 have been 
 
 Mostrum horrendum, informe^ ingens^ ciii lumen ademptum ; 
 
 a perfectly unnatural and monstrous production ; 
 dark and confused as " Chaos and old Night." 
 
 This demonstration that the representation on 
 the part of the Hierarchy cannot be true, accords 
 precisely with scriptural facts. From these, there- 
 fore, we shall prove that it is not true. A contro- 
 versy of moment was referred by the church at 
 Antioch, to the apostles and elders of Jerusalem. 
 Now, \{ apostle and elder are not specific terms of 
 office, where is the propriety of the distinction } 
 And to whom was the reference made ? Would 
 the description have answered as well if the as- 
 sembly had been composed eniircly. of apostles; 
 entirely of elders ; or entirely of deacons ? Paul and 
 
46 R 
 
 eview 
 
 Barnabas ordained elders (presbyters) in every 
 city. Cannot an Episcopalian tell, even from the 
 name^ whether they ordained bishops, priests, or 
 deacons ? Titus was commissioned by Paul to 
 ordain elders in every city : and Timothy received 
 his instructions pointing out the qualifications of 
 men who were to be made bishops and deacons. 
 Pray, if the ojicer was not precisely designated by 
 the name, what sense was there in giving particu- 
 lar instructions relative to each ? How were 
 Titus and Timothy to find out what sort of offi- 
 cers the apostle meant ? Would any Episcopalian 
 affirm, that under cover of the indefinite terms 
 elder, bishop, and deacon,ihe good evangelists might 
 have settled down a dozen diocesans in every city ? 
 or created a score of new aposdes ? Why not ? 
 if aposde, bishop, presbyter, deacon, are only general 
 terms of office, but are not appropriated to any 
 particular orders of officers. Nay, if the Episco- 
 pal assertion on this subject is correct, a broad 
 line of absurdity runs through the apostolic wri- 
 tings, and through the whole transactions of the 
 apostolic church. 
 
 The simple truth is, that all these terms, apostle, 
 bishop, and presbyter, and deacon, were as distinc- 
 tive, and were annexed to certain officers with 
 as much regularity and exactness, as any official 
 terms can be at this hour. The first was given 
 by our Lord Jesus Christ, to officers commission- 
 ed immediately by himself, for the purpose of car- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 47 
 
 rying his name and establishing his church among 
 the nations. The last, viz. deacon^ was given to 
 officers ordained by the apostles to look after the 
 poor. The other, viz. elder^ or presbyter^ had long 
 been in use as a specific term of office. It signi- 
 fied a ruler ; but a ruler whose power was well 
 defined, and was perfectly familiar to the Jews. 
 Presbyters were to be found in every synagogue ; 
 and every man in the nation was acquainted with 
 their functions. If ever there was a term which 
 conveyed precise ideas of a particular office, and 
 was too notorious to be mistaken, presbyter was 
 that term. By transferring it to rulers in the 
 Christian church, the greatest caution was taken 
 both to prevent misconception of their authority, 
 and to facilitate the organization of Christian so- 
 cieties. As there were Jews every where, and 
 converts every where gathered from among them, 
 there were every where a number prepared to 
 fall, without difficulty, into a regular church con- 
 nexion, and to train the Gentile behevers, to whom 
 the whole system was perfectly new. But they 
 would have talked of elders to the day of their 
 death, without the most distant notion of such a 
 ruler as a diocesan bishop. These Christian pre.?^?/- 
 ters were also bishojjs (siriaxo'jfoi,^ The former w^ord 
 denoting their authority ; the latter, the functions 
 growing out of it. They were, according to the 
 form in which the master had distributed their 
 duties, to execute the office of presbyters^ by taking 
 
48 , Review. 
 
 the episcopate or oversight of the flock. So charges 
 Paul the presbyters of Ephesus : Feed the flock of 
 God^ over which the Holy Ghost hath made yon bishops 
 i. e. overseers^ or inspectors. So charges Peter the 
 presbyters of the dispersion : Feed the flock of God — 
 taking the oversight thereof: the word is S'rKTxo-n'ouvTf^, 
 which signifies, " exercising the Episcopal o/%ce." 
 
 If, then, the term presbyter or elder., had been so 
 long settled ; if it denoted an officer as unlike a 
 modern bishop as can well be conceived : and if 
 it was admitted universally into the Christian 
 church, as thus understood, (for there is no inti- 
 mation of its sense having been changed,) then 
 the allegation of the Hierarchy, that it is an inde- 
 finite term, signifying merely a ruler, without re- 
 ference to his station, is altogether false, and the 
 objection founded upon this allegation is altoge- 
 ther frivolous. On the other hand, the argument 
 founded upon it for the identity of the scriptural 
 bishops and presbyters as rulers in the church, to 
 the exclusion of prelates, is solid and strong; the 
 flings of " good for nothing," and " miserable so- 
 phistry," to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 We have derived some amusement from re- 
 marking, that while our Episcopal friends perti- 
 naciously deny that any official name in the New 
 Testament is so appropriated to a particular of- 
 fice as to designate the kind of officer, they can- 
 not render their own reasoning intelligible with- 
 out the aid of the very principle which they reject. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 49 
 
 " Tlie apostles," saijs the Laijman, " are called presbyters. 
 This proves conclusively that no argument can be drawn, by 
 the advocate of parity, from the promiscuous use of the terms 
 presbyter, bishop, in the sacred writings. If it proves that 
 there is now but one order in the ministry, it proves e(|ually 
 that Paul was upon a perfect level with the elders of Ephe- 
 sus."* Again, 
 
 " Christ is called diaconos, which is translated deacon, or 
 minister. Therefore Christ was on a level with the deacons 
 of Jerusalem." 
 
 Does not every reader perceive, at the first 
 glance, that the whole force of this objection, 
 which is to put down the advocates of ministeri- 
 al parity, depends upon the supposition, that pres- 
 byter and deacon are titles appropriated to par- 
 ticular grades of office ? For if they are not, if 
 they denote only office in general; what will the 
 objections ay .'^ To try it fairly — substitute officers^ 
 in the room of elders ; and the proposition will 
 stand thus : the apostles are called elders ; there- 
 fore, the apostles are on a level with officers in the 
 church. This is not likely to fill the " advocates 
 of parity," with any great alarm. Again, 
 
 " The apostle addresses Timothy and him alone, as the 
 supreme governor of the church, [of Ephesus] calling upon 
 him to see that his presbyters preach no strange doctrine."! 
 
 Here the Layman uses presbyter as a precise 
 term, for a particular grade of officers ; and so 
 does the apostle in the epistle referred to, or else 
 the Layman's argument, to quote his own words, 
 " is literally good for nothing." Nay, he even con- 
 
 * No. 1. Colhc. p. 8. f Layman, No. v. Collec. p. 55. 
 Vol. III. 7 
 
50 Review, 
 
 cedes that the term presbuteros^ elder, is " ordina- 
 rily appropriated in the New Testament, to the 
 second grade of ministers ;" although, " it is ca- 
 pable of being applied to all the grades."* But 
 how we are to discover when it is applied in one 
 way, and when in the other ; i. e. when it has a 
 particular, and when a general signification, nei- 
 ther this gentleman nor his reverend associates 
 have been pleased to tell us. If we are to judge 
 from facts, which they recommend as an excellent 
 way of judging, and if we collect facts from their 
 own conduct in the debate, the rule is this, Pt-es- 
 byter is always a definite term of office when it makes 
 FOR the prelates^ and always an indefinite one^ ivhen 
 it makes against them. For example : When 
 Timothy is to be proved a bishop, in the genuine 
 prelatical sense of the word, presbyter infallibly 
 signifies the second grade of ministers. This is 
 sober, solid logic, which no man who can put a 
 syllogism together must venture to dispute. On 
 the other side, when Paul, addressing these same 
 presbyters, seems to identify them with bishops ; 
 then presbyter is nothing more than a general 
 term of office : and the argument drawn from its 
 being convertible with episcopos, or bishop, is 
 " literally good for nothing," " the old and mise- 
 rable sophistry of names !" 
 
 All this, to be sure, is vastly ingenious, and in- 
 finitely removed from sophistry and quibble ! But 
 
 * No. 1. Collec. p. 7. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 51 
 
 as imagination is apt now and then to be unruly, 
 we fancied that it is not unhke the Socinian me- 
 thod of defending the inspiration of the scriptures. 
 Let those great luminaries of wisdom, Dr. Priestley 
 and his compeers, patch up the " lame accounts" 
 of Moses ; refute the " inconclusive" reasonings 
 of Paul; and otherwise alter and amend the Bible, 
 as their philosophy shall dictate ; and, then, the 
 sacred writings will be inspired to some purpose ! 
 Let the abettors of prelacy interpret terms now 
 one way, and then the contrary way, as it shall suit 
 their convenience, and they will, no doubt, convert 
 the New Testament into a forge for the Hierar- 
 chy, and swear in an apostle to superintend the 
 manufacture. 
 
 But still, how are we to repel the consequence 
 with which they press us .^^ If presbyter and dea- 
 con are definite terms of office, and the apostles 
 are called presbyters, and their Lord a deacon, 
 (^jaxovoff) we certainly, by our argument, confound 
 all distinctions : and put the apostles, and their 
 master too, on a level with the ordinary and even 
 lowest officers in the church. 
 
 No such thing. The conclusion is vain, because 
 the premises are false. The objection overlooks 
 a distinction which its authors themselves are 
 compelled to observe every hour of their lives ; 
 and that is, the distinction between the absolute 
 and relative lise of terms. By the absolute use of 
 terms, we mean their being applied to certain 
 
52 Review. 
 
 subjects in such a manner as to sink their gene- 
 ral sense in a particular one. By their relative use, 
 we mean their being coupled with other terms 
 which permit them to be understood in their ge- 
 neral sense only. To the former class belong all 
 names which, however general in their primary 
 ideas, have become appropriated to particular ob- 
 jects. To the latter belong the innumerable ap- 
 plications which may be made of the very same 
 terms, when not thus appropriated. Examples 
 will best illustrate the distinction. Co}igressJiiJge, 
 assemble/, are terms of great latitude, and their ap- 
 plications may be varied without end. When we 
 say a congress of bodies, of waters, of people — a 
 judge of music, of sculpture, of painting — an as- 
 sembly of citizens, of clergy, of delegates ; all the 
 world perceives that these terms are used in their 
 general sense, and can be used in no other. But 
 when we speak of the United States, and say, the 
 congress^ the judges ; or of the state of New-York, 
 and say, the judges^ the assembly., all the world per- 
 ceives that the terms are used in a particular 
 sense, and designate precisely certain public of- 
 ficers to whom, and to whom alone, every man, 
 woman, and child, in the country will refer them. 
 Now supposing that certain individuals should re- 
 mit a litigated point to one of the judges^ and we 
 should insist that this may mean the Lieut. Gover- 
 nour, because the term judge 7nay be applied to 
 him, when he sits in the court of errours : and 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 53 
 
 suppose an opponent to urge that " judge" is an 
 official term appropriated to known officers ; and 
 us to reply, your argument is " literally good for 
 nothing," " the miserable sophistry of names ;" 
 judge is a generic term; and by this same mode 
 of reasoning you might prove that every justice of 
 the peace is on a level v^ith the chief justice of 
 the United States, or with God himself, because 
 " judge" is a name given to them all ! ! Would 
 not this pass for most sage ratiocination, and 
 persuade the pubUc, that whoever should not bow 
 to it, must be either a " miserable" sophist, or an 
 incorrigible dunce ? And wherein it would yield 
 the praise of acuteness, closeness, or strength, to 
 the Episcopal objection to the argument drawn by 
 the advocates of parity from the use of o^aa/ terms 
 in the New Testament, we are unable to discern. 
 The mistake in both cases is the same, viz. the 
 confounding the absolute and relative, or as we 
 have explained it, the official and unofficial use of 
 the same term. Make this plain distinction, and 
 the reply of the Hierarchy is ruined. The Lord 
 Jesus is emphatically the sent of God; and there- 
 fore he is called, the apostle of our profession.* 
 He is also called the minister (diaconos) of the cir- 
 cumcision ;t but never, absolutely, " an apostle," 
 " a deacon." Paul and his fellow apostles are 
 often called diaconoi^ ministers ; in such form as 
 this, ministers of god, ministers of the new testa- 
 ♦ Heb. iii. 1. f Rom. xv. 8. 
 
54 Re 
 
 view. 
 
 MENT :* but never, absolutely, " deacons." They 
 are also called elders^ ox presbyters ; and for this 
 very good reason, that possessing ordinary as well 
 as extraordinary powers, they frequently partici- 
 pated in the councils, and exercised only the au- 
 thority, of presbyters.t 
 
 Reverse the order : begin with the lowest and 
 go up to the highest officer in the church, and you 
 will not find an instance in which the official name 
 of the superiour is applied to the inferiour. Dea- 
 cons are no where called presbyters, nor presby- 
 ters, apostles. Cyprian does, indeed, assert, that 
 " the apostolic authority was manifestly commu- 
 nicated to Epaphroditus." Where is the proof .'^ 
 
 " St. Paul," sajs he, " in his epistle to the Philippians, ii. 
 25, calls him the apostle to the Philippians." " But I sup- 
 posed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother 
 and companion in labour and fellow-soldier, but your apos- 
 tle," (in our version, your messenger.) Accordingly St. Je- 
 rome observes, " by degrees, in process of time, others were 
 ordained apostles by those whom our Lord had chosen" — as 
 that passage to the Philippians shows. " I supposed it ne- 
 cessary to send unto you " Epaphroditus, your apostle." And 
 Theodoret, upon this place, gives this reason why Epaphro- 
 ditus is called the apostle to the Philippians. " He was in- 
 trusted with the Episcopal government, " as being their 
 bishop." But these are parts of scripture on which the advo- 
 cates of Episcopacy place the least reliance."^ 
 
 In this paragraph, as in many others, the asser- 
 
 2 Cor. vi. 4. 
 t This matter shall be more fully explained hereafter. 
 X Cyprian, No. iii. Colkc. p. 72. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 55 
 
 tions of Cyprian, applauded and adopted by Mr. 
 H. display more haste than inquiry, and more ar- 
 dour than discretion. To force a testimony in 
 favour of Episcopacy, he has contrived, by a false 
 translation of two words, to put into the mouth of 
 the apostle Paul a speech which he never uttered. 
 " St. Paul," says he, " calls Epaphroditus, the apos- 
 tle to the Philippians." Paul does no such thing ; 
 he would not have spoken truth, if he had. No 
 person, as shall be proved in its place, could be 
 vested with apostolic authority, but by the imme- 
 diate appointment of Christ himself Such an ap- 
 pointment Epaphroditus had not ; and, therefore, 
 Paul did not, could not, call him " an apostle," 
 in the official sense of that term ; much less " the 
 apostle to the PhiHppians ;" because a permanent 
 connexion with any particular church, hke that 
 which subsists between a presbyter and his con- 
 gregation, or between a prelate and his diocese, 
 was essentially incompatible with the apostolic 
 character. We wonder that Cyprian^ while his 
 hand was in, did not fix down Paul himself as the 
 diocesan of Corinth and its dependencies. For 
 his own v/ords to the Christians of that city are. 
 If I be not an apostle unto others^ yet doubtless I am 
 TO YOU : for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the 
 Lord.* Here occurs, in a fair and honest trans- 
 lation, the very phrase of " an apostle to a peo- 
 ple," which Cyprian fabricated by a gross mis- 
 
 ^ • 1 Cor. ix. 2. 
 
56 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 rendering of a passage in the epistle to the Philip- 
 pians. And considering the anxiety with which 
 the New Testament has been searched for prelates, 
 there can be no doubt that if stubborn, most stub- 
 born facts did not stand in the way, Paul would 
 have been made up into a diocesan long ago: 
 and introduced to our acquaintance, with the 
 mitre on his brow, as the bishop of Corinth. But 
 if the declaration, '• 1 am an apostle unto you," is 
 no proof whatever, that Paul filled an Episcopal 
 see among the Corinthians ; how can the expres- 
 sion, " an apostle to you," even admitting it to be 
 correct, prove that Epaphroditus was bishop of 
 Philippi ? But the words, mangled by Cyprian into 
 an " apostle to you,"^ signify just what our com- 
 mon version represents them to signify, " your 
 messenger." The Phihppians had sent him with 
 a contribution to the relief of the apostle's wants ; 
 as he himself tells us in the fourth chapter, [have 
 all and abound : I am full; having received of Epa- 
 phroditus the things which ivere sent from you — v. 18. 
 This is the reason why he is called their messen- 
 ger. The coupling of the term apostolos with 
 " your," takes it out of the predicament of official 
 names, and requires that it be understood in its 
 general sense, which is, " a messenger." It has 
 nothing to do with Episcopal relations, or clerical 
 functions of any sort; say Theodoret what he 
 pleases. It was hardly just to found the title of a 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 57 
 
 bishop in the murder of a text. But whatever 
 sentence be pronounced on Theodoret, we entire- 
 ly acquit Cyprian from the charge of sinning 
 against knowledge. 
 
 Cyprian seems also to labour under the incon- 
 venience of a bad memory. For after agree- 
 ing with his friend the Layman to reprobate all 
 reasoning from words to things ; he lays the whole 
 stress of an argument for the prelatical dignity of 
 Epaphroditus upon a single word. And so mighty 
 is the force of this word in his eyes, that on the 
 strength thereof, he says that the " Apostolic au- 
 thority was manifestly communicated to Epaphro- 
 ditus." When the fact turns out -to be, that even 
 the word which is to manifest this " communica- 
 tion," has nothing to do with the subject ! And 
 then, to finish neatly, he informs us in the close 
 of the paragraph, that " these are parts of scrip- 
 ture on which the advocates of Episcopacy place 
 the least reliance^ They are wise to let the this- 
 tle alone after feeling its prickles — But it is rather 
 incongruous to place only " the least reliance'''' up- 
 on " parts of scripture" which " manifestly^'' prove 
 the very point they would be at. And no less so, 
 to build their " manifest" proof upon an argument 
 which they themselves have pronounced to be 
 " miserable sophistry," and " literally good for 
 nothin"^ !"* 
 
 * These gentlemen are hardly civil to their favourite Theodo- 
 ret, from whom, through Whitby and Potter, they borrowed this 
 Vol. III. 8 
 
58 Review 
 
 Verum operi longo fas est ubrepere somnum : 
 
 the right to be drowsy, in protracted toil, has be- 
 come prescriptive. Homer occasionally nodded ; 
 and we shall not refuse to Cyprian and his col- 
 leagues the indulgence of a nap. 
 
 The sum is, that the terms apostle^ bishop^ pres- 
 byter^ deacon^ designate, with precision, officers 
 known and established in the apostolic church — 
 That no two of these terms are used interchange- 
 ably, excepting " presbyter" and " bishop." We 
 mean that apostle and bishop ; apostle and pres- 
 byter ; apostle and deacon ; bishop and deacon ; 
 presbyter and deacon, are never put promiscuous- 
 ly the one for the other ; And the reason is, that 
 they do not signify the smne thing. But that " bish- 
 op" and " presbyter" are used interchangeably ; 
 so that you may put the one for the other at 
 pleasure, without destroying or obscuring the 
 sense of the sacred wTiters : and the reason is, and 
 must be, that they do signify the same thing; that 
 is, they mark one and the same grade of ecclesi- 
 astical rulers. This last proposition, Theodoref^ 
 fierce as he was for prelacy, has himself advanced. 
 He probably did not observe how fatal it is to the 
 hierarchy, as the discussions on that subject were 
 not, in his day, very deep nor general. But so 
 sensible w^as Dr. Hammond, the most learned, 
 
 " manifest" communication of the apostolic authority — to hold 
 him up with one hand as a venerable defender of their cause ; and 
 with the other to lash him as a miserable sophist. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 59 
 
 perhaps, of all the episcopal champions, that the 
 argument drawn by presbyterians from the iden- 
 tity of the scriptural bishop and presbyter, is con- 
 clusive against prelacy, that he boldly denied the 
 existence of such officers as are now called pres- 
 byters, till about or after the death of the apos- 
 tles.^ In supporting this paradoxical opinion, he 
 
 * " Although this title of U^scflBvrs^oiyElders, have been extend- 
 ed to a second order in the church, and is now only in use for them, 
 under the names of Presbyters, yet in the scripture-times it belong- 
 ed principally, if not alone, to bishops, there being no evidence 
 that any of that second order were then instituted, though soon 
 after, before the writing of Ignatius' epistles, there were such in- 
 stituted in all the churches." — Hammond, on Act xi. 30. p. 380. 
 
 How irrecoucileably all this is at war with the assertions and 
 reasonings of other learned advocates of the hierarchy, from whom 
 the unlearned ones necessarily copy, we may amuse ourselves with 
 showing in a more convenient place. One or two remarks we 
 cannot suppress. Dr. Hammond does not tell us how these pres- 
 byters came into the church, but is pretty sure that they were in- 
 troduced after " the scripture times," that is, after the canon of the 
 scripture was completed, and " before the writing of Ignatius' cjpis- 
 tles:' The Dr. then confesses that the order of presbyters asinferiour 
 to the bishop, is not of divine right ; there being no evidence that 
 any of that second order were instituted in scripture times : con- 
 sequently, that as Christ had regulated his church, bishops or pres- 
 byters, and deacons, had no intermediate officer between them. 
 This is exactly what the presbyterians maintain, and they are 
 much his debtor. But as he saw that their argument would ruin 
 him, as he was utterly unable to controvert its principle, viz. the 
 identity of the bishop and presbyter ; and as he was determined 
 not to give up the hierarchy, he had recourse to the extravagant 
 fiction of transforming all the presbyters into Diocesans. But as 
 Diocesans with only deacons, would constitute rather a bald 
 hierarchy, it was requisite, to give eclat to their dignity, to foist in 
 
60 Review, 
 
 metamorphoses every presbyter of the apostolic 
 church into a diocesan bishop ! The meaning of 
 language shall be inverted: the testimony of the 
 scripture shall be dislocated : the presbyters of 
 the city of Ephesus shall be an assemblage of dio- 
 cesan bishops collected from all Asia! Truth, 
 probability, and common sense, shall be set at 
 naught — but the object is worth the price; the 
 sacrifice is amply compensated, provided presby- 
 ters be banished from the New Testament, and 
 no ruler be seen there unless in the shape of a 
 diocesan bishop ! Had only the Layman and C?/- 
 prian,, and their friends, been troubled, there had 
 been less cause of surprise. But that an argument 
 " good for nothing ;" a bit of " miserable sophis- 
 try," should put Dr. Hammond^ the o -^^avu, the very 
 Gohath of " the church," into such a fright as 
 nearly to turn his brain, is strange indeed ! 
 
 But should the episcopalian be worsted in the 
 contest about the scriptural titles^ what will be to 
 
 another order for which three is no scriptural •warrant. And thus 
 at one stroke he has levelled with the ground the whole fabric which 
 the other episcopal workmen have been rearing. For if Timothy 
 and Titus were not Diocesan bishops, as the latter affirm and the 
 Dr. denies; and if they were not metropolitans, as the Dr. affirms, 
 the others deny, and no man living can prove ; then one of their 
 famous three orders has vanished away. Of the Dr's supposition 
 that the presbyters were instituted before the writings of Ignatius' 
 epistles, the reason is, that they must be iowwd -prior to that date, or 
 else poor Ignatius must be hung up for forgery. — A notable man- 
 oeuvre this to save the credit of the principal witness for the Hie- 
 rarchy. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 61 
 
 us the advantage of victory, or to him the injury 
 of defeat, if he shall, nevertheless, estabhsh his 
 claim by scriptural /ac/5 ? So very little, that the 
 choice between victory and defeat, on the first 
 ground, would not be worth a straw to either. 
 Abstractly considered, there is no inconsistency 
 between our own doctrine of the identity of bishops 
 and presbyters, and the episcopal doctrine of a 
 superiour grade. For certainly it does not follow, 
 from the nature of the thing, that because bishop 
 and presbyter mean the same officer, therefore 
 there is no other officer above him. But as the 
 facts standi the case is widely different; and the 
 value of the argument from the scriptural titles 
 lies here, that this superiour order must be found 
 among the bishops and presbyters, or not at all ; 
 because, with the exception of deacons, these were 
 the only ordinary officers in the apostolic church. 
 If, then, " bishop" is the same with ''presbyter," 
 the superiour or prelatical order is absolutely un- 
 known to the official language of the New Testa- 
 ment. Presbyters and deacons we meet with in 
 abundance, but not the shadow of a prelate ever 
 crosses our path. Now, that official titles should 
 be conferred upon every grade of officers in the 
 church except the highest; that this officer should 
 have no place in the official catalogue ; that he 
 should wander up and down among the churches 
 without so much as a name ; that while his subal- 
 terns are mentioned particularly and repeatedly, 
 
62 Review. 
 
 his own existence and dignity should be a matter 
 of mere inference from his acts, so far surpasses 
 all the powers of belief, that the proof of his exist- 
 ence is almost, if not altogether, impossible. This 
 leads to a very short ^refutation of a plea on which 
 no small " reliance" has been placed by episco- 
 pal writers, from Theodoret down to the Layman ; 
 viz. that names of office, like other words, change 
 their signification ; and become, in process of time, 
 signs of ideas quite different from those which 
 they originally expressed. 
 
 *' In Roman history," says the Layman^ " we find the terra 
 Jmperator at one period applied to designate a general of an 
 army ; at another, a magistrate clothed with unlimited civil 
 and military authority. Suppose we should he told that every 
 general of an army was Emperor of Rome ; and that the 
 Emperor of Rome was merely general of an army; what 
 would be the reply 1 That the term Imperator had changed 
 its signification. And how would this be proved ? By the 
 Roman history, which shows us that the Emperors had gene- 
 rals under them, over whom they exercised authority. Apply 
 this reasoning to the case under consideration. The terms 
 bishop, presbyter, are used promiscuously in the New Testa- 
 ment. Therefore, say the advocates of parity, they designa- 
 ted the same offi,ce in the ages subsequent to the apostles. Is 
 this a logical conchision ? Surely not. Names change their 
 signification. Ecclesiastical history tells us, and the most 
 learned advocates of parity have admitted the fact, that the 
 order of bishops existed in the church as distinct from, and 
 superiour to, the order of presbyters, within forty or fifty years 
 after the last of the apostles. The bishops then had presbyters 
 under them, over whom they exercised authority. The offices 
 were distinct from the beginning, bishops being the successors, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 63 
 
 not of those who are promiscuously called bishops^ presbyters ^ 
 elders, in the New Testament, but of the apostles themselves. 
 Theodoret tells us expressly, " that in the process of time those 
 who succeeded to the apostohc office, left the name of apostle 
 to the apostles, strictly so called, and gave the name of bishop 
 to those who succeeded to the apostolic office." No argument, 
 then, can be founded on the promiscuous use of names."* 
 
 We hardly expected to find the Layman ad- 
 vancing and retracting a doctrine in the compass 
 of a single page. Yet, assuredly, if bishops are 
 not the successors of those who are promiscuous- 
 ly called bishops and presbyters, then these names 
 do designate a precise order of officers, which was 
 the very thing the Layman had denied in the pre- 
 ceding paragraph. That names change their sig- 
 nification is no new discovery. But can this either 
 help the hierarchy, or hurt the advocates of pari- 
 ty } Things are before names ; and the changes 
 in things before changes in names. If, therefore, a 
 change has passed upon the signification of official 
 names in the church, since the days of the apos- 
 tles, that alone proves to a demonstration, that a 
 change has also passed upon the offices them- 
 selves; which consequently are not as the apostles 
 left them. This is exactly what the presbyterians 
 maintain ; and so the episcopal plea returns with 
 all its force upon its authors, and fastens upon their 
 hierarchy the charge of having departed from, 
 and corrupted, the order which Christ appointed 
 for his church, and which the death of his apostles 
 
 • Layman, No. 1. Collec. p. 8. 9. 
 
64 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 sealed up for permanency. We are not ignorant 
 that the prelatical writers attribute this change of 
 names to a very different cause. The celebrated 
 Dr. Bentley, who, in critical learning, in spirit, 
 and fire, surpasses the most of them, and falls short 
 of none, thinks it was the modesty of the prelates* 
 which induced them to relinquish the name of 
 apostle, and to assume that of bishop. It is hard 
 to estimate the degree of modesty which pervaded 
 an immensely numerous body of prelatesf at a 
 period of which we have scarcely any records. 
 The epistles of their tutelar saint, Ignatius^ do not 
 abound with that lovely virtue ; and all the world 
 is witness, that in matters relating to their titles 
 and power, the order has been entirely innocent 
 of such an imputation for fourteen centuries at 
 least. The apostles themselves decorated the 
 prelates, we are told, with their own name and or- 
 dinary dignity ; they exercised the authority and 
 wore the name, during the life, and in the pre- 
 sence of the apostles ; and after their death retain- 
 ed the dignity, but renounced the appellation out of 
 pure modesty ! Dr. Hammond has more regard to 
 consistency. He first creates, after the death of 
 the apostles, an inferiour order of clergy ; and as 
 they could not well do without a name, he very 
 ingeniously splits up the designation of the pre-ex- 
 
 * Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, p. 186. 
 
 f Dr. Hammond says there were twenty-four^ besides the me- 
 tropolitan, in Judea alone. Annot. on Rev. iv. 4. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 65 
 
 isting order, giving one half to the prelates, and 
 the other to his new race of officers ! 
 
 We repeat, that change of names pre-supposes 
 change of things. This is the natural and neces- 
 sary course of language. The contrary would 
 reverse the operations of the human mind. Wlien 
 the change was introduced, is perfectly immateri- 
 al to the argument. When the last of the apos- 
 tles breathed out his spirit, the authority of the 
 living God " bound up the testimony, and sealed 
 the law among his disciples." No additions nor 
 diminutions now. And whether the alteration in 
 the government of the church, which produced a 
 corresponding alteration in the names of her of- 
 ficers, took place "^ forty years," or forty score of 
 years, or forty hours after the decease of the 
 apostles, is not, with regard to the rule of con- 
 science, worth the trouble of a question. The 
 advocates of parity, do not, as the Layman af- 
 firms, infer from the promiscuous use of the terms 
 bishop and presbyter in the New Testament, 
 " that they designated the same office in the ages 
 subsequent to the apostles." It is of no impor- 
 tance to them, what these terms signified in after 
 ages. They prove that these terms signify in the 
 New Testament, one and the same order of ru- 
 lers ; and therefore insist, that, as the rule of faith 
 and the sense of the scripture are immutable, the 
 same terms must mean, at this hour, the very same 
 
 thing which thev meant as they dropped from the 
 Vol. III. ' 9 
 
M Review, 
 
 pen of an apostle. This is enough for them, as 
 they entertain no fear of being unable to demon- 
 strate that the scriptural presbyters are not dio- 
 cesan bishops ; and are the only ordinary rulers 
 which the New Testament, the statute book of 
 Christ's kingdom, recognizes as of his institution. 
 The subsequent change of sense in the scriptural 
 titles, as we have more than once observed, proves 
 decisively a change in the original order of the 
 church : for upon no other principle can the other 
 change be explained. The Layman has been pe- 
 culiarly unhappy, in forcing it upon the notice of 
 his readers. He has only turned " king's evi- 
 dence," against his party; and, in attempting to 
 parry a Presbyterian thrust, has unwittingly smit- 
 ten his own bishop under the fifth rib. 
 
 'The advocates for the Hierarchy labour hard to 
 show that any argument from official names to the 
 offices designated in the New Testament, is in- 
 conclusive. They even pronounce it " good for 
 nothing." Their hope is to render the scripture, 
 thus far, neutral; that if it bear no testimony /or 
 them, it shall bear none against them. Whether 
 they have succeeded in this attempt or not, we 
 leave to the dispassionate judgment of the reader, 
 who, with a desire of perceiving and embracing 
 the truth, has deliberately considered what we 
 have already written. 
 We now follow them to their argument from the 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 67 
 
 scriptural /«c/5, upon which they avowedly rest the 
 weight of their cause. 
 
 The first of these facts is the triple order of the 
 priesthood among the Jews. 
 
 " We find," says the Layman, " three orders of officers in 
 the Jewish church ; and, in the Christian, there have always 
 been three orders answering to these. What Aaron, his 
 sons, and the Levites were in the temple, that bishops, priests, 
 and deacons are in the Church. Such is the concurring tes- 
 timony of the primitive fathers. Take that of St. Jerome, 
 whom the advocates of parity are fond of quoting-, and to 
 whom, therefore, it is presumed, they will not object. " That 
 we may hioiv the apostolical economy to he taken from the pat- 
 tern of the Old Testament^ the same that Aaron, and his sons, 
 and the Levites, were in the temple, the bishops, presbyters, 
 and deacons, are in the church of Christ.^'' It is too absurd 
 to attempt to turn this parallel into ridicule. By the very 
 same mode of proceeding you may destroy the whole Chris- 
 tian dispensation. In all tliat he has said upon this point, 
 the miscellaneous writer has contributed much more to the 
 support of infidelity than of any other cause. 
 
 " How far, then, do we carry tliis argument? 
 
 " We say, simply, that the law being figurative of the gos- 
 pel, in all its important parts, the Jewish priesthood was, of 
 course, typical of the Christian. For this we have the ex- 
 press declaration of the apostle Paul, and the advocates of 
 parity will not pretend to controvert the position. Well, then, 
 the priest of the law serving as " the example and shadinv of 
 heavenly things,''^ the circumstance of there being three orders 
 in the Jewish ministry, furnishes a strong presumption against 
 the doctrine of parity. JVe do not rely upon this as proof . 
 We merely state it as presumptive evidence, entitled to real 
 attention. It gives us, we contend, possession of the ground, 
 and throws the burden of proof upon our opponents. 
 
68 Review, 
 
 *' Now, what says the miscellaneous writer in reply to all 
 this 1 He talks to us of the dress of the Jewish high priests ; 
 asking, very sagaciously, where are the golden ephod^ the 
 breast plate, the embroidered girdle, in which Aaron and his 
 successors were clad. I call upon him here to lay his hand 
 upon his heart, and say, whether this is just reasoning. He 
 knows it is not. What, the Jewish priesthood not figurative 
 of the Christian, because of a variety in dress ! Is it neces- 
 sary, in order that one thing be typical of another, that there 
 .should be no points of difference between them 1 No more 
 than it is necessary that we should be able to rise to the per- 
 fection of the character of Christ, because we are called upon 
 to propose him as the model for imitation, and to become holy 
 as he is holy. 
 
 *' Is the miscellaneous writer aware of the conclusion to 
 which his mode of reasoning conducts 1 If he has proved 
 that the Jewish priesthood was not typical of the Christian, 
 he has proved, equally, that the law was not a shadow of the 
 gospel; thus destroying, effectually, all connexion between 
 the Old and New Testament. Is there no difference between 
 our Saviour and the Paschal Lamb by which he was prefigur- 
 ed 1 Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, were ail types of 
 Christ; but were there no points of distinction between thesa 
 men and the Saviour of the world 1 Give to the infidel the 
 weapons of this writer, and how easily will he demolish, with 
 them, the whole fabric of Christianity ! If the points of dif- 
 ference which have been mentioned, between the priesthood 
 of the law, and of the gospel, prove that the one was not 
 typical of the other, they equally prove that our Saviour was 
 never prefigured, and that that intimate connexion, between 
 the Jewish and Christian dispensations, which has been so 
 much relied upon by the defenders of the faith, never existed 
 but in the imagination of men. But I feel as if I were in- 
 sulting the understanding of the reader, in dwelling on this 
 point. I dismiss it, therefore, especially as 1 have not been 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 69 
 
 able to bring myself to believe that the writer had any thing 
 more in view, in it, than a flourish of rhetoric to attract the 
 vulofar saze. 
 
 " The Mosaic dispensation, then, was figurative of the 
 Christian. The priesthood of the law was typical of the 
 priesthood of the gospel. The former consistnig of distinct 
 and subordinate orders, a strong presumption thence arises in 
 favour of that distiiiction and sub-ordination of oflice which, 
 until the days of Calvin, characterized, without a suigle ex- 
 ception, the Christian church. This we contend, as was sjud 
 before, gives us possession of the ground, and throws the bur- 
 den of proof upon the advocates of parity. 
 
 " So much then for the Jewish priesthood. It was a sha- 
 dow of the Christian priesthood, according to the express 
 declaration of the apostle Paul. While the miscellaneous 
 writer does not venture openly to deny this, but rather seems 
 to admit it, in representing the whole Jewish system as typical, 
 lie endeavours, nevertheless, in an indirect manner, to destroy 
 all relationship between the priesthood of the law and of the 
 gospel, by dwelling on the variety of dress, with some other 
 subordinate points of distinction. Here he acts with his usual 
 imprudence ; tearing up, in his rage, against Episcopacy, the 
 very foundation of the Christian faith."* 
 
 The same analogy is thus traced by Cyprian : 
 
 " Why should not the orders of the priesthood under the 
 old economy be supposed to typify those orders that were to 
 be established under the new? Besides, the fact is, that the 
 Christian dispensation was not so much the abolition, as it 
 was the fulfilment of the Jewish. Christ came, not to destroy, 
 but to fulfil the law and the prophets. 
 
 " It is true, indeed, we possess not the Jewish form of 
 church government. We possess one, however, which is the 
 consummation of the Jewish — a government of which the 
 
 * No. VIII. Collec. p. 110, HI. 
 
70 Review, 
 
 Jewish was an imperfect image. We possess a priesthood 
 more glorious than the Levitical, inasmuch as it ministers un- 
 der a more glorious dispensation — inasmuch as it performs 
 piu'er and more exalted offices — inasmuch as, in its nature 
 and offices, it is the glorious substance which was only faintly 
 shadowed out under the law. 
 
 " We think, therefore, that we stand on substantial ground 
 when we maintain that we derive a strong argument in de- 
 monstration of the divine origin of our form of church govern- 
 mmt, by showing that on this point the new dispensation is 
 made to correspond with the old ; is made the true substance 
 of which the old was the shadow. What the higli priests, the 
 priests, and the Levites, were in the temple, such are the 
 bishops, the presbyters, and deacons, in the clnn*ch of Christ. 
 This is the uniform language of the fathers. This is the 
 conclusion to which the data afforded us hy the apostles inev- 
 itably lead, 
 
 *' Such was the model of church government instituted 
 by God himself, and intended to be transmitted through all 
 ages, with modifications that should vary, no doubt, accord- 
 ing to the varying circumstances of mankind ; provided these 
 modifications affected not its great and cardinal principles. 
 We say that the Jewish priesthood was the image of the 
 Christian. We say that it is sound reasoning to deduce the 
 probable form of the substance from the lineaments of it that 
 may be traced in its image."* 
 
 It is somewhat curious to observe the rapid 
 growth of this argument from the Jewish to the 
 Episcopal priesthood. With the Layman it is not 
 proof ; it is merely '^ prcmmptive evidence, entitled 
 to real attention." By the time it has travelled to 
 Gyprian, it is a " strong argument in demonstration 
 
 • No. Vill. Collec. p. 115, 120. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 71 
 
 of the divine origin of their form of church govern- 
 ment /' and it places them, as well it may, " on 
 substantial ground." But while we are looking 
 through Cyprian's magnifier, at this Jewish image 
 of the " Christian priesthood," he suddenly shifts 
 his glass, and the giant. Demonstration, dwindles 
 down again into the dwarf, Probabilitt. "We 
 say," adds he, in the next paragraph, " that it is 
 sound reasoning to deduce the probable form of 
 the substance from the hneaments of it that may 
 be traced in its image." One hardly knows what 
 to do with writers who drive their argument back- 
 wards and forwards between "proof" and "pre- 
 sumption ;" between " probability" and " demon- 
 stration ;" as if a rational debate were a game at 
 shuttlecock ! But they are not without excuse ; 
 for to one who can see the tendency of this argu- 
 ment of theirs, it is pretty clear that they did not 
 know what to do with themselves. For if, as they 
 assure us, the Jewish was a type of the Christian 
 priesthood — if the former was " a shadow," and a 
 "faint shadow," of which the latter is the true 
 and " glorious substance," then there must be a 
 coincidence between the essential parts of the 
 type, and the essential parts of the thing typified. 
 But according to the divine institution, the three 
 orders of the high priest, the priests, and Levites, 
 were essential to the legal priesthood ; and if this 
 was typical of the evangehcal '-'' priesthoods^'' there 
 must of necessity be three orders in that also. If 
 
72 Review. 
 
 it were not so, the type would not tally with the 
 antitype, the image would not represent its object, 
 and the end of the typical system would be de- 
 feated. A body with a head would as soon cast 
 a shadow without one, as a type of three orders 
 represent a reality of two, five, or seven. This 
 reasoning supposes, that the number of orders en- 
 ters into the nature of the type ; and on the same 
 supposition rests the Episcopal argument. For 
 if the number of orders in the Jewish priesthood 
 constituted no part of the type, it is extreme weak- 
 ness to mistake it for a " demonstration," or even 
 a " presumption," that there ought to be three 
 orders in the thing typified. It is producing your 
 type to prove that the thing typified possesses a 
 property which the type does not exhibit. The 
 fallacy is too obvious to impose upon a child. 
 
 On the other hand, if the number of orders in 
 the Jewish priesthood makes a part of the type, 
 and the Christian ministry is the thing typified, the 
 conclusion is inevitable, that there must be three 
 orders in the Christian ministry. If such a typical 
 relation really exists between the ministry of the 
 old and of the new economy, we will lay down our 
 pen. Our cause is desperate ; the hierarchy has 
 triumphed, but not a Protestant hierarchy. For 
 according to all the laws of typical analogy, it is 
 not more necessary that there be three orders in 
 the " Christian priesthood," than that the highest 
 order be confined to a single person. In this 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 73 
 
 point the Jewish and the Episcopal priesthood 
 differ essentially. There is no Ukeness between the 
 type and the antitype. Who, that intended to in- 
 stitute a set of resemblances^ would ever dream of 
 appointing a numerous body of Levites to repre- 
 sent a numerous body of deacons ; a numerous 
 body of priests to represent another numerous 
 body of priests; and then finish by putting at 
 the head of his system a single high priest^ to re- 
 present an order often thousand bishops ? Nay, if 
 the Episcopal argument here is sound, it con- 
 cludes much more forcibly in favour of the Papal 
 than of the Protestant hierarchy. The former 
 preserves, in her single pontiff, an essential feature 
 of the type, which the latter, by her order of 
 bishops, has perfectly obliterated. Thus, then, 
 the case stands ; if the typical character of the 
 Jewish priesthood does not include its orders, the 
 Episcopal inference from them in behalf of the 
 bishops, priests, and deacons, is palpably false : If 
 it does, while the Presbyterian perishes, the church 
 of Rome gains much more than the church of 
 England. 
 
 But this notion of the typical property of the 
 grades of priesthood in the Jewish church, is an 
 Episcopal fiction. It has no real existence. The 
 decisive proof is, that the Levitical priesthood 
 typified our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom there 
 could be no place for different orders. Its several 
 
 grades, as such, had nothing to do with its typical 
 Vol. III. 10 
 
74 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 character and functions. These lay hi another 
 direction altogether. 
 
 We, therefore, advance a step higher, and deny 
 the whole doctrine of the hierarchy, in so far as it 
 makes the Jewish priesthood a type of the Chris- 
 tian ministry. The Layman has asserted that 
 " the law being figurative of the gospel, in all its 
 important parts, the J ewish priesthood was ^ of course^ 
 typical of the Christian^* To the same purpose 
 Cyprian, " We say that the Jewish priesthood ivas the 
 image of the Christian.^-'f These are the asser- 
 tions ; now for the proof Cyprian tells us, that it 
 " is the uniform language of the fathers — the con- 
 clusion to which the data afforded us by the apos- 
 tles inevitably lead." The Layman, that " for this," 
 viz. that the " Jewish priesthood was typical of 
 the Christian, we have the express declaration of the 
 apostle Paul^^^ and that " the advocates of parity 
 will not pretend to controvert the position." But 
 they certainly do, sir; confident as you are of the 
 negative. They not only venture to controvert, 
 but engage to refute, your position. They main- 
 tain that the apostles have not afforded any data 
 which can lead to such a conclusion. Cyprian 
 has mentioned none : and the only passage which 
 the other has quoted in his own justification, he 
 has misunderstood and misapphed. The consid- 
 erations which make against them, are numerous 
 and weighty. 
 ♦ No. VIII. Collec, p. 310. f No. IV. ColUc. p. 320. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 75 
 
 1. The scriptures no where draw a parallel or 
 comparison between the rank and functions of the 
 ministry of the Old Testament and that of the 
 New. And if the former was designed to be the 
 model of the latter, the omission is altogether un- 
 accountable. They neither say nor insinuate that 
 the priests under the law were a type and image 
 of which the truth and substance are to be sought 
 in the ministers of the new dispensation. The 
 nature and use of the legal institutions are ex- 
 plained with minute accuracy by the Apostle Paul, 
 in his epistle to the Hebrews. He treats them as 
 types of "Jesus Christ, and all the effects of his 
 mediation in grace and glory ;" but of their typi- 
 cal relation to the Christian ministry, not a single 
 syllable. 
 
 Here the Layman interrupts us with " the ex- 
 press declaration of the apostle Paul." Let us 
 have it. " The priests of the law serving as ' the 
 example and shadow of heavenly things ^^ the circum- 
 stance of there being three orders in the Jewish 
 ministry furnishes a strong presumption against 
 the doctrine of parity."^ The " express declara- 
 tion" of the apostle, it seems is, that ^'- the priests of 
 the law serve as the example and shadow of heavenly 
 things ;"t representing his meaning to be, that the 
 priests of the law are that example and shadow. 
 We have a small objection to this assertion of the 
 Layman ; and that is, that, like Cyprian's story of 
 • No. viii. CoUcc. p. no. t p. 111. 
 
76 Review, 
 
 bishop Epaphroditus, it puts into the mouth of 
 the apostle a speech which he never uttered. 
 There is neither in the passage quoted, nor in any 
 other passage of the epistle to the Hebrews, nor 
 in the whole New Testament, such a declaration 
 as the Layman ascribes to Paul. He has either 
 quoted from memory, which we suspect to be the 
 fact, and so has forgotten what the apostle said ; 
 or else is as unlucky in his criticism as his poor 
 friend Cyprian. The apostle says, " the priests 
 who offer gifts according to the laio^serve^'' not AS, 
 but " UNTO the example and shadow of heavenly 
 things,'''' It was not the priests,, but the things to 
 which they ministered^ that constituted the " exam- 
 ple and shadow." This is obvious upon the first 
 inspection of the text.^ The apostle is discoursing 
 of the tabernacle, its furniture and service. These 
 were the "example and shadow." The substance, 
 the " heavenly things," was Christ Jesus, his sa- 
 crifice and intercession, with all their blessed ef- 
 fects in the salvation of men. This is the apostle's 
 own interpretation. For these same priests whom 
 he here describes as " serving unto the example 
 and shadow of heavenly things," he elsewhere de- 
 scribes as " serving the tabernacle.'''''\ The taberna- 
 cle, therefore, not the priests, were the " example 
 and shadow of the heavenly things." And that 
 
 * OiTjvcj xjiiahr/i^oLTi xa» tfxja Xar^suouo'j rwv £';r'ouc'aviwv. Heb. 
 viii, 5. 
 
 f Oi r-fi <!xr,vj) Xclt^svovtss . Heb. xiii. 10. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 11 
 
 this is the apostle's meaning, is " yet far more 
 evident." For in the 9th chapter, after detailing 
 the construction, the furniture, and the service of 
 the tabernacle,"^ he says that this tabernacle, thus 
 framed, equipped, and attended, was a figure for 
 the time then present.-\ " But Christ being come," 
 proceeds the apostle, " an high priest of good 
 things to come, by {through^ a greater and more 
 perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is 
 to say, not of this building : neither by the blood 
 of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he en- 
 tered in once into the holy place, having obtained 
 eternal redemption for us." 
 
 This " greater and more perfect tabernacle," is 
 the human nature of the Son of God, in virtue of 
 the once offering up of which as a sacrifice for sin, 
 he entered into heaven itself for us. It is this blood 
 of his, typified by the " blood of goats and calves," 
 which " purges our conscience from dead works 
 to serve the living God." These are the " good 
 things to come ;" these " the heavenly things," of 
 which the first tabernacle was the " example and 
 shadow." The " Christian priesthood," as it is 
 improperly and offensively termed, does not even 
 appear in the comparison. If the Layman has 
 discovered it among the " heavenly things," his 
 penetration is acute indeed. Instead, therefore, 
 of producing an " express declaration" of the 
 apostle to support his doctrine, he has only put a 
 * Heb. xiii. v. 2—7. t v. 9. 
 
78 Review, 
 
 text to needless torture ; for his witness, like Cy- 
 prian's in the affair of Epaphroditus, knows no- 
 thing of the matter. 
 
 It is further worthy of notice, that the New Tes- 
 tament never applies to the Christian ministry 
 those terms which express the office of a priest, 
 and which were invariably applied to the priest- 
 hood of the law. Jesus Christ is called a priest, 
 an high priest, a great high priest ; but not his 
 ministers. On the principle that he is the true 
 priest whom the priests of the law prefigured, this 
 is perfectly natural. But is it not inconceivable, 
 that the appropriate title of the priesthood should 
 be given to the typical priests ; to the form — to 
 the shadow — and uniformly withheld from the 
 priests who are the substance represented by 
 them } Why this change of language ? If the 
 priestly character, office, and work, have been 
 fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ, and if he, as the 
 sole priest of the church, is now appearing in 
 heaven for us, the reason of the change is as clear 
 as noon day. There are no more official priests, 
 there is no more " priesthood," in the church upon 
 earth ; and therefore the name is laid aside. But 
 if there are such priests and priesthood, and if 
 these are the very substance of which the old 
 priests were but a shadow, it will baffle all the in- 
 genuity of the hierarchy to the end of time, to as- 
 sign even a tolerable reason why the spirit of wis- 
 dom has refused them their official designation, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 79 
 
 and has altered the whole official style of the 
 church ! The ministry under the new dispensation 
 is represented as the ascension gift of our glori- 
 fied master.* Ordinary and extraordinary officers 
 are enumerated, but not a word of the Jewish or- 
 ders being a type of the Christian ministry. Not 
 a word of priests or priesthood, of altars, of sacri- 
 fices, or any of the sacrificial language to which 
 the hierarchy is so devoted. She has thought fit, 
 and she shall answer for it, to bring back and affix 
 to her clergy and their functions ; to her sacra- 
 mental table and its elements, a set of denomina- 
 tions which the Holy Ghost not only never annex- 
 ed to the ministry and ordinances of his own 
 creation ; but which he had, with pointed care, 
 excluded from the New Testament ! 
 
 Our assertion, therefore, stands firm, that the 
 apostolic writings furnish no data which can lead 
 us to the " conclusion" of Cyprian, or the " posi- 
 tion" of the Layman. Whence, we again ask, 
 whence this silence ? Why is so important a pro- 
 perty of the typical priesthood overlooked ? Is not 
 the " glorious substance," of which it was only a 
 " faint shadow," so much as worthy of notice ? and 
 that too in a set treatise of the legal shadows and 
 their corresponding substances ? It is indisputable, 
 their own words evince it, that if the Layman and 
 Cyprian, and their several coadjutors, had prepar- 
 ed such a treatise ; whatever place they might 
 * Eph. iv. 11. 
 
80 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 have allotted to the " apostle and high priest of 
 our profession," the dignity of the episcopal priest- 
 hood would have filled up one of their most ani- 
 mated chapters. Having found so much of their 
 own image where Paul found so little, it is but 
 right to supply his deficiencies, and to adminis- 
 ter a dehcate rebuke for his negligent exposition ! 
 
 2. A comparison of the Levitical with the Epis- 
 copal priesthood, will demonstrate that the for- 
 mer was not, and could not be, a type of the latter. 
 The grades are ranged thus : 
 
 Type^ or Shadow^ Antitype^ or Substance, 
 
 High-priest, - ... - Bishop, 
 Priest, - - - - Priest, 
 
 Levite, - - . - Deacon. 
 
 Now in what do they resemble each other ? 
 
 Did the high priest ordain the priests ? No. Did 
 he confirm the people ? No. Had he the exclusive 
 right of government ? No. On the other hand ; 
 Do the bishops discharge any duty analogous to 
 the offering up of the yearly sacrifice on the great 
 day of expiation } No. Have they the pecuhar 
 privilege of entering into the immediate presence 
 of God ? No. Is the oracle of God attached to 
 their persons } or iiave they any special right of 
 de9laring the divine will } No. He who has saga- 
 city enough to detect in the appropriate functions 
 of the high priest any thing that deserves to be 
 called a type of the functions appropriated to a 
 Christian bishop, can never be at a loss for type 
 
Kssays on Episcopacy, 81 
 
 and antitype, so long as any two objects remain 
 within the bible or without it. Their prerogatives 
 and offices are so absolutely dissimilar, that to 
 make the one an image of the other, is to pour 
 overwhelming ridicule upon the whole system of 
 typical ordinances. The success will not be much 
 better, if we go down to the second and third 
 grades of the priesthood. If the reader has an 
 hour which he cannot employ more profitably, he 
 may throw it away in hunting for likenesses be- 
 tween the priests of the law and of the gospel ; 
 between the Levite and the Episcopal deacon. 
 We have enough of it. Our argument is this, that 
 as typical officers must have typical functions, if 
 the functions of the legal priesthood did not typify 
 those of the Christian, then was not the one 
 priesthood a type of the other. To insist upon 
 a typical meaning in the number of orders, and to 
 discard as mere circumstances, the respective 
 functions of those orders, is a distinction which 
 reason laughs at, and a sound head will hardly 
 adopt. 
 
 3. As typical officers and typical functions are 
 correlate ideas, the former necessarily implying 
 the latter, we remark, that if the Jewish priest- 
 hood prefigured the Christian ministry, as a type 
 its antitype, then it follows, that we have in the 
 functions of the priesthood now, the substance of 
 that which in the functions of the Levitical priest- 
 hood was only a type. That is, the priests now 
 
 Vol. III. 1 1 
 
82 Review, 
 
 offer up the true sacrifice for sin, and are our me- 
 diators and intercessors with God, upon the foot- 
 ing of their sacrifice. It cannot be doubted that 
 the priestly ofliice of old was typical ; and its sac- 
 rifices typical. Whoever, then, is the real priest, 
 offers the real sacrifice. But he is the real priest 
 of whom the priests of the law were a type. And 
 the priests of the law were a type, says the hie- 
 rarchy, of our priesthood : therefore the priest- 
 hood of the hierarchy offer up the true sacrifice 
 for sin! There is no getting rid of the conclusion. 
 The apostle Paul reasons in the same manner, 
 from the typical relation of the old priests and their 
 sacrifices to Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. He 
 insists, that because they were shadows and Christ 
 the substance, therefore Christ, the true priest, 
 has put away sin by the offering up of himself as 
 the true sacrifice. We see that the doctrine of 
 the hierarchy is irreconcileable with that of the 
 apostle. He teaches that the Levitical priest- 
 hood and their offerings were typical of Jesus 
 Christ and his offerings. The hierarchy teaches 
 that the Levitical priesthood typified the evaugel- 
 ical ministry. Both cannot be true. The same 
 type cannot signify a single high priest who offer- 
 ed up a true and proper sacrifice for sin, and an 
 order of priests who offer up no such sacrifice. 
 If Christ is the substance of the legal priesthood, 
 the Episcopal hierarchy is not. If that hierarchy 
 is the substance, Jesus Christ is not. The reader 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 83 
 
 has his choice, whether he will side with the 
 hierarchy at the expense of the apostle, or with 
 the apostle at the expense of the hierarchy ! Whe- 
 ther he will look for the substance of the Levitical 
 priesthood in the Son of God and his mediatorial 
 work, or in the administration of the Episcopal 
 clergy ! Whether — But we check ourselves. A 
 stranger instance of infatuated zeal has rarely oc- 
 curred. The genius of the Old Testament types 
 shall be perverted; their beautiful correspondence 
 with their objects shall be marred ; the principle 
 of a whole book of the New Testament, (the Epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews,) shall be set aside; but an 
 argument, though merely a presumptive one, for 
 the hierarchy, shall not be given up ! 
 
 The only escape from this dilemma appears to 
 be through a distinction between the particular 
 character of the Old Testament priests as such, 
 and their general character as ministers of reli- 
 gion. It may be yielded, that in the former they 
 were types of Christ; and maintained that in the 
 latter they were types of the Christian ministry. 
 The distinction is of no avail; and its best effect 
 is to protract the death of the Episcopal plea for 
 a minute longer. If both their particular charac- 
 ter as priests, and their general character as min- 
 isters of religion were typical, they were nothing 
 but types. The worship which they offered up 
 was typical worship ; their prayers were typical 
 prayers; their instructions to the people, typical 
 
84 Revi 
 
 etc. 
 
 instructions. The church in which they minister- 
 ed was a typical church. All was type. There 
 was no reality. But this is absurd. God had as 
 real a church, and dispensed as real blessings, by 
 real ministers before, as since, the evangelical 
 dispensation. Whatever typical ordinances might 
 be set up, the church itself never was a type. It 
 is a ivhole, and one part of a whole cannot be a 
 type of another part. And as there were real 
 ministers in a real church under the law, if you 
 will have them to be types in their general cha- 
 racter, you make the ministry of the church at one 
 period and in one form, the type of her ministry 
 at another period under another form. This is a 
 contradiction. For the same persons could not 
 be, at the same time, and in the exercise of the 
 same functions, under the same relations, both 
 shadow and substance. It destroys also the na- 
 ture of the church of God; giving us all type be- 
 fore the new dispensation, and all substance after 
 it. So that in fact, according to the scheme we 
 are considering, there was no such thing as a 
 church at all under the law, but only the shadow 
 of a church. We have one step further in this 
 typical climax. The sinners under the law were 
 only typical sinners ; the saints only typical saints ; 
 the salvation of the soul only a typical salvation ; 
 and for aught we can see, the God of salvation 
 only a typical God ! 
 
 View it in any light you choose : The doctrine 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 85 
 
 of the Layman, Cyprian, &c. concerning the Old 
 Testament types, is inconsistent with itself; with 
 the doctrine of the apostle Paul, and with all the 
 known relations of type and antitype. Yet while 
 they are spreading this confusion ; while they are 
 displaying the most absolute want of acquaintance 
 with both the Old Testament and the New, they 
 have the assurance to tell us that if we " have 
 proved that the Jewish priesthood was not typical 
 of the Christian, we have proved equally that the 
 law was not a shadow of the gospel: thus destroy- 
 ing effectually, all connexion between the Old 
 Testament and the New."* It seems, then, that 
 although we have Christ the true priest and true 
 sacrifice ; and the effects of his mediation in 
 pardoning sin, in purging the conscience, and in 
 presenting an efficacious intercession before God 
 in the highest heavens — we have nothing to the 
 purpose ; we are " destroying the whole Christian 
 dispensation ;" we are doing " much more to the 
 support of infidelity, than of any other cause ;"t 
 we are tearing up the very foundations of the 
 Christian faith" — Why ? — because we will not ad- 
 mit the episcopal clergy to be the substance of 
 which the Levitical priesthood was only the 
 shadow! It is amazing, it is humiliating, that 
 men who have need that one teach them which be the 
 first jninciples of the oracles of God^ should talk so 
 confidently. Nay, in the very act of sanctioning 
 
 * Layman, No. viii. p. 110. f P. 110. 
 
86 Review. 
 
 all this misconception, misconstruction, and wrest- 
 ing of the scriptures, Mr. H. has permitted him- 
 self to ask Dr. Linn, whether he is " really igno- 
 rant of the nature of the types of scripture," or 
 whether he is " guilty of wilful misrepresentation ?"* 
 Such questions as these ought not to have been 
 put by Mr. Hobart. 
 
 So much for the first fact to which the dispu- 
 tants for the hierarchy have appealed. 
 
 Their second fact, is the triple order of the 
 " priesthood" during our Lord's personal converse 
 with men. 
 
 *' Whilst our Saviour remained on earth," (says Cyprian,) 
 *' he, of course, held supreme authority in his church. The 
 twelve were appointed by him as his subordinate officers. The 
 seventy disciples constituted a still lower order. There exist- 
 ed, then, in the church of Christ, at this time, three distinct 
 grades of ministers. When our Lord ascended into heaven, 
 when he breathed upon the twelve, and said, " As my father 
 hath sent me, so send I you," he transmitted to them the same 
 authority which he himself had retained during his continuance 
 amongst them : the twelve commissioned their presbyters and 
 deacons to aid them in the administration of ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment. Before their death they constituted an order of 
 ministers to whom they conveyed that supreme authority in 
 the church which was lodged in their hands during their 
 lives."t 
 
 Thus, also, the Layman : 
 
 " Jesus Christ commissioned twelve, and the seventy ; but 
 he gave them no authority to commission others. The high 
 power of ordination was exercised by himself alone. Here, 
 
 * Note to Colhc. p. 37. f Cyprian, No. II. ColUc. p. 62. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 87 
 
 then, were three orders; our Saviour^ the great head of the 
 church ; the twelve apostles ; and the seventy disciplesy^ 
 
 We should be much entertained, and possibly 
 edified, by the history of the three orders and their 
 succession, as compiled by the Layman and his 
 learned colleague, were we not disturbed by some 
 difficulties which we cannot well remove. 
 
 Our first difficulty, as to this second stage of the 
 triple order, relates to John the Baptist. He was 
 certainly the Redeemer's messenger, and exercis- 
 ed a contemporary ministry. Why is he left out 
 of the list ? His extraordinary functions cannot 
 be the reason ; for those of his master were more 
 extraordinary than his own. But he was neither 
 the Christ, nor one of the twelve, nor one of the 
 seventy. If you take him into the catalogue, you 
 hsivefoii7' orders; if you leave him out, you must 
 leave out his master likewise ; and then you will 
 have but two. In either way the history of the 
 hierarchy sticks. 
 
 Our next difficulty relates to the co-existence of 
 the Jewish and Christian priesthoods. The church 
 of God was either organized under the Christian 
 form, during our Lord's continuance upon earth, 
 or not. If not, there was no Christian priesthood, 
 and consequently no orders of priesthood. If she 
 was, then did she actually subsist under two forms 
 at the same time. For it is certain that the legal 
 form remained, till the offisring up of the " word 
 
 * Layman, No. IX Collec p. 153. 
 
88 Review. 
 
 made flesh," in sacrifice for sin. Moreover, our 
 Lord Jesus Christ was indubitably the head of the 
 church under her Jewish form. She was, with her 
 whole system of worship, his property. He came 
 vnio his oivn.^ He was in the temple, the lord of 
 the temple, and acted as such. Now if his per- 
 sonal presence as the head of the church made 
 him an order in her evangelical ministry, that same 
 presence in the Jewish church made him one of 
 the orders of the Jewish priesthood. Admit this, 
 and we are troubled with an additional order in 
 that priesthood ; deny it, and we have lost one of 
 the Christian orders. The former compels us to 
 take four, the latter allows us but two. Scylla and 
 Charybdis over again for the history of the three 
 orders ! 
 
 Our third difficulty relates to the principle upon 
 which, in the present case, the triple order is 
 founded. The Layman and Cyprian, as a shoal 
 of other writers had done before them, work up 
 the apostles and seventy disciples into two orders 
 of priesthood ; and that their canonical number 
 might not be wanting, they complete it by adding 
 the Redeemer himself ! 
 
 Now, we had always thought, with the apostle 
 Paul, that Christ was faithful as a son over his own 
 house: that the church itself is the house; and that 
 all the ministers of the church are his servants. It 
 was really a stroke worthy of " giants in theology," 
 
 * Eig ra lAlA ijX^s. John i. 11. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 89 
 
 to make the Lord himself one of the orders among 
 his own servants ! And seeing that his assent into 
 heaven never stript him of any relation to his 
 church, and that he actually exercises the priestly 
 office at this moment before the throne of God, 
 the consequence is, either that there arenow/owr 
 orders of the priesthood, or that there were but 
 tico in the days of his flesh. The same perplexity 
 stares the hierarchy once more in the face ; and if 
 she will have three orders, neither more nor less, 
 she must depose her master in order to make 
 way for her bishops ! 
 
 Our fourth difficulty relates to the nature of the 
 succession. 
 
 Christ transmitted to the twelve, says Cyprian, 
 " the same authority w^hich he himself had retained 
 during his continuance among them; and the 
 twelve commissioned their presbyters and dea- 
 cons to aid them in the administration of ecclesi- 
 astical government,'' and " before their death, 
 constituted an order of ministers to whom they 
 conveyed" their own '' supreme authority.''"' 
 
 Some how or other, we have lost the seventy 
 disciples in this arrangement. Probably they were 
 promoted to bishopricks. However that be, the 
 descent of " power" is very distinctly stated. 
 Christ conveyed the same authority which he him^ 
 self exercised to the apostles ; and the apostles 
 conveyed the *same authority which they exercised 
 to the order which they constituted before th^ir 
 
 Vol. m. 12 
 
90 Review. 
 
 death ; that is, the order of bishops. So, then, 
 the order of bishops have now the very same au- 
 thority which Christ himself had when he was upon 
 earth ! But Christ was the " lord and master" of 
 the church ; so are the Bishops ; and for that rea- 
 son are very properly styled, in some places, Lorc/^ 
 bishops ! Christ was \hQ proprietor of the church — 
 so are the bishops, no doubt ! Christ had autho- 
 rity to appoint sacraments and to mould the go- 
 vernment of his church according to his pleasure : 
 so have the bishops, beyond controversy ! It seems, 
 then, that they are the successours not so much of 
 the apostles, as of the Lord Jesus Christ himself: 
 that he is gone away to heaven, and has deputed 
 to them in solidmn^ by the lump, the whole autho- 
 rity which he himself possessed ! A fair inheritance 
 we own ; and very goodly heirs ! Having estab- 
 lished this point, we wonder that they put them- 
 selves to any further trouble in making out their 
 title to "the pre-eminence !" There is a short cut 
 to the resolution ofevery difficulty about the affairs 
 of the church, and every thing else. Go to the 
 bishops ! Christ had unhmited authority over the 
 conscience, and they have succeeded him. Eccle- 
 siastical history is not barren of instances wherein 
 they have acted up to the spirit of their trust. Eng- 
 land can witness, that, in one day, they threw 
 upon the mercy of the persecutor, and the comforts 
 of famine, two thousand of the best men and the 
 most glorious ministers of the gospel, that ever 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 91 
 
 blessed a nation or adorned a church : and a great 
 proportion of them for not submitting to imposi- 
 tions upon conscience for which the warrant of 
 the divine word was not so much as pretended. 
 But the Episcopal W' arrant was perfectly .clear : 
 and the Puritans were righteously deprived for 
 not bowing to the successours of Jesus Christ! 
 "Come set us the five mile act to music.'*^ Let 
 us compensate the fast of the 30th January for 
 the martyrdom of Charles,! with the festival of 
 St. Bartholomew's,! for the judgment of the Pres- 
 byterians ! 
 
 * An act of 17th Charles II. by %vhich nou-conformist ministers 
 were prohibited, unless in crossing the road, to come or be, on any 
 pretence whatever, after March 24lh, 16G.5, within /I'e miles oi any 
 city, town corporate, or borough that sent burgesses to parliament; 
 or within five miles of any parish, town, or place, wherein they 
 had, since the act of oblivion, been parson, vicar, or lecturer, &c.; 
 or where they had preached in any conventicle. 
 
 f Charles I. of tyrannical memory, was beheaded on the 30th 
 January, 1649. He called himself, and was called by some others, 
 a martyr. The anniversary of his martyrdom has afforded the 
 "High church clergy many fine opportunities for displaying their 
 zeal for " the church," and mourning over her calamities. 
 
 t The famous ^' Act for the uniformity of public prayers and 
 administration of sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies, &,'C.,iti 
 the church of England ;■' which received the royal assent on the 
 19th May, 1662, and took effect on the 24th of August following, 
 being St. Bartholomew's day. Assent and consent to its provisions 
 were to be declared by that day, on pain of deprivation of their 
 livings, if the offenders were in the ministry; and if schoolmasters 
 or tutors, three months imprisonment and a fine of five pounds ster- 
 ling. About two thousand ministers could not, with a good con- 
 science, comply; and they were deprived accordingly. 
 
9S Review. 
 
 They who can persuade themselves that the 
 Episcopal prelates enjoy the same power, which 
 was vested in our Lord Jesus Christ, are welcome 
 to their consolation. We are, as yet, a great ways 
 off from the line of converts. 
 
 Our Jifth difficulty relates to the question, whe- 
 ther the twelve were really a superiour order to 
 the seventy ? We cannot perceive in the New 
 Testament any characters of such superiority. 
 On comparing the history of their appointment, 
 we find their commission was the same both in 
 form and in substance; that they had the same 
 powers, the same instructions, the same cautions, 
 |:he same support; in short, that their whole mis- 
 sion was the same. Let any man of common can- 
 dour read the account of it in Matthew and Luke ; 
 and let him discover, if he can, any thing that 
 bears the semblance of a superiour and inferiour 
 order. To facilitate his inquiry we subjoin the 
 passages alluded to — 
 
 The Twelve : | The Seventy : 
 
 Matthew ix. 37— x. 16. Luhe x. 1—16. 
 
 " Then saith he unto his " After these things the 
 disciples, The harvest truly is Lord appointed other seventy 
 
 plenteous, but the labourers are 
 few. Pray ye therefore, the 
 Lord of the harvest, that he 
 will send forth labourers into 
 his harvest. And when he 
 had called unto him his twelve 
 disciples, he gave them power 
 
 also, and sent them two and 
 two before his face into ewery 
 city and place whither he him- 
 self would come. Therefore 
 said he unto them. The harvest 
 truly is great, but the labourers 
 are few : pray ye therefore, the 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 
 
 93 
 
 The Twelve. 
 against unclean spirits, to cast 
 tliera out ; and to heal all 
 manner of sickness, and all 
 manner of disease. Now the 
 names of the twelve apostles 
 are these ; the first, Simon, 
 who is called Peter, and An- 
 drew his brother; James the 
 son of Zebedee, and John his 
 brother ; Philip and Bartho- 
 lomew ; Thomas and Matthew 
 the publican ; James the son 
 of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, 
 whose surname was Thad- 
 deus. Simon the Canaanite, 
 and Judas Iscariot who also 
 betraved him. These twelve 
 Jesus sent forth, and command- 
 ed them, sayinof. Go not into 
 the way of the Gentiles, and 
 into any city of the Samaritans 
 enter ye not : but g;o rather to 
 the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel. And, as ye go, preach, 
 saying, The kingdom of hea- 
 ven is at hand. Heal the sick, 
 cleanse the lepers, raise the 
 dead, cast out devils ; freely 
 ye have received, freely give. 
 Provide neither gold, nor sil- 
 ver, nor brass, in your purses ; 
 nor scrip for your journey, nei- 
 ther two coats, neither shoes, 
 nor yet staves ; for the work- 
 man is worthy of his meal. 
 And into whatsoever city or 
 town ye shall enter, inquire 
 who in it is worthy ; and there 
 
 The Seventy. 
 Lord of the harvest, that he 
 would send forth labourers in- 
 to his harvest. Go your ways: 
 behold, I send you forth as 
 Iambs among wolves. Carry 
 neither purse, nor scrip, nor 
 shoes : and salute no man by 
 the way. And into whatso- 
 ever house ye enter, first say, 
 Peace be to this house. And 
 if the son of peace be there, 
 your peace shall rest upon it : 
 if not, it shall turn toyou again. 
 And in the same house remain, 
 eating and drinkiiifr such things 
 as they give : for the labourer 
 is worthy of his hire. Go not 
 from house to house. And 
 into whatsoever city ye enter, 
 and they receive you, eat such 
 things as are set before you ; 
 and heal the sick that are 
 therein ; and say unto them, 
 The kingdom of God is come 
 nigh unto you. But into what- 
 soever city ye enter, and they 
 receive you not, go your ways 
 out into the streets of the same, 
 and say. Even the very dust of 
 your city, which cleaveth on 
 us, we do wipe off against you : 
 notwithstanding, be ye sure of 
 this, that the kingdom of God 
 is come nigh unto you. Butl 
 say unto you, That it shall be 
 more tolerable in that day for 
 Sodom than for that city. Wo 
 unto thee, Chorazin ! wo unto 
 
94 
 
 Review. 
 
 The Seventy. 
 
 thee, Bethsaida ! for if the 
 mighty works had been done 
 in Tyre and Sidon, which 
 have been done in you, they 
 had a great while ago repent- 
 ed, sitting in sackcloth and 
 ashes. But it shall be more 
 tolerable for Tyre and Sidon 
 at the judgment than for you. 
 And thou, Capernaum, which 
 art exalted to heaven, shaltbe 
 thrust down to hell. He that 
 heareth you, heareth me ; and 
 he that despiseth you, despi- 
 seth me ; and he that despiseth 
 me, despiseth him that sent 
 me." 
 
 The Twelve. 
 
 abide till ye go thence. And 
 when ye come into an house, 
 salute it. And if the house be 
 worthy, let your peace come 
 upon it : but if it be not w^or- 
 thy, let your peace return to 
 you. And w hosoever shall not 
 receive you, nor hear your 
 words, when ye depart out of 
 that house or city, shake oft' 
 the dust of your feet. Verily 
 I say unto you. It shall be 
 more tolerable for the land of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah, in the 
 day of judgment, than for that 
 city. Behold, I send you forth 
 as sheep in the midst of wolves ; 
 be ye therefore wise as ser- 
 pents, and harmless as doves. 
 He that receiveth you, receiv- 
 eth me ; and he that receiveth 
 me, receiveth him that sent 
 me." 
 
 If, after all, the twelve were an order superiour 
 to the seventy, the evidence, whether in these or 
 other parts of the evangehcal narrative, is too sub- 
 tle for our clumsy senses. The Layman, however, 
 whose perceptions are not so dull, has been more 
 fortunate. Let us betake ourselves to his aid. 
 
 '' The twelve," says he, " were superiour to the 
 seventy, both in dignity midi poiuery 
 
 They were superiour in " dignityy 
 
 How is this proved } Thus — 
 
 1. " The apostles are every where spoken of, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 95 
 
 as the constant attendants of our Lord." There- 
 fore, they were of a higher rank than the seventy ! 
 The Layman is as active as he is sharp-sighted ; 
 but the ditch between his premises and his conclu- 
 sion being rather too wide for us to leap, we can- 
 not conveniently follow him. 
 
 But the Layman has forgotten that there were 
 others, beside the apostles, who are mentioned as 
 the constant attendants of our Lord,*' and who re- 
 ceived from that circumstance no pre-eminence of 
 authority whatever. The Layman's first argu- 
 ment, then, is •' good for nothing." 
 
 2. '' The commission of the apostles was much 
 more general" than that of the seventy.* The lat- 
 ter ^' were sent before our Lord into the cities 
 ivhithsr he himself would come.'''' The former were 
 directed " to preach the gospel to all the Jews." 
 A minister, therefore, who should be instructed to 
 make a preaching tour through the United States, 
 would be of a higher grade than one whose la- 
 bours should be confined to the state of Nev/ 
 York. If this argument of the Layman is not 
 very satisfactory, it is at least ingenious. There 
 is something vastly pleasant in regulating the 
 grandeur of the priesthood by the length of a jour- 
 ney; and determining its grades with a pair of 
 geographical compasses ! 
 
 3. " The inauguration of the twelve was much 
 
 » Acis i. 21. 
 
96 Review. 
 
 more solemn than that of the seventy." Therefore 
 they must be of a superioiir order. Because ai 
 the world knows that it is impossible to appoint, 
 though on different occasions, officers of tb- same 
 rank without the very same degree of j^ jiemnity. 
 This is demonstration! Is it not, good reader? 
 But in what was the inauguration of the twelve 
 more solemn than that of the seventy? 
 
 *' In relation to the first," replies the Layman, " we find 
 our Saviour directing his disciples to pray to God to send 
 ! ibourers into the harvest. We find him continuing himself 
 a whole night in prayer. In the inauguration of the seventy 
 t'aere was nothing of all this solemnity." P. 154. 
 
 Nothing ! if we read our bible correctly, there 
 is the same direction about prayer to the Lord of 
 the harvest, for labourers in his harvest, coupled 
 with the mission of the seventy, and of the twelve. 
 Y^ith respect to his continuing in prayer the whole 
 night previous to the choice of his apostles, is the 
 Layman sure that their appointment was the spe- 
 cial cause of our Lord's being thus employed ? 
 That he never prayed in this manner upon any 
 other occasion ? And particularly, before the elec- 
 tion of the seventy ? And supposing him to be sure 
 of all this ; how does it affect relative dignity ? 
 Christ prayed all night before appointing the 
 twelve, and not before appointing the seventy, 
 therefore, the twelve were a superiour order of 
 ministers ! It seems, then, that it was not preach- 
 ing the gospel, nor performing mighty works in 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 9^T 
 
 his name, which lay so near the Saviour's heart 
 when he was about to send forth his messengers, 
 as to engage him all night in prayer ; but it was 
 the desire to set off a supferiour order of them with 
 suitable eclat ! — When the twelve are to be com- 
 missioned, he prays all night. When the seventy 
 are to be commissioned, he is not at the same 
 trouble; and this merely to show that they are 
 not of such high dignity as the others ! Poor dis- 
 ciples ! To have the same duties and the same 
 trials with your twelve superiours, and much less 
 interest in your master's affections and prayers ! 
 It was no small matter, we see, to be a bishop or 
 something like one, in the days of his flesh : And 
 if the Layman will undertake to prove that the 
 successour-bishops have still the same enviable 
 privilege, we shall not refuse him the praise of 
 courage ! However, if they act up to the principle 
 of his argument, there is one inference which we 
 think may be drawn from it with rather clearer 
 evidence than his own for the pre-eminence of the 
 apostles above the seventy ; and that is, that when 
 the hierarchy is about ordaining bishops, she 
 prays most fervently ; and when presbyters are to 
 be ordained, she does not think it worth while to 
 pray at all ! 
 
 The Layman proceeds : 
 
 " The apostles were, likewise, superiour," viz. to the seventy, 
 " in j9o?^?«r." p. 154 
 
 How is this proved } Thus : 
 Vol. III. 13 
 
98 Review, 
 
 " They alone received the commission to offer the eucha- 
 ristic sacrifice of bread and wine." 
 
 We stay not to comment on the popish style of 
 this passage. " Eucharistic sacrifice r The scrip- 
 ture knows neither the name nor the thing, in re- 
 ference to the co7yimemoration of our Lord's death 
 in the sacrament of the supper. The Layman's 
 argument for the superiority of the twelve is, that 
 they alone were authorized to administer this sa- 
 crament. Indeed ! How, then, came it to be ad- 
 ministered by the Episcopal priests who are not 
 the successours of the apostles? Either this power 
 does not prove superiority of rank, or else the 
 hierarchy has transferred to an inferiour order, 
 one of the peculiar functions of the superiour; 
 and thus corrupted the institutions of Christ. The 
 Layman has his option. It will not be possible 
 to evade the alternative ; because the Lord's sup- 
 per is an ordinance of perpetual obligation, and 
 could not be administered by the apostles till af- 
 ter his death; nor is there a shadow of proof that 
 it was ever administered by them till after his as- 
 cension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit at 
 Pentecost. Prove what it will, it cannot prove 
 the superiority of the twelve above the seventy 
 during his abode upon earth. And what is more, 
 there is nothing in the institution of the supper to 
 express the conveyance of authority to administer 
 it. There is nothing but the appointment of it 
 for the observation of the church. This do in re- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 99 
 
 membrance of me; for as often as ye- eat this bread 
 and drink this cvp^ ys do shew the Lord^s death till he 
 come. But all communicants " do this in remem- 
 brance of him," they all "show forth his death," 
 in the holy supper, as much as did the apostles. 
 The commission to administer the sacraments, 
 and govern the church, was not given till the very 
 moment of his departure from earth. 
 
 In the next place : 
 
 ** To the twelve," says the Layman, " were twelve thrones 
 appointed, whereon they should sit, judging the twelve tribes 
 of Israel." P. 154. 
 
 As this language is altogether symbolical, he 
 should have fixed his meaning before he quoted it 
 as a proof This he has not done, and it is not 
 our business to do it for him. But Cyprian has 
 conceded that Christ held, in his own hands, the 
 supreme authority while he was on earth ; the 
 Layman himself has told us, that the twelve dur- 
 ing this period, had not the power of ordination ; 
 and men who had power, neither to govern nor to 
 ordain, are not very fitly depicted by the symbols 
 of men " sitting upon thrones, and judging the 
 twelve tribes of Israel." The Layman has again 
 mistaken and misrepresented the passage, /?ofr/ of 
 which he has cited. It stands thus, in Math. xix. 
 28. "Jesus said unto them. Verily I say unto 
 you, that ye which have followed me in the re- 
 generation, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne 
 of his glory ^ ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
 
100 Review. 
 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It appears 
 from Luke, ch. xxii. that this promise was ad- 
 dressed to the twelve just before our Lord's pas- 
 sion. Whatever then is meant by the " twelve 
 thrones," and the " judgment of the twelve tribes 
 of Israel," it was not, and could not be possessed 
 by the apostles, till after their master's exaltation : 
 till he should sit in the throne of his glory. He was 
 to bestow it upon them after he should have '• as- 
 cended up far above all heavens," and not before. 
 This is the text on which the Layman relies for 
 proof of the pre-eminence of the twelve during our 
 Lord's humiliation., when he did not sit in the throne 
 of his glory, and consequently tUey did not sit on 
 their thrones. 
 
 But " on them," viz. the twelve, " was to rest the fabric of 
 the church. The wait of tlie city having twelve foundations, 
 and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.'''' 
 Rev. xxi. 14. 
 
 Another blunder, as usual. A symbolical repre- 
 sentation of a state of the church which has not^ 
 yet happened, is to prove that the twelve were 
 superiour to the seventy in the days of their mas- 
 ter's flesh, and before they had received any com- 
 mission whatever to govern ! 
 
 There is one argument more. 
 
 " Upon the happening of a vacancy, by the apostacy of 
 Judas, Matthias was raised to his bishoprick, being numbered 
 with the eleven apostles, and taking a part of their ministry. 
 Acts i. Matthias had been one of the seventy. For this we 
 have the testimony of Eusebius, of Jerome, of Epiphanius. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 101 
 
 Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, with other evangelists, as also the 
 seven deacons, were of the seventy, if the primitive fathers of 
 the church be at all to be relied upon as witnesses of facts. 
 And these persons, even after their promotion, were still infe- 
 rioiir to the twelve, being under their government." P. 154. 
 
 The elevation of Matthias to the apostleship 
 took place after the eleven had received their 
 commission from the risen Saviour, and after he 
 had ascended to heaven : and this is to prove that 
 they were superiour to the seventy before his pas- 
 sion. Truly the Layman has a right to make 
 himself merry with the logic of his opponents ! 
 But did the seventy retain, after Christ's resurrec- 
 tion, the commission which they had before his 
 death, or did they not } If they did not, the Lay- 
 man's argument goes to the wall at once. If they 
 did, then it is strange that their official character 
 is never so much as mentioned, after the resurrec- 
 tion, in any part of the New Testament. And it 
 is no less strange that the Layman should repre- 
 sent any of them as heing promoted to the office of 
 deacons. Lower they could not be, to be in the 
 " priesthood" at all. And if they were next the 
 apostles, as they were put in a preceding part of 
 the discussion, their being made deacons^ was a 
 promotion downwards. They must have been, as 
 belonging to the priesthood, either of the order of 
 deacons, or of a superiour order : if deacons, their 
 ordination to that office by the apostles was a 
 farce ; if of a superiour order, it degraded them. 
 The Layman has again his choice. But whether 
 
102 Review. 
 
 they were ihen degraded, or promoted, or neither, 
 what has this to do with their own office or that 
 of the apostles, during our Lord's abode upon 
 earth ? 
 
 So much for the Layman's proofs that the twelve 
 were superiour to the seventy. He has not proved, 
 nor can he, with the whole phalanx of the hierar- 
 chy to help him, prove, either from their commis- 
 sion, or from their acts, that the twelve exercised 
 or possessed an atom of power over the seventy. 
 
 But our difficulties are not yet ended. We en- 
 counter a formidable one in the fact, that the 
 Christian church was not organized at all during our 
 Lord^s residence on earth. The ministry of the 
 baptist, his own ministry, and that of the apostles 
 and the seventy, were all preparative. The church 
 could not be organized under the new dispensa- 
 tion, till the Jewish form ceased ; and that could 
 not cease till the Messiah had "finished transgres- 
 sion, made an end of sin, and made reconciliation 
 for iniquity," by the sacrifice of himself Accord- 
 ingly, he gave his apostles their high commission 
 after his resurrection ; and they did not so much 
 as attempt to act upon it, till, as he had promised, 
 they were " endued with power from on high," by 
 the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Then 
 they were able to speak in the name of a master 
 who was " set on the right hand of the throne of 
 the majesty in the heavens." Then, and not till 
 then, did the church put on her New Testament 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 103 
 
 form. It is, therefore, perfectly idle to infer what 
 this form should be, from her appearance in her 
 unformed state. 
 
 Once more. Had the Episcopal writers even 
 made good their assertions concerning the state 
 of the church in the period we have been review- 
 ing, it would avail them nothing. Because our 
 Lord has settled the platform of his church, the 
 leading principles of her order, by positive statute; 
 and this precludes, to the whole extent of the 
 statute, all reasoning from analogy. We have 
 nothing to do but to ascertain what he has 
 enacted. 
 
 Thus have the proofs drawn in favour of the 
 hierarchy, from the Jewish priesthood, and frQm 
 the state of the church during our Lord's personal 
 ministry, vanished, successively, at the touch. — 
 Grosser abuse of the divine word than we have 
 had occasion to expose, cannot easily be found. 
 The Layman hardly approaches a text without 
 disfiguring it. He is young, very young, in the 
 study of his bible. This is some excuse ; and, in 
 his being a layman., he has an apology which can- 
 not be extended to Cyprian, Vindex, or Cornelius. 
 If reading the scriptures, like correct interpreters, 
 were to be the test, we much fear that, in the 
 issue of the present trial, neither himself, nor his 
 reverend associates, would be entitled to plead the 
 benefit of clergy. 
 
104 R 
 
 cview. 
 
 Facts to justify the Episcopal claim, have been 
 sought, without effect, in the constitution of the 
 Jewish priesthood, and in that peculiar state of 
 the church which existed during our Lord's per- 
 sonal ministry. These refuges have failed. The 
 hierarchy has been dislodged from all her in- 
 trenchments in succession, and left without a rest- 
 ing place for the sole of her foot, in any part of 
 the religious territory which was occupied by the 
 church from the days of Abraham, till the day of 
 Pentecost. We acknowledge, however, that she 
 will suffer little detriment from her defeat, if she 
 can establish herself firmly upon New Testament 
 ground. The strength of her positions here, is 
 next to be tried. If, as she glories, i\iG facts of the 
 New Testament are on her side, we own ourselves 
 vanquished, and have nothing to do but to hand 
 her our swords. But we shall not take her word 
 for it. Let the facts be produced. According to 
 the writers whom we are reviewing, they are found 
 in the pre-eminence of James at Jerusalem ; of 
 Timothy at Ephesus ; of Titus in Crete ; and of 
 the seven angels in the Asiatic churches. Epa- 
 phroditus, too, has been occasionally added to the 
 number. The ability and learning of Cyprian^ had 
 done him up into a bishop, and had dispatched 
 him from Philippi, in Episcopal majesty, on a visit 
 to Paul at Rome. Unfortunately the good man 
 lost his mitre by the way, so that when he arrived, 
 the apostle could not distinguish him from a sim- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 105 
 
 pic messenger, who came on an errand from his 
 Philippian friends, and sent him back again in 
 statu quo, without a single mark of prelatical dig- 
 nity. So we leave him to go in quest of the 
 others. Before investigating the validity of their 
 individual titles, we ask the reader's attention to 
 some general presumptions against the existence of 
 prelates in the apostolic church. Presumptions, 
 in our view, so strong, as almost to supersede the 
 necessity of further examination. 
 
 The first is this, that no such order is mentioned, 
 nor even alluded to, either in the salutations of PauVs 
 epistles to the churches, or in his directions for the 
 'performance of relative duties. Had prelacy been of 
 apostolic origin ; had Paul himself been distin- 
 guished for his zeal in establishing it, would there 
 not have been something in his epistles to the 
 churches, appropriated to their chief officer.'^ 
 He gives very exact instructions to every other 
 class of Christians ; points out, minutely, their 
 duties to each other ; carefully distinguishes be- 
 tween presbyters and deacons ; draws their re- 
 spective characters, and assigns their functions ; 
 salutes individual ministers and private Christians, 
 both men and women, by name ; but no where 
 says one syllable to the superiour grade of mi- 
 nisters ! How is this fact to be explained ? That 
 Paul, who observed the most scrupulous proprie- 
 ty in all his addresses — who left no part of reli- 
 gious society any excuse for neglect of duty — 
 
 Vol. m. * 14 
 
106 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 who overlooked nothing Avhich might tend to 
 counsel, conciliate, or console — who carefully 
 avoided every thing contemptuous or irritating — 
 who was even solicitious, as we are told, to as- 
 sert the dignity of prelates above that of presby- 
 ters — that this very Paul should take no manner 
 of notice of them in his letters to their dioceses, 
 should enjoin respect and obedience to their sub- 
 alterns before their faces ; and not so much as 
 hint at the obedience which these subalterns owed 
 to them, is past all belief! It would bespeak not 
 a man of discretion ; much less a wise man ; less 
 still, a great man ; least of all an inspired apostle 
 — but a downright idiot. He could not have 
 fallen upon a more effectual method to disgrace 
 them with their people ; to encourage insubordi- 
 nation among their presbyters ; and, by wanton- 
 ly sporting with their feelings, to convert them 
 into personal enemies. How then, we ask again, 
 shall this omission be accounted for ? It will not 
 do to reply, that as the names of bishop and pres- 
 byter were promiscuously used, he joins them in 
 common directions, salutation, and honour. This 
 answer relieves not the difficulty : for it cannot 
 extend to the deacons, whom he expressly distin- 
 guishes from the presbyters. Well, then, he singles 
 out the bluest order of clergy, pays them marked 
 .attention, and, by this very act, insults the prelates 
 whom his silence had sufficiently mortified. Fur- 
 ther, if one set of particular instructions suits dif- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 107 
 
 ferent sets of officers, how can \he\x functions be 
 different ? If the prerogative of the prelate con- 
 sist in the power of ordination and government, 
 how can his duties be comprised in a draught of 
 instructions for officers who have no such power ? 
 It would be as rational to insist that the very same 
 instructions would suit the governour of a pro- 
 vince and the constable of a town. And did not 
 every rule of decorum require, on the part of the 
 apostle, a primary attention to that order whicli 
 was emphatically to succeed him? that order, 
 without which, we are taught the Christian church 
 can have neither form nor government, nor minis- 
 try, nor sacraments, nor lawful assemblies; no, 
 nor even existence ? That this order should first 
 be instituted by the apostle, and then passed over 
 in absolute neglect when he is writing to their 
 churches; or be lumped with their inferiours, 
 while the grades of these inferiours are addressed 
 in a manner which it is impossible to mistake, 
 puts all credulity at defiance. The question, 
 therefore, returns. How shall we solve this enigma 
 in the conduct of Paul ? The simple solution is, he 
 takes no separate notice of bishops as superiour to 
 presbyters^ because no such bishops existed. Other 
 solution there is none. For it is very certain that 
 after their introduction they figured gloriously. 
 Whoever was left in the back ground, the bishop 
 came conspicuously forward — whoever was thrown 
 into the shade, the bishop was irradiated — who- 
 
108 Review. 
 
 ever was treated with neglect, due homage to the 
 bishop was never forgotten. Not such was the 
 fact in the days of St. Paul; therefore, not such 
 was the order which he had instituted. 
 
 2. Another presumption, if, indeed, it deserve 
 not a higher name, against the episcopal con- 
 struction of the New Testament facts, is, that one 
 at least, of the two powers said to be vested ex- 
 clusively in prelates, is clearly attributed to pres- 
 byters. We mean the power o^ government. 
 
 There are three terms employed in the New 
 Testament to express the authority which is to be 
 exercised in the Christian church, and they are 
 all appUed to presbyters. These terms are, 
 
 1. ^/sofAaj — To take the lead. 
 
 2. •^^oir^ifxi— To stand before — to preside. 
 
 3. <;ro«.aaivoo— To act the part, to fulfill the duties 
 of a shepherd. 
 
 Every power which Christ hath deputed to his 
 officers, is conveyed by one or other of these 
 terms. 
 
 For the greater precision we shall show, firsts 
 that they do express the power of government ; 
 and then^ that each of them is applied to^presby- 
 ters. 
 
 1. HrEOMAi. To take the lead — signifies to 
 '• rule." Math, ii. 6. Thoi^ Bethlehem., in the land 
 of Jiida.) art not the least among the princes ( ^/s.xocTjv) 
 of Jada ; for out of thse shall come a governour 
 ( 7i7ou(xevoj) that shall rule my people Israel The force 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 109 
 
 of the term, then, cannot be questioned. It is ap- 
 plied to presbyters. 
 
 Heb. xii. 7. Remember them which have the rule 
 OVER you. ("Twe ^/oufxsvwv ufAwv your rulers.) The apos- 
 tle is speaking of their deceased pastors ; for he 
 immediately adds, ivho have spoken untoyou the word 
 of God ; whose faith follow^ considering the end, the 
 issue or termination, of their conversation. Again, 
 
 V. 17. Obey them that have the rule over you., 
 (toij »;7oufAsvoiff ufAwv^ for they watch for your souls as they 
 that must give account. 
 
 That these " rulers'' were presbyters, is evident 
 from a single consideration; the apostle attri- 
 butes the power of " ruhng," to those deceased 
 pastors who had preached the gospel to the He- 
 brew converts; and those living ones who " watch- 
 ed for their souls;" which are undeniably the 
 functions of presbyters ; therefore Paul recog- 
 nizes in presbyters, all the power of government 
 expressed by the first term — rulers. 
 
 2. nPOI2THMI,ornPOI2TAMAI. To stand 
 or place before — to preside — to rule. 1 Tim. iii. 4. 
 A Bishop must be one that ruleth well- (xocXug 
 TT^oifrrocixsvov) his own house. The same in v. 5. 12.* 
 
 The power expressed by this term also, is ap- 
 plied to Presbyters. 
 
 1 Thess. V. 12. We beseech you, brethren, to know 
 
 * For other references see Raphelii Annot. Phil, in N. T. ad 
 locum, &- Schleusneri Novum Lexicon in ^. T. 
 
110 Review* 
 
 them which labour among yoii^ and are over you 
 (j^oifTT-ocyLBVovg) in the Lord. 
 
 It is a description of ordinary faithful pastors; 
 not of prelates, for there were several at Thessalo- 
 nica ; and diocesan Episcopacy admits of but one 
 in a city. The whole description taken together, 
 supposes the exercise of functions, and an intimacy 
 of inteiicourse, among the people, which a prelate 
 cannot possibly observe in his diocese ; but 
 w^ich is exactly characteristic of the Presbyter. 
 However, to put the matter out of all doubt, Paul 
 charges Timothy, 1 Eph. v. 17. Let the elders that 
 RULE WELL, (^01 xolXcjs TT^oetTTCfjTSi) be accounted ivorthy 
 of double honour, &c. 
 
 Presbyters they are. Episcopacy herself being 
 judge : for this is one of the passages which she 
 quotes to prove their inferiority in the church of 
 Ephesus, to bishop Timothy. The apostle, then, 
 here formally attributes to presbyters the power 
 of "ruling," which we humbly conceive to be 
 much the same with the power of " government." 
 
 3. nOIMAINO. To exercise the office of a 
 shepherd; hence, to provide for the safety and 
 comfort of any one — to direct, to oontroul, to go- 
 vern. 
 
 This term being more comprehensive than 
 either of the former two, we crave the reader's in- 
 dulgence to a minuter proof of the last mentioned 
 acceptation, viz. to " govern." 
 
 As early as the days of Homer, this word and 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. Ill 
 
 its relatives were in familiar use, to designate not 
 only authority, but the highest authority in the 
 commonwealth. Thence that frequent Homeric 
 phrase "the shepherd of the people," for their 
 '' king." No one who is in the least conversant 
 with that pre-eminent poet will ask for examples ; 
 but lest we should be contradicted by such as are 
 not, and yet wish to pass for " Greek scholars," 
 we subjoin a few; though at the hazard of being 
 again reproved by Mr. Hobart for our " ostenta- 
 tion." 
 
 A^uavTtt Tc nOIMENA Xawv. 
 
 II. A. 263. 
 
 " Dry as the shepherd of the people" — which 
 the scholiast interprets by BaciXea o%Xwy ; " the 
 KING of multitudes." 
 
 -n-ei^ovTo TS nOlMENI Xawv 
 
 2K>i'ffrou)(;oi [3a(fiXy]Ss. II. B. 85. 
 
 " The sceptred kings yielded to the shepherd of 
 the people." — Where the schohast again explains 
 " shepherd" by " king." Baa-iXsh 
 
 In the same poet, " shepherd" is used inter- 
 changeably with other terms descriptive of the 
 military chiefs of Greece. 
 
 Aiav Sio-ysvss,T£\aiX(,)ViS, KOIPANE Xawv. II. I. 640. 
 
 Oirivs^ HFEMONES Aavawv xaj KOIPANOI 7](3'av. II. B. 487. 
 
 Those who are elsewhere called " shepherds," 
 are here named "leaders" and "princes;" the 
 former being interpreted " kings" by the scholi- 
 ast, as he had already interpreted "shepherds." 
 
112 Review, 
 
 In the same way does he translate the latter, in 
 his annotation upon v. 204, of the book last cited. 
 So that by the great master of Grecian language 
 and literature, the three terms, IloijUiJii/, Hyf/jtwi', 
 Koi^ocvog, i. e. " shepherd," "leader," "prince," are 
 interchangeably used of the same rank, and are 
 all explained by the Greek commentator, BafriXevg, 
 i. e. " king." Instances might easily be multiplied, 
 but we forbear. We have the rather appealed to 
 Homer, because he depicts that same state of 
 society in which a great portion of the scriptures 
 was written ; and alludes to those same objects 
 from which they have borrowed much of their 
 imagery, and many of their terms. 
 
 Proceed we now to the septuagint version of 
 the Old Testament, which was completed be- 
 tween two and three centuries before Christ. 
 2 Kings^ V. 2. in our version, 2 Sam. v. 2. The 
 Lord said unto thee, viz. David, thou shall feed 
 (jroifJLOcvsig, shalt act as a shepherd to) my people 
 Israel^ and thou shalt be a captain (^riyovfisvov) over 
 Israel. 
 
 Precisely the same sort of example is to be 
 found in Ch. vii. 7, 1 Chron. ii. 2. xvii. 6 ; also Ps. 
 xlviii. 14. Death shall feed vpon (^ro/^ai^fi, shall 
 have the rule over) them. 
 
 The New Testament is equally decisive. Math, 
 ii. 6. Thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not 
 the least among the princes of Juda; for out of thee 
 shall come a govern our {riy ovuivog) that shall rule 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 113 
 
 (Toifxoivsh feed, superintend as a shepherd,) my 
 people Israel. The prophet speaks of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who is the " good shepherd," and 
 the " chief shepherd ;" and who had, and has, 
 " the government upon his shoulder." Is. ix. 6. 
 
 This term, likewise, is appHed to Presbyters. 
 
 Acts XX. 17, 28. Fi'om Miletus, Paul sent to 
 Ephesi/s, and called the presbyters of the church and 
 said unto them — Take heed unto yourselves, and to all 
 the jlock over ivhich the Holy Ghost hath made you 
 BISHOPS to FEED (^TToifjLCiivsiy, like good shepherds, to 
 provide for, watch over, and govern,) the church of 
 God, <kc. 
 
 1 Pet. V. 2, 3. The presbyters who are amonsr 
 you, I exhort, who am also a presbyter. Feed 
 (jroifxavoiTe^ the Jlock of God which is among you, 
 taking the oversight (^eTna-kOTrovvrsg, discharging 
 the duty of bishops) thereof, not by constraint, but 
 willingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind : 
 Neither as beino; lords over God^s heritao-e. but beinsr 
 ensamples to the flock. 
 
 It is obvious, upon the very face of the texts, 
 that these presbyters of Ephesus, and of the dis- 
 persion, are considered as vested with the pasto- 
 ral care in all its extent ; and they are command- 
 ed to be faithful to the trust reposed in them, by 
 providing for the protection, nurture, and comfort 
 of the flock of God. This '« feeding" the flock, 
 this discharge of the pastoral duty, is directly oj>- 
 
 posed bv Peter, to being " lords over God's heri- 
 
 - Vv^i. Ill, 35 
 
114 Review. 
 
 tage," i. e. to rigorous and oppressive govern- 
 ment ; or, as we commonly say, to " lording it" 
 over them. The contrast could have had no place, 
 had not these presbyters been church governours ; 
 for it is idle to warn men against abusing a power 
 which they do not possess. By instructing them 
 how they were to govern the church, the Apostle 
 has decided that the power of government was 
 committed to them. No higher authority than 
 he has recognized in them, can belong to the or- 
 der of prelates. For the very same term by which 
 he marks the power of the presbyters, is employ- 
 ed in scripture, to mark the authority of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ himself^ 
 
 The reader cannot for a moment, suppose that 
 we put any power left in the church, on a level 
 with that of her divine master. Far from us be 
 the thought of such blasphemy. But we contend 
 for these two things. '^ 
 
 1st. That the term which both Paul and Peter 
 apply to the office of presbyters, undoubtedly ex- 
 presses the power o^ government ; seeing it is the 
 term which expresses the office of Christ, as the 
 governour of his people Israel. 
 
 2d. That as this term, applied to the office of 
 Christ, expresses the highest power of government 
 in him as the chief shepherd ; so, when applied to 
 the office of the under shepherds, it expresses the 
 highest power of government which he has dele- 
 
 • Math. ii. 6 — *jyouftsvoff otf-Tiff IIOIMANEI tov Xaov fxou, &c. 
 
Jitssays on Episcopacy, 115 
 
 gated to be exercised in his name for the welfare 
 of his church. But this power is vested, Paul and 
 Peter being judges, in presbyters ; therefore, pres- 
 byters, by the appointment of Jesus Christ, are 
 invested with the highest power of government 
 known in his church. 
 
 We go further : The authority conveyed by the 
 charge to "/eec/ the flock of God," comprehends 
 the ordering of all things necessary to her well be- 
 ing; and, therefore, the power of vrdinatioi like- 
 wise. An essential part of the Redeemer's pasto- 
 ral ofl[ice, was, and is, to provide under-pastors for 
 his sheep. This, at first, he did in person, by im- 
 mediate vocation. But having '' ascended up far 
 above all heavens, that he might fill all things," 
 he performs the same office through the medium 
 of the pastors whom he has left in the church. 
 The question is to ivhat pastors has he committed 
 the trL\^t of ordaining other pastors, and thus pre- 
 serving the pastoral succession ? We answer, to 
 presbyters : for he has affixed to their office, that 
 very term which designates his own right and care 
 to furnish his church with pastors, or lawful minis- 
 ters. Let our Episcopal brethren show as much 
 for their prelates, if they can. 
 
 To sum up what has been said on this article : 
 No expression more clear and decisive than those 
 we have considered, are used in the scripture to 
 denote either the communication, or the posses- 
 sion, or the exercise, of the ordinary powers given 
 
116 Review. 
 
 by Christ for the well ordering of his church. 
 And we have shown, that the New Testament 
 has, in the most direct and ample manner, con- 
 fided them all to presbyters. 
 
 Unless, therefore, we adopt the insane paradox 
 of Hammond, viz. that the presbyters of the New 
 Testament were all diocesan bishops, the passages 
 quoted must bear one of two senses. Either they 
 point out, under the denomination of presbyters, 
 those officers who are strictly so called, in con 
 tradistinction from prelates and deacons ; or they 
 use the name with sufficient latitude to include 
 the prelates too. If the former, our position is 
 established. If the latter, then prelates and pres- 
 byters ^xe joined together in the power of govern- 
 ment, which the hierarchy maintains is confined 
 to prelates alone. In either way, the argument is 
 conclusive against her. 
 
 3d. At a very early period of the Christian 
 church, presbyters did actually exercise the power 
 of government : exercised it in conjunction with 
 the apostles themselves; and that upon the prin- 
 ciple of parity. 
 
 The important question concerning the obliga- 
 tion upon Christians to be circumcised and keep 
 the law of Moses, in order to salvation, was refer- 
 red by the church at Antioch, to the apostles and 
 elders at Jerusalem. The historian does not mean 
 apostles and elders who had a fixed and perma- 
 nent charge at Jerusalem, which was essentially 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 117 
 
 incompatible with their apostolic vocation. But 
 as that city had been the cradle of the Christian 
 church, and was the centre of religious communi- 
 cation from all parts of the world, ^he apostles re- 
 turned thither from their excursions in preaching 
 the gospel, accompanied with Elders or Presby- 
 ters from the churches which they had planted, 
 and met together in ecclesiastical council to con- 
 sult about their common interest. Herein they 
 have set us the example, and left us the warrant, 
 of a delegated body, as the ultimate resort in all 
 ecclesiastical affairs : for, such a body, to all in- 
 tents and purposes, was the assemblage of the 
 apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Of this most 
 venerable primitive Synod, we treat no further at 
 present than to ascertain what share the presby- 
 ters had in its proceedings. The following things 
 appear indisputable. 
 
 1st. The apostles and presbyters met in com- 
 mon ; that is, they formed but one assembly. Of 
 a " house of bishops," and a " house of clerical 
 and lay delegates," they had no idea. This im- 
 provement in church-government was reserved 
 for discovery by those who have been trained in 
 the school of the "judicious"* Hooker, 
 
 * This appellation was bestowed upon Hooker by James VI. 
 who was delighted, beyond measure, with his famous work on ec- 
 clesiastical polity. And delighted with it for the same reason 
 which, no doubt, ravished the heart of Cardinal Allen, and Pope 
 
118 Review. 
 
 2d. The right of the presbyters to sit in judg- 
 ment with the apostles upon all ecclesiastical con- 
 cerns, which were not to be decided by special 
 revelation, was well understood in the churches. 
 
 The proof of this proposition lies in the very 
 terms of the reference from Antioch. For it i-s 
 inconceivable, how the church there should think 
 of submitting a question, so weighty in itself, and 
 so extensive in its consequences, to the '' elders," 
 conjointly with the " apostles," if they had not 
 been taught that presbyters were the ordinary 
 church governours, and were to continue such af- 
 ter the decease of the others. This explains why 
 they went up with the apostles to Jerusalem. It 
 was not only to give them opportunities of infor- 
 mation ; but also, if not chiefly, to learn the pro- 
 per mode of dispatching the public business. Be- 
 fore this council or synod, composed of apostles 
 and elders, was the interesting reference from 
 Antioch laid ; by them was it discussed, and by 
 them decided. 
 
 3d. The apostles, on this occasion, acted simply 
 as members of the synod ; they did nothing in vir- 
 
 Clement the VIII.* viz. that the principle of Hooker's book, and 
 the scope of his argument, are to prove the right of the church to 
 model her government as she shall judge for edification. We shall 
 touch this subject again. Does not the reader suppose that this 
 must be a truly Protestant work, Avhich excited the admiration and 
 rapture of the pope and his cardinals ! 
 
 * Hooker's life, p. 78, 79. Works, vol, 1. 8vo. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 119 
 
 tue of their extraordinary, which was their apos- 
 tohcal, character, nor introduced into the dehbe- 
 rations of the assembly, any influence but that of 
 facts ; of the written scripture ; and of reasoning 
 founded on the comparison of both. All this is 
 evident from the narrative in the fifteenth chapter 
 of the Acts ; and resulted from the nature of the 
 case. Had the question been to be determined 
 by special revelation or apostolic authority, one in- 
 spired man, or one apostle, would have answered 
 as well as a dozen. The dispute might have been 
 settled on the spot, and by Paul himself Had 
 there arisen any doubt of his power, or distrust of 
 his integrity, a hundred miracles, if necessary, 
 would instantly have removed the obstacle. In 
 every view, the embassy to Jerusalem would have 
 been an useless parade. 
 
 The truth is, that the apostles acted in a douhh 
 capacity. They had that authority which w^as de- 
 signed to be ordinary and perpetual, such as 
 preaching the word, administering the sacraments, 
 and governing the church. But superadded to 
 this, they had also the authority of special mes- 
 sengers for extraordinary and temporary pur- 
 poses. If a new church was to be founded among 
 the nations — if any part of the rule of faith was to 
 be revealed — if a particular emergency required 
 a particular interposition ; in these and similar 
 cases, their extraordinary character found its pro- 
 per objects : they " spake as they were moved 
 
120 Review. 
 
 by the Holy Ghost :" their judgment was infalli- 
 ble, and their authority paramount. But for the 
 ordinary government of the church, or any part of 
 it, they do not appear to have enjoyed these ex- 
 traordinary communications of the divine spirit ; 
 nor to have exerted their extraordinary powers ; 
 nor to have claimed a particle of authority above 
 the presbyters. Without such a distinction as 
 we have now stated, their history is a tissue of 
 inconsistencies, and their conduct in the synod of 
 Jerusalem must be given up as a riddle that baffles 
 solution. 
 
 Seeing, therefore, that in the apostohc epistles 
 and salutations to the churches, there is no men- 
 tion of prelates, although there is frequent men- 
 tion of presbyters and deacons — that presbyters 
 are formally addressed as possessing the power of 
 government — and that they actually did exercise 
 it in matters of the highest moment, the advocate 
 for diocesan episcopacy must adduce scriptural 
 facts to support him under the depressing weight 
 of all these considerations. As he maintains that 
 prelates are at least of apostohc origin ; and that 
 they alone succeeded the apostles in the powers of 
 ordination and government, his facts must not 
 only be plausible when detached from their place 
 and bearings in the Christian history, and when 
 decorated with appendages of his own imagina- 
 tion ; but they must accord with the language of 
 the New Testament, and with its narrative ; they 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 121 
 
 must be so decisive as to annihilate the foregoing 
 difficuhies ; and must not admit of a fair and ra- 
 tional explanation upon Presbyterian principles. 
 With such facts, he tells us, he is ready to con- 
 front us. Our curiosity is awake : let us look at 
 them without further delay. 
 
 He refers us for one fact, to that same synod of 
 Jerusalem which we have just left. We must go 
 back again. 
 
 " If from Crete," says Cyprian, " we pass to Jerusalem, we 
 shall there discover equally striking evidence* that St. James, 
 the brother of our Lord, possessed in that place the pre-emi- 
 nence of a bishop in the church. In the first council that was 
 held there, in order to determine the controversy which had 
 arisen in regard to the circumcision of Gentile converts, we 
 find him pronouncing an authoritative sentence. His sentence, 
 we remark also, determined the controversy. " Wherefore iny 
 sentence is, says he, that we trouble not tiiose who from among 
 the Gentiles are turned unto God." In Acts xxi. 17 and 18, 
 we are told, *' that when St. Paul and his company were come 
 to Jerusalem, the brethren received him sjladly ; and that the 
 next day following, Paul went iii with them unto James, and 
 all the Elders or Presbyters were present." Acts xii. 17, it is 
 said, that "Peter, after he had declared to the Christians to 
 whom he went, his miraculous deliverance, bade them go and 
 
 * What this " striking evidence" is, remains to be seen here- 
 after. We shall reduce the out-works of the hierarchy before we 
 close in upon her citadel. This is the Episcopal character of Ti- 
 mothy and Titus, as her chieftains confess, as their anxiety to de- 
 fend it sufficiently indicates, even without their confession. In 
 the mean time, we believe Cyprian to be pretty correct in making 
 the evidence for the episcopate of James at Jerusalem, to be 
 ''equally striking" with that of Titus's at Crete. For we hope 
 to prove that in both cases it amounts to just nothing at all ! 
 Vol. III. 16 
 
122 Review. 
 
 show these things to James and to the brethren." In Gala- 
 tians ii. 12, St. Paul says, " that certain came from James," 
 that is, from the church of Jerusalem to the church of Antioch. 
 Surely these passages strongly indicate that James held the 
 highest dignity in the church of Jerusalem. The brethren 
 carry Paul and his company to him as to a supreme officer. 
 He has presbyters and deacons in subordination to him. When 
 messengers are sent from Jerusalem to other churches, it is 
 not done in the name of the presbyters and deacons, or of 
 the church of this place ; it is done in the name of James. Do 
 not these considerations prove James was the supreme ruler 
 'of that church 1" 
 
 The first argument of Cyprian for the episcopal 
 pre-eminence of James, is, that he pronounced in 
 the synod of Jerusalem, '• an authoritative sentence ;" 
 and that " his sentence determined the controver- 
 sy." The proof is, that expression in his speech 
 to the council, "Wherefore, my sentence is, that 
 we trouble not those who from among the Gen- 
 tiles are turned unto God." Acts xv. 19. 
 
 We are under the necessity of objecting, for the 
 third time, to these writers, that they put into the 
 mouth of the person whom they quote, declara- 
 tions which he never uttered. They will make 
 James dehver an authoritative sentence as the 
 bishop of Jerusalem. They, perhaps, could not 
 help themselves, as they have only followed their 
 file leaders. Potter had said the same thing; and 
 they took it as they found it. But the editor of 
 Lycophron^ and author of the " Antiquities of 
 Greece," was " a scholar, and a ripe and good 
 one." He knew that he was standing on slippery 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 123 
 
 ground ; and so to save his own reputation, he 
 sHly fathers his construction of James's words up- 
 old Hesychius.* 
 
 But in opposition to Cyprian, and the Layman, 
 and archbishop Potter, and Hesychius too, we 
 shall show, 
 
 1. That there is nothing in the language of 
 James, from which it can be inferred that he, as 
 the superiour officer, pronounced an authoritative 
 sentence^ and, 
 
 2. That it was impossible for him to pronounce 
 such a sentence. 
 
 ThQ first point is to be settled by a critical ex- 
 amination of his phraseology. His words are, 
 Jlo eyio KPINS2, which our translators have ren- 
 dered " Wherefore my sentence ^^." 
 
 The primitive meaning of the word is to discri- 
 minate^ to separate^ to select^ to arrange. Thus 
 Homer, 
 
 — A>)aiirv]^ 
 KPINEI, fifl'sjyojxsvwv avsfjowv KAPIION rs xai AXNA2. 
 
 II. E. 501. 
 
 '^Separates, by the winds, the chaf from the 
 wheat.'''' 
 
 * Discourse on Church Government, p. 91. In a note, the learn- 
 ed prelate cites Hesychius as thus distinguishing — " Peter addresses 
 the council ; but James enacts the law." ntrpo? irjixrjyopa, aXX' IokuSos 
 vofioOtrei. Potter's precaution passed unobserved. The reason 
 probably is, that it was locked up in the quotation from Hesychius, 
 ♦* Gracum est; et nan potest legi!'^ said the Trojans oi Oxford, 
 whenever a line of Greek came in their way. 
 
124 Review. 
 
 KPINA2 r'ava 5yi(Xov a^titvg. 
 
 Od. A. 666. 
 
 ^^ Selecting the most valiant throughout the 
 people." 
 
 KPIN' av(5^a5 xara (puXa. II. B. 362. 
 
 " Arrange the men according to their nations." 
 From this primitive notion, the word, by a very 
 natural transition, came to signify the formation 
 of an opinion, or judgment, and the expression of 
 it when formed, because no opinion or judgment 
 can exist without a previous process by which the 
 mind discriminates between its own perceptions. 
 And thus the word is familiarly used by writers 
 both profane and sacred. 
 
 fjurfej 5b -rXsov y) dixji KPINANTE2. 
 
 u Forming their opinion rather from hatred than 
 justice," says Thucydides of the Platseans, with 
 respect to then jiidg^nent of the Thebans.* 
 
 ryjv (5iaxoo'/x>](J'iv xa» ra^iv KPINEIN ou Tv^^ris — sjvai xatfJcsua^fixaTa 
 
 " To think that the beautiful order of the uni 
 verse is not the production of fortune."! 
 
 TW TOUTO KPINE12. 
 
 " Why dost thou think so ? upon what ground 
 art thou of this opinion .^"J 
 In the speech of Hermocrates to the Syracusans, 
 
 * Thucyd. III. 67. p. 209. ed Dukeri. 
 
 t Diod. Sk. Lib. xii. 84. Tom. I. p. 491. ed mssd. 
 
 t Aristoph. Plut v. 48. p. 9. e<i Kusteri. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 125 
 
 as recorded by Thucydides, there is a perfect pa- 
 rallel to the expression of James. 
 
 " We shall consult," says he, " if we be in our 
 right minds, not only our own immediate inte- 
 rests; but whether we shall be able still to preserve 
 all Sicily, against which, in my judgment^ the Athe- 
 nians are plotting."* 
 
 The same use of the word is so common in the 
 New Testament, that examples are almost super- 
 fluous. We shall, however, subjoin a few, because 
 they will bring our criticism more directly within 
 the reach of the unlearned reader. 
 
 Luke vii. 43. Simon said — / suppose that he to 
 whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, 
 Thou hast rightly judged (oq^ojq EKPINA:^.) Si- 
 mon's judgment was surely not an official one. It 
 was simply his opinion^ or conclusion.^ from the case 
 proposed to him. 
 
 John vii. 24. Judge not (Mi] KPINETE) ac- 
 cording to the appearance, but judge righteous judg- 
 ment (XPI-ZJiV^ JTP/iV^ TE.) No "authoritative 
 sentence" is contemplated here. 
 
 j9cts xii. 46. Seeing — ye judge yourselves (^KPI- 
 NETE) unworthy, 8^^c. 
 
 2 Cor. V. 14, 15. The love of Christ constraineth 
 us, because we thus judge {KPINANTA2 tovto,) 
 kc. " Concerning the love of Christ," saith Paul, 
 
 * — ov irtpi Twv iSi(j)v jxovov, ti aitxppovujjieVf fj crvvoSos earai' aXX' £i ZTn^ovXevojitvij-* 
 TTjv iraaav StxtXiav, i22 EFA KPINIi, drr' A^J/fatwi', ivvrjaofieQa «ri Siaauiaat. 
 
 Thucyd. iv. 60. p. 272. ed Dukeri. 
 
126 Review, 
 
 " this is our sentiment, our 7node of reasoning, that if 
 one died for all," &;c. 
 
 In every one of the preceding quotations, the 
 very same word is used which occurs in the speech 
 of James, and, in the very same sense. It is the 
 plainest Greek imaginable to express the result of 
 one^s reflections. This is all that the words of 
 James imply. He spoke among the last ; he avail- 
 ed himself of the discussion which had already 
 taken place : And when his opinion was matured, 
 he submitted it to the council in the form of a 
 temperate and conciUatory proposition. We ask 
 any man of plain sense, to look over the chapter, 
 and say whether this is not a natural and satisfac- 
 tory account of tlie whole affair. Little did the 
 guileless disciple suspect that his familiar and in- 
 nocent expression, wpuld be converted, in these 
 latter days, into a certificate of his being a dioce- 
 san bishop ! And had not the " proofs" of the 
 hierarchy been, hke lords' wits, rather " thinly 
 sown," she would never have attempted to cull one 
 from a form of speech which might have been 
 adopted by the obscurest member of the council, 
 with as much propriety as by James himself 
 
 We have neither interest nor disposition to con- 
 ceal what is well known to even smatterers in 
 Greek, that the term which we have shown to be 
 familiarly used to signify the expression of opinion 
 generally, is also used, and with equal familiarity, 
 in a more restricted squ^q, oi b. judicial o^miow, or, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 127 
 
 if you prefer it, an " authoritative sentence." But 
 then it a\w Siys presupposes the judicial or authorita- 
 tive character of the person to whom it is apphed. 
 Thus the senses of the word rank. 
 
 1. To discriminate — to select — to arrange. — 
 Thence, 
 
 2. To form a judgment — to express an opinion, 
 — and thence, 
 
 3. To pronounce an official judgment ; or " an 
 authoritative sentence." 
 
 But Y/ho does not see that you must first know 
 under what circumstances a person is represented 
 as speaking or acting, before you can determine 
 whether the writer intends, by the word we are 
 considering, a mere selection of one thing from a 
 number of others ? or an opinion as expressed in 
 conversation or debate ? or a solemn judicial sen- 
 tence ? Had the prelatic dignity of James been 
 first established ; and had the synod at Jerusalem 
 been a convocation of his clergy^ there would have 
 been a propriety in attributing to him an " autho- 
 ritative" decision, and interpreting his words ac- 
 cordingly. But to argue from his " my sentence 
 is," that he was a prelate, is completely begging 
 the question. The argument assumes that he was 
 the bishop of Jerusalem ; for this is indispensable 
 to that " authority" which Cyprian ascribes to his 
 words ; and it is exactly taking for granted, the 
 thing to be proved. 
 
 Another unfortunate circumstance for the Epis- 
 
128 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 copal construction of James's speech is, that it 
 contradicts the sacred historian. In the very next 
 chapter he tells us, that Paul and Silas delivered 
 to the cities through which they passed, " the de- 
 crees for to keep, that were ordcdned (^KEKPI- 
 MEN A) of the apostles and elders?'' Ch. xvi. 4. 
 Cyprian says that James pronounced the " autho- 
 ritative sentence." The inspired historian says, 
 that it was pronounced by the apostles and elders. 
 Both cannot be true ; and we are inclined to think 
 that the rector of the episcopal church in Albany^ 
 cannot stand in the judgment, even with Potter 
 and Hesychius to back him. The affront put 
 upon the narrative of Luke is the more conspicu- 
 ous, as the term which, in the mouth of James, is 
 tortured into an " authoritative sentence," here oc- 
 curs in that sense most unequivocally : because 
 the reference from Antioch was brought before the 
 tribunal of tlie apostles and elders. They were re- 
 cognized as Judges having cognizance of the question ; 
 and theirs was, of course, an authoritative sen- 
 tence. James was, indeed, one of the judges ; 
 he acted in his judicial character, but that cha- 
 racter was common to him with every other 
 member of the council ; and like theirs, his only 
 influence was that of his wisdom and his vote. 
 The scripture, then, being judge, it is incontesti- 
 ble, that he did NOT pronounce an " authorita- 
 tive sentence." 
 
 Our second position is, that it was impossible for 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 129 
 
 James to exercise such a power as the advocates 
 of Episcopacy attribute to him. Our proofs are 
 
 these : 
 
 1. The cause was not referred to him ; and 
 
 accordingly it was not tried in the court of " St. 
 James ;" but in the court of the " apostles and 
 elders," as the representatives of the Christian 
 church. 
 
 2. It could not be referred to him ; nor could 
 he, as bishop of Jerusalem, have any cognizance 
 of it ; Antioch being entirely without his juris- 
 diction. 
 
 3. The decision of the council was received 
 and obeyed with alacrity through the churches of 
 Asia. But had it been pronounced by an autho- 
 rity so limited and local as that of the bishop of 
 Jerusalem, the effect must have been very diffe- 
 rent. Unless we should suppose, that all the Asi- 
 atic cities through which Paul and Silas passed, 
 were subject to the see of Jerusalem ; and, then, 
 we shall not only spoil the Episcopal argument 
 from the seven angels of Asia ; but shall overturn 
 the whole system of the hierarchy, as it is pre- 
 tended to have been estabhshed by apostohc or- 
 dination : because we shall admit, that, instead of 
 fixing bishops at proper distances for governing 
 the church within convenient dioceses, the apos- 
 tles put the immense regions of Asia under a 
 spiritual head in the land of Judea. Indeed, we 
 
 have always thought it hard, upon the Episcopal 
 Vol. III. 17 
 
130 Review, 
 
 plan, that, considering the importance and the 
 wealth of Antioch, not a hishop could be mus- 
 tered for that distinguished city ; but she must 
 go for direction all the way to the prelate of Je- 
 rusalem ! 
 
 4. The assembly in which James delivered his 
 speech was not composed of clergy belonging to 
 his diocese ; and, therefore, he could not, even 
 upon episcopal principles, pronounce an " autho- 
 ritative sentence." The reason is obvious : he 
 could not exercise authority over those who were 
 not under his controul. There were present at 
 the council, not only '• presbyters," but " apostles." 
 Peter was there, Paul was there, and how many 
 others, we do not know. Had James then pro- 
 nounced an " authoritative sentence," he had been 
 above not only all the presbyters of his own dio- 
 cese, but above all the deputies from Antioch ; 
 above all the members of the council from what- 
 ever part of the world ; above the apostles them- 
 selves ! Look, then, at this /ad of the hierarchy. 
 It turns the very apostles into mere make-weights 
 of bishop James ! It sets up an authority much like 
 that of a visible head of the church catholic, than 
 the papists have ever been able to produce for 
 their " St. Peter !" If this is 7iot a " bold stroke " 
 for a bishop, pray, gentlemen, what is ? And if 
 any of our readers can digest such a dish of ab- 
 surdity, we wish him much comfort of his meal ! 
 
 We shall not trespass long upon the patience of 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 131 
 
 either our friends or our foes, in disposing of the 
 '• remains" of Cyprian's proofs. '• When St. Paul 
 and his company were come to Jerusalem, the 
 brethren received him gladly, and the next day 
 following, Paul went in with them unto James, 
 and all the elders or presbyters were present." 
 It was rather rustic in Paul not to pay his court 
 to the bishop ^/'5/. We have learnt, at the ex- 
 pense of some mortification, that in New-York 
 any communication w^ith the clergy, on eccle- 
 siastical matters, except through the medium of 
 the bishop, is an invasion of episcopal order. 
 But Paul must be pardoned for committing an 
 oversight, especially as Cyprian, to be even with 
 him, has done so too. He has stopped at that 
 part of the narrative, which, in his eyes, holds 
 James forth in something of bishop-like majesty, 
 and forgot to tell the rest of the story. The reader, 
 no doubt, would expect to hear of a very pointed 
 conference between James and the apostle, all 
 the presbyters listening with due humility to their 
 superiours ; but if he turn to the history, (Acts 
 xxi.) he will find these same presbyters most un- 
 civilly advising the apostle ; and w^hat is still 
 worse, telling him that they had decided the re- 
 ference from Antioch. Cyprian asserts that James 
 made the de<:ision. They, on the contrary, have 
 the assurance to tell the apostle Paul, in the pre- 
 
132 Review, 
 
 sence of James himself, that the presbyters had 
 decided it. And all this while not a word of hishop 
 James ! In the following ages the presbyters 
 were taught better manners. 
 
 But then, it seems, that after Peter's " miracu- 
 lous deliverance, he bade the Christians go and 
 show these things to James, and to the breth- 
 ren" — Also, that " certain came from James, 
 that is, from the church of Jerusalem to the 
 church of Antioch." Therefore, James was 
 bishop of Jerusalem ! Very sagely and conclu- 
 sively reasoned ! As if such things did not hap- 
 pen every day in places where there are ministers 
 of the gospel distinguished by their talent or 
 standing. The writer of this review stepped the 
 other evening into the house of that venerable 
 Christian veteran, the Reverend Dr. Rodgers, and 
 found there " certain brethren" who had just 
 come from one of their judicatories. It is quite 
 common for people to talk of Dr. Rodgers' send- 
 ing ministers to preach ; and even to designate 
 his denomination as Dr. Rodgers' church ! There- 
 fore Dr. Rodgers is bishop of New-York ; and 
 primate of the Presbyterian church in North- 
 America ! ! 
 
 " Thus endeth the first lesson," which is con- 
 cerning Cyprian's " striking evidence" that James 
 was bishop of Jerusalem. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 
 
 133 
 
 Having disposed of the see of Jerusalem, 
 which had been gratuitously conferred on James, 
 we proceed to the argument in favour of Diocesan 
 Episcopacy, from the epistles addressed, in the 
 book of the Revelation, to the seven churches of 
 Asia. We give it in the words of Cyprian. And 
 as it may possibly amuse the reader, while it con- 
 vinces him that we were correct in saying that 
 Archbishop Potter is one of the real authors un- 
 der the signatures of Cyprian^ &lc. we shall put his 
 Grace of Canterbury side by side with our Albany 
 friend. 
 
 POTTEB 
 
 " St. John, in the three 
 first chapters of his Revela- 
 tion, has given us a Hvely de- 
 scription of seven bishops 
 who presided in the seven 
 principal cities of the pro-con- 
 sular Asia. Our Lord is there 
 introduced, sendino^ seven 
 epistles to the seven churches 
 of these cities, directed to the 
 seve7i angels of the churches, 
 whom he calls the seven stars 
 in his right hand. Now if it 
 appears that the seven angels 
 
 Cyprian. 
 •^^ In the three first chap- 
 ters of the Revelations of St. 
 John, we find absolute demon- 
 stration of the existence of 
 the Episcopal dignity and au- 
 thority, at the time in which 
 this work was written. In 
 these chapters, St. John gives 
 us a description of the seven 
 Bishops, who superintended 
 the interests of the church in 
 the seven principal cities in 
 the Pro-Consular Asia. Our 
 Lord is represented as sending 
 seven Epistles to the seven 
 churches of these cities, di- 
 rected to the seven angels of 
 the churches, whom he calls 
 the " seven stars in his right 
 hand." From all the circuna* 
 
134 
 
 Review. 
 
 Potter. 
 were so many single persons 
 invested with supreme autho- 
 rity in the seven churches, 
 there can be no reason to 
 doubt, whether they were the 
 bishops of these churches ; a 
 bishop being nothing else but 
 one who has chief authority 
 in the church. 
 
 " Let us examine in the 
 Jii'st place, whether the seven 
 angels were so many single 
 persons 1 And first of all, it 
 is manifest they were not the 
 whole church or collective 
 body of Christians in their 
 several cities ; because the 
 churches are represented by 
 seven candlesticks^ which are 
 all along distinguished from 
 the seven stars, which are em- 
 blems of the angels. Neither 
 were they any select number 
 or body of men : For they are 
 constantly mentioned as sin- 
 gle persons ; the angel of the 
 church of Ephesus, the angel 
 of the church of Smyrna, and 
 so the rest." 
 
 " Accordingly, both he and 
 all the rest are constantly ad- 
 dressed to in the singular 
 number ; I know thy works, 
 I have a few things against 
 thee, remember how thou hast 
 
 Cyprian. 
 stances that are mentioned, it 
 undeniably appears that these 
 seven angels were so many 
 single persons, invested with 
 supreme authority in the 
 churches ; that is to say, they 
 were the bishops of those 
 churches. 
 
 " I say it manifestly ap- 
 pears, that these seven angels 
 of the churches, whom the 
 Lord calls the " seven stars" 
 in his right hand, were single 
 persons. They were not the 
 whole church or collective 
 body of Christians. This is 
 proved incontestably from 
 these considerations. The 
 whole Churches, or collective 
 body of Christians, are repre- 
 sented by " seven candle- 
 sticks," which are distinguish- 
 ed from the " seven stars," 
 that are emblems of the An- 
 gels, the Bishops. They are 
 constantly mentioned in the 
 singular number. " The An- 
 gel of the Church of Ephe- 
 sus" — " the Angel of the 
 Church of Smyrna," and so 
 of the rest. 
 
 And in the epistle to Thyatira 
 it is said, " I know thy works." 
 " I have a few things against 
 thee." " Remember how thou 
 hast heard." " Thou hast 
 kept the word of my pa- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 
 
 135 
 
 Potter. 
 heard, thou hast kept the word 
 of my patience, and so in the 
 rest, where our Lord speaks to 
 them in particular : But when 
 what he writes equally con- 
 cerns the people, he changes 
 his style, and speaks in the 
 plural : The devil shall cast 
 some of yow into prison. Thou 
 hast not denied my faith when 
 Antipas my faithful martyr 
 was slain among you. I will 
 reward every one of you ac- 
 cording to your works. That 
 which ye have, hold fast till 
 I come. Which variation of 
 the number, is a plain argu- 
 tijent that some parts of these 
 Epistles relate to the whole 
 churches, and others only to 
 the persons of the angels.'^'' 
 
 " But there is one thing yet 
 behind, which will put this 
 matter beyond dispute : name- 
 ly, that the titles of angels and 
 stars are constantly applied in 
 this book of Revelation to sin- 
 gle men : Our Lord is called 
 the Morning Star, and the 
 Sun, and the apostles are call- 
 ed twelve stars, and twelve an- 
 gels ; but there is not one ex- 
 ample where these titles are 
 given to any society or number 
 of men. So that if we will al- 
 low the divine author of this 
 book to speak in this place, as 
 he does in all others, the angels 
 
 Cyprian. 
 
 tience." This is the style 
 which is used when the Anael 
 
 o 
 
 or Bishop of the Church is 
 
 addressed. 
 
 But when what is said relates 
 to the people, the style is al- 
 tered, the plural number is 
 then used. •' The devil shall 
 cast some of you into pri- 
 
 " I will reward every one of 
 you according to your works. 
 That which ye have, hold fast 
 till I come." And this vari- 
 ation in the number, proves 
 that some parts of these Epis- 
 tles relate to the ivhole Church, 
 and others only to the Angels, 
 
 But what places this subject 
 beyond all reasonable doubt is 
 this circumstance : The titles 
 of Angels and stars are con- 
 stantly applied in the book of 
 Revelation to single men, and 
 never to a society or number of 
 men. Our Lord is called the 
 " morning star and the sun," 
 and the twelve Apostles are 
 called " twelve stars," and 
 " twelve Angels." 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that 
 the seven stars or Angels in the 
 book of Revelation, are single 
 persons. 
 
136 
 
 Review, 
 
 Potter. 
 of the seven churches can be 
 none but single persons. 
 
 " The next thing to be made 
 out is, that these single per- 
 sons were men of chief autho- 
 rity in their several churches. 
 And we might safely conclude 
 they were so, though we had 
 no other proof of it, because 
 our Lord has directed to them 
 the Epistles, which he designed 
 for the use of their churches. 
 But there are several other ar- 
 guments, which prove that the 
 angels were men of eminent 
 station and authority : For 
 whereas the churches are on- 
 ly called candlesticks, the an- 
 gels are resembled to stars, 
 which give light to the c«w- 
 dlesticks.''^ 
 
 *' They are praised for all the 
 good, and blamed for all the 
 evil which happened in their 
 churches. The angel of "Ephe- 
 sus is commended, because he 
 could not bear them that were 
 evil, and had tried those zvho 
 called themselves Apostles, and 
 tcere not so ; which seems to 
 imply, that he had judicially 
 convicted them to be impostors. 
 And the angel of Pergamos 
 is reproved for having them 
 who hold the doctrine of Ba- 
 laam ; that is, the Nicolaitans, 
 who allowed themselves to 
 
 Cyprian. 
 
 That these persons possess- 
 ed supreme authority in the 
 Churches, is also demonstra- 
 ted from these considerations. 
 
 These Epistles are addressed 
 to them alone. 
 
 The Churches are called 
 candlesticks, and they the 
 stars which give light to the 
 candlesticks. 
 
 The seven angels are prais- 
 ed for all the good which they 
 had done, and blamed for all 
 the evil which happened in the 
 Churches. The Angel of 
 Ephesus is commended be- 
 cause " he could not bear them 
 that were evil, and had tried 
 those who called themselves 
 Apostles, and were not so," 
 which seems to imply that he 
 had convicted them of impos- 
 ture. The Angel of Perga- 
 mos is reproved for having 
 them " who hold the doctrine 
 of Balaam, and he is severely 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 
 
 137 
 
 Potter. 
 commit fornication^ and to eat 
 things sacrificed to idols ; and 
 he is severely threatened, un- 
 less he repented: which shows 
 he had authority to correct 
 these disorders, otherwise he 
 could not justly liave beea 
 punished for them. The same 
 may be said of the angel of 
 Thyatira, who is blamed for 
 suffering Jezebel, ivho called 
 herself a prophetess, to teach 
 and seduce the people. And 
 the angel of Sardis is com- 
 manded to be watchful^ and to 
 strengthen those who are ready 
 to die ; otherwise our Lord 
 threatens to come on him, as a 
 thief, at an hour which he 
 should not knmc,'''' 
 
 Cyprian. 
 
 threatened unless he repent- 
 ed." This shows that he pos- 
 sessed authority to correct 
 these disorders, or he could 
 not justly be menaced with 
 punishment for permitting 
 them. The Angel of Thyatira 
 also is blamed for suffering 
 " Jezebel," who called herself 
 a prophetess, to teach and se- 
 duce the people. And the An- 
 gel of Sardis is commanded 
 " to be watchful, and to 
 strengthen those who are ready 
 to die," otherwise our Lord 
 threatens to come on him " as 
 a thief ; at an hour which he 
 should not know." 
 
 The writers under review, having a great con- 
 tempt for all reasoning from names^ promised to 
 intrench themselves within scriptural /ac/^. One 
 of their facts they find in the history of the " stars" 
 or " angels" of the seven churches. Yet if the 
 reader shall attentively inspect their argument, 
 which we have placed before him in its full 
 strength, he will perceive that it rests entirely upon 
 their interpretation of two names. These are. 
 " angel" and " star:" which, in the symbolical 
 language of the scripture, are as really names of 
 office, as bishop, presbyter, deacon, are in its al- 
 phabetical or common language. The aspect of 
 
 Vol. III. 18 
 
1 38 Review. 
 
 the fact changes with the construction of these 
 two symbols. You must fix their sense before 
 you can tell what the fact is. Unless you can 
 prove that " star' and •' angel" necessarily de- 
 note individuals, and such individuals as dioce- 
 san bishops, the fact, instead of being for the hie- 
 rarchy, will be against her. And thus her advo- 
 cates, under the pretext of " absolute demonstra- 
 tion," put us off with what they themselves have 
 again and again declared to be " miserable 
 sophistry" — " the old and wretched sophistry of 
 names." 
 
 Let us, however, examine this, their " absolute 
 demonstration" of diocesan Episcopacy. It turns, 
 as we just now said, upon the interpretation of the 
 symbohcal titles, " angel" and " star." These, 
 our prelatical friends maintain, '» are constantly ap- 
 plied in the book of Revelation to single men^ and 
 never to a society or number of meny Such is the 
 assertion — now for the proof 
 
 *' The whole churches, or collective bodies of Christians, are 
 represented by " seven candlesticks," which are distinguished 
 from the " seven stars," that are emblems of the angels, the 
 bishops." 
 
 The distinction is admitted : but it is equally 
 marked upon the Presbyterian plan. For the col- 
 lective body of the ministry is quite as distinguish- 
 able from their churches, as the bishops alone can 
 be. Nothing is gained here. We go on. 
 
 *' They," the angels, " are constantly mentioned in the sin- 
 gular number." 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 139 
 
 What then ? Does this prove that the singular 
 term " angel" has never a collective sense ? 
 
 What next ? Nothing at all. Let out readers 
 examine, again, the whole of v^hat Cyprian has 
 said upon this point, and if they can detect, in the 
 multitude of his words, and his show of illustration, 
 any thing more than his mere assertion, we shall 
 be disappointed. 
 
 The stars and angels, says he, are distinguished 
 from the churches. True — but they may be so 
 without being diocesan bishops 
 
 " They are constantly mentioned in the singular 
 number" — which is not true. And if it were, the 
 question still is, whether the symbolical term in the 
 singular number must necessarily signify only a 
 single person — O yes, says Cyprian, most undoubt- 
 edly. " What places this subject beyond all rea- 
 sonable doubt, is this circumstance. The titles 
 of angels and stars are constantly apphed in the 
 book of Revelation, to single men, and never to a 
 society or number of men !" Now this is exactly 
 the thing to be proved. 
 
 Amphora ccepit 
 Institui : currente rota cur urceus exit ? 
 
 Cyprian sets out with a threat of " absolute 
 demonstration," and leaves off with begging the 
 question.* 
 
 * Potter, in his zeal to make out the prelatic character of these 
 angels, presses into his service a various reading. '« If," says he, 
 
140 Review, 
 
 That the assertions which Cyprian has bor- 
 rowed from Potter, are not accompanied with 
 quite an " absolute demonstration," may be ga- 
 thered from the light in which they are considered 
 by Episcopal writers no way inferiour to Potter 
 himself. 
 
 " Methinks," says Dr. Henry More^ " it is ex- 
 tremely harsh to conceit that these seven stars 
 are merely the seven bishops of any particular 
 churches of Asia^ as if the rest were not sup- 
 ported nor guided by the hand of Christ ; or as 
 if there were but seven in his right hand, but all 
 the rest in his left. Such high representations 
 
 " in the epistle to Thyatira, instead of [rtjv ywaiKa u^e^n\) the woman 
 Jezebel, we read {TrjvyvvaiKa aov u^ejSriX,) thy wife Jezebel, as it is in 
 St. Cyprian, the Syriac version, the Alexandrian, and several 
 other manuscript copies, then the Angel of Thyatira was a married 
 man, and consequently but one person."* 
 
 Learning, when not well directed, falls into absurdities which 
 plain sense avoids. It is hard for a man to suspect himself of blun- 
 dering when he is displaying his erudition. But on this occasion, 
 the eyes of Potter seem to have been blinded by the dust of his 
 manuscripts. If we adopt his reading, and make " Jezebel" a 
 literal woman, by making her the wife of the prelate of Thyatira, 
 the symbolical or figurative sense of the text is gone. And in or- 
 der to be consistent, the crimes charged upon her must also be 
 literal. Thus we shall not only have my lady of Thyatira an open 
 adulteress ; but the diocese a huge brothel under her inspection ; 
 where by example and by precept, she initiates her husband's flock 
 in the mysteries of lewdness and idolatry. A goodly occupation 
 for the spouse of a diocesan ! Bad times, one would think, for an 
 angel-bishop ; and not the most flattering compliment to episcopal 
 discipline- 
 
 * Discourse of Church government, p. 145, 3d edit. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 141 
 
 cannot be appropriated to any seven particu- 
 lar CHURCHES WHATSOEVER." Again, " By an- 
 gels^ according to the apocalyptick style, all the 
 agents under their presidency are represented 
 or insinuated — and it is so frequent and obvious 
 in the Apocalypse^ that none that is versed there- 
 in can any ways doubt of it."* 
 
 The great, and justly celebrated Joseph Mede^ 
 observes, that " Angels, by a mode of speaking 
 not uncommon in this book, are put for the 
 nations over which they were thought to preside. 
 Which appears hence, that they who, by the 
 mjunction of the oracle, are loosed^ are armies of 
 cavalry sent forth to slaughter men."t 
 
 Just after he adds, " the four angels^ (Rev. ix. 
 14,) " signify so many Sultanies or kingdoms."^ 
 
 Dr. Fulk^ in his answer to the Rhemish Testa- 
 ment, remarks, that " St. John, by the angels of 
 the churches, meaneth not all that should wear 
 on their heads mitres., and hold crosier-staves in 
 iheir hands, like dead idols, but them that are ' 
 Faithful messengers of God's word, and utter 
 ind declare the same. They are called the 
 
 * Exposition of the seven churches, Works , p. 724. 
 
 f Augeli ponuntur pro gentibus quibus praeesse credebantur, 
 non inusitata in hoc libro metonymia. Id ex eo apparet, quod 
 qui contiuuo ex oraculi prsescripto solvuntur, Exercitus Equestres 
 sunt, hominibus oceideudis emissi. In Apocap. B. III. Tub. VI. 
 Works, p. 471. 
 
 X Angeli quatuor totidem Sultanias seu regna significant. Ibid. 
 
142 Review. 
 
 Jlngels of the churches because they are God^s mes- 
 
 seno-ersy^ 
 
 The famous StilUngfleet^ in his Irenicum, asks, 
 concerning these angels, " If, in the prophetick 
 style, any unity may be set down by way of re- 
 presentation of a multitude ; what evidence can 
 be brought from the fiame^ that by it some one 
 particular person must be understood ?" — And 
 a little further he says, " If many things in the 
 Epistles be direct to the angels, but yet so as to 
 concern the whole body, then of necessity, the 
 angel must be taken as a representative of the 
 whole body, and then, why may not the word 
 angel be taken by way of representation of the 
 body itself; either of the whole church, or, which 
 is far more probable, of the Consessus, or order 
 of Presbyters in that church ? We see what 
 miserable, unaccountable arguments those are, 
 which are brought for any kind of government, 
 from metaphorical or ambiguous expressions or 
 names promiscuously used."t 
 
 * This and the following quotation, are from the Appendix to 
 Ay ton's Original Constitution of the Christian Church. 
 
 f It is the fashion with the Jure diviiio prelatists to decry this 
 ■work of Stillingfleet as the production of his juvenile days ; and 
 as being recanted by him in maturer life. The true reason of 
 their dislike to it is, that it has sorely gravelled them from the 
 date of its publication till the present hour, and is likely to gravel 
 them in all time hereafter. We cannot, however, see what the 
 age or the recantation of the author, (if he did recant,) has to do 
 with the question, any further than as it may be influenced by his 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 143 
 
 We quote these passages, not to make them 
 our own, but to show that Episcopal writers of 
 the highest reputation, entertain opinions very 
 different from those of Potter and Cyprian, as to 
 the evidence which the apocalyptic angels give 
 in favour of their hierarchy : 
 
 " It is absolute demonstration," says Cyprian. 
 " It is a harsh conceit," says Dr. H. More, 
 
 ^' The titles of angels and stars are never ap- 
 plied," says Cyprian after Potter, " to a society 
 or number of men." They signify " them that 
 
 private opiniou. " Old men are not always wise ;" nor do green 
 years detract from the force of argument. Facts and reasonings 
 having no dependence upon a writer's 7iame, stand or fall in their 
 own strength. It is one thing to recant, and quite another to re- 
 fute. The learned, but unhappy Whitby, who, in his comraeuta- 
 ry on the New Testament, had zealously defended the divinity 
 and atonement of our Lord and Saviour, left a work behind him 
 entitled 'Yor^pat (ppovTiSeg, or After Thoughts, in which he denied 
 both. Yet his proofs of his previous belief remain unanswered 
 by himself, and unanswerable by any other man. We see that 
 it is very possible for great and learned men to change for the 
 worse. Therefore, although Stillingfleet, Avhether of his own ac- 
 cord, or by yielding to the teazings and menaces of others, did re- 
 tract the doctrines of his Irenicuni, it does not follow that all his 
 facts and reasonings are false, or that he himself drew nearer to 
 the truth. He renounced the Irenicum, the prelatists cry^ — Good. 
 Did he answer it ? we ask. Howbeit, since Dr. Hobart has re- 
 presented himself and his brother-writers, as youug men, and 
 even *' striplings ;" who knows, but, upon their arriving at maturi- 
 ty, when they shall have sown their intellectual " wild oats," their 
 opinion may change in a direction contrary to that of the bishop 
 of Worcester, and that they may yet ripen into excellent Presby- 
 terians ? 
 
144 Review, 
 
 are the faithful messengers of God's word ;" an- 
 swers Dr. Fulk — They " are put for the nations 
 over which they were thought to preside," adds 
 the venerable Mede — More follows again, with a 
 declaration, " That no man versed in the apoca- 
 lyptical style, can any wise doubt that by " angels'- 
 all the agents under their presidency are repre- 
 sented." And Stillingfleet^ their own StillingfleeU 
 calls the argument of the hierarchists from 
 these symbolical titles, a " miserable" one ; thus 
 avenging the Presbyterian upon them, by dealing 
 out to them in their own way, " measure for mea 
 sure." — 
 
 To which side the scale inclines, it is not diffi- 
 cult to discern. 
 
 That the epistles in question are addressed to 
 the persons designated by " stars" and " angels," 
 in such a manner as to imply that these persons 
 were invested with authority over the churches, 
 is freely conceded. It is also conceded that " an- 
 gel" and '• star" are titles of office which belong 
 exclusively to the ministry. Unless we greatly 
 mistake, " stars," in the symbohcal language, sig- 
 nify, throughout the whole Bible, " ministers of 
 religion." 
 
 But we contend that they signify ministers ol 
 religion with regard to their general office,^ and not 
 with regard to their relative dignity. Jesus Christ 
 is a " star," the twelve apostles are " stars" — and 
 so are the apostate clergy, figured by the " third 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 145 
 
 part of the stars," which the dragon cast down 
 with his tail to the earth. Who does not see, that 
 the only point in which the symbol agrees to the 
 subject in all these cases, is the common charac- 
 ter of the religious ministry ; distinction of rank 
 being utterly disregarded ? On this principle, the 
 " stars" must mean the ministers of the churches 
 without discrimination ; every one being a " star." 
 It is, therefore, impossible to discover under this 
 emblem, any order of ministers to the exclusion of 
 any other. 
 
 In this general reasoning, the hierarchy might, 
 perhaps, concur without much prejudice to her 
 cause. She might insist, that a symbol, common, 
 in its own nature, to all ministers of rehgion, is re- 
 stricted, by the conditions of the text, to a single 
 individual, w^ho, from the functions ascribed to 
 him, must be a superiour officer, and not one of a 
 college, concessus, or presbytery, having equal 
 authority. 
 
 There is internal evidence in the passage itself, 
 
 that this construction, though ingenious and acute, 
 
 cannot be true. For as the " candlesticks" are 
 
 emblematical of the churches, and as there is but 
 
 one star to give light to each candlestick, it would 
 
 follow that there was but a single minister in each 
 
 of the churches ; and thus the Episcopalian would 
 
 overthrow himself: for without inferiour, there can 
 
 be no superiour, clergy. Surely he will not say, 
 
 that the bishop alone did all the preaching, gave 
 Vol. III. 19 
 
146 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 all the instruction, and set all the example : i. e. 
 emitted all the hght on account of which ministers 
 are called " stars." The other clergy had some 
 share in these useful functions. They too " preach- 
 ed the word ;" they too, taught " from house to 
 house ;" they too, " let their light shin-e before 
 others." Now, one " star" being appropriated to 
 one " church," as one candle is to one " candle- 
 stick ;" it follows, from the nature of the compari- 
 son, that as one candle is the full complement of 
 hght for one candlestick ; so one star is the full 
 complement of light for one church. But the light 
 which shone in these churches did not emanate 
 from any individual ; it emanated from a number 
 of individuals ; from the collective body of the 
 ministers of religion. Therefore, the " star" 
 which expresses the whole light in one of these 
 churches, is a symbol, not of a single minister, 
 but of her ministry collectively. It would be a 
 darksome diocese, indeed, which should enjoy no 
 rays of light but those which proceed from the 
 bishop. 
 
 Let us now advert to the other symbol, viz. 
 " Angel." This too, the hierarchists, whom we 
 oppose, say, is " constantly applied in the book of 
 Revelation to a single man, and never to a society 
 or number of men." 
 
 It looks somewhat uncivil to contradict so posi- 
 tive an assertion ; but we must contradict it ; for 
 it is not true. And if, in proving it to be false, we 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 147 
 
 prove its authors either to be ignorant of the 
 scriptures, or wilfully to misrepresent them, we 
 cannot help it. One passage from the book of 
 Revelation itself, overturns the very foundation 
 upon which Cyprian and his associates have reared 
 their " absolute demonstration." 
 
 / saw^ says the prophet, another angel jiy in the 
 midst of heaven^ having the everlasting gospel to 
 preach unto them that dwell on the earthy and to 
 
 EVERY NATION, and KINDRED, and TONGUE, and PEO- 
 PLE. (Rev. xiv. 6.) 
 
 '• Heaven," in this book, is the ascertained sym- 
 bol of the Christian church, from which issue forth 
 the " ministers of grace" to the nations. As the 
 gospel is preached only by men^ this " angel" who 
 has it to preach to " every nation, and kindred, 
 and tongue, and people," must be the symbol of 
 a human ministry. And as it is perfectly evident 
 that no single man can thus preach it, but that 
 there must be a great company of preachers to car- 
 ry it to " every nation, and kindred, and tongue, 
 and people," the angel mentioned in the text is, 
 and of necessity must be, the symbol of that^rea/ 
 company. We might produce other examples; 
 but this is decisive. It shows the proposition of 
 Potter, Cyprian, (fee. to be one of the most rash 
 and unfounded assertions into which the ardour of 
 party evet betrayed a disputant. 
 
 Assuming it now as proved, that the term " axi 
 gel" is applied in this book to a collective body^ c 
 
148 Review. 
 
 a number of men joined in a common commission, 
 we demand the reason of its being restricted to an 
 individual in the epistles to the churches of Asia. 
 Signifying " a messenger," it is in itself as appli- 
 cable to any preacher of the gospel as to a dio- 
 cesan bishop. If he was of old, what most of the 
 diocesans are now, he was, of all the clergy in his 
 diocese, the one who had the least claim to the 
 title. To " preach the word," to " declare the 
 whole counsel of God," to instruct the people, we 
 are totd plainly enough, are not the peculiar at- 
 tributes of the bishop. By what rule of propriety 
 should he be characterised by symbols which are 
 foreign from his appropriate functions ? by sym- 
 bols which describe exactly the functions of those 
 ministers whom, we are taught, they do 7wt re- 
 present.* 
 
 The advocates of the hierarchy must have sum- 
 moned up the most desperate resolution, when 
 they ventured upon the declaration which we have 
 
 * " Angel of the church," is a phrase borrowed from the syna- 
 gogue. " It answers to the Hebrew ^*)^^^ H'^tiJ^' ^^^ Legate, or 
 delegate of the church. A name which was given in the syna- 
 gogue to experienced and learned men, especially the Doctors (or 
 teachers,) who were usually delegated to pray for the public as- 
 sembly, whether in ordinary or extraordinary cases. So that by 
 Angels of the churches must be here understood those rulers of the 
 Christian church, whose office it was to offer up public prayers in 
 *he church, to manage sacred concerns, and discourse to the people." 
 
 itringce anacrisis apocalypseos, p. 25. To the same purpose speaks 
 >^ profoundly learned Lightfoot. Works, Vol. I. p. 341. Fol. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 149 
 
 exposed. To do them justice, they seem not to 
 have been forsaken of those " compunctious visit- 
 ings," which occasionally trouble such as suspect 
 the righteousness of their cause. We infer this 
 from their growing dogmatical and rather unruly 
 in their asseverations, nearly in proportion as they 
 find themselves beset with difficulty. Not unlike 
 men who are accustomed to tell " a tough story," 
 and when they perceive the credulity of their au- 
 dience to be too hard pressed, back their veracity 
 with a file of oaths. Any plain reader will observe, 
 on a slight inspection of these epistles, that they 
 address the angel of a particular church in the 
 singular or plural number indifferently. Thus to 
 the angel of the church in Smyrna^ the Redeemer 
 says, / know THY vjorks, and tribulation and poverty., 
 but THOU art rich — Fear none of those things which 
 THOU shalt SUFFER. Behold the devil shall cast 
 SOME q/* YOU into prison^ that YE may be tried ; and 
 YE shall have tribulation ten days : be TYiOl] faith- 
 ful unto the death ; and I will give THEE a crown of 
 life* 
 
 We ask any dispassionate man whether all this 
 is not addressed to the angel in Smyrna ? Thou., 
 says the text ; " Thou," the angel, " shalt suffer." 
 How ? What ? " Thus," saith the text, " the 
 devil shall cast into prison some of you'''' — you 
 who are signified by the angel. However, " be 
 thou faithful unto the death ;" i. e. although thou 
 
 ♦ Rev. ii. 8—10. 
 
150 Review. 
 
 shouldest die for being faithful; " and I will give 
 /Aee," whom ? certainly the persecuted, " I will 
 give thee a crown of life." This is so obvious, 
 that, in order to evade its force, the Episcopal 
 writers represent the epistles as addressed partly 
 to the bishop and partly to the people. 
 
 " When what is said relates to ihepeople, the style is altered ; 
 the plural number is then used." See Cyprian and Potter as 
 above. 
 
 This gloss is contrary, 
 
 1 . To the plain and natural construction of the 
 prophet's words; which, using sometimes the sin- 
 gular, and sometimes the plural, number, when 
 speaking of the m?^^/, leads us to a simple and easy 
 solution, by supposing that he employs that term in 
 a collective sense, of the whole ministry of the church. 
 
 2. To their own principles which the Episco- 
 pal writers have laid down as containing an " ab- 
 solute demonstration" of the prelatic dignity of 
 these angels, viz. " That the titles of angels and 
 stars are constanili/ applied in the book of Revela- 
 tion to sifigle men, and never to a society or number 
 of men." The epistle is written to the angel in 
 Smyrna. " Angel," say they, always signifies a 
 single person, and never a number of men ; and yet 
 they say, that of this very epistle to the angel, part 
 is addressed directly to the people^ who are " a so- 
 ciety or number of men." 
 
 3. To their own distinction between the em- 
 blems which point out the ministry and the church- 
 es respectively. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 151 
 
 ** The stars and angels," say they, " were not the whole 
 church or collective body of Christians. This is proved in- 
 contestably from these considerations. The whole churches 
 or collective body of Christians, are represented by " seven 
 candlesticks," which are distinguished from the " seven stars" 
 that are emblems of the angels, the bishops," &c. See above. 
 
 The distinction is just ; but it is completely 
 overthrown in their subsequent interpretations. 
 For, in the first place, they tell us very truly, that 
 the collective body of Christians is signified by the 
 symbol of a " candlestick :" and in the next, that 
 they are directly addressed in the letter sent to the 
 angel, who is, say they, a single person : i. e. they 
 are explicitly and formally addressed^ under an ap- 
 pellation which is never applied to them, 
 
 4. To the known use of those scriptural em- 
 blems, " star" and " angel." These titles in the 
 context are perfectly synonymous ; whatever is 
 meant by " star," is acknowledged to be meant by 
 " angel." Now both these symbols depict official 
 character; and consequently, when applied to the 
 Christian church, cannot mean the people as dis- 
 tinguished from their ministers. Therefore, un- 
 der the term " angel," the ministry and the people 
 cannot be distinctly addressed. 
 
 5. To the tenour of the exhortations and pro- 
 mise in the text. If the " angel" is the collective 
 body of the ministry upon whom the persecution 
 was to fall, then the exhortations. Fear none of those 
 things which thou shalt suffer — Be thou faithful unto 
 the death ; and the promise, / will give thee a crown 
 
152 R 
 
 evtew 
 
 oflife^ are in harmony with the pre-monition that 
 the Devil should cast some of them into prison. The 
 anticipation of evil is softened by the assurance 
 of support. But according to the Episcopal con- 
 struction, the sorrow goes one way and the con- 
 solation the other : the bishop is exhorted not to 
 fear : to be faithful unto the death. But it seems 
 that the people only are to bear the calamity. 
 The bishop has a glorious promise of a crown ot 
 life ; but not a word to cheer his oppressed flock. 
 Cold comfort this to the poor prisoners cooped 
 up by the devil in a dungeon ! One would think 
 that the " cup of salvation'^ might have been put 
 to the lips which vv^ere drmking deeply of the cup 
 of sorrow. But the matter is more dexterously 
 managed : the bishop suffers, and the people are 
 consoled, — by proxy. A mode of suffering, we 
 presume, to which the bishops of the present day, 
 and many others beside them, would submit with 
 great magnanimity. How they would relish the 
 consolation thus administered, is another affair. 
 
 Lastly., to the authority delegated by Christ to 
 Presbyters : We have formerly proved that every 
 ordinary power left in the church is, in the most 
 direct and unequivocal manner, devolved on Pres- 
 byters. And as one part of scripture cannot 
 be repugnant to another, it is impossible that any 
 term or expression here, in this book of the Re- 
 velation, can be rightly interpreted, which is said 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 153 
 
 to lodge the whole power of government and dis- 
 cipline in a bishop, to the exclusion of presbyters. 
 
 We do not feel conscious of any arrogance in 
 supposing, that after the reader, who is sohcitous 
 to know the truth, shall carefully have examined 
 and compared the reasonings now submitted to 
 him; and allowed them their due force on his 
 mind, he will coincide with us in opinion, that the 
 " angels" and " stars" in the context before us, do 
 NOT signify single persons^ but a number of men ; 
 that is, are emblems of a collective ministry^ and not 
 of diocesan bishops. 
 
 " Thus endeth the second lesson," which is con- 
 cerning Cyprian's " absolute demonstration" that 
 the angels of the seven churches of Asia were 
 Episcopal prelates. 
 
 We now come to the third and great fact of the 
 Hierarchy, the prelatical character of Timothy 
 and Titus. The inquiry consists of two parts ; 
 the first, concerning their ordination^ and the second, 
 \he\x powers. 
 
 Although the Episcopal writers argue less con- 
 fidently from the first of these topics than from 
 the second ; yet it is not unimportant to their 
 cause. For if they can prove that ordination to 
 the ministry in the days of the Apostles was Epis- 
 copal, in their sense of the term; that is, that an 
 officer whom they call the bishop, had the sole 
 power of ordination, presbyters being permitted 
 merely to express their consent — if they can prove 
 
 Vol. III. 20 
 
154 Review . 
 
 this, it vviJl be hard to escape from the conclusion, 
 that the whole government of the church was 
 prelatical. If they decline much reliance upon 
 it, as Dr. Hobart and the Layman say they do,^ 
 their shyness must be imputed to some other 
 cause than its insignificance ; for they are not in 
 the habit of dechning very humble aid ; and our 
 former remarks will show that, though well sup- 
 plied with assertions^ they have no evidence to 
 spare. 
 
 The following texts have been quoted under 
 the present head. 
 
 For Timothy. 
 
 JYeglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given 
 thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands 
 OF THE Presbytery. 1 Tim, iv. 14. 
 
 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir 
 up the gift of God ivhich is in thee, by the putting 
 
 ON OF MY HANDS. 2 Tim. l. 6. 
 
 For Titus. 
 
 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou 
 shouldest set in order the things that are wanting ; and 
 ordain elders in every city, as i had appointed thee. 
 Titus i. 5. 
 
 From these texts one thing is clear, viz. that 
 both Paul and the Presbytery imposed hands on 
 Timothy. But several questions have been started 
 
 * Collec. p. 59, note. Layman, No. V. p. 51. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 155 
 
 about the rest. Who constituted the Presbytery ? 
 Why were hands imposed on Timothy ? Was 
 this his consecration to the evangehcal ministry ? 
 If so, what share had the apostle in the transac- 
 tion, and what the presbytery ? The high church 
 construction is, that '• St. Paul ordained Timothy 
 with the concurrence of the Presbytery. By the 
 Presbytery may be understood a number of Apos- 
 tles who laid their hands on Timothy, since the 
 Apostles, though certainly superiour to Presbyters, 
 style themselves ^' Elders," or Presbyters. The 
 Greek expositors understood the passage in this 
 sense as well as the Greek church, both ancient 
 and modern — since in the ordinations of this 
 church, the Presbyters do not lay on their hands 
 with the Bishop. Nor was it the custom in the 
 Western church until the fourth century. But 
 allowing that by the Presbytery is meant a num- 
 ber of Presbyters, it is evident, from a compari- 
 son of the two texts, that the Presbyters imposed 
 hands, not to convey authority^ but merely to ex- 
 press approbation. " By the putting on of my 
 hands," " with the laying on of the hands of the 
 Presbytery." In the church of England, the Pres- 
 byters lay on their hands with the Bishops in or- 
 dination, to denote their consent.''''^ 
 
 As our business, at present, is not with ecclesi- 
 
 * Hobart's Festivals and Fasts, p. 25. The Greek expositors 
 to whom he refers in the margin, are Chnjsostom and Theophy- 
 lact. Thcophylact has copied Chrysostom, whose words are, 
 
 ov Ttcpi irpca(ivTep(i)v (p>]iJiv tVTuvda- aWa. rrcpi fKiaKoi:-)v, ov yap fr} Trpt(7f%Ttpui top 
 
156 Review. 
 
 astical history, but with the interpretation of 
 scripture, we pass over the alkision to the 
 Greek and Western churches. " The evidence" 
 that " the Presbyters imposed hands not to convey 
 authority., but merely to express approbation^^'' is ex- 
 torted from the two prepositions " 6z/" and " ivith.''^ 
 " By my hands," says Paul : therefore he alone 
 ordairied Timothy. " With the laying on of the 
 hands of the Presbytery," says he again : there- 
 fore, the Presbytery merely " expressed their ap- 
 probation.'''' 
 
 In support of this " evident" difference between 
 the agency of Paul and that of the Presbytery in 
 the ordination, the Layman has entertained us 
 with some rare criticism which we shall not be so 
 unjust as to withhold from our readers. 
 
 *' It is known to every Greek scholar, that dia signifies, 
 emphaticaHy, the cause of a thing ; while meta denotes 
 emphatically, nearness of situation, relation, connexion, 
 
 imffKOTTov ex^ipoTovovv. Chrys. ad loc. " He, the apostle, is not speak- 
 ing here of Presbyters, but of Bishops : for Presbyters did not 
 ordain a Bishop.^^ The eloquent Patriarch flounders sadly. He 
 takes for grauted, that Timothy was a bishop : to allow that a 
 bishop could be ordained by Presbyters, would demolish the whole 
 fabrick of the hierarchy. Paul had used an ugly word for their 
 spiritual mightinesses ; and so, to make short work with him, the 
 golden-mouthed preacher flatly contradicts him. It was a " pres- 
 bytery," said the apostle. It was a council of bishops, replies 
 Chrysostora. Yet, after all, neither he nor Theophylact, have 
 interpreted the term of Apostles. When a writer quotes authori- 
 ties without consulting them, he should be wary, and be extreme- 
 ly cautious in mentioning names. Dr. H. was probably in haste. 
 Had he stuck closer to Potter, he would have been less inaccurate. 
 
* Essays on Episcopacy, 157 
 
 agreement. It need not be observed that words are used 
 sometimes more loosely, and sometimes more strictly. A 
 term is often introduced in a sense different from its original 
 and primary meaning. The two words dia and meta are 
 opposed in the Epistles of Timothy. Well, then, the two 
 words being opposed, and the first, as every Greek scholar 
 knows, denoting, emphatically, the cause of a thing ; the lat- 
 ter conveying, particularly, the idea of relation, connexion, 
 agreement, it follows, obviously, that they are to be taken in 
 these their appropriate senses. Our author will not venture 
 to say that the Greek word meta is as appropriate an one as 
 dia to express the cause of a thing. He will not so far ha- 
 zard his reputation as a scholar. I assert, then, that dia sig- 
 nifies, particularly, the cause of a thing, and that meta is the 
 preposition of concurrence. Nor is this invalidated by the 
 circumstance of meta being sometimes used as dia with the 
 genitive case. The emphatical distinction between the two 
 words lies in the first denoting a cause, the other concurrence. 
 Wliy does St. Paul carefully use the word dia in the one 
 case, and meta in the other 1 Why does he not use meta in 
 both cases 1 It is to be recollected too, that the passages 
 are, in his Epistles to Timothy, relating to the same subject ; 
 and of course, the terms must be regarded as contrasted with 
 one another. Surely the words dia and meta, as opposed, 
 signify, the first, the cause of a thing ; the last, nearness, 
 concurrence, agreement. This is familiar to every Greek 
 scholar, and 1 assert it on the authority of the best lexicons 
 of the language. The circumstance, then, of the Apostle 
 using a word in relation to himself, which denotes the instru- 
 mental cause, and with respect to the Presbytery, a word 
 which, particularly as distinguished from dia, expresses agree- 
 ment, shows, clearly, that the authoritative power was vested 
 in him, and that the act, on the part of the Presbytery, was 
 an act of mere concurrence."* 
 
 ♦ Layman, No. V. Coll. p. 53, 54. 
 
 ^-w. 
 
1 58 Review, 
 
 That Presbytery may be left without a shadow 
 of support, these two unhappy prepositions, (dia 8r 
 /i£Ta,) (fita and meta) by and ivith^ are doomed to 
 the same rack on which Cyprian had formerly 
 tortured a noun, and the Layman himself both a 
 noun and a verb, into witnesses for the hierarchy.* 
 It being presumed that the imposition of hands 
 relates to Timothy's ordination, the " presbytery," 
 whose act it was, whether composed of mere Pres- 
 byters, or of Prelates, or of Apostles, had nothing 
 to do in the affair, but barely to express their con- 
 sent ; and if this appear dubious, it shall be sub- 
 stantiated by the deposition of dia and meta. 
 
 *' It is kno\Yn," says the Layman, " to every Greek scho- 
 lar, that c?i«" [hy) " signifies, emphatically, the cause of a 
 thing ; while meta^'' (ivith) " denotes, emphatically, nearness 
 of situation, relation, connexion, agreement."f 
 
 We do not wish to be uncharitable, but, if we 
 must judge from the instances of words, which, in 
 this collection have been unfortunate enough to 
 undergo his critical process, it is very hard for the 
 Layman to tell what a Greek scholar knows. Scho- 
 lars, like other classes of men, have their appropri- 
 ate habits of speaking and acting : And when one 
 who has had only a dining-room acquaintance with 
 them, affects to be of their number, his awkward 
 imitation betrays him in the same manner as the 
 dialect of a foreigner distinguishes him from a na- 
 tive, as a prime minister would loose the reputa- 
 
 * See p. 54.-62. f Hoharts Apology, p. 154. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 159 
 
 tion of a statesman by relying on annual registers, 
 on reviews, or the gazettes, for his great political 
 facts. No scholar would have made the Layman's 
 indefinite appeal to " the best lexicons in the lan- 
 guage," for settling the meaning of a disputed 
 word. He would have produced examples from 
 the only legitimate authorities, the original writers. 
 How the Layman would fare in such hands, we 
 shall not conjecture : but we are sure that a very 
 little acquaintance with Greek is sufficient to 
 pluck away the feathers with which poor dia and 
 meta have been made to adorn his plume. 
 
 " Dia signifies, emphatically, the cause of a thing." 
 
 For example : 
 
 It is easier for a camel to go through (dia) the eye 
 of a needle^ than, &rc. Math. xix. 24. 
 
 Jesus went — through (dia) the cornfields. Mark 
 ii. 23. 
 
 And again he entered into Capernaum., after (dia) 
 some days. Mark ii. I. 
 
 Now what " cause" does the preposition dia ex- 
 press here. Does it " emphatically," as the Lay- 
 man speaks, " signify the cause'''' of the needle's 
 eye } of the cornfields ? or of the days ? or the 
 " cause'''' of the camel's going through the first ? of 
 our Lord's going through the second? or of his 
 spending the third before he went into Caper- 
 naum ? When the Layman shall have found his 
 emphatical signification o{ dia in these instances, 
 he may call upon us for a hundred more 
 
160 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 The fact is, that this preposition nevet- signifies 
 the cause of a thing : whatever the " Lexicons" 
 say. It expresses the idea of transition or trans- 
 mission^ and has no Enghsh word to correspond 
 with it so well as the preposition " through.'''' 
 Whether it is accompanied with the notion of a 
 cause or not, must be determined by the phrase 
 where it occurs. 
 
 But in spoiling the Layman's criticism, we ac- 
 knowledge that we have not overthrown his argu- 
 ment. For z/the imposition of Paul's hands was 
 the medium through which, to the exclusion of the 
 Presbytery, he alone conveyed the ministerial com- 
 mission to Timothy; and z/ this act of his formed 
 a precedent for all subsequent ordinations, the 
 Layman has won, and we own Timothy to have 
 been episcopally ordained : Whether a bishop or 
 not, would still remain a question. These e/>, 
 however, seem to be rather anti-episcopal. 
 
 From the words of Paul, we should conclude, 
 that whoever or whatever else might have been 
 concerned in this august transaction, a material 
 part of it belonged to the Presbytery. Neglect not 
 the gift that is in thee., which ivas given thee by pro- 
 phecy.) WITH THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS OF THE 
 
 Presbytery. A plain reader would certainly say, 
 that Timothy was Presbyterially ordained : as he 
 could not well imagine that a Presbyterian him- 
 self would have chosen to word the account dif-. 
 ferently. But this would be the errour of one who 
 
Essays 071 Episcopacy. 161 
 
 had never heard what marvels can be effected by 
 a httle critical legerdemain operating upon Greek 
 prepositions. O no ! This is the very text which 
 proves that his ordina.tion was not presbyterial ! 
 x\stonishing ! I see Timothy bowing before the 
 Presbytery. I see them imposing hands upon his 
 head : I am told by the Apostle Paul, that the gift 
 which was in him was given him with the laying 
 on of their hands : and yet they did not ordain 
 him! " No I" Had no share in his ordination! 
 '• No !" Gave him no gift at all ! " No !" Verily 
 this Layman is unceremonious in his behaviour to 
 words ; for he will either allow them no meaning 
 at all ; or else, as it may suit him, they shall mean 
 in the mouth of an apostle, the contrary to vvhat 
 they ever have meant or ever shall mean, in the 
 mouth of any other man ! J\^o ordination! JV^o 
 communication by the Presbytery ! Why, that old 
 Jesuit, who has foisted the Virgin Mary into every 
 chapter of the book of Proverbs,^ could not him- 
 self be more fantastical ! How, in the name of 
 common sense, is the Presbytery disposed of.'^ 
 Softly, zealous friend, softly. Thou shalt see. 
 Here comes the magician : his wand shall touch 
 the little four-lettered vocabule, " with," and lo, 
 the whole Presbytery will evanish, and leave only 
 a single ordaining hand ! 
 
 '* The circumstance of the apostie using a word in relation 
 to himself, which denotes the instrumental cause," viz. dia; 
 
 * Vid. F- Q. De Salazar, expositioin Proverbia. 
 Vol. III. 21 
 
1 62 Review. 
 
 • 
 "and with respect to the Presbytery, a word which, particularly 
 
 as distinguished from dia, expresses agreement," viz. meia ; 
 
 " shows, clearly, that the authoritative power was vested in 
 
 him ; and that the act, on the part of the Presbytery, was an 
 
 act of mere concurrence.'''' 
 
 So they wrap it up ! Let us try to unwrap it a 
 little, and see U'hether the bundle will bear exami- 
 nation. So far as we can perceive, there is no- 
 thing here but a play upon words ; and the argu- 
 ment consists in the jingle. The interpretation of 
 the word used by the apostle, is bent and twisted 
 in such a manner as to induce the unlettered 
 reader to suppose that it expresses the assent of 
 one person to the act of another. We do not ob- 
 ject to the Layman's translating meta by " con- 
 currence ;" for according to our great English 
 Lexicographer, " concurrence" signifies " union, 
 association, conjunction :" " Agreement ; act of 
 joining in any design or measure" — '• combination 
 of many agents or circumstances," &c. ; but 
 popular and colloquial usage often employs it 
 when nothing more is intended than an approbation 
 of an opinion or a measure. It is in this sense 
 that the Layman uses it; and it is here that his 
 criticism puts a fraud upon his reader. We do not 
 say that the fraud is intentional ; before we can 
 prove this, we must prove that he understands 
 Greek ; which we humbly beg leave to decline. 
 But we shall freely give him the " eight or ten 
 years" which his friend has craved,* in order to 
 
 • Hobart's ^;?oZog*y, p.241. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 163 
 
 support his construction of meta by the proper 
 authorities ; and he shall have •• the best lexicons 
 of the language" into the bargain. 
 
 But as we do not ask for credence to our bare 
 assertion, we shall subject the Layman's distinc- 
 tion between dia and meta to the test of fact. 
 
 *' It is to be recollected," says he, " that the passages are in 
 his" (Paul's) " epistles to Timothy, relating to the same sub- 
 ject ; and of course, the terms," (viz. dia and meta,) " must 
 be regarded as contrasted with one another." 
 
 Be it so. 1 open my New Testament and read, 
 that '• many signs and ivondsrs were done by (dia) the 
 apostksy^ Proceeding in the narrative, 1 read 
 afterwards that Paul and Barnabas rehearsed all 
 things that God had done with (meta) them.'f Now. 
 the Layman being judge, as ^' the passages relate 
 to the same subject," viz. the miraculous works 
 which God enabled his servants to perform, and 
 the success with which he crowned their ministry, 
 " the terms" dia and 7neta " must be regarded as 
 contrasted with one another. The circumstance, 
 then, of the historian using a word in relation to 
 the apostles in general, which denotes the instru- 
 mental cause ; and with respect to Paul and Bar- 
 nabas, a word which, particularly as distinguished 
 from dia^ expresses agreement, shows clearly, that 
 the authoritative power was vested in the former, 
 and that the act, on the part of the latter, was an 
 
 * Act ii. 43. 'jr'aXXa ts rs^ara xia C>]as(a AlA twv acroCToXwv 
 f h<fcc h6:og s-TToiricfc MET' auTwv Act. xv. 4. 
 
1 64 Review, 
 
 act of mere concurrence." In fewer words, when 
 Peter, James, &c. wrought miracles, they did it in 
 virtue of an authoritative power ; and when Paul 
 and Barnabas wrought miracles, they had no au- 
 thoritative or instrumental agency, but merely ex- 
 pressed their approbation of what God did ivithout 
 them ; although the historian has positively assert 
 ed that he did it ivith them. All this from the dif- 
 ference between dia and meta ! 
 
 Should the Layman by any means escape from 
 this difficulty, it will be to fall into another still 
 greater. Before he ventured upon the criticism 
 now under review, he ought to have read, in the 
 original, the verse which he has undertaken to 
 criticise. There he would have found his dia and 
 meta in the same proposition, and separated only 
 by a single word. The gift^ says Paul to Timothy, 
 which was given thee by (dia) prophecT/, with (meta) 
 the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.^ That 
 the terms relate to the same subject, is indisputa- 
 ble ; and of course, says the Layman, they are 
 " contrasted with one another. The circumstance, 
 then," proceeds he, " of the apostle using a word 
 in relation to prophecy, which denotes the instru- 
 mental cause ; and, with respect to the Presby- 
 tery, a word which, particularly as distinguished 
 from dia^ expresses agreement, shows, clearly, 
 that the authoritative power was vested in the 
 
 *JTira.iv. 14. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 165 
 
 prophecy ; and that the act, on the part of the 
 Presbytery, was an act of mere concurrence." 
 
 The result of the Layman's criticism is, that 
 Timothy had two ordinations, by tivo authoritative 
 powers, viz. the prophecy, and the apostle Paul ; 
 and two concurrences of the Presbytery, viz. one 
 with prophecy, and one with the apostle. We 
 cannot deny that he was well ordained ! 
 
 From words let us go to things, and see what 
 the Episcopal argument will gain by the exchange. 
 The imposition of hands on the part of the Pres- 
 bytery, was an act, it is said, of " mere concur- 
 rence ;" designed to express approbation, and not 
 at all to convey the ministerial office.* 
 
 This assertion is not only without proof, but is 
 directly in the face of all the proof which the na- 
 ture of the case admits. 
 
 1. By what rule of reasoning is the very same act^ 
 viz. imposition of hands, performed at the same 
 time,, in relation to the same subject,, considered as 
 expressing the communication of authority by one 
 of the persons engaged, and only as expressing 
 approbation by all the rest ? When certain distinc- 
 tions have taken place, it is easy to invent other 
 distinctions to justify them. But is it credible.^ 
 does it belong to the nature of significant rites, 
 that a rite signifying the conferring of power should 
 be employed by a number of persons in a concur- 
 
 * HoBART and the Layman, as above. 
 
166 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 rent act, and yet, with regard to all but one of them, 
 not signify the conferring power at all ? 
 ^ 2. The advocates of prelacy are challenged to 
 produce from the scriptures, or other authentic 
 records of the apostolic and preceding ages, proof 
 that imposition of hands was used to signify mere 
 assent or approbation. To say that it might so 
 signify, is nothing to the purpose. The point to 
 be determined is, not what it might, but what it 
 did, signify. If, in every other case, imposition of 
 hands expressed authoritative communication, it 
 must have done so in the ordination of Timothy ; 
 and to maintain that it did not, is to beg the ques- 
 tion. The Episcopal construction violates the 
 plainest meaning both of words and of actions. 
 The Presbyterian construction is in perfect coin- 
 cidence with both. Paul says that the gift in 
 Timothy was given to him by prophecy, with the 
 laying on of the hatids of the Presbytery. It is agreed 
 that prophecy, or prophecies which went before 
 on Timothy, designated him as a fit person for the 
 ministry : but did not invest him with office — did 
 not give him the gift. Had there been nothing 
 else but the prophecy, he would have had no com- 
 mission. It was necessary that the imposition of 
 the hands of the Presbytery should concur with the 
 prophetical designation, or Timothy had remained 
 a layman. The Presbytery did thus concur; they 
 did lay their hands on Timothy, and he received 
 his office. Now as the prophecy made no part of 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 167 
 
 his ordination -, it follows, that he was ordained by 
 the Presbytery. If the gift which was in him by 
 the imposition of Paul's hands, was his ministerial 
 commission, that apostle had no share in it which 
 was not common to every member of the Presby- 
 tery ; or else his declaration, that Timothy was 
 ordained by prophecy with the laying on of the 
 hands of the Presbytery, would not be true. Nor 
 is there any thing in his e,xpression which might 
 not be used by every one of his colleagues, and 
 with peculiar propriety by himself, if, as it is not 
 improbable, he presided at Timothy's ordination. 
 To exhibit this subject in another light, we pro- 
 pose a few questions which some of the advocates 
 for prelacy would do no disservice to their cause 
 by answering in such a manner as to remove the 
 scruples they must naturally occasion. 
 
 1. Did Paul alone ordain Timothy? or was his 
 ordination the joint act of the Presbytery.^ If the 
 latter, we have a complete scriptural example of 
 Presbyterial ordination. If the former, so that the 
 Presbytery, by the imposition of their hands, mere- 
 ly testified their assent^ then, 
 
 2. Were the persons who thus imposed hands on 
 Timothy simple Presbyters, or were they apostles 
 or prelates } If the latter, then, 
 
 3. How came Paul to appropriate to himself a 
 power which belonged to every one of them in as 
 full right as it could possibly belong to him } How 
 came they to surrender this their power into the 
 
168 Review. 
 
 hands of an individual? And how could the impo- 
 sition of Paul's hands bestow the ministerial gift, 
 while others, possessing the same authority^ did, by 
 the very same ac/, at the very same time^ merely 
 declare their assent? 
 
 If the former, i. e. if those who concurred with 
 Paul in the imposition of hands were simple Pres- 
 byters, then, 
 
 4. What ordination .did Timothy receive ? Was 
 he ordained a Presbyter or a Prelate ? If the for- 
 mer, his Episcopal character, in so far as it de- 
 pends upon his ordination, is swept away ; and 
 we have not a single instance of the consecration 
 of a prelate in ah the New Testament. If the lat- 
 ter, then, 
 
 , 5. How came simple Presbyters to impose hands 
 upon the head of a Bishop at his consecration ? 
 Or supposing these Presbyters to have been Pre- 
 lates, where was Timothy's commission ? By the 
 terms of the argument, he was ordained by Paul 
 alone ; but according to the Episcopal order, 
 which we are assured is the apostolical order, two 
 or three bishops are necessary to ordain a bishop.* 
 
 * ETTto-AroTTOs vrro eniffKOirMv ^eipoTovsicOo} AYO rj TPIiiN. Can- AVOS. 
 
 I. Apud PP. App. Tom. I. p. 442. Ed. Clerici. Ou this canon, 
 Bishop Beveridge thus comments. " This right, therefore, used 
 by the apostles themselves, and prescribed, by apostolical men, 
 our church," meaning the church of England, " most religiously 
 observes ; and, as far as possible, it ought, beyond all doubt, to 
 be observed every where. But when necessity, that most unre- 
 lenting mistress, shall require it, the rigour of the canon may be 
 so far relaxed, as that a bishop may be ordained by tivo.''^ Ibid p. 457. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 169 
 
 And so poor Timothy was not ordained a bishop 
 at all. If, in order to give him his mitre, we make 
 the Presbytery to consist of Apostles, or men of 
 apostolic rank, we not only prostrate the Lay- 
 man's famous criticism about dia and meta., but 
 are left without the vestige of an ordination by a 
 prelate alone, in so far as that point is to be made 
 out by the ordination of Timothy.* There re- 
 mains nothing but an example of ordination by 
 a Presbytery^ which is all that the Presbyterians 
 desire. 
 
 We cannot dismiss this point without remark- 
 ing how our prelatical friends shift their ground. 
 
 Two things are to be proved : that Timothy 
 was a Bishop ; and, that a Bishop alone ordains. 
 For Xhefirst^ according to our Episcopal brethren, 
 the Presbytery, who joined with Paul in laying 
 hands on Timothy, were bona fide prelates, who, 
 jointly with the apostle, imparted the Episcopal 
 dignity ; and so Timothy is a bishop without any 
 more ado. But for the second^ the Presbytery were 
 not prelates ; or if they were, they did not ordain 
 jointly with the apostle; they merely expressed 
 their approbation. 
 
 " The legs of the lame are not equal." If we 
 adopt the first, we lose the proof of ordination by 
 a Bishop alone. If the second, we lose the ordina- 
 tion of bishop Timothy. The latter makes dia 
 
 * Ordination performed by Titus shall hereafter be considered. 
 Vol.111. 22 
 
170 Review, 
 
 show " clearly, that the authoritative power was 
 vested in Paul," and meta, that " the act on the 
 part of the Presbytery, was an act of mere con- 
 currence." The former shows, with equal clear- 
 ness, that the authoritative power was not vested 
 in Paul alone ; that the act on the part of the 
 Presbytery, was not an act of mere concuiTence ; 
 and that there is nothing in dia and meta to esta- 
 bhsh the contrary. When a circle and a square 
 coincide, then shall these two arguments for pre- 
 lacy be consistent with each other. 
 
 So much for Timothy''s ordination. Now for 
 that of Titus. Him, too, the Layman has ordain- 
 ed Episcopally. 
 
 " To Titus the apostle says, For this cause left I thee in 
 Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are want- 
 ing, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee. 
 Here let it be observed, in passing alona:, that Titus is spoken 
 of as having been ordained by the apostle : As I had appoint- 
 ed thee. Nothing is said of the Presbytery in this case. Paul 
 appointed Titus to his office. And this is a conclusive cir- 
 cumstance for believing that the case was the same in relation 
 to Timothy, as it is not reasonable to suppose that they were 
 commissioned in different ways."* 
 
 We agree that the office of Timothy and Titus 
 was the same, and that they were commissioned 
 in the same manner. But the Layman has over- 
 shot his mark. For, as we have already stated, 
 the advocates for the divine right of Episcopacy 
 maintain that the ordination of a bishop by two or 
 
 * Layman, No. V. Collec. p. 56. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 171 
 
 three others, is an apostolical institution : and that 
 even in cases of the hardest necessity^ two bishops 
 are essential to the ordination of a third. One of 
 two consequences is inevitable; either that Paul 
 exercised, on this occasion, his extraordinary- 
 power, and so has set no precedent; or, if he set 
 a precedent for ordination by a single prelate, Ti- 
 tus was no more than a presbyter, and could not 
 by himself, ordain other presbyters. All this rests 
 upon the assumption that the expression, as I had 
 appointed thee., refers to the ordination of Titus. 
 Another blunder. There is not a syllable about 
 his ordination in the text. It pre-supposes his 
 authority, and relates solely to the directions which 
 the apostle had given him for the application of it. 
 The word rendered, " appointed^^'' frequently oc- 
 curs in the New Testament, but always, with the 
 construction before us, in the sense of prescribing, 
 enjoining, commanding : and never in the sense 
 of setting apart to an office — Thus, 
 
 He COMMANDED (d^cTa^aTo) « ccuturiou to keep 
 Paul. Acts xxiv. 23. Surely Felix did not then 
 give the centurion his military commission. 
 
 dS^s God hath distributed to every man ; as the Lord 
 hath called every one., so let him tvalk : and so ordain 
 I, {diaraoooimi) direct, enjoin I, in all churches. 
 1 Cor. vii. 17. 
 
 In the very same manner does Paul speak to 
 Titus. 
 
 As I had APPOINTED (duTa^ajjiriv) instructed, en- 
 joined, thee. 
 
172 Review. 
 
 The word which expresses investiture with of- 
 fice is quite different, as this very verse shows; 
 and the author of Miscellanies^ had remarked: 
 but this circumstance, Dr. Hobart, though not 
 sparing of his notes, passes over in profound 
 silence. 
 
 We come, at length, to the decisive argument 
 for diocesan Episcopacy — the powers exercised by 
 Timothy and Titus. This is to silence the last 
 battery of the Presbyterians, and reduce them to 
 the humiliating necessity of surrendering at discre- 
 tion ! Really one would imagine, that the powers 
 of Timothy and Titus are a new discovery : and 
 that the epistles written to them by Paul, had been 
 in the custody of the prelates alone as containing 
 the precious charter of their rights. But the world 
 may believe us, upon our word of verity, that we 
 have actually read those epistles long ago; and 
 that the demonstration, said to be therein con- 
 tained, of the apostolical institution of the " sacred 
 regiment of Bishops," has been questioned, yea 
 and, in our judgment, confuted some hand- 
 ful of years before our grandfathers were born. 
 However, Ecce iterum Crispimis ! Here it is again. 
 We shall give unto thee, reader, as Cyprian and 
 the Layman have given it unto us. But we en- 
 treat thy patience to some preliminary matter. 
 
 We think that when the Episcopal writers ap- 
 
 * Clemens, No. 1. Colkc p. 77. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 173 
 
 peal, with so much confidence, to the powers ex- 
 ercised by Timothy, they ought also to have 
 agreed as to ih&'ojffice and rank of that eminent 
 man. Yet it is a disputed point among them, at 
 this hour, whether he was simply Bishop of Ephe- 
 sus, having jurisdiction over his presbyters; or 
 an archbishop, having bishops under him ; or the 
 lord primate of Asia, above them all. If you ask 
 the advocates of these several opinions, what was 
 precisely his authority } some cry one thing, and 
 some another: for the assembly is confused; and 
 their voices unite only in this. Great is Timothy 
 of the Ephesians ! We cannot refrain from trans- 
 cribing a few remarks of the powerful and elo- 
 quent Jean Daille. 
 
 " Here," we translate his own words, " Here 
 the hierarchs, having their imagination full of their 
 grand prelatures, of their bishoprics, their arch- 
 bishoprics, and their primacies, do not fail to 
 dream of one in these words of the Apostle. That 
 he besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus, signi- 
 fies, if you believe them, that he made Timothy 
 bishop of the church of Ephesus ; and not only 
 that, but even Metropolitan, or archbishop of the 
 province ; and even primate of all Asia. You see 
 how ingenious is the passion for the crosier and 
 the mitre ; being able, in so few and simple words, 
 to detect such great mysteries ! For where is the 
 man, who, in the use of his natural understand- 
 ing without being heated by a previous attach- 
 
174 Review, 
 
 ment, could ever have found so many mitres — that 
 of a Bishop, that of an Arch-bishop, and that of 
 a Primate, in these two words, T^cnd besovght Ti- 
 mothy to abide still at Ephesus ? Who, without the 
 help of some extraordinary passion, could ever 
 have made so charming and so rare a discovery ?^ 
 and imagine that to beseech a man to stay in a 
 city, means, to establish him bishop of that city, 
 Archbishop of the province, and primate of all 
 the country ? In very deed, the cause of these 
 gentlemen of the hierarchy must be reduced to 
 an evil plight,t since they are constrained to re- 
 sort to such pitiful proofs. "J 
 
 Our readers will hardly blame Daille for applying 
 the epithet " pitiful," to the argument of the hier- 
 archy for Timothy's Episcopate, when they see 
 that her ablest and most resolute champions are at 
 irreconcileable variance with each other on this 
 very point : some maintaining it as perfectly con- 
 
 * Deviner une chose si belle & si rare ? — 
 f A de mauvais termes. 
 
 X Daillf/ Exposition de la premiere epitre de VApotre Saint 
 Paul d TimothSe ; en 48 sermons prononcSs d Charenton. Ser7n. 
 I. p. 22, 23. a Geneve 1661. 12mo. 
 
 This is that identical Monsieur Daille' whom Mr. Bingham 
 and, from him, Dr. Hobart have represented as friendly to Epis- 
 copacy.* This is that Jean Daille' ! The prelatical commenta- 
 tors have played tricks with the French preacher ; which, if we 
 feel in a humour for it, we may one of these days expose- 
 
 * Hobart's Apology, p. 94, compared with p. 99. Bingham's Christian 
 Antiquities. Vol. U. p. 799. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 175 
 
 elusive ; others rejecting it as weak and frivolous. 
 The mere fact of this variance is a strong pre- 
 sumption against the former, and in favour of the 
 latter. For although ^ vigorous, cultivated, and 
 candid minds may be so far warped by their 
 wishes as to lay more stress upon an argument 
 for them than it deserves ; yet it is hardly to be 
 supposed that such minds will attribute to an 
 argument which, if sound, secures them the victo- 
 ry, much less importance than it possesses. If, 
 then, there are to be found among the advocates 
 of Episcopacy, men second to none of them in 
 learning, force, and sagacity, who fairly give up 
 the plea from Timothy and Titus, the conclusion 
 is, that their concession is extorted against their 
 prejudices and interest. 
 
 As a specimen of the collision which takes 
 place, on this subject, between the most zealous 
 supporters of prelacy, we transcribe a part of the 
 seventh section of the Appendix to Ayton's Origi- 
 nal Constitution of the Christian Church. It has not 
 been in our power to compare all his quotations 
 with the authors, but we have examined a number 
 and they are correct. 
 
 " The chief plea and argument of the Episcopalians is taken 
 from Timothy and Titus. But however much this is boasted 
 of by some, as a conclusive proof for a diocesan form of church 
 government, and superior power of Bishops to that of Presby- 
 ters ; yet there is nothing adduced by them that is more vio- 
 lently opposed by others of them, and in which they are more 
 egregiously divided. For some of them pretend, that the 
 
176 Review. 
 
 Apostle, in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, uses the terms 
 Bishop and Presbyter promiscuously, only to express such 
 officers as are now called Presbyters. Of this opinion I take 
 Bishop Hoadley to be, Dr. Whitby, Mr. Dodwell, and many 
 others might be named. 
 
 " But how contradictory to this is the judgment of Bishop 
 Pearson, Vindicia. Lib. 2. Cap. 13. Bishop Taylor, Episc. 
 assert. P. 85. Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Right of 
 Princes, Prefac. p. 15. and p. 4, 5. of the Book : and Dr. 
 Hammond, in a variety of places. I say, how contradictory 
 are these sentiments of those prelates to this above named ? 
 seeing they hold, tl^at all those whom they were to ordain were 
 proper bishops, nay. Dr. Hammond's opinion is, that Timo- 
 thy and Titus were Archbishops, and had their suiFragans 
 under them ; and with him bishop Bull seems to agree, when 
 he calls Timothy Archbishop, Serm. on 2 Tim. iv. 13. And 
 to these I could add others of the same mind. But, then as 
 Dr. Hammond reckoned, that the Apostles ordained no mere 
 Presbyters at the first, but only Bishops, Annot. on Acts xi. 6, 
 14. so Dodwell, Parccnes, p. 54. p. 13. and p. 102. p. 33. 
 must certainly contradict him in this, when he maintains, that 
 the Apostles at the first ordained no Bishops, but simple Pres- 
 byters only ; and that there is no mention of Episcopal 
 government in the New Testament, and that it was not esta- 
 blished till Anno 106. But then, according to both thes« Doc- 
 tors, there is one ofiice in the church without scripture war- 
 rant — Presbyters, according to Dr. Hammond ; and Bishops, 
 according to Mr. Dodwell. But how will they answer to what 
 is advanced by Bishop Burnet, which equally contradicts them 
 both, Vindic. of the Church of Scotland, p. 355. That with- 
 out Scripture warrants no neic office may be instituted 1 Besides 
 Dr. Hammond's conceit against Presbyters not being institu- 
 ted in the New Testament, is opposed with all freedom by 
 Mr. Maurice, Defens. p. 27. and by Bishop Hoadley, Brief 
 Defence, p. 113. Is it possible to behold such wrangling. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. Ill 
 
 without being affected with a mixture both of indignation and 
 compassion'? Is it not matter of indignation, that men of 
 judgment and learning should have such a fondness to main- 
 tain a cause that is so precarious, as to drive them into so 
 many schemes to defend it, and every one of them contradic- 
 tory to one another 1 And can it miss to beget compassion in 
 the breast of every suicere Christian, that men of abilities 
 should bestow so much time to perplex themselves and others, 
 when their labours, rightly employed, might prove much more 
 beneficial to tlie Protestant world 1 
 
 " But that we may give the world a view, how inconclusive 
 all these schemes and models are, whicli are taken from Ti- 
 mothy and Titus, I shall give some account of tlie minds of the 
 Episcopalians at some lengtli, who, when adduced, will leave 
 no room for the Presbyterians to be in any perplexity in the 
 defence of their estabhshment. The first I sliall bring on the 
 stage is tlie famous Willet, Synops. Papism, p. 23G. ' It is 
 most like Timothy had the place and calling of an evangelist : 
 and the calling of evangelists and bishops, whicli were pastors, 
 was divers.' To him let us join the learned Stillingfleet, wlio 
 says, Ircnic. p. 340. ' Such were the evangelists, who were 
 sent sometimes into this country to put the church in order 
 there, sometimes into another; but wherever they were, tliey 
 acted as evangelists, and not as fixed officers. And such were 
 Timothy and Titus, notwitiistanding all the oj)position made 
 against it, as will appear to any who will take an iinpjirtial 
 survey of the arguments on both sides,' &-c. Nay, the Jesuit 
 Salmeron, is ashamed of this argument, for he says, Dlsjmt. 1. 
 on 1 Tim. ' It is doubtful if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus : 
 for though he preached and ordained some to the ministry 
 there, it follows not that he was the Bishop of that place ; for 
 Paul preached also there above two years, and absolved the 
 penitents, and yet was not Bisliop. Add that now and then 
 the apostle called him away unto himself, and sent him from 
 Rome to the Hebrews with his epistle ; and in the second 
 Vol. III. 23 
 
178 Review. 
 
 epistle, he commands him to come to him shortly. Timothy 
 was also an evangelist of that order, Epli. 4. — So that Doro- 
 theus says in his Synopsis^ That Timotliy preached through all 
 Greece ; but he stayed at Ephesus not to be Bishop, but that, 
 in the constitute church of Ephesus, he might oppose the false 
 Apostles. — It appears therefore that he was more than a Bi- 
 shop, although for a time he preached in that city as a pastor, 
 and ordained some to the ministry. Hence it is, some calls 
 him Bishop in Ephesus.' 
 
 " Having elsewhere given the judgment of the learned Dr. 
 Whitby at some length, all that 1 shall transcribe from him at 
 this time, is a iew lines of what he says in his preface to the 
 Epistle to Titus : ' First, I assert, that if by saying Timothy and 
 Titus were Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete, we 
 understand they look upon these churches or dioceses as their 
 fixed and peculiar charge, in which they were to preside for 
 term of life, I believe, that Timothy and Titus were not thus 
 Bishops.' See Chap. 1 and 4. 
 
 " To fortify those who have given their assault, let me bring 
 in ]Mr. Le Clerc, in his Supplement to Dr. Hammond's Anno- 
 iaiums on the Epistle to Titus, p. 530. who says, ' The testi- 
 monies of the ancients about this matter, who judge rashly of 
 the times of the apostles by their own, and speak of them in 
 the language of their own age, are of little moment. And so 
 do no more prove that Titus was the Bishop of the island of 
 Crete, than what Dr. Hammond says, proves him to have been 
 distinguished with the title of Archbishop.' To the same pur- 
 pose the forecited Dr. Whitby says, ' The great controversy 
 concerning this and the epistle to Timothy is, whether Timo- 
 thy and Titus were indeed made Bishops ; the one in Ephesus, 
 and the Pro-consular Asia, the other of Crete, and having au- 
 thority to make, and jurisdiction over so many Bishops as 
 were in those precincts 1 Now, of this matter, I confess 1 can 
 find nothing in any Avriter of the first three centuries, 'and not 
 aoy intimation, that they bore that name.' 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 179 
 
 " The judgment of the learned Whittaker is supporting on 
 this occasion, as well as in the most of the former, who says, 
 Controv, 4. Q. 4. C. 2. p. 374. ' In the apostle's times there 
 were many things extraordinary. There was another form 
 of government in tlie church in the days of the apostles, and 
 another now, is acknowledged by Stapleton : For it was th(>ji 
 governed by the apostles, evangelists, and prophets, but now 
 only by pastors and doctors ; the rest are all removed.' From 
 this it may justly be inferred, that Timothy and Titus were 
 not ordinary officers, but they being both evangelists, are not 
 succeeded to by Bishops. And here I cannot but subjoin the 
 judgment of Chrysostom, whom our adversaries, I hope, will 
 not reject as an adversary. His words, as translated by Smec- 
 tymnuus, are these, Paul icould not commit the ivhole island 
 to one man, but ivould have every man appointed to his charge 
 and cure. For so he knew his labour would be the lighter, and 
 the people that icere under him would be governed ivith the 
 greater diligence. For the teacher should not be troubled with 
 the government of many churches, but only intend one, and study 
 for to adorn that. The remark of Smectymnuus is just. There- 
 fore this was Titus his work, not to be Bishop of Crete him- 
 self, but to ordain Elders in every city, ichich was an office 
 above that of a Bishop. 
 
 " But this fortification is not able to stand ; for the remark- 
 able Mr. Dodwell, Pai'oenes. Sect. 10. p. 404. attacks it most 
 handsomely, when he says, ' But truly, that the office of [Ti- 
 mothy] was not fixed, but itinerary, many arguments do evince. 
 It was required of him to abide at Ephesus, is testified by the 
 Apostle, 1 Tim. i. 3. He was therefore, when thus demand- 
 ed, an itinerary. The work of an Evangelist, 2 Tiin. vi. 5. so 
 many journeyings with St. Paul, and his name being joined in 
 common with the Apostle, in the inscription of the epistles to the 
 Thessalonians, are all of them arguments for this. Moreover, 
 the apostle commands Titus only to ordain, in Crete, Presby- 
 ters in every city, Titus i. 5. He says, he was left there, that 
 
180 Review, 
 
 he might set in order things that were wanting. And he was 
 a companion of the apostle when he was left. And truly, 
 other places make it appear, that he was a companion of St. 
 Paul, and therefore was no more restricted to any particular 
 place than tlie apostle himself.' Thus, the famous Dodwell. 
 And from what has heen said from so many learned Episco- 
 palian Doctors, one may consider, how far Bishop Hall had 
 lost his senses, when he saith with such a masterly air, 
 Episcop. Divine Right, Sect. 4. P. 2. That if Episcopal 
 power of ordbiation, and power of ruling and censuring Pres- 
 byters, be not clear in the aposile^s charge to these two Bishops, 
 the one of Crete, and the other of Ej)hesus, I shall yield the 
 cause, and confess to want my senses.''^ 
 
 " But now, to dismiss this conceit of Timothy's heing 
 Bishop of Ephesus, &c. I shall give the judgment of the 
 learned Willet, Synojjs. Papis?n. Contr. 5. Q. 3. ' Neither 
 can it be granted by the words of the Apostle, Lay hands 
 suddenly on no man, &c. that Timothy had this sole power in 
 himself; for, the apostle would not give that to him, which 
 he did not take to himself, who associated to him the rest 
 
 of the Presbyters in ordaining of Timothy. It is 
 
 questioned, says he, if the apostle had then constituted Ti- 
 mothy bishop there [Ephesus :] For, he saith, J^hat thou 
 mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,^ &-C. 
 I conclude with the judgment of the accurate Dr. Barrow, 
 Pope''s Suprem. p. 82. whose words must certainly contra- 
 dict this notion concerning Timothy's Episcopate ; for he 
 says, ' Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge, affixed 
 to one standing place, and requiring a special attendance 
 there ; Bishops being Pastors, who, as St. Chrysostom says, 
 do sit, and are employed in one place. Now, he that hath 
 such a general charge, can hardly discharge such a particu- 
 lar office, and he is fixed to a particular attendance, can 
 hardly look after so general a charge.' Though this is 
 spoken with respect to the Apostles ; yet it will equally hold 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 181 
 
 with respect to Timothy and Titus. I think, by this time, 
 this strong bulwark has almost lost its beautiful shapes, and 
 formidable figures, and is not capable of doing much execu- 
 tion. The itinerary life of the apostles, according to Bar- 
 row, is inconsistent with that of a Bishop, and must be so 
 likewise with that of Timothy and Titus, seeing they were 
 not fixed residenters in any particular place, as is well ob- 
 served by Mr. Dodwell : and it must conclude against them 
 with equal force, if Dr. Brett's notion be true, that they were 
 both of the Apostolic order." 
 
 No equitable judge would censure us for leaving 
 these sons of the hierarchy to dash their heads 
 against each other, and declining to give ourselves 
 any further trouble. We are not obliged to inquire 
 into the claim which they set up for Timothy or 
 Titus, until they «hall themselves ascertain what 
 the claim is ; nor to answer their plea, until they 
 shall cease to quarrel about its correctness. But, 
 instead of taking so mortifying an advantage, we 
 shall meet the question as it is stated by Cyprian 
 and the Layman ; referring to our readers for an 
 opinion whether or not we are afraid to have the 
 cause tried either at Ephesus or in Crete; and 
 under any form which our Episcopal friends shall 
 prefer. 
 
 " lu Titus i. 5." says Cyprian, " it is said by the Apostle 
 Paul, * For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest 
 ordain Elders in every city." Let us contemplate the circum- 
 stances that attended tliis transaction, and see what inferences 
 we can draw from it. St. Paul had planted the gospel in the 
 island of Crete. He had made proselytes in every city who 
 stood in need of the ministrations of Presbyters. He 
 
1 82 Review, 
 
 speaks not to Titus as if he had left him in Crete to convert 
 the cities to the faith. He speaks as if this work was ah'eady 
 accomphshed, as if the way was paved for the estabHshment 
 of the Church. These being the circumstances of the case, 
 it appears to me that this transaction carries on its face a 
 proof of superiority on the part of Titus to the Presbyters or 
 elders. Will it be imagined by any reasonable man, that 
 St. Paul had converted so many cities on this island without 
 having ordained any elders amongst them ? What ! When 
 it was liis uniform and invariable practice to ordain Elders in 
 every country in which he made proselytes ] What ! Could 
 he have neglected to ordain those amongst them who were 
 absolutely necessary to transact the affairs of the Church 
 during his absence 1 Would he have left the work he had 
 begun only half performed ? 
 
 " These considerations are sufficient to convince every un- 
 prejudiced mind that there were Elders ©r Presbyters in the 
 Church of Crete at the time St. Paul left Titus on that island. 
 And if there were Presbyters, and those Presbyters had the 
 power of ordination, why was it necessary to leave Titus 
 amongst them in order to perform a task that might as well 
 have been accomphshed without him 1 If the Presbyters 
 possessed an authority equal to that of Titus, would not St. 
 Paul, by leaving him amongst them, have taken the surest 
 way to interrupt the peace of the Church, to engender jea- 
 lousy, and strifes, and contentions "? Again. Let us view 
 this transaction in another point of light. St. Paul had made 
 converts, as I have said, in every city of Crete. Titus had 
 attended him on his last visit to that island. If Presbyters 
 were at this time considered as competent to the task of or- 
 daining others, why did he not ordain one at any rate during 
 his stay amongst them, and commission him instead of de- 
 taining Titus, to ordain Elders in every city 1 The efforts 
 of Titus were as much wanted as his own, to carry the light 
 of the gospel to other nations who had not received it. Why 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 183 
 
 was it necessary that Titus should ordain Elders in every city ? 
 After the ordination of a feio^ would not Ids exertions have 
 become useless, if they were able to complete the work which 
 he had begun 1 
 
 *' In short, Titus seems to be entrusted with all the autho- 
 rity of a supreme ruler of the Church. He is directed to 
 ordain Presbyters — to rebuke with all authority — to admo- 
 nish hereticks, and in case of obstinacy, to reject them from 
 the communion of the Church. These circumstances infal- 
 libly designate the presence of a Bishop. Accordingly we 
 find that the united voice of ancient writers declares him to 
 have been the first Bishop of Crete. Eusebius informs us 
 ' that he received Episcopal authority over the Church of 
 Crete.' So also says Theodoret, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, 
 St. Ambrose. If these considerations united do not show 
 that Titus possessed in Ephesus powers superior to those 
 which were held by the Presbyters of those Churches, I know 
 not what considerations would."* 
 And again : 
 
 " The case of Timothy alone, had we no other evidence 
 from Scripture, would, when taken into connexion with the 
 testimony of ancient writers, be perfectly satisfactory to me. 
 This alone demonstrates all that we can desire. He was 
 placed by St. Paul to superintend the Church of Ephesus. 
 This case is even stronger than was that of Titus in Crete. 
 It cannot be denied that there had long been Presbyters in 
 the Church of Ephesus. Listen then to the language which 
 St. Paul speaks in his Epistles to him, and see if it is possi- 
 ble that he possessed no superiority over the Presbyters of 
 that Church. ' 1 besought thee,' says he to Timothy, * to 
 abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that 
 thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doc- 
 trine.' Would Timothy have been commissioned to charge 
 
 * Ctprian, No. II. Collec. p. 64, 65. 
 
184 Review. 
 
 the Presbyters to teach no other doctrine had he possessed 
 
 no superiority over them ? Would they not have had a right 
 to resist any attempts at a control of this kind as an en- 
 croachment on their privileges ? Again, Timothy is direct- 
 ed to try and examine the Deacons, whether they be blame- 
 less or not. If they prove themselves worthy, he is to admit 
 them into the office of a Deacon ; and upon a faithful dis- 
 charge of that office, they are to be elevated to a higher sta- 
 tion. ' Likewise,' says he, ' must the Deacons be grave, not 
 double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy 
 lucre, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience.' 
 ' Let these also be first proved, and then let them use the 
 office of a Deacon, being found blameless.' Here we find 
 no mention made of the Presbyters of Ephesus, in the ordi- 
 nation of Deacons. They are not associated with him at all 
 in the work. Does not this indicate, does it not demonstrate 
 a superiority of power on the part of Timothy ? Timothy is 
 also exhorted to 'lay hands suddenly on no man.' There is 
 no such thing as a recognition even of the co-operation of 
 Presbyters with him. He seems to be the supreme and the 
 only agent in the transaction of these affairs. 
 
 "Now, I appeal to the common sense of mankind, had 
 the Presbyters of Ephesus possessed an authority equal to 
 that of Timothy ; had they, like him, possessed the power of 
 ordination, would not St. Paul have recognized their agency 
 in connexion with his ? Would it not have been to treat 
 them with improper neglect not to mention them ? But what 
 consummates our evidence on this point, and places the sub- 
 ject beyond all doubt, is the charge which St. Paul gives to 
 Timothy in relation to the penal discipline he was to exercise 
 over his Presbyters. Timothy is required to ' receive an ac- 
 cusation against an elder or Presbyter, only before two or 
 three witnesses.' ' Them, (that is, those amongst the Pres- 
 byters,) that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear.' 
 Can any one imagine that Timothy would have been com- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 185 
 
 missioned to listen to accusations made against Presbyters^ 
 openly to rebuke them^ had not his authority transcended 
 theirs ? Does not this single circumstance unquestionably 
 establish the point of his superiority ? ' The man,' says a learn- 
 ed and ingenious writer of our country, ' who shall not find 
 a Bishop in Ephesus, will be puzzled to find one in England.'** 
 " I cannot conceive of a case that could be more clear and 
 unequivocal, that could speak more loudly to the common 
 sense of mankind, than the case of Timothy in Ephesus. 
 He is obviously intrusted with apostolic authority. Every 
 thing which the Apostle could do in his own person, he com- 
 missions Timothy to perform during his absence. He is to 
 adjust the affairs of the church ; he is to prove and examine 
 Deacons ; he alone is to ordain them ; he alone is recognized 
 in the performance of the task of ordaining Elders or Pres- 
 byters ; he possesses perfect control over these Presbyters. 
 If they are guilty of any offences or misdemeanours, he is 
 to inflict punishment upon them. I cannot conceive of a case 
 more satisfactory in proof of the apostolic original of the 
 Episcopal form of Church government. Had Timothy been 
 of the same order witli the Presbyters of Ephesus, can it be 
 imagined that the Apostle would, by elevating him to such 
 high privileges amongst them, have endangered the peace of 
 the Church, have taken a step so well calculated to excite dis- 
 content and dissatisfaction amongst the remaining Presbyters 
 or Elders ] This cannot" be imagined. Timothy was then 
 undeniably intrusted with Episcopal authority in the Church 
 of Ephesus ; he was the Bishop of that place. This is prov- 
 ed by the concurring voice of ancient writers. Eusebius tells 
 us ' that he was the first Bishop of the province or diocese of 
 Ephesus.' The anonymous author of his life in Phocius 
 says, * that he was the first that acted as Bishop in Ephe- 
 sus, and that he was ordained Bishop of the metropolis of 
 Ephesus by the great St. Paul.' In the council of Chalce- 
 
 * Dr. Bowden, in his answer to Dr. Stiles. 
 Vol. III. 24 
 
1 86 Review. 
 
 don twenty-seven bishops are said to have succeeded in that 
 chair from Timothy. To prove the same point gjoes the tes- 
 mony of St. Clirysjostom and Theodoret ; and in the aposto- 
 lical constitutions we are expressly told, that he was ordained 
 Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul."* 
 
 The Layman speaks to the same purpose. ' 
 " In whom was the power of ordination vested in the 
 Churches of Ephesus and Crete ? Clearly in Timothy and 
 Titus alone. Them alone the apostle addresses, and them 
 alone he speaks of as ordaining Elders, or as committing- the 
 things they had received from him to faithful men, capable 
 of teacliing others. Is this not utterly inconsistent with the 
 Presbyterian system ? What individual among them could 
 with propriety be addressed as the apostle addresses Timo- 
 thy and Titus ? Not one. The power among them is in a 
 numerous body of equals^ lest there should be ' lords over 
 GocVs heritage.'' The power, in Ephesus and Crete, was in 
 Timothy and Titus, to whom the Presbyters were subject, 
 liable to be tried and punished for misconduct. It is on this 
 plain statement of ftxcts, relative to Ephesus and Crete, as 
 well as to other churches, taken in connexion with the uni- 
 form and uninterrupted testimony of the church universal for 
 fifteen hundred years, that Episcopalians rest their cause. 
 They have never endeavoured to derive arguments from the 
 names made use of. This has been the practice, exclusively, 
 of the advocates of parity. Driven from the ground of fact,, 
 not able to deny that Timothy and Titus were supreme 
 Governors in the churches of Ephesus and Crete, possess- 
 ing alone the power of ordination, they say that Timothy 
 is called a Presbyter, and was therefore upon a level with 
 those very elders whom he ruled, whom he could control as 
 to the doctrines they preached, whom he had power to tiy 
 and to punish !"t 
 
 * Cyprian, No. III. ColUc. p. 74, 75. 
 + Layman, No, V. Collec, p. 56, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 187 
 
 " It is very easy," says he, " to see why the advocates of 
 parity would exckide from view the situation of Timothy in 
 the church of Ephesus, since it carries absohste death to 
 their cause. Is it an immaterial circumstance tiiat Timothy 
 ruled the whole church of Ephesus, both cler2;y and laity, 
 the Elders or Presbyters being subject to his spiritual juris- 
 diction \ Is it an immaterial circumstance that Timothy alone 
 exercised the power of ordaining Ministers, and thus of con- 
 veying- the sacerdotal authority ? Yf hat then becomes of the 
 doctrine of parity ? Destroyed, utterly destroyed. The Church 
 of Ephesus, planted by St. Paul, and placed, by that Apos- 
 tle, under the government of Timothy, was constructed upon 
 a totally different principle. It had, in Timothy, a Bishop, 
 possessing jurisdiction over the other clergy, and exercising 
 all the powers which are claimed for the Bishops of the 
 church now. Is it of no consequence that the ancients, who 
 speak on the subject, unanimously represent Timothy as the 
 first Bishop of Ephesus 1 What says Eusebius 1 ' He v/as 
 the first Bishop of the province or diocese of Ephesus.' Eccl. 
 Hist. Bib. iii. chap. 4. What savs Chrvsostom ? ' It is ma- 
 nifest Timothy was intrusted with a whole nation, viz. Asia.' 
 Horn, lotii in 1 Tim. v. 19. Theodoret calls him the Apos- 
 tle of the Asiatics. The Apostolical constitutions expressly 
 tell us that he was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul ; 
 and in the council of Chalcedon, twenty-seven Bishops are 
 said to have succeded him in the government of that Church. 
 
 " We are perfectly safe, then, so far as relates to Timothy, 
 in resting our cause upon the situation which he occupied at 
 Ephesus, and on the powers which he exercised there. 
 The constitution of the Church of Ephesus was undeniably 
 Episcopal. This part of the subject the advocates of parity 
 do not choose to meddle with, running off constantly to the 
 term Presbytery^ that poor word being the chief basis of their 
 cause."* 
 
 • Proscript to the Layman, No. VIII. Collec. p. 81. 
 
188 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 And thus the Episcopal arm has " carried death 
 to our cause !" And thus " the doctrine of pari- 
 ty" is " destroyed, utterly destroyed I" 
 
 Not so fast, good Mr. Layman. We have an 
 objection or two to such a settlement of our af- 
 fairs ; and shall take the liberty of stating them. 
 
 The reader will remember that we confine our- 
 selves, at present, to the Scriptural argument ; and 
 therefore shall not notice any quotations from the 
 Fathers. One thing at a time ; and every thing 
 in its place. 
 
 This is the argument w^hich the Layman tells 
 us " the advocates of parity do not choose to 
 meddle with." If it be so, the terrour is needless. 
 But the assertion is only a polemical flourish, such 
 as the Layman is accustomed to make for the 
 entertainment of his friends : the fact, as usual, 
 being quite the other way. For if he will be at 
 the trouble, for the first time, as we presume, in 
 his life, to inspect the writings of the advocates of 
 parity at any period from the reformation to this 
 day, he w^ill find that they have not only " med- 
 dled" with his argument, but so mauled and maim- 
 ed it, so battered and crushed it, that even skilful 
 diocesan doctors have given it up for dead, and 
 wondered at that delirious fondness which, in- 
 stead of decently interring it, insisted upon keep- 
 ing it above ground. Its ghost, however, seems 
 disquieted, and walks in company with the Lay- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 189 
 
 man and Cyprian, to frighten the Presbyterian 
 women and children — We must lay it. 
 
 Merriment apart — What do these long extracts, 
 with their glowing interrogations, prove ? Why, 
 that Timothy and Titus were superior to Presby- 
 ters ! Who denies it ? " What ! do you allow 
 that they had, severally, the power of ordaining 
 to the ministry, by their sole authority ?" Yes, 
 we do ! That they had authority to inquire into 
 the doctrines taught by Presbyters ?" Yes. " To 
 coerce the unruly t^'' Yes. '* To expel the hereti- 
 cal .'^" Yes — We never thought of disputing it — 
 " Then, certainly, they were diocesan Bishops !" 
 C^est une autre affaire^ Monsieur. That is another 
 point. W^e admit the premises here stated, but 
 deny the conclusion. Timothy and Titus could 
 do all these things without being diocesan Bi- 
 shops. An apostle could do them in virtue of his 
 apostolic office : an evangelist, as Timothy, and 
 consequently, Titus, undoubtedly was,"^ could do 
 them in virtue of his office as an evangelist ; and 
 yet be very unhke a diocesan bishop. And to in- 
 fer that Timothy and Titus were bishops in the 
 prelatical sense of the term, because they enjoy- 
 ed a pre-eminence and an authority which they 
 might enjoy without being such bishops at all, is to 
 abuse the understanding of the reader. Our op- 
 ponent ought to prove not only that they exer- 
 
 • 2 Tim. iv. 5. '* Do the work of an Evangelist." 
 
190 Review, 
 
 cised the powers enumerated, but that they did 
 so as ordinary officers in ivhom a j^recedent was set 
 for the future government of the church. He must 
 prove that their powers were not an appendage of 
 their special and extraordinary character.^ hke the 
 powers pecuhar to the apostohc character. This 
 he neither has done, nor is able to do : and thus 
 the boasted demonstration of Episcopacy from 
 the history of Timothy and Titus, is a mere beg- 
 ging of the question — taking for granted the very 
 thing in dispute. 
 
 Let us apply this all conquermg argument to 
 other cases which appear to be perfectly parallel. 
 
 Episcopal argument, 
 
 Titus ordained elders in every city — Therefore 
 Titus was Bishop of Crete. 
 
 Parallelism, 
 
 Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every 
 church, to wit, in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, 
 at least* — Therefore Paul and Barnabas were joint 
 Bishops of I.ystra, Iconium, and Antioch. 
 
 Episcopal argument, 
 
 Timothy instructed and charged the Ephesian 
 elders — Therefore he was Bishop of Ephesus ! 
 
 Parallolism, 
 
 Paul instructed and charged the Ephesian el- 
 derst — Therefore Paul was Bishop of Ephesus. 
 
 •Act. xiv. 20, 21. 23. f Act. xx. 17, Slc. 
 
Kssays on Episcopacy. 191 
 
 Episcopal argument, 
 
 Timothy had power to inflict censure on Pres- 
 byters, and even to excommunite heretics — T/isre- 
 fore Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus. 
 
 Parallelism. 
 
 Paul had power to excommunicate offenders in 
 the Corinthian church* — Therefore Paul was Bi- 
 shop of Corinth. 
 
 The parallel might be run further : but the fore- 
 going will evince, that the very same mode of 
 reasoning which proves Timothy to have been Bi- 
 shop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, will also 
 prove every one of the Apostles to have been bi- 
 shop of every place where he exercised any of 
 those functions which the Episcopal church has 
 restrained to her prelates. This her advocates 
 know to be absurd ; and so does all the world 
 beside. And yet let them show, if they can, tiiat 
 our argument for the diocesan ubiquity of the 
 apostles, is not fully as fair and as conclusive as 
 their own for the bishopricks of Timothy and 
 Titus ; and is not founded on the very same prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 There is nothing else in the Layma,n or Cyprian, 
 which has even the shadow of an argument, un- 
 less it be such suggestions as these : 
 
 " Will it be imagined by any reasonable man, that St. Paul 
 had converted so many cities on this island," (Crete,) '• with- 
 
 • 1 Cor. V. 5. 
 
192 Review, 
 
 out having ordained any elders amongst them 1 What ! when 
 it was his uniform and invariable practice to ordain elders in 
 every country in wliich he made proselytes 1 What ! could he 
 have neglected to ordain those amongst them who were abso- 
 lutely necessary to transact the affairs of the church in his ab- 
 sence 1 JWould he have left the work he had begun only hali 
 performed?"* 
 
 Cyprian sets himself down in his study at Alba- 
 ny, and, knowing infinitely more than any author 
 sacred or profane has told him, first determines 
 what the Apostle ought to have done seventeen hun- 
 dred and fifty years ago in Crete : next, very wise- 
 ly concludes that Paul, being also a wise man, ac- 
 tuaUy did as he, Cyprian, has laid down and deter- 
 mined ; then, furnishes the churches of Crete with 
 Presbyters ; and, wanting still more, manufactures 
 Titus into a Bishop to supply the deficiency. Ex- 
 cellent ! But where did Cyprian get his facts ? 
 Where did he learn so positively what was Paul's 
 " uniform and invariable practice," in the article 
 of ordination ? He ought to have been cautious 
 of affronting his old guide, whose account of Paul's 
 " practice," is entirely different from his own. 
 
 " One qualification for a Bishop was, that he 
 should not 'be (NtoifVToq) a novice: that is, one 
 newly converted; time being required to prove 
 men before they could be intrusted with the care 
 of the church. And therefore the Apostles used 
 not to ordain ministers in any place before the second 
 time of their coming thither — Sometimes, when they 
 
 * Cyprian, as above. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 193 
 
 had no prospect of returning, they gave others a 
 commission to ordain ministers. For which reason 
 Titus was left in Crete by St. Paul to ordain fmnis- 
 ters in all cities. But there will scarce be found 
 any instance of their ordaining ministers at the^r^-^ 
 time of their coming to any place."^ 
 
 It was rather bold in Cyprian to chastise the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, whom on other occa- 
 sions he so implicitly follow^s. for be-infj i^morant of 
 Paul's " uniform and invariable practice :" but 
 there is something bolder behind : for, if we mis- 
 take not, the rector's rod has reached the back of 
 the Apostle himself He broadly insinuates, that 
 Paul could not, without culpable negligence, have 
 omitted to create officers who were necessary to 
 transact the affairs of the church in his absence; 
 and that had he done so, he would have left his 
 work only half performed. Now^ it so happens that 
 Paul, according to his own testimony, did not fur- 
 nish the churches in Crete with the requisite of- 
 ficers, or else he left Titus to ordain such as were 
 not absolutely necessary — he did actually leave 
 *.he work he had begun unfinished ; whether only 
 * half performed," or one third, or two thirds, 
 ie does not say ; but so much was undone as to 
 lemand the stay of Titus to complete it The 
 express terms of his commission are, " That thou 
 shouldest set in order the things that are wanting,'^'' 
 or, as the margin of our English version has it, the 
 
 * Potter. Discourse on Church Government, p. 101, 102. 
 Vol. III. 25 
 
194 Review. 
 
 things that are " left undone^^''* and one of these 
 things, as the very next words indicate, was the 
 ordination of Presbyters — " and ordain Elders in 
 every city." Cyprian's assumption, therefore, that 
 Paul ordained Presbyters in Crete, is without a 
 particle of evidence. There is not a syllable in 
 the whole narrative, from which we can infer that 
 there was a single Presbyter in the island at his 
 departure. The contrary inference is much the 
 more natural. If Titus was instructed to ordain 
 Presbyters in every city, the presumption is, that 
 none had been ordained hitherto. For, to turn the 
 edge of Cyprian's weapon against himself, it is 
 very improbable that the Apostle in organizing the 
 several churches, would begin to ordain Presby- 
 ters; would stop in the middle of his business; hie 
 off to another place ; do the same sort of half 
 work there; and so from city to city; and then 
 send Titus upon a travelhng tour to compensate 
 for the deficiencies occasioned by his haste, his 
 neghgence, or his whim. But so it is. Titus 
 shall be Bishop of Crete. The proof of his title 
 will fail if there be no Presbyters there — Well, 
 then, there shall be Presbyters there, or else Paul 
 shall be convicted of neglecting his duty : — But 
 Paul did not neglect his duty; therefore there 
 were Presbyters in Crete when he left it ; therefore 
 Titus was a Bishop. Excellently well reasoned, 
 Mr. Rector ! And so — " Fair play," interrupts an 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 195 
 
 Episcopal voice, "it does not follow from the re- 
 presentation of Cyprian, that Paul ordained some 
 elders in every city ; and left Titus to ordain the 
 rest. His words will bear another meaning : viz. 
 that the full complement of Presbyters were or- 
 dained in some cities, but none at all in others : 
 and that Titus was directed to ordain in these, 
 which would not have been necessary, had Pres- 
 byters possessed the power of ordination: seeing 
 that those of one district might have ordained for 
 another, as is done at this day by the Presbyte- 
 rians. And so, Mr. Reviewer, you are still in the 
 wrong, and Titus is a Bishop.'' 
 
 Not yet^ if you please, dear Sir. Allowing your 
 premises, your conclusion is not good. The 
 Presbyters newly ordained had abundance of oc- 
 cupation, with very little experience. A proper 
 choice of officers in the first instance was all im- 
 portant to the infant churches. Titus had supe- 
 riour qualifications for making a wise selection ; 
 he could also resolve many difficuhies which might 
 have been too hard for others. He was deputed 
 by the Apostle to set every thing in order through 
 the island, that when he should be gone the stated 
 officers might have less trouble. In ordaining 
 Presbyters he was doing the work of an Evange- 
 list. The churches were organized in the best 
 manner, and with the greatest expedition; while 
 the Presbyters were permitted to superintend, 
 without distraction, the flocks just committed to 
 
196 Review, 
 
 their care. There is no example of the Apostle's 
 calling away Presbyters from their charges im- 
 mediately after their erection, and sending them 
 round the country to ordain others. This was the 
 appropriate employment of the apostles themselves^ and 
 their assistants^ the evangelists. They established 
 the evangelical order, and consigned it to the or- 
 dinary ministry. Presbyters, therefore, might have 
 been ordained in some cities, (although this is a 
 mere supposition ;) Titus might, notwithstanding, 
 ordain others in the remaining cities, and yet not 
 be Bishop of Crete. And certainly if his ordain- 
 ing some elders proves him to have been Bishop 
 of that island ; PauVs ordaining some, proves him 
 also to have been her Bishop. 
 
 Having exposed the weakness and vanity of the 
 argument, drawn for diocesan Episcopacy from 
 the examples of Timothy and Titus, we might rest 
 the cause here : but we advance a step further, 
 and offer, what no laws of discussion exact from 
 us, to establish the negative. That is, the proof, 
 as we have manifested, that they were such Bishops, 
 having miserably failed, we shall assign reasons 
 for our conviction that they were not, 
 
 1. The very terms of their commission favour us. 
 
 What does Paul say? That he gave Ephesus to 
 Timothy, and Crete to Titus, as their regular and 
 permanent charges ? No : nothing hke it. The 
 former staid, at the Apostle's request, to resist the 
 inroads of false doctrine, which had begun to in- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, IW 
 
 feet some of the public teachers. The latter to 
 finish the organization of the churches begun by 
 the Apostle himself*. Each, then, had a specific 
 charge, relating not to the government of settlea 
 churches, but to iheix preparation for it; or to the 
 correction of abuses for restoring and preserving 
 their purity. In both cases the charge was tem- 
 porary. Paul seized these occasions to furnish 
 his substitutes with written directions containing a 
 manual of general instruction to them, and through 
 them to the future ministry ; and, with such an ob- 
 ject in view, it was perfectly natural for him to 
 compress into his mstructions so great a compass 
 of matter. 
 
 2. Paul's mode of addressing Timothy implies 
 that Ephesus was not his peculiar charge. I be- 
 sought thec^ says he, to abide still at Ephesus. A 
 strange formula of appointment to a man's proper 
 station ! it carries a strong and evident implica- 
 tion, that Timothy remained there not because it 
 was his diocese, but to gratify the apostle by at- 
 tending to the exigencies of the pubhc service. It 
 bespeaks reluctance in Timothy to stay behind ; 
 Paul had to entreat him. All which, again, is en- 
 tirely natural upon the supposition of his being 
 the apostle's companion and assistant in planting 
 churches : but offensive and monstrous upon the 
 supposition of his being bishop of Ephesus. 
 
 " For why," says Daille', beseech a Bishop to 
 " remain in his diocese ? Is it not to beseech a 
 
198 
 
 ieview* 
 
 man to stay in a place to which he is bound ? 1 
 should not think it strange to beseech him to leave 
 it, if his service were needed elsewhere. But to 
 beseech him to abide in a place where his charge 
 obliges him to be, and which he cannot forsake 
 without offending God and neglecting his duty, is, 
 to say the truth, not a very civil entreaty ; as it 
 plainly presupposes that he has not his duty much 
 at heart, seeing one is under the necessity of be- 
 seediing him to do it.'** 
 
 This is the language of good sense — No squeez- 
 ing; no twisting; no forcing; all which the hie- 
 rarchy must do when she puts into the mouth ot 
 Paul such an awkward, bunghng speech as, / be- 
 sought thee to abide still at Ephesus ; — for — " 1 con- 
 stituted thee bishop of Ephesus." We shall, how- 
 ever, suggest an improvement, for which we look 
 for the benedictions, of some gentlemen in lawn ; 
 viz. That Timothy being Bishop of Ephesus, and 
 relishing confinement to his charge so little as to 
 lay the Apostle under a necessity o^ beseeching him 
 to stay in it, affords the best possible precedent 
 and plea for priests and Bishops wtio had rather 
 be detected any where than in their parishes and 
 dioceses — except — at tything time. 
 
 3. "If Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, it must 
 be when the first epistle was written. For it is in 
 that epistle in which he is said to receive his pre- 
 tended charge of exercising his Episcopal power 
 
 * Daille', ci-dtssus, p. 23. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 199 
 
 in ordination and jurisdiction. But now this first 
 epistle was written when Paul was at Macedonia, 
 as the learned, both new and old, Papists and Pro- 
 testants, agree. And it was after this when Paul 
 came to Miletum accompanied with Timothy, and 
 sends for the elders of the Church of Ephesus 
 unto him, and commends the government of the 
 Church unto these Elders, whom he calls Bishops. 
 Now surely if Timothy had been constituted their 
 Bishop, (in the sense of our adversaries,) the 
 Apostle would not have called the elders Bishops 
 before their Bishop's face, and instead of giving a 
 charge to the Elders to feed the flock of Christ, 
 he would have given that charge to Timothy, and 
 not to them : and no doubt he would have given 
 some directions to the Elders how to carry them- 
 selves towards their Bishop. And because none 
 of these things were done, it is a clear demonstra- 
 tion to us, that Timothy was not at that time 
 Bishop of Ephesus. 
 
 " To avoid the force of this argument, there are 
 some that say, that Timothy was not made Bishop 
 of Ephesus till after Paul's first being a prisoner at 
 Rome, which was after his being at Miletum. But 
 these men, while they seek to avoid the Scylla of 
 one inconvenience, fall into the Charybdis of ano- 
 ther as great. For if Timothy was not made 
 Bishop till Paul's first being at Rome, then he was 
 not Bishop when the first Epistle was written to 
 him (which all agree to be written before that 
 
200 Review. 
 
 time.) And then it will also follow, that all that 
 charge that was laid upon him, both of ordination 
 and jurisdiction, and that entreating of him to abide 
 at Ephesus, was given to him not as to the Bishop 
 of Ephesus, (which he was not,) but as to an ex- 
 traordinary officer, sent thither upon special occa- 
 sion, with a purpose of returning when his work 
 imposed was finished. From both these conside- 
 rations we may safely conclude, 
 
 " That if Timothy were neither constituted 
 Bishop of Ephesus before PauPs first being pri- 
 soner at Rome, nor after ; then he was not con- 
 stituted Bishop at all. But he was neither con- 
 stituted Bishop before nor after, &;c. Ergo^ not 
 at all."^'^ 
 
 By this time we trust the reader is satisfied that 
 Timothy was not Bishop of Ephesus ; and, as it 
 is agreed that his functions and those of Titus 
 were alike, the conclusion is, that the latter was 
 not Bishop of Crete. What were they then } We 
 ans^ver, they were extraordinary officers^ knoicn in 
 the J]postolic church by the name of evangelists ; 
 and employed as travelling companions and assistants 
 of the J^postles^ in propagatiiig the gospel. 
 
 For this purpose their powers, like those of the 
 Apostles, were extraordinary ; their office too was 
 temporary ; and therefore their superiority over 
 Presbyters is no precedent nor warrant for retain- 
 ing such superiority in the permanent order of the 
 
 * Jus divinum ministeru Anglicani. p. 65, 66 4to. 1654. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, - 201 
 
 church. That such was the nature of the office 
 of an evangehst, we have testimony which our 
 Episcopal brethren will not dispute — the testimo- 
 ny of bishop Eusebius. 
 
 This celebrated historian tells us, that even in 
 the second century there were disciples of the 
 apostles, " who every where built upon the foun- 
 dations which the apostles had laid : preaching 
 the gospel, and scattering the salutary seeds of the 
 kingdom of heaven over the face of the earth. 
 And, moreover, very many of the disciples of that 
 day travelled abroad, and performed the work of 
 EVANGELISTS ; ardcutly ambitious of preaching 
 Christ to those who were yet wholly unacquainted 
 with the doctrine of faith, and to deliver to them 
 the scripture of the divine gospels. These^ having 
 merely laid the foundations of the faith^ and ordained 
 OTHER PASTORS, Committed to them the cultivation of 
 the churches newly planted ; while they theinselves^ sup- 
 ported by the grace and co-operation of God^ proceeded 
 
 to OTHER COUNTRIES AND NATIONS. For eVCn thcn^ 
 
 many astonishing miracles of the divine spirit were 
 wrought by them."* 
 
 Eusebius has used the very expression of Paul 
 to Timothy, viz. the work of an evangelist ; and if 
 the reader compare his description of that work 
 with the epistles to Timothy and Titus, and with 
 their history as it may be gathered from the New 
 Testament, he will perceive the most exact ac- 
 
 •EusEBii, His. Eccles. Lib. iii. c. 37. ed. Reading, T. i. p. 133. 
 Vol. III. 26 
 
202 Review. 
 
 cordance. That is, he will perceive the work of 
 an evangelist, like the work of an apostle, to have 
 been altogether extraordinary and temporary. 
 
 Paul took up Timothy at Lystra,* according to 
 the chronology of our bibles, in the year of Christ, 
 52. He accompanied the apostle in his travels; 
 for at the close of the next year, 53, he was with 
 him at Berea, and staid there when Paul was sent 
 away by the brethren.t By the persons who con- 
 ducted Paul he received a message to come to 
 him at Athens; but did not join him, as appears, 
 till he was at Corinth,! the year after, 54. The 
 next two years he made a part of the apostle's 
 retinue; was with him when he wrote both his 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians;|| and, at the close 
 of that period, was sent, with Erastus, into Mace- 
 donia, anno 56.§ Three years after he was de- 
 spatched to Corinth :1] and the next, anno 60, had 
 returned, and was with Paul when he wrote his 
 second Epistle to the church in that city.** He 
 was one of the seven distinguished personages 
 who composed the apostle's train that same year, 
 when he left Greece and went into Asia. 
 
 It was in this very journey that Paul sent for 
 the elders of Ephesus to Miletum, and laid upon 
 them that solemn charge to feed the flock over 
 which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers.tt 
 
 * Act. xvi. 1 — \. f xvii. 14. 
 
 X Act. xviii. 5. || 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. i. 1. 
 
 § Act. xix. 1. 10. 22. II 1 Cor. iv. 17. 
 
 •* 2 Cor. i. 1. ft XX. 28. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 203 
 
 Timothy was there,* and if Bishop of Ephesus 
 at all, must have been appointed either then or 
 before. For as Paul never saw the Ephesian 
 brethren afterwards.f he never had afterwards 
 an opportunity of ordaining a Bishop over them. 
 If Timothy were their diocesan already, he had 
 been very Httle with them, as the narrative evinces. 
 And is it not strange that the whole of the apostle's 
 charge should be addressed to the Presbyters, 
 and not a syllable to their Bishop, nor to them on 
 their duty to him ? On the other hand, if he was 
 then ordained to his see, is not the silence of Paul 
 on the subject of their mutual duties equally mys- 
 terious } That he should address them as having 
 the oversight of the flock ; when the fact was that it 
 belonged not to them but to Timothy, and should 
 do this to their Bishop's face without recognizing 
 his pre-eminence in the most distant manner } 
 
 They who can swallow all this, when they are 
 boasting of the scriptural evidence that Timothy 
 was Bishop of Ephesus, have a most happy knack 
 at self-persuasion ! We own that our credulity 
 does not contain a passage for so large a camel ! 
 
 But let us see what becomes of Timothy. Whe- 
 ther he constantly attached himself afterwards to 
 the person of Paul we know not; but we do know 
 that he was with him when a prisoner at Rome, 
 anno 64, and shared in his bonds.J 
 
 Let any sober man look at this itinerant life of 
 
 • 2 Cor. V. 5. 13. f V. 25. 38. % Heb. xiii. 23. 
 
204 R 
 
 evteiv. 
 
 Timothy, and ask whether his occupations resem 
 bled those of a diocesan Bishop ? Whether there 
 is even the shadow of a presumption that he had 
 a fixed charge ? And whether there is not just as 
 good evidence of his being Bishop of Berea, of 
 Corinth, or of Thessalonica, as ofEphesus? 
 
 Titus is in the same situation. In the first 
 chapter of Paul's epistle to him, the object of his 
 stay at Crete is specified. The last chapter de- 
 clares it to have been temporary ; for Paul men- 
 tions his design of sending another to take his 
 place ; directs him to come without delay to him 
 at Nicopohs ; and to bring with him Zenas and 
 Apollos.* Whence, by the way, it is clear that 
 Titus had coadjutors in Crete. For ApoUos was 
 an eloquent preacher of the gospel ; and in esti- 
 mation near the apostles themselves.t 
 
 On this point, the Inquirer, in the collection 
 under review, p. 132, had asked, 
 
 *' Since Paul sent for Titus, after he had " set in order the 
 things that were wanting," to come to Nicopolis, took him 
 along with him to Rome, and then sent him into Dalmatia, 
 may not Titus be properly called an Evangelist; or airavel' 
 ling rather than a diocesan Bishop 1" 
 
 A very reasonable and modest question, one 
 would think. But Dr. Hobart, in his note, calls upon 
 Bishop Hoadley to shut the mouth of the Inquirer. 
 
 " Let Bishop Hoadley answer this inquiry, and silence the 
 only objection which the anti-Episcopalians can bring against 
 the evident superiority of Timothy and Titus over the other 
 • Tit. ui. 12, 13. f 1 Cor. i. 12. il. 6. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 205 
 
 orders at Ephesus and Crete, that they were extraordinary of- 
 ficers, Evangelists, travelling Bishops. ' It is of small impor- 
 tance whether Timothi/ und Titus were fixed Bishops, properly 
 so called or not. Perhaps at the first plantation of churches 
 there was no such necessity o^ fired Bishops as was found af- 
 terwards ; or perhaps at first the superintendency of such per- 
 sons as Timothi/ and Titus was thought requisite in many dif- 
 ferent churches, as their several needs required. If so, their 
 office certainly was the same in all churches to which they 
 went ; and ordination a work reserved to such as they were, 
 persons superior to the settled Presbyters. But as to Ephe- 
 sus and Crete, it is manifest that Timothy and Titus were to 
 stay with the churches there, as long as their presence was not 
 more wanted at other places: And, besides, if they did leave 
 these churches, there was as good reason that they should re- 
 turn to them to perform the same office of ordination when 
 there was again occasion, as there was at first, why they should 
 be sent by St. Paul to that purpose. Nor is there the least 
 footstep in all antiquity, as far as it hath yet appeared, of any 
 attempt in the Presbyters oi Ephesus or Crete, to take to them- 
 selves the offices appropriated in the forementioned Epistles, to 
 a superior order of men.' Hoadley''s Def. of Episc. ch. i.— jEc?." 
 
 The anti-Episcopalians do not, so far as we un- 
 derstand them, deny the " superiority of Timothy 
 and Titus over the other orders at Ephesus and 
 Crete." But they deny the inferences which the 
 jure clivinq prelatists draw from that superiority, 
 viz. 1. therefore^ Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, 
 and Titus of Crete; and 2. therefore Diocesan 
 Episcopacy is of apostolic institution. These 
 things they deny. They contend that a ministry 
 extraordinary and temporary cannot be a rule for 
 a ministry which is ordinary and permanent — that 
 
206 Review 
 
 functions which, like those of the apostles and 
 evangelists, admitted of no fixed charges, cannot 
 be a model for a sytem of fixed charges, as dio- 
 cesan Episcopacy undoubtedly is — that the me- 
 thod pursued m founding churches is no precedent 
 for governing them when fomided. It would be, in 
 their estimation, quite as fair and as reasonable, 
 to infer the form of government prescribed for a 
 conquered country, from the measures adopted by 
 the invaders for effecting and completing the con- 
 quest. Or to deduce the powers and jurisdiction 
 of the different departments in a civil constitution, 
 from the powers of those who set it up. This 
 would be most fallacious reasoning; and the 
 whole world would agree in rejecting it as not 
 only false but extremely dangerous. Yet it is pre- 
 cisely the fallacy of the Episcopal reasoning from 
 the powers of Timothy and Titus to those of or- 
 dinary rulers in the church. No. When we in- 
 quire who are the fixed officers, and what is the 
 fixed order of the church ? we must inquire, not 
 what apostles and evangelists did in executing 
 their peculiar trust ; but what officers and order 
 they fixed in the churches planted by their care. This, 
 and this alone, can be our pattern. In the history 
 of their proceedings we have the most incontes- 
 table evidence of their ordaining Presbyters in 
 fixed charges. But we challenge all the advocates 
 for Episcopacy to produce a ^m^/^ example of their 
 assigning a fixed charge to any officer above a 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 207 
 
 Presbyter; or of their exercising, without imme- 
 diate inspiration in any settled church, a singh act 
 of power ivhich they refused to Presbyters, When 
 Hoadley tells us that fixed charges might not be 
 so necessary in those days as afterwards, he con- 
 fesses his inability to prove either that Timothy 
 and Titus were diocesan bishops ; or that dioce- 
 san Episcopacy has an apostolic sanction. For 
 if it were not, as a system of fixed charges, ne- 
 cessary then^ the apostles did not then establish it. 
 If they did not then establish it, they never esta- 
 blished it at all ; for it cannot be pretended that 
 they left instructions for its introduction after- 
 wards. And if it was not then instituted, we reject 
 its claim; if not then necessary, we must have 
 better authority than the prelates themselves to 
 satisfy us that it has been necessary at any period 
 since. Hoadley, therefore, with his ifs and per- 
 haps^ instead of silencing our objection, has con- 
 firmed it. We drove the nail, and my lord of Win- 
 chester has most obligingly clenched it. Dr. Ho- 
 bart has our permission to draw it at his leisure. 
 
 We finish this scrptural view with observing, that 
 whatever may be the difficulty of Dr. Bowden, ive 
 can see prelates in England without going to 
 Ephesus or Crete for spectacles : and that if no 
 more of prelacy had prevailed in the one, than 
 the scriptures show to have existed in tte other, 
 it had been infinitely better, at this day, for the 
 jnost precious interests of Old England. 
 
208 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 In an early stage of this review, we joined issue 
 with our Episcopal brethren upon a proposition of 
 the Layman, viz. " The question of Episcopacy 
 is a question of fact, to be determined by a sound 
 interpretation of the sacred volume." We not 
 only consented, but insisted, that the question 
 should be decided by the scripture alone.* We 
 closed the scriptural argument in our last number, 
 and therefore, have closed the argument upon the 
 merits of the case. God's own word must contain 
 the law of his own house. The idea cannot be 
 admitted for a single moment, that those master- 
 principles, without which there could be no Chris- 
 tian order, nor any system of instituted worship, 
 are left unsettled in the rule of faith. Whatever 
 is to govern our consciences must have its foun- 
 dation here, and a foundation deep and strong. 
 We think we have demonstrated that the Epis- 
 copal claim has no such foundation. Who set up 
 the hierarchy, is a question not worth the expense 
 of a thought, seeing God has not appointed it in 
 his word. W^hen we follow its advocates to the 
 ground of ecclesiastical history, we yield them a 
 courtesy which they have no right to expect. 
 The instant we cross the line of inspiration, we 
 are out of the territory where the only rightful 
 tribunal is erected, and where alone we shall per- 
 mit ourselves to be tried. 
 
 However, as the argument which prelacy de- 
 
 * See page 39. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 209 
 
 rires from the testimony of the fathers, is in truth 
 her best argument ; let us pay it the compUment 
 of an examination. Thus she states it from the 
 mouth of a bishop : 
 
 " Is it not reasonable to suppose that the primitive Fathers 
 of tlie church must have been well acquainted with the mode 
 of ecclesiastical government established by Christ and his 
 apostles ? Now, their testimony is universalis/ in our favour. 
 What course, tlien, have the enemies of Episcopacy for the 
 most part pursued ? Why, they have endeavoured by every 
 art of misrepresentation to invalidate this testimony of the 
 Fathers. Ignatius was born before the death of St. John. 
 Seven of his Epistles have been proved by Bishop Pearson to 
 be genuine, to the satisfaction of the whole learned world. In 
 these Epistles he repeatedly mentions the three orders of Bi- 
 shops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and speaks of the order of 
 Bishops as necessary in the constitution of every Christian 
 church. All this has been done ; and still, the Presbyterian 
 teachers mislead the people, by artfully insinuating that none 
 of the writings are genuine which go under the name of Ig- 
 natius. Another artful method pursued by our opponejits is 
 to collect all the errors into which tlie Fathers have fallen, 
 with respect to particular points of doctrine ; to paint these 
 errors in the blackest colours ; and when they have thus pre- 
 judiced the minds of the people against them, boldly tc go mi 
 to the preposterous conclusion, that tlie testimony of these 
 Fathers is not to be regarded when they stand forth as wit- 
 nesses to a matter of fact. But is this fair dealing? May not 
 a man of sincerity and truth be liable to errors, as to matters 
 of opinion ; and still be a true witness, as to things which he 
 has seen ajid heard 1 
 
 '* Pursuing the usual mode of artful misrepresentation , our 
 Miscellanist has endeavoured to represent Jerome as favouring 
 the Presbyterian scheme of church government ; and with the 
 
 Vol. III. 27 
 
210 Review. 
 
 same spirit, he abuses the church of England as too nearly 
 bordering on Popery. After seeing what has been published 
 on these subjects, if your opponent has any spark of modesty 
 remaining in his bosom, he will never produce the testimony 
 of Jerome in support of his cause."* 
 
 Thus, from the mouth of a priest : 
 
 " Here let me appeal to the common sense of every unpre- 
 judiced reader, to bear witness to«the truth of the following 
 proposition. 
 
 " If we had only obscure hints given us in scripture of the 
 institution of this form of government by the Apostles, and if 
 at a very early period — as soon as any distinct mention is at all 
 made of the subject, this appears to be the only form of govern- 
 ment existing in the church, have we not the strongest possible 
 presumption, have we not absolute demonstration, that it was 
 of Apostolic original 1 Who were so likely to be acquainted 
 with the intentions, with the practices, with the institutions of 
 the Apostles, as their immediate successors ? If, then, we should 
 admit for a moment, (and really it is almost too great an out- 
 rage against sound reasoning, to be admitted even for a mo- 
 ment ;) I say, if we should admit, for the sake of argument, 
 that " the Classical or Presbyterial form of church government 
 was instituted by Christ and his Apostles," at what period was 
 the Episcopal introduced 1 When did this monstous innova- 
 tion upon primitive order find its way into the church of Christ? 
 At what period did the Bishops make the bold and successful 
 attempt of exalting themselves into " lords in God's heritage." 
 These are questions which the advocates of parity have never 
 yet been able to answer, which they never will be able to an- 
 swer. They tell us, indeed, of a change that must have taken 
 place at an early period, that Episcopacy is a corrupt inno- 
 vation ; but they can produce no proof on which to ground 
 these bold assertions. They are countenanced, in these as- 
 
 f Cornelius, Collec. p. 135. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 2 11 
 
 sertions, by none of the records of these times tliat have been 
 transmitted to us. It is a mere conjecture, a creature of the 
 imagination. It is conjectured that this change took pkice 
 immediately after the Apostolic age. It must be that this 
 change took place, or Presbyterian principles cannot be 
 maintained. Thus a mere conjecture on their part is to over- 
 balance the most solid and substantial proofs on ours. In order 
 to follow these aerial adventurers in their excursions, we are to 
 desert the broad and solid bottom of facts, and launch into the 
 regions of hypothesis and uncertainty. 
 
 *' We say, then, and I hope it will be well remembered, that 
 from the earliest information which is given us concerning the 
 institutions and usages of the Christian church, it undeniably 
 appears, that there existed in it the three distinct orders of Bi- 
 shops, Presbyters, and Deacons. We say, that this circum- 
 stance amounts to demonstrative evidence, that these three 
 orders were of divine institution — were of Apostolic appoint- 
 ment." — " But we do not stop here. We maintain that to 
 suppose the form of government in the church of Christ to 
 have been so fundamentally altered at this time, is the wildest 
 imagination that ever entered into the head of man. Let us 
 contemplate the circumstances of this case. 
 
 " It is supposed that Christ and his Apostles instituted 
 originally but one order of ministers in his church, equal in 
 dignity and authority. It is imagined^ that immediately after 
 their death, a number of aspiring individuals abolished this 
 primitive arrangement, elevated themselves to supreme autho- 
 rity in the church of Christ. Concerning the time at which 
 this innovation was effected, the advocates of Presbyterianism 
 are by no means agreed. The most learned among them» 
 however, admit that it must have taken place before the mid- 
 dle of the second century, about /or^y or fifty years after the 
 times of the Apostles. Blondel allows that Episcopacy was 
 the established government of the church within forty years 
 after the Apostolic age. Bocuart assigns as the period of its 
 
212 Review, 
 
 origin, the age that immediately succeeded the Apostles. He 
 says it arose, paulo post Apostolos. Salmasius even allows 
 that this government prevailed in the church before the death 
 of the last of the Apostles. And, in fact, this is the only 
 period at which it can be supposed to have originated with 
 any degree of plausibility. It shall be my task to show that 
 it IS altogether hnprobable, that it is almost impossible, that 
 any innovation upon primitive order and discipline could have 
 been effectuated at this early period. 
 
 " Within forty years after the times of the Apostles, we are 
 told, that the Bishops, by a bold and successful effort, tram- 
 pled upon the rights and privileges of the Clergy, and elevated 
 themselves to the chair of supreme authority ! What ! Those 
 who were the immediate successors of the Apostles — those 
 who had received from these miraculous men the words of 
 eternal truth, the institutions of God's own appointment — so 
 soon forget the reverence and duty which they owed them — 
 so soon, with a rash and impious hand, strike away the founr 
 dation of those venerable structures which they had erected ! 
 Would they not permit the Apostles to be cold in their graves 
 before they began to undermine and demolish their sacred 
 establishments'? Would such iniquitous proceedings have been 
 possible with men who exhibited, on all occasions, the Avann- 
 est attachment to their Saviour, and to all his institutions'? 
 Will it be imagined that the good Ignatius, the venerable 
 Bishop of Aritioch, he wlio triumphantly avowed that he dis- 
 regarded the pains of martyrdom, so that he could but attain 
 to the presence of Jesus Christ — will it be imagined that he 
 entered into a conspiracy to overthrow that government which 
 his Saviour had established in his churcli? Would the illus- 
 trious PoLYCARP, the pride and ornament of the churches of 
 Asia, have engaged iu the execution of so foul an enterprise — 
 he, who, when commanded to blaspheme Christ, exclaimed, 
 " Four-score and six years have I served him, and he never 
 did me any harm ; how, then, shall I blaspheme my King 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 213 
 
 and my Saviour 1" In short, can all the pious Fathers that 
 succeeded these, be supposed to have co-operated in perfect- 
 ing the atrocious work which they had begun 1 These things 
 will not be credited. 
 
 " But even supposing that these pious men, whose meek 
 and unaspiring temper renders it altogether incredible that 
 they made any such sacrilegious attempt, were inclined to 
 obtain this pre-eminence in the church ; can it be imagined, 
 that the remaining Presbyters would have ivitnessed these 
 daring usurpations with indifference 1 Would they have made 
 no effort to save themselves and their brethren from the con- 
 trol of so undue and illegitimate an authority ? Could none 
 be found amongst them possessed of so much zeal in the ser- 
 vice of their divine master, so ardently attached to his holy 
 institutions, as to induce them to resist such a bold and im- 
 pious attempt ? In short, woidd not such an attempt by a few 
 Presbyters, according to the uniform course of things, neces- 
 sarily have agitated and convulsed the church? Would not the 
 period of such an innovation have become a marked and pe- 
 culiar era in her existence 1 Can the advocates of parity show 
 any thing in the history of man analagous to their supposed 
 change in ecclesiastical government at this time? Could ever 
 such a radical and important alteration have been produced in 
 any government, civil or ecclesiastical, without being accom- 
 panied by violence and convulsion 1 We find that the congre- 
 gations, at this time, were extremely jealous of the authority 
 that was exercised over them. This jealousy made its appear- 
 ance even during the times of the Apostles. Some took it 
 upon themselves to call in question the authority of St. Paul, 
 others that of St. John. From the Epistle of Clemens to the 
 Corinthians, it would seem as if some disorders had arisen 
 amongst them from a similar source. Is it to be supposed 
 then that any number of Presbyters would have dared, would 
 have proved successful had they dared, to endeavour to accu- 
 mulate in their hands such undue authority as that which w 
 
214 Review. 
 
 claimed by Bishops 1 And even if we should allow that a 
 few Presbyters might in some places have had the talents and 
 address to elevate themselves to this superiority over their 
 brethren, is it probable, is it possible, that this took place at 
 the same time over the universal church 1 Can such a singular 
 coincidence of circumstances be reasonably imagined ? The 
 church had, at this time, widely extended herself over the Ro- 
 man empire. Did, then, the churches of Africa, of Asia, of 
 Europe, by a miraculous unanimity of opinion, enter at the 
 same moment into the determination to change their form of 
 government from the Presbyterial to the Episcopal ? I will 
 not do so much discredit to the understanding of any reader 
 as to imagine that he does not at once perceive the inadmis- 
 sibility and the absurdity of such a supposition. 
 
 " Let us, however, suppose the most that our adversaries 
 can desire. Let us suppose that the primitive rulers of the 
 church were destitute of principle. Let us suppose them de- 
 void of attachment to the institutions of Christ. Let us sup- 
 pose that they waited every opportunity to promote their own 
 aggrandizement. Let us suppose the difficulties removed that 
 opposed them in their ascent towards the chair of Episcopal 
 authority. What was there, at this period, in the office of 
 Bishop to excite their desires, or to invite their exertions to 
 obtain it? The veneration attached to it, as yet, extended no 
 farther than to tlie family of the faithful. The church was 
 on all hands encountered by the bitterest enemies. By ele- 
 vating themselves, therefore, to the pre-eminence of Bishops, 
 they only raised themselves to pre-eminence in difficulties, in 
 dangers, in deaths. Their blood was always the first that was' 
 drunk by the sword of persecution. Their station only ex- 
 posed them to more certain and more horrid deaths. AVas 
 an office of this kind an object of cupidity 1 Is it to be sup- 
 posed that great exertions would be made, many difficulties 
 encountered, to obtain it? But I need say no more on this 
 part of the subject. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 215 
 
 " The idea that an alteration took place at this time in the 
 form of government originally established in the church of 
 Christ, is altogether unsupported by any proof. 
 
 " It is proved to be unfounded by unnumbered considera- 
 tions."* 
 
 After hearing the bishop and the priest, let us 
 hear also the Layman : 
 
 *' Calvin found the whole Christian world in possession of 
 the Episcopal form of government. The most learned sup- 
 porters of the opposite doctrine scruple not to admit that 
 Bishops existed, universally, in the church, as distinct from, 
 and superior to, Presbyters, within forty or fifty years after 
 the last of the Apostles. Such is the concession of Blondd^ 
 of Salmasius, of Bochartus^ of Baxter^ of Doddridge. Some 
 of them, indeed, carry it up to a much earlier period ; Salraa- 
 sius going so far as to admit that Episcopacy prevailed shortly 
 after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, and long before the 
 death of St. John. 
 
 *' It is surely incumbent on those who advocate a form of 
 government admitted to be thus new^ and thus opposed to the 
 early ^ universal^ and uninterrupted practice of the cliurch, to 
 give us the most convincing and unequivocal proof of the di- 
 vinity of their system. More especially when it is recollected 
 that they can produce no record of a change ; but are obliged 
 to imagine one, in opposition to the uniform testhnony of the 
 primitive fathers of t!ie church. The age in which they sup- 
 pose a change to have taken place was a learned age, abound- 
 ing in authors of the first eminence. The most minute events 
 are recorded, and yet not a word is said of the revolution, 
 which some men talk of, so fundamental in its nature, and so 
 interesting in its consequences. The change, too, which they 
 imagine, must have been both instantaneous and universal; 
 and this at a time when there were no Christian princes to 
 
 * Cyprian, No. V. Colhc. p. 144—147. 
 
21 6 Review. 
 
 promote it ; when no general council had met, or could meet 
 to establish it ; and when the fury of persecution cut off all 
 intercourse between distant churches ; leaving their Clergy, 
 also, something else to attend to than projects of usurpation. 
 Such are the strange and almost incredible absurdities into 
 which men will run, rather than give up a system to which 
 they have become wedded by educaton and by habit."* 
 
 The sum of the foregoing argument is this : 
 
 '•Immediately after the death of the apostles, 
 the whole Christian ivorld was Episcopal, and re- 
 mained so, without interruption, or question, for 
 fifteen hundred years — that no cause short of 
 Apostolic institution, can, with any show of rea- 
 son, be assigned for such an effect — that it is 
 absurd to suppose a sudden, universal, and suc- 
 cessful conspiracy, to change the primitive order 
 of the church — and therefore, that Episcopacy is, 
 at least, of apostolic origin." 
 
 Contracted into a more regular form, the argu- 
 ment stands thus : 
 
 That order which the church universal possess- 
 ed at, or shortly after, the death of the apostles, is 
 the order which they established and left : 
 
 But the order of the church universal, at, or 
 shortly after the death of the apostles, was Epis- 
 copal : 
 
 Therefore, Episcopacy is the order estabhshed 
 by the Apostles. 
 
 This reasoning appears, at first sight, to be con- 
 clusive. It certainly ought to be so, considering 
 
 * Layman, No. VII. Colkc. p. 99. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 217 
 
 the interests which depend upon it, and the 
 triumph with which it is brought forward. Never- 
 theless, we more than suspect a fallacy in the rea- 
 soning itself, and an errour ni the assumption 
 upon which it confessedly relies. 
 
 Supposing the fact to have been, as our Epis- 
 copal friends say it was, viz. that the accounts of 
 the state of the Christian church after the death of 
 the apostles, represent her, without an exception, 
 as under Episcopal organization, we should still 
 impeach the conclusion that Episcopacy was esta- 
 blished by the apostles. We acknowledge, that, 
 upon our principles, the phenomenon would be ex- 
 traordinary, and the difficulty great So great, that 
 did there exist no other records of the first con- 
 stitution of the church, than the testimony of the 
 primitive fathers ; and did this testimony declare 
 her to have been Episcopal, as that term is now 
 understood, there could be, in our apprehension, 
 no dispute about the matter. Common sense 
 would instruct us to decide according to the best 
 evidence we could get: that evidence would be 
 altogether in favour of the Episcopal claim, which, 
 therefore, no man in his senses, would think of 
 disputing. We say, such would be the result weix 
 the testimony of the fathers correctly stated by the 
 hierarchy ; and had we no other documents or records 
 to consult. But we have other and better testi- 
 mony than that of the Fathers. We have the tes- 
 timony of the Apostles themselves : We have 
 Vol. ill. 28 
 
218 Review* 
 
 their own authentic records : We have the very 
 instrument in which the ascended Head of the 
 church has written her whole charter with the finger 
 of his unerring Spirit : We have the New Testa- 
 ment. This charter we have examined. We 
 have minutely discussed the parts upon which our 
 opponents rely: we have compared them with 
 other parts of the same instrument, and we have 
 proved that Episcopacy is not there. Admitting 
 then, what, however, we do not admit, that the 
 testimony of the fathers to Episcopacy is precise 
 and full, it would be nothing to us. They must 
 testify one of two things ; either that the plan of 
 the hierarchy is laid down in the New Testament ; 
 or simply that it existed in their days. The for- 
 mer would refer to the written w^ord which we can 
 understand as well as themselves, if not much 
 better ; so that we should not take their assertion 
 for our interpretation. The latter could only lur- 
 nish us with a subject worthy of investigation ; but 
 could not be a sohd foundation for so splendid 
 and ponderous a superstructure as the Episcopal 
 hierarchy. Were the language of the New Tes- 
 tament ambiguous throughout : did it contain no 
 internal principles of satisfactory exposition : were 
 it, (which would render it a miraculous equivoque,) 
 were it equally adapted to an Episcopal, or an 
 Anti-episcopal, order ; in this event, too, the testi- 
 mony of the fathers would turn the balance. But 
 as neither its language nor its facts can be made, 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 219 
 
 without negligence or violence, to accord with the 
 institutions of the hierarchy, she is not at hberty 
 to set off the testimony of the fathers against that 
 of the scripture ; and to iiifer that she is of apos- 
 tolical extraction, merely because she was found 
 in being after her pretended spiritual progenitors 
 were dead. It never can be tolerated as sound 
 reasoning to determine the meaning of a law from 
 certain observances which are to be tried by the 
 law itself; and, by inference from extraneous facts ^ 
 to establish, as law, a point v^hich the law does 
 not acknowledge. A question is at issue, whether 
 Episcopacy is of apostolic authority or not. The 
 law of God's house, penned by the apostles them- 
 selves, is produced ; and the verdict, upon trial, 
 is for the negative. The Episcopal counsel ap- 
 peals to the Fathers ; they depose, he says, that 
 Episcopacy was in actual existence, throughout 
 the Christian community, a little while after the 
 death of the Apostles ; and he insists that this fact 
 shall regulate the construction of the Christian law. 
 " By no means ;" replies the counsel on fhe 
 other side. " We accuse Episcopacy of corrupting 
 the Christian institutions ; and her counsel pleads 
 the early existence of her alleged crime, as a proof 
 of her having conformed to the will of the Law- 
 giver ; and that the fact of her having committed 
 it from nearly the time of promulging the law, is 
 a demonstration that the law not only allows but 
 enjoins the deed ! !" 
 
220 Review, 
 
 The United States are a republic, with a single 
 executive periodically chosen. Suppose that three 
 hundred years hence they should be under the 
 reign of a hereditary monarch ; and the question 
 should then be started whether this was the ori- 
 ginal order or not ? Those who favour the 
 negative go back to the written constitution, 
 framed in 1787, and show that a hereditary mo- 
 narchy was never contemplated in that instru- 
 ment. Others contend that '* The expressions of 
 the constitution are indefinite ; there are some 
 things, indeed, which look a little republican-hke, 
 and might be accommodated to the infant state of 
 the nation ; but whoever shall consider the pur- 
 poses of the order therein prescribed, and the na- 
 ture of \he powers therein granted, will clearly per- 
 ceive that the one cannot be attained, nor the 
 other exercised, but in a hereditary monarchy." 
 Well, the constitution is produced; it is examined 
 again and again ; but no hereditary monarchy 
 is recognized there; it breathes republicanism 
 throughout : What, now, would be thought of a 
 man, who should gravely answer, " The concur- 
 rent testimony of all the historians of those times 
 is, that at, or very shortly after, the death of the 
 members of the convention of 1787, monarchy 
 prevailed throughout the United States ; and this 
 is proof positive, that it was established by the 
 convention." 
 
 " Nay," would the first rejoin, " your facts are 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 221 
 
 of no avail. The question is, not what prevailed 
 after the constitution was adopted : but what is 
 the constitution itself? There it is : let it argue 
 its own cause." 
 
 " But," says the other, " how could so great a 
 change, as that from a republic to a monarchy, 
 happen in so short a time ? and that without re- 
 sistance, or, what is still more astonishing, with= 
 out notice ?" 
 
 "You may settle that, " retorts the first," at your 
 leisure. That there has been a material change, 
 I see as clearly as the light : how that change was 
 effected, is none of. my concern. It is enough for 
 me that the constitution, fairly interpreted, knows 
 nothing of the existing monarchy." 
 
 Every child can perceive who would have the 
 best of this argument ; and it is just such an argu- 
 ment as we are managing with the EpiscopaHans. 
 Granting them all they ask concerning the testi- 
 mony of the fathers, their conclusion is " good for 
 nothing," because it concludes, as we have abun- 
 dantly shown, against the New Testament itself 
 It is vain to declaim upon the improbability and 
 impossibility of so sudden and universal a transi- 
 tion from Presbytery to Episcopacy, as they main- 
 tain must have taken place upon our plan. The 
 revolution would have been very extraordinary, we 
 confess. But many very extraordinary thmgs are 
 very true. All that the hierarchy gains by the 
 testimony of the fathers, even when we allow her 
 
222 B 
 
 evtew. 
 
 to state it in her own way, is an extraordinary 
 fact which she cannot explain for herself; and, 
 therefore, insists that we shall explain it, or else 
 bow the knee. We excuse ourselves. We are 
 not compelled to the latter, and we are under no 
 obligation to the former. The controversy must 
 perpetually return to a simple issue, viz. Whether 
 Episcopacy and the New Testament agree or not ? 
 We have proved, as we think, that they are irre- 
 concileable. This is enough. Here is the New 
 Testament on one side, and the hierarchy on the 
 other. Conceding that she had very early pos- 
 session of the church, what follows ? Nothing but 
 that order of the church was very early corrupted ! 
 Whether we can or cannot trace the steps and fix 
 the date of this corruption, does not alter the 
 case. Corruption is corruption still. If v/e can 
 tell nothing about the rise of the hierarchy, our 
 ignorance does not destroy its contrariety to the 
 scripture. If we could ascertain the very hour of 
 its rise, the discovery would not increase that 
 contrariety. Our ignorance and our knowledge 
 on this subject leave the original question exactly 
 where they found it. A thousand volumes may be 
 written ; and after all, the final appeal must be 
 " to the law and to the testimony." 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that should we even ac- 
 quiesce in the account which our episcopal bre- 
 thren give of the primitive testimony, we are 
 justified in denying their conclusion : seeing that 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 223 
 
 all inferences against the decision of the New Tes- 
 tament itself, are necessarily invalid and false, be 
 the facts from which they are deduced ever so 
 many, ever so strong, or ever so indisputable. 
 
 But although, in our own opinion, the ground 
 on which the prelatists have chosen to make their 
 principal stand, affords them so little advantage 
 as not to repay the trouble of dislodging them, we 
 shall, for the sake of their further satisfaction, 
 proceed to do them this service also. 
 
 They have heaped assertion upon assertion, 
 that the testimony of the primitive church is uni- 
 versaUy in their favour ; so explicitly and decisively 
 in their favour, that if Episcopacy had not been 
 instituted by apostolic authority, the whole Chris- 
 tian church must suddenly have changed her gov- 
 ernment from one end of the world to the other, 
 without any adequate cause, and without any op- 
 portunity of previous concert.* 
 
 When our opponents talk of the early and gene- 
 ral prevalence of episcopacy, they must mean 
 episcopacy as embraced by themselves,, i. e. as restrict- 
 ing the power of ordination and government to the 
 svperior order of clergy called bishops ; or else they 
 are fighting for a shadow. 
 
 We deny their representation and shall prove 
 it to be false.t 
 
 * See the foregoing extracts. 
 
 f We cannot forbear remarking, by the way, a striking coinci- 
 dence between the popish and the episcopal method of defence. 
 
224 Review. 
 
 More than fourteen hundred years ago the supe- 
 riority of the Prelates to Presbyters was attacked, 
 in the most direct and open manner, as having no 
 authority from our Lord Jesus Christ. The ban- 
 ner of opposition was raised not by a mean and 
 obscure declaimer ; but by a most consummate 
 Theologian. " By one who, in the judgment of 
 
 When they begin to feel themselves pressed, they betake them- 
 selves to the scriptures ; but finding themselves hard pushed here^ 
 they retreat to the fathers. There is scarcely a peculiarity of 
 popery for which some papal polemics do not pretend to have their 
 sanction. Take a sample. 
 
 "They of your" (the protestant) "side, that have read the fa- 
 thers of that unspotted church, can well testify (and if any deny 
 it, it shall be presently shown) that the Doctors, Pastors, and 
 F'athers of that church do allow of traditions; that they acknow- 
 ledge the real presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament of 
 the altar: that they exhorted the people to confess their sins unto 
 their ghostly fathers : that they affirmed, that Priests have power 
 to forgive sins : that they taught, that there is a purgatory : that 
 prayer for the dead is both commendable and godly : that there is 
 Limbus Patrum ; and that our JSaviour descended into hell, to de- 
 liver the ancient fathers of the Old Testament; because before his 
 passion none ever entered into heaven; that prayer to saints and 
 use of holy images was of great account amongst them : that man 
 had free-will, and that for his meritorious works he receiveth, 
 through the assistance of God's grace, the bliss of everlasting hap- 
 piness. 
 
 "Now would I fain know whether of both have the true Reli- 
 gion, they that hold all these above said points, with the primitive 
 Church; or they that do most vehemently contradict and gainsay 
 them ? They that do not disagree with that holy church in ajiy 
 point of religion; or they that agree with it but in very few, and 
 disagree in almost all ? 
 
 "Will you say, that these fathers maintained these opinions, 
 contrary to the word of God ? Why you know that they were 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 225 
 
 •* Erasmus, was, without controversy, by far the 
 most learned and most eloquent of all the Chris- 
 tians ; and the prince of Christian Divines."* By 
 the illustrious JEROME.t 
 
 Thus he lays down both doctrine and fact rela- 
 tive to the government of the church, in his com- 
 mentary on Titus 1 . 5. 
 
 the pillars of Christianity, the champions of Christ his church, 
 and of the true CathoUc religion, which they most learnedly de- 
 fended against diverse heresies ; and therefore spent all their time 
 in a most serious study of the holy scripture. Or will you say, 
 that although they knew the scriptures to repugn, yet they brought 
 in the aforesaid opinions by malice and corrupt intentions ? Why 
 yourselves cannot deny, but that they lived most holy and virtuous 
 lives, free from all malicious corrupting, or perverting of God's 
 holy word, and by their holy lives are now made worthy to reign 
 with God in his glory. Insomuch as their admirable learning 
 may sufficiently cross out all suspicion of ignorant error; and their 
 innocent sanctity freeth us from all mistrust of malicious corrup- 
 tion." Challenge of a Jesuit to Bishop Usher. 
 
 In the course of his full and elaborate answer to this challenge, 
 Usher quotes Cardinal Bellarmine as one " who would face us down 
 that all the ancients both Greek and Latin, from the very time of the 
 Apostles, did constantly teach that there ivas a purgatory. Where- 
 as," replies Usher, " his own partners could tell him in his ear, 
 that in the ancient writers there is almost no mention of purgatory ; 
 especially in the Greek writers.'' Usher's Answer, S^x. p. 170, 4to. 
 1625. 
 
 For "Purgatory," put "Episcopacy," and you will see pretty 
 nearly how the account stands between eminent Episcopalians 
 themselves. 
 
 * We quote the words of one who was assuredly no friend to 
 our cause, vid. Cave, His. Litt. Script: Eccles. p. 171. Ed. 
 1720. Fol. 
 
 f Prosper, who was nearly his cotemporary, calls him magister 
 mundi: i. e. the teacher of the world. lb- 
 
 Vol. III. 29 
 
226 Revi 
 
 ew. 
 
 That thou shoiddest ordain Presbyters in every 
 city^ as I had appointed thee^ — " What sort of Pres- 
 
 * " Qui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari, in consequentibiis dis- 
 sereus hoc ait: Si qui est sine crimine, unius uxoris vir," et cse- 
 tera : postea intulit, " Oportet. n. Episcopum sine crimine esse, 
 taiiquam Dei dispensatoreui." Idem est ergo Presbyter, qui et 
 Episcopus, et antequam diaholi instinctti, studia in religione fierent, 
 et diceretur in populis : " Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem 
 Cephae :" communi Preshyterorum consilio ecclesiae gubernaban- 
 tur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos, quos baptizaverat, suos pu- 
 tabat esse, non Christi: in toto orhe decretum est, ut unus de Pres- 
 byteris tlectus superjjoneretur ceeteris, ad quern omnis ecclesia eura 
 pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Putet aliquis non 
 scripturarum, sed nostram, esse sententiara Episcopum et Presby- 
 terum unum esse ; et aliud setatis, aliud esse nomen officii : relegat 
 Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis : Paulus et Timotheus 
 servi Jesu Christi, omnibus Sanctis in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Philip- 
 pis, cum Episcopis et Diaconis, gratia vobis et pax, et reliqua. 
 Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae, et certe in una civitate jL^Zwres ut 
 nuncupantur, Episcopi esse non poterant. Sed quia eosdem Episco- 
 pos illo tempore quos et Presbyteros appellabaut, propterea indifife- 
 renter de Episcopis quasi de Presbyteris est locutus. Adhuc hoc 
 alicui videatur ambiguum, nisi altero testimonio comprobetur. In 
 Actibus Apostolorum scriptum est, quod cum venisset Apostolus 
 Miletum, miserit Ephesum, et vocaverit Presbyteros ecclesise ejus- 
 dem, quibus postea inter csetera sit locutus : attendite vobis, et omni 
 gregi in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos,pascere ecclesiam 
 Domini quam acquisivit per sanguincm suum. Et hoc diligentius 
 observate, quo modo unius civitatis Ephesi Presbyteros vocans, 
 postea eosdem Episcopos d'lxevit. — Hsec propterea, ut ostenderemus 
 apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos et Episcopos. Pau~ 
 latim vero, ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem 
 solicitudinem esse delatam. — Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex ec- 
 chsiae consuetudine ei, qui sibi propositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita 
 Episcopi noverint se mogis consuetudine quam dispositionis domi- 
 nica veritate, Presbyteris esse majores, Hieronymi Com : in Tit: 
 I. I. Opp. Tom. VI. p. 168 ed : Victorii, Paris 1623. Fol 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 227 
 
 byters ought to be ordained he shows afterwards : 
 If any be blameless^ the husband of one wife^ &c. and 
 then adds, for a bishop must be blameless^ as the 
 steward of God, (kc. A Presbyter, therefore, is the 
 same as a bishop : and before there Vv^ere, by the in- 
 stigation of the devil, parties in rehgion ; and it was 
 said among different people, / am of Paul, and I 
 of Jipollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were 
 governed by the joint counsel of the Presbyters. But 
 afterwards, when every one accounted those whom 
 he baptized as belonging to himself and not to 
 Christ, it was decreed throughout the ivhole ivorld 
 that one, chosen from among the Presbyters, 
 should be put over the rest, and that the whole 
 care of the church should be committed to him, 
 and the seeds of schisms taken away. 
 
 " Should any one think that this is my private 
 opinion, and not the doctrine of the scriptures, let 
 him read the words of the apostle in his epistle to 
 the Phihppians ; ' Paul and Timotheus, the ser- 
 vants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ 
 Jesus which are at Phihppi, with the bishops and 
 deacons,' &c. Philippi, is a single city of Mace- 
 donia; and certainly in one city there could not 
 be several bishops as they are now styled ; but as 
 they, at that time, called the very same persons 
 bishops whom they called Presbyters, the Apostle 
 has spoken without distinction of bishops as 
 Presbyters. 
 
 " Should this matter yet appear doubtful to any 
 
228 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 one, unless it be proved by an additional testi- 
 mony ; it is written in the acts of the Apostles, 
 that when Paul had come to Miletum, he sent to 
 Ephesus and called the Presbyters of that church, 
 and among other things said to them, ' take heed 
 to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy 
 Spirit hath made you bishops.' Take particular 
 notice, that calling the Presbyters of the single 
 city of Ephesus, he afterwards names the same 
 persons Bishops." After further quotations from 
 the epistle to the Hebrews, and from Peter, he 
 proceeds : " Our intention in these remarks is to 
 show, that, among the ancients. Presbyters and 
 Bishops were the very same. But that by little 
 AND LITTLE, that the plants of dissentions might be 
 plucked up, the whole concern was divolved upon 
 an individual. As the Presbyters, therefore, know 
 that they are subjected, by the custom of the 
 CHURCH, to him who is set over them ; so let the 
 Bishops know, that they are greater than Presby- 
 ters MORE by CUSTOM, thau by any real appoint- 
 ment OF CHRIST." 
 
 He pursues the same argument, with great point, 
 in his famous Epistle to Evagrius, asserting and 
 proving from the Scriptures, that in the beginning 
 and during the Apostles' days, a Bishop and a 
 Presbyter were the same thing. He then goes on: 
 '' As to the fact, that afterwards, one was elect- 
 ed to preside over the rest, this was done as a 
 remedy against schism ; lest every one drawing 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 229 
 
 his proselytes to himself, should rend the church 
 of Christ. For even at Alexandria, from the 
 Evangelist Mark to the Bishops Heraclas and 
 Dionysius, the Presbyters always chose one of 
 their number, placed him in a superior station, 
 and gave him the title of Bishop : in the same 
 manner as if an army should make an emperor ; 
 or the deacons should choose from among them- 
 selves, one whom they knew to be particularly 
 active, and should call him arch-deacon. For, 
 excepting ordination, what is done by a Bishop, 
 which may not be done by a Presbyter? Nor is it 
 to be supposed, that the church should be one 
 thing at Rome, and another in all the world be- 
 sides. Both France and Britain, and Africa, and 
 Persia, and the East, and India, and all the bar- 
 barous nations worship one Christ, observe one 
 rule of truth. If you demand authority, the globe 
 is greater than a city. Wherever a Bishop shall 
 be found, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or 
 Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or 
 Tanis, he has the same pretensions, the same 
 priesthood."* 
 
 * Quod autem postea unuselectus est, quicsBteris praeponerelur, 
 inschismatis remedium factum est : ne unusquisque ad se traheng 
 Christi Ecclesiam rumperet. Nam et Alexandrise a Marco Evan- 
 gelista usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, presbyteri 
 semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episcopum 
 nomindbant : quomodo si exercitus imperatorem facial ; aut dia- 
 coni eligant de se, quern industrium noveriut, & archidiaconum 
 vocent. Q^iiid euim facii, exceptn ordinatione, Episcopus, quod preS' 
 
230 Review, 
 
 Here is an account of the origin and progress 
 of Episcopacy, by a Father whom the Episcopa- 
 hans themselves admit to have been the most able 
 and learned man of his age ; and how contradic- 
 tory it is to their own account, the reader will be 
 at no loss to perceive, when he shall have followed 
 us through an analysis of its several parts. 
 
 1. Jerome expressly denies the superiority of 
 Bishops to Presbyters, by divine right. To prove 
 his assertion on this head, he goes directly to the 
 scriptures ; and argues, as the advocates of parity 
 do, from the interchangeable titles of Bishop and 
 Presbyter ; from the directions given to them with- 
 out the least intimation of difference in their autho- 
 rity; and from the powers of Presbyters, undis- 
 puted in his day. It is very true, that the reasoning 
 from names, is said, by those whom it troubles, to 
 be " miserable sophistry," and " good for nothing:" 
 But as Jerome advances it with the utmost confi- 
 dence, they might have forborne such a compli- 
 ment to the " prince of divines" in the fourth 
 century ; especially as none of his cotemporaries, 
 so far as we recollect, ever attempted to answer 
 
 byter non faciat? Nee altera Romanse urbis Ecclesia, altera to- 
 tius orbis existimanda est. Et Gallise, & Brittanise, & Africa, & 
 Persis, &. Orieus, & ludia, & omues barbarse nationes unum 
 Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis. Si auc- 
 toritas quseritur, orbis major est urbe. Ubieumque fuerit Episeo- 
 pus, sive Romse, sive Eugubii, sive Constautinopoli, sive Rhegii, 
 sive Alexandrise, sive Tanis; ejusdemmeriti, ejiisdem «fe saeerdotii. 
 Hieron. 0pp. T. 11. p. 624. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 231 
 
 it. It is a little strange that laymen, and clergy- 
 men, deacons, priests, and bishops, should all be 
 silenced by a page of " miserable sophistry !" 
 
 2. Jerome states it, as a historical fact ^ that, in 
 the original constitution of the church, before the 
 devil had as much influence as he acquired after- 
 wards, the churches ivere governed by the joint counsels 
 of the Presbyters. 
 
 3. Jerome states it as a historical fact ^ that this 
 government of the churches, by Presbyters alone,, 
 continued until, for the avoiding of scandalous 
 quarrels and schisms, it was thought expedient to 
 alter it. " J^ftenvards^^'' says he, " when every one 
 accounted those whom he baptized as belonging 
 to himself, and not to Christ, it was decreed through- 
 out the whole world,, that one, chosen from among 
 the Presbyters, should be put over the rest, and 
 that the whole care of the church should be com- 
 mitted to him." 
 
 4. Jerome states it as a historical fact,, that this 
 change in the government of the church — this 
 creation of a superiour order of ministers, took 
 place, not at once, but by degrees — " Paulatim^'''' 
 says he, " by little and little." The precise date 
 on which this innovation upon p.rimitive order 
 commenced,, he does not mention; but he says 
 positively, that it did not take place till the factious 
 spirit of the Corinthians had spread itself in dif- 
 ferent countries, to an alarming extent. " In 
 populis^'^'' is his expression. Assuredly, this was 
 
232 Review, 
 
 not the work of a day. It had not been accom- 
 plished when the apostoHc epistles were written, 
 because Jerome appeals to these for proof that the 
 churches were then governed by the joint counsels 
 of Presbyters; and it is incredible that such 
 ruinous dissensions, had they existed, should not 
 have been noticed in letters to others beside the 
 Corinthians. The disease indeed, was of a nature 
 to spread rapidly ; but still it must have time to 
 travel. With all the zeal of Satan himself, and ol 
 a parcel of wicked or foolish clergymen to help 
 him, it could not march from people to people, 
 and clime to clime, but in a course of years. If 
 Episcopacy was the apostolic cure for schism, the 
 contagion must have smitten the nations like a 
 flash of Hghtning. This would have been quite 
 as extraordinary as an instantaneous change of 
 government; and would have afforded full as 
 much scope for pretty declamation, as the dream 
 of such a change, which Cyprian and the Layman 
 insist we shall dream whether we will or not. No : 
 The progress of the mischief was gradual, and so, 
 according to Jerome, was the progress of the re- 
 medy which the wisdom of the times devised.* 
 
 * Our opponents, who contend that nothing can be concluded 
 from the promiscuous use of the scriptural titles of office, are yet 
 compelled to acknowledge that Bishop and Presbyter were aftcT- 
 wards separated and restricted, the former to the superiour, and the 
 latter to the inferiour order of ministers. We would ask them when 
 and why this was done ? If it was not necessai-y to distinguish 
 these officers by specific titles in the apostles' day, what necessity 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 233 
 
 We agree with them, who think that the experi- 
 ment introduced more evil than it banished.* 
 
 5. Jerome states as historical facts ^ that the ele- 
 vation of one Presbyter over the others, was a hu- 
 man contrivance ; — was not imposed by authority, 
 
 was there for such a distinctiou afterwards? The church might 
 have gone on, as she began, to this very hour; and what would 
 have been the harm ? Nay, there iims a necessity for the distinction ; 
 and Jerome has blown the secret. When one of the Presbyters was 
 set over the heads of the others, there was a new officer, and he 
 wanted a name. So they appropriated the term Bishop to him; 
 and thus avoided the odium of inventing a title unknown to the 
 scripture. The people, no doubt, were told that there was no 
 material alteration in the scriptural order ; and hearing nothing but 
 a name to which they had always been accustomed, they were the 
 less startled. The Trojan horse over again ! 
 
 * One thing is obvious. Had there never been, in the persons 
 of the prelates, a sort of spiritual noblesse ; there could never have 
 been, in the person of the Pope, a spiritual monarch. For the very 
 same reason that a Bishop was appointed to preserve unity among 
 the Presbyters, it was necessary, in process of time, to appoint an 
 Archbishop for preserving unity among the bishops ; for we never 
 yet heard, that increase of power makes its possessors less aspiring. 
 In the same manner a. patriarch became necessary to keep their 
 graces the Archbishops in order : and finally, our sovereign lord 
 the Pope, to look after the patriarchs ! The analogy is perfect ; the 
 reasoning one ; and the progression regular. \Vhat a beautiful 
 pile! How correct its proportions ! how elegant its workmanship! 
 how compact and firm its structure ! the Christian people at the 
 bottom ; rising above them, the preaching deacons: next in order, 
 the Presbyters ; above them, the Bishops ; these support the Arch- 
 bishops, over whom tower the patriarchs ; and one universal 
 Bishop terminates the whole. Thus this glorious Babylonish edi- 
 fice, having for its base the Christian world, tapers olT, by exquisite 
 gradations, into " his holiness'* at Rome. 
 
 Vol. HI. 30 
 
234 Review. 
 
 but crept in by custom ; — and that the Presbyters of 
 his day, kneiv this very well, jis^ therefore^ says he, 
 the Presbyters know that they are subjected to their 
 SKperiour by custom ; so let the bishops know that they 
 are above the Presbyters^ rather by the custom of the 
 CHURCH, than by the Lord''s appointment. 
 
 6. Jerome states it as a historical fact^ that the 
 first bishops were made by the Presbyters them- 
 selves ; and consequently they could neither have, 
 nor communicate any authority above that of 
 Presbyters. " Afterwards^'' says he, " to prevent 
 schism, one was elected to preside over the rest." 
 Elected and commissioned by whom ? By the 
 Presbyters : for he immediately gives you a broad 
 fact which it is impossible to explain away. "At 
 Alexandria," he tells you, " from the evangehst 
 Mark to the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius," 
 i. e. till about the middle of the third century, "tlie 
 Presbyters always chose one of their number, placed 
 him in a superiour station^ and gave him the title of 
 Bishopy 
 
 We have not forgotten the gloss put upon this 
 passage, by Detector^ in the collection under re- 
 view. 
 
 " The truth is," says he, " that .Jerome affords no authority 
 for this assertion. In his Epistle to Evag. he says, "Nam 
 et Alexandrige, a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et 
 Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, 
 excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nomi7iabant, quomodo 
 si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi eligant de se quern 
 industrium noverint, et archidiaconum vocent." " At Alex- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 235 
 
 andria, from Mark down to Heraclas and Dionysius the 
 Bishops, the Presbyters always named one, who being chosen 
 from among themselves, they called their Bishop, he being 
 placed in a higher station, in the same manner as if an army 
 should make their general, &-c." Does St. Jerome here de- 
 clare, as the fictitious " Clemens " asserts, that " the Presbyters 
 ordained their Bishop V No ; Jerome merely asserts, that the 
 Presbyters namcd^ chose one to be their Bishop. Does it hence 
 follow, that they gave him his commission ; tliat they ordained 
 himl Does it always follow, that because an army choose their 
 general, he does not receive his commission from the supreme 
 authority of the state V* 
 
 With all deference to this learned critic, we 
 cannot help our opinion, that the appointment, or, 
 if you please, ordination, of tlie first bishops by 
 Presbyters, not only follows from the words of Je- 
 rome, but is plainly asserted by them. 
 
 Dr. Hobart, overlooking the Roman idiom, has 
 thrown into his English, an ambiguity which does 
 not exist in the Latin of Jerome. According to 
 the well known genius of that language, especially 
 in writers who condense their thoughts, a verb 
 governing one or more participles, in the con- 
 struction before us, expresses the same meaning, 
 though with greater elegance, as would be ex- 
 pressed by verbs instead of participles.t It is 
 
 * Detector, No. 1. Collec. p. 84. 
 
 f Ex. gr. Iq Caesar's description of the bridge which he con- 
 structed over the Rhine, the first sentence is exactly analogous to 
 the sentence of Jerome: "Tigna bina sesquipedalia, paulhnn ab 
 imo praacuta, dimensa ad allitudinem fluminis, intervallo pedum 
 duorum inter se jungebat.'" De Bello Gallico. Lib. IV. c. 17. p. 
 187. ed. OuDENORPH, 4io. 1737. 
 
236 Review, 
 
 very possible that the Detector might not use this 
 construction ; but then the Detector does not write 
 Latin hke old Jerome. We should display the 
 sentence at length, converting the participles into 
 verbs, were it not for fear of affronting a scholar 
 who insists that he has " sufficient learning to de- 
 fend the Episcopal church."* 
 
 "The truth is," that this "famous" testimony 
 of Jerome, points out, in the process of bishop- 
 making, but one agency,, and that is the agency of 
 Presbyters, Dr. H. himself has unwittingly con- 
 firmed our interpretation in the very paragraph 
 where he questions it. His words are these : 
 "Jerome merely asserts that the Presbyters named,, 
 chose one to be their bishop." Not merely this ; for 
 the words which Dr. H. renders " being placed in 
 a higher station," are under the very same con- 
 nection and government with the words which he 
 renders, "being chosen from among themselves ;" 
 and if, as he has admitted, the latter declare a 
 bishop to have been elected by the Presbyters, then, 
 himself being judge, the former must declare him 
 to have been commissioned by them. This is an 
 awkward instance o{ felo de se ; yet a proof, how 
 properly the Reverend critic has assumed the ap- 
 
 We humbly apprehend that Caesar had as much to do in sharp- 
 ening and measuring the beams, as he had in joining them ; and 
 did not mean to say that the last operation was performed by his 
 own hands, and the former by his workmen. 
 
 * Hoeart's Apology, p. 241. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 237 
 
 pellation oi Detector ; for he has completely detect- 
 ed himself, and no one else ! 
 
 That we rightly construe Jerome's assertion, is 
 clear, from the scope of his argument, and from 
 his phraseology toward the close of the paragraph. 
 
 His position is, that a Bishop and a Presbyter 
 were, at first, the same officer. And so notorious 
 was the fact, that he appeals to the history of the 
 church in Alexandria, as an instance which lasted 
 a century and a half, that when Bishops were 
 made, they were made by Presbyters. But had 
 Dr. H.'s construction been right, had Prelates 
 alone ordained other prelates, the fact, instead of 
 being ybr Jerome, would have been directly against 
 him : and surely he was not so dull as to have 
 overlooked this circumstance; although it seems 
 to have escaped the notice of some of his saga- 
 cious commentators. 
 
 Jerome says, moreover, that Presbyters origi- 
 nally became Bishops, much in the same way as if 
 an army should " make an Emperor; or the dea- 
 cons should elect one of themselves, and call him 
 jirch-deacon.'^'' 
 
 The Detector has given the passage a twisty in 
 the hope o^ twisting Jerome out, and twisting the 
 hierarchy in. " Does it always follow," he de- 
 mands, " that because an army choose their gene- 
 ral, he does not receive his commission from the 
 supreme authority of the state ?" Certainly not : 
 Although he would have gratified some of his 
 
238 Review. 
 
 readers by producing examples of the armies of 
 those ages choosing their general, and remitting 
 him to a higher authority for his commission. 
 But how came the Detector to alter Jerome's 
 phrase from " making''' to " choosing'^ a general ? 
 We always thought, that making and commission- 
 ing an officer, are the same thing. Further, how 
 came the Detector to render Jerome's " impera- 
 tor''' by ''' general?'''' Almost all the world, (for the 
 Detector seems to be an exception,) knows that 
 " Imperator^'''' in Jerome's day, signified not " gene- 
 ral," but " Emperor ;" and was the highest official 
 title of the Roman monarchs. It is further known, 
 that the army had, on more occasions than one, 
 made^n emperor; and that this was all the commis- 
 sion he had. " You inquire," says Jerome, '^ how 
 the bishops were at first appointed. Suppose the 
 deacons should get together and elect one of their 
 number to preside over the rest, with the title of 
 Arch-deacon ; or suppose the army should elevate 
 a person whom they thought fit, to the Imperial 
 throne ; just so, by tlicir own authority and elec- 
 tion, did the Presbyters make the first Bishops." — 
 And yet Dr. H. can find, in this very testimony, a 
 salvo for Episcopal ordination. — His powers o{ de- 
 tection are very uncommon ; 
 
 For optics sharp he needs, I ween, 
 Who sees what is not to be seen ! 
 
 7. Jerome states it, as a historical fact ^ that even 
 in his own day, that is, toward the end of the 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 239 
 
 fourth century, there was no power, excepting or- 
 dination, exercised by a Bishop, which might not 
 be exercised by a Presbyter. " What does a Bi- 
 shop,"' he asks, " excepting ordination, w^iicli a 
 Presbyter may not do ?" 
 
 Two observations force themselves upon us. 
 
 1st. Jerome challenges the whole world, to show 
 in what prerogative a Presbyter was, at that time^ 
 inferiour to a Bishop, excepting the single power 
 of ordination. A challenge which common sense 
 would have repressed, had public opinion con- 
 cerning the rights of Presbyters allowed it to be 
 successfully met. 
 
 2d. Although it appears from Jerome himself, 
 that the prelates were not then in the habit of as- 
 sociating the Presbyters with themselves, in an 
 equal right of government^ yet, as he told the for- 
 mer, to their faces, that the right was undeniable, 
 and ought to be respected by them, it presents us 
 with a strong fact in the progress of Episcopal do- 
 mination. Here was a power in Presbyters, which, 
 though undisputed, lay, for the most part, dor- 
 mant. The transition from disuse, to denial, and 
 from denial to extinction of powers which the pos- 
 sessors have not vigilance, integrity, or spirit to 
 enforce, is natural, short, and rapid. According 
 to Jerome's declaration, the hierarchy did not pre- 
 tend to the exclusive right of government. There- 
 fore, there was but half a hierarchy, according to 
 the present system. That the Bishops had, some 
 
240 Review, 
 
 time after, the powers of ordination and govern- 
 ment both, is clear. How did they acquire the 
 monopoly? By apostolic institution ? No. Jerome 
 refutes that opinion from the scriptures and his- 
 tory. By apostolical tradition } No. For in the 
 latter part of the fourth century, their single pre- 
 rogative over Presbyters was the power of ordi- 
 nation. Government was at first exercised by the 
 Presbyters in common. When they had, by their 
 own act, placed a superiour over their own 
 heads, they rewarded his distinction, his toils, 
 and his perils, with a proportionate reverence ; 
 they grew slack about the maintenance of trouble- 
 some privilege ; till at length, their courtesy, their 
 indolence, their love of peace, or their hope of 
 promotion, permitted their high and venerable 
 trust to glide into the hands of their prelates. We 
 have no doubt that the course of the ordaining 
 power was similar, though swifter. 
 
 Nothing can be more pointless and pithless than 
 the declamation of Cyprian, the Layman, and their 
 Bishop, on the change which took place in the 
 original order of the church. They assume a 
 false fact ^ to wit, that the change must have hap- 
 pened, if it happened at all, instantaneously : and 
 then they expatiate, with great vehemence, on the 
 impossibility of such an event. This is mere noise. 
 The change was not instantaneous, nor sudden. 
 The testimony of Jerome, which declares that it 
 was gradual^ has sprung a mine under the very 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 241 
 
 foundation of their edifice, and blown it into the 
 air. Were we inclined to take up more of the 
 reader's time on this topic, we might turn their 
 own weapon, such as it is, against themselves. 
 They do not pretend that Archbishops, Patri- 
 archs, and Primates, are of Apostolical institution. 
 They will not so insult the understanding and the 
 senses of men, as to maintain that these officers 
 have no more power than simple Bishops. Where, 
 then, were all the principles of adherence to Apos- 
 lic order when these creatures of human policy 
 made their entrance into the church ? Among 
 whom w^ere the daring innovators to be found ? 
 Where was the learning of the age ? Where its 
 spirit of piety, and its zeal of martyrdom ? Where 
 were the Presbyters? Where the Bishops? 
 What! all, all turned traitors at once? All, all 
 conspire to abridge their own rights, and submit 
 their necks to new-made superiours ? What ! 
 none to reclaim or remonstrate? Absurd! In- 
 credible ! Impossible ! These questions, and a 
 thousand like them, might be asked by an advo- 
 cate for the divine right of Patriarchs^ with as 
 much propriety and force as they are asked by 
 advocates of the simpler Episcopacy. And so, 
 by vociferating on abstract principles^ the evidence 
 of men's eyes and ears is to be overturned, and 
 they are to believe that there are not now, and 
 never have been, such things as Archbishops, Pa- 
 triarchs, or Primates in the Christianized world ; 
 Vol. III. 31 
 
242 Revveiv, 
 
 seeing that by the assumption of the argument, they 
 have no divine original; and by its terms, they 
 could not have been introduced by mere human 
 contrivance. 
 
 To return to Jerome. The Prelatists being un- 
 able to evade his testimony concerning the change 
 which was effected in the original order of the 
 church, would persuade us that he means a change 
 brought about by the authority of the Apostles them- 
 selves."* But the subterfuge is unavailing. For, 
 
 (I.) It alleges a conjectural tradition against the 
 authority of the written scriptures. For no trace 
 of a change can be seen there. 
 
 (2.) It overthrows completely all the proof drawn 
 for the hierarchy from the Apostolic records. For, 
 if this change was introduced by the Apostles af- 
 ter their canonical writings were closed, then it is 
 vain to seek for it in those writings. The conse- 
 quence is, that the Hierarchists must either retreat 
 from the New Testament, or abandon Jerome. 
 
 (3.) It makes the intelhgent father a downright 
 fool — to plead Apostolic authority for the original 
 equality of ministers ; and in the same breath to 
 produce that same authority for the inequality 
 which he was resisting ! 
 
 (4.) To crown the whole, it tells us that the 
 apostles having fixed, under the influence of divine 
 inspiration, an order for the church ; found, upon a 
 few years' trial, that it would not do, and were 
 
 * Hobart's Apology, p. 174, &c. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 243 
 
 obliged to mend it : only they forgot to apprise the 
 churches of the alteration; and so left the ex- 
 ploded order in the rule of faith ; and the new 
 order out of it ; depositing the commission of the 
 prelates with that kind foster-mother of the hie- 
 rarchy, Tradition /* 
 
 We may now remind our reader of the Lay- 
 man's declaration, that we " can produce no record 
 of a CHANGE ; but are obliged to imagine one^ in op- 
 position to the vNiFORM testimony of the primitive Fa- 
 thers /" And of the de-claration of Cyprian, that we 
 talk " of a change that must have taken place at an 
 early period ; but can produce no proof on which to 
 ground our bold assertions " — That we " are coun- 
 tenanced by NONE OF THE RECORDS of thcsc times that 
 have been transmitted to us'''' — That our opinion is 
 " mere conjecture^ a creature of the imagination ! /" 
 These gentlemen have, indeed, made their ex- 
 cuse ; they have honestly told us, what their pages 
 verify, that they are but '• striplings " in literature. 
 But that a prelate, from whom we have a right to 
 look for digested knowledge, and scrupulous ac- 
 curacy, should deal out the same crude and un- 
 qualified language, excites both surprise and 
 regret. He has been pleased to say, that our late 
 brother, the Rev. Dr. Linn, in " representing Jerome 
 as favouring the Presbyterian scheme of church go- 
 
 * If any of our readers wishes to have a fuller view of the wri- 
 tings of the hierarchy on Jerome's spear, we advise him to read 
 Dr. Hobart's Apology, p. 174 — ]94. 
 
244 R 
 
 eview. 
 
 vernment^^'^ has ^'-pursued the usual mode of artful 
 MISREPRESENTATION." With whoTYi the misrepresen- 
 tation Hes, we leave to public opinion. But as we 
 wish to give every one his due, we cannot charge 
 the Right Reverend Prelate with any art; nor 
 withhold an advice, that when he is searching, on 
 this subject, for a " spark of modesty," he would 
 direct his inquiries to a " bosom " to which he has 
 much easier access, than to the bosom of any 
 Presbyterian under heaven. 
 
 After this exhibition of Jerome's testimony, it 
 would be superfluous to follow with particular 
 answers, all the petty exceptions which are found- 
 ed upon vague allusions and incidental phrases. 
 Jerome, like every other writer upon subjects 
 which require a constant reference to surrounding 
 habits, conforms his speech to his circumstfjnces. 
 He could not be for ever on his guard ; and if he 
 had been, no vigilance could have secured him 
 from occasional expressions which might be inter- 
 preted as favourable to a system which he solemn- 
 ly disapproved. This will sufficiently account for 
 those disconnected sentences which the friends of 
 the hierarchy have so eagerly seized. We could 
 show, taking them one by one, that they fall very 
 far short of the mark to which they are directed.* 
 
 * The quotation which stands most in the way of our argument, 
 and of Jerome's testimony, is from his "Catalogue of Ecclesiasti- 
 cal Writers ;" where, says Dr. Hobart, ♦' he records as a matter of 
 fact, ' Jabies, immediately after our Lord's ascension, having been 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 245 
 
 When we want to know a man's matured thoughts 
 on a disputed point, we must go to those parts of 
 his works where he has deUberately, and of set 
 purpose, handled it. All his looser observations 
 must be controlled by these. A contrary proce- 
 dure inverts every law of criticism ; and the inver- 
 sion is not the more tolerable, or the less repre- 
 hensible, because advocates of the hierarchy have 
 chosen to adopt it. But if Jerome's testimony is 
 to be slighted, because he was fervid, impetuous, 
 and unceremonious, we much fear that some of the 
 most important facts in ecclesiastical and civil 
 history must be branded as apocryphal. We are 
 very sure that none of Dr. H.'s friends could ask 
 
 ORDAINED BISHOP OF JERUSALEM, uudertook the chai'ge of the 
 church at Jerusalem. Timothy was ordained bishop of the 
 Ephesians by Paul, Titus of Crete. Foltcarp was by John 
 ordained bishop of Smyrna.' Here, then," the reader perceives 
 the triumph, " here, then, we have bishops ordcimed in the churches 
 by the apostles themselves." Hobart's Apology, p. 194. 
 
 There is a small circumstance rather unfavourable to this vouch- 
 er. — It is not Jerome's. Of that part which relates to Timothy 
 and Titus, this is expressly asserted by the episcopal historian, 
 Cave; and by Jerome's popish editor. Vide Cave, Script, eccles. 
 hist, litter, p. 172, erf. Colon. 1720. Hieron. 0pp. T. I. p. 265. 268. 
 erf. Victorii. The articles James andPoLYCARP are so precisely in 
 the same style with the others, and so diametrically repugnant to 
 Jerome's own doctrine, that if, by " bishop,^'' is meant such a 
 bishop as was known in his day, it is inconceivable they should 
 have proceeded from his pen. That they are interpolations, or 
 have been interpolated, we think there is internal evidence. At 
 least, when several articles of the same catalogue, tending to the 
 same point, and written in the same strain, are confessedly spurious; 
 it is hardly safe to rely upon the remainder as authentic testimony. 
 
246 Review. 
 
 the credence of the world to a single assertion in 
 his Apology. And if similar productions were the 
 fashion of the day, we have no reason to wonder 
 at indignant feeling and vehement language in 
 men of a less fiery spirit than father Jerome. 
 
 The advocates of Episcopacy assert that the 
 whole current of fact and of opinion {o\ fifteen hun- 
 dred years after Christ, is in their favour; that we 
 " can produce no record of a change,'^^ in the gov- 
 ernment of the church, " but are obhged to imagine 
 one in opposition to the uniform testimony of the 
 primitive fathers." 
 
 We have met them on this ground; and have 
 "produced" the "testimony" of one of the "pri- 
 mitive fathers," directly against the divine original 
 of the hierarchy. This was Jerome, the most 
 learned, able, and distinguished of them all. He 
 tells us, in so many words, not only that the epis- 
 copal pre-eminence is without divine authority; 
 but that this was a fact which could not, with any 
 show of reason, be disputed ; as being a fact well 
 ascertained and understood. " The Presbyters," 
 says he, " know^ that they are subjected 6y the cus- 
 tom of the churchy to him who is set over them.""^ 
 
 To elude the force of Jerome's deposition, it is 
 alleged, among other things, that his opinion is of 
 no weight unsupported by facts ; and that his tes- 
 timony, in the fourth century, concerning facts in 
 the first and second centuries, that is, two or three 
 
 * See page 234. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 247 
 
 hundred years before he was born, is no better 
 than an opinion ; and so he is excluded from the 
 number of competent witnesses.* 
 
 By this rule some other witnesses who have 
 been summoned by our Episcopal brethren, must 
 be cast without a hearing. Eusebius, Chrysos- 
 tom, Augustin, Theodoret, Epiphanius, must all 
 be silenced. It is even hard to see how a sinde 
 man could be left, in the whole catalogue of the 
 Fathers, as competent to certify any fact of which 
 he was not an eye-witness. To say that they de- 
 rived their information of times past from credible 
 tradition, or authentic records, is indeed to over- 
 rule the principle of the objection. But when this 
 door is opened to admit the others, you cannot 
 prevent Jerome from walking in. We will allow 
 that EusEBius had access to " all the necessary 
 records of the churches." But had Jerome no 
 records to consult ? Was " the most learned of all 
 the Christians," as Erasmus calls him, with Cave's 
 approbation, in the habit of asserting historical 
 facts without proof? If he was, let our opponents 
 show it. If he was not, as his high reputation for 
 learning is a pledge, then his testimony is to be 
 viewed as a summary of inductive evidence reach- 
 ing back to the days of the Apostles. In his esti- 
 mation, the facts of the original parity of minis- 
 ters, and of the subsequent elevation of prelates 
 
 * Cyprian, No. VII. Essays, p. 167. Hobart's Apology, p. 
 171—178. 
 
248 Review. 
 
 by the custom of the church, were so undeniable, 
 that he did not think it worth his while to name a 
 document. The conduct of this great man was 
 different from that of some very confident writers 
 whom w^e could mention. He sifted his authori- 
 ties, and then brought forward his facts without 
 any specific reference, instead of m king stiff as- 
 sertions upon the credit of authors, w om he never 
 read, nor even consulted. 
 
 Jerome, we contend, is not only as good a wit- 
 ness in the case before us, as Eusebius or any 
 other father, but that he is a far better and more 
 unexceptionable witness than either that renown- 
 ed historian, or any other prelate or friend of pre- 
 lates. Whatever Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epipha- 
 nius, Theodoret, &c. testify in favour of episcopacy, 
 must be received with this very important qualifi- 
 cation, that they were themselves bishops ; and were 
 testifying in favour of their ozm titles, emolument, 
 grandeur, and power. They nad a very deep in- 
 terest at stake. An interest sufficient, if not to 
 shake their credibility on this point, yet greatly to 
 reduce its value. On the contrary, Jerome had 
 nothing to gain, but much to lose. He put his 
 interest and his peace in jeopardy. He had to 
 encounter the hostility of the episcopal order, and 
 of all w4io aspired to its honours. He had to re- 
 sist the growing encroachments of corruption, 
 and that under the formidable protection of a civil 
 establishment. He had, therefore, every possible 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 249 
 
 inducement to be sure of his facts before he attack- 
 ed a set of dignitaries who were not, in his age, 
 the most forbearing of mankind.*' The conclu- 
 sion is, that Jerome, as we said, is a more unex- 
 ceptionable witness than any prelate. To illus- 
 trate — let us suppose a tribunal erected in England 
 to try this question, Is Episcopacy of divine institu^ 
 Hon ? that no witnesses can be procured but such 
 as were brought up in the church itself; and that 
 the judges were obhged to depend upon their re- 
 port of facts. The bishop of Durham is sworn, 
 and deposes that he has examined the records of 
 the church, and finds her to have been episcopal 
 from the beginning. A presbyter of the same 
 church, of equal talent, learning, and application, 
 is sworn, and deposes that he too has examined 
 the records, and finds that, at the beginning, these 
 Christian ministers were of equal rank ; but that 
 by degrees inequality crept in ; and that the bi- 
 shops have no pre-eminence but what the custom 
 of the church has given them. In general charac- 
 ter, for integrity, the witnesses are equal. They 
 flatly contradict each other. Who, now, is the 
 most credible witness } The presbyter runs the 
 hazard of almost every thing in life by his testi- 
 mony. The testimony of my lord of Durham goes 
 to protect his own dignity in the church ; his seat 
 in the house of peers ; and a revenue of £20,000 
 sterling, per annum. A child can decide who is 
 
 * MosHEiM, Vol. I. p. 356. 
 Vol. III. 32 
 
250 Review, 
 
 most worthy of credit. Nearly such is the dif- 
 ference betvveen the witnesses for Episcopacy, 
 and Jerome, the witness for Presbytery. 
 
 But we waive our advantage. We shall lay no 
 stress upon Jerome's opinion. We shall cut off 
 from his deposition every thing but what came 
 within his personal observation. '^The presby- 
 ters," says he, '''•know that they are subject to their 
 bishop, by the custom of the church." His testi- 
 mony embraces a fact in existence and obvious at 
 the time of deposition ; viz. the knowledge which 
 the presbyters of his day had of their being subject 
 to their bishops, solely by the custom of the 
 church, and not by Christ's appointment. This 
 assertion is correct, or it is not. If it is not, then 
 Jerome appealed to all the world for the truth of 
 what he knew, and every body else knew, was an 
 absurd lie. No brass on the face of impudence, 
 inferiour to that of the Due de Cadore, is brazen 
 enough for this. On the other hand, if the asser- 
 tion be correct, how is this knowledge " of the 
 presbyters " to be explained ? Where did they get 
 it.'^ From one of two sources. Either there must 
 have been such a previous discussion of the sub- 
 ject, as ended in establishing a general conviction 
 in the minds of the Christian clergy, that prelacy 
 is a human invention; or which is more probable, 
 the remnants and the recollection of the primitive 
 order still subsisted in considerable vigour, not- 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 251 
 
 withstanding the rapid growth of the hierarchy 
 since the accession of Constantine. 
 
 It is inconceivable how Jerome should tell the 
 bishops to their faces, that Christ never gave them 
 any superiority over the presbyters; that custom 
 was their only title ; and that the presbyters were 
 perfectly aware of this; unless he w^as supported 
 by facts which they were unable to contradict. 
 Their silence under his challenges, is more than 
 a presumption that they found it wise to let him 
 alone. It amounts to little short of absolute proof, 
 that there was yet such a mass of information 
 concerning their rise, and so much of unsubdued 
 spirit in the church, as rendered it dangerous to 
 commit their claim to the issue of free inquiry. 
 Jerome, with the register of antiquity in his hand, 
 and the train of presbyters at his back, was too 
 potent an adversary. They could have crushed 
 the man ; but they trembled at the truth ; and so 
 they sat quietly down, leaving to time and habit, 
 the confirmation of an authority which they did 
 not, as yet, venture to derive from the word of God. 
 
 In the next age, when Jerome was dead, the 
 presbyters cowed ; and the usurpation of the pre- 
 lates further removed from the reach of a reform- 
 ing hand ; Epiphanius did, it is true, bluster at no 
 ordinary rate against the "heretic" Aerius; for 
 what reason we shall shortly see. But it is very 
 remarkable, that in the fourth century, when the 
 pretensions of the prelates were pretty openly can- 
 
252 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 vassed, they spoke with great caution, and with 
 manifest reluctance on those parts of Scripture 
 which touch the point of parity. Let any one, 
 for example, look at the commentaries of Chry- 
 sosTOM on the epistles to Timothy and Titus. 
 Copious and fluent on other passages, he is most 
 concise and embarrassed on those which relate 
 to ministerial rank. Something he was obliged 
 to say: but the plain words of the apostle exhibit 
 a picture so unlike the hierarchy, that the eloquent 
 patriarch, under the semblance of interpretation, 
 throws in a word or two to blind the eyes of his 
 readers, and shuffles off* to something else ; but 
 never so much as attempts to argue the merits of 
 the question upon scriptural ground. This is the 
 reverse of Jerome's practice in his exposition. 
 At this early day we find the advocate for parity 
 boldly appealing to Scripture; examining, com- 
 paring, and reasoning upon its decisions ; and the 
 prelatical expounder skipping away from it with 
 all possible haste and dexterity. We leave the 
 reader to draw his own inference. 
 
 The sentiment that Prelates are superiour to 
 Presbyters, not by any divine appointment, but 
 merely" by the prevalence of custom, extended, 
 among the Latins of the fourth century, much 
 further than Father Jerome. He himself tells us, 
 that the Presbyters of his day not only thought so, 
 but kfiew so ; and, assuming this as an incontro- 
 vertible fact, he grounds upon it an admonition to 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 253 
 
 the Bishops to recollect their origin. " Let them 
 know," says he, " that they are above the Pres- 
 byters more by the custom of the Church, than by 
 any institution of Christ." Considering him as an 
 honest witness, which is all we ask, and our Epis- 
 copal friends will not deny it, he asserts, without 
 qualification, that the Presbyters, i. e. the mass of 
 Christian clergy., in his time, were convinced, upon 
 satisfactory proof, that the authority exercised 
 over them by the prelates, limited, as it then was, 
 and nothing hke what they noiv claim, had no 
 warrant whatever, either in the word of God, or 
 even in apostolical tradition ! We repeat it ; the 
 great body of the Christian clergy, according to 
 Jerome, were aware of this ! ! Here, since they call 
 for facts^i here is a fact more ponderous than all 
 the facts of Episcopacy put together ; a fact which 
 there is no frittering away, not even by the force 
 of that vigorous criticism which inverts persons 
 and tenses ; transmutes Hebrew verbs into others 
 with which they have no affinity ; and changes the 
 very letters of the Hebrew alphabet; so that 
 a t (^zain^) is charmed into a r (nun,) and, by this 
 happy metamorphosis, the throat of an ill-con- 
 ditioned argument escapes from suffocation !^ 
 
 The testimony of Jerome is corroborated by a 
 contemporary writer of high renown, and an un- 
 exceptionable witness in this case, as being him- 
 
 * Churchman'' s Magazine for May and June, 1810. on Exod. 
 xxxiii. 19. p. 178. 
 
254 Review, 
 
 self a Prelate ; we mean Augustin, the celebra- 
 ted Bishop of Hippo. In a letter to Jerome, he 
 has these remarkable words : — 
 
 " Although, according to the names of honour 
 " which the usage of the Church has now acquired^ 
 the office of a Bishop is greater than that of a 
 Presbyter, yet in many things Augustin is inferiour 
 to Jerome."* The sense of this acknowledgment 
 is thus given by a distinguished Prelate of the 
 Church of England, as quoted by Ayton : — " The 
 office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest, 
 not by the authority of the Scripture, but after the 
 names of honour which, through the custom of 
 the Church, have now obtained."t 
 
 The concession is so clear and ample, that Car- 
 dinal Bellarmine, with all his integrity, which was 
 not a little, had no other evasion, than to pretend 
 that these words are not opposed to the ancient time 
 of the Church ; but to the time before the Christian 
 Church ; so that the sense is^ before the times of the 
 Christian Church these names, Bishop and Presbyter, 
 were not titles of honour, but of office and age ; but now 
 they are names of honour and dignity. X 
 
 Quibbles were scarce when a distressed cardi- 
 nal could muster up nothing more plausible. As 
 
 * Quauquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecchsue 
 wsMS o6tmMi7, episcopatus presbyterio major sit; tameii in multis 
 rebus Augustinus Hierouymo minor est. Ep. 19. ed Hieron. 
 
 f Jewel. Defence of his apology, p. 122, 123. 
 
 X Jameson's Nazianzeni querela, p. 177, 178. 
 
Essays on Episcopacy. 255 
 
 if names o^ office were not names of dignity ! As if 
 AuGusTiN, in the very act of paying a tribute of 
 profound respect to Jerome, should think of giving 
 him a bit of grammar lesson about the words 
 '• Bishop" and " Presbyter !" Verily, the Jesuit 
 was in sore affliction ; and had he uttered all his 
 soul, would have exclaimed, like a certain Armi- 
 nian preacher, when hard pressed by Scriptural 
 reasoning; — "O argument, argument! The Lord 
 rebuke thee, argument !" 
 
 Not much happier than the cardinal, nor much 
 less anxious for such a rebuke to argument than 
 the Arminian preacher, will be those critics who 
 shall maintain that Augustin's words regard only 
 the names of office, without any opinion on the 
 powers or rank of the offices themselves. 
 
 1. Such a construction makes the Bishop as- 
 sert a direct falsehood ; the terms were in use from 
 the beginning of the Christian Church; and, 
 therefore, could not have been introduced by her 
 customs. 
 
 2. If, by saying that he was superiour to Jerome 
 " according to the names of honour which the 
 Church had obtained by usage," Augustin meant 
 that he enjoyed only a titular pre-eminence over 
 that Presbyter, he either insulted Jerome by flout- 
 ing at him with a lie in the shape of a compliment, 
 or else the Prelates in his day had only a nominal., 
 and not a real, power over the Presbyters. The 
 
256 Review, 
 
 second is contrary to fact; and the first is too 
 absurd for even a troubled cardinal. 
 
 If, on the other hand, it be alleged that Augus- 
 tin, yi flattery to Jerome, seemed to claim only a 
 titular precedence, while he was conscious, at the 
 same time, of enjoying an essential superiority, 
 and that by divine right, the disputant will turn 
 himself out of the frying pan into the fire ; for he 
 exhibits the venerable father as acting the knave 
 for the pleasure of proving himself to be a fool. 
 So paltry a trick was not calculated to blow dust 
 into the eyes of Jerome. The distinction might 
 appear ingenious to some modern champions of 
 the hierarchy, as it is much in their manner ; but 
 could never degrade the pen of the Bishop of 
 Hippo. He is contrasting his official superiority 
 over Jerome, with Jerome's personal superiority 
 over himself The former is the superiority of a 
 Bishop over a Presbyter, which, he says, has 
 grown out of the custom of the Church. The 
 compliment to Jerome consists in this — that while 
 the office which sets him above Jerome was the 
 fruit, not of his own deserts, but of the Church's 
 custom, those things which gave Jerome his supe- 
 riority, were personal merits. The compliment is 
 as fine, and its form as delicate, as the spirit 
 which dictated it is magnanimous. 
 
 But our concern is with the fact which it dis- 
 closes. Turn Augustin's words into a syllogism, 
 and it will stand thus : 
 
Essays on Episcopacy* 2b7 
 
 Augustin is greater than Jerome, according to 
 the honours which have been created by the cus- 
 tom of the Church. 
 
 But Augustin is greaterthan Jerome, as a Bishop 
 is greater than a Presbyter. 
 
 Therefore^ a Bishop is greater than a Presbyter 
 by the custom of the Church. 
 
 Here, now, is Augustin himself, a Bishop of no 
 common character, disclaiming, unequivocally, 
 the institution of Episcopacy by divine right : For 
 he refers the distinction between Bishop and 
 Presbyter not only to a merely human original, but 
 to an original the least imperative ; to one which, 
 however potent it becomes in the lapse of time, is 
 at first too humble to arrogate authority, too fee- 
 ble to excite alarm, and too noiseless almost to 
 attract notice. He calls it the creature of custom. 
 What shall we say to this testimony of Augustin ? 
 He was under no necessity of revealing his private 
 opinion. He had no temptation to sap the foun- 
 dation of his own edifice; to diminish the dignity 
 of his own order. All his interests and his preju- 
 dices lay in the opposite direction. Yet he speaks 
 of Episcopacy as the child of custom, in the most 
 frank and unreserved manner; without an apolo- 
 gy, without a qualification, without a caution. He 
 does this in a letter to Jerome, the very man to 
 whom, upon modern Episcopal principles, he should 
 not, would not, and could not have done it — the 
 very man who had openly, and boldly, and repeat- 
 
 Vol. III. 33 
 
258 R 
 
 evtew. 
 
 edly attacked the whole hierarchy; whose senti- 
 ments, reasonings, and proofs, were no secret to 
 others, and could be none to him^the very man, 
 whose profound research, whose vigorous talent, 
 and whose imposing name, rendered him the most 
 formidable adversary of the prelature, and threat- 
 ened to sway more decisively the public opinion, 
 than a thousand inferiour writers — the very man, 
 therefore, whom it became his duty to resist. Yet 
 to this man does Augustin, the Bishop, write a 
 letter in which he assigns to Episcopacy the very 
 same origin which Jerome himself had ascribed 
 to it — human custom ! ! 
 
 Was Augustin ignorant ? Was he treacherous ? 
 Was he cowardly ? Was he mad ? To write in this 
 manner to Jerome ! and to write it with as much 
 composure, and sang froid^ as he would have al- 
 luded to any the most notorious fact in existence ! 
 No. He was not ignorant, nor treacherous, nor 
 cowardly, nor mad. But he spoke, in the honesty 
 of his heart, what he knew to be true ; and what 
 no well advised man would think of denying. Such 
 a concession, from such a personage, at such a 
 time, under such circumstances, is conclusive. It 
 shows, that in his day, the Bishops of the Latin 
 Church did not dream of asserting their superi- 
 ority to Presbyters by divine right. They had it 
 from the custom of the Church, and so long as 
 that custom was undisturbed, it was enough for 
 them. Among the Greeks, the blundering, and 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 259 
 
 hair-brained Epiphanius set up the claim of a^w^ 
 divinum; but his contemporaries were discreet 
 enough to let him fight so foolish a battle single 
 handed. 
 
 To Jerome and Augustin we may add Pelagius, 
 once their intimate friend, and afterwards, on ac- 
 count of his heresy, their sworn enemy. " He re- 
 stricts all Church officers to priest and deacon :* 
 and asserts, thatpr/e^/A^, without discrimination or 
 restriction, are the successors of the apostles. ''^'f He 
 has more to the same purpose ; reasoning as Je- 
 rome reasoned, from the Scriptures ; and coming, 
 as did Sedulius, Primasius, and others, to the 
 same result ; viz. the identity of Bishop and Pres- 
 byters.J 
 
 Let not the heresy of Pelagius be objected to us. 
 Our Arminians will not surely cast opprobrium 
 upon the name of this, their ancient sire. For our 
 parts, we, with Augustin, hold him in detestation, 
 as an enemy of the grace of God. But his heresy 
 does not vitiate his testimony in the present case. 
 Fiercely as he was attacked by Jerome and Au- 
 gustin, his opinions on the subject of Prelacy 
 made no article of accusation against him as a 
 heretic. Could it have been done with any show 
 of reason, we may be certain it would not have 
 been spared. But the silence of his Prelatical 
 
 * In Rom. xii. f In 1 Cor. i. 
 
 t Not having access to these writers, we quote from Jameson^s 
 Nazianzen: p. 176, 177. 
 
260 Review, 
 
 antagonists, on that head, is a proof both of the 
 justness of our foregoing comments on Augus- 
 tin's letter, and also of the general fact, that the 
 Bishops were conscious of their inability to meet 
 the question of their order upon the ground of 
 divine right. 
 
 There are two considerations which clothe our 
 argument with additional force. 
 
 T\iQ first is, that all able heretics, as Pelagius 
 confessedly was, in their assault upon the Church 
 of God, direct their batteries against those points 
 in which they deem her to be the least defensible 
 Rightly judging, that it is good policy to make a 
 breach, no matter where. Only unsettle the popu- 
 lar mind as to any one object which it has been 
 accustomed to venerate, and the perversion of it 
 with regard to many others, is much facilitated. 
 If, in this policy, Pelagius and his coadjutors at- 
 tacked the authority of the Bishops, they seized 
 upon the defenceless spot; and the bishops were 
 beaten without a struggle. It is easy to perceive 
 what an immense advantage was gained by the 
 heretics in their grand conflict, when their oppo- 
 nents were put fairly in the wrong on an incidental 
 point, but a point which, in itself, touched the very 
 nerves of the public passions. 
 
 The 5CC0WC/ consideration is, that persons of such 
 different conditions, and such hostile feelings, could 
 never have united in a common opinion upon a 
 deeply interesting topic, had not the facts upon 
 
Essays on Episcopacy, 261 
 
 which their union rested been perfectly indis- 
 putable. 
 
 Here is Presbyter and Prelate; the monk of 
 Palestine, and the African Bishop; orthodoxy 
 and heresy; Augustin and Pelagius; all com- 
 bining in one and the same declaration — that 
 Episcopacy has no better original than the custom 
 of the Church! Nothing but truth — acknowledged 
 truth — truth which it was vain to doubt, could have 
 brought these jarring materials into such a har- 
 mony; these discordant spirits into such a con- 
 currence. — Stronger evidence it is hardly possible 
 to obtain ; and it would be the very pertness of 
 incredulity to demand. Yet there are writers who 
 do not blush to look us in the face, and assert that 
 the testimony of the primitive Fathers is univer- 
 sally in favour of Episcopacy, as having been es- 
 tablished by Christ and his apostles ! !* 
 
 Does the sun shine } Is the grass green } Are 
 stones hard } Another shove, and we shall be in 
 Dean Berkeley's ideal world ! — If every thing sober 
 and solid is to be thus outfaced, there is nothing 
 for it, but to abandon fact and demonstration as 
 chimeras, and to take up what was once the ditty 
 of a fool, but is now the best philosophy, 
 
 * Essays, p. 135. 
 
REVIEW 
 
 HOB ART'S APOLOGY 
 
REVIEW 
 
 '' All Apology for apostolic order and its advo- 
 cates^ occasioned by tJie strictures and denun- 
 ciations of the Christian^ s Magazine. In a 
 series of lettei^s addressed to the Rev. John M. 
 Mason, D. Z>., editor of that icork. By the 
 Rev. John Henry Hobart, an assistant minister 
 of Trinity Church.''^ 
 
 The purpose of these letters, as their title 
 indicates, is to depress the credit, and resist the 
 influence, of the Christianas Magazine. That 
 this work has claims to the dislike of high 
 churchmen, we affect not to deny. One of 
 its objects, although by no means the primary 
 one, is to investigate, generally, the pretensions 
 of the Episcopal hierarchy. As a means for 
 accomplishing this particular end, it commenced 
 a review of that " Collection of Essays," which 
 Dr. Hobart republished in a single volume, with 
 comments of his own. The reason of brimyinor 
 liis " collection" to a rigorous test, was not any 
 thing original or peculiar in the '' essays" them- 
 selves, but a conviction that when they should 
 be fairly disposed of, neither Dr. H. nor Cyprian , 
 nor the Layman, nor Cornelius, nor their friends, 
 34=^ 
 
266 Review. 
 
 would have any more to say. Had these writers 
 been shut up with their Bibles, their " Lexicons," 
 and the fathers to whom they are constantly 
 referring, a very small part of their lucubrations 
 would have seen the light. Not they^ but Arch- 
 bishop Potter^ and other, the most powerful 
 advocates of the Episcopal church, are the rea/ 
 authors, under the signatures of Cyprian^ the 
 Layman^ &c. The gentlemen who own these 
 papers, must put up with the humbler praise of 
 amanuenses to their greater predecessors. This 
 they know as well as we, and they know too, 
 what we also know, that when their arguments 
 in the aforesaid collection shall be expended, the 
 stock, to use a mercantile phrase, the stock in 
 trade will be out. 
 
 Considering, therefore, that in taking up these 
 essayists, the C. M. is directing its fire not against 
 straggling detachments of her light infantry, but 
 against her heavy armed troops, against her 
 picked veterans, it was determined to begin 
 with the hierarchy, as they ougiit to do who 
 intend to proceed, and never to stop till they 
 have successively cut her columns in pieces. 
 And to this determination, however it may be 
 relished, the C. M. will most religiously adhere. 
 
 The cry which is already set up, sufficiently 
 ascertains the nature of the first impression. 
 Dr. H.'s letters do not surprise us. We were 
 aware that a style of criticism more decisive 
 than has been customary in our literary journals, 
 
HoharVs Apology. 267 
 
 would, of itself, be in the eyes of many, an 
 offence never to be expiated. But having 
 counted the cost before we ventured upon the 
 enterprise ; having met with no opposition 
 which we did not anticipate ; and seeing no 
 cause to repent of the steps which we have 
 already taken, we shall continue to act upon 
 the principle of reviewing authors, as author's^ 
 without regard to their party connexions ; of 
 calling things by their proper names ; and of 
 expressing ourselves as we think men ought to 
 do who believe what they say ; and who believe 
 it to be important as well as true. 
 
 The letters before us we do not profess to 
 answer. It would be incompatible with the 
 limits of our miscellany ; and we frankly ac- 
 knowledge that, on some accounts, they are 
 unansicerahle. No man can refute rant, passion, 
 or personal abuse. And if every thing com- 
 posed of these items were expunged, Dr. H.'s 
 pages would probably be, both in appearance 
 and meaning, not very unlike the poem which 
 the satyrical critic amended by drawing his pen 
 through every other line. Had the editor of the 
 Christian's Magazine no other concern with 
 these letters than is created by their effect on 
 him as an individual and a Presbyterian, he 
 would have left them to their own operation, 
 unmolested and unnoticed. But as the conductor 
 of a periodical work to which the public has 
 extended no common share of favor, and which 
 
268 ^ Review. 
 
 more than Dr. H. have an interest in suppressing, 
 he owes to his own responsibility, the compli- 
 ment of a few strictures on that gentleman's 
 volume. 
 
 The first number of the Christian's Magazine 
 contains only preliminary remarks on the nature 
 of the Episcopal pretensions. The second 
 enters no further into their merits, than to state 
 and enforce the argument for ministerial parity, 
 drawn from the official titles of the New Testa- 
 ment ; and to show that the contempt w bich 
 the advocates of the hierarchy always pour upon 
 it, arises from their perceiving that it is fatal to 
 their cause ; and, therefore, per fas jjer nefas^ 
 by fair means or by foul, must be set aside. Dr. 
 H. not content with endeavoring to avert this 
 blow from his church, has thought proper to 
 retread the ivhole of the controverted ground : 
 and, in defending her from the '^denunciations," 
 as he terms them, of the Christian's Magazine, 
 to expatiate, at great length, upon several ma- 
 terial topics, which it had not so much as touched. 
 We have no objection. But as he has said 
 nothing relative to the main question, which, 
 for substance, had not already been said in the 
 '' collection" under review^, w^e shall not now 
 follow him. All that we judge of sufficient 
 moment shall be noticed as we come up w^ith 
 it, in the regular course of discussion. We only 
 pledge ourselves to prove, in the proper place, 
 that with regard to the essential facts ^ his book 
 
Hoborfs Apology. 269 
 
 is a mass of misrepresentations ; and such mis- 
 representations, that when they are corrected, 
 his argument perishes. Neither shall we here 
 survey the caricatura which he has drawn of 
 the Calvinistic doctrines. We reserve this for 
 a separate criticism. We only express our 
 regret that he has permitted himself to assail 
 them in that same style of invective in which 
 the Socinians vent their rancor against the 
 atonement ; and the infidels theirs against 
 revelation. 
 
 Our review, theref<are, of Dr. H.'s letters shall 
 be chiefly confined to his reflections on those 
 points which are treated of in the first two 
 numbers of the Christian's Magazine. If our 
 remarks ramble, the reader will remember, that 
 Dr. H.'s being a desultory writer, is no fault of 
 ours ; and that we must take his works as he 
 is pleased to publish them. But crude and 
 rhapsodical as his letters are, they pursue, with 
 undeviating consistency, two objects which 
 continually force themselves upon the reader's 
 attention. The first is to defeat the Christian's 
 Magazine by rendering the Editor •personally 
 odious : and the second, to overthrow the Pres- 
 byterians^ by inspiring a detestation of Calvinism. 
 In the prosecution of this design, assertions and 
 insinuations are huddled together with as little 
 respect to facts, as if the principal business 
 w^ere not to write truth, but to icrite ; and at 
 the same time with an air of as i2freat confidence 
 
270 Review. 
 
 as if the Rev. writer really knew what he is 
 saying. Merely to show how closely his pen is 
 leagued with the genius of mistake, w^e shall 
 adduce two or three instances, which are in 
 themselves of little significance. 
 
 " All the original productions in the number of the Magazine 
 before me, with the exception of the essay on the Visible Church, 
 point, with resistless evidence, to you as the author." p. 13. 
 
 The fact is quite otherwise. But it is not 
 uncommon for Dr. H. and his friends to find 
 '' striking evidence," and " resistless evidence," 
 of things which do not exist. However, as he 
 has happened to guess right wi^ong^ he is at 
 liberty to guess again in his next octavo. 
 
 " During this period," viz. more than two years, " the plan of 
 the Christian's Magazine has been arranging, materials collect- 
 ing, and the matter preparing that was to enrich its pages. 
 There has been full time for chastening the indignant and pas- 
 sionate review of the Essays on Episcopacy^ by the gentle dic- 
 tates of judgment and charity. The intemperate spirit which it 
 breathes is left without even the excuse of precipitancy and 
 rashness." p. 13, 14. 
 
 This paragraph requires no comment. Its 
 undisguised purpose is to fix upon the editor the 
 imputation of some of the worst passions that 
 can rankle in the human heart. Dr. H. has 
 forgotten his self-respect in alleging a false fact 
 to justify a " railing accusation." His account 
 of the Christian's Magazine, so far as we have 
 quoted it, is a pure fabrication. But it is his 
 unhappiness very often to deal out fiction, when 
 he should be relating history. 
 
HgharVs Apology. 271 
 
 Dr. H. derives consolation from defending the 
 cause of Episcopacy in the same ranks with the 
 
 " Eminent and revered bishops Hall, Andrews, Sanderson, 
 Taylor, Beveridge, Potter, Wake, Wilson, Horne, Horse- 
 ley; the learned and pious divines, Chillingworth, Hammond, 
 Leslie, Jones ; and " a legion more," illustrious for talents, for 
 learning, and j9i 6^?/." p. 17. 
 
 Our reason for quoting this paragraph is, its 
 classing bishop Horseley with Hall and Beve- 
 ridge, as a nnan o{ piety. " Illustrious for talents 
 and learning" he certainly was, but ^^ piety ^^ is 
 the last thing of which his memory will be 
 accused by any one acquainted with public 
 character in Britain. On this subject we shall 
 not tell all we know^ ; but hold ourselves 
 responsible for the truth of our assertion, which 
 we should very reluctantly verify by specifying 
 authentic particulars. We have no pleasure in 
 stating such a fact at all ; but mention it only 
 as a strong instance of Dr. H.'s haste and inac- 
 curacy ; as a proof that his readers are not safe 
 in relying upon his representations. We do 
 not say nor insinuate that they are loilfully 
 inaccurate ; but that he is incessantly falling 
 into error in matters of fact. If an inquirer be 
 misled, it is the same to him whether his guide 
 deceive him intentionally, carelessly, or igno- 
 rantly. Dr. H. has placed himself irretrievably 
 in the predicament of those w^'iters who '' know 
 a little, suppose much, and so jump to a conclu- 
 sion" — which conclusion is generally wrong. 
 
 Dr. H. whether through oversight or design, 
 
272 Bevieio. 
 
 we undertake not to decide, has coujJed his 
 subject as much as possible with personal feel- 
 ing. By introducing the names of denominations 
 and of individuals into the Aery heart of the 
 argument in such a manner as to make them 
 almost inseparable, he has reduced us to the 
 dilemma of either saying nothing, and then our 
 silence would be interpreted as it should suit 
 the interpreter ; or of exposing ourselves to the 
 charge of personal rudeness. The C. M. scru- 
 pulously avoided all such references. It was 
 not from want of power, but from a conviction 
 of their impropriety, that it did not adopt them, 
 with galling effect, on certain individuals who 
 shall still be nameless. If therefore any thing 
 that may be thought unceremonious shall drop 
 from our pen, the displeased reader must hold 
 Dr. H. accountable. 
 
 After a very grotesque, and, as we think, 
 unseemly, parody on the official phraseology of 
 the President of tlie United States, and a shrewd 
 hint that /<2ar was a principal cause of delaying 
 the appearance of the C. M. Dr. H. thus explains 
 the commencement of the discussions which are 
 now taking place. 
 
 " A hero, however, no less renowned than the Rev. Dr. Linn, 
 not taught wisdom by the salutary lessons which he had received 
 some years ago from the "Right Rev. Prelate of New York," in 
 a theological contest, felt all the vigor and ardor of his youthful 
 days renewed. Indignant at this delay, and spurning the 
 restraints of his compeers, he rushed forward to spread dismay 
 among the Episcopalians, and, single-handed, cover ihem with 
 
Hoharfs Apology. 273 
 
 defeat. In his numbers styled " Miscellanies," published in the 
 Albany Centinel, he attacked the principles of the Episcopalians. 
 He was instantly met — met, and vanquished by striplings inferior 
 to this venerable giant in literature and theology, in every thing 
 but the goodness of their cause, and judgment in defending it." 
 p. 9, 10. 
 
 The custom of leaping at Rhodes,* we per- 
 ceive is still in fashion. It will be time enough 
 for Dr. H. to boast of his stripling friends having 
 '' vanquished" Dr. L. when the fact is ascer- 
 tained. The testimony in evidence is not yet 
 closed. The courteous manner of using Dr. Linn, 
 as a foil not only to the '' Right Rev. Prelate," 
 but to the '' striplings" who are his equals in 
 ''judgment," is entirely in the spirit of a system 
 very prevalent among the sons of the hierarchy 
 — the system of praising each other. 
 
 In this instance, however, the panegyrist has 
 overshot his mark. Of all the human faculties 
 judgment arrives the last at maturity ; for it 
 depends the most upon experience, and is, for 
 that reason, the least cultivated in youth of the 
 very best natural endowments. Had ice put an 
 Episcopal gentleman of acknowledged abilities 
 and literature, on a level with any of our own 
 '' striplingvs" in the article of "judgment," we 
 could hardly have hoped to escape with a rebuke 
 for being merely indecorous. We refer obser- 
 vations like these to Dr. H.'s less precipitate 
 moments. In the mean time, as he has intro- 
 duced his diocesan to our notice, in a manner 
 
 * Vide Esop's Fables, F. 14. ed. Oxon. 1718. 
 
274 Review. 
 
 which cannot but be flattering to his connexions, 
 we shall embrace this occasion of presenting to 
 our readers a sample of that " salutary" instruc- 
 tion which he bestowed, without effect, on Dr. 
 Linn. 
 
 It was not our wish to say a word which 
 might have an unfriendly aspect toward a pre- 
 late who is deservedly esteemed in society, and 
 is dis^tinguished for amiable manners, and polite 
 literature. But as Dr. H. has employed his 
 pencil in historical painting, we cannot refuse 
 to look at his picture, and to supply what is 
 lacking in its explanation. Yonder, in the back 
 ground, lies a hapless wight; his head uncovered, 
 his weapons shivered, his body transfixed. This, 
 the painter informs us, is Dr. Linn, the Presby- 
 terian, who has just reaped the reward of his 
 folly in not profiting by the '' salutary lessons 
 which he had received some years ago from the 
 Right Rev. Prelate of New York." Alas, my 
 brother ! More conspicuous on the canvas are 
 two figures in an erect attitude ; their backs are 
 toward the prostrate presbyter, and their ruddy 
 countenances express the triumph of conquerors. 
 These, the painter tells us, are the '' striplings," 
 who have just avenged their Alma Mater, the 
 hierarchy, by making the wickied presbyter 
 aforesaid, who had breathed upon her good 
 name, to " bite the dust." — Here, 
 
 Above the rest 
 In shape and gesture proudly eminent, 
 
Hoharfs Apology. 275 
 
 is portrayed a personage who, the painter lets 
 us know, is the prehxte ah-eady mentioned. We 
 were somewhat anxious to learn the particulars 
 of his prowess ; but the painter stopped short, 
 and we were obliged to repair to other sources 
 of information. Having, in common with other 
 people, a little memory, we recollected some- 
 thing very like a " gigantic" feat, in the contest 
 to which Dr. H. alludes in the extract quoted 
 above. We turned to the pamphlets of the day, 
 and in one of them met with the following 
 sentences. 
 
 " There is a general propensity in men to 
 form gods unto themselves ; in contemplating the 
 character of the Deity, to dwell chiefly on those 
 attributes which are most congenial to the 
 prevailing dispositions of their own hearts. The 
 mild, the meek, the merciful, love to describe 
 God as a being whose tender mercies are over all 
 his icorks ; the passionate, the arrogant, the 
 tyrannical, take delight in speaking of him as 
 an almighty sovereign, who icorketh all tlihigs 
 according to the purpose of his oion ivill, and 
 whose glory is as much displayed in the perdi- 
 tion of sinners, as it is in the salvation of the 
 righteous."^^ 
 
 The reader will observe that the words in 
 
 * See The doctrine of haptismal regeneration vindicated against the 
 objections of Dr. Linn,and others : to which is added, Dr. JVaterland's 
 discourse on the same subject. By Benjamin JMoore, D. D. New 
 York, Printed by Hugh Gaine, at ihc Bible, in Hanover-Square, 
 1793. p. 20. 
 
276 Review. 
 
 Italics are scriptural expressions. The last 
 occurs in Eph. i. 11 : " In whom also we have 
 obtained an inheritance, being predestinated 
 according to the purpose of him iclio worketh 
 all things after the counsel of his oivn luill.^^ 
 
 Dr. Moore says, that they are the "passionate, 
 the arrogant, and the tyrannical," who take 
 delight in such a representation of God. Yet 
 this is the representation given of him by the 
 inspired apostle; and that, when he is celebra- 
 ting in the fulness of gratitude, of tenderness, 
 and of love, the 'praise of the glory of God's grace 
 loherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved, 
 V. 6. 
 
 This is a representation on which the Scrip- 
 tures dwell as much as upon any other. Nor 
 is there scarcely either a prophet or an apostle, 
 but will hav e, by Dr. Moore's rule, the brand of 
 passion, and arrogance, and tyranny, imprinted 
 on him. Will he maintain that there is any 
 attribute of God, wiiich " the mild, tlie meek, 
 the merciful," do not delight to contemplate 7 
 Then he will maintain that tliere are attributes 
 of God at variance with mildness, and meekness, 
 and mercy. Then, if we rejoice because the 
 Lord reigneth — if we pray that his will may be 
 done in earthy as it is done in heaven^ where it 
 is never disputed, and must be absolute — if we 
 join with the nations of the saved — with the holy 
 apostles and projjhets — with the very heaven^ in 
 rejoicing at the execution of the divine judg- 
 
Hoharfs Apology. 277 
 
 ments,^^ we must be turned over among the 
 '' passionate, the arrogant, the tyrannical." 
 
 It would be w^ell if this stroke of Dr. M. 
 struck no deeper : but since the passage which 
 he has pointed out as congenial with the 
 prevailing dispositions of the '' passionate, the 
 arrogant, the tyrannical," together with innu- 
 merable passages of the same sort, were dic- 
 tated by the Holy Spirit, the implication is very 
 strong, that there are some of Jehovah's per- 
 fections in which he himself does not delight ; 
 or else he, too, must be smitten with the charge 
 of passion, and arrogance, and tyranny ! 
 
 We make these? remarks w^ith more pain than 
 we wish our opponents ever to suffer. Dr. H. 
 has compelled us. 
 
 We should extend our remarks to an unrea- 
 sonable length, were w^e to rectify all the mis- 
 takes and improprieties of these Letters. Near- 
 ly every page abounds with materials for com- 
 ments which no moderation of manner could 
 render much more acceptable to the Rev. au- 
 thor, than the original review w^hich has thrown 
 his temper so entirely off its balance. A man 
 W'ho whites in great haste, and under the goad- 
 ings of irritation, easily fills up a volume, be- 
 cause he has neither time nor inclination to be 
 
 * Rev. xviii. 20. xix. 1 — 7. The precise view under which the 
 niiliennial church is represented as delighting in God. is that of an 
 " Ahnighty sovereign." Alleluia ! for the Lord Goi> Omnipotent 
 reiarneth. v. 6. 
 
278 RevieiD. 
 
 nice in the selection of its contents. This, in- 
 deed, gives him no claim to the indulgence of 
 criticism ; but as it marks his literary offspring 
 for early decease, it supersedes a vast amount 
 of ungrateful labour; and as it bespeaks more 
 need of medicine than of chastisement, it rather 
 pleads for compassion, than rouses indignation. 
 
 Instead, therefore, of troubling ourselves with 
 copious extracts from Dr. H.'s declamations, we 
 shall remit them, for the most part, to the judg- 
 ment of the reader. We are entirely willing 
 that he should pronounce sentence, after com- 
 paring Dr. H.'s "Apology" w ith the "Christian's 
 Magazine," on points which are discussed- in 
 both. We request, however, a single favour ; 
 that he will ask himself, on perusing the Maga- 
 zine, whether he can or cannot form a correct 
 idea of the nature and strength of the Episco- 
 pal argument? and again, on perusing the Apol- 
 ogy, whether he can or cannot form a correct 
 idea of the nature and strength of the argument 
 in the Magazine ? This will help him to deter- 
 mine on which side the fault of misrepresenta- 
 tion lies. 
 
 In our first number we had observed, that the 
 non~Episcopalians will probably view Dr. H.'s 
 apology for himself, "as a stratagem, and not a 
 very deep one, to avoid the unpopularity of ap- 
 pearing as the aggressor." By this remark, 
 and a page or two preceding it, he is so extreme- 
 ly nettled as to enter upon a formal vindication, 
 
Hoharfs Apology. 279 
 
 in which he endeavours to prove that hostilities 
 were commenced on the other side. If the re- 
 crimination has given him any relief, we do not 
 wish, and shall not attempt, to interrupt his re- 
 pose. Let him have it in his own way. It is 
 really so trifling a part of the discussion, that 
 we shall waste very little time or paper upon it. 
 However, we wonder that while he was ahout 
 it, the fervent apologist did not carry the chro- 
 nology of the warfare further hack, and date it 
 from presbyter Jerome^ in the fourth century. 
 This would have been doing business to some 
 purpose. For our part, had the Episcopal di- 
 vines and writers contented themselves with 
 declaring their predilection for their own sys- 
 tem, as most agreeable to Scripture and anti- 
 quity ; had they not boasted of their pre-emi- 
 nence in such a manner as to throw over the 
 line of covenanted mercy, all the non-Episcopal 
 churches under heaven ; we should not have 
 embarked in this controversy. They might 
 have said and sung, " It is evident unto all men 
 diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient 
 authors, that from the apostles' time, there have 
 been three orders of ministers in Christ's church, 
 bishops, priests and deacons."^ as often, as loud, 
 and as long as they thought fit. This never 
 provoked the contest. But when they pro- 
 
 * Preface to the book of consecrating and ordering bishops, priests, 
 and deacons, as quoted in Detector^ No 11. Essays on Episcopacy, 
 p. 105. 
 
280 Review. 
 
 ceeded to shut out from covenanted mercy, all 
 churches which do not receive their "bishops, 
 priests and deacons," the case was altered. Pa- 
 tience ceased to be a virtue : Passiveness be- 
 came a crime. We were summoned to the de- 
 fence, not merely of our external order, but of 
 that "liberty wherewith Christ has made us 
 free ;" of that " hope by the w^hich we draw 
 nigh unto God." And, " having put our hand 
 to the plow," it is our unalterable purpose, as 
 his grace sliall enable us, not " to look back." 
 
 We take our final leave of this question, with 
 a word or two on the justification wiiich Dr. H. 
 and his friends have set up. " My single ob- 
 ject," says he, " w^as the instruction of Episco- 
 palians."* His works are declared by the Lay- 
 man to be " addressed to Episcopalians alone.'\ 
 Is it so ? Where then w^as their vaunted chari- 
 ty^ in trying to conceal from others, or not 
 trying to extend to them, the knowledge of 
 truth upon the admission or rejection of which ^ 
 depends admission to, or exclusion from, God's 
 covenanted mercy ? Is it thus that Charity be- 
 haves towards the souls of men '? 
 
 But how is all this to be reconciled with what 
 these same gentlemen tell us, when they are 
 occupied with another view of their subject? 
 For brevity's sake, w^e quote the Layman only, 
 as he is particularly pointed, and as his papers 
 
 * Apology, p. 36. * t No. III. Coll. p. 32. 
 
Hobarfs Apology. 281 
 
 have been republished, with unqualified appro- 
 bation, by Dr. H. himself. 
 
 " Let it be recollected that error is venial only in proportion 
 as it is involuntary. How, then, shall that man excuse himself, 
 who, having been warned of the defect of the ministry at whose 
 hands he receives the ordinances of the gospel, neglects, never- 
 theless, to give attention to the subject, and to examine dispas- 
 sionately, those works which prove the necessity of union with 
 that church, the validity of whose ministrations even its most in- 
 veterate opponents are obliged to acknowledge."* 
 
 On the Layman's principles, such a case can- 
 not exist. For in the very next page, he main- 
 tains, that " those who have departed from 
 Episcopacy, have no spiritual authority what- 
 ever; have no ministers; and no ordinances." 
 How we are to ^^ receive the ordinajices of the gos- 
 pel,^^ in churches which have " no ministers, and 
 710 ordinances j^^ exceeds our comprehension. 
 
 This eji passant. We are reduced, it seems, 
 to a hard predicament. In the first place, we 
 have nothing to do with works which prove the 
 necessity of union with the Episcopal church, 
 such as those published by Dr. H. ; because 
 they are "addressed to Episcopalians «/one;" 
 and, in the next place, we are without excuse 
 for neglecting to examine them. We are 
 WARNED, it is said, of the defect of our min- 
 istry. Warned ! By whom ? Not by our own 
 ministry. They perceive not the fatal defect. 
 Not by Dr. H.'s works ; they w^ere intended for 
 none but Episcopalians ! and yet we are to be 
 
 * Laymauy No. IX, Collect, p. 158, 
 
 34 
 
282 Revieio. 
 
 without excuse ! another sample of charity^ we 
 suppose. Very possibly, however, this good 
 office is performed by the advices and admoni- 
 tions of the Layman. We are much his debtors ; 
 especially as in not yielding to his voice, we en- 
 counter the hazard of forfeiting, by voluntary 
 error, all claim upon mercy, covenanted or 
 uncovenanted. So that we, miserable sinners 
 that we are, ice can hardly escape from the al- 
 ternative of " Episcopacy or perdition," with 
 all the charity of Dr. H. to help us. Of this 
 enough. 
 
 Our fiery apologist represents the strictures 
 of the C. M. as " an unjust, ungenerous, and cru- 
 el appeal to prejudice and passion" — an appeal 
 ^' precluding all candid and dispassionate inqui- 
 ry." Nay, such an appeal " as even an honest 
 politicaUdeclaimer, in the mad fervour of party 
 zeal, would not use without a blush. "^ The 
 sacredness of ^conscience, and the decorum of 
 religion all apart, as unworthy of its regard, the 
 C. M. breathes a spirit, and has employed arts, 
 which befit none but a jjolitical knave I Very 
 decent and modest, we own. A pure, untainted 
 ebullition of " that meekness of celestial wis- 
 dom" in which the Rev. Apologist has promised 
 to defend the ^' apostolic church ! "t And then, 
 by way of exhibiting to the world how far he is 
 himself removed from every thing like " preju- 
 dice and passion," he turns advocate-general of 
 
 * A-pology^ p. 13, t Ihid p. 15, 
 
HobarVs Apology. 283 
 
 all that the C. M. had censured, not forgetting 
 JV. G. Dufief! He has tried to impress on in- 
 dividuals, mentioned by name, the opinion that 
 we have personally insulted them. From that 
 part of Dr. Nott's address, which recommends 
 the character of Christ as the perfect model of 
 imitation, he has garbled a passage; leaving 
 out the very icords on ichich ive laid the whole 
 stress of our criticism ; and a part which not 
 only we never condemned, but which it is im- 
 possible we should condemn, he has held up 
 to the reader's eye, as furnishing us with an 
 occasion of painting the Rev. President of Union 
 College, as a "perjured hypocrite!"^ He has 
 done more. The introduction to the C. M. 
 draws a rapid outline of evils which infest the 
 church of God. The characteristics which it 
 has sketched, are general. Originals we un- 
 doubtedly had in view ; but we made no appli- 
 cations. Dr. H. has taken this work off our 
 hands, and off the hands of the reader too. He 
 sallies forth with his basket of caps, and in the 
 name of the editor of the Christian's Magazine, 
 puts one on the head of almost every denomi- 
 nation he meets. It is proper, however, to 
 state that the labels, " Quakers," '' Methodists," 
 '' Episcopalians," cfec, were aflSxedto our name- 
 less caps, on the responsibility of the Apologist. 
 He has acquitted himself in this volunteered ser- 
 vice, with a judgment perfectly parallel to his 
 
 * Apology, p. 23, 24. 
 
284 jRevieiv. 
 
 accuracy in matters of historical fact. We are 
 under no obligation to correct his blunders. 
 But as he ought to be well acquainted with 
 his ow^n church, and perceives her to be describ- 
 ed by those who, " like the self-justifiers of old, 
 * tithe mint, and anise, and cummin,' little con- 
 cerned about either receiving Christ Jesus the 
 Lord, or walking in him, provided they be ex- 
 act in their routine of ceremonies ;"^ we have 
 no sort of objection to her w^earing the cap 
 w^hich her good and dutiful son has appropri- 
 ated to her use. 
 
 Commonly in such cases, the affront lies not 
 in the description, but in the application. — 
 Should a hearer of Dr. H.'s run away with a 
 sermon of his against various sins, and say to 
 A, '^ this was for you ;" to B, " this w^as cer- 
 tainly for you;" to C, '' here is something which 
 was not intended for you, but the next sentence 
 can mean nobody else ;" and should do this 
 with a design of persuading them that he meant 
 to excite the hatred of their neighbours against 
 them, who would be the firebrand? Dr. H. or 
 his officious interpreter ? Just so has he served 
 us. Not we, then, but Dr. H. has abused the 
 surrounding denominations. The inflammatory 
 suggestions are his own. And, in the very act 
 of making them, he inveighs against us for "ap- 
 pealing to prejudice and passion !" 
 
 Another source of tribulation to this " meek" 
 
 * Jlpology^^. 18. 
 
Hobarfs Apology. 285 
 
 apologist, is in the pride, the bitterness, the inn- 
 periousness, the virulence, the despotism, the 
 arrogance, &c. &c. &c. of the C. M.* Unhap- 
 py gentleman ! Denunciations, and thunder, 
 and bolts, and blastings, and chains, and inqui- 
 sitions, and racks, are constantly present to his 
 imagination, and fill it with a wildness which, 
 like that of Sir William Draper, has the "mel- 
 ancholy madness of poetry, without the inspi- 
 ration."! 
 
 Being, therefore, greatly scandalized at our 
 insolence aforesaid, Dr. H. not only bestows 
 upon us his kind rebukes by the dozen and the 
 score, but offers himself as a contrast which 
 must put us to shame. ''Sweet as summer,'' 
 and " serene as light," his silvered sentences, 
 and his Attic wit, shall flow unimbittered with 
 resentment, unstained with injuriousness, un- 
 ruffled by the breath of indecorum. A noble 
 resolution, and nobly kept. We give both text 
 and comment ; both promise and fulfilment, in 
 his own words : 
 
 TEXT. 
 
 " My own determination is unalterably formed in that firm 
 language which conscious truth inspires, but in that ''meekness 
 of celestial uisdom'' which the gospel enjoins, to defend the 
 apostolic church, at whose altar I minister, against every wea- 
 pon that is formed against her." 
 
 COMMENT. 
 
 "Presumptuous men !" (meaning himself, the Layman, and 
 Cyprian,) "luckless was the hour when ye provoked the wrath of 
 
 * Apology, p. 7, 18-25, 33, 25-30, 240. f Junius, Let. VII. 
 
 X -Apology, T^. 15. 
 
286 Review. 
 
 the learned Dr. M., that paragon of talents, who, glowing with 
 intuitive knowledge, can exhaust any subject without reading a 
 page, or consulting any author. 
 
 " But, Sir, (I am almost afraid to expostulate with you, lest I 
 should provoke your heavier ven^-eance,) it was not quite /air, it 
 was not quite generoics and manly, (modesty I know is an un- 
 fashionable virtue,) to overwhelm by your dazzling talents, three 
 humble individuals, who have reached only the first steps of the 
 temple of science, whose vestibule you have long since passed, 
 whose sacred recesses you have already explored. At our period 
 of life, eight or ten years may make an important difference in 
 the sum of attainments. And, through the good providence of 
 God, we can look forward to at least as many years before we 
 shall equal the present age of our giant censor. When as many 
 suns have rolled over our heads as have shed their collected glo- 
 ries upon him, perhaps, (alas ! is not the hope presumptuous ?) — 
 perhaps, (despair almost arrests my pen,) — perhaps we may 
 equal in erudition, the profoundly learned Dr. M. At present, 
 we lay claim to sufficient learning and talent to defend the Epis- 
 copal Church against any adversary. Even the sneers, and 
 frowns, and haughty airs of the Editor of the Christian's Maga- 
 zine, we can summon resolution to smile at, and to disregard."* 
 
 Upon the civility of this passage, we say no- 
 thing. It will never subject the writer to any 
 raillery for being unfashionable. But to hope 
 that it should be read without relaxed muscles, 
 would be an unconscionable demand upon the 
 gravity of Cato himself After the high ground 
 which these warriors had taken, their military 
 attitude, their formidable train of bishops and 
 fathers, and their strong defiance to the Pres- 
 byterian camp, to scream out so piteously at 
 the very first fire, and tell all the world that they 
 are now raw lads, but with the privilege of 
 
 * .Apology, ip. 240, 241. 
 
Hoharfs Apology. 287 
 
 learning their tactics for eight or ten years^ they 
 will give a good account of their foe, is divert- 
 ing enough. We had supposed that when we 
 died of old age, it would be time for these gen- 
 tlemen to make their wills. .But we must own 
 that Dr. H. has displayed so much of the boy, 
 as to leave us at a loss on that weighty matter. 
 " Pray, Dr.," said Lady W. to the late principal 
 Robertson, as she was flirting in a large com- 
 pany, with all the airs and petulancies of a girl- 
 ish coquette, " Pray, Dr., how old do you think 
 I am ?" '^ Really, Madam," replied the sage, '' I 
 cannot pretend to know; but I should suppose 
 that your Ladyship has not arrived at the years 
 of discretion." Judging from, the morceau which 
 we have selected, and which is by no means 
 alone in Dr. H.'s writings, we should conclude 
 that he is somewhere in his teens. Whether he 
 shall ever get out of them or not, the future 
 must reveal. We have done with this also. 
 
 The Christian's Magazine, in consequence, 
 as we thought, of sufficient evidence from their 
 own publications, had charged Dr. Hobart and 
 some of his brethren, with teaching that there 
 is no Christian ministry but the Episcopal min- 
 istry ; no church of Christ but the Episcopal 
 church ; and that all without her pale are ex- 
 cluded from the covenanted mercies of God.* 
 
 Such tenets, as we have several times ob- 
 served, although mollified with a pretty large 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, Vol. I. p. 93-97. 
 
288 Feview. 
 
 allowance for "involuntary and unavoidable 
 ignorance or error," we felt it our duty to resist, 
 not only with firmness, but with a portion of 
 that indignant spirit which we then thought, 
 and still think, the outrage both justified and 
 required. We do not mean an outrage upon 
 the opinions, the partialities, the vanity, or the 
 wishes, of other denominations. Uncharitable- 
 ness and bigotry, against which the milh'on ex- 
 claim with so much noise and so little intelli- 
 gence, made no part of our accusation ; and 
 shall make none hereafter. Their relative 
 weight in the scale of judgment, is lighter than 
 a feather. The outrage wdiich we deemed it 
 no meekness to bear, nor any insolence to chas- 
 tise, was committed, at least in our view, 
 against the ^^ truth as it is in Jesus;" and 
 against the character, the peace, and the hope 
 of thousands of his most exemplary followers. 
 
 Our remarks on this subject. Dr. Hobart re- 
 sents as unfounded, injurious, and even cruel. 
 We quote his sixth letter. 
 
 "Your other charges," viz. besides that of aggression, "may- 
 be thus summed up: 
 
 " That I maintain, that communion with the Episcopal 
 priesthood is a condition of salvation which is not only indispen- 
 sable on the part of wan, (in which sense I apply the word indis- 
 pensable,) but which God himself will not dispense with ; and 
 that ' the simple fact of separation from the Episcopal priest- 
 hood' renders all repentance and faith unavailing, ' mars the 
 religion of non-Episcopalians, and renders it stark naught !' — 
 and that thus I make the " only alternative, Episcopacy or Per- 
 dition ! !'* 
 
 * Christian's Magazine^ P- 94, 95. 
 
Hohart's Apology. 28 9 
 
 " That I ' make particular views of external order, the hing- 
 ing point of salvation'* — that I ' place the external order of the 
 Church, upon a level with the merits of our Lord Jesus, in the 
 article ot acceptance before God ;'t — that, with respect to non- 
 Episcopalians, I make Episcopacy of primary^ and faith in the 
 Redeemer of secondary importance 5't — and that I maintain that 
 ' faith in Christ is impossible where there is no communion with 
 the Bishop.'t 
 
 " ]\ow, sir, before you can be 'justified in uttering a syllable 
 which only looks towards conclusions,' which hold me up as a 
 monster of arrogance and impiety, unfit to be tolerated among 
 Christians, you ought to be not only 'perfectly certain of your 
 premises,' but that your conclusions also are fairly and legiti- 
 mately drawn. 
 
 " I utterly disclaim the sentiments you impute to me. 
 
 "I utterly desy the truth of your charges. 
 
 " I pledge myself to prove that you support them by partial 
 Q.nd false views of my opinions — by uncandidly toTtm^ing them 
 to 3,n extreme — and by illogical deductions which a^z^s^reasoner 
 should blush to make, and a candid reasoner should scorn to 
 enlist into his service. 
 
 "1 pledge myself to prove that the same uncandid methods 
 would attach the same odium to your own principles 5 and that I 
 lay no greater stress on external order, on communion with the 
 church through its ministry and ordinances, than the standards 
 and confessions of faith of the Presbyterian churches will war- 
 rant." 
 
 We have examined, and re-examined our of- 
 fensive review : We luivc " accompanied" our 
 angry correspondent " through the pages of our 
 Magazine ;" and after listening attentively to 
 his remonstrances, cannot perceive that he has 
 convicted us of any material inaccuracy. But, 
 seeing that he explicitly disclaims the opinions 
 imputed to him, we as explicitly acquit himper- 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, p. 98. t Ibid. p. 99. 
 
 31-^ 
 
290 Review. 
 
 sonallj/j from the imputation : and we do no 
 more than we had virtually done already. In 
 expressing his charity for non-Episcopalians, he 
 had, in effect, renounced the consequences which 
 we deduced from his doctrines. This no extra- 
 ordinary penetration was needful to discover. 
 Our dehate, therefore, from the heginning, was 
 not w^ith the man, hut with the iDrite7\ We are 
 not sure that Dr. H. will thank us for the dis- 
 tinction : as, by supposing that he may be a very 
 good man, and yet a very bad logician, it saves 
 his philanthropy at the expense of his discern- 
 ment. But our concessions can go no further. 
 For he has neither invalidated our reasonings, 
 nor supported his own doctrine with additional 
 proof 
 
 Dr. H.'s defence against the charges under 
 consideration, resolves itself into two parts ; the 
 one is an attempt to show that 
 
 " The same uncandid and unfair arts,^'' viz. as those employed 
 by the C. M. "would involve many of our principles in odium, 
 and fix on us consequences of our opinions, which we will doubt- 
 less abhor and disclaim."* — "Let us suppose," says the Apologist, 
 " some ingenious sophist resolves to dispute Dr. Mason's preten- 
 sions to superiority in the arts of plausible but false deduction, of 
 blackening opinions that they may be ' urged over the precipice.' 
 He opens the Christian's Magazine, and thus breaks a lance with 
 its giant editor."t 
 
 Dr. H. then goes on to show how an ingenious 
 sophist would acquit himself '' in the arts of 
 plausible but false deduction." The sophistry 
 
 * Apology, p. 69. t lb. 
 
Hobarfs Apology. 291 
 
 is palpable enough ; the ingenuity is not quite 
 so clear. But it appears to us to be fully as 
 sound and conclusive as any other reasoning in 
 that part of the " Apology" which we are now 
 reviewing. The question, which Dr. H. after all 
 his lucubrations, has left pretty nearly where 
 he found it, still recurs. Whether his claims on 
 behalf of the Episcopal church, do or do not 
 justify our construction 7 Dr. H. replies, No ! 
 And his attempt to establish the negative, con- 
 stitutes the o^At^r part of his defence. This, to our 
 apprehension, contains little more than assertions 
 and explanations of his " charity," repeated, and 
 repeated, and repeated, till the point to be set- 
 tled is lost in the multitude and the glitter of 
 words ; or else in disowning a consequence, he 
 repudiates a principle ; and in again espousing 
 the principle, invites the consequence : thus 
 giving in one breath, and taking back in the 
 next : and in this alternation of giving and 
 taking, exhibiting a most curious struggle 
 between his charity and his logic. 
 
 If, however, it is true, that we have so grossly 
 mistaken and misrepresented the principles of 
 Dr. H. and his friends, and their predecessors, 
 as he pretends, we have the consolation of erring 
 in company which he will not deny to be respec- 
 table. The first of our fellow-trespassers is no 
 less a personage than Archbishop Wake^ under 
 whose wing Dr. H. is proud to cower. Before 
 and during the time of this learned and amiable 
 
292 JRemcic. 
 
 prelate, a number of Episcopal writers advanced 
 the very same claims which have recently been 
 revived by Daubeny, Hobart, &c. And he did 
 not scruple to tell them that they " were out of 
 their senses." '' God forbid," says he, in a letter 
 to the famous Le Clerc, " God forbid that I 
 should be so iron-hearted, as on account of such 
 a defect," viz. the want of Episcopal order, " to 
 believe that some of them," the foreign Protest- 
 ant churches, " should be cut off from our com- 
 munion ; or with certain insane writers among 
 us, to pronounce that they have no true and 
 valid sacraments; and so are hardly C/iristlans.^'* 
 The archbishop, it seems, construed these 
 exclusive claims as we have done ; and he has 
 called their advocates by much harsher nam.es 
 than we choose to adopt. Pray was this 
 "eminent and revered Bishop," as Dr. H. terms 
 him, " uncandid and unfair 1" Was he^ too, 
 an " ingenious sophist," versed in the " arts of 
 plausible but false deduction 7" Did Ac, too, 
 pursue " an unrelenting system of intemperate 
 denunciation?"^^ Surely it was rather mal-a- 
 propos to break the head of his grace of Canter- 
 bury with a stroke aimed at a poor Presbyterian ! 
 
 * Interim absit ut ego tarn ferrei peci.oj-is sim, ut ob ejus modi 
 defectum (sic mihi absque omni invidia appellai'e liceat) aliquas earum 
 a communione nostra abscindendas credam ; aut cum quibusdam 
 furiosis inter nos scriptoribus, eas nulla vera ac valida sacramenta 
 habere, adeoque vix Christianos esse pronuntiem. Letter to Le Clerc^ 
 £pril, 1719. Apj)en. to Mosbeim's History, vol .6. App. III. No. xxi. 
 p. 124. 
 
 t Apology, p. 18. 
 
Hoharfs Apology. 293 
 
 We have taken this retrospect merely to show 
 the continuity of the exclusive system of Dr. H. 
 and his friends, and the light in which it has 
 been viewed by great men in his own church. 
 To prove that the very same consequences are, 
 at this moment, drawn from it by high church- 
 men themselves, we select the following instance 
 out of several which we have before us, and well 
 authenticated. 
 
 In the fall of 1806, a young gentleman, ex- 
 tremely attached to the Episcopal church, and 
 an advocate for the doctrine of baptismal regen- 
 eration, was led, by mere curiosity, to a weekly 
 evening lecture in one of the neighbouring non- 
 Episcopal churches. The subject, which was 
 our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus on the 
 new birth, arrested his attention, and the argu- 
 ment went home to his heart. He became con- 
 vinced that he had been in fatal error as to the 
 ground of his eternal hope ; an entire revolution 
 was wrought in his sentiments and character ; 
 and, at length, under more sound and evangelical 
 views, he applied to the minister whose labours 
 had been blessed to him, for admission to the 
 Lord's table. After giving a satisfactory account 
 of his Christianity, he was desired to ask from 
 his Episcopal pastor a certificate of dismission: 
 his friend at the same time remarked, "Although 
 he does not acknov>iedge me to be a lawful 
 minister of the Gospel, yet I deem it proper to 
 day him this compliment." The certificate was 
 
294 Review. 
 
 asked ; but, instead of giving it, tlie Episcopal 
 clergyman broke out into an invective against 
 the youth ; told him " he deserved to be excom- 
 municated — that he was leaving the way of sal- 
 vation — that Jesus Christ would reject him at 
 the great day — and that he," the clergyman, 
 " would be witness against him ! ! " 
 
 The reader may rely upon the fact. We have 
 place, names, and authority to give, should it be 
 denied. The clergyman is well known ; and has 
 distinguished himself as an advocate of '' the 
 church ;" and, with all deference to Dr. H. his 
 construction of her claims appears to us to be 
 not unlike ^' Episcopacy or perdition !" 
 
 But to cut this whole matter short — God has 
 either promised eternal life to non-Episcopalians 
 who believe in Christ, or he has not. If he has, 
 they have a complete claim upon covenant mercy 
 — If he has not, it is the height of presumption 
 in the Episcopalians to promise for him ; and 
 the height of folly in the others to believe them. 
 To tell us that when they " maintain that 
 communion with the Episcopal priesthood is an 
 indispensable condition of salvation," they only 
 mean " indispensable on the part of 7?ian," is a 
 most singular explanation. Do they really 
 imagine, that the world is in danger of ascribing 
 to them a right to alter the conditions of salva- 
 tion 7 After all their explanations, the question 
 recurs, ivhether God ivill dispense with this their 
 darling condition^ or not ? If not, then again, 
 
HoharVs Apology. 295 
 
 our alternative is " Episcopacy or perdition." 
 If he will, and if he does ; if, notwithstanding 
 our refusal to acknowledge the prelates, we may 
 be accepted in his dear Son, may live in the 
 light of his countenance, and die in the joy of 
 his salvation, it is enough for us. We shall 
 give ourselves very little trouble about a dispen- 
 sation from the Episcopal priesthood ! They 
 need not be uneasy : we are far enough from 
 supposing that ^/le?/ have any power of dispensing 
 w^ith God's appointments. But to proclaim com- 
 munion with them an indispensable condition 
 of salvation ; and then not only to concede that 
 God is dispensing \y\\h this condition every hour; 
 but that they should be " monsters of arrogance 
 and impiety," to doubt it, is w^orse than trifling. 
 For, in order to support a favourite hypothesis, it 
 engenders a false and pernicious notion of the 
 HOLY ONE of Israel, as perpetually departing 
 from his own plan, reversing his own law, con- 
 tradicting his own revelation ; whereas he is, 
 for he has himself said it, the father of lights^ 
 icith ichoni is no variableness neither shadow 
 
 OF TURNING.^ 
 
 It is now time to have done with this Apology. 
 Were we to expose all its sophisms, perversions, 
 mistakes, and puerilities, we should weary our- 
 selves without profiting the reader. We are 
 perfectly content that our argument for minis- 
 terial equality, which Dr. H. has undertaken to 
 
 * .Tames i. 17. 
 
296 Remew. 
 
 answer, shall stand before any competent 
 tribunal, and speak for itself, against all liis 
 accusations, witliout the aid of counsel. We 
 shall, therefore, take our leave of him, after 
 presenting the reader with a pretty strong 
 example of his correctness in his facts. 
 
 " When the Secession took place in Scotland, the Seceders 
 were solemnly excommunicated by the Estabhshed Church; and 
 when the Seceders split into the two sects oi' Burghers, and Anti- 
 Burghers, they excommunicated each other. In like manner, 
 when, in this country, some of the m.inisters of the Associate 
 Presbytery, consisting chiefly of Anti-Burghers, seceded from 
 that Presbytery, and, in conjunction with some of the Ministers 
 of the Reformed Presbytery, formed a new church under the 
 denomination of the Associate-Beformed Church, (of which you 
 are a minister.) sentences of excommunication were formally 
 passed."! 
 
 Dr. H.'s first assertion is, that 
 
 " The Seceders were solemnly excommunicated by the estab- 
 lished Church." 
 
 This is not true — tlie secedins: ministers, to 
 the number of eight, were, in 1740, deposed by 
 the General Assembly of the church of Scotland. 
 No excommunication took place, even o{ tliem ; 
 far less of " the seceders," who were a large 
 body of people ; and this censure was not 
 inflicted till seven years after the secession had 
 commenced. 
 . Dr. H.'s second assertion is, that, 
 
 " When the Seceders split into the two sects o^ Burghers and 
 Anti-Burghers, they excommunicated each other." 
 
 * Apology, \^.2\6,2\7. 
 
Hoharfs Apology. 297 
 
 This is not true — The Antiburghers did, in- 
 deed, pronounce a sentence of excominunicalion 
 upon the Burghers ; but it was never recipro- 
 cated. 
 
 Dr. H.'s third assertion is, that, 
 
 " In like manner, when, in this country, some of the ministers 
 of the Associate Presbytery , consisting chiefly of Anti-Burghers, 
 seceded from that Presbytery, and in conjunction with some, 
 ministers of the Reformed Presbytery, formed a new church, 
 under the denomination of the Associate-Reformed Churchy 
 sentences of excommunication w^ere formally passed." 
 
 Unless the writer has purposely provided for 
 tergiversation, the only meaning which can be 
 put upon this paragraph is, that the two bodies 
 alluded to, mutually excommunicated each 
 other. This is mere fiction ; no such excom- 
 munications ever existed. 
 
 Here, now, are three sentences together,- 
 containing the same number of gross errors in 
 matters of fact ; of fact, comparatively recent; 
 and of which, authentic accounts are within 
 every one's reach — Three sentences ; and an 
 error a-piece ! Not much amiss for a contro- 
 vertist who has " learning enough to defend the 
 Episcopal church ! " And a very comfortable 
 pledge of the security with which his readers 
 may repose upon his representations ! 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 page 
 Act of Uniformity in Eng- 
 land 91 
 
 Angel .... 138 
 Angel of the Church . . 148 
 Apocalypse, Symbols of . 147 
 Apostles and Evangelists . 92 
 
 and Presbyters , 117 
 
 , Commission of . 95 
 
 , Double capacity of 119 
 
 Apostolic Testimony . 217 
 Assembly at Jerusalem , 130 
 Augustine . . . 254 
 Authority of Presbyters . 108 
 Ayton's Christian Church 175 
 
 B. 
 
 Baptism of the Prelate of 
 
 New-York ... 23 
 Bellarmine . . .225 
 Beveridge, Comment of .368 
 Bingham . . . . 174 
 Bishops and Presbyters . 37 
 
 Candlesticks of John . . 145 
 Change of Names . . 63 
 Character of James . . 122 
 
 of Timothy . 153 
 
 of Titus . . 153 
 
 Charles I. ... 91 
 
 Chrysostom .... 155 
 Church at Smyrna . . 149 
 
 Government . . 29 
 
 in our Lord's time 86 
 
 Claims of the Episcopalians 16 
 Commission of the Seventy 95 
 
 of Timothy . 196 
 
 of Titus . 196 
 
 page 
 Communion denied to non- 
 Episcopalians . . .34 
 Companion for the Altar . 16 
 
 for the Fasts and 
 
 Festivals . , . .29 
 
 D. 
 
 Daille, Testimony of . . 173 
 Daubeny on Prelacy . 31 
 Deacons . . . .41 
 Ata . . . . . 158 
 Diocesan Episcopacy not sus- 
 tained by Scripture . . 39 
 Distinction of terms . . 46 
 Dodwell . . . .176 
 
 E. 
 
 HFEOMAI . . .108 
 
 Elders .... 59 
 
 Elevation of Presbyters, a 
 
 human contrivance . . 233 
 Episcopacy determined . 39 
 from the custom 
 
 of the Church . . . 261 
 
 or perdition . 27 
 
 Episcopal arguments . . 190 
 
 fiction . . 73 
 
 priesthood . , 80 
 
 Episcopalian proscription . 25 
 Epistles to the Seven 
 
 Churches of Asia . . 133 
 
 Eucharistic Sacrifice . 98 
 
 Eusebius . . . .201 
 
 Evangelists . . . 200 
 
 Facts of the New Testa- 
 ment .... 104 
 Feasts and Festivals . 29 
 
300 
 
 Index. 
 
 page 
 Five-mile Act . . .91 
 Form of Church govern- 
 ment . . . .29 
 Fulke, Evidence of . . 141 
 
 G. 
 
 Government . . . 114 
 of the Church . 29 
 
 Ordination by Titus 
 Origin of the work 
 
 page 
 
 170 
 
 15 
 
 H. 
 
 Hammond on Elders . 
 
 Levitical Priesthood 
 
 M. 
 
 Matthias 
 
 Mede, Testimony of 
 
 59 
 
 Hands, imposition of . 165 
 Hesychius . . . .123 
 Hoadley . . . .204 
 
 Identity of Bishops and Pres- 
 byters .... 39 
 Imposition of hands . . 165 
 
 J. 
 
 James, not a prelate . .129 
 
 , official character of 122 
 
 Jerome, Epistle of, to Eva- 
 grius .... 229 
 
 , Testimony of . 225 
 
 Jewish Priesthood . . 67 
 John, Revelation by . 106 
 John the Baptist . . .87 
 
 . 80 
 
 . 101 
 141 
 
 Mira 158 
 
 Methodists ... 36 
 Ministry of the New Testa- 
 ment . . . .78 
 
 , parallel of the . 75 
 
 Moore, statement of . . 140 
 
 N. 
 Names, use of . . .44 
 Nature of the Succession . 89 
 N(o(j>no)rq . . . .192 
 New Testament, Facts of . 104 
 New Testament, Ministry of 78 
 
 O. 
 
 Official character of James . 122 
 Orders of Priesthood . 86 
 
 Ordination by Timothy . 169 
 
 Parallelisms 
 Parallel of the Ministry 
 Pearson, Statement of . 
 Pelagius . 
 Perdition or Prelacy . 
 nOJMAINJl . 
 Potter on Church-govern- 
 ment . . . , 
 Power of government 
 Prelacy mischievous . 
 
 or perdition . 
 
 Prelates unknown in the 
 
 190 
 75 
 
 209 
 
 259 
 27 
 
 110 
 
 122 
 
 108 
 
 207 
 27 
 
 105 
 
 102 
 
 47 
 
 110 
 
 108 
 
 160 
 
 87 
 
 80 
 
 86 
 
 109 
 
 109 
 
 25 
 
 Apostolic Churches . 
 Preparative ministry 
 Presbyter 
 Presbyters 
 
 , Authority of 
 
 Presbytery 
 Priesthood, Jewish 
 
 , Levitical 
 
 , Orders of . 
 
 J1P0J2TAMAI . 
 nP0J2THMI 
 Proscription by Prelatists 
 
 R. 
 
 Revelation, by John . . 106 
 Rodgers, John, of New- 
 York . . . .132 
 Rulers .... 109 
 
 Saciifice of the Eucharist . 98 
 Salazar, Exposition of . 161 
 Sermon, by Wright . . 23 
 Seven Churches, Epistles to 133 
 Seventy, Commission of . 93 
 Shepherds . • .111 
 
 Smyrna, Church of . . 149 
 
 "Star" . . . .138 
 
 Stillingfleet . . • 142, 177 
 Succession of the Priesthood 89 
 Symbols of the Apocalypse . 141 
 
 Terms designate Officers . 58 
 Testimony' of the Apostles . 217 
 Theodoret . . . .57 
 Theophylact . . .155 
 Timothy, Character of . 153 
 Titus, Ordination of • . 169 
 
Index. 
 
 301 
 
 Titus, Character of 
 
 , Commission of 
 
 , Ordination by 
 
 Tradition .... 
 Triple order of Priesthood 
 Twelve, and Seventy 
 Typical functions 
 officers 
 
 11 
 
 196 
 170 
 243 
 
 87 
 93 
 
 81 
 .81 
 
 U. 
 Uniformity, Act of 
 Use of Names . 
 Usher, Testimony of . 
 
 Page 
 
 . 91 
 
 44 
 
 . 225 
 
 W. 
 
 Whitaker . 
 Willet . 
 Wright, Sermon by 
 
 . 179 
 
 177 
 
 . 23 
 
 THE END. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01016 9987 
 
 Cv}'r-5'-rar^^^^