^Jt

I * '

li '

yp (^7<^
W153

s,v.f

CHURCH WITHOUT A BISHOP;

OR,

THE CONTROVERSY

BETWEEN THE

EV. DRS. POTTS AND WAINWRIGHT.

WITH A PREFACE BY THE LATTER,

AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

BY AN ANTI-SECTARIAN.

" Semper, nlrique et ab omnibus."

NEW-YORK:
PUBLISHED BY HARIJER & BROTHERS,
No. 82 Ctirr-STREET. 18 44.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by
Harper & Brothers,
In" the Clerk's Office of the Southern District of New-York.

My p(r76
W/3

3

PREFACE.

Since the publication, in the columns of the Commercial Advertiser, of the
Essays on the question, " Is Episcopacy essential to the Church ?" I have been
often told that their reappearance in a connected form would be serviceable
in promoting a knowledge of the true constitution of the Christian Ministry.
This opinion, coming from persons whose judgment I most highly respect,
had induced me to think of revising and extending the original matter, writ
ten, I am sensible, with much less preparation, and far greater rapidity than
the importance of the subject required or demanded. Pending the execution
of this intention, however, the suggestion was made to me, and from sources
which should also command my deference, that it would enhance the value
and the utility of the Essays if the controversy by which they were intro
duced, and the series of remarks which they drew forth at the time, were to
appear in connexion with them. At the very moment when I am writing
these lines a letter is put into my hand, from which I take the liberty of
making the following extract : " I have been not only myself anxious to see
the whole of the correspondence, but also that it should be widely circulated.
I believe it would do much good, no^ merely by inducing others to think
better of us, but by drawing together, and promoting a better understanding
between the antipodes in our Church ; and your letters will do more good in
company with Dr. Potts's than alone." The same view of the subject has
been repeatedly urged upon my notice.
I must confess that, in my own judgment, the controversy proved to oe of
comparatively little value as throwing light upon the true point in dispute.
That it failed of accomplishing, in any considerable degree, that object, the
prospective advancement of which alone, afforded me any alleviation of my
regret at being engaged, under such circumstances, in a polemical discussion,
none will be more ready to acknowledge than myself. I was placed by con
straint, not wilhngly, in the attitude in which I stood. Whether or not the
fault lay with me that the discussion was iiot continued, and carried forward
with more of logical precision and scholarlike courtesy, till the question in
dispute had been placed in a clearer light by the fair and honourable conflict
of opposing arguments, is a question which I willingly leave to the decision
of those who read it at the time, or who may now be induced to examine it.
The entire republication, however, having been so strongly recommended,
I feel constrained to give my assent. The reader will find, therefore, in the
following pages, without any change, all that appeared in the Commercial
Advertiser last winter and spring, so far as Dr. Potts and myself were con
cerned, for and against the ancient maxim. Nulla Ecclesia sine Episcopo.
He will observe that the matter divides itself into three parts. First. The

iv PREFACE.
Correspondence between Dr. Potts and myself, in which alone any contro
versy took place. Second. The Essays on the Scripture argument for the
Episcopacy. Third. The Remarks of Dr. Potts upon these Essays.
In addition to the original matter will be found an introduction and notes by
another hand. The discussion having been broken off prematurely, and, there
fore, many things left unsaid by me which would have been advanced in their
proper connexion had it been continued, and the Essays having been carried
through in strict conformity with the design under which they were under
taken, of noticing no attacks upon them, and those attacks being now pre
sented entire to the reader, in connexion with them, it would seem to be no
more than equal justice that the occasion of their republication should be made
available to correct misstatement and expose fallacies, to some extent at least.
In reply to the question, why this has not been undertaken by myself, should
it be asked, I have only to refer to my concluding letter in the Correspondence,
and shall say no more, except that I feel myself to be peculiarly fortunate,
under the circumstances of the case, in having a zealous as well as learned
friend, not only willing, but anxious to be my advocate — nay, not mine, but
rather the advocate of Scriptural and most important truth. Should any one,
however, feel inclined to doubt the propriety of my permitting another to de
fend or vindicate my writings, where a sense of self-respect forbade me to
attempt it, and, to fortify his opinion, should he be ready to quote the well-
known maxim of the law, quifacit per aliumfacit per se, I shall not be offend
ed, but candidly confess, that while I am willing to bear the responsibility of
what my friend has done, I neither suppose that, in a change of place with
him, I could have adopted his peculiar style of language, nor do I flatter my
self that I should have manifested his keenness in detecting fallacies or his
pungency in exposing them.
In conclusion, let me entreat the reader of the following pages to remember
that, so far as they are controversial, he cannot expect to find them entirely
free from some exhibition, perhaps, of that spirit which unhappily seems to
be ever associated with controversy. Let him, therefore, make every suita
ble allowance on this account ; but, above all, let him, as far as practicable,
lay aside every prejudice and prepossession, and calmly separating the argu
ments advanced on both sides from the sophisms, misstatements, or personali
ties (if such there be) with which they may be mingled, strike a just balance
between them, and then, in the true spirit of charity — nay, of Christianity,
acknowledge and embrace the T&uth.
Jonathan M. Wainwright.
New-York, Sept. ^2d, 1844.

INTRODUCTION.

The Scriptures speak of one Church of God, and no more. The Jewish
Church was one Church, of divine foundation, with a divine ministry. Those
"who perished in the gainsaying. of Core" (Jude) were punished for aspiring
to the priesthood, though they were already Levites, or, at least, the descend
ants of Reuben, the eldest son, set aside for his crime (Numbers, xvi.). This
dispensation was not abolished, but fulfilled in Christ : " I am not come to
destroy the law and the ptophets, but to fulfil." It was so highly esteemed
by the Jews, that the children of the priests who returned from the captivity,
and whom all believed to be lineal descendants of Levi, " were, as polluted,
put from the priesthood," simply because in " the register among those that
were reckoned by genealogy they were not found" (Ezra, ii., 62). Even the
man Micah, in his gross idolatry, so far retained and echoed the voice of the
Divine will in Israel as to say, " Now know I that the Lord will do me good,
seeing I have a Levite to my priest" (Judges, xvii.).
In the New Testament, the Church is always spoken of as one, and no
more ; when it is verbally otherwise, as " the churches of Galatia," they are
evidently members of" one body." She is " the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth." She is " the bride of Christ." Her unity is
one of her chiefest graces, and was not only so counted by the Lord himself,
" that they all 'may be one," but also by St. Paul, when he condemns even
personal schisms concerning different ministers in the Church (1 Cor., i.) as
carnal and sinful. Much more are those to be blamed " who went out from
us because they were not of us'' (St. John). The " seven sons of one Sceva,
a Jew," are the Korah, Dathan, and Abiram of the New Testament. They
took upon themselves the office of speaking the truth in the name of Jesus ;
but Satan prevailed against them,. The Nicolaitans are the first " Christian
denomination" spoken of by name, and their system is condemned. But
mark: "the doctrine, the thing," is hated by the apostle of charity, while,
doubtless, the Nicolaitans themselves were pitied and embraced by his
Christian love. We love our neighbour, but hate his drunkenness, his lying,
his faults. We love all mankind in all "denominations;" nay, the heathen
we love, but we hate all errors and a\\ falsehoods everywhere. This distinc
tion is plain, but, alas ! little heeded. The Cerinthians and Gnostics are al
luded to by apostles, and the latter error named by St. Paul in the Greek.
These sects and heresies branded by apostles were surely neither the Church
of Christ, nor any part thereof And was the countless host of schismatics,
that nameless legion, as Docetse, Donatists, Manicheans, " the one Church of
the living God ?" If so, then Christ's promise has failed, for they are dead.
And so of the sects of the Middle Ages ; and why not so of the sects in our
day ? They cannot all hold truth, because they hold flat contradictions.
They must err in the thought that they derive their belief from the Scriptures,
because the Bible, if it is anything, is truth, and, therefore, cannot contain
contradictions. They are also each, without exception, founded on a denial
of one or two points, which the Church catholic has believed universallv,
"always, everywhere, by all," until 1517, or even later; nay, until this day.
And it is worthy of profound attention that each sect denies one article of
faith or of order which all the other sects believe, and thus is isolated by its
unbelief or denial, not by its faith. And the Catholic Church holds fast to

vi INTRODUCTiOK.
every one of the points which each separate sect, separated thereby from the
whole Christian world, from " denominations" and all, denies. Put all the
denials together, and what better infidelity would you have I Put them to
gether, and you make a Deist at least, if not an Atheist. Therefore, each
sect contains a germ of infidelity, and a fruitful germ it has proved in this
Paradise of sectarism, by the practical heathenism which reigns in the land ;
by the detestable enormities perpetrated under the mask of religion ; by
the countless absurdities which could not be palmed off even upon the Pa
gans of India ; by the worst errors of Popery rampant among the sects ; by
the vice and immorality ; by the open deceit and the secret dissimulation ; by
the loud talk and the base deeds ; in a word, by the moral degradation into
which this nation has so rapidly sunk, that she begins to cease even from her
boasting. " By their fruits ye shall know them ;" and we distinctly aver that
the chief corruptions of the times can be traced to the contempt which has
been, without all stint, poured out by deceivers, by fanatics, and even by sin
cere religionists, upon the unity of the Church of God ; that Scriptural' doc
trine which in primitive times, by apostles, by martyrs, by confessors, was
counted secondary to none except the atonement made by the blood of our
blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The whole argument in behalf of the Church of God is shortly stated. It
is twofold : Historical and Scriptural, each perfect and conclusive. Thus :
I. Historical — Either the Church is of Divine foundation, or there is no
church deserving the name. If it be a human invention, it is binding on
none. Believers, then, must hold it as from God. Now God's creations are
perfect in their kind. Men improve their inventions, because they and their
works are fallible. In them the newest should be the best. But, as God
made the blade of grass and the oak-leaf in Paradise, so he makes thenti to
day, because he made them perfect there and then. Therefore, the oldest
religion is the best until God himself alters, enlarges, or fulfils it. There
was one faith in our first parents, given from heaven. There was a patri
archal Church in Abraham's house while the nations were lying in wicked
ness. There was a Jewish Church established by Moses, who proved his
mission by wonders or miracles. It was so continued ; and thus every
prophet proved his mission. So did Christ ; so did the apostles ; and until
miracles return, let the enlarged, fulfilled Church of the living God stand un
changed. Beware how ye touch the ark of God with unhallowed hands.
Behold its progress, from the angels that passed to and fro between Eden and
heaven, to the last Messenger of the covenant. Receive it, believe, obey.
Now it follows plainly that, since God gave Christianity perfect in Christ
and the apostles, we must .embrace it as a finished dispensation ; nay, though
an angel from heaven preach another gospel, we give place to him, no, not
for an hour. He may enlarge, but he cannot destroy. Thus, the law was
our schoolmaster to bring the childish world to Christ. It is sufficient, there
fore, nay, it is demonstration itself, to say and show that what is new in
Christianity must he false. Quis talia audivit? destroys at one blow Miller-
ism, Mormonism, the new faith named from Wesley, himself first born in
1703; the new opinions, born in 1534, of Bijkkels and Matthias at Mijnster,
and now called Baptist ; the new things of Lutheranism and Calvinism, as
well as the newer things of Gorton, Osgood, Priestley, and Campbell. The
new things of Popery perish by the same blow. Quis talia audivit ? thou
mighty word ! echo again through Christendom. Let the deceived and err
ing, but sincere children of God, retuVn ; let the sheep of Christ, scattered and
unfolded, nay, almost lost in this wilderness, come home ; let the dear lambs
of the flock, whom Jesus would take into his arms and bless, snatching them
from the naughty world into the bosom of Christ, be folded there. O yes,

INTRODUCTION. vii
"blessed Lord, hasten the time 1 fulfil , thy promise ; let there be again on the
«arth " One fold and One Shepherd."
In illustration of this historical argument, observe; that as a hundred Amer
icans cast upon an uninhabited island, or forming a colony, would establish a
republic ; as many Englishmen a government like their own ; and as the sanie
number of Turks, in like circumstances, would be destitute of all knowledge
of governments not despotic ; so the apostles, being Jews, if not expressly
forbidden by Christ, would establish three Orders in the ministry, reverencing
God's similar institution in the Jewish Church.
Again, it is a fact that Episcopacy exclusively and universally exists in
those parts of the world where Jesus walked and the apostles laboured. How
came it there ? The doctrines and precepts of Confucius have existed always
and only in China, since ages before Christianity, when that philosopher lived
and taught in that country : who embraced the faith of Zoroaster except in
Persia, where he established it ? Mohammedanism began and continues in
Arabia, and in some other lands to which it was carried ; Congregationalism
is still almost predominant in New-England, where for the first lime, in that
shape, Christianity landed on a heathen rock ; the Baptists are still most
numerous in Rhode Island, whither Roger Williams was banished.
Why, then, does Episcopacy prevail universally throughout the East?
Answer : Because Christ and the apostles first planted it there.
Again, all scholars allow that Episcopacy was universally established
wherever Christianity was received two hundred and fifty years after Christ.
'Gibbon tells us " Nulla ecclesia sine Episcopo" "vjas always a Christian maxim
from the earliest times to the Reformation. It is also a fact that Christianity
was already very widely extended even in the first century ; for at the close of
it, the younger Pliny writes to the Emperor Trajan^ that the Christians were
not confined to the cities, towns, and villages, but that the " pestilent supersti
tion," as Tacitus calls it, had extended even into the remote country places
(agros) ; and that to put the Christians to death would depopulate his province.
All allow that the faith went on rapidly increasing for three centuries at least ;
and Gibbon is obliged to invent reasons to account for its wonderful progress.
Therefore, in A.D. 250 Episcopacy was not only universally, but widely preva
lent with Christianity. It was in every church, and everywhere the faith of
every Christian. Now the question arises. What constitution of the Christian
Church prevailed before A.D. 250 ? Who will or can answer this question ?
If it was not Episcopacy, what was it ? Was it the Congregational, Presby
terian, Lutheran, Calvinistic system, Methodism, Mormonism, Campbellism,
or Millerism? The very question seems absurd. It was not. But it must
have been something. In short, it was either Episcopal or Presbyterian,
"which last word we here use for parity, or for non-Episcopacy. Let. us sup
pose it to have been Presbyterian, then, and see how our reasoning will
hold on that supposition. Christ and the apostles taught and established
Presbyterianism, or some non-Episcopal truth. This was, therefore, divine,
and extended to all the churches, for the apostles were inspired and taught
alike. In a short time all Christians, without exception, found that divine
Presbyterianism would not, bv did not work well, and they universally gave it
up, and every city, town, and village, nay, every hovel, every man, woman,
and child, throughout the vast extent of Christendom, abandoned the divine
institution, and adopted^the human invention, the monstrous corruption. Episco
pacy, under the following remarkable circumstances, viz. : not a hint of such a
change exists in all history. Now suppose my poor essay here should convince
one Presbyterian preacher and his whole congregation, and they should in a
body come home, or go over to Episcopacy. Suppose the single city of New-
York were so convinced and so changed. Would not the wonderful conversion

viii INTRODUCTION.
ring through the land, and become the theme of every newspaper, and be;
chronicled at last as matter of history ? Suppose all the Presbyterians in th&
country, nay, in the world — I mean all the Congregationalists, Baptists, Pres
byterians, Methodists, (" Republican," so called, &c.). Unitarians, Universal-
ists, and fifty more sects, without exception, should be convinced, and adopt.
Episcopacy, and nobody say No — would it make no noise, be matter of no-
record, and be forgotten? Why sUch a revolution never took place in the
world, much less unrecorded, or not even hinted at in history, except in our
supposed case, when all the primitive Presbyterians did so wicked a thing as
to abandon God's institution and adopt and entail upon us this human, shocking,
exclusive, and all-abominable Episcopacy. What ! not one faithful Abdiel among
the faithless Presbyterians of the third century to raise a protesting voice ! No,,
not one ; not even one aged Presbyterian dame to say them nay in so wicked,,
so "monstrous," and so injurious a change and corruption. How absurd the
whole supposition ! ,
Now, on the other hand, suppose Christ and the apostles established Epis
copacy ; taught it everywhere ; and, therefore, in A.D. 250 it is everywhere-
foijnd. How plain and easy this conclusion !
II. The Scriptural argument is equally conclusive. Its. details are in the
essays following. Its sum is this. In God's Jewish Church there was a divine
priesthood in three orders. No reason occurs why this should not be the
type of a Christian priesthood, in three orders, especially since Christ himself
is the great High-Priest of our profession. The apostles planted churches, and
in the averred absence of specific instructions would, asJews, naturally continue
a similar arrangement. Indeed, our Lord set the example. Being himself the
Chief Shepherd and Bishop, he sent out first twelve apostles, and afterward
seventy disciples. No one ever supposed the seventy to be exactly as the
twelve, or of so high a rank. When the Lord departed, after giving instruc
tions, for " forty days concerning the kingdom" or Church of God (which in
structions, being unrecorded in the brief history of the Acts of the Apostles,
can only be known by their deeds and teaching), we find the first thing done
is the appointment of Matthias to take the place of Judas, showing that the
apostleship or Episcopacy (as the Greek has it. Acts, i., 20) from which Judas
fell was to be successive. The visible Head of the Church having ascended.
His place on the earth is represented by His apostles (Matt., xx viii., 18, 19), who
soon filled the third grade in the ministry by the ordination of seven deacons,
whom the believers chose, but on whom the apostles laid hands. These dea
cons were ordained, preached and baptized (Acts, vi., vii., and viii.), but could
not lay hands on the believers (Acts, viii., 14-17: Conf, xix., 6). Private
Christians, as well as deacons, elders, and apostles, wrought miracles then ;
and if there be no apostoUc office now in the bishops, because they do not
work mil-acles, then it follows equally that there are no Christians ; for, says
our Lord, " these signs shall follow them that believe" (Mark, xvi., 17, 18) ;
and it is as absurd to ask our bishops to give the Holy Ghost miraculously,,
as to ask a private believer to prove that he has faith by "casting out
devils, speaking with new tongues, taking up serpents ;" " and if they drink
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and,
they shall recover."
" The apostles Barnabas and Paul" (Acts, xiv., 14) having already " ful
filled their ministry" (xii., 25) ; having been sent (at least Paul), "not of men
nor by men," but directly commissioned by Christ, and attesting his commis
sion by miracles ; saying, herein " the truth in Christ and lying not ;" con
stantly showing to the doubtful wherein he was indeed an apostle ; and hav
ing now been eight years in the ministry, was set apart, not ordained, with
Barnabas, by three other " prophets and teachers," to go on the first missioa

INTRODUCTION. ix
to the Gentiles. The history of this mission is found in Acts, xiii. and xiv.,
with their return to give an account to the church in Antioch of their suc
cess, of their having " ordained elders in every church" (xiv., 23), &c.
When, in the first council at Jerusalem,, the assembled " apostles and elders,
and brethren" (Acts, xv., 23) had listened to Peter, Barnabas, and Paul,
James, whom history declares to have been the first bishop of Jerusalem, sum&
up the argirtnent, and, as president, announces, " My sentence is" (xv., 19) ; and
this sentence " pleased the apostles and elders and the whole Church," and the
letter was sent by two apostles and two " chief men among the brethren."
I. The same arrangement is continued in other churches. Observe the follow
ing beautiful scriptural chain, whose links are in the Acts, 1 Timothy, and the
Revelation. St. Paul, departing from the church at Ephesus, calls to Miletus
its numerous elders, or presbyters, or bishops ; for the names are in Scripture
synonymous. Their apostle or bishop (as he would now be called, the word
being changed, but the office remaining), giving them his last exhortation and
charge, warns them against perverse men, who should arise among themselves;
(Acts, XX.). Again, in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says he besought him.
" to abide still at Ephesus," charging some " to teach no other doctrine."
The two epistles to Timothy are instructions from an elder to a younger
bishop, and are addressed solely to an individual, and contain directions re
garding ordination, government of the Church, <fec., which are neither found
in the epistles to bodies of Christians, nor in those to private laymen. The
Epistle to Titus is of the same character, expressly declaring, " For this cause
left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting,,
and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." But to put the
last link to the chain mentioned above, another apostle, St. John, commends
the angel or bishop of the church at Ephesus, who was either Timothy's suc
cessor, or Timothy himself) since, being a young man when St. Paul was
beheaded, A.D. 58, he might have been scarcely threescore when St. Joha,
declared, " I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou
canst not bear them which are evil : and thou hast tried them which say they
are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." (Rev., ii., 2.)
As the young bishop or apostle Timothy was made chief over the elders
or bishops at Ephesus ; as Titus in Crete ; as the seven angels or apostles (for
both words mean " messengers") in the seven churches of Asia, so at Philippi,.
and so in the rest ; for in early Christianity things done by inspiration were
done after the same pattern given by the Holy Ghost: " it seemed good to the
Holy Ghost and to" them.
Now look at the church in Philippi. Hear the absent apostle : " Paul and
Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ (apostles or 1st order), to all the saints;
in Christ Jesus (laymen) which are at Philippi, with the bishops (or elders, 2d
order) and deacons" (3d order). Here is an Episcopal Church. Epaphro-
ditus, their apostle (see the Greek, ii., 25), and St. Paul's " brother and com
panion in labour and fellow-soldier," was then with St. Paul, and is personally
addressed (iv., 3), " I entreat thee also, true yoke-fellow."
Surely this whole subject is sufficiently plain ; and can any person, sincerely
desirous of conforming in all things to the will of God, refuse to comply witb
his appointments, as thus demonstrated by History and by Scripture ?

CORRESPONDENCE.

LETTER I.
HEV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT.
New-York, December 87, 1843.
Rev. and Dear Sir: — Will you permit me
to inquire whether the remarks ascribed to
you, upon the occasion of responding to
a sentiment at the late dinner of the New-
England Society, are correctly reported'!
I am persuaded that the reporter must have
done you great injustice in respect to lan
guage, style, grammar, dfc, for the report
which I have seen is remarkably incorrect
in these particulars, and strangely different
from the accuracy with which other gen
tlemen are represented as speaking upon
the same occasion.* I refer to this fact, be
cause it has led me to suppose it possible
that the evident incorrectness of the report
of your remarks, in the particulars just
mamed, may extend even to the sentiments,
and that you did not so broadly affirm the
exclusive claims to prelatical Episcopacy,
nor invite a challenge from the orator of the
¦day to put you to the proof of those claims.
That there may be no mistake, I will
quote the language ascribed to you, and to
which I beg to refer you for explanation.
It is contained in the " Morning Express"
of the 23d inst. "He" (the orator of the
day, Mr. Choate) " told you of some who in
the days of William and Mary'''' (an evident
mistake of the reporter) "found an asylum
und discovered a government without a King,
and a Church without a Bishop.'''' (Cheers.)
" Now, sir, notwithstanding this strong burst of
approbation to the sentiment, wei e this a prop
er arena, should even the orator of the day
throw down his gauntlet, I would take it up
and say. There cannot be a Church with
out A Bishop. "f

* This second sentence implies the direct op
posite of that which it says ; a specimen of the
spirit by which the writer seems animated
throughout the controversy.
t This is not Dr. W.'s opinion merely, but
the unanimous consenting voice of Christendom
for fifteen centuries, imbodied in the well-known
phrase, Nulla Ecclesia sine Episcopo, i. e.,
No Church without a Bishop, which Dr. Potts
¦controverts. He disputes the united, unani
mous testimony of fifteen centuries, not on an
improvable point Of science, as philosophers might
do and be right, but on an immutable, visible
point in Christianity, where those nearest to the

I repeat that I am quite unwilling, to sup
pose that you have been correctly report
ed ; because, although there are not want
ing instances of the remorseless and arro
gant exclusiveness* implied in the above
Founder of a.perfect and finished system are most
likely to hold the truth, and universally consent
ing, must hold it. We have here, therefore,
the Rev. Dr. Potts versus all Catholic antiquity.
* Let us dispose of this question of " ex
clusiveness," "unchurching," &c., at the out
set, for it ever recurs. Dr. Potts harps con
stantly, in almost every letter and essay, on
what he calls " the unchurching dogma." First,
then : all the sects unite in affirming (for they
must; they must allow all or exclude them
selves) that churches are human, voluntary as
sociations, i. e., like temperance, abolition, and
sewing societies. They, at least from the Puri
tans, if not from Luther downward, must take
this ground, for they have no other. Hence
they lay "platforms" instead of the foundation
which Christ laid. But the Church holds her
self to be a Divine edifice, built by God himself,
upon the foundation of apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner
stone. The "platforms" cannot be binding
upon man's conscience, except by his voluntary
act, oath, or promise ; but the Divine founda
tion every Christian must in conscience receive.
Therefore we say well to all sects ; " Return
home ; since all churches, in your eyes, are
mere associations, and since human inventions
cannot be binding upon man's conscience, and
since unity is a Divine command and a confess
ed good, leave your discordant, contradictory,
and changeable constitutions -for the Divine
appointment, which, though you call it also
human, must be quite as good as your human
institutions, and must be retained by us in eon-
science, as believing it divine. It is unreason
able, neither do you ask us, to quit the human
for the human (since both to you are such) ;
and we cannot leave the divine (to us, at least,
divine) for your human society ; for you call
yours human, aiid we confess that it is so. Be
sides, to which 6f the thousand contradictory
sects shall we go ; or shall we wait for the next
new one 1 But the immense majority of Chris-

12

CORRESPOND JSNCli.

sentence, I cannot bring myself to believe
that you would make so broad and unqual
ified a statement at any time, and least of
all upon such an occasion. The statement,
as it stands, affirms, not merely the relative
superiority of diocesan Episcopacy, not
merely that Prelacy is essential to ihewell-
leing of a Church, but it goes the whole
length of affirming that it is essential to its
very being. There cannot be a Church with
out a Bishop. This is something more than
a question of relative advantages ; it be
comes a question of vitality, of existence
itself. It is not saying, ours is a better
church than yours, and we are better Chris
tians than you ; but ours is the only Church,
and (by implication and fair inference) we
are the only Christians ;* accordingly, the
tians are already united in what you acknowl
edge to be an allowable, if not the best Church
system (see Dr. Potts, passim). If you love
unity, then, according to Christ's commandment
and prayer, receive it. But mark, if it be di
vine, and you have left it, as history shows and
as you confess, you have either ' excluded' or
" unchurched" yourselves by doing so, or God
has done it by founding the Church ; at all
events, we cannot be to blame, for we never
m«de the Church ; we have none of your powpr
to make Churches, and we never left the Church,
as you say you have done. We never left the
Church : even to the tenth year of Elizabeth our
fathers adhered to the unity even of the corrupt
Church, reforming it ; and of 12,000 clergymen,
all but 80 reformed. The Pope then pretended
to excommunicate the 11,920 clergymen and
us, which no single Bishop, and none but the
Catholic Church in council (Greek and all) could
do ; and you, too, deny him that power. The
Romanists in England then cut themselves otf
from the communion of the branch of the Cath
olic Church in that country, and became, and
are still in England dissenters.
Our simple affirmation and defence of the
truth does not alter your position. We have
no "unchurching" power. We can neither
make churches nor unchurch men. You are
either in the Church or out of the Church, by
God's act, or your own. Dur mere opinion or
belief can have no effect upon youir position.
Why so disturbed, then 1 Unchurch us, if you
can, as much as you will, and we may possibly
smile, but shall remain quite tranquil and con
tented. This question, then, once for all, is
settled, and we need not allude to it again.
* " Only Christians." It might be a useful
Inquiry, how much or how little Christianity is
necessary to save a man ; and who are Chris
tians — those who believe all, or those who deny

above passage can be no otherwise under-

a part of the Faith. Now take notice, the
Church believes what each separate sect denies ,-
what all the rest, except that one, also be-
Ueve. Do the Scriptures say deny and be saved,.
or believe and be saved i And yet every sect
is a sect, and solely built on a denial foundation.
They separate from the Church not because they
believe, but because they deny something. The
Baptist agrees with the Church in all other
points, but denies infant baptism ; on this deny
ing ground erects his society, and excludes the
Christian world. The Church and all the sects
(except Quakers) believe in infant baptism.
The Unitarian denies the Trinity, and erects-
his meeting-house opposite the Church. The
Church and the other sects believe the Holy
Trinity. The Quaker denies the sacraments and
the ministry. The Church and the sects be
lieve them. The Presbyterian denies the Epis
copacy. The Church, uniting the Church in
this country, the Moravians, the Church of Eng
land, the Lutherans of Sweden, and the inten
tion of the Lutherans in Denmark (who have a
spurious Episcopacy), the wishes of the Metho
dists, who wovdd have it if they could, and might
if they would ; many of the Lutherans in Ger
many, &c., the Romanists, the Greeks, the Ar
menians, Nestorians, &c., &c., unite in believing
what the offspring of Luther and Calvin now
deny, but once believed. The Universalist sets^
up his meeting-house upon the denial of eternal
or endless punishment. The Church, &c., be
lieve it. And farther we might go. But out
of all these comes a denial creed, forming sheer
infidelity. Now, if the denial of all be unbelief,,
is not the denial of each a germ of unbelief?
and who shall decide how much a man can deny^
and still be a Christian 1
Who ever heard in Christianity of a creed,.
a behef of denials ! Yet the fact is plainly so ;
and for greater clearness, let us now place the
Catholic faith and the sectarian creed in juxta
position. I
The Catholic Creed,
Faith, or Belief.
I believe in God the Father
Almighty, maker of heaven
and earth.
And 1 believe in Jesus Christ
his on]y Son, our Lord, &c.
(See Creed.)
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
&c., &c., to Amen.
The Church says.

I believe infant haptism, I
believe the sacraments and the
ministry ; I believe the Epis
copacy ; I believe the salva-
bility of all men ; I believe the
eternal punishment of some ;
I believe the Aoostolic succes-

TAe Sects' Denials, Un
belief, and Infidelity.
1 deny infant baptism ; 1 dernf
the sacraments and a mm-
istry of outward appointment ;
I deny the Episcopacy ; I deni/
the salvability of all men ; I
deny the eternal punishment
of any man ; I deny the Apos
tolic succession ; 1 deny ( Johii^
iii., 5) the new birth by "wa
ter, but allow that by the
Spirit ; 1 deny all baptism but
by immersion ; I deny all
Church government, and all
civil authority also ; I den\f
all Churches, priesthoods^
&c., ¦whatsoever, coming out
of tliem all ; 1 detwj the Hoi;

CORRESPONDENCE.

13

stood but as declaring a readiness to prove
that all the Christian Churches, in whose

Trinity; I deny the author
ity 9t' all "the Fathers,"
except that of the Puntan
Fathers; I deny all tradition,
even that by which only 1 can
know that I have a Bible ; I
deny the Bible itself as u di
vine revelation, holding parts
of it to be good in themselves ;
I deny the existence of God.

aion ; I believe that one must
be bom of water and of the
"Spirit, John, iii., 5 ; 1 believe
immersion and other baptism
by water in the name of the
'Trinity; IftcZzevcina Church
government, and obey the civil
authority ; I believe there is
-one Church of God ; I believe
the Holy Trinity ; I believe the
ancient Fathers are the best
interpreters of Holy Scrip
ture ; I believe in the Catho
lic tradition, which assures
3ne that I have a Bible ; I be-
'Ueve the Bible, and I beHeve
<Sod. P.S. — To this creed the Romanist assents,
but adds what can be historically shown to be
novelties to the Faith, as the others take away
from the Faith. " If any man shall add unto
these thingSy God shall add unto him the plagues
that are written in this book ; and if any man
shall take away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God shall take away his part out
of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and
iromthe things which are written in this book."
— Rev.f xxii., 18, 19.
But to make this yet clearer, we subjoin the
Jficene or Catholic Creed, and the Creed of Ad-
•ditions. Nicene Creeds or the Catholic Faith.
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maicer of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible :
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
'God, begotten of his Father before all worlds ; God of God,
iight of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father ; by whom all things
¦were made ; who for us men, and for our salvation, came
(down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified
also for us under Pontius Pilate. He su^ered and was
buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the
-Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on fhe
a-ight hand of the Father ; and he ^hall come again, with
;glory, to judge both the quick and the dead ; whose king-
>dum shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of
life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son ; who with
the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glori
fied, who spake by the prophets. And I believe one catho
lic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for
the remission of sins ; and I look for the resurrection of the
<Iead, and the life of the worid to come. Amen.
Creed of Pope Pius IV. j or the Roman Creed of
Additions to the preceding.
[1.] **I most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolical
and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and
constitutions of the same Church.
[2 ] "I aUo admit the holy Scriptures according to that
sense which our holy mother the Rohian Church has held
nnd does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of the Scriptures : neither will I ever
take and interpret them otherwise than according to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers.
[3.] "Ualso profess that there are truly and properly
seven sacraments of the new law instituted by Jesus Christ
our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind,
though not all for every one : to wit, baptism, confirmation,
Eucharist, penance, exti^me unction, orders, and matrir
mony ; and that they confer grace ; and that of these, bap
tism, confirmation, and order, cannot be reiterated without
sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and ap
proved ceremonies of the Catholic Church used in the solemn
administration of all the aforesaid sacraments.
[4.]^ " I embrace and receive all and every one of the.
things which have been defined and declared in the holy
Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.
15.} " I profess, likewise, that in the mass there is a true,

polity the element of Prelacy is not found,
are usurpers of a sacred name, that their
ministry and sacraments are impious tftir-
lesqties, and (inferentiklly) that their peo
ple must find mercy in some indirect w-ay,
and creep into heaven by some back door.*
I repeat again, that I am unwilling to
believe that Dr. Wainwright would state so
offensive a position at any time, and least
of all on such an occasion. We all know
the complexion of a New-England society,
and the object of their festivities on the
22rf of December. They were especially
met to celebrate the civic and religious ex
cellences of a band of exiles, whom the
persecuting prelacy of the time had driven
from their homes ; who actually laid the
foundations of a *' State without a king and
nobles, and of a Church without a Bishop."
That Churchf stands yet, and stands with-

proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the
dead. And that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucha
rist there is, truly^ really, and substantially, the body and
blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord
Jesus Christ ; and that there is made a conversion of the
whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the
whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conver
sion the Catholic Church calls Tran substantial on. I also
confess that under either kind alone' Christ is received
whole and entire, and a true sacrament.
[6.] " I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and
that the souls therein detained are helped by- the suf
frages of the faithful.
[7.] "Likewise that the saints reigning together with
Christ are to be honoured and invocated, and that they
offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be
had in veneration.
[8.] " I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of
the Mother of God ever virgin, and also of the other saints,
ought to be had and retained, and that due honour and
veneration is to be given to them.
[9,] " I also aiiirm that the power of indulgences was left
by Christ in the Charch, and that the use of them is most
wholesome to Christian people.
[10.] " T acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman
Church for the mother and mistress of all the Churches ;
and I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of
Rome, successor to St. Poter, prince of the Apostles, and
vicar of Jesus Christ.
Cll.] "I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all
other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred
canons aiid general councils, and particularly by the holy
(iouncil of Trent. And I condemn, reject, and anathema
tize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the
Church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized-
[12.] "1, N.,doat this present freely profess and sincere
ly hold this true Catholic faith, without which wo one
CAN BE ^AV£D ; and I promise most constantly to retain
and confess the same entire and inviolate to my life's end,
and to procure, as far as lies in my power, that the same
shall be held, taught, and preached by aU who are under
me, or are intrusted to me, by virtue of my office. So help
me God, and these Holy Gospels of God."
In medio tutissimus ibis.
* If a gentleman chooses to go in at the
" hack dooTj^' when the front door stands wide
open, who is to blame 1 Has he not some la
tent preference which induces him to adopt an
unusual method of introducing himself into the
house. To be sure, the state in Scotland alone
has declared it to be the front door. By-the-
way, there is no want of attacks upon Episco
pacy, the English establishment ; who has at
tacked Presbytery, the Scotch estabhshment 1
t Wherfe does that Church stand 1 Is it now
one of the eighty-two heresies which the Puri-

14

CORRESPONDENCE.

out a Bishop. To affirm, therefore, upon
such an occasion, that there cannot be a
Church without a Bishop, was to pronounce
a sentence of excommunication against the
great mass of those who were there as
sembled, and to affront their best sensibili
ties by defiling the graves of their fathers.*
I confess that the more I look at the lan
guage of the above extract, simply in the
Eght of taste and courtesy, the less I am
wiUing to believe it to be a correct report
of your remarks.
But, should I unhappily be mistaken as
to this, should this passage be a statement
of your real views — views which I had sup
posed were at least never expressed without
a good many saving clauses to make them
tolerable to even the most credulous be
lievers in High Church rights — then, and
only in that case, I am induced to ask
whether you are ready to vindicate the
truth of this statement. You speak of
throwing down a gauntlet, and declare your
readiness to say, and of course to prove,
that there cannot he a Chwch without a Bish
op. I am aware that the form in which
the words are placed is not precisely that
of a challenge, but is it not a defiance ' If

tans condemned, their own offspring in seven
teen years 1 or is it still the condemning, per
secuting, and banishing eighty-third 'i Who
knows 1 Where is the standard ? Is it Unita-
rianism now, or, rather, of late prevailing at
the Puritan " School of the Prophets 1" Or is it
the pantheistic, atheistic transcendentalism al
ready changing for some other phase^ Verily,
the moon is slower. Or is this standing Church
without a Bishop the Independent, Calvinistic-
no-Calvinism, Arminian, Universalist, Metho
dist, Baptist, Anti-baptist Congregationalism,
rife in New-England "! Did the Fathers found,
on Plymouth rock, the Old School or the New
School Presbyterianism 1 for both they could
hardly do. They had a wonderful love for uni
ty. " That Church stands yet," says Dr. Potts,
We must beg him and his coadjutors to an
swer. Where 1
* Dr. Potts might with the same propriety
affirm, that to declare the necessity of reh-
gious toleration would " defile the forefathers'
graves," simply because they made a mistake,
and were fierce, narrow-minded, bigoted, intolr
erant men ; driving away Baptists, and scourg
ing and otherwise torturing and executing the
Quakers, as in the instance of Mary Dyer, Mar-
madnke Stevenson, and others. We only think
they also made a mistake in attemptmg, what
time has shown, and in the end will prove to
universal satisfaction, the impossibility of es
tablishing a permanent human Church in oppo
sition to the Divine institution.

it does not give a challenge, does it not iW
vite one 1 There is no great difference be
tween the two things, especially when we
consider the circumstances. You could
scarcely expect (I speak now, you will
observe, upon the supposition that your
language has been correctly rieported) that
the orator of the day would either throw-
down his gage of battle or take up yours,
for it is altogether unlikely that his pecu
liar engagements would admit of this, how
ever competent he is to justify this or
any other statement in his noble and beau
tiful oration. To offer or invite a chal
lenge to controversy, under circumstances
which will render its acceptance impossi
ble, would be unworthy of an honest cham
pion. Hence this defiance must be under
stood to extend to any respectable adver
sary who accords with Mr. Choate's state
ment. Now, although I am not a descendant
of the Pilgrim fathers, and although I have
no doubt that in all that relates to their pe
culiar claims upon the veneration and grat
itude of future ages, there are many and
fitting champions to be found among the
sons of such sires, yet, inasmuch as the
language which is ascribed to you does not
only assault them, but all others who are
one with them in their rejection of Prela
cy ; and, furthermore, considering that if a
challenge so public and offensive as this
were allowed to pass sub silentio, it might
hereafter be construed as an indication of
conscious weakness, and not of contempt, I
have overcome my unaffected reluctance to
appear in the character of a controversial
ist, and now beg leave to say that, as an
humble advocate of the ecclesiastical rights
of the larger* part of Protestant Christen
dom, I am ready to debate with you, in any
form you wish, the position which you are
represented as afHrming, viz., "that there
cannot be d Church without a Bishop." Of
course a prelatical, not a parochial Bishop
is here meant. Without entering now into
the merits of the question, I will hold my
self ready (should you admit that the re
porter of your speech has not done you in
justice at least in this particular) to prov&
that this proposition is pregnant with innu
merable evil consequences, theological, so-
cial, and civil ; and that it is unscriptural,.

* We do not understand where this " larger
part of Protestant Christendom" can exist ; for,.
after the Protestant Episcopal Church and its
twelve hundred ministers in the United States,
the Church in England, with her fourteen thou
sand churches, exclusive of the Church in Ire
land, the Episcopal Churches in Scotland, Swe
den, Denmark, Prussia, the Moravians, and
nearly the whole body of Methodists, as to the ¦
Episcopal regimen, are taken out, we cannot
fmd the " larger part" of Protestants anywhere.

CORRESPONDENCE.

13

uncharitable, schismaiical, and anii^epublican
in its character.
I have been induced to address you in
this public manner because, from the na
ture of the case, the subject must sooner
or later come before the public. The lan
guage ascribed to you (whether justly or
not remains yet to be seen) was not used
in a private circle, was not whispered in
confidential conversation; it was not ut
tered from one of the pulpits of your own
denomination, nor was it found on the pa
ges of a sectarian print like the self-styled
" Churchman." Had it been, I should not
have thought it worth while to notice it.
But having been used upon a festive occa
sion, before a promiscuous company, and
in the most public manner, it is obviously
no longer a matter for private communi
cation. This will be my apology for thus
publicly inviting your attention to it.
Hoping that it will be found that you
have been incorrectly reported, believe
me. Rev. and dear Sir, your obedient ser
vant, George Potts.

LETTER I.
REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS.
New-York, December 30th, 1843.
Rev. and Dear Sir : — Your letter, ad
dressed to me through the columns of the
Commercial of last evening, was brought
to my notice at so late an hour this morn
ing that there is not time to prepare and
get to press such a reply as, on every ac
count, it ought to receive from me. I can
not for a moment, however, delay acknowl
edging its perusal, and expressing my
thanks for the courteous terms in which it
is drawn up ;* at the same time stating my
instant readiness to redeem any pledge I
may have given in the few words spoken
by me at the New-England dinner. As
you suppose, my speech (if a few remarks,
entirely extemporaneous, can deserve such
a name) was most defectively reported, as
I think, in the Express. I cannot distinct
ly recall every word I said, but, as far as
my memory serves me, the report con
tained in the Courier and Enquirer of last
Monday, which, I am informed, is to ap
pear in the American of this evening, is

? Dr. W. afterward confesses that he replied
to Dr. Potts's first letter after a hasty perusal,
and under the impression left by Dr. P. in the
intercourse of Social hfe. Had he scanned it
more attentively, he would not probably have
apphed to it the epithet " courteous," or thought
he had reason to congratulate himself upon hav
ing such a "challenger." He soon found that
courtesy of manner is not always a pledge for
fairness in controversy, or gentleness in the u.se
of its language.

the most accurate I have seen. But as to-
the important point — and the one which
alone called forth your letter— 'the senti
ment I uttered is accurately reported, and
I am ready here, and on every suitable oc
casion, to avow it and to maintain it ; and
if it is my lot to be called into the field, I
cannot but congratulate myself that my
challenger is one for whose private and
intellectual worth I entertain so high a re
spect, and in discussing any question with
whom I shall not fear the disruption of so
cial intercourse, and much less the utter
ance of any expressions which may cause
regret to our mutual friends of every shade
of rehgious eentinjent. But I must defer
any farther observations until next week.
With much respect, your obedient ser
vant, JoNA. M. Wainwright.

LETTER 11.
KEV. BR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS.
Rev. and Bear Sir : — In the few lines to
which I was restricted on Saturday, I had
only the opportunity of acknowledging the
perusal of your letter, and expressing my
readiness to meet you in the discussion
which you invite. To some preliminary
observations upon the occasion and char
acter of your letter, which I should then
have offered had there been time, I now
ask your attention.
I cannot but deem it a cause of regret
that, before taking so decided a step as
that of addressing a letter to me in the
columns of a newspaper, and thus leaving
me no alternative but to reply to it through
the same channel, you had not been at
some pains to ascertain both the accuracy
of the report of my speech at the New-
England dinner which you quote, and the
circumstances under which it was deliver
ed. Had you pursued this course, I think
you would very probably have come to the
conclusion that the occasion did not war
rant the public attack you have made upon^
me. Indeed, I doubt whether any one,
maintaining opinions different from those
which I hold upon the subject of the or
ganization of the Christian Church, and
who had been present both at the oration
^nd the dinner, could have felt warranted
in interpreting my language as partaking
at all of the character of "defiance," to
use your own expression, unless, indeed,
his feelings had previously been in such a
state of excitement as to produce a rabid
thirst for controversy. You were not pres
ent, and therefore, under this cover, may
escape from the consequences of such an
imputation. "To ray knowledge there were two cler
gymen present at the dinner, and, as I sup
pose, at the oration, who are as strongly
opposed to Prfilacy in all its shapes as you
can possibly be, and who are as able, and.

16

CORRESPONDENCE.

i doupt not, as ready as yourself to take
up the gauntlet had it been thrown down
upon this question, but who did not consid
er my remarks as partaking of the nature
of a challenge or defiance. This consid
eration, however, is not of much impor
tance now, because, since the issue has
been joined, I take it for granted that nei
ther of us feels inclined to shrink from the
encounter. I only allude to it to shield
myself from the imputation of having justly
provoked a religious controversy, to which
my tastes and habits of life are entirely
¦opposed ; and which, in common, as I be
lieve, with the great body of the communi
ty in which we live, I deprecate, except un
der a very stringent necessity.
I am the more surprised at the course
you have pursued, from your assertion that
¦" you are quite unwilling to suppose that I
have been correctly reported." Three dif
ferent times in the course of your letter
you make this declaration. Now, notwith
standing this emphatic reiteration, I fancy
there must have been a sort of conviction
in your mind, of which, probably, you were
strangely unconscious at the time, that
what I said had been correctly stated.
Otherwise, I think you would not have been
so rieady to place yourself in a position,
so undesirable for the members of our pro
fession, as that of combatants in a daily
newspaper, and compel me to follow you
there. Had you made suitable inquiries,
such as I should suppose would have been
naturally suggested to you by your pro
fessed " unwillingness to believe that Dr.
Wainwright would state so offensive a po
sition at any time, and least of all on such
an occasion," and one which " affronted the
best sensibilities of those there assembled
by defiling the graves of their fathers," and
one which was objectionable " in the light
of taste and courtesy" — ^had you made such
inquiries, prompted by your implied previ
ous good opinion of my social taste, and
courtesy, and Christian charity, before vis
iting upon me a contingent public denun
ciation, you would have learned, that while
I afiirmed a principle which it is notorious
that the great body of the Catholic Church
has ever maintained, it was not done in an
offensive manner, or an exclusive spirit, or
without some provocation.
You ask if the form in which I placed
the words, " There cannot be a Church with-
euta Bishop," is not a defiance. " If it does
not give a challenge, docs it not invite
one V I reply distinctly, that what I said,
taken in the connexion in which I said it,
was not a challenge or a defiance ; nor
was it intended to invite either, from any
quarter whatever. To assume such an at
titude, on such an occasion, I should, with
you, regard as an indication of exceedingly
bad "taste," and as evincifig a want not
only of " courtesy," but of Christian char
ity.

What, then, you will now perhaps be in
clined to ask, were the circumstances
which prompted the declaration I made,
and authorized, in my judgment, its utter
ance at such a time and place ? I will tell
you : I was expressly invited to hear Mr.
Choate's oration, and upon going to the
Tabernacle for this purpose, and placing
myself among the general mass of the au
dience, was drawn by the managers of the
New-England Society from the unobtru
sive position I had selected, and urged to
take a more prominent situation by the
side of the orator of the day. Whether or
not it was prudent in me, holding the pecu
liar views of a churchman, to attend the
celebration at all, is a question aside from
the present matter, and one in which you
can have no interest; but I may say, in
passing, that it is a question in regard to
any future decision of which I have cer
tainly obtained some new views from ex
perience. Let this pass, then.
I was present from the interest I felt on
the occasion, as the son of a New-England
mother, descended from a long line of an
cestors reaching up to the early settlement
of the country ; as having passed my early
years, from the age of ten to that of nearly
thirty, in New-England ; as having receiv
ed my education in a New-England school
and college ; as having been connected, at
two different periods, vvith two New-Eng
land parishes, containing the best and most
affectionate people a pastor was ever bless
ed with ; as having now many of my dear
est friends resident in New-England, and
closely identified with her literary, civil,
and religious institutions ; and as regard
ing New-England with deep respect and
affection for the inteUigence and virtues of
its people. In this spirit, and under the in
fluence of associations so hallowed, I at
tended the celebration, as I have done in
repeated instances before.
To the oration I listened, in common, I
believe, with all who were present, with
great admiration of the brilliant powers of
the speaker. In the course of his remarks
it fell in his way to declare that the Puri
tans in the reign of Mary, driven from their
homes, sought an asylum in Geneva, where,
said the orator, " they found a State with
out a King, and a Church without a Bish
op." Now, entertaining the opinions of a
Congregationalist, it was natural enough
for the orator to express this sentiment.
Its epigrammatic form gave it peculiar ef
fect, but in ordinary times it would have
been received, probably, with nothing more
than the applause which a striking passage
usually elicits. On the present occasion,
however, it called down such long-contin
ued and tumultuous cheering as I doubt not
surprised Mr. Choate as much as it did my
self. '
Had the sentiment produced only the

COKKEHi'UNDENCE.

17

applause which follows the happy expres
sions of every popular speaker ; had it been
cheered even in the same degree with oth
er emphatic portions of the oration, many
of which, for force, originality, and beauty
of illustration, were much more worthy of
admiration, I should have thought nothing
of the occurrence, and taken no notice of
it. But the cheering was obviously, to my
apprehension, not that of approbation of
the orator, but of defiance of such as did not
sympathize with the sentiment. How far
all this was in good taste, or indicative of
,good feeling on the part of the majority of
ihe audience, who must have known that
anany churchmen belonged to the Society,
and were then present, and certainly that
one was placed in a very conspicuous po
sition as the guest of the Society, I leave
for others to say.
But it seemed to me to speak this lan
guage : " Now, you advocates of Prelacy,
we have you ; we are in the majority ; we
will make you feel how we detest your
opinions, and if we cannot drive you from
them, we will show you how unpopular
they are, and at least, if we can, make you
ashamed of them." This I know was the
inference drawn, not only by myself, but
by many others who were present. Now,
what was to be done? To rise and leave
the room would, in my view, have been a
slight put upon the orator which he had
not merited, for I am convinced that he did
not intend to insult any class of persons,
or to throw contempt upon their opinions
To abstain from attending the dinner to
which I had been invited, and the invita
tion to which I had accepted, would have
been a course open to a similar objection,
and would, moreover, have indicated a
morbid sensitiveness to popular disappro
bation. When, however, at the dinner, I was call
ed upon to reply to the toast, " The Clergy
of New-England," &c., as the greater por
tion of those seated at the table had made
part of the audience at the Tabernacle, I
thought I had, a right to avail myself of the
occasion to show that I was not to be daunt
ed by the fear of popular odium, or to be
driven by the expression of it from the
open avowal of ray sentiments upon any
question whatever. This alone was ray
motive for uniting with what I intended,
poor as it may have been, as a corapliment
to the orator of the day, my dissent from
that expression in his oration which had
elicited the longest and most boisterous ap
plause. The manner in which I attempted
to protect myself, in a position which I ac
knowledge was sufficiently awkward, may
have been unfortunate, and the attempt it-
self ill-timed.
I care not to rebut such a charge as this ;
but I will assert again, that self-defence was
my only motive. Many, I know, who dif-
C

fer widely from me on religious questions,
do not regard the course I pursued as un
becoming or uncalled for, or as involving,
as you suppose in your letter, any design
ed insult to the Pilgrims or their doctrines.
That you have arrived at a different con
clusion, I attribute to the fact of your par
tial knowledge of the circumstances of the
case. Had you been present, you would
have felt, I doubt not, as others of our pro
fession did who are as cordially opposed
to the " regimen of Bishops" as yourself.
Having thus shown, as I think, conclu
sively, that what I said was strictly defen
sive, and cannot justly subject me to the
charge of manifesting the bad taste, to say
nothing more, of bringing a controverted
religious question gratuitously before a
promiscuous assemblage of persons, I now
come to the real, and henceforth, as re
spects ourselves, the only important ques
tion in hand.
You have seen fit — no matter whether
inconsiderately, from want of full informa-
tioh in the premises, or deliberately — to
give me, what I offered to no one at the
New-England dinner, " a challenge and de
fiance." I quote your words : " I will hold
myself ready (should you admit that the re
porter of your speech has not done you in
justice, at least in this particular) to prove
that this proposition (viz., ' that there can
not be a Church without a Bishop') is preg
nant with innumerable evil consequences,
theological, social, and civil ; and that it is
unscriptural, uncharitable, schismatical, and
anti-republican in its character."
I deny your assertion, in all its length
and breadth, and hold myself ready to main
tain my denial the moraent you will enable
me to do so by advancing the arguments
on which you found this assertion. You
leave to me the choice of the manner in
which the debate shall be conducted.
I cannot for a moment suppose that you
wish it to take the form of an oral disputa
tion before a promiscuous multitude. Such
an arrangement, I feel confident, you would
regard as inexpedient on very many ac
counts. Shall the debate, then, be conduct
ed through the medium of the daily press ?
Were this desirable, I certainly should not
have the slightest objection to the highly
respectable journal whiCh you have your
self selected. But the space we shall prob
ably .have to occupy would be greater, I
apprehend, than any editor of a secular
paper would feel authorized, in justice to
the majority of his readers, to give up to a
religious controversy. Besides, I confess
that I should prefer much not to have the
grave questions we must discuss mingled
up with the politics of the day and local
topics. And again, I should wish, while
giving all needed publicity to the contro
versy, and enabling those who feel an in
terest in it to observe its progress, to with-

18

CORRESPONDENCE.

draw, as far as practicable, from a secular
arena, in which I am sure it will give pain
rather than pleasure to our common friends
to see us contend.
I would propose, then, that we select,
each one of us, a religious paper, the edi
tors of which will agree that all the com
munications, as they appear in the one,
shall immediately after appear in the other,
without the slightest alteration or curtail
ment ; and, moreover, that the editors re
spectively shall abstain from any comments
on the controversy during its progress. On
my part I select the Churchman, provided
I can procure the assent of the editor, whom
I have not yet seen. But I think I can count
upon his acquiescence. Should he decline
the conditions, however, I will make some
other selection.
In conclusion, I must frankly avow that
I do not believe we can either of us throw
any light upon questions which have been
so often the subject of dispute, and which
for many years in continuous succession
have employed the best abilities, and ex
cited the fervid zeal of the most learned
and pious divines of all persuasions. Still,
if nothing new shall be elicited in this dis
pute — and for myself I greatly doubt the
learning or ingenuity of either of us to
bring forth a single new argument — there
is sometimes an advantage in having old
questions stated in new forms and in new
connexions, and with reference to the pre
vailing sentiments, opinions, wants, and
errors of the age.
Very respectfully, Rev. and dear Sir, I
am your friend and servant,
JoNA. M. Wainwright.
January 2d, 1844.

LETTER II.
REV. DR. POTTS. TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT.
Rev. and Dear Sir : — I had prepared an
answer to some of the points in your last
communication, and I was about to send it
to this day's paper, when it struck me that
there should be a previous settlement of
the question as to the form which this dis
cussion should take, or, rather, the channel
through which it should be made known
to the public. I will, therefore, withhold
my communication until this question be
arranged. I believe each of the plans you notice
has its peculiar claims. I should prefer
the oral form^ because of the greater free
dom it affords ; and, besides, I have no ob
jection that this or any other subject shall
be brought before a public tribunal. I con
sider this to be a subject vitally affecting
the public interest ; nor can it be, as some
among you seem to hold, a degradation of
the claims of the Church, to defend them
before a popular assembly. If, therefore,

your mind be not entirely made up, I beg
you to reconsider this point.
I have, however, precluded myself from
any right to insist upon this, and, indeed,
any other form ; but the object of this note
is to request you to meet me half way, and
to agree at least in the selection of one of
the daily journals. I have this objection,
and it is a serious one, to the employment
of the columns of the religious journals,
viz., as they appear only once a week, the
discussion would be protracted intermina
bly ; besides, these journals are not circu
lated among that class of readers who are
likely to be influenced by the discussion,
for, probably, their minds are made up upon
the point at issue.
I therefore beg, should you utterly de
cline an oral discussion, that you will at
least assent to the very courteous offer of
the " respectable journal" in which our
communications have already appeared,
and which has a claim upon us for the
courtesy it has already extended to us.
As soon as these points are settled, I
will be happy to give a respectful notice to>
your last communication.
With much regard. Rev. and dear Sir, I
am yours, &c., George Potts
Tliursday morning, Jan. 4, 1844.

LETTER III.
REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS.
Rev. and Dear Sir : — I cannot but express
to you my great surprise at your prefer
ence for an oral over a written discussion
of any controverted point in religion —
more especially one of the nature of that
now lying between us, requiring, as it does,-
if it be thoroughly treated, the careful and
deliberate examination of " Scripture and
ancient authors." I have as little objec
tion as yourself to having " this or any
other subject brought before a public tri
bunal." On the contrary, if there is any
thing which can overcome my repugnance
to a religious controversy, and my regret
at having been forced into one like the
present, so often agitated and so thorough
ly sifted, it is the hope of its attracting the
notice and exciting the interest of many
who have heretofore been ignorant of it or
indifferent to it.
It is precisely because " I consider this
to be a subject vitally affecting the pubUc
interest," that I wish it to be presented in
such a form that the public mind may not
be hurried over it without time for reflection,
or be distracted or diverted from the true
point at issue by those subsidiaries which
almost inevitably accompany an oral de
bate, but may have the opportunity to
pause, and deliberate, and examine. So great
is my confidence in the security of the po
sition I have to maintain, that there is no-

CORRESPONDENCE.

19

thing I so much desire, since the contro
versy must take place, as that the whole
community, far and near, should become
acquainted with its whole progress ; or, in
other words, that it should.be a popular
one. And it is because a debate in the
Tabernacle, or any such place, would em
barrass, if not defeat, this object, that I am
opposed to the arrangement you press so
earnestly. Does Dr. Potts really imagine that an
assemblage, such as would throng the Tab
ernacle at the admittance price of a shil
ling a head (as has been proposed in one
quarter), to amuse themselves with the
sharp encounter of two clerical gladiators,
would be a suitable tribunal to judge and
decide such questions as those which must
of necessity arise in the discussion 1 Or
that, however well selected such an audi
ence might be on one occasion, the same
persons could be induced to come and at
tend for several hours, day after day, and
through several weeks, to hear a theolog
ical question debated! And if not the
same throughout, and auditors of the whole
of both sides of the argument, could they
be well-informed and impartial judges 1
An oral discussion, then, could not lead
to anything like a satisfactory final arbit
rament between us. But you prefer it
" because of the greater freedom it affords."
What you mean by this freedom I do not
precisely comprehend, but if you intend by
it what it might be interpreted as imply
ing, loose declamation, and the liberty of
introducing irrelevant topics, instead of
being restricted to close and well-com
pacted argument, and confined rigidly to
the matter in hand, this is a kind of free
dom which I by no means desire for my
self, and which, I am willing to believe,
your good sense would lead you also to
reject. My objection to the oral form of debate,
grounded on the partial and limited oppor
tunity which would be thereby afforded to
the whole community for becoming ac
quainted with the entire discussion, might
be obviated, you may say, by the introduc
tion of reporters for the public press. Now
I acknowledge the great ability and gen
eral fidelity of this useflil class of persons,
and although, through the inattention of
some of them, on a recent occasion, I have
been made to appear to you to have spo
ken in a manner " remarliably incorrect in
respect to language, style, grammar," &c.,
and have reason t^ believe that, through
their defective report of my speech at the
New-England dinner, I have been exposed
to the misfortune of being drawn into the
present controversy, I cannot deny that,
upon the whole, they would give a pretty
full and fair representation of the discus
sion. This task, however, would be more diffi

cult in the present than on ordinary occa
sions, inasmuch as we shall probably have
to quote authors with whom we cannot rea
sonably suppose them to be acquainted, and
languages with which they are not familiar.
If, then, the intervention of reporters is
needed to give a wider dissemination to ar
guments which must be otherwise restrict
ed to a single audience in a single room,
will it not be preferable that the debaters
themselves shall express their sentiments
in a manner for which they must be respon
sible, and which will not admit of their es
caping, should they make an unfortunate
demonstration, under the cover of an inac
curate report ? I cannot but think, there
fore, that the great body of the public will
far more certainly be put in possession of
the whole argument by a written than by
an oral discussion.
The only advantage, as it seems to me,
which the public could gain from the latter
arrangement, would be that to the list of
shows and popular amusements, already
sufficiently extensive, another would be
added. And as to the principals in the de
bate, their sole benefit would be the op
portunity of displaying their forensic pow
ers before a large and promiscuous audito
ry. Now I take it for granted that as with
each of us the maintenance of truth and not
victory over an opponent is the paramount
wish, and that as neither of us has an un
worthy appetite for popular applause to
gratify, or is disposed to lend himself to
any show whatsoever, to promote the pop
ularity of any public place of resort, we
shall best preserve our own self-respect
and maintain our personal dignity by keep
ing aloof from any oral controversy.
I have thus, as you requested me to do,
" reconsidered this point," and my mind is
now " entirely made up ;" I " utterly decline
an oral discussion," and I only feel regret
as well as surprise that your urgency upon
this point has obliged me to enter into the
reasons for thus declining, and that our
sympathies and judgments upon prelimi
nary matters have not proved as much in
harmony as I confess I had supposed them
to be.
The next alternative which you propose
is, that we should employ the columns of
a daily paper rather than those of a reli
gious journal, because,-as the latter appears
only once a week, the discussion would be
" protracted interminably." I regret to
perceive this intimation of your views as
to the length of this controversy. For my
part, I shall wish it brought to a close as
speedily as possible, for I can employ my
time much more acceptably to myself, and,
as I believe, much more profitably, in the
peaceful and unobtrusive duties of my pro
fession, than by taking part in a discussion
which has often employed the pens of much
abler and more learned men.

20

CORRESPONDENCE.

Your other reason for preferring a secu
lar journal to a religious one, because the
latter " is not circulated among that class
of readers who are likely to be influenced
by the discussion, for probably their minds
are made up upon the point at issue," does
not offer any great compliment to " this
class of readers" on the score of candour
and openness to conviction. However, I
will not dwell upon this point, but, waiving
my rights and my decided preferences in this
particular, at your solicitation, will consent
" to meet you half way."
The courtesy with which we have been
treated by the Commercial Advertiser, and
the liberal offer they make of the use of
their columns, settle the question at once
as to which paper we shall select. I agree,
then, that all my replies to your communi
cations shall be sfent to this journal, with
the express understanding that the editors
will abstain from all comments themselves
during the progress of the controversy, and
will not allow the introduction of any com
munications touching the question, so that
the attention of neither of us maybe taken
up by warding off side-blows from by-stand-
ers. Awaiting, then, the appearance of
your next letter, I subscribe .myself,
Very respectfully, Rev. and dear Sir,
yours, JoNA. M. Wainwright.
Friday morning, Jan. 5th.

LETTER III.
BEV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT.
January 2, 1844.
Rev. and Dear Sir: — I have now before
me two communications from your pen,
one dated the 30th ult., the other Jan. 2.
In the first, you express your thanks for
" the courteous terms" in which my letter
of the 27th ult. was " drawn up," and ad
mit that, " as to the important point, and
the one which alone called forth my letter,
the sentiment you uttered (there cannot be
a Church without a Bishop) is accurately re
ported ;" farther declaring your readiness
" to avow it and to maintain it upon every
suitable occasion," and concluding with
some complimentary remarks, which I will
do my best to merit. The latter commu
nication, of this date, reached me late this
evening, and I now propose to give it as
prompt an acknowledgment as my pressing
avocations will permit.
I havfe attentively and respectfully read
it oftener than once, and with an honest
desire to give the utmost force to the self-
justification which is its principal object.
I am not surprised, and, I will add, not of
fended, at the somewhat marked change in
the tone of your last letter ; inferring from
it, however, that, upon farther reflection,
you had come to the conclusion that your
previous commendation of " my courtesy"
had been premature. I say this did not

surprise me, because I felt very sure, from
the beginning, that if the report of your re
marks at the New-England festival should
prove to be correct, you would speedily
find yourself exposed to no small amount
of animadversion, on various accounts, and
hence, would naturally entertain some dis
pleasure towards any one who might call
public attention to your unenviable posi
tion. I can say, with unaffected sincerity,
that it pains me to find you in this position,
and still more it pains me to be the instru
ment of exposing it to the public view.
I am, perhaps, indulging a vain hope
when I beg you to believe this ; for you
have already implied, if not expressed, a
doubt of the sincerity of my " unwilling
ness to believe" that your dinner remarks
had been correctly reported. I trust I am
not ill the habit of using words at random.
I felt all that I described, an unwillingness
to believe it. I confess that my doubts were
not very sanguine, but they were real, be
cause, _^?-.s<, I am always shocked when I
meet with any avowal of the unchurching
dogma ; secondly, because the manifest in
congruity, to call it by no harsher name, be
tween the dogma and the occasion, inclined
me to believe it possible that you had ac
companied it with some unreported qualify
ing phrase, which had softened its aggres
sive aspect ; and, thirdly, because I deemed
it respectful and charitable to suppose, far
ther, that you might be one of the number
of prelatists who hold the more tolerant
views of the subject. That there are such
(I would to God 1,here were not so few
among your clergy) is evident from your
own expression, that " the great body of the
Catholic Church" have maintained " the
principle" you afiirmed.
Why should I be suspected of disingen-
uousness in expressing a hope that you
were in the kind-hearted minority, embra
cing many able ministers and worthy
members of your communion, who cannot
go the length of delivering over the vast
majority of Protestant Christendom to " the
uncovenanted mercies" of God, which are
no mercies at all ? I beg your pardon if I
have offended by supposing that upon the
point of " no Bishop, no Church," you pos
sibly might accord with Cranmer, Whit-
gift, Usher, Stillingfleet, Whateley, and
others, who seem to have had some bowels
of compassion, rather than with Laud and
Dodwell, and Oxford Tractarians, who
thought no more of cutting off the, heads
of Christian Churches than if they had been
so many thistles.
Before I proceed to set the main issue
in its true light, I wish to make a remark
or two upon a collateral point, yet one
which affects the question— Who is the ag
gressor in this easel* You seem to lay

' Who is the aggressor 1" A question of

CORRESPONDENCE.

21

considerable stress upon the circumstance
that there were at least " two clergymen"
present at the New-England dinner, who
saw nothing worthy of animadversion in
your remarks ; I can only say, that if they
cared so little for their own denomination
as to be content that it should be unchurch
ed so publicly and so unceremoniously,
they differ materially from two other cler
gymen who were also present, but who
were, no doubt, withheld from rebuking
such an attack upon the spot, solely by
the consideration that a festive occasion
was not exactly fitted for bringing " a con
troversial question before a promiscuous
assemblage of persons."
In this connexion, I beg leave to say
also, once for all, that I hesitated some
time before I could make up my mind to
risk the suspicion of immodesty by ven
turing to take the place of abler and better
men. I am very happy to say, that my
apprehensions on that score have been
quieted by my knowledge of their approval
of the step I have taken. Still, I wish you
and them to hold me alone responsible. It
is not, I assure you, from " a rabid rage
for controversy," or from any overweening
as to my own ability, that I have thus
turned aside from my more congenial oc
cupation, but from a conviction of the im
propriety of letting so offensive an edict of
excommunication pass unchallenged.
When Dr. Wainwright, a gentleman, a

no importance whatever, but on which the par
ties have wasted so much time and public at
tention, that a word or two seems necessary on
the republication. The orator stated what he
thought a fact ; the Rev. Dr. Wainwright,
drawn into a very conspicuous position, and
thereby made, as it were, the representative of
his Church, heard the statement unmoved.
The audience, mostly enemies to Episcopacy,
applaud uproariously, and far beyond the de
mand by any merit in the sentiment, however
epigrammatic the expression. This was the
lirst aggression, and the tumultuous multitude
was the true aggressor. To this attack, the
first attack, in Dr. Wainwright's estimation and
in that of many others, he temperately, and in
the mildest, and, indeed, too gracious, though
somewhat jocular a manner, rephes by his
speech at the dinner-table. Those present at
the attack and defence seem to have considered
the matter as ended here, when, some days af
terward, to every one's astonishment, the Rev.
Dr. Potts renews the attack; and he is the
only person, after the multitude, who can be
charged as the aggressor, To his question,
then. Who is the aggressor? we simply reply.
Plainly the Rev. Dr. Potts.

scholar, a Christian minister (in each of
which titles there seems to be implied the
idea of refined feelings as well as bland
manners), has taken so public, so extraor
dinary an occasion, for the purpose of un
churching the whole of Protestant Chris
tendom, the Churches of Germany, Switz
erland, France, Great Britain, Holland,
and America — all except the prelatical*
bodies in England and this country — it
surely is high time to demand that the
public should be put in possession of the
evidence! by which so bold and unflinch
ing an assertion is to be sustained ; or, if
that evidence is not forthcoming, it is
equally high time tliat the enormity of the
assumption should be exposed. There are
hundreds who can perform the task better
than myself, but still I believe it is not a
task which requires the strength of a giant.
And now to the point ; for I will over
look many objectionable matters suggested
in your letter, because I am anxious to
reach the main point as speedily as possi
ble. The sooner we settle those bearings
of the discussion, which are merely per
sonal, the better will our readers be satis
fied. I am bound to say, in the outset, that
having disclaimed an intention to offer an
insult to the anti-prelatical Churches, I
willingly discharge you from farther re-

* " All except the prelatical bodies in Eng
land and in this country." Dr. Potts forgets
here the Catholic Church in Scotland, Ireland,
Sweden, Denmark, part of Gennany, India, the
Enghsh colonies, the Moravians, &o., &c., aU
of whom are Churchmen and Protestants.
+ "Put in possession of the evidence." There
are few things so earnestly desired by all Prot
estant Catholics as that the^ people should ex
amine thoroughly and fully understand the evi
dence in behalf of the one Church of God. We
desire the most rigid, unsparing, historical.
Scriptural, and logical examination, and we are
grateful that the attacks of the enemies of the
Church have contributed so largely to bring this
good out of their uncharitableness. And it
surely demands some pause on the part of rea
sonable men, yet in a state of schism, that such
examination tends uniformly to the onward
progress of the Church. Why is it that in
these times of persecution from without, and
of lukewarmness on the part of some of her
children within her bosom, the Church, abused
and assailed by " Legion" in the shape of a
hundred contradictory sects, who are united
only in warfare against her, why is it that thou
sands come into her courts, and none depart
for the ranks of sectarism? Pause, ponder,
and reply, or receive the truth in silence.

22

CORRESPONDENCE.

sponsibility on that point. Had you, in ad
dition, been pleased to qualify your prop
osition, so as to admit the ecclesiastical
rights of those Christian bodies who " hold
the Head, even Christ," I should have laid
down my pen, even though you had claimed
for your own body a lofty superiority. But
yofi have made no such admission. You
stand now where you stood when rebuking
the descendants of the Puritans. You
have, indeed, denied any intention to be
" offensive," or " exclusive," but the ques
tion recurs. Was not " the principle" you
afiirmed offensive, because exclusive ? We
are virtually charged with acting under
forged commissions, with living in rebellion
against God, because, forsooth, " there cannot
be a Church" — sacred and venerable name,
the name of our birthplace — without what ?
without Christ the Divine Redeemer 1 No :
"without a Bishop." But to be out of
Christ's Church, in the most essential
meaning of the phrase, is to be out of the
pale of salvation. And hence, to affirm
that there is no Church unless it have a
prelate, is to aflirm something that goes
very far towards shutting heaven against
the whole* of Protestant Christendom,
with the exception of yourselves.
Now, if these consequencesf naturally
.flow from your position, I ask, again, if it
is not necessarily an " offensive" position,
and whether, therefore, you did not as
sume an offensive attitude when you ut
tered it ? Let us settle this point first, and
afterward consider the plea of provoca
tion which you offer in self-vindication, and
we shall then be prepared to judge of the
propriety of your attempt to alter the issue.
Your object, my dear sir, is to exchange
* Dr. Potts seems to think that consequences
alter the truth of the proposition. But if the
proposition be true, who can help the conse
quences 1 Because some men in these latter
and truly " dark ages," indeed, have chosen to
form, as they confess, human societies, and caU
them the Church of God, does it follow that the
divine society is to blame for their untrue posi
tion, because she has simply pursued the even
tenour of her way, asking for the " old paths,"
and walking therein 1
+ The position is not an "ofiensive" one,
neither is it " assumed," but inherited. When
the sects separated, as they confess, fi-om the
unity of the Church, they took the "offensive,"
and she now, as then, occupies the defensive
ground. Three centuries do not alter the re
spective positions of the Church and of her
schismatic children. It is impossible to place
those who hold themselves to be members of a
divine society and those who profess to be parts
of human institutions upon the same footing.

places with me. So I judge from the drift
of your letter, in which you speak of " the
public attack"* I have made upon you ; of
my having given you a " challenge and de
fiance ;" of my having forced you to follow
me as " a combatant" in " a daily news
paper;" and, finally, at the close of your
letter, you leave the post you assumed on
the 22d of December, and call upon me to
prove my negativef of your proposition.
In short, you wish to assume the attitude of
defendant in this case, and to present me
in the character of an assailant. This is a
very ancient expedient in controversy, and
is always resorted to by disputants who
wish to avert from themselves the " impu
tation of having justly provoked a religious
controversy," and to secure the sympathy
of the by-standers, as wantonly-assailed
persons. I admit there is an advantage in
this, but I think it can be shown that you
cannot in this instance claim it.
For, first, you made an offensive attack,
not only upon the probable majority of
your hearers, but upon the majority of the
Christian churches and ministers in this
city. Whether raeant to be so or not, it
was so. Whisper " the principle" in the
blandest tones, and you do not change its
real character. Say that you hold it in
common " with the great body of the Cath
olic Church," you cannot evade the re
sponsibility of having publicly uttered an
offensive thing by sharing that responsibil
ity with others. Nor can I imagine a more
belligerent style than that of the remarks
which immediately accompanied it — " an
arena" — " a throwing down and takilig up
of the gauntlet" — a readiness " to maintain
that there cannot be a Church without a
Bishop." I ask whether it was not Dr.
Wainwright who "compelled" some one
to follow him into the columns of " a daily
newspaper ;" for surely he could not sup
pose that, in these days of newspapers and
reporters, all that he might say upon this
occasion would not be immediately sent
off through the length and breadth of the
land. I have seen many offensive and ex
clusive specimens of Churchism, but nev-

* We imagine if the suffrages had been col
lected on the day of the appearance of Dr.
Potts's first letter, they would, with something
like unanimity, have run thus : " Dr. Potts has
challenged Dr. Wainwright ;" " Dr. P. has at
tacked Dr. W.," &c., &c. the idea that the
fhst " attack" originated with Dr. W. is too ab
surd to be farther noticed.
t Yet how plainly, in his first letter. Dr.
Potts undertakes to prove an affirmative prop
osition. Words cannot be more precise. " I
will hold myself ready, &c., to prove that this
proposition is pregnant, &c., unscriptural, &c."
(See Dr. Potts, in loco.)

CORRESPONDENCE.

23

er one the odiousness of which was more
perfectly disembarrassed of all ornamental
drapery. But, secondly, it was provoked ; and may
you, therefore, justly claim to be excused
from standing in the place of proponent in
this discussion 1 Now what was the al
leged provocation 1 I admit that this is the
most important point in the preliminary
question now under consideration. What
was the provocation ? Was there any that
justified such a public repudiation of the
majority of the Churches of the Reforma
tion 'r You expressly acquit the orator of
any intention to insult those whom you call
" Churchmen ;" but you lay the whole
blame upon the vehement applause of the
audience. It was their noisy cheering of
the orator's " sentiment," as you term it,
that developed their latent detestation of
Prelacy, and discovered a determination to
show its a,dvocates how unpopular it was.
Indeed, you intimate that there was
something personal in the cheering, as
those who were guilty of it " must have
known that (you) were placed in a very
conspicuous position as the guest of the
Society." I think this is hardly charita
ble, to say nothing else, for I doubt wheth
er the persons of the clergy are as well
known as their names. I presume that
the plaudits were given simply to the
statement itself, and therefore the ques
tion finally presented itself in this form :
Was there in that statement any attack,
designed or not, against those who modest
ly call themselves, par eminence. Church
men ? and was it such an attack as impo
sed upon any of that number a necessity
of manifesting his aggrieved feelings ?
"This is the turning-point in deciding
whether or not you are to be held respon
sible as the assailant in this case.
What, then, was the import of the lan
guage which seems so to have pleased the
audience, and to have displeased you 1 It
went no farther than to say, that in Gene
va the expatriated Puritans formed a re
publican state and a republican Church rt
* Here is an express avowal of the modern,
human origin of the well-named " Puritan
Church." It is a thing, according to Dr. Potts,
which men form as they do governments : " In
Geneva, the expatriated Puritans /ormed a re
publican state and a republican Church." Then
the Church which they formed at that time in
Geneva certainly was not " the Church of the
Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth,"
with which St. Paul was acquainted at Ephe
sus almost sixteen centuries before this new
formation. And here it may be well to intro
duce the unanswerable argument on this whole
subject, and which at once cuts up by the roots
all modern pretensions to the making of church-

and this he mentioned to account for the
republicanism which their descendants
brought to New-England.
Now I grant you, most readily, that if
the applauded sentence had been so framed
as to assert, or even' imply that this Church
without a Bishop was the only legitimate
Church ; if the orator had uttered the con
verse, or, rather, the counterpart of your
doctrine, and had said " there cannot be a
Church with a Bishop,"* he wouid have ad-

es. Mark, then ! there is no greater fallacy
than in that vox populi which incessantly cries
around Boston especially, and through the
whole land, indeed, " Men improve in all other
things ; this is a wonderful age ; a period of
the ' onward march,' &c., &c., why not in
religion?" Why not? Simply, we answer,
because God gave it perfect, and did not leave it
for you to invent, alter, or improve. Discover,
and improve your human discoveries as much
as you will ; " seek what you shall eat, what
you shall drink, and wherewithal you shall be
clothed;" in the words of another, "Occupy
yourselves in feeding, warming, and clothing
the perishable body," by the developments of
your "mechanical age," to the neglect of the
immortal spirit ; but let God's religion alone ;
it is in no need of your improvements ; and it
will last without being tinkered by your, hands.
He gave a system not to be altered but by its
Author ; and, having sent Christ to fulfil the
law which he gave by Moses, we are not to lis
ten to an angel from heaven preaching another
gospel. The oldest Christianity, therefore, is
the best ; and we have shnply to show that
anything in so-called Christian Churches is
human, and therefore new, and we have in
the same breath proved it to be false. In a
word, all the sects are in a false position the
moment they acknowledge themselves to be of
modern origin, as Lutherans, Calvinists, &c.,
willingly and necessarily do. Three words of
the old Bishop in the Council of Nice, concern
ing the heresy of Arius, settle forever all other
heresies — Quis talia audivit ? Who has heard
such things? "Neman." Why? "Because
they were not taught by our fathers." Why
not by them? Because their fathers taught
not them, not having thus been taught by the
apostles, nor they by the Master.
* Dr. Potts acknowledges that a Church with
Bishops is a true Church ; therefore, Jiy embra
cing this truth, he would violate neither truth
nor conspience, and would promote the so-
much-desired unity of Christ's body. Why not
embrace it, then, since we are not only in the
great majority, but since we cannot>give up the

24

CORRESPONDENCE.

vanced a dogma as offensive, as unchari
table, as anti- Christian, and, I will add, as
iU-timed as the dogma which you felt it
your duty to advance.
I could have forgiven some exasperation
of feeling, on the score of the injustice and
I arrogant wantonness of the assault. Sir,
I rejoice to be able to say, that you cannot
find on the pages of any book of the least
authority* among us, or in any dinner
speech that ever was delivered, the coun
terpart of your proposition afiirmed. Mr.
Choate did not affirm it; nor was this
" the sentiment" which the New-England
audience saw fit to applaud, not having the
fear of Churchmen before their eyes. The
head and front of their offending was this,
and no more, that they dared to insinuate
that there might be\ a Church without a
Bishop ; that the Reformed Churches of
the Continent of Europe (all of which,
without an exception, had rejected Prelacy)^

true Chm'ch for that which we do most thor
oughly and conscientiously believe to be of
man's making, and no Church kt all? The
sects give up Church for Church, but they can
not reasonably expect us to give up truth and
conscience for falsehood and error ; i. e., to give
up Church for no-Church. There never can be
unity, then, until they embrace this offer, which
they confess they can do. We cannot.
* " Least authority." It would be a book of
small authority, indeed, which should advance
a proposition which the whole world would
know to be a palpable falsehood. And yet the
greater part of Christians believe the truth of
Dr. Wainwright's proposition. How plainly the
advantage is on the side of Episcopacy.
t In the CathoUc estimation, it is quite as
much an assault upon the Church of God to at
tempt to show the truth of that maxim, hitherto
— i. e., till Dr. Wainwright's time — unknown to
the Latin language, "Ecclesia sine Episcopo"
(how queer it looks in Latin), as it is an attack
upon the dissenter to maintain the old proyerb,
" Nulla Ecclesia sine Episcopo." This position
of Dr. Potts, therefore, falls to the ground.
t " All had rejected Prelacy." This is a most
remarkable, and equally untrue statement. At
the first, only one of them rejected " prelacy,"
as Dr. Potts is pleased to term Episcopacy.
They were compelled, as they thought, to do
as well as they might without this divine insti
tution ; and yet there was only self-will, and no
necessity (see note t, on page 39). The words
of some of the early Reformers, in favour of the
government of Bishops, may be easily found in
then: works, but, for a reference at hand to all,
see Rev. Dr. Chapman's Sermons on the " Min
istry, &c., of the Protestant Episcopal Church,"

were lawful Churches ; that their minis
ters, say Luther,* and a number of others,-
2d edition, where may be found at large the
declaration of Luther, that he " finds the author
ity of Bishops supported by the Word of God ;''
of Calvin, that " if the Bishops submit to Christ,
they who reject their authority, if any such be'
found, are worthy of all a«a<Acmas ;" ofMelanc-
then, that " Zuinglius" (the first true blue Pres
byterian, after some of the papists (see note t,
p. 39), " in his madness, would abolish Bishops.
and the whole Church at a blow," &c., &c.
* Luther was well aware of the difficulty of
substituting a human " Teacherhood" in thfr
place of God's ministry, and fenced in his own
system as well as he might ; but the rehgious
bodies of Germany soon became (witness the
origin of the Anabaptists, &c., &c., in 1534„
at Munster), and still remain, a perfect chaos.
And, indeed, so it is everjrvvhere, when God's
Church is once deserted. And why not ? If
one man, or one body of men, have a right to
constitute churches and a ministry, so has any
other man, or body of men. And this they have
done ad nauseam, until it seems hardly possi
ble that division can be any more subdivided,
so as to leave to each fraction an upper and
lower side and a middle. Hence all the errors
taught, e. g., that infant baptism is, and is not
allowable ; that the Holy Trinity is k true doc
trine, and is not true ; that aU men will be
saved, and vrill not be saved, &c. It follows
that men are living in many grievous errors,
because the true Bible cannot teach these con
tradictions. The truth and its direct contradic
tion, all will allow, cannot be in that book. But
what is true, then ? Answer, that interpreta
tion which stood unquestioned in the first three
centuries, or which the whole Catholic Churcli
has always received. This is rendered plainer
thus : Christ taught the apostles truth only.
They, being inspired, taught with uniformity ;
for, after they had once met on a question of
external order, being agreed, they wrote, " It
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts,
XV., 28). AU Churches, then, were estabhshed
on one model. In short, there was one body
of Catholic truth ; and, as this was entirely de
rived from the teaching of men who were sent
out, it follows that what was taught in every
Church, in every province and city, must have
had a common, i. e., apostolic origin, for other
wise you cannot account for its universal prev
alence. Now, in every part of the Christian
world, the terms Catholic Church, Episcopacy,
&c., are understood ; but it would sadly puzzle
the good people of Sweden, Denmark, Italy,

CORRESPONDENCE.

25-

not altogether unknown to fame, as hav
ing done a little service to Religion and
Liberty, were pot usurpers simply because
no Bishop had laid* his hand upon their
heads ; that their marriages were not un
lawful, their children not illegitimate, their
baptism, and coramunioh at the Lord's Ta
ble not a farce. In one word, Mr. Choate
did no more than church} the Genevan
and Puritan Christians ; he did not unchurch
the prelatical Christians of England, or
even of Rome.

Spain, Greece, the Christians in Asia Minor,
&c., to tell the meaning of Baptist, Methodist,
New Light, Osgoodite, and Mormon. An old
patriot is still alive, who related to the writer
the story of the capture of his vessel by the
Spaniards, when Spain was at war with Eng
land. They were carried into Cuba, and ex
amined by King Ferdinand's judges. Among
other questions, the captain was asked, " What
is your religion?" "I am a Baptist," was his
reply. "Baptist?" and the judges looked at
each other. " What is that ?" So they opened
their books, and finding a definition for the word
Baptist, looked at each other again, smiled, and
went on. " I am a Methodist," says the mate
Another search, and similar results. "I am a
Ne;sv Light" (this religion, though now dead, was
once rife in New-England). The books gave
no satisfaction here. And now the old hero,
our friend, was called up, and, having been born
before the Revolution, he answered, " I am a
Catholic of the Church of England." " 0, very
well," said the judges, " we understand that."
* " No Bishop had laid hands," &c. This is
a simple mistake. Luther, and many of his co
adjutors, were Romish priests, regularly ordain
ed. Luther would, at the outset, have commit
ted any other sacrilege as soon as attempt or
dination. It was only when he wislied to estab
lish a Lutheran Church that he would suffer it
to take its rise from the hands of Martin Luther,
t " Out of the abundance ,of the heart the
mouth speaketh." Because Dr. Potts feels
that men can make and unmake churches, like
any other societies, therefore he gravely tells
us that Mr. Choate can church and unchurch
people, as he will. Verily, this is no Puritan
idea ; nor was there any snch progress or march
of mind as this in the Reformation. It reminds
us of the fine contrast drawn by a countryman of
ours between the simple, undoubting piety and
devotion of the Italian girl Ghita and the modern
rehgion of Ithuel Bent, who, with all the proper
qualifications of a pirate, tells Ghita that her re
ligion is all " mummeries," and that in the Gran
ite State " the people make their rehgion ac
cording to their own idees."
D

Now I be"g leave to say that this is the
material point, and it decides at once the-
question of your true position in the ensu
ing discussion, by deciding that as no at
tack was made upon the validity of your
Church organization, so you were without
any just grounds for the offensive— I meaa,
the aggressive — attitude which you assu
med at the table, when you told your audi
ence that you would be willing to meet
even the orator of the day, and prove, that
his Church at Geneva was no Church, be
cause " THERE CANNOT BE A ChURCH wlth-
out a Bishop."
This is your proposition. I mean to hold
you to this ; and I now call upon you to
commence* the discussion by defining your
terms. In answering your arguments, I
shall have the opportunity I desire to
"prove that this dogma is pregnant with
innumerable evils, theological, social, and
civil, and that it is unscriptural," &c., &c^
I beg from you three definitions, which
are indispensable to a right understanding
of your proposition :
1. What is the Church?
2. What is the Catholicity of the Church ?
3. What is a Bishop ?t

* " Commence." See Dr. Potts, Letter I.,
in which he says simply, if Dr. Wainwright did
say, what Dr. Wainwright immediately con
fessed he did say, that he. Dr. Potts, was ready
to prove, &o. This contradiction reigns through
out. t We might answer these three questions in
the negative way, as the disputants have dealt
with them in the positive.
1 . The Church of the living God, known to St.
Paul, isriot, and never was, and never will be,
the society founded by Martin Luther, John
Calvin, John Wesley, Roger Wilhams, .Alexan
der Campbell, or Joseph Smith.
2. The Catholic Church is not that which i»
conf ned to a small part of the earth, say Ger
many, or even all Europe, Switzerland, and a
few other places, England and America, Rhode
Island, &c., the Western States, or Nauvoo.
What Eastern Christian would understand your
talk about " good Christian denominations,"
your Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Camp-
bellite, or Mormon notions ? Cathohc, Ortho
dox, and even Protestant (as bad as it is for
Christians to bear a fighting name), they know ;
but when the thirty or forty kinds of Bap
tists, &c., step in, they would say, "Who are
these?" 3. A Bishop in the Catholic Church is not ev
ery dissenting Presbyterian or Baptist,, who
occasionally, when hard pressed by his people's
inquiries in the Scriptures, or by some stout

26

CORRESPONDENCE.

With an apology for detaining you and
your readers so long, believe me, very re
spectfully, your obedient servant,
Gborbe Potts.
January fi, 1844.
P.S. — Your reply of last evening to my
note of the 4th is open to some criticism,
but I withhold it, because I do not wish that
public attention should be fatigued with the
discussion of collateral questions. I send
the preceding letter to the journal which
has been so politely offered for our use,
promising that, as far as possible, I will not
trespass upon the courtesy of the editors
by lengthened articles.

LETTER IV.
rev. dr. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS.
Rev. and Dear Sir: — I had really sup
posed that, after assenting to your propo
sition to " meet you half way," all the pre
liminaries were definitely settled, and that
having challenged me to the controversy,
and pledged yourself to the proof of an cif-
Jirmative proposition, you would of course
open the discussion. What was my as
tonishment, then, to discover from your
letter, which appeared on Saturday, that a
most important point is still undecided iii
your own mind, and that you have not yet
concluded which side of the discussion you
will assume.
I begin now to understand what you
mean by that " freedom" which you "con
sider one of the advantages of an oral de
bate. One of its privileges seems to be
the liberty to change sides at your pleas
ure. I have good reason, therefore, to con
gratulate myself that I was not tempted
to concede more than I did as to the form
in which our disputation should be con
ducted, and allow my adversary to draw
me into an arena where this dangerous
propensity would be under less control
than I mean it shall be, now that we are
both tied down to our deliberate, recorded
language. If, after the interchange of sev
eral letters considerately written — for you
say " I trust I am not in the habit of using
words at random" — our respective posi
tions are not defined, I do not know how
many hours' worth of extemporaneous
words would have been consumed before

Churchman's lectures, assumes the style of
Bishop for a month or two, till, vroary with the
effort, and unsustained by the people, who know
better, the name is quietly dropped again. See
any files of the New-York Evangelist, and oth
er precious repositories of columns of slang
agSiiiist the Church of God, fdr the last half
dozen years — at intervals — for the efforts are
.always spasmodic, like the conversions and the
arehgion of revivals.

we fairly got to work in good logical style
— if we ever did.
In your first letter you throw out to me
a contingent challenge in case I uttered a
certain sentiment, and then you distinctly
enunciate an affirmative proposition, and
express your readiness to prove it. Let
me recall to you youf own words : " I will
hold myself ready to prove that this prop
osition (viz., that there cannot be a Church
without a Bishop) is pregnant with innu
merable evil consequences, theological, so
cial, and civil ; and that it is unscriptural,
uncharitable, schisrriatical, and anti-republican
in its character." In your second letter
you confess that your attitude is that of
the challenger, by acknowledging that you
have precluded yourself from any right to
insist upon the oral or any other form of
discussion, this being my privilege as the
challenged party. This is your language :
" I have, however, precluded myself from
any right to insist upon this, and, indeed,
any other form ; but the object of this note
is to request you to meet me half way,"
&c. And now, in your letter of Saturday,
you coolly turn round, and tell me, in ef
fect, that I am the challenger, and call
upon me to commence the discussion. And
not only so, but with singular modesty,
and a very charitable regard for my inca
pacity to conduct my own side of the ques
tion, you suggest to me the very mode in
which I am to begin, and select for me the
words which it will be necessary for me to
define. This is sufficiently extraordinary ; but
what is more remarkable still, and a thing,
I suspect, unheard of before in any scho
lastic disputation, the very words you ask
me to define are constituent terms in your
own affirmative proposition ! Thus you make
an affirmation, pledge yourself to prove it,
and then, in the very outset, ask of your
opponent to define the terms which govern
its meaning! I can hardly believe that
you are aware of the position in which you
have placed yourself. You say that " with
unaffected sincerity it pains you* to see me

f Now we ask. Is there one reader, even Dr. P-
himself, who beheves that it " pained" him to
find Dr. W. in a bad position ? Or is there one
who is not better satisfied with Dr. W.'s frank
and manly, but, in appearance and wards, less
Charitable declaration that it gives him "no
pain at all ?" &c. How much better, even if it
be less Presbyterian, less expedient, less pru
dent, but possibly more Christian, to say things
just as they are, or, at least, to strive to pre
serve verisimilitude? But it is useless to at
tempt to disguise the fact that the religion of
dissent is in some respects a religion of manage
ment. In this regard, as in many others, it ap
proaches very nearly to Jesuitism. How much

CORRESPONDENCE.

ill ;i certain position" (in which, by-the-
way, I do not find myself, and in which I
think I shall convince the community, if
not you, that I am not), " and still more it
pains you to be the instrument of exposing
it to public view." Now with a sincerity
at least as unaffected, I must say that it
gives me no pain at all to expose your
logical inaccuracy. You have controvert
ed a proposition of mine, and you " desire
to have the opportunity to prove that this
dogma is pregnant with innumerable evils,
theological, social, and that it is unscriptu
ral," &c. ; and in the very same breath
you ask for three definitions, " which are
indispensable to a right understanding of
my proposition."
Now if these definitions are indispensa
ble to the understanding of my proposition,
and you have not yet obtained them, you
certainly do-not understand it. And thus
you have undertaken to prove that a prop
osition which you confess you do not un
derstand " is pregnant with innumerable
evils," &c. You may select either horn
of the dilemma, as you please. If you did
CNDERSTAND MY PROPOSITION, IT IS WORSE
THAN TRIPLING TO CALL UPON ME NOW TO TELL
YOU WHAT IT MEANS. If YOU DID NOT UN
DERSTAND IT, WHAT BIGHT HAD YOU TO PLEDGE
YOURSELF TO PROVE IT TO BE " unscriptural,
uncharitable, schismatical, and anti-republi-

popery there is among schismatics ! e. g., Res-
torationism and Purgatory ; the blood of St.
Januarius, and a fragment of the Plymouth rook
hi the corner-stone of the Puritan Church ; un
due reverence for the traditions of the ancient
fathers, and wholesale eulogy of the Puritan fa
thers (see Rev. Edwards Parks's Sermon at
Andover) ; the adoption by the Jesuits of the hea
then altars, and the recent use in the East of the
sign of the cross in baptism by the same Congre
gational missionaries, who count it sheer pope
ry in New-England ; auricular confession, and
whispering on the anxious seats; the infalli
bility of Rome, and the infallibilty of each sect ;
the exaltation of the Pope, and the exaltation
of Doctor This and Mister That ; the silent intro
duction of their peculiar tenets by the Jesuits,
and the barefaced introduction of their peculia:r
translation in Burmah and elsewhere (by help
of other sects' money) of the Baptists (see Rev.
S. H. Cone's recent confession in a letter) ; and
the whole broad application of the Jesuit max
im, that "the end sanctifies the means," as dis
played in the repeated confession that Miller-
ism and other absurd falsehoods may do good,
even if they frighten men into conversion, &c.,
<kc. ; for the catalogue of resemblances between
Dissent and Rome is as long as that between
Rome and Paganism.

can ?" Besides, as a theologian, you ought
to know the meaning of a maxim which
has been extant in ecclesiastical language
for centuries upon centuries, and within
the last three liundred years thoroughly
debated by the kblest theologians.
You advert again to my speech at the
New-England dinnw. Presuming that you
have not yet taken the pains to examine
an accurate report of it, httle as it deserves
to be obtruded before the public, I append
one, in order that you may have no farther
apology for misrepresenting its bearings. ^
Now will you be kind enough to exam
ine my language ? Do I say that I throw
down the gauntlet, or wish or intend to
throw it down ? No : but that if thrown
down, I shall be ready to take it up. You
have thrown it down, and J have taken it
up. You bear on your shield the motto
propounded some three centuries ago, Ec
clesia sine Episcopo — a Church without a Bish
op. I bear on mine the same which was
on the banner of the Universal Church,
without dispute or challenge, for 1500 years,
and which, though since challenged, is yet
borne without' wavering by far the, greater
portion of Christendom, Nulfa Ecclesia sine
Episcopo — No Church without a Bishop.
These mottoes we have respectively borne
and gloried in since we became teachers of
the Gospel, and we might have continued
to bear them peacefully, each in his own
separate theological walk ; but you have
gone out of your way to challenge mine ;
I have accepted the offer of combat, how
ever reluctantly, from my utter dislike of
polemical strife,* but I have accepted it.
And now, when the lances should be ready
in the rest, you stop and wish to deprive
me of the privileges of the defied. Is this
knightly ? or, in the language of polished
life, is it courteous ? or, in the better lan
guage of religion, is it kind 1 Charity suf-
fereth long and is kind, is not easily pro
voked — thinketh no evil, &c.
As to the " unchurching dogma," and the
consequences you so liberally draw from
it, I shall be ready to meet this point, and
show your mistake as to the opinions and
feeling of Churchmen, when you come to
sustain that division of your proposition,
" uncharitable." * We differ from Dr. W. here. We believe
a man is to know nothing but the truth at any
time. There are two musty old maxims very
popular ajid very unchristian, which of them
selves prove that "vox popuh" is anything but
" vox Dei" (which makes a third), viz., " charity
begins at home," always used by those with
whom it begins nowhere and never ; and "the
truth is not to be spoken at all times," i. e., it
is never to be spoken at all, or, at least, never
when it can be of any service.

38

CORRESPONDENCE.

Let us now distinctly understand, and
let the public understand, what are our re
spective positions. Upon leaving my study
one morning, for the discharge of my paro
chial duties, I am informed in the street, to
my great surprise, that a letter has been
addressed to me in a public print by the
Rev. Dr. Potts. It is ^lut into my hand ;
I give it a hasty perusal ; and, in full reli
ance upon his gentlemanly character, and
under the influence of the recollection of
the very pleasant though infrequent in
tercourse I have had with him, I reply to
it as being courteous and kind. Upon a
second and more deliberate examination
at home, I discover its covert design, now
openly avowed in the letter to which I am
replying — " to expose me to public view in
an unenviable position." It contains,how-
ever,' a challenge to a public discussion in
case I am correctly reported as having
avovi^ed my belief in a certain abstract
proposition. I acknowledge the accura
cy of the report, so far as that proposition
is concerned. The preliminaries as to
place and form of debate are discussed and
settled. And now Dr. Potts wishes to
change his ground, and make me the chal
lenger, and, of course, the originator of a
inost unpleasant and uncalled-for contro
versy. What you say, sir, about the Tabernacle
scene, with a view of showing that no suf-
flcient provocation was given for making
the assertion, and that I was therefore the
aggressor (however it may be adapted for
your purpose or popular effect), is entirely
irrelevant. Suppose it to be precisely as you put it.
What then ? It was not upon the condi
tion that I was the " aggressor" in making
the assertion, but solely upon the condition
that I made it, that you pledged yourself to
prove it unscriptural, &c.
In conclusion, therefore, I have only to
REPEAT that I did make the assertion, though
not meaning it as a challenge ; and that if
you choose to redeem your pledge, I am
ready to meet you. If you do not choose,
you are at liberty to recede, and I stand in
the position I occupied when you called
upon me, and from which I shall not be
either enticed or driven.
I am, Rev. and dear Sir, your obedient
servant, Jona. M. Wainwright.
Monday, January 8th.
Dr. Wainwright's Speech at the New-England
Dinner.
Mr. President and Gentlemen — I cannot for a
moment doubt that the expression, " The Cler
gy of New-England," in the sentiment just giv
en, was intended to embrace all, of every name
and shade of rehgious belief ; and, therefore,
having myself once been an humble member Of
that venerated body, I venture, in behalf of all.

to express to you our thanks for this honoura .
ble mention of us, and for the manner in which
the notice has been responded to.
On all suitable occasions I would be the last
to shrink from avowing and maintaining the
distinctive principles of that Church of which I
have the great privilege of being a minister. In
such an encounter I should not fear, bold and
presumptuous as the declaration may seem, to
confroiit even the orator of the day, who has so
gloriously discharged his task, and in the pres
ence of many of us tliis morning has hung around
the naked rook of Plymouth strings of richest
pearl and diamond in his eloquent address. I
say I should not fear to confront even him. In
a part of this splendid perfbrmanoe, speaking,
of the Puritans, who, in the reign of Mary, were
driven by cruel persecution from their native
land to seek a refuge in Geneva, he asserted
that they there found " a government without a
king, and a Church without a Bishop."
Notwithstanding the approbation with which
this sentiment was then and is now received,
I must declare, were this the proper arena, and
were that distinguished gentleman to throw
down the gauntlet on this question, I should not
for an instant hesitate to take it up, and to main
tain, on the opposite side, that there can he na
Church without a Bishop. But such discussions
are properly banished from this place and this
Society. Here we know nothing of distinctive
or sectarian opinions upon the great questions of
religion. And I rejoice that not only here, but
throughout the length and breadth of the land,
whenever the clergy are thus honourably men
tioned, no privileged order has a right to get
up and arrogate this title to itself
By the operation of the Constitution of our
country, we are placed upon an equal footing —
we have all common rights, and if the clergy
understand their true interests, they wiU ever
rally as one body around this sacred instrument,
and look upon it as the ark of their religious as
well as civU hberties. Around the altar of
friendship and benevolence, also, reared by this
Society, they may join hand in hand, and with
sentiments of mutual'respect and affection, de
vote themselves to one common object, the pro
motion of charity. And when they retire from
such associations, and return to their respective
fields of labour, and are constrained, perhaps, to
defend the distinctive principles of their faith,
would that they could ever bear in hvely re
membrance the apostle'^words, " Now abideth
f^ith, hppe, ind charity — but the greatest of
these is charity."
The clergy of New-England ! In me these

CORRESPONDENCE.

29

words ever awaken grateful and animating asso
ciations. God forbid that I should ever permit
my individual opinions, upon questions of reli-
,gious faith, to blind my eyes in prejudice to
those who differ from me, or close the affec
tions of my heart against them.
It has been my privilege in past times to
know, more or less intunately, clergymen of
-very different and even opposite opinions, whom
1 have, nevertheless, loved and venerated.
Who that knew anything of Boston twenty
years ago, does not remember with unfeigned
respect the sainted Chevereux, the first Roman
Catholic Bishop of New-England ; his elo
quence, his simple and self-denying life, and
his unwearied devotion to the cause of the suf
fering poor ? Bishop Griswold, the meek prel
ate of my own Church, I knew well — who that
loiew, did not venerate him for his learning, pi
ety, and worth ?
I have known, too, Kirkland, the accomplish
ed scholar and Christian gentleman, the digni
fied head of Harvard College. Of Dwight, the
distinguished President of Yale College — the
learned and the eloquent — I personally knew
Yery little, but for his memory I entertain un
feigned respect. With Channing, whose liter
ary fame is the property of two hemispheres, I
was brought into the connexion almost of rela
tionship. And here I cannot refrain from naming one
whose rehgious tenets it would be using, per
haps, not too strong- language to say that I rep
robate, but whose purity of life, integrity of
character, and many social virtues I remember
with deep respect and affection. I mean Dr.
Freeman. These are types of the clergy of
New-England. There have been in years past
many such, and in years to come I cannot doubt
that there will be many more. But/ 1 have de
tained you too long upon such a theme at the
present time. I cannot, however, deem it oth
er than becoming that the sentiment to which
I have thus inadequately responded should be
given on this occasion, nor is it out of place for
me thus to thank you, from the fulness of my
heart, for the honour you have done the clergy
of New-England.

8th instant, our readers will have discov
ered that it is not my purpose to retard the
discussion of your proposition, by insisting
upon the merely technical question, who
shall, by the laws of fence, commence the
discussion. I will commence* it; but,
in doing so, I mean to hold you strictly to
the proposition you have thrown out as a
defiance, and to keep yourself and our read
ers in mind that mine is an attitude of self-
defence, against an assault,! and an unpro
voked assault, upon the character and rights
of the great mass of our Christian fellow-
citizens. In my last I think it was shown conclu
sively that this was the case. You seem
to have a suspicion that the close of my
letter, which, indeed, contained the gist of
the matter, was " well adapted for my pur
pose or popular effect." You profess not,
indeed, to see its relevancy, but I think
others have not failed to perceive that my
statement of the circumstances convicts
you of having made a gratuitous attack
upon all who do not think that PrelatesJ
only can open the gates of the Christian
Church. "My purpose," I admit, was
" popular effect ;"§ and I feel compliment
ed by your thinking that my argument has
achieved my purpose. The reason of its
fitness for " popular effect" is not to be
found in any special skill upon my part in
stating the facts, but in the nature of the
facts themselves. In a simple matter of
fact,|| the best judge is the common sense

LETTER IV.
REV. DR. POTTS TO EEV, DR. WAINWRIGHT.
THEKE CANNOT BE A CHURCH WITHOUT A
PRELATE.*
Rev. and Dear Sir : — Before I have con
cluded this letter in answer to yours of the

'Prelate." This Latin and foreign word

here occurs without occasion. Dr. Potts must
feel himself hard pushed when he finds a ne
cessity for charging his opponent with having
said what he did not say. He changes his
Scriptural language or term for an unpopular
word. We have no Prelates in the American
Church, and Dr. W. said nothing about Prel
ates. He did not say nulla ecclesia sine prcela-
to. Why is this change made ? The wrestler
who cannot overthrow his antagonist by fair
means has been known to resort to fmd fight.
* And yet he never does commence it-
t We are tired of making notes about this
point, and leave it now once for all. The read
er will please to imagine the additional notes
we might have written about this.
t See preceding note.
I) Prelates, see note *, col. 1. His purpose,
he admits, is popular effect; and as this must
be attained at all hazards, " read Prelate, and
think Dr. W. said Prelate, if you please, for
Bishop." II For example, now, as to the " simple mat
ter of fact" whether the blood of St. Januarius
liquidates or not. "The common sense of
common people", at Naples declares that it
does, ergo, the Popish miracle is a miracle, ac-

30

CORRESPONDENCE.

of common people. I perceive that you
do not yourself call in question the force
of my argument, that as there was con
fessedly nothing in Mr. Choate's language,
and nothing in the applause of the audi
ence, which invaded yowr ecclesiasUeal
standing,* so you were not called upon,
especially upon that occasion, to attack
the ecclesiastical standing of the general
community of Christians.
You will understand me, however ; I do
not think that the inappropriateness of time
and place is the worst feature in this case
of ecclesiastical proscription. It is the
utter unreasonableness and the unrelieved
moral deformity of the unchurchingf dog
ma which, in my view, constitute its offen
sive character. I admire boldness, but
not in a bad cause ; and I hold that to be,
prima facie, a badj cause which, either in
the pulpit of one of your Churches, or at the
dinner-table of the Astor House, prompts
any man thus to assail the Church stand
ing, including the faith, hopes, and rights
of his fellow-Christians. When you set
up a claim, not to a superiority, but to a
monopoly^ of the privileges belonging to the
house of God — when you set up this claim
in behalf of a mere fraction, a molecule,!!

cording to the " best judge." Vox popuh, vox
Dei, again.
* See note t, p- 24, col. 1.
t See note *, p. 11, col. 2 ; and whenever, as
always, the expression " unchurching dogma"
occurs, with which ijjr. Potts seems as much
pleased as with the Dr. Cox-like phrase, " tac
tual succession."
} In Turkey it would be, "prima facie, a bad
cause," which should prompt a man, for the
sake of truth, to assail what was dear to Mo
hammedans, in India and China to Pagans,
&c., &c.
^ There can be no " monopoly" whose privi
leges are equally open to aU, unless the mer
chant monopolizes commerce because the farm
er and mechanic do not engage in it. Indeed,
the case is plainer still ; for the door is open to
every man to enjoy the full privileges of the
Church, whereas the East Indiaman does mo-
nopohze commerce by his wealth, &c., &c.
II This is a simple misstatement or mistake
which has been already considered. Episcopa
cy among Protestants, i. e-, in the ChurCh of
England and her colonies, in Canada, Npva
Scotia, New-Brunswick, Newfoundland, the
British West Indies, and the other British
isles ; in Ireland, Scotland, and the British East
Indies, and wherever the children of the Church
are gathered together, as at Paris, Rome, Con
stantinople, Florence, Naples, and many places

of the Protestant community — and when^
such confessedly stupendous consequences
are necessarily involved in the clain; — it
cannot escape the most unobservant read
er, that, to make out such a claim, ,its ad
vocates ought to be prepared with proof
little short of mathematical demonstration.*
in the Mediterranean where we have joined in
her services ; the United States, the j^loravi-
ans ; the Episcopal Lutherans in Sweden, Den
mark, and Prussia, &c., &c. ; this, so far from
being a fraction, is the largest "denomination"
among Protestants. What sect numbers some
twenty or thirty thousand ministers, as this
"molecule," this "fraction" does? Nay, the
Church in England has some 14,000 ministers.
But, alas ! the Pagans outnumber us all ; and
what does this " molecule" of 250,000,000 of
discordant Christians vnth the 600,000,000 of
Pag_ans and the 150,000,000 of the.followers of
the Arabian Impostor?. What did the "num
ber of the names, about 120," with all the Jew
ish Church ? How absurd the claim, the " ex
clusive" claim, they then set up for such a con
temptible " fraction I"
, * And almost "mathematical demonstra
tion" we do bring, and proof more than enoiigh
to satisfy men on all subjepts upon which. they
are not blinded. A learned Bishop well re
marked, the other day, that " a vast multitude
of men seemed never to have obtained an idea
that God actually had a Church." Another
venerable Bishop, lately gone to his rest, ob
served to the writer, " Nothing seems too ab
surd for religious behef"
This argument easily becomes an almost
mathematical demonstration.
Proposition. The Episcopacy, being of Divine
appointment, is binding on all, or is essential
to the constitution of the Church of Christ.
Axiom. Human institutions, inventions, and
works are imperfect, and, therefore, improva
ble -¦ in these the new may be, and should be
better than the old ; but God's institutions are
perfect in their kind, and cannot be altered
without loss except by the Maker. It follows
that the oldest institutions in the newest revela
tion are best. Prove anything to be new in
Christianity, and you prove it to be human, and
of itself binding on no man's conscience.
Illustration. The Jewish religion was given
by God, and was the best the world had yet
seen, until, in Christ, God fulfilled or enlarged
this dispensation ; and no revelation (proved by
miracles, &c.) has since been made. There
fore, all alterations and inventions in the Chris
tian rehgion made since the time of Christ and

CORRESPONDE.xCE.

31

And yet, as I shall hereafter more fully
show, the extravagance of the claim is

the inspired men are no divme part of Chris
tianity. Episcopacy is true, or is of God .
1. Because it cannot be shown to be new,
arid can be proved to be as old as any institu
tion of Christianity. We can point to the ori
gin, birthplace, &c., of the sects :
MUlerism is now developmg itself, and may
or may not become a sect.
Mormonism began to exist under Joseph
Smith, as a separate religion, in Missouri and
Illinois, in the 19th century, and may yet be
come a " Christian denomination."
Campbelhsm, which boasts of some 50,000
followers, had its rise in .Alexander Campbell,
who is, we believe, still living.
Methodism began with the Wesleys at Ox
ford in the 18th century, and has been a separ
ate sect about fifty years.
Congregationalism, or the sect of Independ
ents, sprang out of Presbyterianism, and devel
oped itself under CromweU in the 17th century,
and in parts of New-England became the es
tablished rehgion somewhat earher ; and it
condemned eighty-two heresies, its own off-
spririg, in seventeen years, i. e., in 1637. The
eighty-third was as false as the eighty-two ;
for they, like all the preceding, were aU new,
and, therefore, am false.
The Baptists formed a sect in 1534 and 1535
at Munster, in WestphaUa, under John Matthias
and John Bokkels) a baker and a tailor. They
never existed as a sect before. In March,
1639, they began (in Providence, R. I.) in this
country vnthout a beginning ; for Ezekiel Holli-
man baptized Roger Williams, and then Will
iams " baptized HoUhnan and the other ten,"
and afterward declared the whole transaction
nuU and void till Jehovah himself should send
a man commissioned to baptize.
Presbyterianism began in Germany, and at
Geneva, in the 16th century, under Martm Lu
ther, Philip Melanothon, John Calvin, and oth
ers ; but against their wishes, better knowledge,
and express declarations, and at first on a plea of
necessity of which man cannot judge, and which,
m eighteen years, was removed by the Enghsh
Reformation, and in Germany yet sooner.
Romanism — its various errors have as many
dates ; but the essence of Popery Ues in the
assumption of Boniface III., A.D. 606, to the
title of Universal Bishop.
These all, and many more, are not only false
because they contradict each other, but simply
because they are new.

equalled only by the contradictory,* indefi
nite, and, I must add, the absolutely ridicu
lous character of many of the arguments
which are employed to sustain it. - This
aggravates the unprovoked assault you
have chosen to make, and if, in the course
of ray future reraarks, I shall speak of the
High Church dogma as it deserves, I shall
hold myself absolved from blame as an ag
gressor. Before I proceed to do for you what you
decline to do for yourself, i. e., define the
terms of your own proposition, so that the
reader may understand them (for' I shall
show you that I myself understand pretty

The same cannot be shown of Episcopacy.
It exists now ; it was not invented in any age
by any persons, or in anyplace since Christ and
the Apostles ; therefore it is oldest, therefore
divine, therefore binding on all. It is a part of
God's appointments, and, therefore, essential to
the constitu1;ion of the Christian Church. — Q.
E. D. See also Dr. W.'s Essay No. vii.
* This is pure declamation. No one has yet
shown the " contradictions," nor has any one
been able, to answer the " indefinite and ridicu
lous" arguments. Dr. Potts certainly has not.
It is easy to call names, but very hard to turn
the stream of history and Scripture, and make
them flow in the new channels which the fore
fathers of the sects themselves saw with sorrow
to be but broken cisterns, but which men, in
spite of the death of the Nicolaitans, Gnostics,
Cerinthians, Donatists, Manicheans, &c., &c.,
still continue to hew out for themselves. When
future ages look upon the graves of the Puri
tan, Baptist, and Presbyterian opinions, they
will wonder over these as we over those, and.
say, do men still act and beheve
" As if religion were intended
For nothing else but to be mended 1"
Do they stdl call that «
" A godly, thorough Reformation,
Which always must be carried on,
And still be doing, never done ?"
Those who doubt the final extinction of the
sects will please notice the present dying state
Of Quakerism and the endless divisions of all
sects. " Associate yourselves," says the proph
et of those who were banded together against
the Jewish Church and nation (for they were
one), " associate yourselves, 0 ye people, and
ye shall be broken in pieces ; gird yourselves,
and ye shall be broken in pieces. Take coun
sel together, and it shall come to nought ; speak
the word, and it shall not stand: for God is
with us." — Isaiah, viii. This prophecy is nmo
the history of the sects and the Church, as well
as the history of the heathen and the Jews in,
those ages.

S3

CORRESPONDENCE.

•well the sense you affix to them), there
are two little pieces of history, given in
your last letter, which call for criticism.
The first is that in which you are giving
an account of the origin of this discussion,
for the purpose of " letting the puMic un
derstand what are our respective posi
tions." It runs thus : " Upon leaving my
study one morning, for the discharge of
my parochial duties, I am informed in the
street, to my great surprise, that a letter
has been addressed to me in a public print
by the Rev. Dr. Potts. It is put into my
hand," &c., &c. This history wants the
title-page and a few of thp first leaves.
Will it not be better to supply the hiatus,
and begin at the beginning ? It would be
more complete if it commenced by record
ing the polite invitation which led you to
the New-England festival ; the speech of
the New-England orator ; the applause
which accompanied him throughout, and
which offended yOu so deeply, when he
gave a sort of ecclesiastical genealogy* of
his forefathers ; your determination to re
buke the orator and the audience, by de-
' daring your belief, not that you had a bet
ter , genealogy, but that their genealogy
was absolutely spurious ; your taking oc-
casionf two or three hours after (when it
might be supposed that you had had time
• for deliberation) to avow, that if the orator
of the day should challenge you, you would
prove that of " the Clergy of New-England,
who had just been toasted, there were none
justly entitled to the name, except the
' sainted Chevereux,'t and the ' meek Prel-

* This " ecclesiastical genealogy" might be
thus given, which began neither at Jerusalem
Tior at Antioch, but in Switzerland. " Fdunded
at Geneva" (see Dr. Potts's third letter). Where
was Geneva when Christ and his apostles were
on the earth ? How can a new thing in Chris
tianity be true ? We should be glad to have
one single reason why Joseph Smith might not
as well estabhsh a new thing at Nauvoo as
John Calvin at Geneva.
t It is a singular and instructive fact to
" amalgamationists," that while the peculiar
notions about " revivals," &c., so offensive to
'Churchmen, can always be broached, not a
¦Catholic is permitted to raise his voice in be
half of Ai« distinctive principles without opening
-a full cry. Churchmen are suffered in all kinds
-of " Unions" if they wUl bear all and say no
thing ; but as soon as they speak a word that
the rest do not understand or allow, they are
branded as " sectarians."
t If Dr. W. were " sectarian," and not rath
er guided by truth, why would he allow the
claim of the " sainted Chevereux," and that of
the Romish priesthood generally, and not that

ate of your own Church,' with their several
subordinates of the Papist and Protestant
priesthood ;" that this attack upon the self-
respect and sensibilities of nineteen twen-,
tieths,* if not more, of your fellow-citizens
—I am almost afraid to say fellow-Chris
tians—was published throughout the land;
and then, that after all this had come to pass,
and you had perhaps congratulated your
self that you had chastised Yankee imper
tinence— ?Aere—" upon leaving your study
one morning," &c., &c., &c. Is mot the
record unfair until these few, little items
are prefixed. to it ? I will leave the reader
to say whether the above be not the true
Genesis of the present discussion.
The second piece of history, which is
open to animadversion more severe than
I can administer, is that which informs us
of the comparative antiquity and univer-
salityf of the motto which " you bear upop
your shield :" " No Church without a Prel
ate." At the very unqualified claim you
make in respect to this motto, I would ex
press my wonder, surprise, astonishment, &c.,
&c., were I not tired with that common
practice of disputants, a very efficient thing
in rhetoric, but useless in logic. Whatever
my wonder may be, I will not utter it. Be
sides which, after having seen how famili
arity with extravagant statements often ob
literates the intellectual sensibilities, just
as a long familiarity with an offensive odour
blunts the sense of smell, I have no longer
a right even to feel surprised at the occur
rence of such a phenomenon ; no right to
wonder that one who had brought his mind
to brave the consequences of the adoption
of the unchurching dogma, should first of
all find it easy to assert in a promiscuous
company that Prelacy was of the very es
sence of the Church of God, and then sub
sequently, that this doctrine was " borne on
the banner of the universal Church, without
challenge or dispute, 1500 years." Now this
is a wonderful statement. I might show
that so far is this from being true, the doc
trine of monopoly — as I shall call it for the
sake of brevity, and to distinguish it from
true catholicity — is not countenancedj by
of the' sects? Have we received so much fa
vour at the hands of Rome as to produce this
favourable verdict ? No ; Rome laughs at the
sects, but she fears the reformed branch of the
CathoUc Church.
* " Nineteen twentieths." E'en let it pass,
since men sometimes go not by numbers, but
by weight. Look through the land, and how
much of its learning, talent, nay, piety, will be
found in the one twentieth I
t The historian Gibbon is here at issue with
Dr. Potts.
t How much light Dr. Potts would throw on
this subject if he would bring the proof instead

CORRESPONDENCE.

33

the voice of antiquity ; that there were
writers who distinctly denied it, and whole
churches, the Waldensian, .for instance,
which always refused even to admit the
element of Prelacy into their constitution ;
and all this long before the glorious Refor
mation. This is unquestionable ; but that
the reader may not rely upon the assertion
of one who, he may suppose, " uses words
at random," I will quote, from a disinter
ested witness, a single sentence ; I will set
the authority of the learned Prelate Stil
lingfleet* over against that of Dr. Wain
wright. These are his words : " I do de
spair of finding anyone single testimony in
all ' antiquity' which doth in plain terms
assert Episcopacy, as it was settled by the
practice of the primitive Church, in ages
following the Apostles, to he of unalterable
J^ine right." So much for the " unchal-
Imiged, undisputed" antiquity and univer
sality of your motto.
But, leaving these things for future con
sideration, I proceed to the most alarming
part of your last communication — ^I mean
that in which I am warned, in capital let^
ters, of a horned dilemma which is goad
ing me. It may be obtuseness in me, but
I confess I do not see these tremendous
horns. My " modest" call for your own defini
tion of the terms of a proposition which
you volunteered to maintain, and which is
the basis of this discussion, was dictated
by the wish to put our readers in posses
sion of your meaning in your own words.
As to myself, I had a shrewd notion of
their meaning. The proposition is capa
ble of two senses ; but, from the very cir
cumstances in which you announced it^ I
am myself at no loss as to your real mean
ing. But I have heretofore imagined that
no discussion could be carried on without
a mutual understanding as to the sense in
which the parties mean to use the princi
pal terms and phrases. How long is it
since this apparently indispensable prelim
inary has been expunged from the laws of
debate ?
Why you should manifest a reluctance
•" to comraence the discussion by defining
your terras," which is all I asked of you.

of assertions. We distinctly deny the asser
tions, and will go farther when an attempt is
made to prove them;
* How plainly Bishop Stillingfleet says that
Episcopacy; as of divine right, is not establish
ed by any " one single" direct testimony, but
by the mutual understandmg which existed in
all branches of the Church ; treatmg the Epis
copacy not as a subject for dispute, but as an
existing universal fact. Who ever attempts
to prove what nobody denies, or to estabhsh by
argument what already everywhere exists ?
E

is more than I will undertake to explain.
But as you decline doing this, and as I
must contrive some way of coming to an
understanding as to the true status quasti-
onis, and the sense which our readers are
to fix to its terms, I propose to waive even
this right, and to do your work for you,
rather than to waste time in an idle war of
words. In doing this, I shall at the same
time state wherein your definitions and
mine differ in meanmg.
First : What is the meaning of the word
Church in your proposition ? I am quite
willing to take the definition of your own
articles, which is as follows : " The visible
Church of Christ is a congregation of faith
ful men, in which the pure Word of God is
preached,and the sacraments be duly min
istered according to Christ's ordinance, in
all things that of necessity are requisite to
the same." — Art. 19. This, however, does
not fully express the High Church claims,
inasmuch as it does not declare (as it
ought, if the doctrine of monopoly were
true) that there cannot be a congregation
of faithful men, and that the true Word of
God cannot be preached, nor the sacra
ments duly administered, &c., except under
" the regimen of Prelates." This the fra-
mers of your articles studiously avoided
saying, for it is well known that the Eng
lish Reformers fraternized with .he Re
formed Churches of the Continent of Eu
rope. Since the time of Laud, however,
the " no Prelate, no Church" dogma has
been held by an increasing number of your
communion, with more or less earnest
ness, although never without resistance
upon the part of others, until it must be
admitted that, at the present time, there is
probably a majority of Anglican and Amer
ican Prelatists who hold the extreme
views, and maintain that Prelacy is — not
simply scriptural and useful, and therefore
the best model of ecclesiastical polity, but
-^essential to the very being of a Church.
Of this number you are one ; and the
following is the gloss you must put upon
your Church . article, just quoted : The
Church is a congregation of faithful men,
and the pure Word of God is preached in
it, and it alone has the sacraments duly
administered, because it has Prelates,
through whom, as the delegates of Christ,
and the direct successors of the Apostles,
the inferior orders of the ministry receive
a right to preach, and grace to administer
Christian ordinances efficaciously. In oth
er words, the statements of these extreme
Prelatists warrant us in saying that though
men may believe, teach, and practise all
else contained in the Word of God, yet, if
they reject Prelacy, they are not in the
Church of God at all, and, if saved at all
(of which some speak hopefully, but others
doubtfully), must be saved " as by fire,"
upon some undefinable principles of mercy

34

CORRESPONDENCE

upon which nothing that is said in the Gos
pel will justify them in relying.
Do I misrepresent your views of the in-
dispensableness of Prelacy to the very ex
istence of a Church? If so, you could
have prevented the possibility of misrep
resentation, had yos, according to my rea
sonable call, defined your terms in ydur
own language. This you can still do.
Secondly : What is the definition of the
office and functions of a " Bishop ?"
In your theory, a Bishop is the highest
of three grades of clergy, Bishops, priests,
and deacons. He is set over a particular
section or diocese, as its ecclesiastical
head, and is invested with certain exclu
sive rights, which rights are thus stated by
a Prelate : " The right to ordain and con
firm ; that of general supervision in a dio
cese, and that of the chief administration
of discipline ; besides enjoying all the pow
ers of the other grades." — (Dr. H. U. On-
derdonk.) In virtue of the last two of
these rights, expressed with an indefinite
comprehensiveness which we will exam
ine at a subsequent stage in the discussion,
the Prelate has been known even to claim
a control over the proceedings and min
utes of a convention.
Farther, in order to the right institution
of " a Bishop," in your sense of the term,
he must have received his ordination from
other prelates, and they again from others,
so that an unbroken chain may convey the
Episcopal grace from the Apostles them
selves. This is the far-famed Apostolical
succession, of which so much has been
made of late years. Why this chain is con
sidered of such consequence may be seen
by the reader if he will peruse the follow
ing quotations — two out of a multitude
which I have at hand. The first is from a
well-known champion of Prelacy, Dodwell,
in the i6\[ovi'mg moderate terms. I beg the
particular notice of the reader. " None but
the Bishops can unite us to the Father and
the Son. Whence it will follow that who
soever is disunited from the visible com
munion of the Church on earth, and partic
ularly from the visible communion of the
Bishops, must consequejitly be disunited
from the whole visible Catholic Church
upon earth ; and not only so, but from the
invisible communion of the holy angels and
saints in heaven, and, what is more, from
Christ and God himself. It is one of the
most dreadful aggravations of the condition
of the damned, that they are banished from
the presence of the Lord, and the glory of
His power. The same is their condition
also who are disunited from Christ by be
ing disunited from His visible representative."
The former Prelate of this diocese, Dr.
Hobart, in his " Companion for the Altar,"
speaks the following language ; it is equal
ly kind as the foregoing : " But where the
Gospel is proclaimed, communion with the

Church, by the participation of its ordinan^
ces, at the hands of the duly authorized.
priesthood, is the indispensable condition of
salvation," making a soothing exception
in favour of schismatics and dissenters,
who separate themselves from the regular
priesthood through " involuntary ignorance
and error."
I do not mean to discuss these monstros
ities now, but will only add here, that the
ground upon which such assumptions are
made is, that from the Apostles the Bish
ops alone derive Episcopal* g:race, which
they communicate to the inferior clergy iii'
ordination, and which, through the minis
trations of the inferior clergy, is communi
cated to the people in baptism and the holy
Eucharist, by the former of which a spirit
ual life is given, while by the latter that
spiritual life is fed and sustained. _
On the other hand, our deflnitior pf " !
Bishop" makes him nothing more tlian a
pastor or overseer of a particular congre
gation, who is, in all official respects, upoa
an equality with other pastors ; who, in ad
ministering the discipline of the house of
God, is associated with officers who are
elected by the people, and who, in admin
istering the ordinances of the Gospel, pre
tends to be no more than the ministrator
of emblematic ordinances, whose virtue, as
seals of the covenant, depends altogether
upon the faith of the recipients. Ordina
tion, whether with or without the imposi
tion of hands,t is no more than a public
and formal setting apart of a suitable indi
vidual to the work of the ministry, and is
performed by his predecessorsj in the min
istry. The case of those churches which
have elected one out of the number of min
isters to exercise certain supervisory pow
ers over the rest, as is the fact in the Meth
odist and Lutheran Churches, is not an ex
ception to the doctrine of the essential par
ity or equality of their ministers. These
bodies do not claim a Divine^ right for their
Bishops or superintendents.

* That the Bishop is not the author, but sim
ply God's minister to communicate the " Epis
copal grace," is evident from the fact that the
Bishop cannot take away what was given through,
but not by him. He can no more take away the
ministry given in ordination, than the priest can.
render a baptized person unbaptized.
t " Ordination without the imposition of
hands." What would Luther, and Calvin, and;
John Wesley say to this unscriptural notion ?
t Why "by his predecessors?" If ordina
tion be simply as described, anything or nothings
why not (and this, too, is good modern doctrine)-
have it performed by anybody or nobody ?
^ If, therefore, they " do not claim a Divijie
right," &c., they have evidently no right, or.

CORRESPONDENCE.

35

And now, finally, what do you mean by
the Catholic Church ? It is a phrase found
in your former letters, and will probably
occur again. I shall understand you to
mean by it that portion of Christendom in
which the above views as to the indispen-
sableness of Prelacy are to be found ; that
is, you hold that Prelatical bodies alone
constitute the Catholic Church. The Ro
mish, the Greek, the Armenian, and other
Eastern Churches, together with the Eng
lish and American Prelatists, are the only
component parts of this Church.* And
their Catholicity, let the deader observe,
consists not in purity of doctrine or forms
of worship (for you hold all those I have
named, except your own, to be more or less
corrupt), but in their being governed by
Prelates. This is the essential element of
their Catholicity,! this their redeeming ex
cellence, this their evidence of being " in
covenant vvith God."
On the other hand, in our view of Cath
olicity, you will find the main stress laid
upon the maintenance of the essential doc-
trinesj of the scheme of redemption, and
not upon the presence or absence of any
external form of polity. We admit that
even Prelacy does not vitiate^ the charac-

at least, none worth considering a moment. To
resist such an institution is simple resistance
to man, and cannot be a sin, unless by the indi
vidual's previous act or assent.
* Dr. Potts again omits many, branches of the
Episcopal Church, e. g., those in Sweden, Den
mark, Ireland, Scotland, the Moravians, &c.
The " only component parts" are at least eleven
twelfths, or more, of all Christendom ; and the
remaining fraction is endlessly fractured.
t This is a mistake. Their Catholicity con
sists in their holding all the articles of the
Christian faith. Of these, Episcopacy is but
one. They do not with the sects deny ; they
believe too much ; they add to the faith. One
cannot deny a part of the Catholic faith and be
a Catholic ; but he may believe many other
things besides that faith, and still remain a
Cathohc. t Will Dr. Potts tell us what the " essential
doctrines" are ? Who settles this point ? If men
exclude infants from God's Church, are they
right in essentials ? and those who reject the
Holy Trinity, are they wrong in essentials ?
Where and who is'the standard 1
^ Strange inconsistency ! Men who tell us
in one breath that all Church polity is simply of
human origin, find out in the next moment that
a particular polity, held by most Christians as
of divine origin, is a foreign element in the
great Christian body. Surely if all pohty is Am-
man, it is all foreign from Christianity. This

ter of a Church, although we think it has
proved itself to be a foreign and unwhole
some element in the great Christian body.
Thus the reader will perceive that while our
Cathohcity proves its comprehensiveness
by embracing all* of every name whose
recognised creeds do not absolutely reject
the fundamentals of Christian religion,
yours renounces all who do not admit the
shigle item of Prelacy. Which of these
views best deserves the name let the read
er judge.
I close my letter by saying, that if I had
been privileged to meet you face to face, I
should have exercised " the freedom" at
which you seem to look with distaste, of
insisting at once upon your obligation to
give those definitions of your terms, and
thus have saved myself the task of trying
to reach the point thus indirectly, and the
necessity of waiting for your answer. If
you refuse to give me your definitions, or
to correct those I have given, I shall hold
myself at liberty to consider you as shrink
ing from the contest.
All the skirmishing in your last commu-
is said only out of the spirit of contradiction ;
because, and only because we hold it divine, they
hold it foreign. Dr. Potts's first ancestors did
just the same thing under Cromwell, when
they appointed a Fast on Christmas Day I
" A sect whose chief devotion lies
In odd, perverse antipathies ;
That with more Care Iceep holyday.
The wrong than others the right way : '
Compound for sins that they're inclined to.
By dan^ning those they have no mind to ;
Still so perverse and opposite,
As if they worshipped God for spite."*
This reminds us of the worthy Rev. Mr. B.,
of Connecticut, who said, " And why do wc not
keep Christmas Day, Epiphany, &c. ? Because,"
was the powerful answer, " because they are of
the Episcopal Church." This reveals the se
cret why, so unsuitable a posture as standing or
sitting in prayer has usurped the appropriate
and humble bending of the knee, &c., &c.
* We are at a loss to know whether this chari
ty will embrace the Unitarians, Universalists,
Mormons, CampbeUites, Two-seed Baptists,
Rather-brethren, &c., &c., or not. Who shah be
left in, and who shall be left out I Who will tell
us what are "fundamentals?" It is evident
that the Presbyterian Doctor, the author of
" Quakerism no Christianity," does not agree
with his brother Dr. Potts, who seems inclined
to let the Quakers jn.

* "The religion of the Presbyterians of those times con
sisted principally in an opposition to the Church of Eng
land, and in quarrelling with the most innocent customs
then in use, as the eating Christmas pies and plum-por-
ridge at Christmas, which they reputed sinful."

36

CORRESPONDENCE.

nication as to who is, technically speaking,
the challenger, is of little consequence. I
am resolved not to 'postpone the discussion
of the monstrous* proposition you have en
dorsed, by disputing as to who shall appro
priate this title. I do not feel, I assure
you, the least inclination to accept " the
liberty to recede" which yoh kindly hint
at, but will rather waive all petty questions
of chivalry, quite certain that, from the be
ginning to the end of this discussion, it will
be seen that mine is the attitude of defence,
and yours that of an assailant of the com
mon principles of all anti-Prelatical Christ
endom.! This is the important considera
tion. I am. Rev. and dear Sir, your obedient
servant, George Potts.
lanuary 10.

LETTER V.
REV. DB. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS.
Rev. and Dear Sir: — In concluding my
last letter to you, I said that I would not
be either " enticed or driven from the posi
tion I occupied when you called upon me."
Notwithstanding your pertinacious use of
both these modes of controversial war
fare, I stand there still, and there I mean
to stand. You shall "hold me as strict
ly" as you please to the proposition I have
thrown out. I wish to be held there. But
you shall not hold me to assent to your
charge that this proposition was thrown
out " as a defiance," or that yours is the
" attitude of self-defence against an unpro
voked assault." I have denied this before
—I deny it again — ifTepeated, I shall
henceforth deny it as a slander. I uttered
" no defiance." I attempted no " ecclesi
astical proscription." I " unchurched" no
denomination of Christians. God forbid
that I, or any of those who symbolize with
me in religious belief, should be guilty of
such arrogance towards our fellow-men,
or, what is more dreadful, such bold as
sumption of the sole prerogative of God.
The Church is I|is, and he has constituted
it according to His own will. Those who
do not conform to its requisitions unchurch
* Dr. Potts seems to think that the oftener he
calls "the unchurching dogma" "monstrous,"
the more, "monstrum horrendum ingens," it
will grow; and most surely it does increase
rapidly, and " vires crescit eundo."
t All " anti-Prelatical Christendom" in array
against the Church, reminds one forcibly of the
" Protestant Association" of several ephemeral
sects got up to overthrow the Pope, who sits
and smiles upon them as he has done for about
1200 years, even though a Scotchman once went
to Rome on purpose to convert him.

themselves. Instead of all this stale dec
lamation, so often repeated to excite pop-
iilar prejudice — so often answered^PRovE
from Scripture and ancient airthors that
Bishops are not essential to the constitu
tion of the Christian Church, and then your
work will be done, and effectually done.
But until you have accomplished this, all
the charges in which you so liberally in
dulge about " exclusiveness,* uncharitable
ness, monopoly of privileges, unchurch
ing," &c., are utterly irrelevant, and only
calculated (I will not say designed) to di
vert the public mind from the true issue.
Enough of this, however. Let mo recall
you once more to your true position. In
your letter of December 27th, you say, " I
will hold myself ready (should you admit
that the reporter of your speech has not
done you injustice at least in this particu
lar) to prove that this proposition (viz.,
there cannot be a Church, &c.) is preg
nant with innumerable evil consequences,
social and civil ; and that it is unscriptural,
uncharitable, schismatical, and anti-republican
in its character." I admit the correctness
of the report. Issue is then joined, and
what you have undertaken to prove is set
forth in distinct and emphatic terms. You
certainly will not say that you did not un
derstand what you undertook to prove.
You say, moreover, that "you are at no loss
as to my real meaning." You have, then,
laid out your work for yourself. Begin
to execute it, if that is your pleasure. My
part of the work I shall manage in my own
way ; and when I come to use terms, I will
leave you at no loss as to their meaning.
As to the " two little pieces of history" to
which you allude, the first, in the modern
department, is really too small a matter to
make it worth my while to show how ut
terly disingenuous your representation is.
As to the piece of ancient history, contain
ing the allusion to the Waldenses,t and to
Bishop Stillingfleet, if you are indeed as
ignorant as you appear to be on these
points, and have implicitly followed Dr.
Mason and Dr. Miller, without taking pains
to acquaint yourself with the unanswered
* See note *, col. 2, p. 11.
t For the very peculiar position of the Val-
lenses and, Albigenses, see " An Inquiry into the
History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses
and Albigenses," &c., &c., by George Stanley
Faber, &c. It is sufficient here to state that
these people had Bishops (in our sense of that
word) after the Reformation, A.D. 1544. In a
confession of faith presented, 1544, to Francis
I., occurs this article : " This point is held
among us as firmly determined, that the Bish
ops and pastors ought to be irreprehensible in
their doctrine and in their morals." — Faber, p.
563, 564.

CORRESPONDENCE.

37

and unanswerable counter statements of
Bishop Hobart and Dr. Bowden, I will in
due time, when the questions come up in
their proper place, endeavour to throw
some light upon them for your benefit.
My wish now is simply to let the public
know, through my letter to you, as you
avow that " popular effect" is your object,
that to you are they indebted for this un
fortunate, and, I may add, unworthy exhi
bition of two clergymen contending in the
public newspapers about a question which
has been discussed over and over again,
and access to the ablest popular arguments
upon both sides of which is very easy, by
reason of the republication in cheap forms
of" Miller's Letters," &c., " Bowden's Let
ters" in reply, and " Hobart's Apology for
Apostolic Order and its Advocates." I as
sert that to you, and to you alone, is it ow
ing that we are both placed in this, which
I will cheerfully acknowledge to be an " un-
enviabje position ;" that to you is it owing
that we are both subjected to the ribald re
marks of licentious tongues and pens, and
the sober disapprobation of a large portion
of the secular press ; that to you is it ow
ing that our common friends and a large
portion of the pious and sober-minded of
all denominations feel deep regret and mor
tification. My course was inevitable. You
challenged me to controversy upon the
credit of a common newspaper report ; you
took no private and friendly means to as
certain its accuracy ; when the circum
stances of the case were laid before you,
you refused to be convinced, and you still
refuse. Your, character and standing in
the community were so respectable, that I
should have been a traitor to my own, if I
had shrunk even in thought from your de
fiance. I have met it, and I stand ready
to abide all its consequences. You now
yield the point we have thus far contended
for, ungraciously as I cannot help thinking,
but you yield it. You say you " will com
mence," and thus, with the affirmative, have
assumed the responsibility of the aggressor
and the defier. Proceed.
I beg you now proceed to the proof; and
I take the liberty to beg you also to proceed
upon the purely scriptural and historical mer
its of the question, and in a Christian spirit,
avoiding (as I for my part, by God's help,
intend to do) all personalities, all injurious
epithets, and all appeals to mere prejudice
and passion. Injurious epithets decide no
thing ; for if my doctrine should be God's
truth, what can they avail? Appeals to
mere prejudice and passion decide nothing ;
they cannot put my doctrine in the wrong,
any more than the universal clamour of
all Ephesus put St. Paul's doctrine in the
wrong. My views of Christian truth, you
are bound to believe, are as sincerely and
conscientiously held as your own. And
wherever they are " exclusive'' as towards

yourself.or others, I assert (what certainly
you have no right to deny) that they are
held in my own feelings as charitably as
yours can be, where the latter are exclu
sive as towards various other highly re
spectable bodies of professing Christians.
I have the honour to be. Rev. and dear
Sir, respectfully yours, Jona. M. Wainwright.
Friday, January 12th.

LETTER V.
REV. DB. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT.
Rev. and Dear Sir : — The intervention of
the duties of the Sabbath has delayed a re
ply to your last communication. I proceed
now to pay my respects to it.
" To the hard words you have felt at lib
erty to use, I reply nothing ; to your rea
soning, this."
I. I am in possession of abundant evi
dence, given to me personally by members
and ministers of various denominations
of Christians, including a number of your
own, that it is very generally desired by
this community that the nature'and grounds
of the monopolizing claims of High Church
partisans shonld be examined, and, if un
just, exposed. However, therefore, I might
feel myself justified in refusing any reply
to your last communication, because of its
angry and lordly tone, I am quite resolved
ihat none of these things shall ruffle my
temper, or deter me from what I conceive
to be an important duty. I intend to go
forward with my object, although it is very
evident that in doing so I am acting in op
position to the wishes of yourself and your
friends. II. I cannot agree with you that there is
necessarily anything "unworthy" of the
Christian or ministerial calling in making
a respectable public journal the medium of
communication with the public mind, upon
a topic which was thought of sufficient im
portance to be introduced to the public at
tention first at a dinner-table, and then, by
report, through the daily prints. Is it too
sacred for the one, then I appeal to you
whether it was not too sacred for the other ?
This should have been considered before
hand, and the consequences— apparently
so disagreeable to you — should not be laid
at the door of him who feels bound to call
in question a public and most offensive at
tack as publicly as it was made. Whether
it was or was not an attack, and even a
defiance, against unoffending Christian de
nominations, whose several Church rela
tions are very dear to them, must now be
left to the decision of the reader. To
threaten me contingently vrith a charge of
slander for reaffirming what is so perfect
ly clear even to members of your own
(5hurch, who have sought me out to speak

CORRESPONDENCE.

of this matter, will not alter the truth or
frighten me from calling things by their
right names. I regret, vvith you, that this
or any similar discussion has originated,
just as I regret that a necessity should ever
arise for the resistance of false and inju
rious principles or oppressive exactions of
any kind. I regret that there is injustice
in the world, and that there are insidious
or violent assaults against God's truth ; but
since such things do exist, I do not regret
that individuals can be found to whom the
purity and integrity of truth are so much
more valuable than a peace bought at the
cost of a dastardly submission to error, that
they are willing to risk " the ribald remarks
of licentious tongues and pens," and even
worse evils. Such results are to be ex
pected when a contest for great principles
takes place, and I do not deny that they
are to be ranked among those injurious
things referred to by the Saviour under the
name of "offences," which He says must
needs occur, but of which, be it observed,
He throws the whole responsibility upon
those who wilfully occasion them.
III. Without retorting any of the dis
courteous language with which it would
seem you desired to anger me, I shall now
take the liberty of stating the reasons why
your refusal to define your position, by de
fining in your own language the terms you
have used, is to be considered as a virtual
shrinking from the contest for which you
have so often professed your readiness and
confidence. In the first place, you are vio
lating the admitted rule of dialectics, which
requires beforehand unambiguous defini
tions of all the prominent terms that are to
be employed in a discussion. The justice
of this rule is obvious to anyone ; for with
out such explicit definitions, it will be easy
for an opponent, when pressed by an argu
ment founded upon the supposed sense of
his own terms, to escape by affirming that
he did not use them in that sense. But in
the next place, we are discussing this point
in the presence of the public, and it is not to
be taken for granted that the public are as
well acquainted as ourselves with the sense
in which these terms are used by either of
us. They can appreciate the force of ar
guments on either side only by first know
ing the precise question of debate. And
finally, I am anxious that you should set
forth your meaning in your own words,
because I desire the public to judge, from
definitions of your own, that this is no
small matter, about which it is idle to dis
pute. Neither of us thinks so. It is a
question which, in your view, involves
matters of life and death, and which, in my
view, affects Christian liberty as opposed
to a spiritual despotism, catholic charity as
opposed to schismatic bigotry, the spiritu-
ahty of religion as opposed to a religion of
sacraments, the efficacy of faith in the Re-

'deemer as opposed to the efflcapy of rites
and ceremonies, and salvation received at
the hands of Christ as opposed to a salva
tion deposited in the hands, and only dis
pensed through the intervention, of man,
be that man presbyter, prelate, or Pope.
These are some of the points involved,
and, therefore, the justice of the demand
which, upon the part of the public, I reit
erate for a definition of your terms. You
say you will define them when you come
to use them ; but you have used them, and
the proposition in which you have used
them is the very subject of debate. All I
desire is to have the public put in posses
sion of the High Church sense of them,
from a source which none will suspect as
possibly unfair. Until, therefore, you give
them yourself, or admit those I have given,
you enjoy the advantage of Indian warfare,
that of fighting from an ambush. Is this,
however, an honourable position for one
who should have nothing to conceal, and
who has said that truth, not victory, is his
object? IV. I must now beg the reader's atten
tion to a passage in your last communica
tion, which cannot satisfy the least observ
ant, although it denies as slanderous the
charges which! have brought against your
speech at the New-England festival, of
" ecclesiastical proscription, unchurching
your fellow-Christians, defying them to
prove that there can be a Church without
a Prelate, and monopolizing the rights and
privileges of the Church of Christ." Were
this denial accompanied by any expression
of regret that you had incautiously used
the language ascribed to you, and did not
mean it to be understood in the sense nat
urally attached to the terms, I would at
once relinquish my part in this controver
sy. But this you have not done. That
language, in your own report of it, plainly
conveys an assertion that the denomina
tions of Christians in this and other lands
who are not blessed with Bishops in your
sense of the word, do not belong to the -
Church of Christ. Can language be plain
er? And how do you avert the odium
which must attach itself to such a posi
tion? By ascribing to them the guilt and
shame of " unchurching" themselves. You
have not unchurched them, forsooth ; they
have unchurched themselves. But whosays
this ? Not themselves, but Dr. Wainwright
and his coadjutors. This is a sophism too
obvious to produce much effect in releasing
you from the stigma agaipst which you so
vehemently protest, and which involves in
it all the proscription, monopoly, and ex
clusiveness which I have — fearless of the
risk of uttering a slander — charged against
your "principle." When analyzed, it is
identical in meaning with a similar instance
of bigotry, which I find in an Oxford Tract-
ist. " How," he asks, " can we be justly

CORRESPONDENCE.

39

¦charged with unchurching those who were
never churched ?" Instead of making good
your denial, or justifying your threat of
holding me responsible for slander, the pas-
-sage in your letter now referred to only
repeats the offence, with aggravations.
*' Be quiet, take the matter coolly," says
an arrogant gentleman who publicly smites
another in the face ; " you have no right
to resist, for you are a worthless fellow,
and for that reason I would have you know
that /did not strike you — ^you struck your
self." This would hardly prove a satisfac
tory mode of adjusting an insult.
I happen to be acquainted with the " un
answered and unanswerable" arguments
and statements of Dr. Hobart and Dr. Bow
den, and therefore decline any benefit from
the plea of " ignorance," which you polite
ly suggest. Still, not having " implicitly
followed Dr. Mason and Dr. Miller," great
ly as I admire them both, I will, of course,
be the more open to the prospective illu
mination so kindly promised me.
This, I believe, is all that I need to say,
in justification of the coirrse I have taken,
and the views I have thus far advanced,
and from the farther prosecution of which
I am not to be deterred by abusive epithets
or charges of unworthy motives, no mat
ter from what source they come. Those
who know me know that nothing but a
sense of duty can have prompted me to
depart so far from my ordinary habits as a
man of peace. Forbearance lias a limit.
And now I shall proceed to state the
question as clearly as I can, hoping that
the reader may, ere long, come at a more
distinct understanding as to your views of
the point at issue. Many persons will not
¦believe that your words mean all that they
appear to affirm. Let them have an oppor
tunity of judging from your own pen.
The language of your proposition is well
known by this time, but I will repeat it ;
" There can be no Church without a Prel
ate."* I refer the reader to my first letter for
the true sense of the words " Church" and
"' Bishop," when used by High Church prel
atists. I will not, therefore, repeat them
here. Thus understood, I proceed to re
deem my pledge, and to show that in its
nature and consequences this position, though
so'confidently assumed, is unscriptural.
I wish that two considerations may be
kept in view throughout my remarks, for
they are necessary for a right understand
ing of my position. (I.) That I am not,
in this discussion, the advocate of the ec
clesiastical polity of that part of the Chris
tian Church to which 1 consider it an hon
our to belong, except so far as that polity
* This was not Dr. W.'s language. Why
change one of his words for a word he seldom
uses?

involves the ministerial rights of presby
ters or parochial (i. e., parish or congrega
tional) Bishops. In affirming their rights,
I affirm the rights of the presbyters of all
anti-prelatical churches. (II.) I am not
assailing the views of those of our fellow-
Christians who believe that Prelacy is
scriptural and expedient, but who do not
believe that it is so enjoined in Scripture
as to be a sine qua non in the constitution
of the Church of Christ ; and who accord
ingly admit that the order of a Presbyteri
an ministry is valid, though not the best
order. With such I am not contending ;
we agree to differ; we concede to them
what they concede to us, a legitimate stand
ing* in the Catholic Church. The dogma
which I have undertaken to resist and ex
pose is that which makes Prelacy essential
to the very being of the Church, so that
without prelates there is no Church, and, of
course, no vahd ministry and ordinances,
no promise of God, no lawful reliance upon
God's grace, no covenanted mercies, and
no just and certain hope of reaching heav
en. This is the dogma which you have
received from Papistf hands, and which I

* How much depends on this "concession?"
Does it alter the real position of the subjects of
the concession? How grateful should those
few churchmen be to Dr. P. who concedes to
them, &c., because they concede to him, i. e., if
you let me alone, I will let you alone.
+ As Dr. P. makes no attempt to prove that
we received "the dogma from Papist hands,"
we might simply deny the assertion. But per
haps it may not be out of place to show that
he really has received his Presbyterian " dog
ma" from Papist hands. Thus : Boniface III.
was the first who in the 7th century usurped
the title of "Universal Bishop," now called
Pope, with the same meaning. All priests were
once popes or fathers, and the Greek priest is
natnra(, but not ncma, to this day. Before A.D.
606, there was no Popery in this sense of one
supreme Bishop on the earth. Now St. Atha-
nasius was at the Council of Nice, A.D. 325.
He was therefore no Papist. In his letter to
Dracontius, who was elected and consecrated a
Bishop, but refused the charge, retiring to his
monastery, St. Athanasius says, "If all per
sons had been of the same mind with those who-
counsel you, there being no Bishops anywhere
to be found, how could you have been made a
Christian ? Or, if from this time forward all
should take the same resolution, how shall the
churches stand?" Evidently, then, the doc
trine of St. Athanasius, and for plain reasons
that of the Nicene Council, therefore, was no
Church, nay, more, ho Christians without a
Bishop. This, therefore, comes to us from

40

CORRESPONDENCE.

hold to be at war with the spirit and letter
of the Word of God.

times at least 300 years earlier than Popery.
Now see how Dr. Potts gets his dogma " from
Papist hands." " The schoolmen and canonists,
one to advance the Pope's authority, and the
other the power of the priesthood in the mirac
ulous transformation of bread and wine into the
body and blood of Christ, when the doctrine of
transubstantiation was invented, advanced the
power of presbyters so high, and depressed thfit
of Bishops so low, that they began to be taken
for one and the same order, and that the Bish
op was only superior to the presbyter in dig
nity, as if there was no other difference be
tween them than betwixt a dignified clergyman
and a parish priest."— (Brett,* p. 118, 122.)
" From this opinion, started in the corrupt
ages of the Church, Luther, when he had cast
off the Pope's authority, took upon him to main
tain that Bishops and presbyters were the same
and that nothing could be done by a Bishop but
what might also be done by a presbyter. And
the Lutherans in the Smalcaldick articles," &c.,
&c., so declared. — P. 123.
" And, accordingly, they did take upon them
to ordain not only such to whom they gave the
names of pastors or presbyters, but also such as
they called Bishops ! Thus the Elector of Sax
ony having nominated Nicolas Amsdorfius to be
Bishop of Naumburg, this nobleman and bach
elor (as Melchior Adams styles him, after he
had been pastor of the church of Magdeburg
eighteen years) was ordained Bishop by Lu-:
ther, Nicolas Medler, pastor of Naoburg, George
Spalatine, of Aidenburg, and Wolfgang Steine,
of Leucopetre, laying on their hands together
with him. Thus were the German Bishops, or
superintendents (as they have been since called),
among the Lutherans ordained by such as pre
tended themselves to be no more than presby
ters."— P. 125.
" They lay under no necessity (which yet
would not have authorized such an attempt) of
ordaining a Bishop in such manner at that time,
because six years before, Herman, archbishop
of Colen (Cologne), had begun a Reformation
in his diocese, and at this very time that they
thus pretended to ordain Amsdorfius, was en
deavouring after a yet farther Reformation, and

I. Because there is no warrant from the
Word of God for making any* particular
external form ^of polity a condition of that
Christian fellowship and communion with
God, which are the distinguishing duties-
and privileges of the Church of Christ.
If there be such a warrant,! produce it.
The burden of proof rests on you. Let
any one examine the tenour of the preach
ing of Christ and his Apostles, and then
point to a solitary evidence that they pla
ced, as you do, merely external relations
upon a level with the exercise of the spir
itual graces, of repentance towards God,
and faith in Christ ; or that they made the

* P.S.— "The Divine Right of Episcopacy, and the Ne
cessity of an Episcopal Commission for preaching God's
Word, and for the valid Ministration of the Christian Sacra
ments, proved from the Holy Scriptures, and the Doctrine
and Practice of the Primitive Church," &o., &c., by Thom
as Brett, LL.D. ; a capital old work, now very rare, but
about to be republished ; as the Rev. Dr. Wain-wright, who
refers to it m his Essays, has been preparing it for the
press.

had Philip Melancthon, Luther's bosom friend,.
then with him, to advise him in that affair ; so
that they might have had Amsdorfius conseciia-
ted by a Protestant Bishop if they had pleased.
But to do it themselves was agreeable to the doc
trine of the Smalcaldick articles, which they had
subscribed, and were resolved to act accordingly."
" Nor was it necessity, as I have showed,
that caused them thus to deviate hrom the prim
itive institution of Christ and his Apostles, but
Principle, and a principle drawn from the
DREGS OP POPEEY." — P. 126.
Nay, Calvin and Zuinglius treated Archbish
ops, Bishops, and Curates (who reformed) as if
they had been mere laymen ; thus showing that
Dr. Potts's forefathers actually held that " there
could not be a Church with a Bishop." — P. 132.
Nay, Calvin and Zuinglius— for they were on
these points {dike, though disagreed on others —
declared at last, in their " madness" (as Melanc
thon calls it), that all ordination was unneces
sary. — P. 132.
Pubhc extempore prayer is also a Popish in
vention, used to divide Protestants, by bringing
the Common Prayer into contempt. The names
of the Jesuit inventors were John Heath, who
was executed in the reign of Elizabeth, and
Faithful Gumming, who was rewarded by the
Pope with 2000 ducats, &c., &c. See the work
of Archbishop Bramhall, &c., for the facts, as
derived from pubUc official documents.
* Just in the same way, " there is no war
rant firom the Word of God for" allowing -wom
en to come to the Lord's Table ; no warrant for
keeping the Lord's Day (not the Sabbath) holy ;
no warrant, we are told, for baptizing' infants.
But no sect has as yet denied any of the three
except the last. We verily expect to see, be
fore long, a sect of women excluders, and one
of anti-Sundayists ; indeed, the Quakers are so
in theory already ; but as they are dying out,
some new anti-Lord's Day sect will arise ; nay,
we have the Sabbatarians already-
t See Introduction, and Dr. W.'s Essays

CORRESPONDENCE.

it

exercise of these spiritual affections de
pendant upon the individual's outward rela
tions to a form of Church polity. On the con
trary, this is the very error for which they
condemn most earnestly the High Church*
pretensions of the Jews of their day, who
insisted upon their ecclesiastical relation
ship to Abraham, their possession of the
ritual, their circumcision, their doctrin^of
uninterrupted succession ; and who were
so tenacious of these externals, that they
were for bringing some of them into the
Christian Church with them. (See the
Epistle to the Galatian Church.) Under
stand me, I hold the Church of Christ to be
a society, a community of believers ; and
agree that it is right to conform to the gen
eral principles which are to be found in
Scripture for the regulation of that com
munity, and the attainment of the end of
all association,! the benefit of those asso
ciated. I admit that I find what I conceive
to be satisfactory evidence of a best% form
for the outward and visible Church ; best,
because best adapted for the development
of the grand principles of itldividual and so
cial piety and brotherhood. I find order
enjoined, and submission to order ; the
preaching of the Gospel, and obedience to
the Gospel when preached. But I do not
find any authority given for the doctrine
you teach, that one particular order is ab
solutely essential to the beingij of a Church.

* Yet there is no condemnation of any of
these, except as by St. Paul, that wish of the
Jews to compel the Gentiles to be circumcised.
t How evidently, in the mind of Dr. Potts,
" the Church of the living God" is nothing but
a human association, like a sewing society,
temperance society, abolition society, &c-, &c.
t If Dr. Potts, being a Presbyterian preach
er, means to say that presbytery is best adapted
to " brotherhood," &c., we could not find it so
in Philadelphia, A.D- 1837, when there were
two General Assembhes sitting in Philadelphia
at the same time, at evident war with each oth
er, and soon after engaged in legal contentions
about property.
(j Neither is it said, anywhere in the New
Testament, that a ministry is " essential to the
being of a Church ;" and on similar grounds the
Quakers deny the ministry. Some things, as
the ministry, the sacraments, the Episcopacy,
&C-, were universally understood and received
from the beginning, and not being then denied
or doubted, required no separate book or epistle
on the subject. Had not the Jews troubled the
Galatians about circumcision, we should not
have possessed St. Paul's epistle to that Church
on this subject. When will Christians learn
that the books of the New Testament .were
written on special occasions, or to meet certain
F

I do not find that the preaching of the Gos
pel must depend for its efficacy upon the
circumstance that it comes to the public
ear through the lips of a ministry* consti
tuted after a particular fashion. 'The bless
ing of God is promised to the truth, and to-
men only as they preach the truth. The
true apostolical succession is a succession
of apostolic truth ; and, as compared with
such succession, a line of prelates reaching
back to tlie days of the Apostles, though
not a link in the chain were wanting, is as
" the chafff to the wheat."
Take another view of the subject. Pro
found learning, combined with unquestion
able piety, has been leng employed in in
vestigating the question as to the precise
and detailed forms which the earliest Chris
tian communities assumed under the eyer
of the Apostles. And what has been the
result of their inquiries ? An acknowledg
ed diversity of opinion. Men who have ful
ly agreed^ in regard to the great moral truths
of the Gospel (and let any one take the
written creeds of the various Christian
bodies in the Protestant Church, and he
will be struck with this doctrinal unanimi
ty), have come to different conclusions as
to various points affecting the polity or ex-

nrrors ? and therefore things may be true which
are not recorded at large in so brief a compend
as the New Testament.
* It was, however, not enough for St. Paul
that the truth " came to the public ear" through
" a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of
divination;" nor would the angel himself de
clare the truth to Comehus after the Church of
Christ was constituted, but bade him " send to
Joppa for one Simon, whose surname is Peter,"
to hear firom Christ's commissioned apostle the
words of eternal life. The damsel declared the
truth, but was rebuked by St. Paul ; and the
" seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew," did a true
thing, but having no commission, were " over
thrown by Satan." And what has been, and
what is to be the fate of the Church of the Pu
ritans in New-England?
t Here is simply an assertion about "an
apostolic succession of truth" that is now heard
of for the first time ; and then a comparison of
a line of prelates, and a line of truth, as if the
two were not to be found together. They who
interrupt the one line of apostles, are certainly
quite as likely to interrupt the other fine of truth,,
as they who would humbly strive to preserve
both- Even "the chaff" preserves "the wheat-"
t On the contrary, their contradictions on
important points are manifest- Learned Uni
tarians, hke Priestley and Channing, differ toto
caelo from each other; and also from learned
Trinitarians, like Edwards, Dwight, and Mason.,

42

CORRESPONDENCE.

ternal organization of Christian commu
nities. Now, do we not find in this acknowledg
ed diversity of sentiment* upon the ques
tion of formal religion, among those who
are admitted to agree upon the question of
veal religion, proof that Scripture lays a
very different stress upon them, and the
most powerful argument for mutual for
bearance and toleration 1 And is it not in
compatible with common sense — I say no
thing now of charity — for any one denom
ination, with these facts before them, to
¦insist upon disowning fellow-Christians
.who agree with them in every other par
ticular of faith andiobedience to the spirit
ual laws of Christ, upon the single ground
that they have not conformed to their
-views of government and order ? Is the uni
ty of the Christian body a unity in respect
to form ? or not, rather, a unityf in faith
and love for the same grand moving truths
of the Gospel? Do none belong to the
body of Christ, his Church, but such as
agree with us in everything ? And if dif
ferences are allowable, as you must admit,
shall we restrict our communion to .those
who do not hold our views of Church order,
although they may hold everything else ?
In one word, is it not a sin against the
spirituality of Christianity, that we should
elevate conformity to what we deem true
Tiews of Church order, to a level with the
" weightier matters of the law, judgment,
mercy, and faith ?"
I cannot but think so. And strong as
are my preferences for a particular form
of government, I dare not deny, as you
have done, that the man who is " a Chris
tian"! is, by that very fact, a rnember of
Christ's Church.- You are bound to these
alternatives : either to admit the covenant
relations of other Christian Churches, or,
by denying thera, to admit that God§ has

¦* Why does not this equally show that men
jnay innocently differ about the Holy Trinity,
&c., &o. ? Carry this throughout Dr. Potts's
¦discussion of this point.
t How absurd to talk of any kind of unity,
where there is most plainly, not only disunion,
but even dislike ; nay, to tell the plain truth, al
most actual enmity : e.g., how many tears have
been shed by our spiritual dissenting brethren
-over the present supposed troubles of the
-Church as to Oxford, &o- ?
t But how much or how little Christianity
makes a Christian ? See note on who are the
¦"only Christians?"
^ This argument tells well in behalf of Pa-
_,gans, Mohammedans, and Romanists. But it is
even questionable whether, in the long run, Con
gregationalism, for example, will prove a blesS-

poured out his blessings, and raised up
hosts of eminent, learned, devoted, and
useful Christians, among Christian bodies
which were never in covenant with him.
If, as you will not deny, he has actually
done the latter, then the inference is, ei
ther that yours is not the only Church, or
that, if it be, it is not the only or the prin
cipal channel of spiritual good to the world.
In other words, Heaven has made no such
discrimination between you and others as
will justify your exclusive claims.
This is a common-sense argument, and
it confirms the position taken in the outset
of these remarks, namely, that the formal
ities* of religion ought not to be raised to
the level of the spiritualities of religion, be
cause a.11 fact establishes the infinite supe
riority with which Scripture invests the
latter. The inferencef we draw is, that
there is no warrant from Scripture for ma
king any particular external form of polity
a condition of that'Christian fellowship and
communion with God, which are distin
guishing duties and privileges of the Church
of Christ.
Asking pardon for the length of this com
munication, I reserve other Scriptural con
siderations for another occasion, and re
main, respectfully, yours, Geo. Potts.

LETTER VI.
rev. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS.
Rev. and Dear Sir .—The first half of
your letter is taken up with matters to
which I shall reply very briefly.
In the first place, you still discuss the
question as to who is the assailing party in
this controversy, and reiterate your con
viction that it is I who am the aggressor.
My dear sir, let us drop this discussion. I
can by no means admit the justice of your
charge. Let the public decide between us
on this point — I am quite wUling to submit
it to their decision.
In the second place, you speak of the
" angry and lordly tone" of my last letter ;

ing in New-England. Many doubt it already,
after only two centuries.
* Is it for men to decide what part of God's
institutions they shall receive as spiritual, and
what part they shall reject as formal? Obe
dience to all his appointments is Christianity ;
even the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, is
also to be paid.
t This inference is not deduced from the pre
ceding, and is simply a repetition of the ori
ginal assertion. I might as well say, e. g., since
it will rain to-morrow, I infer 'that yesterday
was Tuesday.

CORRESPONDENCE.

43

its " discourteous language," designed " to
anger" you ; and of the " abusive epithets"
and charges of " unworthy motives." I am
totally unable to perceive that I have given
you any just ground to speak on this wise.
I cannot for one moment admit that I am
justly chargeable under either of these
heads. I have only to say again, let the
candid public judge between us.
All the other points in your preliminary
observations that have any bearing upon
the simple question in dispute shall be dis
posed of in their proper places.
We have now got fairly to " the dogma"
which you say I " have received from Pa
pist hands," and which you hold to be " at
war with the spirit and letter of the Word
of God." I have received it from Papist
hands precisely in the way in which you
have received the Holy Scriptures, and the
doctrine of the Trinity, and the Atone
ment, &c. You surely will not esteem it
a just ground of objection to any doctrine,
that it has been held by the Church of
Rome in common with the great body of
the Church Catholic, at all times and in all
places. And as regards this dogma, re
member that its truth was never disputed,
and conformity with its distinctive provis
ion never departed from until after the
Reformation ; that it formed no ground of
objection, in the minds of the first Reform
ers, to the Church of Rome ; and that these
great men yielded it up with marked re
luctance, and only from the compulsion of
the circumstances in which they were
placed. But the question now properly
before us is, where does this dogma, as
you term it, find its origin, not through
what channel it has come down to us. If
it is " at war with the spirit and letter of
the Word of God," as you say, I acknowl
edge that no power of prescription, no uni
versality of acceptance, could sustain it for
one moment. Here I join issue with you,
and say that the principle, there " can be
no Church without a Bishop," is not anti-
scriptural, but is in perfect consistency
" with the spirit and letter of the Word of
God." You ask me again for my defini
tion of the terms " Church" and " Bishop."
I reply, that I use them precisely in the
sense in which they are used in the stand
ards of the Church of which I am a mem
ber. These are contained, as you know,
in the Book of Common Prayer ; to these
definitions it is my intention rigidly to ad
here ; and if you detect, in my remarks,
any departure from this resolution, and will
expose it, I shall thank you cheerfully And
amend the error. I presume you are equal
ly ready to be bound by your own stand
ards, and I will ask you for no other defi
nitions than those which are there record
ed, or which maybe logically inferred from
their plain propositions. You maintain
vour affirmation, 1st, on this ground ; "be

cause there is no warrant from th'e Word
of God for making any particular external
form of polity a condition of that Christian
fellowship and communiofi with God which
are the distinguishing duties and privileges
of the Church of Christ." Now, suppose
it were as you affirm, this would not make
Episcopacy antiscriptural any more than
you will allow Presbyterianism to be anti-
scriptural. Episcopacy excludes Presby
terian ordination, just as Presbyterianism
excludes congregational or lay ordination.
But this reminds me that we have one
or two questions to settle in relation to
your exact " position," before we can pro
ceed with a clear, mutual understanding.
I take it for granted that you admit a min
istry by God's appointment to be necessary
to the being of a Church, and that this min
istry derives its authority, not from men,
nor from the Church itself, but from Christ,
the head of the Church. ' We must, if you
please, be very explicit on this point, or
our discussion miglit soon assume a ram
bling and discursive character, which it is
the interest (for the saving of time), and, I
doubt not, the wish of us both to avoid. In
the considerations you offer as " necessary
for a right understanding of your position,"
you say that you are " not the advocate of
the ecclesiastical polity of the Church to
which you belong, except so far as that pol
ity involves the ministerial rights of pres
byters or parochial (i. e., parish or congre
gational) Bishops." Now what are these
ministerial rights, and whence are they de
rived ? I think that when you have an
swered these questions, the Congregation
alists and the Friends, and some other de
nominations, will not find much to choose
between us as " to charity," " exclusive
ness," "unchurching," &c.
I presume, then, you hold to the doctrine
" that the Christian ministry is essential to
the Church, and must always exist." I dare
say that in this point we should both coin
cide as to what is " the spirit and letter of
the Word of God." St. Jerome, the father
by no means least in favour with you, says
that is " not a Church which has not
priests." The Lutherans, in the Confes
sion of Augsburg, declared that, " in order
that we might obtain justifying faith, the
ministry of preaching the Gospel and ad
ministering the sacraments was instituted,"
and they add that they condemn " the An
abaptists and others who think that men
receive the Holy Spirit without the exter
nal word." Calvin argues at length in
proof of the necessity of the ministry in the
Church, saying that "the Church is not
otherwise edified than by external preach
ing ;" he affirms that " Christ so ordained
the office of the ministry in the Church,
that, were it taken away, the Church would
perish." In your own confession of faith,
chapter xxv., section 2d, it is asserted,

44

CORRESPONDENCE.

" The visible Church, which is also catho
lic or universal under the Gospel (not con
fined to one nation as before under the law),
consists of all those throughout the world
that profess the true religion, together with
their children, and is the kingdom of the
Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of
God, out of which there is no ordinary pos-
sibiUty of salvation." " Unto this catholic,
visible Church, Christ hath given the min
istry, oracles, and ordinances of God for
the gathering and perfecting of the saints
in this life, to the end of the world, and
doth by his own presence and spirit, ac
cording to his promise, make them effect
ual thereunto."
Thus Christ is represented as giving the
ministry equally with the oracles and ordi
nances, and to the same end. In the form
of government of the Presbyterian Church,
chapter iii., "Of the Officers of the Church,"
we read, " Our blessed Lord at first collect
ed His Church out of different nations, and
formed it into one body by the mission of
men endowed with miraculous gifts, which
have long ceased." " The ordinary and per
petual officers of the Church are Bishops or
pastors," &c. And here Ephesians, iv., 11,
12, is referred to as authority, where Christ
is spoken of as appointing the ministry.
" And he gave some, apostles ; and some,
prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some,
pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of
the saints, for the work of the ministry, for
the edifying of the body of Christ." As
touching this point, then, we agree that a
ministry, divinely appointed, is essential to
the being of a Church. I presume, too,
you wo.uld admit as readily that this minis
try must be Apostolical ; derived from
Christ in some way through the Apostles.
An A-postolical ministry, then, you must
acknowledge to be " essential (to use your
own words) to the very being of a Church,
so that without it there is no Chufch, and,
of course, ' no ordinances, no promises of
God, no lawful reliance upon God's grace,
no covenanted mercies, and no just and
certain hope of reaching heaven.'" Ob
serve, I do not give all these inferences as
my own. You have put them upon me as
resulting from my position, that a " Bish
op," or " Prelate," as you choose to quote
me, is essential to the being of a Church.
I am authorized, therefore, I think, to put
them upon you,, as resulting from the doc
trine we hold in comraon, that an Apostol
ical ministry is essential to the being of a
Church. You have unchurched, then, the Quakers,
and left them to the uncovenanted mercies
of God; you have unchurched the Con
gregationalists ; you have unchurched the
whole body of Methodists ; you have un
churched large portions, if not the whole,
of the Baptists, to the full extent that I
unchurch you. Do you shrink in " hor

ror" from a proposition so " monstrous ?"
If you can escape from it, I shall be glad
to know how. If you do confess that this
is your position, as far as I can see you
must relinquish the doctrine of the minis
try and the Church, as maintained, I be
lieve, in all the reformed creeds, and, cer
tainly, in your own. Now this is a point
upon which I should like some satisfac
tion ; and if the result of your reconsider
ation of the subject should be that we
symbolize on this grand point, perhaps
you will agree with me that we had better
not prefer against each other any charges
of " uncharitableness, " " exclusiveness,"
" unchurching," &c. But, since we both
agree that " there is warrant from the
Word of God for making a particular ex
ternal form of polity a condition of that
Christian fellowship and communion with
God which are the distinguishing duties
and privileges of the Church of Christ,"
we calmly proceed to inquire what that
external form of polity is. You will per
ceive that I return to you your own first
argument against my position, requesting
you to reconsider it, and see whether it
does not militate against fair inferences to
be drawn from the standards of the Church
to which you belong.
I should conclude my letter here, and
await your answer, for I am anxious that
our communications should be short, by
being restricted, as far as practicable, to a
single point, both with a view to our own
convenience and what I believe to be the
public wish, but I must correct you upon
one point where you have certainly great
ly misapprehended my views. You say,
" Let any one examine the tenour of the
preaching of Christ and his apostles, and
then point to a solitary evidence that they
placed, as you do, merely external rela
tions upon a level with the exercise of the
spiritual graces of repentance towards
God, and faith in Christ." My dear sir, I
will not doubt your sincerity in making
this charge ; but I beseech you to examine
again those expressions of mine to which
you have given a construction ^so abhor
rent to my clear convictions of Christian
truth. Place external relations upon a
level with the exercise of spiritual graces,
repentance and faith 1 ! ! Never, never
could I do this. Formalist as you may
believe me to be, I beseech you make me
not appear to value the body more than
the soul. I believe that in this world the
intimate union of both is essential to hfe.
The body, we know, cannot live without
the soul, nor have I ever yet learned that
God has permitted a soul to exist in this
probationary state without a body ; but do
I, therefore, place as high a vahie upon the
body as the soul ? By no means. I only
contend that what " God hath joined to
gether" man should not attempt " to put

CORRESPONDENCE.

45

asunder." If he hath said, concerning his
Church, " there is one Spirit." he hath also
said " there is one body."
I am. Rev. and dear Sir, your obedient
servant, Jona. M. Wainwright.
Wednesday, Jan. 17th.

LETTER VI.
*EV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT.
Rev. and Dear Sir : — As our readers will
have perceived, I have been too anxious
to reach the merits of the question before
us to insist with any pertinacity upon
technical questions. It would have been
very easy, as I believe, to make success
ful battle upon all the points you have
raised from time to time ; but as it would
have entangled the question, I have waiv
ed them. I am now in some hope that
there will be, henceforth, a fair and manly
grappling with the real point at issue be
tween us.
I have but a single remark to make be
fore I proceed to notice your last commu
nication. It- is in relation to my supposi
tion that your preceding letter was com
posed in " an angry and lordly tone," and
contained " discourteous language, which
I forbore to retort." Ordinary people do
not deem a charge of slander very civil ;
yet this charge you brought against me, in
company vvith other ungracious language,
" stale declamation," " instructing my ig
norance," &c. Though this style of deal
ing with an opponent passes with many as
¦equivalent to argument, and is considered
an evidence of cleverness, I hope no tempt
ation whatever will seduce me into the use
-of it. Hard arguments and hard words do
not belong to the same category.
Passing all this, I repeat my satisfaction
that " we have now fairly got to the dog
ma which I hold to be at war with the
-spirit and letter of the Word of God," no
matter now from what hands you have
received it. You call upon me to "re
member that its truth was never disputed
until the Reformation; that it fortned no
ground of objection in the minds of the
first Reformers to the Church of Rome,
and that these great men yielded it up
witiii marked reluctance,!' &c. You can
hardly expect me to " remember" this, for
I do not believe it to have been so, but, on
the contrary, I think I can show* that it
was not so. I will not touch that point
now, for you admit that this question is
* Dr. Potts never shows that the truth of
" the dogma" was disputed before the Reforma
tion, and it is a simple fact in history, that it
never was disputed, and hardly doubted, except
by some Papists. It was a received Cathohc
truth.

not properly before us, and that the true
issue is whether, as you have affirmed.
Prelacy be essential to the being of the
Churcii of Christ. I am glad to find that
you are ready to abide by the Word of God,
as the only authority which we are now to
summon to the decision of this question.
My first reply to your affirmation that
Prelacy is essential to the being of the
Church, and the reply to which I restrict
ed myself in ray last letter, was this i
" That there is no warrant in Scripture for
raaking any particular external form of
polity a condition of that Christian fellow
ship and communion with God which are
the distinguishing duties and privileges of
the Church of Christ."
You say that, were the argument I have
advanced true, i. e., were it true "that
there is no warrant," &c., &c., this would
not " make Episcopacy antiscriptural"
any raore than Presbytery. This, I beg
to say, is not the point in hand ; for I ad
mit that the argument bears equally on
Prelacy and Presbytery, as respects the
making either of them exclusive. Either
may, according to the different judgments
of their respective advocate, be the most
conformed to the Scripture model, and yet
neither, as I maintain, should be raised to
the rank of an essential condition of Chris
tian brotherhood and communion with God.
You may think Prelacy most clearly taught
in Scripture, as I do Presbytery ; but the
question which I pray you to bear in mind
is. Shall we, on the ground of our respect
ive opinions on a question of forms, about
which multitudes of wise and good men
differ, although they are agreed in respect
to the spiritualities of Christianity, as a
moral institute — shall we, I say, proceed
to deliver each other over " to uncovenant
ed mercy ;" in other words, excommuni
cate each other from the covenant of God,
and its promises and privileges ? Against
any position of which this is the natural
and inevitable consequence my whole soul
revolts. Now what is your reply to this ? Why,
after assuming two things, which you say
I must admit, and which I do admit, you
proceed to infer that I must, if consist
ent, run upon the very same consequences
which I have charged against your own
position. You quote from various author
ities, Jerome, the Augsburg Confession of
the Lutheran Church, Calvin„and the Pres
byterian Confession, to show that a " min
istry" is essential to the visible Church.
Agreed : I had already admitted this, when
giving an account, in my last letter, of
what I found in Scripture concerning the
essentials of Church order. But another
postulate, which you take for granted I will
concede, is that this ministry " must be
Apostolical, that is, derived from Christ in
some way through the Apostles." Now I

46

CORRESPONDENCE.

fancy that this is the point where your ar-
giiraent falters. This is a venerable terra,
this " Apostolical," and not more favourite
with yourself than with me ; but still I am
satisfied there is a fallacy in your use of
it, which I will proceed to notice in due
time. Supposing me, then, to admit " an
Apostolical ministry of the Word and ordi
nances" as essential to the very being of a
Church, you proceed to draw the necessary
inferences for me in these words : " You
have unchurched, then, the Quakers, and
left them to the uncovenanted mercies of
God ; you have unchurched the Congrega
tionalists ; you have unchurched the whole
body of the Methodists ; you have un
churched large portions, if not the whole,
of the Baptists, to the full extent that I un
church you ;" and you significantly ask, no
doubt >vith some triumph over my foolish
inconsistency, whether I do not shrink " in
horror from a proposition so monstrous? "
I answer this question, thus put in irony,
emphatically in the affirmative. 1 do shrink
from it with horror. And more than this,
were your retort of this charge of un
churching the several bodies you name a
just retort, I might well admit my folly for
having forgotten the familiar proverb about
living in glass houses and throwing stones.
But I can ' dispose of the retort in a very
summary manner, and without any im
peachment of ray consistency, and can
show that I do not unchurch my fellow-
Christians of these large and respectable
denominations (who hold the essential
truths of the Gospel) in any sense, much
less in the sense ahd "to the extent" in
which you unchurch me. Am I to sup
pose that, in making the above aver
ment, you meant to be understood as as
serting a matter of fact ? You must sure
ly have known that as a matter of fact we
freely rfecognise the essential character
and Church rights of these bodies of Chris
tians. This is notorious. You must mean,
therefore, that if I carry out my principles, I
must do, what you do, unchurch the above-
named bodies. Your argument is ad in
vidiam, but it fails to answer your object,
because I shall now proceed to show that
it npt only contradicts matter of fact, but
is built upon a false inference of your own,
from our views of what constitutes a vahd
ministry. First, it contradicts well-known facts.
The only apparent exception is the case of
the Friends, concerning whom, as a socie
ty, a variety of opinions exists. They are
divided into two opposite parties, one of
which rejects, as we both believe, the very
fundamentals of Christianity, while the
other holds fast (so far as I know) to evan
gelical truth, though with a mixture of doc
trinal errors. It is only concerning the
last that there can be any question in this
connexion. These do not reject a minis

try, for they have ministers and elders af
ter their own sort ; nor do they reject the
ordinances of the Gospel professedly, sim
ply contending that these ordinances are
to be observed spiritually, and not at all
externally. Now I consider these views
as seriously defective ; but if, through
these views, they hold communion with
the Head of the Church, I dare not deny
that they are living raerabers of his body.
Their ecclesiastical organization may be
defective, but not in such a sense as to de
stroy their hold upon the blessings of God's-
covenant. As to the other bodies named in the
above extract — Congregationalists, Bap
tists, Methodists — there is not even a faint
shadow of authority for the assertion that
I unchurch thera in any sense, leasf. of all
in the sense in which you unchurch me.
To make this but, you must be able to ad
duce /aci^,* not inferences. The facts to

* Why, then, did the Presbyterian, Dr. Wil
son, object to the reception of the Congrega-
tionahst. Dr. Beecher? Have the Presbyteri
ans well considered the destruction of their fan
cied succession of Presbyters, of which Dr. Potts-
somewhere speaks, by the introduction of the
element of lay-ordination in the Congi'egational
brethren, whom they have received without
even Presbyterian " reordination ?" The Cam
bridge Platform says expressly, that since the
people have the greater right to call the preach
er, they certainly have the lesser right to ordain
him ! ! And every one knows the Otis and oth
er lay-ordinations as facts. The "mutual in
terchange" only shows how loosely all things
are held by the sects : e. g., the venerable and
lamented Bishop Griswold, a Christian Bishop
whose equal in meekness, humility. Christian
charity; and, we might add, sound wisdom and
discretion, the world seldom sees, and, in our
individual opinion, as well as in that of multi
tudes, a learned and most Catholic Bishop, was
not even a baptized Christian, according to the
Baptist notions ; and yet those celebrated Bap
tist preachers, the Rev. Baron Stow and the
Rev. Dr. Sharp, after the Bishop's sudden and
lamented death, called him, in public, a Chris
tian minister — nay, alinost a saint and apostle.
They would not, however, have received this
Christian minister, saint, and apostle, at their ta
ble, for want of the formality of dipping edl over
under the water. Had he been submerged up
to his eyebrows, it would not suffice- The
Baptist formality demands a complete submer
sion. The only English word, by-the-way, that
can, with perfect precision, be used for this new
notion from Westphalia (see Robertson's His
tory of Charles V.), is ducking; for you may

CORRESPONDENCE.

4T

the contrary lie open to the knowledge of
any man. The mutual interchange of min
isterial services proves that it is not so.
If a minister of any one of these churches
desires to enter into the ministry among
us, he is not reordained ; should a member
of one of these churches choose ,to unite
with us in constant or only occasional com
munion, he is not rebaptized.* You can
not point to an individual among us who
would hesitate to sit down at the table of
our comraon Lord with accepte* members
of any of these churches. We honour
them as the possessors of the truth, and
as having the best of all imprimaturs to at
test the validity of their ministry and ordi
nances, viz., the seal of God's Spirit, which
has made each of these bodies erainently
usefulf in improving raankind. We re
joice in their successes in accomplishing
so glorious an object, and consider their
successes as the best of all evidence that
God is with them, and has recognised their
organizations as possessing the essential
features of the Catholic Church. Do they
send forth their devoted missionaries to a
foreign field, we never interfere with their
labours, as you have done in reference to
those you call Lutheran Calvinists, but we
bid thera God speed, cherishing no feelings
of rivalry, much less of animosity, upon

dip, immerse, plunge, bathe, &c., in wine, oil,
milk, or any liquid ; but you cannot duck in any
thing, or -with any element but water. We are
perfectly serious, and mean no unkindness in
recommending the use of this precise, signifi
cant, and appropriate old Saxon word to the
managers of the American and Foreign Baptist
Bible Society. The practice of the Church, in
all points but one, has been that described as
liberal by Dr. Potts.
* Nor is he always rebaptized in the Church,
though perhaps he ought to be, for how do we
know that some Unitarian preacher may not
recently have discovered a better way, i. e., to
baptize in the name of the Father only (see
Bishop Brownell's excellent charge on the Er
rors of the Times) ? which would certainly be no
more Christian baptism than that of John the
Baptist, which was a Jewish lustration, per
formed perhaps by immersion, and perhaps by
affusion ; for there is not even a hint of immer
sion, nor a certain case of that mode in the Bi
ble. We must beg to go a step farther back
with our Baptist friends, and ask them to estab
lish, ^rai, the authority of the administrator.
t The doctrine of Mohammed was " eminent
ly useful" in improving the Arabs and others.
Does that make it truth ? Mohammedanism is
a part of the truth ; but is Dr. Potts content
with having a part of the truth, as he doubtless
has in his Congi'egational-Presbyterianism?

the ground that they do not articulate our
Shibboleths in our way. What son or
daughter among us will refuse to meet a
pious parent* of another Church at the
Lord's Table (as is notoriously the case
among you) upon the ground that it is not
the Lord's Table, and that those who meet at
it are not ministers or members of Christ's
Church ? These are significant questions
simply put, and I beg the reader to ponder
them, and decide how little reason there is
for the opinion that there is not much to
" choose between us, as to ' charity,'"' ex
clusiveness,' ' unchurching,' " &c.
Such is the state of the facts. But, sec
ond, you will reply that our practice is
inconsistent with the principles you have
quoted from our formularies. To this I
answer, that in those formularies there is
not a word which condemns our practice.
Let the reader exaraine your references,
and decide whether they are liable to the
charge of exclusiveness.f Farther, let him

* This is not true. They can all meet at the
Lord's Table, and receive the sacrament from
his appointed ministry. The -writer was once
refused the communion (before it was known
that he would not receive it at unauthorized
hands) in a sectarian meeting-house, where all
might have communed together, for he would
have given it to every person present; and
where, also, he knew that he was the only per
son present authorized to administer it. He
has also communed by ministering to and with
Romanists, Lutherans, Reformed — ^nay, he has
given the cup at least to Unitarians. Does not
so much charity " shock" Dr. Potts ? It must
rest between the stranger who approaches and
the stranger's God.
t If they are not " hable to the charge of ex
clusiveness," that fact of itself goes a long way
in estabhshing their untruth, for all truth most
BE ezolusive- There are many wrong ways in
rehgion, but in important matters of God's ap
pointment there can be but one right way, e. g.,
it is right, at the Lord's Supper, to use wine,
or the nearest approach to wine, that is, the
fermented juice of the grape because the Mas
ter used and ' commanded it to be used. This
right way excludes all the wrong ways, as it
excludes the use of molasses and water ; it ex
cludes Must, or the unfermented juice of the
grape, which is a different chemical substance
from wine ; it excludes milk, water, &c-, i. e.,
it excludes everything but -wine- Now, is it un
charitable to say that the "wrong ways are all-
wrong ? If we do not say that wrong is wrong,
maiiy people will never find it out ; but, as is
the case, instead of being guided by the Scrip
tures, will follow a blind leader, say some fa-

48

CORRESPONDENCE.

turn to book i., ch., i. of the Form of Gov
ernment, and he will find a distinct decla-

Tiatical, sectarian, infallible preacher, falling
sheer into the arms of Protestant and unscrip
tural Popery. So, truth must be exclusive ; it
is with God's- kingdom, in this respect, as it is
with men's governments. As, to give a plain
example, suggested by a Bishop; and which
was used with good effect at our Church of
the Pentecost under the shade of the Catho
lic Oak in Rhode Island : Some of you (ad
dressing the assembled multitude) some of
you believe that James Fenner is governor of
this little state, and some beUeve that Thomas
Wilson Dorr is governor- But not a man of
you believes that they both are governors. Now
the God of heaven (according to his promise by
the Prophet Daniel) has set up a kingdom, and
he has- appointed officers in this divine king
dom, or in his one Church, and these are officers
.simply because they have his commission, which
commission must be given directly ox indirectly.
If any man profess to have a direct commission,
he must give the same proof that was ever
given by Noah, " a preacher of righteousness,"
truly foretelling the flood; by Moses, at God's
command, and by His power visibly dividing the
Red Sea ; by Joshua, when, at the sound of the
rams' horns, the walls of Jericho fell down flat ;
and mark Jonah's fear lest Nineveh should not'
Relieve he was a prophet sent by God, because
the Lord reversed his decree. So Christ raised
the dead ; so St. Paul proved his direct,, extraor-
¦dinary commission^
The indirect or ordinary commission muat be
Jiad where wonders or miracles have ceased,,
and where shall this be obtained ? If not by
sMocesisiaM. from the Apostles, who shall step for
ward and usurp so awfiil a prerogative ? Why
should there not be a succession of authorized;
men in God'.s eternal Church, as there is a suc
cession of days and years, of seedntime, and,
harvest in his mortal world ? There, is no other
iway ; direct or indirect, extraordinary or ordina
ry must the commission be.
Therefore the Oriental Bishop said well to
the truly great, because herein unprejudioedDr.
Wolff, " What Bishop sent you outV Sorely
pressed, that sincere man answered, " The in
ternal voice of God speaking to my heart."
¦" That is weU ; it may be evidence to, you, but
it is none to us ; if you come directvnth a,mes-
sage from God, do wonders ; raise the dead,;
if not, show your ordinary commission from
Bishops who received theirs from men who had
the same through the Apostohc fine. There
is no other way." Dr. Wolff saw the truth of
this statement, and, like an honest, upright

ration that we "believe that there are truths
and forms with respect to which men of
good characters and principles raay differ ;"
and that," in all these we think it the duty,
both of private Christians and societies, to
exercise mutual forbearance." What clear
er renunciation of exclusive claims can be
given thaii this ?
But to leave no room for the charge of
inconsistency with our doctrines, let me
add, that the principles in regard to a min
istry, which are set forth in our symbols,
nowhere make a linked succession of in
dividuals!^ an indispensable requisite in rain-

searcher for truth, received it, came home, per
haps (but we do not know) found difficulties in
England, crossed to New-Jersey, and was or
dained a deacon, since that a Presbyter ; and
now, in the East, he can answer, " What Bish
op sent you out?"
But the modem and unscriptwral charity (0
name and sacred attribute of God abused !) re
quires me to say all " good Christian denomina
tions" are right,, or to act (at American Bible
Societies, on platforms and elsewhere) as though
I believed they were right when they flatly deny
a part of, the Christian faith ; at least, as I hum
bly believe, nay, as I know and do prove. That
same charity requires me to believe and say
that both the men named are governors of
Rhode Island, nay, that any dozen men who
choose to style themselves governors, sheriffs,
&c., are so, because they say so without a shad
ow of authority. But this would be counted
folly, nay, madness. Ye disallow a man who •
thinks he is fit to be constable, or even hog-
reeve, without a commission ; and wiU ye suf
fer any bungler from the cobbler's bench or
from the tailor's shop,
" skulls that cannot teach and vvill not leam,^'
to rise up 'With neither direct nor indirect anthor-
ity, and miserably lead you into aU kinds of ab
surd and.monstrous errors, nay, damning false
hoods, under the pretence of caring for your
immortal , souls ? How often, ye remark, these
men cannot teach because they do not know !
Why da ye suffer them, then? Because, alas !
ye care not truly for your immortal spirits !
* This argument will be confessed by Dr.
Potts, himself to he fallacious, because it allows
,the claim of every Unitarian, Universahst, and
Mormon preacher, as well as that of those who
are obliged to ask Dr. Potts whether he will
please to grant that they hold fundamentals,
&c. It cannot hold; for by it Dr. Potts and
his Presbyterian brethren of every name must
fall ; because they do not hold the Episcopar
cy, or " apostolic succession of individuals," or,
to use his favourite invention, "tactual sue-

CORRESPONDENCE.

49

isterial investiture. It is at this point that
I detect the fallacy of your retort — a falla
cy already adverted to, and which I prom
ised to notice. You demand from me that
I should admit an Apostolical ministry — i. e.,
"one derived, in some way, from Christ,
through the Apostles." I do admit it, but
¦evidently not in your sense, for in your
sense an Apostolical ministry embraces
the idea of an unbroken series of individ
uals. Now, were I disposed, I think it
would not be difficult to show that if there
he any weight in the claim of such an un
broken series of ordinations, we* can es-
-tablish as perfect a right to it as you. The
only difference between us being this, that
we trace the series through the ministers
«f Christ's Church as Presbyters, and you
.as Prelates. But we lay no stress upon
this, first, because no stress is laid upon it
in Scripture (if there be, you can show it) ;
and, secondly, because we can conceive of
cases in which it would be the duty of
¦Christian believers to disregard the punc
tilios of ecclesiastical genealogy, which a
regard for regularity and fitness would lead
.good men to observe under ordinary cir
cumstances. Conceive, for instance, of a
community of Christians cast upon a des-
-ert shore ; they have the Word of God, but
no minister ; shall they continue forever
¦without the offices of Christianity, and not
jather appoint one or more of their number,
who shall give himself wholly to the work
of ministering God's Word and ordinances ?
Such a one, I believe with Luther, would
be as truly a Presbyter as if he had been
consecrated by all the Bishops in the world.
Conceive, again, of the possibility of so
extensive an apostacy from substantial
Christianity, in any body calling itself a
Church, as to make communion with them
Jio longer tolerable, is there no remedy?
The English Reformers thought differently,
-and so did the Reformers of the Continent,
•cession," which is held by neariy all Christen
dom, Eleven twelfths of all Christians would
.stare in wonder if he should speak to them of
this new notion of a succession of the spirit, sep-
-arate, even on the earth, from a succession of
Jhe body. When will men learn, as body and
¦soul walk together on the earth, nay, as they
are to be reunited in heaven or hell, so the
Church of God, in all things, " has an outward
and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace
given unto us ?
* It would be difficult for Drl Potts to estab
lish this right, on account of the vitiation of a
succession of Presbyters by the intermixture of
the lay element in the Congregational preachers
,<Dr. Deecher, for example) from New-England,
who, in the West and elsewhere, are received
iLto the succession as Presbyterians.
G

and so, in their turn, did Wesley and his co
adjutors, and a large body of the Puritans.
In one word, the exercise of the right, of
separation is to be justified or condemned,
in the first instance, by the facts which
caused the separation. If unnecessary,
the separation is schism, and its immedi
ate authors are to be held responsible ; but
if necessary, the sin of schism rests upon
those who made it necessary. The grand
point is not whether the seceders in any
case carry along with them a ministry de
rived from the body they are quitting, but
whether they carry God's Word with them
as the charter of Christian rights, organize
themselves in substantial conformity to
that, and then humbly ask God's blessing.
I liave neither time nor room to expand
these truths, and apply them to the case
in hand. Let it be sufficient to add, at pres
ent, that an Apostolical ministry authenti
cates its title to the name by the fact of its
ministering Apostolic truth and ordinances,
and by the seal of God's blessing upon its
services. No other title-deed can be com
pared with this. Who gave the better evi
dence of " divine right" to preach the Gos
pel and administer its symbolic ordinances,
a Robert Hall or a Dean Swift, a Dr. Chal
mers or a Lawrence Sterne ? A thousand
thoughts crowd upon me here, but I must
suppress them.
Thus, I have " given you some satisfac
tion," I hope, by showing that the views I
hold upon the subject of an " Apostolic
ministry" are in perfect harmony with the
detestation with which I regard the fre
quent and offensive assaults made upon
the various bodies of non-prelatical Chris
tians. We " do not," as you perceive,
" symbolize upon this point." I have care
fully reconsidered " my first argument
against your position, and I think I have
shown, both from fact and theory, that it
does not militate against fair inferences
drawn from*the standards of my own
Church ;" and, of consequence, that it is
not only a fair argument itself, but fair for
me to use, and that you have now to an
swer or admit. It still remains untouched.
I may pause, then, until it is answered ;
only observing upon the last paragraph of
your letter, that in saying that you place
merely external relations upon a level with
the exercise of the spiritual graces of re
pentance and faith, I stated what I con
ceived to be a fair inference from the High
Church dogma, which makes a Prelate as
indispensable to the Church as a Saviour.
I rejoice at, the abhorrence you express for
such a consequence ; it is a fearful conse
quence ; and as I hope to be »le at some
future point in this discussion to show that
it is a legitimate child of its parent, may I
not hope that you will see it to be your
duty, in the sight of God, to renounce the
parent as well as the child ? Would to God

50
it might be so. Oh, sir, this dark world is
not so full of Christians that we can afford
to alienate any of them, by magnifying our
points of difference. Why, by insulting
their sensibilities, make it impossible for
them to greet each other in respectful love,
and work together and contend together
against spiritual wickedness in high and
low places ? Let us look at this single city
in which our lot is cast ; its thousands who
despise the truth, the history and present
state of crime and ignorance, the yet unoc
cupied fields for holy enterprise, the prog
ress of Papal errors — let us consider these
things but for a moment, and say whether,
instead «of uniting our forces against this
legion of evils, we shall rather whet our
swords against each other, and imitate the
spirit of the mistaken disciple, who seems
to have claflhed credit of his Lord for his
exclusiveness, saying, " Master, we found
one casting out devils in thy name, and we
forbade him, because he followeth not with
us." Respectfully, your obedient servant,
George Potts.

CORRESPONDENCE.

LETTER VIl.
REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS.
Rev. and Dear Sir .—We are by no means
so well agreed upon first principles as I
had supposed, and therefore, to my regret,
I find that we have not arrived at that stage
of the argument which I thought we had
reached when I addressed to you my last
letter. The necessity is now imposed
upon me of taking a step backward, in or
der to meet you fairly. Having for my op
ponent an eminent divine of the Presbyte
rian Church, and one in connexion, as I
am informed, with " the Old School," I cer
tainly took it for granted J;hat he would
hold himself bound to maintain that doc
trine, upon the question of the Christian
ministry, which the standards of his Church
so clearly set forth. Upon this supposi
tion the statements and inferences of my
last letter were grounded.
This doctrine I stated in substance as
follows, viz., that the Christian Ministry
is essential to the Church, and must always
exist ; that this ministry must be divinely
APPOINTED I and that it must be Apostoli
cal, that is, deriving its commission in
some way from Christ, the head of the
Church, through the Apostles. Had you
admitted these first principles to the ex
tent in which I supposed, and still suppose
them to Be held in the teaching of' your
standards, the points between us would
have been reduced to this one : What is
the nature of the Apostolical ministry?
does it subsist in one order alone^ — that of
Presbyters— or does it of necessity require

three orders, Bishops, Presbyters, and;
Deacons, and how is the title to this min
istry to be authenticated ?
As I now understand you, you admit that
a "ministry" is essential to the visible
Church. I request you to observe, how
ever, that the postulate which I advanced,
as the one to which I presumed we should
both yield our assent, was not " a ministry"
simply, but " a ministry divinely appointed."
Now, from a careful examination of what
you advance, under the two heads of
" facts" and " principles," I am compelled
to infer that, according to your theory, it
is not essential that the -ministry should be
divinely appointed. It may be self-cOnsti-
tuted by an inward call, or it may be con^
stituted by the simple " appointment, by a
community of Christians, of one or more
of their number, who shall give himself
wholly to the work of ministering God's-
Word and ordinances." Thus, the Friends,
you acknowledge, have a ministry. Their-
" organization may be defective," but still
they have a ministry, and in your view, or
dinances also. How this allowance of or
dinances, destitute of external signs and
seals, accords with the doctrine of the
Presbyterian Confession of Faith on the
subject 6f sacraments, I will not now stbp
to inquire. Under your head of principles,,
you state a hypothetical case, which yoii
leave me to infer, therefore, is the illustra
tion of a prhiciple. "Conceive," you say,.
" for instance, of a community of Chris
tians cast upon a deseW shore : they have-
the Word of God, but ho minister; shall
they continue forever without the offices
of Christianity, ahd not rather appoint one
or more of their number who shall give
himself wholly to the work of rainistering
God's Word and ordinances ?"
To meet this imaginary case, let me sup
pose another. Suppose that in the ship
wreck which cast this unfortunate commu
nity upon a desert shore, they had lost
their last copy of the sacred Scriptures,
but had saved, or could procure materials
for writing ; would they not, for their own
satisfaction, and for the benefit of their
posterity, make a record of all they could
remember of the W^ord of God ? But would
it be the Word of God ? And would they
not, upon the first opportunity, cast aside
their imperfect manuscript, and, with joy
and gratitude, return to acbmplete and well-
authenticated copy of the holy book ? But
to reason from such extreme hypothetical
cases is always dangerous and unsatisfac
tory. We should be careful how we erect
an extreme case of exception to a general
rule into a principle. Your use of the one
just mentioned, however, under the head
of " principles," shows, that while you al
low a ministry to be essential to the visible
Church, you do not admit that it must of
necessity be " divinely appointed."

CORRESPONDENCE.

51

Now, my dear sir, although I did not
undertake to defend the Presbyterian doc
trine against Congregationalism, and, per
haps, should I succeed in doing so, may
receive no thanks for my pains, yet as this
course will serve my purpose as well as
any other, I shall endeavour to controvert
the views you have advanced in relation
to the ministry, by an appeal to the Pres
byterian Confession of Faith, and the
Larger Catechism.
What, then, is the question now in dis
pute between us ? 1 will state it again,
and as distinctly as I can, with a view to
a clear comprehension by those of our
readers who are not familiar with theo
logical subjects of this nature.
It is not whether Bishops in any sense,
that is, diocesan Bishops, having charge of
many congregations, or parochial Bishops,
having charge of but one, are essential to
the visible Church ; but it is whether a
ministry of divine appointment — that is, a
ministry receiving its commission from
other ministers possessing divine authority
to bestow the commission, in contradistinc
tion to a ministry holding its sole authority
through the appointment of the members
of a Christian congregation, is essential to
the visible Church.
On this question I will, with your per
mission, change places -w^th you, and take
the affirmative, that the former, and not
the latter, is a true ministry according to
the Word of God.
That the Church is a visible body, that is,
an association of men professing the true
rehgion and united together by some out
ward organization, we both agree. Now
what is essential to this organization?
The Confession of Faith, chapter xxv., sec
tion iii., replies, " Unto this catholic, vis
ible Church Christ hath given the minis
try, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the
gathering and perfecting of the saints, in
this life, to the end of the world ; and doth
by His own presence and Spirit, according
to His promise, make them effectual there
unto." Now Christ gave the " ministry"
just as He gave the " oracles" and " ordi
nances," and His presence and Spirit are
equally promised to all. It is styled the
" ministry of God," just as the Scriptures
are styled the " oracles of God." No man,
no body of men, however learned or pious,
could indite other oracles, or sanction other
ordinances, and, by parity of reason, they
could not appoint any other ministry. And
He has left the ministry in no painful doubt
as to its continuance ; for when He gave
it its grand commission He said, " Lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the
world." The ministry must be derived
from Christ, or it is no valid ministry at all.
As He hath conveyed His Word to us
through a long succession of ages, and pre
served it in periods of ignorance, confusion,

and darkness, so hath He conveyed to us
the ministry, and so preserved it ; and the
same line of proof and argument which
traces back the " oracles" and " ordinan
ces" to the Apostles' days, traces back the
" ministry," and proves that it is divinely
appointed. •
But here we touch upon the question of
succession, which, however, I mean to re
serve for future and fuller consideration.
The present argument is preliminary ; for
if you can set aside the necessity of a min
istry divinely appointed, in the sense that I
have attached to the words, the question of
succession is an idle one.
I next quote the Confession of Faith,
chapter xxVli., section 4. " There be only
two sacraments ordained by Christ our
Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, baptism
and the Supper of the Lord; neither of
which may be dispensed by any but by a
minister of the Word, lawfully ordained."
In support of the condition that this minis
ter must be lawfully ordained, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, chap, v., verse 4, is quoted :
" And no man taketh this honour unto him
self, but he that is called of God, as was
Aaron." Now, that the Confession of
Faith is right in thus considering the divine
call of Aaron as an external call, is mani
fest in that, according to Scripture, it was
not a simple spiritual preparation for the
sacred office, nor was it a designation by
the choice of the congregation of Israel ;,
but, having been selected by God, he was
visibly set apart and consecrated by divine
authority. And, moreover, the Confession
of Faith might greatly have strengthened
its position, had its compilers thought it
needful, by referring to the following verse :
" So also Christ glorified not himself to be
made a high-priest : but He that said unto
Him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I be
gotten thee." If the blessed Saviour, pre
pared as He was by the indwelling of all
the fulness of God's Spirit for His great
work of the ministry, did not enter upon it
without an external ordination, can we
doubt of its necessity to the complete or
ganization of His Church in all future time ?
But power greater even than that of ad
ministering the sacraments is conceded to
the ministry by the Confession of Faith,
chapter xxx., sections 1 and 2 : " The Lord
Jesus, as King and head of His Church,
hath therein appointed a government in the
hand of Church officers, distinct from the
civil magistrate. To these officers the keys
of the kingdom of heaven are committed,
by virtue whereof they have power re
spectively to retain and remit sins, to shut
that kingdom against the impenitent both
by the word and censures ; and to open it
unto penitent sinners by the ministry of the
Gospel, and by absolution from censure as
occasion shall require."
Here arepowei:s which no man certainly

52

CORRESPONDENCE.

would take unto himself, and which it
would be reckless contempt for the prerog
atives of God for any congregation of men
to pretend to confer. Nor is the Presby
terian Church guilty of such awful pre
sumption, for it is expressly acknowledged
that these powers are derived from the
Lord Jesus, and they are exercised in vir
tue of authority from Him, and not by any
delegated authority from the Church.
1 go forward now with the Larger Cate
chism. Question 63 is as follows : " What
are the special privileges of the visible
Church?" Answer. "The visible Church hath the
privilege of being under God's special care
and government; of being protected and
preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the
opposition of all enemies ; and of enjoying
the communion of saints, the ordinary
means of salvation, and offers of grace by
Christ to all members of it, in the ministry
OP the Gospel," &c. The visible Church
being thus under God's special care, and
being protected and preserved in all ages,
can we suppose that He would suffer the
" ministry," which He originally gave to it
through Christ, to be lost any more than
the " oracles and ordinances" which He
also gave? Again, the communion of
eaints, the ordinary means of salvation, and
offers of grace by Christ, are enjoyed in the
ministry of the Gospel. If these blessings
are to be enjoyed in the ministry of the
Gospel, this is the channel through which
they are conveyed ; and the channel must
be as permanent and continuous as the
stream which is to flow through it, and
therefore both channel and stream are of
divine appointment.
In the Jkirger Catechism, question 158 is
as follows : " By whom is the Word of God
to be preached ?" Answer. " The Word of
God is to be preached by such as are suffi
ciently gifted, and also duly approved and
called to that office." The inward gift
alone, then, is not sufficient, nor the appro
val of this gift by the Church, but there
must be a call to the office. Of what nature
is this call ? The text referred to answers
the question : " And no man taketh this
honour unto himself, but he that is called
of God, as was Aaron." Observe that this
same text was cited in the Confession of
Faith, in explanation of what lawful ordi
nation is. To be " duly approved and call
ed," then, is to be lawfully ordained, and
to be lawfully ordained is to be set apart
outwardly-by those possessing authority to
this end by divine appointment.
I might here proceed to make other ex
tracts from the standards of the Presbyte
rian Church, and sustain those I have made
by parallel passages from the standards of
her sister churches around us, and illus
trate the whole by unequivocal language
from the teachings of her ablest doctors ;

proving that the undoubted doctrine of this
Church is, that a ministry divinely appoint
ed by external ordination is essential to
the visible Church, and proving, moreover,
that this doctrine has the surest warrants
of Scripture and sound reason — but enough
has been said.
So much for the principles maintained
by your standards. As to the general in
consistency of your practice, as indicated
in the array of facts which you have drawn
up, that is your affair, and not mine. How
ever, if you will permit me, I will observe,
that I think instances are not wanting to
show that other communions interpret the
standards of your Church, and the, practice
of that section of it to which, I suppose,
you belong, in the sense I have expressed,
rather than in that which, incautiously, per
haps, for the purpose of this discussion, you
have asserted.
The Congregationalists do not seem to
think that you are one with them. In the
Congregational Catechism, bearing the im
print, New-Haven, A. H. Maltby, 1844, the
last question of the book is, " In what
important respect does the Presbyterian
Church agree with those just mentioned
(viz., the Protestant Episcopal and Metho
dist Episcopal Churches), contrary to the
primitive and Congregational system ?" An
swer. " In depriving the brotherhood of
each particular Church of the government
thereof, and vesting all ecclesiastical pow
er in the hands of Church officers." What
the Quakers and Baptists might have to say
to your catholic practice I will not under
take to determine. And whether in " mis
sionary" enterprise and the circulation of
God's Word you find yourselves in broth
erly unity with the Methodists, I need not
inform the public. But I will say that the
professions of your last letter, of cathohc
affection and practice, are strangely illus
trated by the charge brought against you by
60,000^ of your Presbyterian brethren, that
in Anno Domini 1837, you, by an act of
discipline, cut them off from your Church,
because they adhered to a," plan of union
between Presbyterians and Congregation
alists" for the work of the Gospel ; or rath
er because, as Church members, tliey were
embraced in a system which grew out of
this union.
Into the merits of this charge I do not
enter — for I do not make the charge — ^but
may it not be well for you to remember
that while you are bringing accusations
against me for " exclusiveness" and " un
charitableness," and are ringing all possi
ble changes upon the word " unchurch,"
60,000 of your laymen and 500 of your
clergy are hurling an accusation against
you? They employ the stronger word
" excommunicate." Does not this tend
to show that whatever may be your mercy
towards Quakers and others, this mercy

CORRESPONDENCE.

53

has not been extended to these your breth
ren ? You " excommunicated" them —
without citation, and without a trial — not
on the ground of apostacy from the essen
tial faith, but on the pretension that the
" plan of union of the Presbyterians and
Congregationalists" was unconstitutional,
irregular, and unnatural. You " excom
municated" them all. This, I believe, is
their charge against your Church.*
The facts and principles advanced in
your last letter, I think, have been shown
to be inconsistent with your standards.
But you will say no, and refer again to
book i., chapter!., of the Form of Govern
ment : " They also believe that there are
truths and forms with respect to which
men of good characters and principles dif
fer. And in all these they think it the duty
both of private Christians and societies to
exercise mutual forbearance towards each
other." Who can doubt the truth of this
position, or dissent from it? There are
many " truths" and many " forms," as to
which we differ, that I should think it a
waste of time to dispute about. But the
question is, whether among these " truths
and forms" the standards and doctors of
your Church mean to include the doctrine
in question between us, namely, that of a
divinely-commissioned ministry. If they
do not, your quotation does not hold good
for the purpose for which you cited it ; and
that they do not, I think I have sufficiently
shown. And surely you yourself do not
set so lightly by the ministry of the Word
as to regard the question between your
selves and the Friends, and the Congrega
tionalists, as only a question of form.
If you ,do, I am confident that the most
learned and eminent of your brethren will
not coincide with you. Did I regard the
discussion between us as involving only
matters of form, I would instantly drop my
pen, destroy what I have written, and retire
from the field, conceding to you the victo
ry. But it is very far from being, in my
view, a question of " form" or a dispute
about " externals." It involves a principle
of the deepest importance — a principle
which, in my view, has brought down to
me, from my blessed Saviour, th^t cove
nant of mercy in which I place my hope
of salvation, and which is forever to pro
tect this covenant and convey it to all the
lost and perishing sons of men — not relax
ing its watch and ward over it till the
Church militant on earth shall become the
Church triumphant in heaven. But even
if it were a matter of mere form, if God

* A Review of the leading Measures of the General As
sembly of 1837. By a Member of the New- York Bar- New-
York: John S. Taylor, 1838. The American Biblical Re
pository, vol. xii., page 219. State of the Presbyterian
Church, page 221. Whatever may be ultimately decided
to be the legal rights of the parties, (Ae CAurc* is in fact
divided.

has ordered and appointed it, how dare we
say that it is not indispensable ?
It raay seera to you ungracious in me to
adopt the line of argument to which this
letter has been devoted, but I plead as my
apology that I have been constrained to do
it in self-defence, for so far as the doctrine
goes, of the necessity for a divinely-ap
pointed ministry, deriving its authority
from Christ, by external ordination by oth
er ministers, I am a Presbyterian, in the
sense which I attach to your standards.
If you cannot come and stand with me on
this ground, and there with me try our
strength whether I must remain with you
or you be compelled to go onward with me,
I shall be forced to leave you in the lati-
tudinarian region of Congregationalism till
some other opponent from the Presbyteri
an ranks presents himself to break a lance
with you ; or, in other words, I shall con
sider this point as sufficiently established,
and in my future letters shall take it for
granted, without farther argument.
Now, in a few words, let me say, in con
clusion, that it may be distinctly marked,
that your own standards plainly and une
quivocally set forth,
I. That the ministry is given to the
Church by the selfsame authority which
gives to it the Holy Scriptures, namely,
Chrisfs authority. As Christ's authority
must be binding in one case as absolutely
as it is in the other, it follows, of course, '
that the Presbyterian Church holds a di
vinely-appointed ministry to be essential
to the being of a Church.
II. That this divine appointment is given
in an external commis.sion through ordina
tion by other ordained ministers.
Now it is for you to say how the or
daining ministers are invested with Christ's
authority to ordain. Observe, the ques
tion is not concerningthe internal call and
qualifications of the candidate for ordina
tion — but concerning the qualifications of
his ordainers to give him his outward call.
The question is not whether he hold the
faith of Christ, but whether his ordainers
have authority to give him the commission
of Christ ; so that the scriptural rule may
be obeyed which is referred to by your
selves as bearing upon external ordination
— " No man taketh this honour unto him
self but he that is called of God, as was
Aaron." Do you or do you not believe that you
can, consistently with your standards, with
the teachings of your accredited ministers,
and the most eminent living doctors of
your Church, affirm that a minister can be
lawfully commissioned otherwise than by
external ordination by other ministers, whet
have themselves been externally ordained t
I am. Rev. and dear Sir, your obedient
servant, Jona. M.' Wainwright.
Monday, Jan. 22d.

54

CORRESPONDENCE.

LETTER VII.

REV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT.
Rev. and Dear Sir: — Were I disposed, I
might easily show tliat, from the very com
mencement of this discussion, my oppo
nent has been busily employed in endeav
ouring to shift the ground of it, and to
make an issue altogether different from
that which presents itself to every unbi
ased mind as the true one. I will not
call the various movements which he has
made evasive, captious, or " ungracious,"
but will leave the reader to judge for him
self, after a review of them. At the New-
England Dinner, under very extraordinary
circumstances, you volunteer to maintain,
upon a " proper occasion," that " there can
be no Church without a Prelate," thus un
churching* the great mass of Protestant
Christendom. "The " proper occasion" is
offered to you by one who feels that his
character and usefulness are publicly as
sailed by the above proposition. Instead
of standing upon any question of mere
technicalities, and contesting the points
" who is the challenger,"! snd " who shall
commence the discussion," I ask from Dr.
W. such a definition of his terras as will
put the public in possession of his mean
ing, under his own hand and seal; but this,
under the cover of a technicality, is indig
nantly refused; The right to make this
demand, though so obviously just, is also
waived for the sake of reaching the merits
of the question. Again, I proceed to re
deem my pledge, and to show that the un
churching dogma, so offensively advanced,
is at war with the spirit and the letter of the
Word of God. My first argumentj is, that
" there is no warrant from Scripture for
making any particular external form of
polity a condition of that Christian fellow
ship and communion with God, which are
distinguishing duties and privileges of the
Church of Christ." I give some proofs of
this position (see the close of the fifth let
ter), and call upon Dr. W. to furnish, if he
can, evidence to the contrary. The only
reply made to the position is, not that it is
untrue, but that I cannot consistently as
sume it, because it is repugnant to the
standards of the body to which I belong,
which standards, with all the adroitness he
can employ, my opponent strives to show
are as exclusive and unchurching as his
own dogma. Thus again is an attempt
made to evade the real issue. Although
not bound lo make any reply to this, I con
sent to go out of my way to show that both
fact and theory demonstrate conclusively
that the Presbyterian Church, neitHer in
•* See note *, 2d col., page 11.
•1 And yet Dr. Potts first asks the question,
• " Who is the aggressor ?"
t This should read " first assertion."

its standards nor in its practice, gives the
least plausible ground for this argumentum
ad invidiam. To repeat what was said
upon this point would be to repeat the
whole letter. The sum of the argument
was briefly this : that while, in commotl
with the churches upon the Continent of
Europe, the Various families of the Pres
byterian Church in this country, the Con-
gregational Churches of New-England, the
Methodist and Baptist and other Churches
of Christ, we maintain the necessity of a
ministry, and an Apostolical ministry di
vinely derived from Christ in some way
through the Apostles, we do not maintain
that such a ministry, in order to authenti
cate its title, must of necessity be derived
through an unbroken succession of individ
uals. Believing that I had said enough upon
this point to satisfy any reasonable mind
that there is nothing inconsistent with the
principles of my own communion in the
argument which I submitted to you as long
ago as the IBih of January, I awaited your
answer. But what is that answer? Nei
ther more nop less than another evasion of
the real question. Instead of a manly
grappling vvith the true issue, your last
communication is entirely occupied in a
repetition of the process to which your
previous letter was devoted.
Now 1 ask, and many a reader has ask
ed, whether this does not seem like trifling
with the subject, and whether, also, it
does not evidence an unwillingness upon
your part to approach the real merits of
the question ? You are quite mistaken if
you have supposed that I am to be drawn
aside by an expedient so often adopted in
controversy, but one which, in' this case,
is so palpable that nobody can mistake its
design. It is enough to say that, upon a
proper occasion, I will hold myself ready
to prove that all the quotations made from
our standards (one of which in particular
is sadly misunderstood, besides being im
perfectly given) present not a single idea
that is inconsistent with the perfect cath
olicity which I claim for them. And far
ther, as respects the facts to which I have
appealed, I am fully prepared to prove how
entirely you have misapprehended and mis
stated the actual relations that subsist be
tween us and the various bodies of Chris
tians, and especially between the two
branches of the Presbyterian family, one
of which you represent as " excommuni
cating" the other. It is quite enough to
assure the reader that neither of these bod
ies so understands the matter, and that, at
the present moment, their amicable rela
tions illustrate the important truth that
there may be separation without schism, just
as the present distracted state of your own
denomination illustrates the opposite truth
I that there may be schism without separation.

CORRESPONDENCE.

55

All these points, I say, are capable of
"the most satisfactory adjustment, but this
is not the place for it. For, to what pur
pose, unless it be to entangle the question
¦ before us with irrelevant matters, weary
the patience of the reader, and avert the
dreaded issue, is all this hunting through
the Presbyterian formularies ? What even
if you can prove, with the clearness of
demonstration, that these formularies teach
doctrines in regard to the ministry and sac
raments, which are the same or akin to
those you teach ? What if you can con
vict me and all the Presbyterian body of
'the niost palpable inconsistency with the
principles of our own standards ? I beg
leave to ask whether this would refute, in
any wise, the truth of the position I have
taken in ray fifth letter. I have said al
ready that in this discussion I stand upon
the ground coraraon to all who acknowl
edge a ministry and ordinances. The ques-
¦tion as to which of the forms, of this min
istry is most accordant with Scripture
teaching, and best fitted to secure the puri
ty, efficiency, freedom, and happiness of
the Christian Church, is, in its place, an
interesting question, but, I repeat, it is not
the question before us. The question
which is before us is, whether any one
of the various forms of constituting the
Church of Christ is essential to the very
existence of that Church. To this ques
tion I again invite your attention, with the
hope that you will see that my consistency
or inconsistency has really nothing what
ever to do with its settlement. As to the
meaning of my own standards, I have no
¦doubt that our readers will at once appre-
.^ciate the justice of my claim to be consid
ered as sound an interpreter of thera as
you can possibly be ; besides .which, did I
need any farther argument to demonstrate
that they do not take the arrogant ground
of unchurching you or others who do not
.receive them, I find that argument in the
acknowledged, the notorious fact, that our
practice is just what I described it in my
last letter. It is universally known that
we do most cheerfully, and in the emphat
ic language of facts, acknowledge the min
istry and ordinances of other Christian
Churches. I ask whether our practice be
not the best exponent of our principles,
and whether that practice is not conclusive
that (to use the language of our standards)
" we embrace in the spirit of charity those
¦Christians who differ from us in opinion or
in practice" upon the subject of the pre
cise forms of Church order.
I might go through the whole series of
•your quotations, and show conclusively
that they teach no more than is believed
and admitted by all the denominations of ¦
Christians who believe at all in the propri-
?ety and necessity of the ministry and or-
"dinances of the Gospel. In this respect

the denominations I have named stand
upon common ground. They hold a niin-
istry, an Apostolical ministry, and a divine
ly-appointed ministry. But the fact of its
being Apostolical and divinely appointed
is not, as I have already shown, made to
depend upon the fact that it has come
down to them in a regular, unbroken series
of individuals, but upon the fact that it is
substantially conformed to Apostolic prac
tice, and that it is imbued with the .Apos
tolic spirit. The call to it consists, pri
marily, in the possession of a sincere de
sire to advance the cause of evangelic truth
and righteousness ; secondly, in the pos
session of the requisite intellectual gifts
and qualifications for this purpose ; and,
tliirdly, in the voice of the people, inviting
the individual to exercise those qualifica
tions in their behalf Ordination ig the
public recognition of such an indiviiial as
the possessor of such a call, and does not
invest him with any sacramental and mys
terious virtues which he did not before pos
sess. Every denomination, for the simple
purpose of securing order, and preventing
the intrusion among them of persons who
give no proof of possessing such a call as
the one just described, has made its own
arrangements, as it has an undoubted right
to do, provided its rules be in substantial
and designed conformity with what they
believe to be the principles and spirit of
the Gospel. This is, in their sense of the
words, lawful ordination, concerning which
you say so much. If the reader of these
letters Wishes to see the subject fully and
ably treated, I beg leave to recommend to
his perusal the work of the present incum
bent of the Archiepiscopal see of Dublin,
Dr. Whately, entitled " The Kingdom of
Christ." Enough now to repeat, that a succession
of individuals, beginning with the Apostles
and descending to the present times, does
not, of itself (as you affirm and as you are
bound to prove), make any set of function
aries an Apostolical or divinely-appointed
ministry, for reasons I gave in ray last,
and to which you have not replied. Let
us imagine the possibility that, at the pe
riod when the Reformation shook the
throne of the great spiritual despotism
which had so long and wickedly usurped
the holy name of the Catholic Church, not
one of the prelates or priests of that vast
incorporation of anti- Christian errors had
come out of its bosom. Instead of a num
ber of ordained priests, such as Luther, let
us suppose some noble-hearted layman
had first lighted the flame of reform, and
had gathered multitudes of Christians
around the reinstated Word of God, would
it not have t)een the right and duty of
those believers to organize themselves as
a Church of Jesus Christ, and to appoint
and invest ministers to discharge mipiste

56

CORRESPONDENCE.

rial duties for them 1 To deny this would
be to say that there is no remedy against
essential error. You may reply that this
is another extreme case, and that it should
not be considered as establishing a rule ;
but it certainly establishes a principle, and
that principle is the very one in debate,
viz., that there may be, without a suc
cession of individuals, a true, evangelic,
divinely-appointed, and lawfully-ordained
ministry of the Gospel. But I must refer
the reader again to my last letter, as con
taining my views upon this point more at
large, reserving further and even more im
pressive considerations for the linve when,
abandoning all hope of farther evading the
real issue, you shall have given your an-,
swer to my first Scriptural argument.
Let rae, then, state the true issue, once
more. You have asserted, not merely
that a ministry, and a divinely-appointed
ministry, is, essential to the Church, but
that it must be a prelatical ministry; so
that without Prelacy there is no Church,
and, of course (as I have shown, and as
your writers affirm), no covenanted spirit
ual mercies and no warranted hope of
heaven. On the contrary, I have denied
that any one particular way of selecting
and designating the persons who are to
fill the office is essential to the existence
of the Church. This is ray first answer to
the unchurching dogma. I pray you, then,
come to this point, without any fartiier at
tempt to show that you understand Pres
byterianism better than I do myself. Come
to it boldly, and prove, if you can, that it
comports with the spirituality of the Gos
pel to exalt, as you do, a matter of exter
nal order into an essential. Come to it,
and explain why, if Prelacy be a vital ele
ment in the Church of God, there has not
been a uniformly divine and practical tes-
tiraony given to it exclusively, so that
none should be left in doubt that the bless
ing of God rested upon your ministrations
only. Corae to the point, and show (for
you are bound to do so) that Prelacy has
invariably proved itself to be the only chan
nel of spiritual benefits to mankind ; that
it alone has preserved the truth, and
preached the truth, and exeraplified the
truth in the lives of its adherents ; that it
has promoted the peace, and unity, and
purity of Christendom, so infinitely be
yond any other system from which it has
been discarded, as to demonstrate not only
that it is right, but essential. In a word,
come to the point, and prove that, like
Gideon's fleece, the dews of the grace of
Heaven have fallen only upon prelatical
Rome, prelatical Austria, prelatical Rus
sia, prelatical England and America, while
the rest of Christendom is perishing in
drought. Prove these things, and your claims are
established. We will then no longer ques

tion the modesty of your monopoly of tfie^
name and rights of the Christian Church.
Ypu may then call your comparatively-
contracted denomination The Church, and
yourself, par excellence. Churchmen. Nay,
a prelate may propose (as I undersfand
one has actually done) to drop the words:
" Protestant Episcopal" from your style and
title, and you may publish a list of your
prelates in the " Dioceses of the Church;
or the United States."* In a word, prove-
that " there cannot be a Church without a
Prelate," and I pledge myself that we will'
one and all bring what one of your num.'
ber has called our forged commissions, ahd
lay them at your feet.
But until then be assured that your claims-
will be none the raore readily conceded
because they are loudly asserted ; on the-
contrary, every open assault, like that
which originated this discussion, will be-
met with promptness, and repelled. If'
your hands are found to be against every
man, do not wonder that every man's hand'^
will be against you. Self-respect and the-
desire to maintain an unimpeached char
acter as the basis of our usefulness, enjoin;
the duty of self-defence.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
George Potts.

LETTER VIII.
REV. DR. wainwright TO REV. DR. POTTS.-
Rev. and Dear Sir: — I am constrained
to call the attention of our readers partic
ularly to the conclusion of my last letter,.
which is as follows : " Do you or do you-
not believe that you can, consistently with'
your standards, with the teachings of your
accredited writers, and the most eminent
living doctors of your Church, affirm that
a minister can be lawfully commissioned'
otherwise than by external ordination by-
other ministers, who have themselves been ex
ternally' ordained ?"
I had little expectation that you would'
answer the foregoing interrogatory, for I
knew, and, doubtless, our readers perceiv
ed, that any answer true to its point would
involve you in serious difficulty. Should
you answer in the negative, you must-
abandon the principles of your own-
Church. Should you answer in the affirm
ative, you must abandon your own prop
osition, viz., "that there is no warrant
from Scripture for making any particular
external form of polity a condition of that
Christian fellowship and communion with.
God which are the distinguishing duties.
and privileges of the Church of Christ."
You therefore did not find it expedient

* See the Church Almanac for 1844, published by ths
Episcopal Tract Society. President, Bight Key. B. T. On-
derdonk.

CORRESPONDENCE.

57

to answer the question, but, instead of do
ing so, ran off into various disquisitions,
interspersed with your accustomed vague
charges against me — denunciations of my
Church, historical sketches of the rise and
progress of the present controversy, as
sertions about unduly exalting forms, &c.
The public, I trust, will not be misled.
They have seen the force of the argument
from your standards. They have seen the
point of my interrogatory, and its direct
bearing as an argumentum ad hominem upon
your proposition. They know why you
did not answer it, and they will judge be
tween us whether your most adventurous
assertion, that I had in my last letter en
deavoured to evade your argument, is well
founded or npt.
When you volunteered in this contro
versy, you took your ground against me
as being an Episcopalian. I, on the other
hand, accepted your challenge as from a
Presbyterian. I had a right to suppose,
therefore, that we should each be true to
our own standards, and carry on our con
troversy under their sacred and binding
authority. I had pledged conformity to
mine, in the same spirit as, I do not doubt,
you did to yours when you gave an affirm
ative reply to the question, " Do you sin
cerely receive and adopt the confession
of faith of this Church, as containing the
system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scrip
tures ?" — Form of Gov. of the Pres. Church,
chap. XV., sec. xii.
When, therefore, in your fifth letter, you
advanced your first argument in support
of the affirmative proposition, I met it fair
ly and directly. My course of argument
was this — (the public, I trust, will under
stand it and feel its weight, if you do not)
— I showed that the Presbyterian Church
did " make a particular external form of
polity a condition of that Christian fellow
ship," &c. I quoted the standards of that
Church — I sustained their doctrine by ref
erences to Scripture and by comment. I
adopted this doctrine, as far as it goes, and
assumed it as my own. To all this you
offer not a single refutation, nor anything
that, in my apprehension, approaches to
one. You say " that upon a proper occasion
you will hold yourself ready to prove," &c.
You say what you could do, what you might
do, and what on some future occasion per
haps you will do, to show that " Presbyte
rian formularies teach no more than is be
lieved and admitted by all the denomina
tions of Christians who believe at all in the
propriety and necessity of the ministry and
ordinances of the Gospel." But you have
not done this, or attempted to do it, and
permit me to add, with all due respect, my
firm conviction is, that you cannot do it.
Your standards, at any rate, do teach raore
upon the subject of the ministry than is held
H

by Friends, Congregationalists, or Baptists r
&nd although you more than once suggest
to our readers that you must be a better
judge of the meaning of your formularies
than I am (and although this raay have a
certain effect with persons for whom I do
not write), I am confident that the intelli
gent and candid of your own communion
will say that when I appeal from you to
your own accredited doctors in regard to
the meaning of your standards, the appeal
deserves to be tried.
Now here I must solicit your special
attention and the reader's patience ; for the
question presenting itself is of the utmost
importance. It lies at the foundation of
all this controversy. If the principle I
contend for is not sustained by the most
cogent and satisfactory arguments, I need
go no farther. If a divinely-appointed
Apostolical ministry — I mean, too, in the
sense of the Episcopal and Presbyterian
standards, and I affirm that on this point
they agree— is not essential to the Church„
then Prelates are not essential ; then the
question of Apostolical succession is as
unimportant as can well be imagined.
Therefore it is that I press this point home-
upon you, and demand a categorical an
swer to the question which concluded my
last letter, and which I repeat in this. If
you can answer in the affirmative, and sus
tain your affirmation ; or, in other words,
if you can support your first argument,
that "there is no warrant from Scripture
for making any particular external form
of polity a condition," &c., then you knock
down your own ecclesiastical mansion.
about your ears, and with the same blow
you demolish the Divine right of Episco
pacy. But you have not done this, and I
repeat ray firm belief that you cannot do it.
Now we must have a clear understand
ing upon this point, and the public must
have a clear understanding upon it. And
it is for want of this clear understanding
that the progress of our argument has beerr
retarded. -4nd as you intimate that the
delay has been owing to me, I am com
pelled to retort upon you, and affirm that
this unsatisfactory slow dragging of the-
arguraent is wholly chargeable upon you-
Answer affirmatively or negatively to the
question of my last letter, repeated iit
this. If affirmatively, then you are a Con
gregationalist, and I leave you in the hands
of the Presbyterians, to battle with them
the question of a divinely-appointed minis
try. If negatively, then your first argu
ment is demolished, and you must build
up another.
But you may say — you do say— that yott
" hold to a ministry, an Apostolical minis
try, a divinely-appointed ministry." Hovr
do you hold to this position 1 That is the
question. You say, because " it depends
upon the fact that it is substantially con-

58

CORRESPONDENCE.

formed to Apostolical, practice, and tljat
it is imbued with the Apostolical spirit."
And you go on : " The call to it consists
primarily in the possession of a sincere
desire to advance the cause of evangelic
truth and righteousness ; secondly, in the
possession of the requisite intellectual gifts
and quali|ications for this purpose ; and,
thirdly, in the voice of the people inviting
the individual to exercise those qualifica
tions in their behalf. Ordination is the
public recognition of such an individual as
the possessor of such a call, and does not
invest him with any sacramental and mys
terious virtues which he did not before
possess." Is it possible that in your esti-
miation this is the whole force, intention,
aad efficacy of ordination ? The Presby
terian standards say that it is a calling of
God, as Aaron was called of God. No, says
Dr. Potts, it is simply " a public recogni
tion." A newspaper paragraph duly sign
ed by the proper person would be " a pub
lic recognition." Would this be an ordi
nation? A handbill at the corner of the
streets is in like manner " a public recog
nition." In what heresy that ever cursed
the earth have not the leaders been fa^vour-
ed with " a public recognition" by their ad
herents I And is this equivalent to ordi-'
nation, to the " laying on of the hands of
the Presbytery?"
1 affirm, and you cannot deny, that the
Presbyterian standards teach that neither
¦"the inward call," " nor intellectual gifts
and qualifications" (this is the Quaker doc
trine), nor " the voice of the people inviting
to exercise their qualifications in their be-
ialf "" (this is the Congregational doctrine),
constitute a Gospel minister ; and that or
dination is not merely " the public recog
nition of such an individual as the posses
sor of such a call" (this is the whole import
•of Congregational ordination), but that or
dination does invest the individual with an
authority which he did not before possess,
and which he could possess solely and ex
clusively by the laying on of the hands of
other ministers, who have theraselves been
externally ordained. (And this is the Pres
byterian doctrine.)
Th^t this is the Presbyterian doctrine I
will not attempt to strengthen the proof by
¦quoting raore l^gely from your standards
than I have done in my last letter, lest I
should fatigue our readers ; but I will refer
to what may be of some interest to them,
and what will greatly fortify my position.
I wiir refer to the doings of the General
Assembly held in June last.
This very point now between us then
¦came up, and was fully discussed, on the
¦question of the rights of ruling elders to
impose hands at ordination. On one side
it was argued that they had the right, on
the ground that " they were members of
¦*he Presbytery, and ordinatioji was to be

by the laying on of the hands of the Pres
bytery." On the other side it was con
tended that they had no such authority,
inasmuch as "ministerial acts could be
performed only by ministers." ""Ministers
were the representatives of the head of the
Church, the elders the representatives of
the body." "The ministers a,re Christ's
representatives, the elders the Church's.
We have here, then, the two elements of
office — election by the people through their
representatives the elders, and ordination
by Christ through his representatives or
ministers." " And what power does the
Church give him (i. e., the ruling elder) ?
Not the power of ordination, for tlie Church
herself, aside from the ministry, does not
possess that power. Independents some-
tiraes ordaiij without preaching elders, but
that is not Presbyterianism. And here is
the very point in question. The Church
has power to deliberate, advise, and decide,
but not to impose hands. This significant
act of very ancient origin. is ai\ emblem of
the transfer of ministerial power. But the
Church is not the depository of this power,
and, therefore, she cannot delegate it to her
representative." These were some of the
arguments used, and sound arguments they
were, and they prevailed, and they were
sustained by your General Assembly, by
the following overwhelming vote :
Yeas . . . 134 1 Excused . . .2
Nays . . .81 Absent . . .15
Total .... im^*
Whether Dr. Potts was a member of
this Assembly, or whether he was among
the yeas, nays, excused, or absent, I am
not informed, nor is it material to know.
Such was the decision of his Church, and
the decision was in conformity with its
standards, and its standards and this de
cision recognise a principle which I believe
to be scriptural, and, therefore, accord with
it, and I advance it as containing my neg
ative, and the reasons for my negative, to
his first argument, " there is no warrant
from the Word of God for making any par
ticular external form of polity a condi
tion," &c. And I subrait to the public
whether I have not (by the aid of his own
standards, I acknowledge) overthrown his
argument. If not, let him show upon what
foundation it yet rests. If upon any that
is valid and firm, then, as I have before
said, there is no need of any farther dis
cussion ; for if an Apostolical, divinely-ap
pointed ministry, in the sense I have con
tended for, is not essential to the Church,
Presbyterian ordination is not essential,
and, a fortiori. Episcopal ordination is not
essential, and to argue for Apostolical suc
cession would be worse than vain.
In view of the above argument, let the
public decide who has embarrassed this
discussion by confused views, contradic-

• New- York Observe, June 3, 1843.

CORRESPONDENCE.

59

tory statements, inconclusive arguments,
and declamation having no real bearing
upon the question at issue. Do not take
this remark, I pray you, in an offensive
light. I should deprecate offering it in
this light. I present it in self-defence — to
shield myself from the accusation which
you have repeatedly made, and vvhich you
seem anxious to impress upon the public,
that 1 ara trying " to avert the dreaded is
sue." Now, sir, in concluding this part of ray
letter, let me sum up and ask the public to
judge between us.
Your first argument, in proof that my as
sertion concerning Episcopacy is unscrip
tural, is contained in the foUovVing allega
tion : " There is no warrant from Scripture
for making any particular external form
of polity a condition," &c. ; which allega
tion, if it be at all to the point, is the same
as alleging that there is no warrant from
Scripture for making any particular form
of polity essential to the being of a Church.
I maintain that I met it directly and
fairly. You, indeed, with admirable ap
preciation of our logical relations to each
other, desired rae to disprove your allega
tion. Of course, I preferred that you
should prove it first. It was enough for
me to deny it. I deny it still. Will you
prove it ? Or, will you answer the ques
tion I have propounded in relation to or
dination? You have manifested great sensitiveness
throughout our correspondence in regard
to what you call the arrogance of Episco
palians, and I have been particularly sur
prised at the concluding paragraph of your
last letter. You speak of " open assault,
like that which originated this discussion"
^I deny again that any assault of mine did
originate this discussion, and deny it in the
sense I have sufficiently explained), of
" our hands being against every raan," and,
therefore, in the spirit of Christian retalia
tion, " your hands are to be against us," of
-" self-respect," and an " unimpeached char
acter" to be maintained. Those words
iraply grave charges. Who has assaulted
you ? Who has irapeached your charac
ter ? Who has wounded your self-respect ?
Who has denied that you are a Presbyte
rian rainister, the popular pastor of a highly
respectable jjongregation ? Who has de
nied your right to administer the affairs of
your own congregation, and your own
Church, in your own way ? Who has in
terfered, or wishes to interfere, with your
liberty in Christ to worship, in your own
way, to preach the doctrines you believe
to be true, to administer the sacraments
you believe to be Christ's sacraments ?
. And because we choose to assert and main
tain our liberty in Christ in these matters,
and to read and interpret God's Word ac
cording to the best light we have, and in

view of our solemn responsibilities to bi
judged at the last day for the use we hav(
made of this Word, common to us all, an
we to be accused of arrogance and unchar
itableness, and to have all other offensive
epithets heaped upon us? Permit me tc
say that all this excitement on your par
is uncalled for. I maintain a certain doc
trine, because I believe it to be taught ii
God's Word. If you can convince me, as
you have undertaken to do, that it is no
there taught, I will at once relinquish it
But if I maintain it without interfering, oi
wishing to interfere, with your civil, social
or religious rights, and without indulging
the language of denunciation (and if yoi
will point out to me any such language
that I have used, on any occasion whatsoever
I will recall it and apologize for it), yoi
have no cause to feel yourself aggrieved.
I have now to say a few words on youi
oft-repeated charge about " exclusiveness,'
" u,nchurching," &c.
I have hitherto been contented witl
showing, from your standards, that how
ever just in itself this charge might be, 1
cannot, with propriety, be preferre4 by an)
Presbyterian minister who adheres to hii
own scheme of doctrine. I now, however
go farther, and solemnly deny the charge
I am not "exclusive." I "unchurch" nc
man in the sense which you attach to these
terms. I consign no fellow-creature t(
those " uncovenanted mercies" which, ac
cording to your views of Christian truth
you very properly say are " no mercies a
all." Herein consists your mistake, and :
ask our readers to look at it closely.
The maxim " Nulla Ecclesia sine Epis
copo" is an ancient maxim of the Churcl
Catholic, and it is to be interpreted am
understood according to the great princi
pies whereby the Church represents upor
the earth the Universal Father's mercj
towards all his guilty and suffering chil
dren. But you have withdrawn it from its
home and its true interpreter, and have
read it to the world and commented on it
not by the aid of catholic charity and truth
but in the light of the narrow system oi
Geneva. Your views of the " Church,'
and of the " covenant," and of God's mercj
to the human race, raay be gathered froir
the following dogmas :
Confession of Faitji, Chap. XXV. — The Catholic or Uni
versal Church, which is invisible, consists of the wholt
number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gath'
ered into one under Christ, the head thereof, and is the
spouse, the body, the fulness of him that fiUeth all in all.
Confession of Faith, Chap, in., Sec. HI. — By the decree
of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men anc
angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and othen
are foreordained to everlasting death.
IV- These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore
ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, anc
their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be
either increased or diminished.
V. Those of maukind that are predestinated unto life
God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according
to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret coun
sel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ
unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace andlove

60

CORRESPONDENCE.

without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseve
rance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature,
IS conditions, or causes moving him, thereunto, and all to
:he praise of his glorious grace. ^
VI. As God has appointed, the, elect unto glory, so hath
tie, by the eternal and most free purposes of his will, fore-
Drdained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are
;lected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are
effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working
in due season : are justified, adopted, sanctified, ^nd kept
by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any
3therredeemed by Christ, elTectuallycalled, justified, adopt
ed, sanctified, and saved, but the elept only.
-VlI. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to
;he unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he ex-
lendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of
^is sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to
erdain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of his glorious justice.
Confession of Faith, Chap. X.
Section I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto
life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed ^nd ac
cepted time,~elB3ctual]y to call, by his Word and Spirit, out
jf that state of sin and' death, in which they are by nature,
;o grace and salvation by Jesus Christ, enlightening their
ninds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of
God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto
;hem a heart of flesh ; renewing their wills, and by his
llmighty power determining them to that which is good ;
md effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they
X)me most freely, being made willing by his grace.
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace
ilone, not from anything at all foreseeninman, who is alto-
fether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed
jy the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this
:all,' and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
Ill- Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and
laved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and
vhere, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect
persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the
ninistry of the Word.
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be caUed by
;he ministry of the Word, and may have some common op-
irations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ,
ind therefore cannot be saved ; much less can men, not pro-
'essing the Christian religion, be saved in any {ither way
vhatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives
lccordi:&g to the light of Nature, and the law nf that reli
gion they do profess ; and to assert and maiatain,that they
nay is very pernicious, and to be detested.
In the light of such a system as this it is
;hat you have undertaken to interpret my
naxim, and have lifted your hands in hor
ror at its iraport when thus interpreted.
You of course limit the " Church," and
;he " covenant," and the possibility of salva-
'ion, to the " elect," that is, to that specific
number of adults and infants whom God, ac-
•.ording to his eternal purpose, hath predesti-
tated unto life and hath chosen in Christ,
ttithout any foresight of faith or good works,
ir anything in the creature as conditions or
•.auses moving him thereuhto. Consequently,
(rou regard my dogma as with awful pre-
mmption laying its hand upon the Divine
iecrees, defining their course, designating
;heir subjects among the children of men,
md impiously determining that every com-
nunity without a Bishop at its head is not
)f the " elect," but consists'only of vessels
)f wrath, fitted for destruction.
But no, sir, this maxim " no Church with
out a Bishop," is not yours— -you cannot in-
;erpret it. Its birthplace is not Geneva —
its home is not there. It belongs to the
system of free grace and of salvation with
in the reach of all. It abides in the great
temple of Him who died for all — the gates
of which are open continually and open to
every man — to which no man is admitted,
and from which no man is excluded, by

any unconditional decree of the Almighty,
And as the parent, obeying his Saviour's
invitation, is carrying his little children to
baptism, lie is not tortured by doubt and
fear, lest, after all, his offspring not being
of the number of " elect infants," the ordi
nance may be in vain, and his affectionate
care for their Christian nurture, and his
watchings, and prayers, and tears be re
turned to his desolate and despairing heart
by a resistless and unconditional decree,
recorded in the clouds and darkness above
him. He knows, and is sure, that in the
laver of regeneration his little ones are
made " members of Christ, children of God,
and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven."
And he knows, also, that their attainment
of the full maturity of the Christian life, or
their failure to attain it, depends, through
the grace of God, not in appearance merely f
but really and truly, upon the manner in
which he and they sustain their responsi
bility as free moral agents.
A membership of the visible Church is
ordinarily necessary to salvation. In a
Christian land, however, men are not ordi
narily out of the Church but through their
own fault ; and for this they are of course
responsible in proportion to the wilfulness
of the fault. If in Christian, as is the case
in heathen lands, many should be out of the
Church not through any fault of their own,
we know of no authority given to man ta
pronounce their condemnation. We d»
not believe that the fact of their being out •
of the Church is a sign that God has by a
secret decree " passed thera by," or, which
is the same thing, appointed them unto
perdition. We commend them in faith and
hope to the mercies, in our view the all-
embracing mercies of our heavenly Father.
Were it true, then, that we " unchurch"
all who do not acknowledge and receive
the organization of the Church as we be
lieve we have received it from Christ, we
should regard those only as in a state of
conderanation who reject the truth of
Christ wilfully, through evil dispositions
— i. e., knowing, or having the opportunity
of knowing it to be the truth of Christ, and
rejecting it as such. While unchurching
others not thus wilfully rejecting the truth,
we should not condemn — not believing the
being out of the Church to be a necessary
sign of perdition, as it is in the system of
Geneva. We do not "unchurch" men,
however, quite so recklessly as my oppo
nent seems to imagine. We " unchurch"
no man — we banish no man from our com
munion who has been lawfully baptized,
and holds the essential faith ; who leads a
godly and a Christian life, and who is not
wilfully and knowingly a schismatic. j
It is true that we believe in one only vis
ible Church of Christ. We believe that it
is unchangeably constituted and organized
by Christ himself We believe that it will

CORRESPONDENCE.

61

continue one to the end of the world. And
we do not believe th-dt the various commu
nities around us, which have sprung up at
different times within the last three hun
dred years, and which continue to spring
up every year, calling themselves Church
es, are so in fact. They are without
Christ's organization and ministry. Their
organization and ministry are recent — of
yesterday. Whereas Christ organized his
Church eighteen hundred years ago. But
while we thus deny to these communities
in the aggregate the name and character of
Churches, and while we regard them as in
« state of schism, we yet believe, so far as
the individuals belonging to those commu
nities are concerned, that the guilt of schism
depends upon the circumstances of each
particular case. And we do not decide
that those individual members may not, by
virtue of their baptism and their Christian
faith and virtue, be still connected, though
in imperfect communion, with the Church
of Christ.
Though in their corporate capacity we
refuse to acknowledge them as Churches,
and we deem them not lawfully organized,
in respect to individuals, we do not refuse
to commune with thera as raerabers of the
Church. Were your temple of worship to
be suddenly destroyed by fire on some com
munion day, yourself and your whole body
of comraunicants would be received, I. ven
ture tb say, with the utraost Christian hospi
tality, in any Episcopal Church in this city,
or in the land, and would be welcejmed to
partake with us of the Holy Comraunion.
Cease, then, I pray you, attempting to
bring this undeserved odium upon a whole
denomination of your fellow-Christians,
and bear with the only rebuke I will utter
for the atterapt — " Who art thou that judg
es! another man's servant? To his own
master he standeth or falleth."
Now, from what has been said in this
latter part of my letter, it appears,
I. That we are not " exclusive" in your
sense of the word, or in the sense in which
your scheme of doctrine makes the Church
exclusive. II. That to " unchurch" men is not, ne
cessarily, as it is according to your system,
to consign them to perdition.
III. That while we deny to the recent
ly-organized coraraunities around us, in
the aggregate, the name and character of
Churches, we do not deny that the Chris
tian baptism and faith of the individuals em
braced in these communities may connect
them, though in imperfect communion, with
the one visible Church of Christ.
IV. That all your various charges of
" exclusiveness," " uncharitableness," " un
churching," &c., are unfounded and unjust,
and that you have been led into this injus
tice by your attempt to interpret a maxim
of the Church Catholic, eighteen hundred

years old, in the light of the system which
was fabricated at Geneva three hundred
years ago.
I have the honour to be. Rev. and dear
Sir, your obedient servant,
Jona. M. Wainwright.
30th January, 1844.

LETTER VIII.
REV. DR. POTTS TO REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT.
Rev. and Dear Sir : — Our readers, no
doubt, have shared with me in my disap
pointment at not finding some reference to
Calvin and Servetus in your last letter, es
pecially as you trod so closely upon this
favourite topic, and as it has quite as pow
erful a bearing upon the point of exclusive
High Churchism, as the topic of predes
tination and election. There are some
kinds of argumentation which are quite be
yond the reach of a serious reply ; they
move the gravest people to indulge in a lit
tle harmless mirth. When we consider
how admirably inconsequent they are, we
find it much more difficult to keep our
countenances than to keep our terapers.
Of this sort is your argument in favour of
High Church exclusiveness, drawn from
the obnoxious doctrines of predestination.
There are several other topics, equally per
tinent, which I beg leave to suggest for fu
ture use, that may serve to amuse, if not
to convince. When drawn up in syllogis
tic form, they are very striking. One I
have just mentioned : Calvin burned Serve
tus — therefore, no Presbyterian can say a
word against High Church monopoly. Or
this : the Nonconformists in England were
Roundheads, who sang psalms through
their noses — therefore, no Presbyterian can
say a word against being unchurched. Or
this .- the Puritans of New-England always
burned witches, always persecuted the
Quakers, made blue laws, declared that
the whole earth belonged to the saints, &c.,
&c., &c. — therefore, no Presbyterian can
call in question the charity, modesty, and
justice of the unchurching dogma.
But even should you take occasion to re
sort to these or similar specimens of logic,
they will not draw me aside from the point
in hand. " A tirae for everything." They
are just as germane to the true issue as the
question of Millerism or Mesmerism, upon
both of which points, perhaps, your oppo
nent may be, for all you know, a fanatic.
Were I a believer even in the theory of
Lord Monboddo, according to which man
kind were originally provided with tliose
caudal appendages vulgarly called tails,
that would hardly be a pertinent reply to
certain arguments I might adduce to prove
that Prelacy is not the indispensable con
necting link between the grace of God and
the life of the Church. I may believe, with

CORRESPONDENCE.

the great apostle, that for reasons inscru
table to us, the wise, good, and just God
may and actually does " make men to differ,"
but surely this does not imply that either
myself or you should, of our own motion,
be allowed to play the sovereign among
Christian Churches, and elect sorae and
shut out others, upon such futile grounds
as that they do not agree with us in our
respective notions as to Church order.
This is the claim I am resisting, and which
I would resist as firmly, were it advanced
by a Presbyterian or Congregationalist, as
I now do, when it is advanced by a Pre-
latist. It is not Prelacy, but exclusive Prel
acy, monopolizing Prelacy, that we are now
concerned with.
When we have settled this point, I will
be ready to meet you, and to vindicate ra
tional views upon any of the doctrinal
points which are to be found in our stand
ards, and this among them. I will be glad
of an opportunity of showing that we hold
edl infants to be elect, and, therefore, saved
by the grace of Christ, in which respect
we differ from you, who make baptism in
dispensable to their regeneration, and thus
to their salvation. And in reference to all
mankind, I wiU undertake to show that
neither the quotations you have made from
the Westminster Confession, nor the 17th
article of your own Church, nor the well-
known views of the English Reformers,
nor ftie equally well-known views of many
of your ablest prelates of past and present
times, militate in any degree against a free
Gospel and a large charity. All this I
pledge myself to do, if you will hereafter
consent to meet me. In the mean time, I
will dismiss the subject, by delicately hint
ing that the next time you may wish to
deal a blow at an opponent, you would do
well to select a weapon which in some of
its flourishings will not cut off the heads
3f many of your own brethren, and strike
lown one ofthe articles of your own creed.
That I am not making a mere insinuation,
lestitute of'any basis, I refer the reader to
ihe 17th article of your creed, which I give
in a note.*

¦" Art. XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God,
vhereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he
lath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to de-
iver from curse and damnation those whom he hath cliosen
n Christ out of mankind, and to bring them, by (Christ, to
iverlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Where-
bre they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of
TOd, he called according to God's purpose by bis Spirit
vorking in due season ; they through grace obey the call-
ng ; they be justified freely ; they be made sons of God by
idoption ; ' they be made like the image of his only-begot-
en Son Jesus Christ ; they walk religiously in good works ;
Lnd at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting
-elicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our
slectionin Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeak-
ible comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in them-
lelves'the v/orkings of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the
vorks of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing
ip their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because
t doth greatly establishand confirm their faith of eternal

The argument in your last, so far as it
touches the point at all, is but a repetition
of the former strain. To use a homely
comparison, in using which I mean no of
fence, you find yourself in the condition
of the animal in the fable, which had lost
his brush, and would fain persuade others
to put themselves in the same condition.
Nay, you insist upon it that I ara actually
in the sarae condition with yourself on the
question of unchurching. But fact contra
dicts this. When you can point to an in
stance in which your opponents have re
baptized or reordained any one coming
from other Christian denominations, I give
you leave to hold up my bigotry and in
constancy to scorn. When you can show
that one of your number has partaken of
the symbols of communion at the hands
of Christian ministers who do not admit
the absolute necessity of Prelacy — when
you can produce an instance among us,
similar to one among you, in which a modr
est High Churchman (speaking of a min
ister his equal, ay, his superior in every
quality that constitutes moral and intel
lectual dignity), said of him, " He has no
more right to preach the Gospel than that
dog" — when you can find among us an in
dividual who has gone so far as to call in
question your right even to celebrate mar
riage — when you can show that we have
called ourselves, with offensive presump
tion. The Church, and have even gone to
the Legislature of the State, as you have
done, 4,0 ask for the incorporation of a
society under this exclusive title, " The
Church Mariners' Society" — when you can
show, from the pages of any author recog
nised among us, such claims for their own
precise order as I can show upon the pages
of Dodwell and Palmer, and Hook and Ho
bart, and a host of others, who go far to
make Prelacy or perdition the alternative —
then I will admit that High Church preten
sions do not assail the character and use
fulness of those who differ from you.
You deny that you have thus assailed
their character and usefulness. I consider
my character assailed when I am met on
all hands with the insulting assertion which
virtually amounts to this — " Sir, you are a
sham minister ; yours is a sham Church ;
yours are forged credentials ; you have no
right to preach the Gospel." It is no fault
of High Church pretension if you cannot
persuade the world to believe these things.

salvation, to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth
fervently kindle their love towards God : so, for curious and
carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have con
tinually before their eyes the sentence of Godjs predesti
nation, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil
doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchless-
ness of most unclean hving, no less perilous than despera
tion. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such
wise as they be generally set forth to usin holy Scripture.
And in our doings, that will, of God is to be followed which.
we have espressly declared unto us in the Word of God.'

CORRESPONDENCE.

6S

But should you succeed in persuading
them, I ask whether our usefulness to so
ciety would not at once be destroyed.
This is what I mean when I say that self
respect, and self defence, and the good of
the world, all demand a resistance of the
assertion that there can be no Church without
a Prelate. I have shown the legitiraate con
sequences of this position ; I have shown
the sense in -which it is understood by the
world, and by your own writers. If you
now start back from these consequences,
it is because they are odious to others, and,
therefore, injurious to yourselves, and not
because they are not logically derived from
your position.^ You say you do not give
over all other denominations to uncove
nanted mercies. Are the covenant mer
cies of God, then, equally shared by those
who are in and those who are out of the
Church ? If you admit this, you do indeed
give up the point, and take back your un
churching dogma, and the debate may
cease. Again, you say you would wel
come to your communion rayself and the
communicants of our Church, if driven
frora what you call our " temple of wor
ship" by fire. Y^s, doubtless, but it would
be only because, by accepting your prof
fered hospitality, we should be virtually
admitting that we were Prelatists for the
occasion. How we could go to partake
of a hospitality so invidious, and so hedg
ed round with provisoes and conditions, as,
for instance, that we must be first " law
fully baptized," and not " wilfully and know
ingly schismatics" is another question.
Hospitality is not worthy of the name
which is not reciprocated. Let me put the
question : Would you come to us, and sit
down with us at the table of our common
Lord, should your " temple of worship" be
consumed by fire ? Unless you can answer
this question in the affirmative, I hand you
back your modicum of charity and hospi
tality, until it is so far increased as to make
an acceptance of it compatible with a de
cent self-respect. Again, you pronounce
the Churches of the Reformation to be no
Churches, and yet say you do not unchurch
those who belong to thera. Let who can
reconcile this unchurching of aggregates
with a churching of the individuals who
compose the aggregates. No, sir; with
all your distinctions, intended as loopholes
for the escape of charily, your position is
unchanged ; you do claim, and claim as the
exclusive property of Roman and Anglican
Prelatists,* the name, the authority, the
iramunities, the sacraments, the rights, and
blessings of the visible Church of Christ.
And I again call upon you to let the world
have the evidence of this claim, the as
tounding consequences of which are such

* Dr. Potts here forgets again the whole East
ern Church, as well as many other branches. ,

as to require evidence httle short of dem
onstration to justify them.
I now proceed more immediately to the
point before us, and to which I have not
yet , succeeded in bringing you. If our
readers will be patient, I promise to be pa
tient rayself, in the hope that the true issue
cannot be ranch longer postponed.
You seera to think that a certain query,
which closes your last letter but one, con
tains something so formidable to my argu
ment that I purposely avoided any notice
of it. This is quite a mistake. I cannot
perceive, in the question referred to, any
Scylla and Charybdis, any sunken rocks,
through which 1 feared to pass. In what
I have already offered, the question had
been answered again and again. It is in
fact the very question in debate, viz., the
necessary succession of individuals. If you
require farther satisfaction upon this point,
I hope my succeeding remarks will fur
nish it.
A ministry, a divinely-appointed minis
try, a ministry to the exercise of the duties
of which there should be God's call, which
call I defined to consist in certain internal
and external signs, such as God's grace
and God's Providence can alone bestow
upon any one : such a ministry, I believe,
enters into the very idea of a Church, be
sides being distinctly recognised in the
Word of God.
Now, I maintain that with such a call
one is as really " called of God as was Aa
ron," for I take it for granted that no man
of common sense will see, in this passage
to which you have so often referred, any
thing more than that every particular indi
vidual, before his assumption of the minis
terial office, should be guided by some di
vine directions. Aaron and his sons were
called by a direct call from God given to Mo
ses in express terms. Do you mean that
it is by such a call as this that your Prel
ates, priests, and deacons are summoned
to their places ? In this sense, are they
" called of God as was A aron ?" Taking-
for granted that none have yet reached the
point of claiming, in behalf of the ministry,
an inspired appointment of each individual,
such as that of Aaron, there is nothing
more in the text referred to than an incul
cation of the duty of seeking the Divine di
rection in every way reasonable and possi
ble at the present time. Such a divine di
rection consists, as I have already said, (1)
in strong and pious desires to honour our
Master in the preaching of the Gospel ; (2)
in the possession of the requisite endow
ments, and (3) in the invitation of the
Church (embracing the ministry and the
peopleO, calling the individual to the exer
cise of liis gifts.
Where, then, does this discussion rub ?
At what point do your route and mine di
verge ? Just here, in the first instance ;

154

CORRESPONDENCE.

that you make the very existence of the
ministry, and, of course, the validity of its
-functions, depend necessarily, and in all sup-
posable cases, upon its descent through an
unbroken line of persons, along which line
alone can be conveyed what some have
¦called " Episcopal grace." In other words,
you affirm an unbroken chain of ministers,
we affirm z perpetuated ministry ; yours is
a succession of men, ours a succession of
truth ; you insist upon the officers, we upon
the office. Instead of following your re
marks through all their windings, which
would be labour thrown away, I am only
anxious to set our opposite principles clear
ly before the reader's view. For this pur
pose, I beg your and his attention to an il
lustration. It shall be taken from the very
¦sentence in Mr. Choate's noble oration
which occasioned your utterance of the
unchurching dogma : " A State loithout a
King, a Church without a Prelate :" a sen
tence which I hope will be long remem-
beired. Now you have undertaken to deny the
truth contained in the latter half of this
sentence, and have affirmed, not that there
may be a Church with Prelates (which I
freely admit), but that there can be no
Church without them. I shall endeavour
to show that you might, with equal justice,
?iave called the other truth in question, and
have undertaken to prove, not that there
may be a State with a King,* but that there
cannot be a State without one. To my ap
prehension, it would have been quite edify
ing and agreeable to the sturdy republicans
at the New-England festival, if her majes
ty's consul, had he chanced to be present,
had followed Dr. Wainwright's challenge
of the one position, by a similar challenge
of the other. But this by-the-way. The
point of my present remark is, that such a
¦challenge would have been equally just,
and for the following reasons.
Even admitting (what I am by no means
<3isposed to admit except for argument's
sake) that Prelacy is distinctly recognised
in Scripture as the existing form of the
Christian Church at that day, it is not sure
ly more distinctly recognised than monarchy
is, as the then existing form of civil gov
ernment. " Render unto Ccesar the things
ihat are Casar's ;" " Honour the king ; the
powers that be are ordained of God," says in
spired authority. I may remark, in pass
ing, that when you can show as good a
proof text for exclusive assumptions in the
Church as these and some others which
the advocates of the exclusive Divine right
of kings can show, I shall be disposed to
think much better of the modesty of those
assumptions. Supposing, however, that
* The short answer to this is, the Church
never meddles with civil arrangements. See
farther, Essay No. xl.

an equally pointed recognition of Prelacy
can be shown as that which the believers
in monarchy appeal to, would it justify you
in raaking it, as you do make it, absolutely
and without any exception, essential to the
very being of the Church? Is there no
room to be allowed for mistake, no ground
fojr the possible supposition that Prelacy,
like monarchy, might be dropped to suit
circumstances, and yet not actually destroy
the Church, and leave it without God's
blessing ? If some should affirm that there
is so strong an affinity between Prelacy
and monarchy that they should go togeth
er (arid this seemed to be the belief of King
James I., whose hatred for Presbyterian
ism often found vent in his favourite max-
ira, " No Bishop, no King") ; and if others
should affirm that a republic* in the state
requires a republic in the Church ; and if,
upon these principles, they should severally
agree to arrange the order of Church gov
ernment, the question occurs whether ei
ther of these classes of persons could be
justly charged by the other with the guilt
of absolutely subverting the Church.
Now in respect to both the Church and
the State, both of thera institutes distinctly
recognised in the Bible, I boldly affirm (and
I pray you observe that this is the sub
stance of my first argument, which you
have not so much as touched) that the Bi
ble does not make a particular form of eitlier
indispensable to the existence of either. The
passages I have referred to, upon which
a stanch High Churchraan in England
would build the exclusive Divine right of
Queen Victoria, do not, as you will admit,
justify such a consequence. If they did,
then was our Revolution rebellion, and our
present existence is a continued rebellion
against a constitution which God has ap
pointed. Will you take this consequence ?
If not, why ? The Word of God nowhere
recognises a popular government in the
State. t There is no mention there of a
President chosen by the popular voice. On
the contrary, the authority looks altogeth
er the other way.
What then ? What reply will you make
to the scriptural argument for the exclu
sive Divine right of kings ? Precisely this,
which I make to your claira of the exclu
sive Divine right of Prelates : that the of
flce-bearers of the state are not the es
sence of the state ; that God has divinely
appointed government, but has not prescri
bed any precise details of government or

* It is of no importance, but it so happens
that the body which approaches in form most
nearly to our representative Congress is the
General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal
Church. t Because the Word of God lets the State
alone, and cares for the Church.

CORRESPONDENCE.

65

the mode of constituting governors; that
He has enjoined civil law and obedience to
civil law, but has not enjoined that the
lawmakers shall be hereditary monarchs,
whose authority is derived from tlieir pred
ecessors, and tlieirs again from other pred
-ecessors in an unbroken monarchical suc-
•cession akin to your Apostolical succession ;
in one word, that there may be a state di
vinely authorized by His province, a state
meeting all the substantial requirements
•of civil government, a state with competent
officers, and yet a state without a king.
The analogy* might be indefinitely pur
sued, were this the time : it is perfect.
God has appointed a government in his
Church ; He has established a ministry ;
He has warranted the appointment of
N agents to carry out the necessary purposes
-of a Church relation. Up to this point we
agree ; but at this point, as I have said, we
diverge. You are not willing to allow of
a diversity of judgment as to the appoint
ment and induction of these agents, but
actually raake it essential that they should,
in every case, becorae possessed of their
rights by a sort of hereditary and unbroken
descent. This is your theory of exclusive
legitimacy, and, as I have shown, it finds
its counterpart in the monarchical legit.
imacy of the Old World, judged by which
the governraent of the United States is not
a government at all, and has none of the
rights and none of the duties of a govern
ment. Upon this principle, we are bound
to renounce our Constitution, and at once
fall back upon the principle of a succession,
'by submitting ourselves to the Queen of
America. But as it will be some time before the
people of this land can be brought to this
•conclusion as to the State, so I am sure it
will be some time before they can admit
the conclusion as to your Church, or any
-other individual Church. Just as, in the
State, there were abundant reasons for the
rejection of the erapire of Great Britain,
-and for a reorganization of a new govern-
jnent growing out of the great charter of
human rights which lies aback of all gov
ernments, so in the Church, when a ne
cessity exist?. Christians may fall back
upon the great cljiarter of religious truth,
the Bible, abandon an old and intolerable
tyranny, and reorganize themselves as a
Church of Christ.-f
And farther, as in the State, when reor
ganized, the necessity of officers, and the
necessity of appointing and inducting them
according to some established rule -will be
apparent, so in the Church, when leorgani-
zed, the same necessity will originate rules

* Nothing is prmed by the analogy. It is
dangerous to reason from analogy.
t Hence the inalienable right of Joe Smith
0 " organize" the Mormon Church at Nauvoo.
i

more or less accordant with fa-uth and jus
tice. And this is the sense in which you
are to understand all the rules in regard to
the appointment and induction of a min
istry which you find in the several formu
laries of the Reformed Churches.
You carae out of the Roraan hierarchy
soraewhat later than the Churches on the
Continent ; so far as that hierarchy could,
it deprived all the Reforraed bodies of their
ecclesiastical rights. They did not heed
this, butquietly proceeded to exercise the
rights inherent in Christian believers, and
of which no excommunication can deprive
thera, and to organize themselves into
Christian Churches.
By considering these statements, the
reader will see that insuperable objections
must lie against the figment of which you
make so much (but which you have not
yet attempted to prove), the necessity of
a succession of individuals^ in order to the
existence of a lawful governraent and a
lawful ministry in the Church. I bring
you back again to this point. I am quite
sure that you have seen all along that it is
the turning-point, and, considering the in
superable difficulties by which it is beset,
I am not surprised that you are unwilling
to confront them. You claim such a suc
cession as the very basis upon which
alone the unchurching dogma can possibly
rest. I deny that Scripture prescribes it
as invariably necessary, and have again
and again called for the proof The bur
den of proof lies on you. Hoping that
you will feel that you are now hedged in,
and reminding you that, in order to justify
your bold tone and prove a tenet which
carries with it such astounding results,
you must produce the most undoubted ev
idence : I beg leave to say, in conclusion,
that you are called upon to prove your
point by establishing the three following
propositions :
I. That Scripture imperatively requires
an uninterrupted succession of individuals,
in order to the validity of ministerial char
acter and acts.
II. That this succession must necessa
rily run in the line of diocesan Bishops ;
and, after establishing these two proposi
tions, then,
III. That you can claim such a succes
sion for your ministry, so that not a link
of the chain shall be wanting; and, con
sidering what powers you claira for your
ministry (upon which point I will hereafter
make some developments), and consider
ing, also, the gi-ouruls upon which you
claim those powers, you must not leave
the shadow of a doubt as to your posses-

? A succession of individuals is the only suc
cession possible. It is mere moonshine to talk
of an " apostohc succession of truth."

.66

CORRESPONDENCE.

sion of this famous Apostolical succes
sion.* After you have given your views upon
these points, I shall have raore to say.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
George Potts.
February 2, 1844

LETTER IX.
KEV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DB. POTTS.
Rev. and Dear Sir:— I am quite as well
aware as you can be how much of my last
letter is strictly pertinent to the question
now between us, whether Episcopacy is
exclusively the Divine constitution of the
Church, but I do not admit that any of it is
irrelevant to the mode in which you have
from the commencement conducted the
discussion. This is a point, however, which
I am perfectly content to submit to the de
cision of our readers, simply begging them
to remember that I am the respondent in
this debate, and, therefore, in a measure,
compelled to await your movements, and
to follow the course of argument you may
adopt. You have spoken more than once of my
seeking to " avert the dreaded issue," and
have called upon me, with what courtesy
of tone and manner I will leave others to
judge, to " come to it," to " corae to it
boldly," and to " prove" this and that. Now,
sir, permit me to say that you entirely for
get yourself, and lose sight of your true
position when you use this language.
You talk of bringing me , to the point.
So far from seeking to evade the point, my
sole object has been to bring you to it.
Not until you had put forth your fifth let
ter did I succeed in bringing you to ad
vance one single step towards establishing
the proposition you undertook to deraon-
str^te, namely, that the doctrine of the ne
cessity of Episcopacy to the constitution
of the Church of Christ is unscriptural, Sic,
&c. You then advanced what you called your
FIRST argument, in form as follows :
" I. Because there is no warrant from
the Word of God for making any particular
external form of polity a condition," &c.
Now obviously this allegation contains
no argument, unless the matter alleged be
true. You boldly affirm that it is true. I
pray you to consider that your affirmation
does not necessarily make it true. I have
denied your allegation — I still deny it — it

* We will beg Dr. Potts, also, to establish
three points in his faith : I. That Scripture im
peratively requires the baptism of infants. II.
That it requires women to be received at the
liOrd's Table. HI. That it requires us to re
member and keep holy the Lord's Day, or Sunr
day, not Saturday.

belongs to you, therefore, to prove it. This
you have not done, nor have you advanced
a single step towards doing it. So far,
then, as concerns the question between us,
your "first argument" is, as yet, no argument
at all ; it is a solitary, unsupported assertion
of yours, which fhave denied.
You, indeed, called upon me to disprove
your assertion, and although I was not un
der any obligation to disprove what you
were first bound to prove, I did, as I main
tain, fully and fairly disprove it out of your
own standards, and by the judicial action
of your own General Assembly, supported
by the authority of Scripture.
You still repeat this same call. I am
sorry to be obliged to remind you again
how illogical, not to say absurd, this de
mand of yours will be, even if I had done
nothing more than siraply deny your as
sertion. But it is due to ray own charac
ter both for moral fairness and logical ac
curacy, to vindicate myself against your
reiterated charges of not coraing " to the
point," " dreading the issue," &c. I wish
our readers, therefore, to bear with rae,
while, in a few words, I endeavour, for the
last time, to justify myself for the course
of argument I have taken.
1. In the first place, then, I beg them, to
remeraber that you advanbed an assertion
and called upon me to disprove it ! Sure
ly, sir, you cannot be so ignorant of the
rules of fair discussion as to suppose that
I was logically bound to do anything more,
in the first instance, than deny yourasser-
tion. The burden of proof (notwithstand
ing your continual declaration to the coiv
trary) rested with you.
2. But, secondly, it raay be thought, per
haps, that although, according to the strict
rules of debate, the burden of proof rested
upon you, yet, inasrauch as your allegation
was a negative one, it was hardly consist
ent with ray professed anxiety to corae to
the raain issue, for me to stand upon my
rights as respondent, and insist on your
proving your negative allegation ; but that,
if I did not adrait it, I ought, in fairness, to
waive the technical right and proceed to
disprove. I frankly admit that there are cases in
which I should feel disposed to pursue this
course. But this is far frora being such
a case. And why ? Simply because the
negative allegation which you call your
" first argument" is tantamount to a petitio
principii, a mere begging of the very point
in question ; for if there be " no warrant
from the Word of God for making any par
ticular form of polity a condition," then, of
course, exclusive Episcopacy is unscriptu
ral ; but this latter is the very point you
undertook to demonstrate. You might as
well, therefore, not have advanced your
" first argument" at all, but have persisted
in the course first adopted and so long con-

CORRESPONDENCE.

67

tinned, but which I understood you in your 1
fifth letter to abandon, namely, that of call
ing upon rae to disprove the main proposi
tion which you undertook to prove.
If, therefore, I was justified in declining
to disprove this main proposition until you
had offered your proofs to sustain it, I
should have been equally justified in decli
ning to notice the allegation which you
call your " first argument," any otherwise
than by a simple denial of it, since it is
only another form of reasserting what you
" pledged" yourself in your first letter to
prove. your first proof, or argument, as you
term it, and your call upon me to disprove
it, are, no doubt, a very ingenious raode of
endeavouring again to accoraplish what, in
the outset, you tried and have constantly
been aiming at, that is, to induce me to
change places with you. I shall do no
such thing. You -are affirmant, I respond
ent. You are bound to prove exclusive
Episcopacy " unscriptural." I am bound to
defend it. This I desire your readers
never to forget.
There are, doubtless, inconveniences to
yourself in the atterapt to prove a negative
as you have undertaken to do. That is
not my fault. You should have thought
of that before.
3. But, thirdly, I did not insist on hold
ing you to the strict rules of fair debate.
I met your allegation with what I consider
•abundant argument to disprove it. The
refutation I employed was partly ad homi
nem (not ad invidiam, as, by a strange con.
fusion of different tilings, you termed it).
I showed, namely, that whether the matter
of your first allegation were true or not
true, it was not an arguraent for you to of
fer ; but, in addition to this, I positively
denied, and, as I say, fully disproved the
matter itself of your allegation. I shall
not go over that ground again.
I submit to our readers that I proved
from the authoritative standards of your
own Church, as supported by Scripture,
and the decision of yoiw General Assem
bly, that A ministrv externally ordained
BY ORDAINED MINISTERS IS A DiVINE APPOINT.
MENT, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, NECESSARY TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF A ChURCH, AND THAT IT IS
A Scriptural doctrine.
A word, now, on the extraordinary no
tion of ordination put forth in your last
letter. Notwithstanding your intimation,
that you know how to interpret your stand
ards better than I do, I will be bold to af
firm that neither the formularies of your
Church, nor your accredited writers, teach
or countenance any such latitudinarian
doctrine. You talk of a man's becoming
a lawful minister by (1) " strong and pious
desires to honour our Master in the preach
ing of the Gospel ; (2) requisite endow
ments; and (3) the invitation ofthe Church

(embracing the ministry and the people)
calling the individual to the exercise of
his gifts ! ! !" I am persuaded that the most
learned, sound, and accredited living doc
tors of your Church would scout the idea
of any raan, whatever his " strong and pi
ous desires" and his " endowments," ac
quiring any part of his authority as a min
ister in virtue of ah " invitation !" of the
" people." And they will tell you, moreo
ver, that he would have the authority of a
minister if ordained by imposition of hands
of the "ministry" of the Church, even
though he and his ordainers should happen
to have erred as to his " strong and pious
desires," and even though the "people
should never have invited" him " to exer
cise his gifts."
In my last two letters, I pressed upon
you a question in regard to ordination,
namly. Whether a man can be a lawful min
ister of Christ uriless he have been ordained by
imposition of hands by other similarly ordain
ed ministers ?
You say that you have answered it
" again and again." I am obliged to reply
that, to my apprehension, you have not
answered it at all. Excuse me for saying,
my belief is that you dare not categorical
ly answer it, yes or no. At all events, I
submit it to the judgment of the sound the
ologians of your own Church, that you
have not answered it.
Instead of answering it, you have over
and over again confounded it with another
question, which I have not yet touched
upon. You have confounded ordination
with succession, besides totally misappre
hending the true notion of succession, as
I will at a proper time show. It is enough
for me to tell you that ordination and suc
cession, however closely connected, ar&
yet two perfectly distinct things, and not to
be confounded.
Whether, on the one hand, your instinc
tive foresight of what I might build upon
your admission of my doctrine concerning
ordination (which I contend is also your
Church's doctrine), and, on the other hand,
your dislike ofthe position, as towards your
own Church, in which you would be placed
by an unqualified denial of it, led you to
evade the point concerning ordination, and
confound it, in advance, with an erroneous
notion of succession — ^this I shall not de
cide. That you have confounded ordination
and succession -I assert, and leave it to
your sound theologians to decide be
tween us.
If you had answered my question con
cerning ordination, the way -would have
been immediately open to the question
concerning succession — a question you
most unaccountably imagine I am desi
rous to avoid. It is' the very question I
am anxious to reach.

68

CORRESPONDENCE.

I pressed the point concerning ordina
tion solely to get at the question concern
ing succession. I assure you there was
no design to entrap you — no unworthy ar
tifice in my course. I supposed, and I
still suppose, that between a Sound Pres
byterian and myself there is no difference,
either in regard to the necessity for an ex
ternally-ordained ministry, or in regard to
the apostolical succession of that ministry,
but that the doctrine of both our Churches
on these two points is perfectly identical ;
that there is no differertce in principle;
and that the sole question between us is,
whether the ordaining power is given by
Christ to all the Presbyters, or limited to
a certain number of chief Presbyters or
Bishops. The correctness of this supposition I
also refer to the decision of the intelligent
theologians of your own Church.
In conclusion, I simply desire our intel
ligent and candid readers to judge wheth
er the whole amount of argument you have
advanced in support of your position— ^that
exclusive Episcopacy is " unscriptural" —
is anything more than a solitary allegation,
unsupported by a single .proof from you,
and on my part denied and disproved.
Will you now produce other proofs for
your allegation ? or will you join with me
in submitting this, which you term your
'^ first argument," as sufficiently discussed,
and proceed to your second argument,' in
proof that my dogma— no Church without
a Bishop — is " unscriptural ?" I submit
that one or the other of these things is
what the public and myself have a right to
expect. I am. Rev. and dear Sir, your obedient
servant, Jona. M. Wainwright.
February 5th, 1844.

LETTER IX.
It is now perfectly obvious that my op
ponent does not mean to come to the
point, and, therefore, the idea of dignifying
this correspondence with the title of a dis
cussion is worthy of ridicule only — a ridi
cule which I am not at all inclined to share.
I should, on these accounts, feel myself to
be perfectly justified in altogether drop
ping an opponent who, however valiant at
the dinner-table, is like the knight who
comes into the lists with a fine flourish of
trumpets, and a thundering defiance, as if
he would eat up his adversary at a mouth
ful, but who is always missing when the
onset arrives. But, although I confess to
a strong feeling of disgust, I am unwilling
to abandon ray object altogether, or even
seem to shrink from what I beheve to be a
public service ; raore especially as I am
sure that I should thereby exceedingly grat
ify those who do not desire that the un

churching dogma should be exposed to a
class of readers who have not heretofore
been aware of its character and tendencies.
This, however, I am resolved upon, viz.,
that I will pay no attention to any shigs
or dodgings for the future, but pursue the
line of, argument which I have commenced
— with my reader, and not* my opponent
in my eye. I shall, therefore, say nothing
to the prodigious display of logic in his
last production, but, after recapitulating
what I have already advanced, and show
ing its point and bearing, will proceed to
other considerations.
Our starting-point is the assertion at the
dinner-table, that there can be no Church
without a Prelate. I have several times al
luded to ray reasons for not insisting upon
my right to demand of the loud-voiced
champion of exclusiveness, that he should
begin this discussion by furnishing proof
.of this allegation. Every one can see that
the pretext that, having advanced a nega
tive proposition, he cannot, by the laws of
dialectics, be fairly called to prove it, is
no more than a pretext, under the cover of
which he desired to escape from the pre
dicament in which his untimely dinner-
speech had placed him, It is a mere pre
text, I say, for it requires btit a moment's
attention from any schoolboy to decide
that his assertion contains two negatives,
which (the judicious Lindley Murray be
ing judge) make the stl:ongest kind of af
firmative. " There can be no Church with
out a Prelate ;" without being a negative
particle, the assertion amounts to this.
Prelacy is indispensable to the existence of the
Church of Christ. Rather than let him es
cape, I consented to commence the dis
cussion, still holding him to the position
which he thrust so vauntingly in the face
of the Wbole comraunity, and believing
that I should soon subject him to the ne
cessity of letting the public see upon what
scriptural grounds he raeant to justify a
doctrine involving such astounding conse
quences ; so contrary to the common sense
of mankind, and so contradicted by every
day facts. Hence ray first scriptural ar
gument, now called an -assertion, and a
begging of the question. That argument
is unanswerable, and no wonder it has been
unanswered. It is to this effect that nei
ther the doctrine of Prelacy, nor that of
Presbytery (the one implying superior
and inferior grades in the ministerial of
fice, the other the perfect official equahty
of ministers of the Gospel), was made, by
the Word of God, absolutely essential to
the existence ofthe Church. There might

-* And yet, from this time to the end of Dr.
Potts's matter, he dwells tediously upon " my
opponent." Dr. Wainwright only never seems
to have thought of an opponent after he had

CORRESPONDENCE.

6»

be a Church with Prelates ; there might be
one without them. By this argument I
renounced all exclusive claims for Pres
bytery, while I denied such claims to Prel
acy:* This kind of argument, I have no doubt,
took my opponent by surprise, for it would
have pleased him better to see the subject
presented in the shape of a contest between
a member of one sect claiming exclusive
authority, and the member of another sect
claiming a similar authority ; in other
words, a debate between a Presbyterian,
so called, and a Prelatist, upon the pitiful
question, which of the two was the true
Church. But I repeat here what I have often
said (because I wish the reader to bear it
in raind), that I set out with the purpose of
exposing exclusive clidms. I believe that
all thS substantial elements of Presbyte
rian government are traceabld in the Word
of God, and farther, that it is best to ad
here to theni. I have no doubt whatever
upon that point ; but I would not, there
fore, make an adherence t» Presbyterian
ism essential to the existence ofthe Church
of Christ. This is my position, and I be
lieve the position universally held in my
own communion. But it is not the posi
tion which my opponent desired me to
take, if one may judge frora his subsequent
efforts to deprive me of ray catholic char
acter. I proceeded at once to fortify the above
argument by an appeal to the spirituality
of the Gospel as a moral institute, in con
trast with the formalism of insisting upon
the fundaraental necessity of a particular
mode of constituting the ministry. I ad
duced also the true principles of Christian
unity, showing that it was a unity of faith,
love, and other moral affections, which con
stitute the Christian character, which af
fections were not made dependant upon an
individual's external relations to one par
ticular Church polity. I still farther cor
roborated this view by an appeal to glaring
facts, proving that the blessings of God's
Spirit have not been confined to any one
ofthe Christian denominations. Frora this
fact I argued that my opponent must find
himself in the following dileraraa : oWiged,
on the one hand, to deny the substantial
Christianity of all communions but his
own, or, by admitting them to be Christian,
on the other hand, obliged to admit that
the best blessings of the Gospel, its prom
ised spiritual blessings, had been bestowed
upon bodies which did not belong to the
Church of God at all, and which therefore
were not in covenant with Hira ; in other
words, that it made very little difference
whether men are in or out of " the Church."

* That is, there is no sufficient reason, be
cause no Divine reason, for being a Presbyte
rian, or anything else.

Now, without any great pretensions to
logic, I take upon rae to say that here -was
something to answer which has not been
answered. We are told that without Prel
ates there is no Church, and Scripture is
referred to as the test. I search the Scrip
ture and reply, I can find no such dogma
there, but I find much that looks the other
way. What is the answer of my oppo
nent ? Why, that ray own Church is as
exclusive as his. I go out of ray way to
reply to this, and show that neither in
theory nor fact are we chargeable with any
such exclusiveness. I give all raanner of
illustrations ; I answer all manner of ques
tions; and then, to return the compliraent,
I ask all manner of questions. But in vain :
the rejoinder is, risum teneatas, " your Con
fession of Faith, your General Assembly,
your doctrine of predestination," tell a dif
ferent story. This would be siraply amu
sing, if it did not cost so much good ink,
paper, time, and eyesight. Facts are no
thing ; oh no, who cares for facts ? Anal
ogies betweeti the Church and the State
are nothing ; who cares for analogies ?*
Answers to questions are nothing, because
they go beyond a mere yes and no. No
thing, in short, is argument which does
not suit my opponent. This is significant,
and I have reason to know is thoroughly
appreciated by the great mass of our read
ers. '
•Vhat would he have ? Should he take
it upon him to affirm that there can be no
state without a king, and profess his will
ingness to test the affirmation by an ap
peal to the Federal Constitution, the bur
den of proof certainly lies upon him to
show how and where that instrument coun
tenances any such assertion. My denial
that the Federal Constitution teaches such
a doctrine is not to be met by another as
sertion, that the denial is a mere unsup
ported allegation, a begging of the question,
&c. Alas ! for logic ! One can hardly
imagine how any one, even though he were
a professor of moral philosophy or logic,
could have constructed such a happy piece
of argument as that which occupies my
opponent's last article. It is a novel mode
of playing the part of respondent, the title
in which he rejoices, and which (respondens
a non respondendo) he seems to consider
as investing him with the privilege of not
responding at all. Instead of the hard
work of answering questions or arguments,
he prefers to throw out — like tubs to a
whale — the Confession of Faith, predesti
nation, sixty thousand excommunicated
Presbyterians, &c., in hope that he may
distract attention from the rnain issue.
The reader understood all these things, and
considers them as signals of distress from

* True enough analogies are nothing but
analogies, and not arguments.

70

CORRESPONDENCE.

a vessel on a lee shore. Enough of them.
I shall notice hereafter nothing but argu
ment. In support of the position advanced in
my fifth letter, I pursued briefly, in my last,
an analogy between the State and the
Church, and showed conclusively (so con
clusively as to have placed it beyond my
opponent's power of reply, for he does not
notice it at all) that even admitting, for the
sake of argument, that Prelacy is recog
nised in Scripture as the then existing
model of Church order, it is not more dis
tinctly recognised than monarchy ; and
yet that no one in this land will affirm that
our rejection of the latter was against the
will of God, in such a sense as to destroy
the State. In other words, that even sup
posing we may have erred (as I am told a
feyv highly conservative, strong government
people among us do) in casting off the king
ly polity, we are, nevertheless, a bona fide
state. If this be so (as all will admit), I
asked whether a similar error in respect to
Prelacy (supposing it to have been even
half as explicitly recognised in Scripture
as monarchy is) must necessarily be a fun
damental error, which puts the mistaking
persons completely beyond the pale of the
Christian Church. The force of this illus
tration of the gross absurdity of the High
Church exclusiveness consists in this, that
such exclusiveness makes an error as to
form as fatal as an error in regard to sub
stance; that it puts upon a par the ac
cidents and the essence ; that it confounds
government with the functionaries of gov-
erment. No Church without a Prelate
can be maintained only by a course of rea
soning which will establish the correspond
ing doctrine. No State without a King.
But the main thought is, that this anal
ogy* destroys the doctrine of a necessary
succession of individuals. For, as that suc
cession in the State was broken up entire
ly by our Revolution, and yet the country
was left with a better government than
when it was ruled by an hereditary mon
arch, so raay a succession in the Church be
broken up with advantage to the Church.
But this my opponent denies. He affirms
that an unbroken series of ordinations to
the ministry is the very basis ofthe Church.
It is, therefore, the turning-point of the
whole argument. I have again and again
admitted that there have been cases, and
may be again, in which the regular method
of transmitting the ministerial character
might be interrupted, and yet a true Church
be preserved and a true ministry raised up,
and subsequently transmitted by the laying
on of the hands of the Presb3'tery. The
reader who wishes to see this subject ful-

-* This analogy does no such thing ; God has
left men to construct their states as they will.
He himself constructed the Church perfect.

ly discussed, may turn to Claude's wellr
known defence of the Reformation. As,
therefore, any such interruption in the se
ries of ordinations would — according to the
doctrine of my opponent — utterly vitiate
all subsequent acts, I have considered the
questions of an unbroken series of ordina
tions and an unbroken succession as real
ly identical, although (strangely enough,
considering his claims to " moral fairness
and logical accuracy") he denies this iden
tity. He gives no reason, however, and I
shall therefore consider them as virtually
one, and proceed now with the train of re
mark suggested by the above parallel be
tween the Church and the State.
My object now will be to investigate the
proofs which are advanced in support of
the absurd fancy of an Apostolical succes
sion as necessary to the existence of the
Church. It will be found to be a new ver
sion of an old fable — the world resting upon
the back ofthe elephant, the elephant upon
a tortoise, the tortoise upon — nothing.
The Church resting upon Prelates, the Prel
ates upon an unbroken descent from the
Apostles, their predecessors, and this un
broken descent resting upon — nothing.*
The theory is this : our modern Prelates
are the lineal successors of the twelve
Apostles ;t to them the Apostolic power
has descended (how much they can show
of this power we shall see presently) ; they
only can appoint a ministry, which minis
try alone has the promise of blessing, and
can rightfully take care ofthe fold of Clirist,
as pastors ; they only can confer regenera
tion in baptism, and they only (as one of
them said) have the body and blood of
Christ to give to his people. (See these
claims as taught by Palmer, vol. ii., part
vi.) These are astonishing powers, as every
reader can- see, and no wonder that, they
have a strong attraction for certain classes
of rainds, both among priests and people.
No wonder that many of the former are
anxious to persuade the latter that they are
invested with a sort of vieegerency from.
Heaven, which really places the Churcli
and the world pretty much at their mercy.
But upon this point we shall have more to
say at another time. Such substantially
is the claim, and such the ground (viz., a
succession to the Apostolic ofiSce) upon
which the claim is built. " There is not a
Bishop, priest, or deacon among us," says
Dr. Hook, " who cannot, if he please, trace
his own spiritual descent from St. Peter or
St. Paul."
Now, as ray opponent seems quite un
willing to give us arguments (perhaps be?
cause they are not as "plenty as black-

* Except Christ, the cornerrstone.
t Twenty-four Apostles are mentioned in the
New Testament.

CORRESPONDENCE.

71

berries"*), I must resort to other advocates
•of this doctrine of the necessity of unbro
ken descent frora the apostles, to discover
the basis of this futile theory, out of which
such absolutely fearful consequences are
made to grow.
The theory is built upon two assump
tions. 1. That modern Prelates are the
descendants of the Apostles. 2. That their
lineage is and must be unbroken, frora the
days -of St. Peter and St. Paul. 1. That
modem Prelates are the successors of the
Apostles. What Scripture (for to that lies
the appeal) can be shown for such an as
sumption ? Especially is there any Scrip
ture so abs'olutely demonstrative as to si
lence all doubt upon a point which is made
by my opponent an article of faith — an es
sential item in the creed of the Church of
Christ ? an element, wanting which, the
Church is defunct, and cannot be restored
without a miracle ?
The reader will smile at the raagniflcence
of the edifice as contrasted with the nar
rowness of the foundation. A volume
might be written in exposure of this claira,
¦but I must be content with a few conden
sed paragraphs.
Christ ordained the Apostles as chief
ministers — Prelates are the only chief rain-
isters of Christ in succeeding times — ergo.
Prelates are the direct descendants of the
A.postles. This is the reasoning. To make
it good, it must be shown that Prelates
have inherited the character and power with
which the Apostles were expressly invested ;
¦that their relations to the Church are the same.
Let us test the matter by a question or two.
(1.) The Apostles were the inspired teach
ers of the world ; but what evidence of in
spiration (short of loud claims of infallibil
ity or " indefectibility") do the Prelates of
Rome, England, or America give ? Again :
(2.) The Apostles were empowered to com
municate miraculous gifts (see Mark, xvi.,
1-7, 18t), gifts of healing, the power of
speaking with unknown tongues, &c. ; but
what Prelate (with the exception of a few
Jiighly-favoured individuals in the Papal
body, who have appealed to " lying won
ders" wrought by them) can tell of a dis
ease cured, sight restored, a fractured
limb healed, or a discourse in an unknown
tongue delivered by any of those upon
whom they have laid their hands ? Again :
(3.) The Apostles wrought rairacles them-

* If the printer were not driving us we should
write twenty notes where we have written one.
We are very much afraid of crowding too many
, arguments into so small a compass.
t On the contrary, this very passage quoted
destroys Dr. Potts's whole argument ; for it
proves, as we showed before, that private behev-
• ers could work miracles then. See Introduc
tion, &c., on this point.

selves ; they could drink any deadly thing
without harm, &c., &c. ; but what Prelate
would be hardy enough to try the experi
ment upon himself, of taking a dose of
poison? Prussic acid would be, I doubt
not, as fatal to Dr. Doane as to Dr. Wain
wright.* Again : (4.) The Apostles were
the overseers of the whole Church, having
received plenary powers to pr,each, baptize,
bestow miraculous gifts, ordain and direqk
ordination, not for a limited district or dio
cese, but for the known world ; but what
modern Prelate has ventured to claim such
an extensive jurisdiction, if we except the
Prelates of Rome, who alone, in this par
ticular, claim their full inheritance of the
Apostolic character? Again: (5.)The Apos
tles were especially set apart as living wit
nesses of the resurrection ; they were par
ticularly characterized by the fact that
they had seen\ the Lord. This can be
shown, by a dozen references to Scripture,
to have been one of the raarked peculiari
ties and duties of their office. But what
modern Prelate can in this, any more than
in miraculous endowments, establish , his
claim to " the signs of an apostle 1"
These common-sense contrasts establish
the absurdity of resting the claims of any
ministry whatever upon the assertion of
its inheritance of the Apostolic authority.
The Apostles had no successors,X except as
they were Christian men, and ministers of
the Word. They organized Churches of
Christ wherever they went ; they estab
lished a ministry ; and whether that ministry
consisted of three orders or only one (which
is a distinct question), it was assuredly not
the depository of Apostolic powers.
But this is not all : before we consent to
acknowledge our modern Prelates or Pres
byters, as the lineal descendants of these
legates of heaven, we must have sorae ex
plicit Scripture to prove their claim. I say-
again, explicit, for nothing but proof posi
tive can justify such a claim. If it be not
an undoubted claim, it deserves no better
name than absurd arrogance.
And what Scriptures, reader, do you sup
pose are referred to by our Apostolical suc-
cessionists ? These are the best they have :
" Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world." Answer: Does phrist,
then, restrict this promise to the Apostles,
and Prelates their successors ?§ Is He

* Or to any private believer ; therefore, there
are neither Bishops nor believers now in the
world. t Did the Apostles Barnabas, Timothy, Silas,
and Epaphroditus all see the Lord?
t Not even Matthias ? He was not the suc
cessor of Judas !
fl Christ made this promise to the eleven, and
not to all the disciples, and they are dead ; He
is not with those eleven men, therefore, in th.8

73

CORRESPONDENCE.

Pjledged to be with no other ? Are other
Christian teachers to have no share in the
promise ? Again, " as my Father hath sent.
me, even so serid Jyou." ' Answer : Does this
sending imply the necessity of a lineal suc
cession ? And has he sent none but Prel
ates ? And are Prelates sent in the same
sense as Christ sent the Apostles ? Again,
" I appoint unto you a kingdom, as ray Fa-
ti|er hath appointed unto me." Answer :
Snch a place and authority in the kingdom
of heaven, the Church, was bestowed upon
the Apostles alone; as the inspired and
miraculously-endowed lawgivers of His
Churoh, in which respect alone could they
be said to be placed "upon thrones, judg^
» ing the twelve tribes of Israel."
Now, I ask, Does it not require all the
gravity which a grave subject demands to
prevent one's lifting the lash of ridicule
against such pretensions, supported by
svich appeals to the Word of God ?*
Finally, upon this point, let us remark
that the paucity of Scriptural arguments is
fully Admitted by the stanchest advocates
of this mysterious Apostolical succession.
I will let some of these gentlemen give us
a specimen or two of their views of the
Scriptural argument for the doctrine "no
Church without Prelates," or, as it ought to
read, " without Apostles."t
Thus Mr. Keble (on Tradition, p. 96)
says, " The succession itself is a mystery,
and, of course, left, as all mysteries are, in
some respects dimly revealed, i. e., in the
world's language, vague and ' indistinct.' "
He argues that tradition alone can prove
the doctrine.
In Tract No. 86, the writer says of these
doctrines, " If the Episcopal and priestly
succession have in thera something divine,
as channels which convey, as it were, his
presence to us — we must expect to find in
them something that hideth itself — sur
rounded with difficulties to the carnal mind,
withdrawing itself," &g.
In Tract No. 8 the writer says, " There
is no part of the ecclesiastical system which
is not faintly traced in Scripture, and no part
which is much more than faintly traced."

¦vvorld ; and He has promised (John, xiv.) to be
with them after the end of this world, in eter-
luty. Therefore, there remains only " I am with
you and your successors to the end of this world,
in preaching, baptizing," &c.,' &c. Dr. Potts
must prove that Christ means a million when
He speaks to eleven.
* The lash of ridicule, to be felt, must be
much more effective than Dr. Potts's whip.
Dr. Wainwright, we presume, never knew that
it had been snapped at him. At all events, the
castigation is light and merciful, such as might
be expected from a Christian preacher.
, ..f Correct.

By another of these writers, "it is grant
ed that the Divine right of Episcopacy, the-
Apostolical succession, the power of the;
Church, &c., are wanting in direct or sat
isfactory proof, and are to be established, if
at all, only by the aid of very attenuated and
nicely-managed inferential arguments."—
" Every one must albw that there is next
to nothing on the surface of Scripture about
them, and very little, even under the sur
face, of a satisfactory character," &c. ^
I need quote no more. Let it be remark
ed, that these are admissions made by men
who rely mainly upon tradition, but who-
would gladly have seized upon Scripture
arguments, if they could have come at
them. What, then, shall we say to a dogma.
whose buttresses are so rotten? What.
is the worth of a pedigree, the proofs of
which are so "attenuated?" Who can-
fail to admire the infinite self-complacen
cy with which its claimants are so full that-
they fear not to walk abroad, even in day
light, Apostolically linked arm in arm, and
crowding men as good as themselves off
the footpath into the kennel ? '
In my next I shall consider the assump
tion upon which the dogma of unbroken
succession rests ; after which I will pro
ceed to farther scriptural objections to the?
unchurching monopoly.
George Potts.
February 8, 1844.

LETTER X.
REV. DR. WAINWRIGHT TO REV. DR. POTTS.
Rev. and Dear Sir: — You have uncere
moniously sounded a retreat from the field
to which you as unceremoniously chal
lenged rae, but I cannot permit you to es
cape -without a word or two at parting.
With what good reason you first gave,.
and then persisted in, the challenge, with,
what temper you have thus far carried on.
the controversy, and with what courtesy
you now retire from it, I leave others to.
judge. As I will not presume myself tO'
decide upon the propriety of the step yoit
have now taken, as between gentlemen,.
to say nothing of its aspect as betweea
ministers of the Gospel, so neither do I
feel disposed to question its prudence.
After having raade a bold affirmation,
and, in the progress of eight letters, of no
very moderate length, advanced one solitary
arguraent in its support, upon being calleds
upon to substantiate that arguraent when
invalidated, or to bring forward a second,
not feeling disposed or prepared to pursue
either course, it was perhaps wise in you
to throw up the discussion altogether.
You say that you do not raake " any pre
tensions to logic." I do not know that any

CORRESPONDENCE.

7S

man is under a moral obligation to under
stand the art of reasoning, or to be versed
in the comraon and well-defined rules of
debate. But perhaps it may not he amiss
to suggest that, in such an instance, it
would be expedient for the individual, who
soever he might be, not to thrust himself
into positions where the observance of
these rules is fairly imposed upon him.
The assertion you have raade, that you
have " answered all manner of questions,"
is, I think, somewhat venturesome. I do
not remember to have asked more than one
question touching closely the point in dis
pute, but that is a vital one, for the cate
gorical answer to it involves a principle
which lies at the foundation of the whole
debate. It has not been answered plainly
and manfully, and your abrupt termination
of this discussion sustains me in the belief
I expressed in ray last letter, that you dare
not answer it in a straightforward raanner,
yes or ho.
Not being able or willing to answer it,
and not having the frankness to say so, and
to leave it, and proceed with a second argu
ment, I do not see what course was left for
you to pursue other than the one you have
adopted. Having now withdrawn frora the
attitude of a disputant, you have of course
relieved yourself from the responsibilities
of one ; and you can henceforth manage
your arguraents, assertions, ahd aiialogies
as you please, and thus save yourself the
trouble of defending hasty and unfortunate
premises and illogical inferences. I also
shall find my advantage in the arrange
ment, for I can now go forward and vindi
cate my doctrine without the annoyance of
repeated and unsuccessful attempts to bring
ray adversary to the point, and keep him there.
When I express to you- my disappoint
ment in not having found in you such an
adversary as I flattered myself I was to be
honoured with upon accepting your chal
lenge to a discussion, I would not have you
or our readers imagine that there is any
regret mingled with this feeling at the
question itself having been brought into
such prominent notice. On the contrary,
I rejoice much at the deep interest that has
been excited in relation to it, and at the
prospect there is of its now obtaining a
thorough investigation by some means or
other. It can still be fully and fairly ex
amined without a formal disputation, and I
am confident the result will be that much
ignorance and prejudice in regard to the
opinions held by Churchmen will be there
by reraoved.
To be sure, a public discussion, conduct
ed in an honourable and dignified manner,
with a mutual avoidance of uncourteous
and unkind expressions, and appeals to
mere popular prejudice, would have produ
ced no unpleasant excitement, and would
have added no little interest to the whole
K

investigation. As it is, however (let the
blame rest where it may), it has been dear
ly proved that we had better each proceed
after his own method to establish our re
spective doctrines, and then leave the pub
lic to judge ofthe comparative, weight of
our arguments.
1 was very unwilling to comraence this
discussion, as is well known, and I cannot
say that I regret being relieved from the
necessity of following it up with an ad
versary, in debating with whom I had be
gun to feel that neither the cailse of truth
nor that of charity could be much advan
ced ; but I should be far more unwilling to^
leave the question in its present unsatisfac
tory position. And therefore I shall not
consent to do so.
You, indeed, have deserted the arena;;
but as I J;rust that I should not have exult
ed ovA- a prostrate foe, had it been my for
tune to vanquish you in a fair-fought field,
I feel no disposition to triumph in your pre
cipitate retreat, and therefore I shall say
no raore, but proceed as I best can without
you. With my plarting salutation to you as you-
go, however, suffer me to unite a word of
friendly caution. You have tried your
powers in controversy, and are now about
to change this mode of discussion for one
which, I doubt not, will occasion you less
perplexity and discomfort. I trust that the-
altered character of your communications,
to the public will enable you, in your prep
arations, to reflect more seriously than I
fear you have heretofore done, in the ex
citement of debate, upon the sacredness of
the question under consideration.
When one has a present adversary to^
contend with, it is not, perhaps, in human
nature always to distinguish between zeal
for the truth and ambition for conquest, and
therefore it has often happened, unfortu
nately for- the reputation of our common
Christianity, that religious controversy has-
been raarked by a levity of raanner, and a
conturaelious use of language, which have
been in reality aimed, not so much at the
subject in dispute, as at the person of th&
di.sputant. Now, however, that you have
withdrawn yourself from the influence of
this temptation, I trust that the Church of
which I ara an humble meraber, and the
doctrine which, as I believe, sustains her
distinctive character, will be regarded by
you as invested with some degree of sa
credness, and therefore that you will not
allow yourself to assail them any more
with opprobrious epithets or expressions
of ridicule.
Remember that your own Church, and
the doctrines which command your firm
belief, are exposed to the same description
of unworthy attack from the ranks of infi
delity. In the estimation of the unbeliever
you are as " arrogant," as " exclusive,^' as

74

CORRESPONDENCE.

" uncharitable" towards him, as you can
possibly suppose Churchmen to be towards
you. But does this justly subject you to
such denunciations ? Certainly not. And
wherefore ? Because you conscientiously
believe that the doctrines you hold are the
, revealed truths of God ; you cannot alter
their exclusive character ; and if you hold
them in the spirit of love, you do not feel
that you are obnoxious to the charge of
want of charity.
Why, then, not mete out to us the same
measure of forbearance that you yourself
^feel entitled to from others ? I believe the
doctrine I hold in relation to the essential
constitution of the Church to be as surely
founded on the Word of God, as we both
do the doctrine of human depravity, or the
atoneraent, or the Trinity, and to be as
fairly deduced from this Word. I ^o not
hold it, as you assert, to be a question of
form, but one of substance. Now this raay
be the error of those who are called High
Churchraen. Convict them of error, if you
can, from the ultimate authority we both
appeal to. But in doing so, pray remeraber
that they have as deep an interest in dis
covering God's truth as yourself, and that
they have, perhaps, sought for it as dili
gently, and that they hold what they have
obtained as conscientiously.
While, then, you bend your efforts lo in
struct the ignorance or remove the prejil-
dice of the body whom you designate as
a " comparatively contracted >denomina-
fion,"* but whose insignificance has nev
ertheless not shielded them from your as
sault, reflect that you are dealing with doc
trines as sacred in their estimation and as
dear to their affections as any Gospel truth
^3an be to you.
In conclusion, suffer me to direct your
attention to a sentiment of Richard Baxter,
who, in the earlier part of his ministry, was
as bitter in Kis hatred, and as violent in his
denunciations of Episcopacy, as many of
those in the present day with whom he is
held in high estimation, but who, when age
had made him wiser, and experience had
•enlarged the bounds of his charity, uttered
and left on record the following raemorable
words :
" At first IT WOULD DISGRACE ANY DOC
TRINE WITH ME IP I DID BUT HEAR IT CALL
ED Popery and Anti- Christian ; but I have

-* It is a remarkable circumstance that fifteen
years ago nobody thought of reckoning the Epis
copal Church among the " denominations ;"-and
now everything in the shape of sectarism is uni
ted against her sure and steady progress.

LONG LEARNED TO BE MORE IMPARTUL, AND
TO KNOW THAT SaTAN CAN USE EVEN THB
NAMES OF Popery and Anti-Christ to bring
TRUTH INTO SUSPICION AND DISCREDIT."
I bid you now a final farewell, and am,
with all due respect, your obedient ser
vant, Jona. M. Wainwright.
Saturday, Feb. 10, 1844. ,

To the Editors of the Commercial Advertiser.
Gentlemen — You will perceive, by my
letter of to-day, that the discussion to which
.you opened the columns o^f your journal
has been prematurely brought to a close.
I ara extremely anxious, however, to vin
dicate, if I can, the doctrine I hold, in com
mon with many others, in relation to the
Church and the Christian ministry, from
the aspersions that have been cast upon it,
by showing the reasons which satisfy me
of its truth.
The Church could furnish many far abler
apologists, but circumstances seera to have
imposed this duty upon rae. Unworthy,
therefore, as I feel rayself to be of the hon
our, I dare not shrink from it.
The object of this letter is to ask whether
you will permit a series of calm didactic
essays upon the sdbject of Episcopacy to
have a place in your columns. They shall
be short, and I need hardly add that they
shall be utterly free from all personal allu
sions, and, as far as practicable, from hav
ing a controversial character.
If you accede to my request, I shall com
raence my Work at once. If, on the other
hand, you deem it expedient to decline, I
shall adopt sorae other mode of communi
cating with the public.
With my thanks for your past courtesies,
I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
Jona. M. Wainwright.
Reply.
We could assign raany reasons for
promptly and cheerfully acceding to Doc
tor Wainwright's proposition ; foremost
among which is the assurance we have
that an abrupt close of the discussion-— or,
rather, of the inquiry, since it is now to as
sume that form— would be very unsatisfac
tory to the public. The subject— one of
high importance— has been brought for
ward for investigation, and we believe that
thousands would regret its withdrawal at
the present time. But, supposing that onr
reasons can be of little consequence to any,
we deera it enough to say that our columns
remain open both to Drs. Potts and Wain
wright for the expression of their views.

TWELVE ESSAYS
on THE
SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT TOR THE EPISCOPACY.

IS THE EPISCOPjICY ESSENTIAI TO THE CHURCH?

No. I.
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.
The late celebrated Dr. John M. Mason,
in his treatise upon the " Church of God,"
has the following passage :
" It has been, and still is, a received be
lief among almost all who profess Chris
tianity, that the Redeemer has instituted a
regular rainistry, to be perpetuated in an
order of raen specially set apart and cora-
missioned by his authority, for the purpose
of inculcating the doctrines and duties of
Christianity ; and that no man may lawful
ly enter upon its functions without an of
ficial warrant from them who are them
selves already in office.
" Others contend that this whole system
is of human origin ; is founded either in ig
norance or in fraiid ; and militates directly
against the nature and privileges of the
Christian Church.
" Others, again, attempt a middle course,
allowing the general principle of a minis
try, but leaving the application of it at
large ; and conceiving the exercise of gifts,
with the approbation of the Church, that is,
a number of professing Christians met tOT-
gether for public worship, to be a valid and
sufficient call."
The second of these hypotheses we raay
disraiss at once, as the few who hold it
would probably take no interest in the
present inquiry.
The first and third it is iraportant to ex
araine, because the decision of the ques
tion, as between thera, lies at the founda
tion of any arguraent upon the origin and
nature of the rainisterial office.
If the Jatter hypothesis be the true one,
it follows, that ordination in the Congrega-
¦lional, Presbyterian, or Episcopal raethod,
is equally valid ; the question of the Apos

tolical succession raust be set aside as to
tally unimportant, and the only inquiry of
any real interest would be as to the rela
tive expediency of these three forms of
Church polity.
If the first hypothesis, on the contrary,
be adopted, " that no man may lawfully
enter upon the functions of the rainistry,"
whatever his other qualifications may be,
" without an official warrant from those
who are in office," then other questions of
great importance naturally arise. What is
an official warrant ? Who are they who
have a right to give it ? And how did they
obtain and how must they authenticate this
right ?
I propose, therefore, in the first place,
briefly to examine these two statements,
with the view of showing that the one first
set down by Dr. Mason is sustained by
Holy Scripture. I need hardly s-ay that
upon this point I entirely coincide with
that eminent divine, in opposition to the
vague, confused, and often contradictory
opinions, that are now so prevalent in re
lation to the Christian ministry.
I feel anxious to obtain an attentive hear
ing upon this point, for recent disclosures
have satisfied me that it needs illustration,
that it needs, indeed, to be brought out and
stated with great clearness, in order that it
may be seen not only to be a point, but a
fundamental one, in discussing the question
that has given rise to the proposed series
of essays to which this is an introduction.
Let us, then, take a practical or com
mon-sense view of the subject. I presume
it will not he disputed that, in a coramuni-
ty like ours, no man would be permitted to
discharge the office of a rainister of the
Gospel, in any respectable congregation
of Christians, without credentials of sorae

76 ESSAYS.
kind. I may venture to say that, with the
great majority of those whom I address,
something more would be essential to their
conceding to any man the right to baptize
their children, to preach to them the Gos
pel, and to adrainister to them the Lord's
Supper, than piety of character and intel
lectual endowments.
Put the case. Suppose the pastolr of a
congregation in any one of the leading de
nominations of this city were to be remo
ved, and no successor could be imraediate-
ly procured, but that among their number
was a man of unquestioned piety, and of
extensive theological attainments ; would
the congregation consent to receive him,
and permit him to act as their minister,
upon no other authority than what would
be implied in their election ? Among the
strict Independents, indeed, it might be that
no feeling of doubt or repugnance would
present any obstacle to such a course.
They would carry out their principle
consistently, viz., that as each separate
congregation possesses within itself all
spiritual authority, it may select whomso
ever it pleases for its religioiis teachers,
and that such selection is all the authority
needed to rainister in sacred things. But
with the great body of Congregationalists,
although the abstract principle 6f Church
polity is the same, the practice is almost
universally different, and, in addition to
gifts and graces, and the election by the
people, they require, also, public ordination
by the imposition of hands by others, who
have themselves been ordained. As to
Presbyterians of either school, it raay be
safely asserted that no congregation araong
them would receive a man as their minis
ter unless he could produce credential?
from the Presbytery- who ordained hira, in
addition to his piety.
The sentiment, then, is pretty universal
ly felt, that something more than intellect
ual capacity, learning, a Christian walk
and conversation before the world, and
zeal for the spiritual interests of men, is
requisite to raake a man a minister of the
Gospel. Now what is this indispensable qualifica
tion ? In Dr. Mason's words, I reply, " An
official warrant from those who are them
selves already in office," or, in other words,
ordination by ordained ministers.

May I be permitted to state the question
over again in a somewhat different form,
and will those of my readers to whom the
distinction I ara making is perfectly clear,
excuse rae in consideration of the fact that
it is not clear to many rainds, as I have
abundant reason to know ?
All who believe in the existence of a vis
ible Church of Christ (and for such only do
I write), will acknowledge that there are
certain things to be done which are essen
tial to the well-being and the perpetuity of
that Church. In addition to preaching the
Gospel, the Saviour's two commands ta
baptize and to administer the Lord's Sup
per must be duly observed. Now to whom
were, these coraraands given ? To the
whole raultitude of believers ? Certainly
not ; but to the Apostles, in the fii-st in
stance. The Apostles having departed,.
who has now the right to execute these
commands ? Not, certainly, every member
of every congregation who chooses to put
liimself forward. Who, then? and what
evidence can he give of possessing this
right ? I can conceive of only four kinds
of claim, now that the power of working^
miracles has been withdrawn, which can
be advanced in support of it.
1st. A man may say, I have an inward
conviction that God, by his .Spirit, has
anointed me to be a minister, and has au
thorized me to preach, baptize, and admin
ister the sacrament.
This proof of authority raay be sufficient
for the individual, but it is obvious that it
can be no proof to any one else.
2d. He may say, I am well instructed
in the Gospel of Christ, and able to teach
others. I understand the nature of the
Christian sacraments, and my daily walk
and conversation are such as render me
not unworthy to discharge the functions
of the sacred office.
This is all well ; but it is obvious that
qualificatipns for any office do not, of them
selves, establish the right to discharge it.
3d. In addition to the above he may say,
I have been chosen by a congregation to
administer to thera in spiritual things, and
I plead this choice as ray sufficient war
rant to assurae the office of a miifister.
But the question is. Does this choice
alone answer the requisitions of the Gos
pel ? A minister is the sent of God. " Hovf

ESSAYS.
shall they preach except they be sent ?" A
congregation cannot send a person to it
self. A minister is an ambassador of
Christ. " Now, then, we are ambassadors
for Christ." A peoffle to whom an embas
sy is sent cannot give to the ambassador
his credentials. This question, however,
•will be farther argued frora the Scriptures
hereafter. 4th. A man may possess all the above-
mentioned qualifications, and, in addition
to these, he may have " an official warrant
from those who are themselves already in
office." Now I affirm that a man cannot bg a
minister of the Gospel unless he can show
this last qualification, even although he
may possess all the others that have been
mentioned. And I contend, moreover, that
this is the doctrine of the Christian minis
try, as held in comraon by Episcopalians,
Presbyterians, and also Congregationalists
in practice, if not in theory. I urge this
point upon the attention of those who may
honour these essays with a perusal. I re
quest thera to give it a particular examina
tion, because, as I have before said, it is a
fundamental one. According as it is de
cided, the questions of Episcopacy and
Apostolical succession become vital, or
else questions merely of expediency or
curiosity. And yet, iraportant as this sub
ject of inquiry is, it has been lost sight of
to stich an extent, that raany, even of the
ministers of the Gospel of the present day,
seem not to appreciate its bearing upon
investigations which are dependent upon
it, and, in any logical argument, raust be
¦subsequent to it.
A recent writer, who has treated of the
ministry, has well observed, "that there
are raany who acknowledge the necessity
of a ministry in the Church, and who allow
that it ought, in all raain particulars, to re
semble that of the primitive Christians;
nay, who notoriously assign a very high
value to such a ministry, as a peculiar
means of grace, having a promise of bless
ing annexed to it, and yet do not acquiesce
in the Gospel doctrine concerning it. Many
think that they believe in a Christian rain
istry, when they are only believing in a
pTrticular minister— think that they are be
lieving in a MINISTRY, when they are only
believing in eloquence. There is, perhaps

77
very generally, an indistinct impression
that something is required to make a man a
'rainister of the Gospel,' but what it is
very few would be ready to say."
Now, in the course of these Essays, I
shall make the attempt to show what that
" something" is. If I am successful, it will
be found at the conclusion that it is ordina
tion by th,e laying on of hands of a Bishop,
who has derived his authority from the
Apostles by regular transmission through
other Bishops. ,
But to all this investigation the question
of a divinely-appointed ministry is funda
mental. I have endeavoured, in what has
now been said, to show what is meant by
such a ministry. That the distinction con
tended for has the clear warrant of Scrip
ture, I think can be satisfactorily shown.
In what remains of the present Essay,
however, I shall advance nothing raore on
my own authority. I prefer to summon to
my assistance upon this point one whose
opinion will have infinitely greater weight
than mine could have, in the estiraation of
raany of those whose candid attention I so
licit and hope to obtain.
The Rev. Dr. Mason, in that abletreatise
upon the " Church of God" frora which the
extract introducing this Essay was quoted,
sustains the doctrine for which 1 contend
by a scriptural argiiment, a portion of which
I offepto the reader's careful perusal — un
less, indeed, he should feel inclined to read
the whole treatise, which will be found in
the fourth volume of the works of that em
inent divine, as selected and arranged by
his son, the Rev. Ebenezer Mason, and
which will repay the reader's trouble.
f . " It is undeniable, that from the time
when God set up his Church in her orga
nized form (and even before), until the
Christian dispensation, there was an order
of men consecrated, by his own appoint
ment, to the exclusive work of directing
her worship and presiding over her inter
ests ; insomuch that no man but one of
theraselves, not even a crowned head,
might meddle with their funetions, nor un-
dejctake in any way to be a public teacher
of religion, without an iramediate call from
Heaven, attested by miraculous evidence.
2. " The ancient prophets, ' who spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,'
foretold that the same princiole should be

78
acted upon in the days of the Messiah.
Thus, in Isaiah, Ixvi., 21, '/ will also take
of them for PR:^ESTS and for LEVITES,
saith JEHOVAH.' There is no difficulty
jn the appellation ' Priests and Levites,'
seeing it was custojnary with the prophets
to speak of New Testament blessings in
Old Testament style, and not practicable
for them to use any other and be sufficient
ly intelligible. '
3. "Our Lord Jesus Christ delivered
their commission to his Apostles in terms
which necessarily imply a perpetual and
regular successive ministry. ' Go ye, and
TEACH ALL NATIONS, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to ob
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded
you; and lo, I am with you ALWAY, even
unto the END OF THE WORLD.'— Matt.,
xxviii., 19.
"That this comraand and promise,
though immediately addressed, were not
limited to the Apostles, is so obvious as
almost to shame an argument. But since
we are sometimes required to prove that
two and two make four, we remark,
" First. That as the comraand is to teach
all nations, it must spread as far and last
as long as nations shall be found. It is,
therefore, a comraand to raake the Chris
tian religion universal, and to perpetuate
it from generation to gerteration. ,
" Secondly. That as the Apostles were
shortly to ' put off their tabernacles,' the
command could not possibly be fulfilled by
them. It runs parallel with the existence
of nations. It must, therefore, be execu
ted by others, in every age, who are to
carry on the work which the Apostles te-
gan, and who, by the very terms of the
comraandraent, are identified with them
in the general spirit of the commission,
which is, to preach the doctrines, enforce
the precepts, and administer the ordinan
ces of Jesus Christ.
" Thirdly. That the promise, ' I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the world,'
cannot, without palpable absurdity, be re
stricted to the persons or to the days of
the Apostles. Closely rendered, it is, ' I
am with you alway, even until the con
summation of the age,'' i. e., ' dispensation.'
But what age ? what dispensation ? Either
the Jewish or the Christian.

ESSAYS. "Not the Jewish, certainly. It would be
very strange if the grace of the Redeem
er's promise should abide with his Apostles
till the end of the old dispensation, and run
out exactly at the moment when it was
wanted for the new one. The ' world,'
therefore, is that ' world' which Paul calls
'the world to come' (Heb., ii., 5), i. e., the
Christian dispensation. ' I have just intro
duced it,' says the Master, ' and I will be
with you to the close ot it.' The promise,
then, as well as the precept, reaches to the
end of tiraoj and, like the precept, embra
ces a successive ministry, to whom our
Lord Jesus has engaged the continuance
of his gracious presence.
4. "The Apostles themselves acted
upon the principle of a perpetual minis- '
try. ' They ordained presbyters in every
Church.' — (Acts, xiv., 23.) Paul has left,
in his epistles to Timothy and Titus, as a
part of the rule of faith and practice, par
ticular directions for the choice of Bishops
or Presbyters and Deacons ; and in his
epistle to the Hebrews (ch. xiii., 17) he
charges these widely-scattered disciples to
obey their spiritual rulers, under this pre
cise idea, that they watch, says he, for your
souls as they that must give account.
5. " The New Testament abounds with
predictions and warnings of apostacy in the
ministers of religion — which of course im
plies the continuance of a ministry.
6. "The book of Revelation exprsssly
recognises the diffusion of the Gospel, in
tiraes yet to come, by the instrumentality
of a public ministry (ch. xLv., 6).
"Since, therefore, the Head of the Church
instituted a regular ministry in his Church
thousands of years ago — since he directed
his prophets to foretell its existence under
the nevir dispensation — since he gave to
his Apostles a commission which neces
sarily supposes its perpetuity — since these
Apostles themselves acted upon that prin
ciple in erecting Churches — since the rule
of faith has given instructions to guide its
application — since the prophetic spirit in
the last of the Apostles has uttered oracles
which are founded upon it — no conclusion
is more safe and irrefragable than this —
that a regular, standing ministry is an es
sential constituent of the Church of GocSI
Let the reader ponder this proof in sup
port of the doctrine " that a perpetual anA

ESSAYS.

79

regularly successive ministry''' is essential to
the Church. How it is to be "perpetual"
and how " regularly successive," shall here
after be shown.
Feb. 16th.

No. II.
HOW DOES A MAN BECOME A MINISTER OF THE
GOSPEL?
This question, so simple in itself, and so
easily answered by those who maintain
that the Episcopacy is essential to the
Church, will not, I suspect, be found sus
ceptible of as prompt and satisfactory a
reply by those who advocate the opposite
doctrine. And yet it is obvious that all
who claim to be ministers of the Gospel
should be able to reply to it, and all who
recognise such a claim should be convin
ced of the sufficiency of that reply.
To answer my own question, then, I say
that a man becomes a minister of the Gos
pel in virtue of authority derived from
Christ, the Great Head of the Church,
through those to whom he committed this
trust. This constitutes the ministerial
commission, and the necessity for it arises
out of the very nature of the office.
When the Lord himself condescended
to become our minister, "the Shepherd
and Bishop of our souls," even he " glori
fied not himself" to be made an High-
Priest ; and he did not enter upon his min
istry until he was set apart by an external
sign given him at his baptism ; and from
that tirae, and not before, Jesus began "to
preach and to teach." He also confessed
that he was the sent of the Father. ¦ If
Christ was sent and, externally commis
sioned, much more must those who hold
official staftions under him submit to the
same order. St. Paul says, " God was in
Christ reconciling the world unto himself,"
and hath committed unto us " the ministry
of reconciliation." And when the same
Apostle was preparing for the time when
he should be called upon to give up his
own commission by death, he provided for
the perpetuity of its authority. "This
charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy ;
and the sarae commit thou to faithful men,
who shall be able to teach others also."
Every Scripture precedent strongly sup

ports the doctrine, that a minipter of Christ
must bear a commission that can be out
wardly authenticated. Ministers are " pas
tors," " stewards of mysteries," " over
seers," " ambassadors " — they are " in
Christ's stead." They speak in the name
of Christ, and the churches are told that
they " watch for souls as they that must
give account." Now do not all these ti
tles imply an office which is to be exer
cised in virtue of authority not derived nor
derivable in any way from those in relation
to whom it is exercised ? Do they not im
ply an office into which a man can be in
troduced by Hira alone whose are the mys.-
teries, whose are the sheep that are to be
watched and fed, whose are the people that
must be overseen, whose the throne is'from
which the embassy comes, and whose the
tribunal is to which the account must be
rendered up ?
I can conceive, therefore, of no authori
ty to speak and minister in the name of
Christ, unless its origin can be traced to
that solemn transaction recorded in the
last three verses of the Gospel according
to St. Matthew : " And Jesus came and
spake unto thera, saying. All power is giv
en unto me in heaven and in earth. Go
ye, therefore, and teach all nations, bap
tizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost :' teach
ing them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you ; and lo, I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the world.
Amen." That this was an authoritative commis
sion, whatsoever its import may be, no one
will doubt, as it emanated from Him to
whom all power in heaven and earth is
given. That it was intrusted originally to
the eleven, to the exclusion of all others,
will not be disputed. That it conveyed
certain specific powers — to wit, to teach
all nations, to baptize, and to instruct them
to observe whatsoever Christ coraraanded
— is raanifest on the face of it. That it was
to be a perpetual commission, or, in other
words, that it was not limited to the Apos
tles themselves, so as that its powers
should expire, with them, is, I think, clear
ly demonstrated from its final clause, ", Lo,
I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world."
There are those, however, who suppose

•80

ESSAY^.

that this comraission was personal to the
Apostles who received it, and, therefore,
that it does not constitute the sole warrant
for maintaining a standing ministry. Now
that the Apostles were authorized to asso-
-ciate others with them in executing the
great design of their comraission is "mani
fest, I think, from the whole subsequent
'Gospel history. Before they began to act
under it, they added one to their number
to supply the place vacated by the aposta
cy and death of Judas (Acts, i.), and after
ward they gave authority to the seven
beacons to' execute a part of their trust
{Acts, vi.). The congregation elected these
deacons, indeed, but this was not sufficient ;
for the Apostles said, " Look ye out seven
men whom we raay appoint over this busi
ness;" and, when chosen, they were or
dained by the Apostles with prayer and by
the iraposition of hands. That the charge
given to the deacons was not liraited to the
care of the poor, but included authority to
baptize and preach also, there can be no
reasonable doubt, as we have explicit in
formation that two of the seven were after
ward thus employed.
It is very certain that our blessed Lord,
while he was himself on the earth, execu
ting the mission upon which he was sent
•by the Father, did not give forth his doc
trines to make their way as they might by
their intrinsic truth and power, but employ
ed a human instrumentality — ^first in the
persons of the twelve, and then in those
of the seventy, whora he invested with a
commission, and sent forth to preach and
work rairacles. And this principle was
still kept in action after he had fulfilled his
own raission and was about to return to
the Father, as we have just seen in the
charge given to the eleven Apostles, That
Ihe Apostles in their practice were gov
erned by the sarae principle, and wherever
they planted the Churcli established also
a ministry, which was not common to all
the members of the Church, but the au
thority of which was conferred exclusively
upon some, there can be no doubt.
Now was this a feature in the polity of
the primitive Church vvhich was to pass
away with the Apostles and with those
whom they themselves commissioned, or
was it to be permanent? This point needs
not be argued.

How, then, is this permanency to be se
cured ? Obviously it can be secured only
in one way, by the transmitting of the com
mission from generation to generation. As
Christ, before he left the earth, gave a com
mission to the Apostles, so the Apostles,
before their decease, appointed their suc
cessors, and by prayer and the laying on
of hands imparted to thera the authority
to preach, to baptize, and to govern the
Church, which they had theraselves re
ceived from Christ. .
There is evidence, also, the most satis
factory, that these successors of the Apos
tles, before their decease; conferred upon
others the same powers and privileges
which they had themselves received, and in
the same manner— with prayer and by " the
laying on of hands." And thenceforward
unto the present day there has never been
absent from the Church a ministry receiv
ing its commission from the ministry that
immediately preceded it. Now whether
this rainistry, thus erapowered to perpetu
ate itself, subsists in one order or in iAree,
the first being the perpetuating order, is
another question, which shall be treated
of hereafter. The points now before us
are, the necessity for an unbroken succes
sion in the ministerial office, and the evi
dence for this successioHi
We say, then, that if the rainistry was
designed to be a permanent institution, if
the Church was never to be ^ left destitute
of those who were authorized to teach and
administer the sacraments in the name and
by the authority of Christ, there raust of
necessity have been an unbroken succes
sion in the rainistry. Can any believer in
Christ suppose that when he established a
human instrumentality by which disciples
were to be gathered unto him from all na
tions, and visible ordinances symbolical of
the most important truths, and the channels
of special grace were to be perpetuated, he
would not sustain and protect his own in
stitution ? Can any believer suppose that
his solemn promise, "Lo, I ara with you
alway, even unto the end of the world,"
was an unraeaning one ?
If at any raoment it hath failed — if at any
period since his ascension there have not
been the representatives of those to whom
he gave this commission, " Go ye and teach
all nations, baptizing them," &c., connect-

ESSAYS
ed with this promise, then the ministerial
succession has been broken. But if his
promises are all "yea and amen," this,
-most assuredly, has not been falsified, and
if not, then, without peradventure, the min
istry has been preserved in regular succes
sion ; there never has been a raoment when
there have not been " rainisters of Christ
and stewards of the raysteries of God,"
and these have received their commission
each from a preceding one, and so up to
the original depositories ofthe sacred trust.
Deny this, and you accuse the Divine Re
deemer of using fallacious words, or of
wanting power to protect his own institu
tion, and you deny the existence, at the
present day, of any ministry holding
Christ's authority.
Upon the fact, then, of the giving of the
original rainisterial coraraission, connect
ed with the proraise of Christ that he would
be with those who hold it to the end ofthe
world — upon the fact that no other com-
anission derived clearly and without doubt
from Christ himself can be brought for
ward — we repose our assertion that a man
becomes a minister of the Gospel in vir
tue of holding a coraraission derived from
Christ through the Apostles and their suc
cessors in office.
All depends, then, upon the original com-
jnission. If Christ designed that it should be per
petual, or, in other words, that there should
always be " pastors," " overseers,'' " am
bassadors," authorized by him to execute
their holy functions, and if he gave a prom
ise to this effect — and this much we con-
•tend for — then we argue that the succes
sion in the rainistry has been unbroken.
If, on the other hand, any one will ven
ture to affirm that the original commission
was not designed to be perpetual, then we
assert that, at the present day, there is no
comraission outwardly authenticated, such
as Timothy and Titus held, authorizing
men to execute the ministerial office.
If there be such, let those who pretend
to it show what it is, and in what manner
it is authenticated.
An election by the congregation, with
whatever solemnities it may be attested,
other than ordination by those who hold
authority frora Christ to ordain, is certain-
'v no comraission frora Christ. No pas-
L

81
sage of Scripture can be adduced which
iraplies any power in the congregation to
clothe raen with rainisterial authority. The
congregation, we acknowledge, raay des
ignate the individual who is to receive the
commission, as in the Scriptural instance
quoted above of the seven deacons. But
the congregation cannot now, any more
than it could then, convey the commission,
because it was not intrusted to a congre
gation, but to individual men, who, if
Scripture authority is worth anything, com
mitted it never to congregations, but to in
dividual men, as Paul to Timothy and
Titus. On the supposition that the congregation
has the power of conferring authority upon
those who are to exercise the rainistry, is
it not remarkable that throughout the New
Testament there are nowhere to be found
directions in regard to so important a trust
addressed to the Churches, whereas to the
ministry the most ample instructions are
given upon this point ? Look through St.
Paul's Epistles to the Churches, and you
find that he instructs, warns, and rebukes,
upon many subjects touching religious
coraraunities, in their collective capacity,
but nowhere does he address them upon
the appointing power to the ministry and
its exercise. Examine, then, the Epistles
to Timothy and Titus, and see how full and
minute the Apostle is in his instructions
upon this very point.
Again, since no directions are anywhere
given for renewing the ministerial comrais
sion, if it should be in any way interrupted
or vitiated in its descent, raay we not infer
that, when Christ gave it, he never design
ed to perrait euch a contingency to arise,
but would fulfil his solemn promise, " Lo,
I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world ?"
But, again, there are those, and they
doubtless constitute no inconsiderable num
ber ofthe professing Christians ofthe pres
ent day, who will say that the inward call,
the raotion of God's Spirit prompting a man
to undertake the ministry, is, after all, the
true commission, and that any other is a
mere matter of external order. The sub
sequent intellectual preparation ofthe man,
his invitation by some congregation, and
even his outward ordination, are subsidia
ries only ; as they neither of them, nor all

82

ESSAYS.

together, without the inward call, would
make a raan a true rainister of Christ. That
they could not make a man a worthy rain
ister of Christ, one whora the great Head
of the Church would approve and reward
at the last day, is undoubted. But as the
ministry is a human agency, established
by Christ to act among raen, and upon men,
is it not reasonable to suppose that he who
assumes this agency should have sorae
means of proving his right to it? Now as
God alone is the searcher of hearts, he alone
can tell whether or not he has put it into
the heart of any raan to preach the Gospel.
Who can doubt but that, in raultitudes of
instances, men have discharged the minis
terial office, and with spiritual benefit to
their fellow-men, who have, notwithstand
ing their efficient preaching to others, been
themselves cast away. Our blessed Lord
seems expressly to have intended to pre
pare the Church for such a result. In the
number of the twelve who were first ap
pointed to preach the Gospel, and to work
miracles, and to whom even the devils were
subject, was Judas Iscariot. No one will
claira for hira an inward call, and yet his
Apostleship was undoubted, and while he
exercised it, he deceived all but his Divine
Master. Again, if any one contends that the in
ward call makes a man a minister, I would
ask him. Are the sacraments of baptism
and the Supper ofthe Lord rendered inval
id when performed by an unworthy minis
ter, or is the preached Gospel no longer
" the savour of death unto death in them
that perish, and of life unto life in thera
that are saved," because he who preaches
it may be himself unconverted ? No one,
surely, will allow that such inferences can
be fairly drawn.
The inward call, then, is not of the es
sence of the ministerial office so far as the
Church is concerned. As regards the ques
tion between any particular minister and
the Great Head ofthe Church, it is indeed
essential. All that the Church can do is
to exercise a general judgment in regard
to those who plead the spiritual impulse to
become rainisters, and to charge them,
with all the authority of a solemn admoni
tion, not to assume the sacred trust unless
they are " persuaded that they are inward
ly moved to do so by the Holy Ghost."

" That this view of what is essential to
the rainisterial office commends itself to
the common sense of almost all denomina
tions of Christians, whatever their abstract
theory may be, is, I think, obvious, from
the fact that " a licentiate," or " candidate,"
or whatever he may be called, that is, one
who is supposed to have given evidence of
possessing the inward call, would never be
permitted to baptize or administer the
Lord's Supper upon the authority of such
a commission alone.
But again, suppose the inward call were
allowed to be the sufficient warrant for a
man to preach and administer the sacra
ments, and the outward ordination to be a
mere matter of order, is it not obvious that
it could not be effectual even for this pur
pose ? What right has any man, or any
body of men, to control, or in any way in
terfere with the influences of the Holy
Spirit ? If a man pleads the inward call to
the ministry, and you allow the validity of
this plea, what need of any human ordi
nance whatsoever to authenticate such a
comraission? I need hardly attempt to
depict the monstrous abuses which such a
theory would give rise to, were it permitted
to work out its legitimate consequences.
Men would then be subjected to the in
tolerable oppression of being denied the as
surance for themselves and their families
of ever receiving the ordinances of Christ,
the gifts of the common salvation, unless
they accomplished the impossible task of
searching the spirit and of ascertaining the
personal character of each administrator
of those ordinances. And, moreover, by
taking away the restraints of a divinely-
appointed ordaining power, you incite poor
human nature, as it lists, without limit or
responsibility, to take up the vast unbound
ed themes of religion, and with them to
operate upon the consciences, the passions,
and the imaginations of men. And is not
this to open the door (as history shows us)
to the worst raisrule and crirae which have
ever plagued the earth? What human
power can restrain the raan who pleads
inspiration for what he does or says ? and
what corapetent check is there, save that
ordained by Christ himself in the commis
sion which he gave to his Apostles, to be
continued through all tirae ?
The principal denorainations of Chris-

ESSAYS.
tians, therefore, whatever their abstract
theory may have been, have endeavoured
to preserve themselves from these evils.
They uniformly place outward restraints
upon the exercise of this inward call, and
the very check they have adopted with re
markable unity of consent is ordination by
the ministry. Now if some external re
straint has thus been proved to be abso
lutely essential to the very existence of
orderly bodies of believers in Christ, is it
to be supposed that Christ himself would
not have made sorae provision for its use ?
that he would not have incorporated it
with the fundaraental principles of his
Church ? We say that he has done so in
the Apostolical comraission, which is dis
tinct from the inward qualification, and
which may be seen and read of all men.
The objections which may be raised
against this doctrine of the Apostolical
succession will be examined in mv next
number. rebmary 22d,

.83

No. III.

1 the APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
Tns names by which the Gospel ministry
is described in the Sacred Scriptures, such
as " overseer," " steward," " ambassador,"
clearly show that it is a trust not origina-
ting'witAi men, but " committed" unto men.
He, then, who claims that he holds this
trust, should be able to produce the commis
sion by which he was put in possession of it.
In my last number I endeavoured to show
tbat neitht'T " the inward call" '-nor " elec
tion by a congregation" constitiites a valid
commission, but that its validity depends
'jponits being received from those who had
:au'thOrity to give it, transmitted to them in
.nyegiilar succession from the Apostles.
'Ifhis ddctrine has been stated with
great clearness in ah^dmirable ordination
sermon recently piiblished by John Niel
M'Leod,D.D., pastor ofthe Reformed Pres
byterian Church, New- York, from Which I
take the liberty of making a few extracts
apposite to the smbject under consideration.
'"Now, then, we are ambassadors for
Christ, as though God did beseech you by
us ; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye
reconciled unto God.'— 1 Corinth., v., 20.
Perhaps there is no single passage in the

Word of God, though it is full of informa
tion on the subject, that exhibits with great
er distinctness than the one just quoted,
the character and employments of the
Christian rainistry, and the relation they
sustain to the Church and the world. The
ambassador is an officer ofthe power which
appoints him, and Christ's ambassadors are
official persons. * * The ambassador
of Christ does not receive his official pow
er from the men of the world, * * nor
even from professing Christians in the
Church, but from Jesus Christ himself *
* It is the undoubted right of the Chris
tian people to say for themselves who
among Christ's ministers shall be their
spiritual guide, but they do not give him his
office. Before he can be their pastor in
particular he must have received the min- '
isterial office, according to the established
order, from those who already possess it
themselves. * * The facts of the case,
as we find them recorded in sacred history,
sustain this view of the subject. Under
the Old Testament dispensation, the officers
of the Church were appointed by God him
self The priesthood took office in the
operation of an established and uniform
system of law, providing an uninterrupted
succession of incumbents. * ' Under
the New Testament economy the form of
the ministerial office was indeed changed
with the change of dispensation, and, with
the close of the Apostolic age, the extra
ordinary call authenticated by rairacles has
passed away. But still the sarae great j
principle pervades all dispens-ations alike, :
and that is, that the rainistry of that divine^
ly-constituted and immoral corporation,
the Church of God, derives its power from |
Jesus Christ its Head and Lord, and is his
representative to both saints and sinners
in the worid. * * When he left thf ^
world he raade a deposite of power, ecr' ^g_
siastic and spiritual, in the hands o'^ j^^g
priraitive ministry. * * The gift ' ^^^ ^^gj^g
which Timothy and Titus rece' ^^^^j ^.^^^
Paul, with the laying on of t>^g ^^^^g „f
the Presbytery, they impart' gd to the Pres
byteries (?) whom they r:rrF.-dined in every
city and Church. Tliese -m a similar way
transmitted it to -other "faithful men,"
and these, again, tr^heir successors in sub
sequent times. 'The chain of succession
may indeed be ^juried and bid in many of

84
its links, but none can demonstrate that it
has ever been broken and destroyed. He
who has always preserved his Church on
earth, amid all the changes and corruptions
to which she has been exposed, and who
has kept the Bible in the hollow of his hand,
when it was almost forgotten by the world,
has preserved the ministry, and in their
hands the gift of office, and it shall not be
lost in any coraing revolution. * * And
we found the claim to this ministerial suc
cession, * * not on any historical doc
uments of man's invention, for none such
are to be trusted, but directly on the prom
ise of Jesus Christ, appended to the minis
terial coraraission, 'Lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world.'
God did not intend that the preservation
and transmission of the gift of office in his
Church should he a matter of sense, but of
faith. And faith's foundation and aliment
is the divine proraise. The promise here
is, ' Lo, I ara with you,' not occasionally
and at intervals, but ' alway' — not ' alway'
during any period of the world's duration,
but ' alway, even upto the end of the world.'
The river may run under ground, and it
may be muddied and polluted, but still its
current runs on from its source to the
ocean." The, sound doctrine which this extract
contains, and the clearness and felicity with
which it is expressed, must he ray apology
for its length. The author, I trust, will also
pardon rae for the omission of passages
which assert his views as a Presbyterian,
in opposition to the doctrine of Episcopacy
which I hold, because my sole object was to
sustain a position in regard to which there is
perfect unity of sentiment between hira and
myself We both advocate the necessity
of a divinely-appointed ministry, holding a
commission given by the Great- Head of
the Church to the Apostles, and transmit
ted from them in uninterrupted succession
to the present day. We differ as to the
channel of transmission. This is an impor
tant difference, to be sure, and the question
raised by it will be examined hereafter.
I wish to show that those who are called
High Churchmen are not the only Protest
ants at the present day who maintain the
doctrine of an exclusive ministry, and the
pecessity for authenticating its powers by
a commission transmitted from the Apostles

ESSAYS.
through an unbroken succession of ordain
ers. But the question here raeets us. How
can a reasonable raan be satisfied of the
fact of this unbroken succession? This
fact must be substantiated by adequate
proof, or otherwise no one can be justly
called upon to receive it.
Now to this it might be replied, that we
have the inspired record of the institution
of the ministry by Christ himself— the in
spired history of the mode in which its
powers were conveyed from the Apostles
to their successors — the sacred proraise
of the perpetuity of the institution, and the
undoubted fact that at the present day
there are those who hold the ministerial
office, having received it frora those who
were themselves ordained, and they from
their predecessors, and so back to a time
" whereof the meraory of man runneth not
to the contrary."
Here we repose, and the burden of proof
lies upon those who dispute the succession,
who are bound to show when and where
it was broken, and how a new line of ordi
nation was introduced. As regards the
question between the Episcopal and Pres
byterian succession, we are prepared upon
these points to show when, where, and by
whom the latter raode of ordination was
introduced ; but we deny that any raan is
able to adduce any proof of the interrup
tion of the Episcopal succession from the
time the commission was first given to the
Apostles until this day. But to this ques
tion, as between Episcopacy and Presby
terianism, we are to give our attention
hereafter. The point now before us is, the evidence
Of an unbroken succession ; and although
we might stand upon our strong position,
which an undoubting faith in the promise
of the Lord convinces us is impregnable,
until sorae worthy objector should show
where, when, and how the Apostolical suc
cession we assert we are possessed of was
broken, yet, in a didactic essay like the
present, we are disposed to give this ques
tion of evidence a fair exaraination, because
to some candid and inquiring minds it does
present difficulties.
What, then, is the nature of the proof of
which such a fact is susceptible ? No one
who really understands such questions as

ESSAYS.
these, and endeavours to corae to their in
vestigation with an unprejudiced mind, will
contend for anything like matheraatical
demonstration. Who asks for such proof
even of the truth of Gospel history ? Who,
by any process at all similar to mathemati
cal analysis, can demonstrate that such a
person as Jesus Christ was ever upon the
earth? The requisition is absurd on the
face of it. A moral demonstration; such
as would convince any reasonable person
of the truth of any fact or series of facts yi
history, may with raore propriety be asked
for, and this we think we can produce.
But as this species of proof is of differ
ent kinds, and raay possess different de
grees of strength, what description and what
amount of evidence may reasonably be re
quired to prove that the rainistry of the
present day laying claim to the Apostolical
succession does indeed possess it? Will
any one deraand to see docuraentary evi
dence ? Will he require parchraents, reg
ularly signed, sealed, and attested ? It is
not pretended, perhaps, that such could be
required in the case of those who immedi
ately succeeded the Apostles, but would
any one ask for them frora the period, say
of five hundred years after the Apostolic
age, down to the present time ?
Suppose they could be produced, what
person whose interest or inclination it was
to dispute the Apostolic succession would
give them credit as genuine and authentic ?
How easy and probable, indeed, the asser
tion that they were not parchraents of that
age, but were forged certificates, executed
to sustain their usurped authority by the
crafty priesthood of a later period. Docu
ments of that age, it might reasonably be
said, could not possibly have lasted to the
present day. Accidents arising out of ages
of violence or ignorance, or the ravages of
tirae, must of necessity have mutilated or
destroyed very many of the earlier of such
a series of documents, so that their value
as a continuous testimony would be no
thing. Setting aside this, then, as an unreason
able demand, what next will be asked for?
Will a man be satisfied with the same de
scription and the sarae amount of proof as
that upon which he relies for his convic
tion that the Bible which he daily reads is
the Word of God?

85

Let us look into this question. How
does any believer know that the New Tes
tament, which he accounts his richest
treasure, was indeed written by those
whose names the distinct portions of it
bear? If an unlearned reader, he cannot
verify the English translation by a com
parison with the original. He must take
it, and he does take it, upon trust — a trust
founded upon the prevailing consent among
those whom he believes to be skilled in
such questions, and who could have no in
terest in misleading hira — that our com
raon version is a true representation of the
6reek text.
But next, suppose t"he believer to be a
learned man, and able to read with perfect
facility what professes to be the Greek
original of the New Testament. How does
he know it to be the original ? How does
he know whether the Greek of St. Mat
thew's Gospel is itself the original or a
version? How does he know that the
other Gospels and the Epistles are genuine
and authentic, that is, were written by
those whose names they bear, and have
come down to us substantially as first com
posed by their respective authors? Here
a number of important inquiries are at
once suggested. What printed edition of
the Greek Testament doe.s he use ? From
what manuscript was the text selected,
and with what has it been collated ? Has
he ever seen any one of these manuscripts ?
And suppose he has, what is the oldest he
could possibly see ? Not, at the very ut
most, more than sorae thirteen hundred
years old.
So far, then, from our being able to trace
the New Testament, through a regular
chain of printed editions and then of man
uscripts, up to the Apostles' days, here is
a gap of about five hundred years, with
out the possibility of filling it up with a
single complete documentary proof We
compare our English Testament first with
some approved Greek text — we take this,
upon sufficient evidence, to be a fair rep
resentation of some manuscript or manu
scripts, five, six, or, at most, thirteen hun
dred years old — we believe that these man
uscripts have been copied from previous
ones — this belief is supported by numerous
quotations frora the writings ofthe Fathers,
and by the evidence of certain early trans-

86

ESSAYS.

lations of the Scriptures from the Greek
into other languages then in use (and for
the writings of these Fathers, and the ac
curacy of these versions, we have to de
pend upon the very sarae sort of evidence
as thstt which attests the correctness of
the Greek original itself) ; and thus, by a
sort of curaulative proof, drawn frora many
sources, and bound together by many and
various connexions, we arrive at a convic
tion amounting to a moral certainty, that the
English Testament which we read is, in
deed, in its essential meaning, the inspired
composition of the Saints Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude.
Is this sufficient? The skeptic may
doubt, or the infidel deny, but the believer,
in unhesitating faith, will say it is : and,
while he clasps the precious legacy to his
soul, it will seem to him, after such an ex-
"amination, still dearer for the wonderful
manner in which, through the special man
ifestation of God's watchful care and prov
idence, it has been conveyed to him.
Now we assert, that precisely the same
kind, and, at the least, an equal amount of
evidence may be adduced in support of the
Apostolical succession. A duly-ordained
minister of this very day may as certainly
trace the comraission under which he min
isters, up to the" Apostles, as he can the
Gospel of St. Matthew, in which the origi
nal commission is now read in English ;
and, the evidence, justly and impartially
weighed, is as conclusive in the one case
as in the other.
To examine, then, the sufficiency of the
evidence to sustain the fact of the exist
ence gf an unbroken Apostolical succes
sion in the ministry, let us take it in the
line of the Episcopacy, not because at this
stage of our arguraent we assume its ex
clusive validity, but because the proof of
this is essential to the support of the doc
trine of the succession in the line of the
Presbytery also.
No one will deny, then, that the Bishops
of the Episcopal Church in this country
can trace their descent, with absolute cer
tainty, to the English Episcopate. Nor
will it be disputed that the English Episco
pate ascends regularly, and with full docu
mentary proof of this ascent, up to the pe
riod of the English Reformation.
At this point, however, two objections

are started. First, whether Parker, the first
Archbishop of Canterbury, under Queen
Elizabeth, frora whom the English ordina
tions, and, of course, those of the Episco
pal Church in this country, through the
late Bishop White, have been derived, was
duly consecrated' by Bishops, themselves
duly consecrated. And, secondly, if this be
conceded, whether the corruptions of the
Church during and subsequent to the Mid
dle Ages were not sufficient to deprive the
succession of all spiritual efficacy, so as to
render its ministrations null and void.
Now let us examine these objections.
And, first, as to the consecration of Arch
bishop Parker. A story, invented by Pa
pist enemies of the Church of England,
has, on various occasions within the last
century or two, been revived, the design
of which was, in its fabrication, and is,
whenever it has been revived, to prove the
English succession in the Episcopate to
have been broken at that tirae.
It is as follows : Matthew Parker, the
first Archbishop of Canterbury in the reign
of Queen Elizabeth, it is said, was not duly
consecrated to the Episcopate, and for this
reason. All the Bishops in England hav
ing been ejected, except Anthony Kilchin,
Bishop of Llandaff, and he, through the in
fluence of Bonner, not consenting to con
secrate certain Protestant divines who had
been norainated to the Episcopal office,
and yet the iraportance of having Bishops
for the new Protestant Church being very
great, it was determined to procure them
sorae way or other. One Scory, therefore,
an apostate Roraish priest, who had borne
the name of Bishop in the reign of Edward
VI., was resorted to in this necessity, to
consecrate Parker and others, " which he
performed in this sort," as Brett relates
the story, from the statement of its invent
ors and propagators. " Having the Bible
in his hand, and they all kneeling before
him, he laid it upon every one Of their
heads or shoulders, saying. Take thou au
thority to preach the Word of God sincere
ly. And so they rose up Bishops of the
new Church of England. Neither was this
done in any church, chapel, or oratory, but
at the Nag's Head tavern, in Cheapside."
This is the story.
Now for its refutation from the same
aiithnritv. So far from there beins but one

ESSAYS.

87

^Bishop of the Reformed Church of Eng
land at the time of Parker's consecration,
it is clearly proved, by the combined force
of historical facts and documentary evi
dence, as arrayed by Brett, that there were
no less than six others then living, and
who lived several years after. By four of
these, to wit, William Barlow, of Bath and
Wells ; John Scory, of Chichester ; Miles
Coverdale, of Exeter ; and .John Hodgkin,
suffragan Bishop of Bedford, Matthew Par
ker was consecrated in Lambeth Palace,
on Sunday, December 17th, 1559. Of this
there is full proof in the Registers of the
See of Canterbury and the Records of the
Crown. As to the calumny ofthe Nag's Head con
secration, it carae so late into the world,
that, as Brett goes on to say, " Sanders and
all the other writers of the Roraish com
munion, in Queen Elizabeth's time, never
heard of it ; for it is certain, that if they
had, they would not have concealed it. It
is said to have come from one Neal, who
was Bonner's chaplain, who peeped through
the keyhole and saw it. But it was not
discovered to the world till long after Neal's
death, so that there is not so much as his
testimony for it. The only ground upon
which this senseless story seems to be
founded was, that the official persons con
nected with a part of the cereraony attend
ing the appointment of a Bishop, were en
tertained at the Nag's Head tavern. But
there was not a word said of this matter
by the Romanists till about forty years
after, when it might be presumed that all
those were dead that had been present at
Parker's consecration. Then was the time
to invent such a story, for then it might be
hoped that none could contradict it. But,
as it pleased God, there was one then liv
ing who remerabered to the contrary.
" The old Earl of Nottingham, who had
been at the consecration, declared that it
was at Lambeth, and described all the cir
cumstances of it, and satisfied all reason
able raen that it was according to the form
of the Church of England.
"Now can such a plain fable, which
never had any living testiraony to vouch it
when it was divulged, and is founded only
on a hearsay story of a man's peeping
through a crevice of a door or wall, that
was never openly spoken of anywhere till

forty years after the pretended fact, be suf
ficient, in any degree, to invalidate the evi
dence of authentic registers and records ?
He that can believe this raay believe any
thing, though never so false and incred
ible." This raalicious fabrication has been ex
amined, and its falsehood exposed by both
Roraish and Protestant writers, as Strype,
Burnet, Collier, Courayer, Lingard, and
also by an author whom I have not seen,
but who is thus mentioned by Fuller, in the
9th book of his Church History of Great
Britain : " Let such as desire farther satis
faction herein," consult learned Mason, De
Minist. Anglic, lib. iii., cap. viii., ix., &c.
(whora King James justly termed a wise
builder in God's house), and who hath left no
stones unturned to clear the truth, and stop
the mouths of malicioiis adversaries.'' The
same quaint author, at the close of his ac-/
count of this celebrated fabrication, ob
serves (and the observation, it may be said
by sorae, touches more points than that at
which it was first aimed), " A dinner was
provided for them (that is, those civilians
and others who attended at Bow Church
for the purpose of certain legal formalities
which precede in England the consecra
tion of a Bishop) at the Nag's Head tavern,
in Cheapside, as convenient for the vicinity
thereof, and from this spark has all this
fire been kindled ; to admonish posterity,
not only to do no evil, but also, in this cap
tious age, to refrain from all appearance
thereof." The Nag's Head story, then, was an
original invention ofthe Romanists, for the
purpose of destroying confidence in the
regular succession of the English Episco
pacy. But it is now repudiated by some
of their most learned men. One of them,
of great and deserved celebrity at the pres
ent day. Dr. Wiseman, in his late atterapt
to overthrow the validity of consecrations
in the English line ofthe Episcopate; drops
this story, and pursues a different, and
much more ingenious, as well as honoura
ble course of argument.
I think we raay safely venture to assert,
that hereafter no advocate of the Papacy,
having the least pretension to learning or
candour, and wishing to use any better ar
guments than scurrility and ridicule, will
bring forward the absurd calumny of the

88

ESSAYS.

Nag's Head consecration, to invalidate the I ciple and practice in the whole previous

evidence for the continuity of the English
succession in the Episcopatg, but will fol
low the more scholar-like and dignified
course of Dr. Wiseman.
This nuraber has already run out to a
greater length than I intended. I must,
therefore, defer what raore I have to say
upon the Apostolical succession until ray
next. ^
Saturday, Feb. 24th.

No. IV.
THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.
Whatever objection the advocates of
the Papacy raight raise against the conti
nuity of the Apostolical succession in the
Anglican Church, on the score of the Ref
ormation, I cannot suppose that, in the
view of any well-informed Protestant, this
great work of purification has abrogated
an}' spiritual authority then actually exist
ing in that branch of the Church Catholic.
Rather will it be contended, that such au
thority, if lost at all, was lost at a period
anterior, when the Anglican Church was
yet under bondage to the usurped authority
of Rorae, and when corruptions of doctrine
and idolatrous practices in worship raay
be supposed to have so thoroughly incor
porated theraselves with the ecclesiastical
body as to have destroyed its vitality.
This is the substance of the second of the
objections to the fact of an unbroken suc
cession in the rainistry, raentioned in ray
last coramunication, and we are now to
inquire whether or not it carries with it
any weight.
The question may be fairly stated thus.
All those who contend for the necessity
of an unbroken succession of ordainers
from the Apostles, in order to constitute a
valid rainistry, except the Roraanists, must
confess that this succession passed through
a time when the Church was materially
corrupt in doctrine and worship. Now, did
or did not this corruption have the effect
to destroy spiritual authority, so that those
who were involved in it could no longer be
accounted rainisters of Christ ?
If this question be answered in the affirm
ative, an assumption is raade which we
are by no raeans disposed to admit, and
-which is contradicted by analogy of prin-

history ofthe Church. The assumption is,,
that the errors and vices of individual men,
can subvert a Divine institution. This-
cannot be allowed in theory ; and, more
over, the direct contrary can be proved*
from Scripture.
When Aaron, soon after his solemn con
secration to the priesthood, was guilty of
encouraging the grevious sin of idolatry,.
and actually made a sacrifice to the Golden,
Calf (Exodus, xxxii.), his official power
was not thereby destroyed, or even inter
rupted, for he received no new consecra
tion.* In the subsequent history of the
Jewish Church, we have frequent accounts
of its sinking into gross corruption, and
being almost given over to idolatry, yet it-
did not cease to be the Church of God, nor
was a new line of priesthood ever intro
duced. And when kings, like Asa, •" whose
heart was perfect with the Lord," and Jo-
siah, " who did that which was right in th&
sight of the Lord," rose up to correct the-
national abuses, and restore the pure wor
ship of God, they " put down the idolatrous
priests," but their successors in the office-
were the very sons of these unworthy
fathers. Those who could trace their ori
gin from Aaron, how corrupt soever their
iramediate or remote ancestors might he,.
were still the members of a legitimate and
acknowledged priesthood. So, also, whem
God directed his prophets to reprove the^
priesthood, as well as kings and people, for
their raanifold transgressions, and to recall
them to their allegiance to the God whom
they had forsaken, he did not depose this
order, but, on the contrary, would never-
permit any but the sons of Aaron to offer
the sacrifices prescribed by the law, or to-
purify the tabernacle and the temple.
The same fundamental principle, -that:
corruption in the priesthood did not abro
gate its Divine authority or break the suc
cession, is clearly established in the histo
ries of Ezra and Neheraiah. And to come
down to a later period, for several centu
ries previous to the advent of Christ, griev-

* This reference to Aaron would here be left
out, as having been made originally in error, bat
I think it best to reprint the Essays as they ap
peared at first, without material alteration. — J-.
M. W.

ESSAYS.

89-

ous corruptions prevailed in the Church,
so that even the law was made' of none
effect through the traditions of the Scribes
and Pharisees, yet their authority remain
ed, and our Saviour expressly admonishes
the people, " All, therefore, whatsoever
they bid you observe, that observe and do."
Nor, again, did corruption in the priesthood
close it up as the channel of prophecy,
for even Caiaphas, who condemned Christ,
"prophesied, being high-priest that year."
If, then, the gift of prophecy did not cease
by reason of corruption, what right have
we to suppose that it would intercept the
sacramental grace of the ministry ?
The awful sin, therefore, of abandoning
the worship of Jehovah for idols, in the ear
lier Jewish Church, and formalism of the
worst description in its latter days, such
as called down the woes denounced by our
blessed Lord against a corrupt priesthood
(Matthew, xxiii.), did not destroy the vital
ity of the succession ; and, by parity of
reason, the corruptions of the Christian
ministry subsequent to the Middle Ages
could not produce this effect.
Upon this point I wish, however, to
strengthen myself by sorae observations
from an admirable argument in favour of
the doctrine for which I am contending,
by Dr. Lathrop, of West Springfield, Mas
sachusetts, a distinguished Congregational
minister, " whose praise was in all the
churches." It is appended to. two ser
mons, entitled " Christ's Warning to the
Churches ;" and so judicious and well
written are they, and so well adapted in
many respects to the present times, that I
have thera in preparation for publication,
and they will be issued from the press of
A. V. Blake in the course of a few days.*
In the mean time, let me state what this
learned divine says in reference to the ob
jection to the Apostolical succession now
under examination.
" Some will tell us that ordinations corae
down to us through the Church of Rome ;
and there was a time when that Church
was so essentially corrupt that she ceased
to be a Church of Christ, and her officers
ceased to be ministers of Christ ; and,
therefore, they who withdrew(?) from her
* The book has since been pubhshed in a very
handsome form by Mr. Blake.
M

at the time of the Reformation, having
among them no valid ordinations, raust
have begun them anew.
"But will history support this conclu
sion ? Did the Reformers, distrusting their
past ordinations, receive one from their lay
brethren ? The contrary is' most evident^
Certainly they had no apprehension that
the rainisterial succession was at an end.
" The Roraan Church, , though at that
time exceedingly corrupt, appears not to-
have raaterially corrupted her ordinations-
In this matter we do not find that the Re
formers alleged any complaint.
" Luther and his associates, in their first
opposition to the errors of the Roman
Church, did not consider her as having es
sentially departed from the Gospel, or as
being utterly disowned by Christ ; for their
primary object was, not to withdraw from.
her, but to effect a reformation by means-
which might preserve the general union.
They never renounced her until they and
their adherents were excomraunicated, and
all hopes of union were cut off.
»*•*?*" But adraitting that a man of corrupt
principles and morals acts in an ordina
tion ; will his character nullify the trans
action ? As long as the Scribes sat in
Mos.es's seat, Christ acknowledged them:
as officers of the Jewish Church ; nor did
he deny the authority of the high-priest,-
though his personal character was far from
recoraraending him.
"The person ordained derives his au
thority to preach from Jesus Christ, not
from the men who ordain him. They in-
digitate the person to be vested with this-
authority, and officially instate him in the-
regular exercise of his office. If they are
corrupt in principles or manners, it will
not thence follow that he must preach
heresy or iraraorality. He is ordained to
preach the Gospel, and, whoever raay or
dain him, the charge which he reeeives^
and the vow which he makes bind hira to
teach, not the coramandments of men,
but all things whatsoever Christ has cora
raanded. " To break the chain of succession at
the link in question, it raust be proved that
the persons from whom the first Reform
ers received ordination not only were in.

96

ESSAYS.

errors, but had actually ceased to be offi
cers of Christ."
The two objections usually made to the
fact of an unbroken succession in the rain
istry, so far as the Reforraation is concern
ed, having been thus disposed of, the ques
tion now recurs. Can you trace the succes
sion distinctly, and without any reasonable
doubt as to its authenticity, frora that pe
riod up to the Apostles' days ? We reply
that we can, with as ranch certainty as any
line whatever of temporal rulers can be
followed up for the same length of time,
and with greater certainty than this can be
done in most instances.
The present Bishops of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in this country, most of
them, received consecration at the hands
¦of the late venerable Bishop White. He
was consecrated 4n 1787, by John Moore,
Archbishop of Canterbury, whose authority
was derived in regular succession through
the line of the Anglican Church, as distinct
frora that of the Church of Rome, extend
ing up to the Apostles. I need not encum
ber ray coramunication with these naraes,
for, to those who dispute the doctrine, this
list of names and dates could afford no sat
isfaction. The objection might be made, that the
¦record is not authentic. We could reply
that Clement, Bishop of Rome, the disci
ple of St. Paul, Irenaeus, who wrote about
^85 years subsequently, and Tertullian,
about 25 years after hira, all distinctly rec
ognise a succession in_the ministry, and
¦deem its preservation a matter of the ut
most consequence. The following passage
from the latter author, in a treatise against
the heretics of his day, exhibits the judg
ment of antiquity upon this point: "Let
them show the beginning of their Church
es ; let them declare the series of their
Bishops, so running down from the begin
ning by succession, that the first Bishop
may have been one of the Apostles, or
Apostolic men who yet continued with
Apostles, for their author and predecessor ;
for in this manner the Apostolical Church
es trace their origin." We could state also
that Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian,
who flourished A.D. 310, gives a list of the
Bishops in the four principal churches of
Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch,
from the Apostles to his own time, com

piled frora public records then in existence.
And this line, in the instance of Rome cer
tainly, can be traced down to the present
day. The Anglican line can also be traced
with equ-al certainty.
But suppose we could establish the suc
cession in the line of any one of the branch
es of the Church Catholic, our own, for
example, by showing frha-t Bishop White
was consecrated by Moore, Archbishop of
Canterbury, and that in that see there had
been Archbishops, in unbroken succession,
up to the first, who was consecrated by a
French Bishop, and that this Bishop was
regularly preceded in his see by Bishops,
whose names we could give, up to the very
days of the Apostles (and we contend that
we can do this upon such evidence as will
establish any historical fact), still this by
no means presents our argument in its full
strength. We assert that the succession does not
depend, and never has depended, upon a
single line in the Episcopate. It is a rope
of many strands, and they so interwoven
that it would now be as impossible to un
ravel as it is to break it. To illustrate this
position : If we can be-lieve the testimony
of Eusebius, abundantly confirmed by tra
dition, the Apostles selected different parts
of the world in which to plant the Gospel.
Wherever they went they undoubtedly ap
pointed and ordained successors, and, as
in the case of St. Paul, so probably in that
of the others, they each gave authority to
raore than one. There raust, then, have
been in existence, even during the Apos
tles' days, many distinct lines of succes
sion commenced-. If, in some instances,
they were broken, through any cause
whatsoever, they cannot have been broken
in all.'
We learn that very early it was the cus
tom ofthe Church that three Bishops should
be present to assist in the consecration of
any new Bishop. This was made a rule
by the Apostolical canons. These canons
were composed very early, and were gath
ered together about a century after the
death of St. John, it is said by Clement of
Alexandria. A century after that they
are quoted as very ancient. Learned men
have decided that there can be no doubt
of the authenticity of the first fifty of these
canons. The first is as follows : " Let a

ESSAYS.
Bishop be ordained by two or by three
Bishops." Now if this law originated, as there can
be no reasonable doubt, frora an ancient
custora, every Bishop must have been con
secrated by probably three, and at least
two other Bishops, not belonging to the see
for which he was consecrated. Thus, no
succession confined to a single line is pos
sible, and thus any chronological succes
sion of Bishops ini any Church gives us a
reasonable assurance of the existence of
many other successions.
TJie Divine institution of the Christian
ministry, emanating from the great Head
df the Church, was committed by Him to
the Apostles ; they coraraitted it, in their
lifetime, to other " faithful men." Before
the departure of these, in all human prob
ability, the rule was established that, at
every consecration of a Bishop, there
should be three Bishops, to give Jheir joint
authority to the admission of a new mem
ber into their sacred order. Thus, in the
very next generation, at the consecration
of a Bishop, each of the consecrators would
bear upon himself the evidence of a three
fold succession, and the new incumbent
would carry down, as it were, the succes
sion of nine different Churches, and so on
in wonderful accumulation, till, in the pres
ent day, the succession moves like some
majestic river swelled by countless trib
utary streams. You may not be able to
trace each to its separate source, but the
wide-spread mass of waters ever rolling
onward is itself the proof that, from sure
and living fountains it must have sprung,
and in continuous channels it must have
flowed. If, then, at any particular point, there
should be a difficulty in now adducing the
proof of an unbroken succession, this
should constitute no valid objection to our
doctrine, for the proof to be justly required
is that the succession has been broken.
And when we recur to the strictness with
which ordinations were watched over in
all ages of the Church, a fact abundantly
proved by fathers, councils, and historians,
<we cannot reasonably doubt of their purity.
" The watchful care and pains of all the
¦Churches in the matter of ordinations,"
says an able writer of the present day

91
(Irons), " is just as notorious as that Chris
tianity existed and prevailed in the world.
The very faults of the early Christians, no
less than their virtues, contributed to se
cure the succession. Far, indeed, frora
lethargy were these tiraes. Abounding
heresies, mutual jealousy, and religious
zeal all combined to augraent the Church's
watchfulness ; and, above all, the vigilant
ly-sustained discipline, by which the whole
comraunity was so interwoven that the
greatest and sraallest affairs of Christian
concern were alike communicated to the
whole body. Not only would any new or
dination be known in each of the three
Churches frora which the ordaining Bish
ops came, but it was very presently noti
fied also to the Metropolitans by Episco
pal letters. The common people also
knew perfectly of the transaction. An in
fraction of the Apostolic rule, even in a
minor point, was clamorously echoed from
Church to Church, so that it was rarely
ventured on ; ranch less would it be suffer
ed in any important thing. Whatever else
has at any tirae been charged against the
Catholic Church, it has never been said
that she failed in duly ordaining her Bish
ops." With an eloquent passage frora the same
writer, whose admirable lectures on the
Apostolical succession I hope and intend
to see republished here, I conclude ray
present number.
We possess, then, all the evidence of
this illustrious fact which human testirao
ny can furnish, or human industry can
bring together. Universal witnesses to
support it, and not one against it. Scrip
tures, canons, councils, fathers, and Church
es, the learned and the commo'h people, all
testifying one thing ; and even heretics
and infidels not denying it as a fact ; a fact,
too, which, they are forced to see, has
gathered, and still shall gather, fresh might
iness, as centuries roll on. And this one
institute, the ministry of Christ, now
stands; as at first divinely set up, an abi
ding monument of the truth, that he who
determined by the " weakness" and " fool
ishness" of preaching to save thera that
believe, has raanifested that the " foolish
ness of God is wiser than men, and the
weakness of God stronger than raen."

93

ESSAYS.

The things which man, in all his wisdom,
contrived eighteen hundred years ago, are
departed like shadows. What God or
dained remains, and shall " till the con
summation of the world."*
Thursday, Feb. 29.

- It has often been suggested to me that, in
connexion with this statement of the doctrine
ofthe Apostohc succession, it would be desira
ble to exhibit the connected chain of Bishops
from the Apostles' days until the present time.
The attentive reader of these Essays will per
ceive that the fact of the existence of such a
record or records is by no means essential to
the vahdity of our argument, since the very ex
istence of Bishops, and the impossibility of
pointing to the tune after Christ when they did
not exist, are sufficient proofs of an unbroken
succession. Are we told that the succession
"has been broken in one city or Church ? We
reply, of course; but it existed at that very
time in many other cities or churches. Now
people say (as they say other untrue things) the
succession has failed. We ask, in what cen
tury was there no Bishop? In what city, what
province, at what time, of what nation, and
bearing what name, did the last Bishop die?
There is no answer. I might say with equal
truth, the sun ceased to rise ; and the succes
sion of days and nights has at some period been
broken. Though not regarding it as essential
to the argument, or as adding very material
strength to it, I here subjoin two Usts of Bish
ops. The first contains the Bishops of the four
principal Christian cities, as given by Eusebius,
the ecclesiastical historian, who virrote A.D. 310.
The second is the succession of the Bishop^
ofthe Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States, traced from the present presiding Bish
op, the Right Rev. Dr. Chase, through the
Church of England to St. John the Apostle. Antioch.
Evodlus,
Ignatius,Heros, Cornelius,
Eros, Theophilus,Ma-Yimus, Serapion,
Aeclepiades,Philetus,Zebinus,Babylus,Fabius. .
DemetrianuH,Paul,Itomnus,Timoeus,Cyrillus,
Tyrannus. A.D. 303.

Rome.

Alexandria.

Jerusalem.

Linus,

Anianus,

James,

Cletus,

A^^lius,

Simon,

Clement,

Cerdon,

Justus,

Evaristus,

Primus,

ZacheuB,

Alexander,

Justus,

Tobias,

Sixtiia,

Fumenes,

Benjamin,

Telesphonis,

Marcus,

John,

Hyginus,

Celadin,

Matthew,

Pius,

Agrippinus,

Philip,

Anicetus,

Julius,

Seneca,

Soter,

Demetrius,

Justus,

Eleuthems,

Heraclas,

Levi,

Victor,

Dionysius,

Ephtem,

Zephrynus,

Maximus,

Joseph,

Calixtus,

Theonus,

Judas,

Urban,

Peter.

Marcus,

Fontianus,

A.D. 302.

Cassianus,

Anteros,

Publius,

Fabian,

Maximus,

Cornelius,

Julian,

Lucius,

CaiuB,
Stephen,
Symmachus,
Sixtus,
Caius,
Dionysiua, •
Julian,
Felix, ,
Maximus,
Eutychlanus
Antonlus,
No. V.
the episcopacy.
That the Christian rainistry is a Divine
institution, that it is to be perpetuated evea
Roue. Alexandria. Jerusalem. AN-nocn.
Caius, Capito,
Marcellinus. Valens, ^
A.D. 296. Dolchianus, Narcissus,
Bins, Germanio,
Gordius, '
[Narcissus,]
Alexander,
Mazubanas,HymensuB,
Zambdas,Hermon. A.D. 300.
The Succession ofthe Protestant Episcopal Churck
in the United States. .
St. John ordained Polycarp Apostle, or Bish
op, or Angel of the Church at Smyrna, who or
dained Irenaeus Bishop ofthe Church at Lyons,
in France. The succession is, then, as follows :
ST. JOHN.
1. Polycarp, Bp. of Smyrna.
Bishops op Lyons.
1. Fothinus.
3. Irensus. »
3. Zacb arias.
4. Elias.
5. Faustinus.
C. Verus.
7. Julius.
8. Ptolemy.
9. Vocius.
10. Maximus.
II. Tetradus.
13. VerissimuB.
13. Justus.
14. Albinus.
15. Martin. ^
16. Antiochus.
17. Elpidius.
18.. Sicarius.
19. Eucherius, 1.
20. Patiens.
21. Lupicious.
32. Rusticus.
S3. Stephanus.
24. Viventiolus.
25. Eucherius, 3;
26. Lupus.
27. Licontius.
28. Sacerdos.
29. Nicetus.
30. Friscus.
31. .aiTHERius. A-D. 589.
CANTERBURY.
32. A.D. 596. AuoDsTiNE,
f missionary to the
I Anglo-Saxons, was
I consecrated by ViR-
•1 GiLius, 24th Bishop
I of Aries, assisted
I by iETHERIUS, 3l5t
(. Bishop of Lyons,
33d
from St.
John.
34, Lawrence, 605
35. Mellitus, 619
36. Justus, 634
37. Honorius, 634
38. Adeodatus, 654
39. Theodore, 668
40. Btilhwald, 693
41. Tatwine, 731
43. Nothelm, 735
43. Cuthbert, 743
44. Bregwin, 759
45. Lambert, 763
46. Ethel red, 1, 793
47- Wulfred, 803
48. Theogild or Feogild, 830
consecrated June 5th,
and died Sept. 3d.
49. Ccolnoth, Sept. 830
50. .^Ithelred, 3d, 871
51. Phlegmund, 891
52. Athelm or Adelm, 93?^
53. Wulfelm, 928
54. Odo Severus, 941
55. Dunstan, 959-
56. jEthelgar, 988
57. Siricus, 989
58. Alurlcus or Alfricus, 996
59. Elphege, 1005^
60. Living, or Leoning,
or Elkskan, lOlS"
61. Agelmothor-Sthel- not, )020-
62. Edsin or Elsin, 1038.
63. Robert Gemeticen-
sis, 105»
64. Stigand, 1052
65. Lanfranc, 107O
66. Anselm, 1093
67. Rodulph, 1114
68. William Corbell, II8a
69. Theobold, 113S
70. Thomas i Bocket, 1162
71. Richard, 1174
72. BaldwinFordensi3,l]84
73. Reginald FitzJoce-
line, 1191
74. Hubert -(VaUen, 1193.
75. Stephen Langton, 1207
76. Richard Wethers-
field, 1229
77. Edmund, 1234
78. Boniface, 1245
79. Robert Kilwarby, 1272
80. John Peckham, 1278
81. Robt. -Wlnchelsea, 1294
82. Walter Reynold, 1313.
83. Simon Mepham, 1328
84. John Stratford, 1333
85. Thomas Bradwar-
dine, 1348
86. Simon Islip, 1349
87. Simon Langham, 1366
88. Wm. Whittlesey, 1368
89. Simon Sudbury, 1375
SO. Wm. Courtnay, 1381
91. Thomas Arundef, 1396
92. Henry Chichely, 1414
93. John Stafliird, 1443
94. John Kemp, 1452
95, Thomns Bourcher, 1454
96. John Morton, 1486
97. Henry Dean, 1501
98. Wm. Worchara, 1503
99. Thos. Ceanmer, 1533
100. Reginald Pole, 1555
101. Mntthew Parker, 1559
102. Edmund Grindall,
December. I57J
ESSAYS.

93

"" unto the end of the world," and that its
perpetuity has been manifested, and is
hereafter to be secured by a regular trans
mission of the authority given by Christ to
his Apostles through a series of men, each
receiving it from predecessors who had
themselves been duly invested with it, are
the points which have been examined in
the preceding numbers.
What I now propose to discuss is the
point of difference between those who hold
consistently the real Presbyterian doctrine
¦of the ministry, and those, on the other
liand, who maintain the Episcopacy. By
tooth, the Apostolical succession is admit
ted to be of equal importance, and neither
will allow him to be a minister, according
to Christ's ordinance, who cannot produce
a visible commission, authenticated by the
^' laying on of hands" of the successors of
the Apostles.
The important inquiry, then, here to be
raised is, Who are the true successors of
the Apostles 1 That the ministerial com
mission was first given by the great Head
of the Church to the Apostles, is a fact
that will not be disputed. But it may be
objected that these holy men could have
no successors, because they were a pecu
liar order, appointed for special purposes,
and endowed with special miraculous pow
ers. Now if the commission were in-

103. John Whilgift,
104. Richard Bancroft,
IGS. George Abbot,
106. William Laud,
107. William Juxon,
lOH. Gilbert Sheldon,
109. William Bancroft,
110. John Tillutson,
111- Thomas Tennison,
112. William Wake,
113. John Potter,
114- Thomas Seeker,
115. Thomas Herring,
116. Matthew Button,
117. Fred. Cornwallis,

15831604 16111633
1660 1663
1677 169116941715
1737 1738
1747
1757 1768

John Moore, 1783
American Bishops.
From St. John, is Will
iam White, of Penn
sylvania, consecrated
Feb. 4, 1787, by John
Moore, Archbishop of
Canterbury, assisted
bv the Archbishop of
York, the Bishop of
Bath and FKelts, and
the Bishop of Peter-
horouffh.
Alex. V. Griswold, 1811
. Philander Chase, 1819

This list is taken from a very excellent tract,
•" A Letter to a Methodist, by a Presbyter of
the Diocese of Maryland." Others may be
found in "Perceval on the Apostolic Succes
sion," and in various other works. Slight vari
ations in the orthography of names may be
noticed, but this is unimportant. The genuine
ness and authenticity ofthe records are as sus
ceptible of proof as the genuineness and authen
ticity of the books of the New Testament- We
assert the accuracy of the above chain of suc
cession, and it is incumbent upon those who deny
it to show when and where it has been broken-
J. M. W.

trusted to them on account of their pos
sessing these miraculous powers, and as
being appointed to execute a special rais
sion which terminated with themselves,
then it follows that, as we have no record
of a commission given to any others by
Christ himself, there can have been no min
istry at all divinely authorized, in the sense
we contend for, since the Apostles' days.
Now that the Apostles were distinguish
ed by a combination of gifts and graces,
which never centred in any other order of
men, there can be ho doubt. But we con
tend that this richness of endowment did
not constitute them Apostles, using this
term as one of official designation. The
Bishops of the present day are also apos
tles, the "sent" ones to the Churches.
Let it be observed, then, that the Apos
tles were distinguished from all other men
in this single respect, that they received
their commission from the great Head of
the Church in person, and not by a delega
ted authority. This was the case with the
eleven, and with St. Paul.
But these men, if witnesses of the res
urrection, and if endowed with miraculous
gifts, enjoyed these privileges in common
with others ; Christ was seen after his res
urrection by above " five hundred brethren
at once," and that miraculous powers were
conferred upon others besides the Apostles
is very certain (1 Corinth., xii., 29, 30.)
Again, the name and authority of Apos
tles were conferred upon Matthias ai^d
Barnabas, on Timothy and Epaphroditus.
Hence we infer that the Apostolical of
fice consists, not in the being set apart by
Christ in person, nor in being witnesses of
the resurrection, nor in being endowed
with miraculous powers, but in holding
from Christ himself, or from those to whom
he gave, with authority to transmit it, the
ministerial commission ; and hence the
Apostolical office may exist in the present
day as certainly as it did in the miraculous
age of the Church. " The essential office
of the Apostles, sent to subdue, and estab
lish, and rule, as ambassadors of Christ,
must not be confounded with those extra
ordinary endowments, and all that striking
array of miraculous powers with which
they were furnished for their enterprise.
Such endowments were needed for the
first propagation of the Gospel. They

94

ESSAYS.

have not been needed since. They have
therefore ceased. But the essential com
mission of the Apostles, to which they
were appended, has not ceased, nor can
cease while the world lasts ; for Christ
has promised that he will be with that of
fice to the end of the world."— ^s^Aojo APIl-
vaine on the .Apostolical Succession.
Who, then, are they that now hold the
office which Christ conferred upon the
eleven and upon St. Paul — that ministry
and Apostleship to which Matthias succeed
ed in the place of Judas, that authority to
rule in the Church and " ordain elders"
whick was exercised by Timothy and
Titus ?
To decide this question satisfactorily, an
other must first be settled. Does the min
istry subsist in one order of men, invested
with equal powers, and are all who are or
dained ordained to the Apostleship 1 Or
are there three distinct orders in the min
istry, some being Apostles and some Bish
ops or Presbyters, and some Deacons 1 If
the former statement be the true one, then
Episcopacy as distinguished from Presby
terianism is a usurpation ; introduced into
the Church, however, no man can tell
when, for history affords not the slightest
evidence of the period or manner of its in
troduction. But if the latter be the true
and original constitution of the ministry,
then Bishops are successors of the Apos
tles ^ and when, three hundred years ago,
in a portion of Christendom, it was resolv
ed to reduce the threefold ministry into a
ministi-y of one order, the Apostolical office
in those communities was lost.
Now this question can be satisfactorily
determined only by an appeal to Scripture
and the testimony of antiquity. This ap
peal I design to make, and I hope to be
able to satisfy some of my readers, at least,
that a ministry in threp distinct orders, the
first alone possessing Apostolical author
ity to ordain elders, to rule in the Church,
and to transmit the commission to other
Apostles, has always existed in the Church,
and is an essential part of its constitution.
In favour of this, which, for the present,
I will call our theory ofthe ministry, there
are a few general considerations which can
not be without sorae weight to an unprej
udiced mind, and which I will slate in what
remains of this communication, wishing to

devote ah entire number to the direct Scrips
tural argument in support of it.
Taking a survey of Christendom at the
present day, it will be found that, at the
very least, three quarters, and we might
safely say more, of those who profess-
Christianity, are under a Church pohty
whose essential feature is this threefold
ministry, and who^ adhere to it with the
firmest conviction of its having belonged
to them from time immemorial. With
them the Bishops who rule over them are
looked upon as the successors of the Apos
tles, and they doubt not that their authority
is derived, by an unbroken line of trans-
niission, from those Apostles.
Again, in every instance when bodies of
Christians have been recently discovered,
which had been before unknown or lost
sight of for centu.-ies, it is uniformly found
that their Churches are established upon
the principle of a threefold ministry, and
they confidently believe in the regular and
uninterrupted descent of their Bishops
frora the Apostles, Witness Buchanan's
researches in India, and the Nestoriam
Christians. Again, from the sixteenth century as far
back as history can trace, everywhere 'and
at all times the universal Church knew only
of a threefold ministry, and of Bishops ru
ling and ordaining, in dioceses more or less
extended, as successors of the Apostles.
The challenge was made nearly two cen
turies ago, and has never been answered :
" We require you to find, during the first fif
teen hundred years of Christianity, hut one
Church upon the face of the earth tlmt hath
not been ordered by Episcopal government."
Now how could a theory of the ministry
become so universally prevalent if it were
not founded in truth 1 How could a change-.
so radical as that of converting a single-
order of men, with equal powers, intSi a.
threefold order, with distinct and subordi
nate powers, be introduced so early and so •
universally, and yet not the slightest trace -
be found to indicate the time and raanner -
of its introduction ¦!
This change — supposing, for the sake of
argument, that its accomplishment was:
within the compass of things possible—
raust have been either with the consent of
the Apostles or against it. If the first, their
Episcopacy is ?till confessed to be Ados-

ESSAYS.,

9^

tolical ; but if not, then we must believe
<hat it was erected throughout the world
under circumstances so strange and mar
vellous, th'dt the establishment of Episco
pacy upon the ruins of Presbyteny would
deserve to be ranked araong the raost ex
traordinary events which ever excited the
astonishraent of mankind.
" Such a revolution, one of the most ex
tensive and important which are pretended
to have taken place in any period of the
history of the world, accomplished in hun
dreds of places at the same moraent, and
acquiesced in by thousands and ten thou
sands of raen of every language and coun
try, was eifected amid a silence so deep
and unnatural, that not only were the ac
tors in it apparently unconscious of their
own deed, but the whole world conspired
together, ever after, to suppress the very
memory of it ; so that in all the voluminous
records of Christian antiquity there is not
so much as one passing allusion to it." —
(Marshall.) In respect to the opposite theory, we
know when, and by whom, and how grad
ually, that gained its ascendency. We
know and can prove that those who did
more than any others to effect this radi
cal change in the doctrine of the ministry
— Calvin and Luther, Bucer and Melanc
thon — did not venture to repudiate the au
thority of Bishops ; that they constantly
professed their desire to continue in sub
jection to them ; that they actually did so
in many remarkable instances ; that they
justified their final separation only on the
plea of invincible necessity ; that their
quarrel was solely about matters of doc
trine ; and that their idea of searching the
Scriptures with the view of estabhshing
the doctrine of ministerial parity was alto
gether an after-thought. They pleaded for
their assumption of the Apostolical office
an extraordinary call, and yet the only proof
they could give of being in possession of
this extraordinary call was their own as
sertion. But an extraordinary call must
be attested in an extraordinary manner,
by prophecy or the power of working mir
acles, and to these they could not pretend.
Tliese considerations I have not thrown
out as arguments, upon the authority of
wliich the Episcopacy is to be established.
That they are strong presumptions in its

favour, I think no candid inquirer for the
truth will deny. I have adduced them to
show that those who possess an ecclesias
tical organization of such universal preva
lence, of such venerable antiquity, one
whose validity was first impugned after it
had been in operation and unchallenged for
fifteen centuries, are not compelled to go
to the Scriptures or ancient writers to as
certain whether any fundamental constitu
tion has been divinely appointed for the
Church, and, if so, what that constitution
is. No, we have a more cheering and a
more satisfactory task to perform — we
have encouragement and support on every
side, and we hear the voices of saints and
martyrs, venerable fathers and holy con
fessors, who, though dead, yet speak to us,
and with unanimous consent approve our
faith. Thus instructed and thus sustained,
we go to the Word of God, assured that
there we shall find set forth, if not in pos
itive terms, yet by arguments easily un
derstood and readily accepted by humble
faith, the order of the Church of God.
" Ours is not the lot of exiles or wander
ers in search of a country; we dwell at
home, blessed be God ! and have a goodly
heritage ; we have only to prove our claim
to what we already possess. We have but
to show that our holy forefathers were not
all in error, nor the Church marred by her
best, and wisest, and eldest-born children ;
that God was graciously pleased to keep
the promise which he vouchsafed to make ;
and that they were, in fulfilment of that
promise, guided into all truth. And at this-
point we turn to the Scriptures."
Monday, March 4th

No. VI.
THE SCRIPTURAL MINISTRY IN THREE ORDERS.
When we assert that the ministry was
originally instituted in three orders, the
first having the exclusive power of ordain
ing the two inferior orders, of exercising
general superintendence over them and
their congregations, and of perpetuating
the ministry, by giving the authority with
which they were invested to their succes
sors, it is demanded. Where is the Scriptu
ral warrant for this assertion? And some
even, inconsiderately and without reason,
refuse to acknowledge this to be the essen-

^6

ESSAYS.

tial constitution of the ministry, because it
IS nowhere laid down as a distinct propo
sition. They forget that there are facts
and doctrines, which they acknowledge to
be of vital importance, that can only be
-sustained by precisely the sarae kind of
•evidence which we are prepared to bring
forward in support of our doctrine of a
threefold ministry.
Where can be found the direction by
¦which the Jewish Sabbath was to be abol
ished and the Lord's Day to be substituted
¦in its place ? Where is the express au
thority for administering baptism to in
fants ? Upon what arguments do we sup
port doctrines which the advocates of
Episcopacy and Presbyterianism unite in
regarding as vital truths of revelation?
¦" Our belief in the Trinity, the coeternity
ofthe Son of God with His Father, the pro-
•ceeding of the Spirit from the Father and
the Son — these, with such other principal
points, the necessitj' whereof is by none
-denied, are, notwithstanding, in Scripture
nowhere to be found by express literal
mention; only deduced they are out of
Scripture by collection." — (Hooker.)
If-whatsoever is not clearly taught — that
is, taught in distinct propositions, requi
ring no reference to other passages of
Holy Writ to unfold their true meaning —
is to be rejected as non-essential, I know
not what fundamental truths of any creed
whatsoever would not be swept away.
Socinianism would gain an easy triumph
over the orthodox faith, and even Socinian-
isra would find its defences soon demolish
ed by sheer infidelity.
This demand for plain directions of Scrip
ture, it has been justly remarked, is akin
to the reasonings of the heathen about our
Lord's resurrection. He did not show
himself plainly enough, they said, nor in
the right way. " How long dost thou
make us to doubt V said the Jews. " If
thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." The
Sadducees, too, in their controversy with
the Pharisees, were wont to say " that un
less they could bring clear texts, that should
affirm in so many words what they denied,
they would not yield."
Now if any one, under the influence of
the like spirit of incredulity, will reject
our doctrine until we can bring^forward a
text or texts to this eflfect, there sliall al

ways be in the Church of God three orders
of ministers, to wit : 1st, Apostles ; 2dly
Bishops or Presbyters ; and, '3dly, Dea
cons — we acknowledge frankly 'that we
have not the means of thus convincing
him. We can no more do this than any
raan can prove by what Apostolical au
thority, and at what time, the Christian
Sabbath was instituted, or infant baptism
practised. But if any one is satisfied upon
these points, by the method and the amount
of reasoning from Scripture that can be
brought forward to support them, we may
hope to convince him, by the same process,
that Episcopacy is a Divine institution.
Will it be thought necessary that ex
plicit directions frora the great Head of the
Church, in his own recorded language,
should be adduced to render the mode in
which the ministry was to be organized
binding upon all succeeding generations?
We reply, that but a portion of what our
blessed Lord taught and commanded is to
be found in the brief record of the four
Gospels. St. John, the last of the inspired
historians, says, in the conclusion of his
record, " And there are also many other
things which Jesus did, the which, if they
should be written every one, I suppose
that even the world itself could not con
tain the books that should be written.'' -
We may hence not unreasonably infer
that but an outline, as it were, of what the
Saviour taught and commanded has been
transmitted to us in his own words. Upon
the point now under consideration, it is
acknowledged that we have no direct in
struction from the Lord himself, but what
is contained in the commission given by
him to the Apostles after his resurrection.
The communication of authority by this
commission is indeed very full; but the
special raode in which this authority was
to be exercised is nowhere laid down.
But it cannot be supposed that our Lord
would fail to accompany the delivery of
so important a trust with ample directions
for its execution. Indeed, this would seem
to be one of the principal objects of his re
maining upon earth so long after his resur
rection, since we are expressly told that
he, " through the Holy Ghost, gave com
mandments unto the Apostles whom he
had chosen," and that "he was seen of
them forty days, speaking of the thiiiK

ESSAYS.

97

pertaining to the kingdom of God." — (Acts,
i., 2, 3.)
At any rate, it is enough for us to know
that Christ gave the most ample powers to
his Apostles when he said, " As my Father
hath sent me, even so send I you." Know
ing this, we cannot reasonably doubt that
whatever principles were laid down, and
whatever discipline was exerted by the
Apostles, are as binding upon us as though
•our Saviour himself had issued the com
mand. To ascertain, then, the constitu
tion of the Chhrch, and the mode in which
its ministry was organized, we must ascer
tain what the practice of the Apostles was.
That this practice was conformable to a
precedent which God himself established,
when the Church was limited to his own
peculiar people, and which our Lord con
firmed and strengthened by his own exam
ple while he was himself visibly on earth
as the Head of the Church, we think can
be fully established.
In the Jewish Church, a threefold min
istry, in the orders of High-priest, Priests,
and Levites, was the divinely-appointed
organization. Now if it be demanded.
Why refer to the Jewish Church upon this
question 1 I reply, in the words of an ad
mirable author of the present day. Because
" what took place under the law is a pat
tern ; what was commanded is a rule un
der the Gospel. The substance remains;
the use, the meaning, the circumstances,
the benefit is changed ; grace is added, Hfe
IS infused; 'the body is of Christ;' but
it is in a great measure that same body
which was in being before He came. The
Gospel has not put aside, it has incorpora
ted into itself the revelations which went
Taefore it. It avails itself of the Old Testa
ment, as a great gift to Christian as well
as to Jew. It does not dispense with it,
Tjut it dispejises it. Why should the Old
Testament be retained in the Christian
Church but to be used ? There we are to
look for our forms, ouu rites, our polity ;
only illustrated, tempered, spiritualized by
the Gospel. The precepts remain; the
observance of them is changed."
This same threefold distinction in the
ministry — this disparity and subordination
of Church officers which God himself es
tabiished— our blessed Lord illustrated in
his own practice. N

While himself personally on earth, he
bore the divine comraission of the Father,
by whora he was " sent." He was the
visible " Shepherd and Bishop," and be
neath him were two orders in the rainistry.
The twelve Apostles were first chosen and
sent out to preach " the kingdom of God,"
and, as the seal of their commission, pow
er was given them " over all devils, and
to cure diseases."
Besides this order ofthe ministry, a sec
ond was instituted in the persons of the
seventy, to whom likewise was given the
power of working miracles, and who were
commanded to declare the near approach
of Christ's kingdom, for he sent them out
" two and two before his face into every
city and place whither he himself would
come." These were distinct frora the
twelve, and inferior to them.
For what reason these two orders of the
ministry under Christ were filled by twelve
and seventy persons respectively, we are
not informed. But, as our blessed Lord
unquestionably instituted several things in
conformity with observances that existed
under the Jewish polity, there might be
some reference to the twelve officers over
the tribes of Israel, who, under him, should
govern the spiritual Israel, as he declared
that they should " sit on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt.,
xix., 28). And also, in allusion to the sev
enty officers whom God commanded Moses
to set over the Israelites, to minister under
him, might Christ select the same number
as his inferior rainisters. This, however, is
a species of conjecture which, although
ranch indulged in by sorae of the fathers,
it must be confessed is not very profitable.
As to the fact, however, of the appoint
ment of two clearly distinct orders, with
delegated powers from a third and supe
rior authority, then present and acting as
the visible Head of the Church, we cannot
deera it unimportant, or as being without
a special design.
Now, was all this as a precedent for the
guidance of the Apostles in their responsi
ble work of organizing the Church, or not ?
Would it be inferred from it that rainiste
rial parity was the systera raost approved
of by Divine wisdom ? Would it not, on
the contrary, be natural to suppose that,
unless there were some special directions

98

given to the contrary, the Apostles would
establish the polity of the Church in con
formity with a principle recommended by
such authority I
That they did so, we think is capable ^f
the strongest inferential proof, and this is
all the proof the case requires or admits of.
From the four Gospels we can draw no
expressions and no, allusions to events
which can throw light upon this inquiry,
for the obvious reason that their record
closes with the appointment of the Apos
ties to succeed to that visible ministry
which the Saviour had fulfilled when he
ascended up on high. But ih the Acts and
the Epistles we shall find all that could
be reasonably anticipated, and enough to
sustain our position.
No direct statement will be found there,
indeed, thait gives, in juxtaposition, " Bish
ops, Priests, and Deacons," and then, by an
orderly definition, exhibits the distinctive
powers of these orders in the ministry. In
the Acts is recorded the appointment of the
deacons, and Apostles and elders are men
tioned in such connexions as show them
to be separate and distinct orders of Church
officers. In the Epistles, there will be
found precisely such allusions and expres
sions as the nature of this style of writing
would authorize us to expect. The Epis
tles, be it remembered, were written to
Churches which were established upon a
system of polity well unierstood, and
which had gone into full operation. There
would, therefore, be no more necessity for
telling the Churches at Corinth, at Ephe
sus, or Philippi, that there were three or
ders in the ministry, than there would be
for any one now -writing about the aflTairs of
this country to those acquainted with it to
describe it as being under a Republican
form of govemrhent. But if, in such a
correspondence, there were occasional
mention of the executive, the judicial, or
legislative departments, or of President,
Senate, and representatives, at different
times and in different cpnnexi6ns, it would
be all that we should expect to find ; and,
should letters of this description reach a
future generation (the same government
still standing), their interpretation would
not only be obvious, but the fact of their
existence would be proof demonstrative
that the government to which they allu-

ESSAYS. ded was in being when they were writ
ten. Now if we cannot show, frorii the Acts,
the Epistles, and the Book of Revelation,
that, in the primitive Church, that is, th&
Church of the New Testament, three or
ders ill the ministry are thus recognised,
with distinct powers, we will confess that
Episcopacy has not the support of Scrips
ture. Thursday, March 7th, 1844.

No. VII.
THE SCRIPTURAL MINISTRY IN THREE ORDEBSi
The nature of the argument to be drawn.
from Scripture in support of a divinely-
commissioned Ministry, subsisting in three
distinct orders, was briefly explained in
my last number. I shall now proceed to
the statement of it, and it is my intention
to accomplish this design within as narrow
a compass as possible. In order, howev
er, to bring the whole Scripture argument
for the ministry into one view, as it were,
a short recapitulation of certain points that
have been before discussed will be neces
sary. "
It is evident from Scripture that the-
functions committed by Christ to the min
istry, making men his disciples by baptism,
preaching the Gospel, celebrating his death
in the Holy Eucharist, and, in general, feed
ing, ordering, and ruling his Church, were
to be performed " alway, even unto the end
of the world" (Matt., xxviii., 20) ; " till the
Lord come" (1 Corinth., xi., 26) ; till the
final consummation (Matt., xiii., 30, 39,
47, 48, 49,)
The ministry is uniformly spoken of in
Scripture as distinguished from the people,
the brethren, or the body of Christians at,
large; These are never mentioned as pos
sessing the power, or having laid upon
them the duty, of ' " discipling" men by
baptism, of preaching the Gospel, of doing
in remembrance of Christ what he did
when he brake the bread, which is the
communion of his body, and blessed the
cup of blessing, which is the comraunion
of his blood, or of feeding the floek and ru
ling the Church.
For these purposes, " it is evident unto
all men diligently reading Holy Scripture,"
that there are to be persons iaken from

ESSAYS.

99

among men, " as the ministers of Christ
and stewards of the mysteries of God"
(1 Corinth., iv., 1); as "ambassadors for
Chrisf," those by whom God's message is
to be delivered to men, and those who are
to act " in Christ's stead" (2 Cor., v., 20).
This Scriptural definition of the minis
try as a distinct class precludes the possi
bility of its prerogatives being l-dwfuUy ex
ercised by the body of Christians at large,
or by authority derived from them. These
prerogatives imply a commission as a min
ister, an appointment as a steward, a send
ing as an ambassador, an authority as a
representative, z power given to impart an
other's will. Do the Scriptures anywhere
indicate that to the raerabers of the Church
at large belongs the right of giving this
commission, making the appointraent, send
ing the ambassador, investing with this
power, and granting this authority ? This
is a question of fact, and we believe that
an affirmative answer to it is utterly inca
pable of support. Indeed, common sense
would seem to preclude such an answer,
as imbodying the principle that the Church
is to send messengers, ambassadors, and
ministers to itself. Were the Church a
human society, constituted upon princi
ples drawn out by the ingenuity or wisdom
of man, then it might reasonably be con
tended that it possesses the right of giving
its agents a commission to do the work of
its own designation. But the Church is
the institution of God, the rainistry is ap
pointed to do his work, and the message
they bear is from Him, and man's only
duty is meekly to receive it, and gladly to
conform tp it as conveyed by his author
ity, and not by their appointment, negotia
tion-, or consent.
When, from the body of the disciples,
the twelve were chosen and constituted
" Apostles," that is, ambassadors or mes
sengers (Luke, vi., 13), had the disciples
any voice in the matter 1 " He chose
twelve." When the seventy were after
ward commissioned as " labourers in the
harvest" (Luke, x., 1, 2), it was " the Lord
alone who appointed other seventy also,
and sent them."
Here, then, we see that Christ, while the
visible' head of a ministry of God's own
appointment, with two orders of ministers
under him, retained the ordaininar power

exclusively in his own hands. To whora
did this power — a power. essential to the
perpetuity of the ministry — descend when
he relinquished to others the visible head
ship of the Church, " sending them as he
had been sent 1"
The first instance of appointraent to the
ministry after our Lord's ascension was
that of Matthias. At this time the effusion
of the Holy Ghost, for which the Apostles
were directed to wait, before entering upon
their now supreme ministry, as a suitable
preparation for it (Acts, i., 8), had not taken
place. It is not unreasonable to suppose,
therefore, that whatever was done in con
nexion -with this transaction was in con
formity with instructions received from the
Lord, during the interval between His res
urrection and ascension, in which He spake
to them for forty days " of the things per
taining to the kingdom of God" (Acts, i.,
3). As it is the only case in which we
hear of recourse being had to the lot, they
were doubtless directed to this process, and
inspired with confidence in its infallible re
sult, by special counsel from Christ him
self. St. Matthias, therefore, may be re
garded as having had a supernatural Divine
designation to the Apostleship. It is, how
ever, by no means inconsistent with this
view to suppose him to have been thus
pointed out to the Apostles as the fitting
person to be by them raised to the highest
order of the ministry.
Frora this time, as there were vast ac
cessions made to the Church, we cannot
doubt that pastors were multiplied in such
way as Christ saw fit to ordain. What this
was is the point for which we are now ex
amining Holy Scripture.
The next recorded case of accession to
the ministry is that of the seven deacons
(Acts, vi.). Who appointed them, and
whence was their commission to discharge
their functions derived ? The office itself
was created by Apostolical authority, and
the Apostles alone gave authority to act to
those who were to fill it. The multitude
of the disciples were called upon to desig
nate the individuals, but this was all.
" Look ye out," say the Apostles to the
members of the Church, "seven men
whom we may appoint over this business."
They, that is, the body of the Church,
" chose Stephen, whom they set before the
Apostlfes, and when they had prayed, they

100

ESSAYS.

laid their hands on them." That in addi
tion to the business of taking charge of the
charitable contributions for the poor, dea
cons had power to preach the Gospel and
to baptize, maybe clearly inferred from the
fact that Philip, who was one of them, we
find baptizing, and Stephen, who was an
other, suffered martyrdom for preaching
the Gospel.
The addition of St. Paul to the Apostle
ship is the next recorded instance of ap
pointment to the ministry. In this trans
action our Lord Jesus Christ clearly iUiis-
trated the great principle that the ministiy
is from him to men, and not a conventional
.ordinance, to be continued or not at the
will of men, and by some raethod of their
choice. Christ appeared to St. Paul, and
gave him his authority directly, not mere
ly by infusing into hira the proper qualifi
cations for his office, but by giving him an
-express, audible commission, an external
¦call. 1 Immediately after this we read of St.
Barnabas as an Apostle, but there is no
record made of his investiture with this of
fice. The. only reasonable supposition,
however, is, that it was conveyed to him in
the way which farther developments show
to have been duly established.
That both ho and St. Paul were appoint
ed to the superior order of the ministry,
having the exclusive power of ordaining,
may be clearly inferred from the fact, that
when prosecuting an extensive journey,
"they ordained elders in every Church"
(Acts, xiv., 23). Wherefore have done
'this, when two or more of those elders,
that is, an eldership or Presbytery, would
have been competent to the ordaining pow
er? Surely here are ordainers, a ministe
rial grade superior to elders.
In the twentieth chapter of Acts we are
informed (verse 17) that St. Paul called the
elders of the Church from Ephesus togeth
er, and gave them a solemn charge upon
their peculiar duties ; they were " to take
heed unto themselves and to all the flock
over which the Holy Ghost had made them
overseers ;" " they were to feed the Church
of God, which He had purchased with His
own blood," and they were to watch against
dangers to which the flock would be expo
sed ; but not one word is said implying
counsel or admonition upon the infinitely

I important point of conveying the ministe
rial power to others. In his Epistles to
Timothy, on the other hand, a minister of
this same Church, he is most emphatic in
his directions as to the character of those
who should be appointed Bishops (a name
then used synonymously with that of Elder
or Presbyter) and Deacons, and charges
him to " lay (thou) hands suddenly on no
man" (1 Tim., v., 22), and to " commit" the
sacred message of the Gospel " to faithful
men,who shall be able to teach others also."
Here, then, is Timothy at Ephesus, hav
ing power to impart the ministerial com
mission to others, while the elders at Eph
esus had not that power. Besides', in all
that is said to him by St. Paul respecting
the qualifications of Bishops (or Elders) and
Deacons, there is not a word implying that
one of those qualifications was aptness to
choose faithful men to whom they might
intrust their office.
Here, then, we find at Ephesus elders
and deacons, with Timothy at their head,
as solely empowered to ordain men to ei
ther ordeir. In other words, here is an
Apostolic Church organized according to
Christ's will, with three orders of ministers,
the highest only possessing the power, of
Ordination. To Titus St. Paul says, " For this cause
left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst or
dain elders in every city" (Titus, i., 5).
Now, wherefore should Titus go the rounds
of all the hundred cities of Crete, if every
two or more elders would constitute a
Presbytery competent to the ordaining of
others ? Here, .surely, is another Apostol
ic Church organized according to Christ's
will, whose Elders or Presbyters are incom
petent to the ordaining power, which is
lodged exclusively in Titus the superior.
One word more in connexion with this
case. St. Paul says to Titus, " that thou
shouldst ordain elders." The Presbyte
rian hypothesis, as set forth by its estab
lished authorities, is, that the power of or
dination is vested in the ministry, not in
any one minister, but in a plurality, or Pres
bytery. On sound Presbyterian principles,
it can be said to no one pastor that he is to
ordain. lie can only act as one of two or
more ordainers, that is, of a Presbytery, ne
single member of which has in hiftiself the
ordaining power.

ESSAYS,
But St. Paul teaches that the ordaining
power can be vested in one. " For this
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst
ordain elders in every city."
The Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippi-
ans is addressed to " all the saints in Christ
Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bish
ops and Deacons." Here the body of the
people and two orders in the ministry are
addressed ; now if there were in that
Church one holding a third and superior
rank, why was not he included in this ad
dress ? Simply because he was himself
the bearer of this Epistle to his spiritual
charge. In chapter ii., verse 25th, St. Paul
speaks of Epaphroditus as his brother and
companion in labour and fellow-soldier,
" but your messenger," says he to the Phil-
ippians. Now, according to the Scrip
tural use of the original word, it ought to
have been translated your AposUe. " Your
Apostle, and he that ministered to my
wants." He had ministered to the wants
of St. Paul by carrying to him the offerings
of the Philippians, as we learn from chap
ter iv., verse 18. Having discharged this
duty, he carried back with him from Rorae
this precious document.
As additional internal evidence from the
Epistle itself in support of the statement
now made, let me quote an ingenious re
mark made by the late venerated Bishop
Griswold. " In the last chapter the Apostle apostro
phizes Epaphroditus in these words : ' I en
treat thee also, true yoke-fellbw, help those
women who laboured with me in the Gos
pel.' Now had thefe not been one in that
Church eminently distinguished above the
Bishops and Deacons by some dignity or
office, there could have been no propriety
in this apostrophe, nor could the Church
have kftown who was meant. The Epistle
was not directed to Epaphroditus, because
he was the- person who carried it, as we
read in the postscript ; yet, as he would be
present when the Epistle was opened, it
was natural, and very fitting, that the Apos
tle should address him in this affectionate
manner as his true yoke-fellow, his com
panion in labour and fellow-soldier, in a
sense in which the elders and deacons were

not so. It is therefore much more than
probable, to me it is very evident, that
Epaphroditus had Apostolic authority, and

101
that there were, at that time, the three or
ders of rainisters at Philippi."
In the second and third chapters of the
Book of the Revelation we find the seven
Churches of Asia Minor raentioned, and
they must each have embraced many con
gregations and pastors. But it is obvious
that at the head of them respectively was
a superior pastor, denominated the Angel
of the Church ; a name of the same import
as Apostle. Now in each of these cases
the Angel was addressed in a style that can
be reconciled only with the Episcopal the
ory. His connexion with his particular
Church, both its pastors and people, is such
as to identify, as it were, their character
with his, and thus expose him to blame for
their delinquencies. Now take a city or
other district in which are several Presby
terian pastors and congregations ; no one
of the former can be held officially respon
sible for the character of the whole. He
may be the moderator of its Presbytery or
Synod ; but this is a changeable office, and
confers no other power than that of a pre
siding officer at a raeeting. The meeting
adjourned, his power ends.
No one, it would seem to rae, can read
attentively and without prejudice what is
Sfeid to these Angels of the seven Churches,
and not perceive at once that theirs were
the essential responsibilities of a perma
nent chief pastoral connexion with their
respective Churches, a permanent presi
dency over all their concerns, and a perma
nent executive and judicial authority.
The Scriptural argument will be farther
examined in my next.
'March 11th.

No. VIIL

THE SCRIPTURAL MINISTRY IN THREE ORDERS.
If the Episcopacy is essential to the
Church, it is very obvious that this princi
ple of ecclesiastical polity must have ex
isted in the very first organized association
of the disciples of Christ. We have seen
that in places beyond the boundaries of
Judea, where the Church was established,
as in Ephesus, Philippi, Crete, and the
seven cities of Asia Minor, there were
Bishops, then styled Apostles or Angels,
exercising their appropriate functions in
ordaining elders and presiding over the

102

ESSAYS.

whole body of believers— including the peo- ting to our Lord's resurrection, "Then he

pie and the ministry. We now intend to
inquire whether, at an earlier period, and
in the very birthplace of the Gospel, there
is not adequate proof of the existence of
the same fundamental principle.
It was in Jerusalem that the first Chris
tian Church was duly organized by the joint
ministry ofthe holy Apostles, and in this,,as
the mother of all Churches, was unddubt-
edly exhibited the pattern by which their
systems of discipline were subsequently
regulated. Now can we find in Scripture
any clear indications of what that pattern
of discipline was? This is our, present
subject of inquiry.
The Epistle General of St. James is thus
inscribed : " To the twelve tribes which
are scattered abroad, greeting." On the
supposition that he was the Bishop of Je-
rusalera, there would be a striking propri
ety in his thus giving paternal counsel to
those who had been under his pastoral
charge, and especially at the opening of
his Epistle, exhorting them to bear cheer
fully those teraptations or trials, the result
of the persecutions which had driven them
from their home, and " scattered them
abroad." The united voice of antiquity
asserts that he actually filled this respon^-
ble office. Ignatius, Papias, and Hegesip-
pus all mention hira distinctly in this con
nexion. St. Cleraent, of Alexandria, as
quoted by Bingham (Antiquities of the
Christian Church), says, " Peter, and James,
and John, after the resurrection of the Sav
iour, although they were honoured of the
Lord, did not contend for the dignity them
selves, but made James the Just Bishop
of Jerusalem." St. Jerome thus writes :
" Iramediately after the passion of the
Lord, James was ordained by the Apostles
Bishop of Jerusalera.'' And St. Cyril, who
was hiraself Bishop of Jerusalera A.D. 349,
speaks of his predecessor in connexion
with passages of Scripture where he is
mentioned ; as thus, in the fourth catechet
ical lecture, sec. 28, raaking allusion to the
letter written by the Council of Jerusa
lem (Acts, XV.), he says, " For concerning
meats, not I only, but the Apostles also, be
fore me, and James the Bishop of this
Church, have taken thought." And again
in the fourteenth lecture, section 21, quo
ting the passage from 1 Corinth., xv., rela-

was seen of James — his own brother and
first Bishop of this diocese." — (Translation
frora the Oxford edition of the Library of
the Fathers.) Many more witnesses, equal
ly trustworthy, and as explicit in their tes
timony, might easily be produced to prove
that it was the undisputed assertion of all
antiquity that St. James was Bishpp of
Jerusalem. Lardner, an author who can
not be suspected of any leaning towards
Prelacy, and who brought profound learn
ing and the most patient industry to the in
vestigation of the Gospel history, gives it
as his opinion that the Apostles appointed
James to Reside at Jerusalem, and to su
perintend the Church there, and that this
appointment took place soon after the mar
tyrdom of St. Stephen ; and in support of
his opinion he observes, " That Peter al
ways speaks first as presiding among the
Apostles ijntil after the choice of the seven
deacons. Everything said of St. James
after that, implies his presiding in the
Church of Jerusalem." — (Canon., vol. in.,
p. 28, as quoted by Macknight on the Epis
tles.) But at this stage of the argument it is
incumbent upon us to render probable the
fact of the Episcopacy of St. James, by
fair and satisfactory inferences from the
Scriptures themselves. , And to them let
us proceed.
Every attentive reader of the Scriptures
will remember that in the record of the
names of the Apostles, as found in 'the
Gospels (Matt., x., 2 ; Mark, iii., 16 ; Luke,
vi., 14), and again in Acts, i., 13, there were
two named James ; one the son of Zebedee,
and brother of John the Evangelist ;- the
other the son of Alpheus. The former was
put to death by Herod, as we read in Acts,
xii., 2, before A.D. 44. The latter^id not
receive the crown of martyrdom until raany
years afterward, when, as tradition informs
us, he was thrown by the Jews from the
parapet of the temple, and, as he Ufted
hiraself upon his knees, and began to pray
for his persecutors, was killed by a blow
from a fuller's cluh. In reference to his
years or his personal appearance, he was
called James the Less (Mark, xv., 40), and
according to Hebrew custom, by which all
near relations were styled brethren, be
cause his mother was sister to the blessed

ESSAYS
Virgin (John, xix., 25), he was designated
the Lord's brother (Galatians, i., 19). This
James it is who is mentioned in Scripture
in such connexion with the Church at Je
rusalem as to authorize our inferring that
'he was the Bishop of that Church.
By some, indeed, it has been maintained
that the James who is called in Scripture
the brother of our Lord, and by ancient
writers surnamed " the Just," was a differ
ent person from James the Apostle, the
son of Alpheus. This opinion has been
held by able writers of both ancient and
modern times. If correct, it would add
strength to the following argument, as
proving that Apostolical authority, and pre
eminence even among Apostles, was con
ceded to one not of the number of the
twelve. But as the argument is independ
ent of the decision of this point, and as its
examination would occupy more space
than I feel that I have a right to occupy in
this mode of publication, I shall proceed
upon what I suppose to be the more gen
erally received opinion.
In the 15th chapter of the Acts we have
a record of the proceedings of the Council
which took place at Jerusalem, to discuss
a question of great iraportance, to wit,
whether " it was needful to circumcise the
Gentile converts, and to command thera to
keep the law of Moses" (verse 5). Upon
this point there seems to have been great
-difference of opinion at first. But after
there had been much disputing, Peter arose
and addressed the assembly. Then Paul
and Barnabas gave an account of the suc
cess of their mission to the Gentiles. At
last, after a full discussion, James delivered
the final opinion, and in this style of au
thority : " Wherefore my sentence is, that
we trouble not thera which from among
the Gentiles are turned to God ; but that
we write unto them," &c. (verses 19, 20).
The decision was made, and the proposed
epistle was sent. Now in this assembly
were St. Peter, St. Paul, Barnabas, and
Silas, besides many others. It is manifest,
Iiowever, that St. James presided over it,
and spoke in conclusion with the authority
of a presiding officer. Granting that he
might have had precedence over the other
Apostles there assembled, here was St.
Peter, before this time always taking the
iead; how came he to yield his place of

103

superiority on this occasion? Upon the
supposition of those who lived and wrote
nearest to these tiraes, and who have stated
that, before the Council of Jerusalem was
held, St. James had been appointed to the
Episcopate of that city by the consent of
his brother Apostles, the whole seems very
naturally accounted for.
But in connexion with the doings of this
counci.l I must refer the reader to the Epis
tle to the Galatians (chap, ii., 12), where
St. Paul makes an obvious allusion to its
decision to send messengers with letters
to the Churches. He is speaking of Peter's
conduct, and blaming him for his incon
sistency, and in so doing he speaks of the
messengers sent from Jerusalem to carry
inforraation of the result of the Council, in
this raanner, " For before that certain carae
frora James," &c. Now why are these
messengers represented as coming from
James, and not from the assembled Apos
tles, or the Council ? We reply, because,
as Bishop of Jerusalera, he executed the de
cree of the Council, at which he had pre
sided in the same capacity.
In the same chapter (verse 9) James is
again mentioned, and in coimexion with an
event in the personal history of St. Paul,
which took place before the Council above
spoken of, but which indicates the station
held by James in Jerusalem. St. Paul de
clares that " James, Cephas, and John, who
seemed to be pillars, gave to him and Bar
nabas the right hands of fellowship." Turn
ing next to Acts (chap, ix., verse 27), we
read that Barnabas, when he came to Jeru
salem with Saul, " took hira and brought
him to the Apostles, and declared to them
how he had seen the Lord in the way, and
that he had spoken to him, and how he
had preached," &c. The Apostles then,
"perceiving the grace that was given to
him," received him into their association;
but St. Paul, remembering their relative
position in Jerusalera, gives to Jaraes a
precedence which, but for this circum
stance, St. Peter would naturally have held.
Again, \^e discover the same indication
of official rank in the twelfth chapter of
the Acts, where we have the account of
the escape of Peter from his imprisonment
in Jerusalem. When he was miraculously
delivered by the angel, he went to the
house of Mary, the mother of John, where

104

ESSAYS.

many were assembled together. After he
had been admitted, and had recounted to
them the manner of his escape, it being
important to his safety to leave Jerusalem
at once, he departed, but first directs them
to go- and " show these things unto James"
and to the brethren.
In the twenty-first chapter of the Acts
(verses 15-18), St. Luke relates that, upon
a certain occasion, he,- with others, -went
up to Jerusalem, and, upon arriving, the
brethren received them gladly. " And the
day following, Paul went in with us unto
James, and all the elders were present."
How naturally does this incidental men
tion of an historical fact fall in with our

theory ! The transaction is precisely what , " the saints which are at Philippi with the-

wouldbe most likely to take place wherev
er the Episcopacy was recognised. A
Bishop, well known and respected in the
Church for his manifold labours, sufferings,
and successes, enters the city where re
sides a brother in office. That brother,
informed of his arrival, prepares for his
reception, and all the elders of the city be
ing notified, they gather around their spir
itual father, and thus the distinguished
stranger is suitably welcomed, and oppor
tunity is given for the interchange of friend
ly salutatiohs and inquiries.
But it may be said that all which has
now been adduced proves only that Jaraes
held a kind of presidency in the Church of
Jerusalem, and nothing more — that he was
primus inter pares, the first among equals
in office. I would not certainly contend
that the simple facts themselves, taken
from their connexion with other passages
of Scripture, and unexplained by the testi
mony of ancient writers, would be avail
able for anything more. He, however,
who receives the doctrine Of the Trinity
upon Scripture evidence, and upon the
same authority acknowledges the obliga
tion of keeping the Lord's Day as sacred
time, and of administering the sacrament
of baptism to children, cannot reasonably
refuse to us the benefit of the apphcation,
in the present instance, of the very prin
ciples of interpretation upon which he has
himself depended. We argue, therefore,
that the facts which have now been brought
forward, explained and illustrated by those
passages before adduced, and compared to
show that the Scripture ministry subsisted

in three orders, and by the consentaneous-
testimony of ancient authors, prove, be
yond any reasonable doubt, that St. James
was the Bishop of the Church in Jerusa
lem. 1
When styling St. James the Bishop of
Jerusalem, I am reminded of an objection
which has often been advanced against
our doctrine of a ministry ih three orders,.
and as often been answered, to wit, the in
discriminate use in Scripture of the titles-
Bishop, Elder, and Presbyter. It is said
that St. Paul, in liis Epistles, recognises
but two orders in the ministry, to wit,
Bishops and Deacons ; and Philippians
(chapter i.) is adduced, where he salutes

Bishops and Deacons." Now it has been-
shown before that Epaphroditus, the Apos
tle of that Church, was the bearer of the-
epistle, and, therefore, could not be ad
dressed in it. But again it is said, that
those who are called Elders or Presbyters
in one place are denominated Bishops in
another. Now be it observed, that we lay-
no stress whatever upon a distinction of
names ; we contend for a distinction in offi
cial authority ; and, moreover, as the terms
Bishop, Elder, and Presbyter are employ
ed in the New Testament, we acknowledge-
that they are obviously convertible. This
objection has been well met; in his conden
sed and peculiar style, by Leslie (On the
Qualifications necessary to Administer the
Sacraments. Works, vol. vii., Oxford edi
tion). " They may as well prove that
Christ was but a deacon, because he is so
called, Rom., xv., 8, diakonos, which we
rightly translate minister ; and Bishop sig
nifies an overseer, and presbyter an ancient
man or elder man ; whence our term of al
derman. And this is as good a foundation.
to prove that the Apostles were aldermen,
in the city acceptation of the word, or that
our aldermen are all Bishops and Apostles,
as to prove that Presbyters and Bishops
are all one, from the childish jingle of the
words. It would be the sarae tubing if one
should undertake to confront all antiquity,
and prove, against all the histories, that
the emperors of Rome were no more than
generals of armies, and that every Roman
general was emperor of Rome, because he
could find the word imperator soraetimes-
applied to the general of an army. And"

ESSAYS.

105

suppose that any one were put under the
penance of answering such ridiculous ar
guments, what method would he take but
to show that the emperors of Rome had
generals under them, and exercised author
ity over them ?"
We have proved, then, from the New
Testament, a distinction in ministerial of
fice, by showing a distinct exercise of dif
ferent powers ; and, as far as Scriptural
names designate those who exercised these
power^, the "first in order were Apostles,
the second Bishops, Presbyters, or Elders,
the third Deacons. After the death of St.
John, the last ofthe twelve, the reasonable
supposition, and the one entertained' by all
antiquity, is, that the name Apostle was
reserved for those who up to this time had
filled the sacred office. Bingham (Antiqui
ties of the Christian Church, book ii., chap.
ii., sec. 1), quoting one of the early histo
rians, thus explains the matter : " The-
odoret says expressly. The same persons
were anciently called promiscuously both
Bishops and Presbyters, while those who
are now called Bishops were called Apos
tles. But shortly after, the name of Apos-
¦ ties was appropriated to such only as were
Apostles indeed; and then the nan^e of
Bishop was given to those who before
were called Apostles."
Be this as it may— and let the change
of names be satisfactorily accounted for
or not — this is unimportant to our argu
ment. What we contend for is, that the
New Testament affords the clearest indi
cations that the Apostles, in executing the
commission given to them by the great
Head of the Church, ordained two orders
in the ministry inferior to that which they
themselves held; that they transmitted
this authority to ordain, not to either of
these orders, but to those whom they ap
pointed their successors, as Timothy, Ti
tus, and Epaphroditus ; that these also or
dained ministers, " elders in every city,"
to be subject to them and inferior to them ;
and we affirm, what may be disputed, but
cannot be disproved, that from that time,
and for fifteen consecutive centuries, there
cannot be produced the slightest evidence
really worthy the name, as being such as
should influence the decisions of a calm
and unprejudiced mind, of the existence
of a Church, anywhere in the whole world,
0

which did not possess a rainistry in three-
distinct orders, with the power of ordain
ing and governing restricted to the first
order — that order, as far back as uninspired.
records go, being called Bishops.
Thursday, March 14

No. IX.
THE SCRIPTURAL MINISTRY IN THREE ORDERS.
In ray last Essay was offered the proof
on which we support our belief that St>-
James was Bishop of Jerusalem, presiding
over its clergy and laity, and charged with
the raanagement of its spiritual interests.
There is no evidence that either ofthe oth
er Apostles was in like manner restricted
to any definite portion of that dominion
which they were gradually gaining from,
Judaism and heathenism. On the contra
ry, it is manifest in the case of St. Paul, as,
we gather frora the Acts of the Apostles^
and from his Epistles, that as his mission
ary journeys had been extended through
wide portions of the then civiUzed world,
so his care and spiritual superintendence
over the Churches thus planted were equal
ly extensive. It is reasonable to infer that
the other Apostles adopted, if not as labo
rious and extensive, yet a similar mode of
propagating the Gospel. The first Epistle
of St. Peter is addressed " to the strangers
scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cap-
padocia, Asia, and Bithynia," and as it was
in all probability written from Rome (Bab
ylon being the figurative name of the im
perial city, 1 Peter, v., 13), there can be na
doubt that raany Churches, in places far
remote from each other, were first planted
and afterward nourished by his rainistrar
tions. The Apostles, then, were not confined to
anything like the limits of a diocesan Epis
copate. Nor could they be, for the obvi
ous reason that, until Churches were form
ed and associated in communities, they
could not be subjected to any systera of
polity. In Jerusalem, indeed, as being the
place where large numbers of disciples
were first gathered together, there would-
be an early opportunity afforded to^devel-
op that systera, which it was designed
should be carried out as fast and as exten
sively as need raight require. For soraa
time, doubtless, all the Apostles remained

106

ESSAYS.

together at Jerusalem. This was the cen
tral point, from which all their missionary
labours were directed, and here they con
stituted a general council for the infant
<^hurch, sending one or more of their num
ber to neighbouring districts on special
.missions, as occasion might require. (See
Acts, viii., 14 ; ix., 31, 32 ; xi., 22.)
Tradition, as conveyed to us by the an-
-cient historians, informs us that the Apos
tles continued to reside at Jerusalem, em
ploying their tirae in this manner in dissem
inating the Gospel, foi- the space of about
twelve years after the ascension of our
Lord. Be this as it may, we know that
their journeyings and labours about this
time took a ranch wider range. The Sa
cred Word, it is true, gives us no detailed
account ofthe distant journeyings and mis
sionary labours of any but St. Paul, unless,
indeed, the intimation above mentioned, in
St. Peter's first Epistle, may be considered
an incidental proof of what he accomplish
ed. So silently, as has been well observ
ed, did the Apostles proceed in their mighty
task of building up the Church, and so truly
did the kingdom of God come upon men
-" without observation" (Luke, xvii., 20).
But that the kingdom of Christ was es
tabhshed far and wide throughout the then
civilized world, even in the lifetime of the
Apostles, who can doubt ? And, moreover,
who can reasonably hesitate to believe,
that as St. Paul, in the instances of Ephe
sus, Philippi, and Crete, when the Church
es that had been planted by him increased
in nurabers, and raany Elders had been or
dained for them, requiring a more direct
supervision than he could extend to them
with his manifold and wide-spread " care
of all the Churches," and when, in antici
pation of his approaching departure — a ne
cessity impended for the increase and per
petuity of the ministry — as under the influ
ence of these motives he conferred his Ap
ostolical authority upon Timothy, Epaph
roditus, and Titus, so, also, did the other
Apostles, in like manner, place Bishops —
their representatives at first, and then their
successors — over distinct portions of what
had before been a common spiritual do
minion ? That all this is very possible no
one can deny; that it is in the highest
degree probable, we maintain, upon the
strength of what we have shown to be the

essential constitution of the Christian min
istry ; that it is certain we affirm, if any
credit is to be given to the united testimo
ny of all the writers of the first three cen
turies Of the Christian era.
But, more than this, we contend that we
need not rest our case upon the uninspired
evidence furnished us by the Fathers, nor
yet upon the supposition of what the Apos
tles must have done in order to establish
and perpetuate the ministry of the Gospel
intrusted to them ; for we are prepared to
show that, while the last one of the dtiosen
twelve was yet present on earth, to bear
witness to the truth, and to utter his inspi
red condemnation against error in doctrine
or laxity in discipline, the Episcopacy was
fully established, and its existence clearly
recognised by him, in no less than seven
of the most extensive and well-known
Churches of the ago.
The seven Churches of Asia Minor have
been before alluded to, but in a connexion
which did not afford an opportunity for ful
ly developing the argument that establish
es the fact of their Episcopal organization.
To this point, therefore, I now solicit the
reader's attention.
In the first three chapters of the Book
of Revelation is contained the message
which St. John was commanded by Jesus
Christ to deliver " unto the seven Chiirdhes
which are in Asia ; unto Ephesus, and unto
Smyrna, and unto Pergamos,and unto Thy-
atira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadel
phia, and unto Laodicea." He was " to
write this message in a book and send it
to them" (chapter i-, 11). All that is re
corded in these three chapters relates to
places, and persons, and circumstances,
then actually in existence. In the fourth
chapter he proceeds to record the sublime
visions which were exhibited to him in re
lation to " things which must be hereafter"
(verse 1) ; but the vision ofthe first chap
ter relates to the seven Churches express
ly and exclusively. The messages, indeed,
conveyed to them, may be profitable to all
future times, and we must now and ever
lend an attentive ear to " what the Spirit
saith unto the Churches." These Church
es are not addressed, however, symbolical
ly, but as communities then existing, each
under the government of its spiritual head.
St. John, being in the Spirit on the Lord's

.« ESSAYS.
Day, is spoken to in a wonderful manner,
and upon turning "to see the voice that
spake with him," he beholds " seven gold
en candlesticks, and in the midst of them
one like to the Son of Man, and he had in
his right hand seven stars." Now the ex
planation of this vision is not left to con
jecture, for we are expressly informed that
he who spake was Jesus Christ (Rev., chap.
i., 6) ; that " the seven stars are the angels
of the seven Churches, and the seven can-
<llesticks are the Churches" (verse 20).
"The question to be solved, then, is. Who
or what are these seven angels ?
It is very clear that personality is attrib
uted to thera, and that they are not to be
looked upon as personifications of abstract
qualities. And it is as clear that they are
individuals, addressed in such a manner as
to preclude the idea ofthe word angel be
ing employed as a noun of multitude, to
represent a congregated body of men, the
members of each Church in their collect
ive capacity. Indeed, it has been well ob
served that such a supposition would in
volve the absurdity of interpreting the ad
dress to each one of them, after this raan-
' ner : " Unto the angel of the Church of
Ephesus write," that is. Unto the Church
of the Church of Ephesus write.
The angel of the Church of Smyrna is
thus encouraged : " Be thou faithful unto
death, and I will give thee a crown of life ;"
and the angel of the Church in Philadel
phia, exhorted by the same allusion, " hold
that fast which thou hast, that no man take
thy crown." Here a personal reward is
promised to both for well-doing — even the
same to which St. Paul looked forward
when he said, " Henceforth there is laid
up for me a crown of righteousness, which
the Lord the righteous Judge shall give rae
at that day" (2 Tim., iv., 8). And the an
gel of the Church of the Laodiceans is re
buked for personal defects, lukewarmness,
and spiritual pride, and the exhortation to
him is clearly a personal one throughout
<chap. iii., 14-21).
As the angels, then, are addressed as
single persons, so individual responsibility
is attributed to them— and the peculiar re
sponsibility, moreover, of exercising disci
pline. Where it has been lax and ineffect
ual in restraining heresies or corrupt prac
tices, the angels are condemned, and when

107
it has been administered with efficiency,
they are applauded.
Let us look at the first epistle — that ad
dressed to th^Angel ofthe Church of Eph
esus. This Church, as we learn, must have
possessed a large body of elders, for when
St. Paul, about forty years before, sent for
them to meet hira at Miletus (Acts, xx.,
17), there were then certainly several of
thera, and Tiraothy was afterward directed
to ordain others to supply the wants of the
increasing nuraber of the disciples. These
elders, however, are not mentioned, nor
yet the body of the Church, as being em
powered to exercise discipline, but the An
gel was commended for his " works, and la
bours, and patience, and because he would
not bear or approve thera that were evil,
and because he tried thera which professed
to be Apostles, and were not, and proved
thera liars." — (Chap, ii., 2.)
On the other hand, the Angel of the
Church of Pergamos was blamed, because,
although personally he held fast the narae
of Christ and had not denied the faith when
exposed even to raartyrdom, he had neg
lected to execute discipline upon offenders,
and had perraitted idolaters and heretics to
continue in the communion of the Church
(chap, ii., 13, 14). In like manner, the
Angel of the Church of Thyatira is thus ad
dressed : " I know thy works, and charity,
and service, and faith, and thy patience and
works ; and the last to be more than the
first." And yet, because he suffered that
Woman Jezebel, who called herself a proph
etess, to seduce the Lord's servants into
idolatry, he is reproved (chap, ii., 19,
20). Now why were these Angels thus
condemned for tolerating heretical opinions
and corrupt practices in the Church, un
less they had power, in the-adrainistration
of discipline, to put a check to thera ? And
why are they alone reprimanded if the
other members of the ministerial body, and
without peradventure there raust have been
others, had any authority in the matter ?
It would be needless to enter into a more
minute exaraination of the respective Epis
tles. No one can read thera attentively,
and with an unprejudiced raind, without be
ing satisfied, from their whole tenour, and
from the constant and emphatic use of the
singular number, that they are addressed
to individuals. In the few places where

108

ESSAYS.

the plural number is employed the Church
es generally are addressed, but not in such
a way as to militate in the slightest degree
against the idea of a personal responsibility
resting upon their respective Angels.
" Whereas the Churches are called can
dlesticks, the Angels are resembled to
stars, which give light to the candlesticks ;
which is a very fit emblera of those who
succeeded in the place of the Apostles,
whom our Lord calls the light of the world,
and resembles to candles, which, being put
into ^candlesticks, give light to all the
house' (Matt., v., 14, 15). Their other
name of Angels is never given to any but
such as are placed in some high office and
dignity under God. The Jews used to call
their high-priest by this name, because
they looked on him as God's messenger to
them. Our Lord himself is called the Mes
senger, or ' angel of the covenant' (Mala-
chi, iii., 1), and his Apostles, whom he left
to declare the will of God to his Church,
are also styled Angels in the Revelation.
Indeed, the names of Angel and Apostle are
almost synonymous words ; both signify the
messengers of God. So that this is a very
fit name for those who succeeded the Apos
tles in their office of declaring or telling
God's message to the Church." — Potter on
Church Government, chap. iv.
That these Angels, then, were men of
distinguished rank and great authority in
the seven Churches of Asia" Minor, ^there
can be no doubt ; and that these Churches
consisted of large bodies of clergy as well
as laity, no one, I presume, will dispute.
Is not the inference, therefore, a fair one
that here, towards the end of the first cen
tury, there is Scriptural evidence of the ex
istence of seven distinct communities of
Christians, each presided over by a single
person, who had authority, recognised by
Christ hipiself, to rule and administer dis
cipline in the Church, and who was held to
be individually responsible for the manner
in which he executed his solemn trust ?
" St. John, we know, addressed them as
Angels ; but whether by a figure of speech
or because such was at that tirae their only
designation, no candid raind can doubt that
an Episcopal order is intended ; and that
to thera, as such, commands and revelations
were given by God through his last Apos
tle. Thus Episcopacy would seem to be

I the finishing of the sacred edifice which
the Apostles were commissioned to build.
Until this was completed and firm, they
presented themselves as props to whatever
part required support. One by one they
were withdrawn ; and at length ' the whole
building having grown together unto a
holy temple' (Ephesians, ii., 21), the Lord's^
promise was fulfilled to the one surviving
Apostle. He only tarried until God's last
temple was complete, and the Lord's ' sec
ond' coming unto it had been announced
by an especial vision." — Hinds.
Tuesday, March 19th.

No. X.

SUMMARY OF THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT FOB.
THE EPISCOPACY.
The Scriptural argument in favour of
the Episcopacy having now been carried
through several numbers, it may be expe
dient, before leaving it and directing the
reader's attention to other considerations,
to exhibit it in a condensed form. This is
the object of the present essay.
A rainistry auihenticated by an outward
coraraission, and perpetuated through an
unbroken succession, is the institution of
God's appointment to preach the Gospel
and administer its sacraments and ordi
nances. This ministry is constituted in three or
ders, the first possessing the exclusive-
power of ordaining, of goverhing in the-
Church, and of transmitting the successioii.
This doctrine of a threefold ministry as
essential to the Christian Church, is sup
ported by its identity of principle with the
organization of the Jewish ministry, as es
tabhshed by the express injunction of God'
himself. The Jewish priesthood consisted of three
orders — ^the high-priest, the priests, and'
the Levites. When Christ came it was
not to destroy the old dispensation, of
which this system was an essential part,
but to fulfil or enlarge it. " Think not,"'
says he, " that I am come to destroy the
law or the prophets. I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil." — (Matt., v., 17.)
While lie abrogated some part of the an
cient customs and laws, he left this un
touched and unreproved. Shall we now
venture to annul or hold in light estimations

ESSAYS.
•a principle of order which Christ did not
disapprove? In the affirmed absence of
explicit instruction on the subject, is it not
reasonable to conclude that a principle so
established and so countenanced was to be
retained in the new dispensation ? If min
isterial parity were the necessary, or even
¦the more expedient order, and the Episco
pacy a yoke which the Gentiles would not
be able to bear, why was not the former
clearly established, or the latter expressly
disallowed, as was the case with circum
cision? — (Acts, XV., 10.)
The Jewish priesthood in three orders
seems, in the New Testament, to be con
sidered a type of the Christian priesthood.
St. Paul calls our blessed Saviour " the
Apostle and High-Priest of our profession"
{Hebrews, iii., 1), and by St. Peter he is
styled " the Shepherd and Bishop of your
souls" (1 Peter, ii., 25). Again, St. Jude
speaks of those who "despise dominion,
and speak evil of dignities" (verse 8), " and
perished in the gainsaying of Core" (verse
11). What the sin of Korah was, we learn
in Numbers, vii. It consisted in aspiring
to discharge the functions of the priest
hood without authority. This sin, then, is
possible under the Christian dispensation,
and if so, there must Be some principles
common to both priesthoods, and essential
to. them ; and who can say that the three
fold order is not one of these principles ?
Ere the Jewish priesthood was annul
led, and that of the new dispensation estab
lished in its place. He who is the great
source of all sacerdotal power, while pre
paring the way for this dispensation, car
ried on his own ministry in conformity
with the principle of a threefold order. He
was the chief Shepherd and Bishop. He
chose twelve Apostles to be near his per
son, and to them he gave the highest com
mission. "After these things the Lord
appointed other seventy also" (Luke, 11).
Does anyone imagine that these disciples
held the same place under our Lord's per
sonal ministry with the twelve Apostles ?
The supposition is at utter variance with
what is recorded of the two orders in the
New Testament. We have, then, during
the visible ministry of Christ on the earth,
the chief Shepherd and Bishop, the twelve
Apostles, and the-seventy disciples. Clear-

109
ly, there is no ministerial parity here, and
as clearly the distinction in the ministry is
threefold. When the Lord had fulfilled his personal
ministry, ere he ascended up on high, he
gave a new commission to his Apostles,
constituting them and their successors his
representatives to the end of time (Matt.,
xxviii,, 19, 20). To this it may be object
ed that the Apostles wrought miracles, and,
as those who assume to be their succes
sors cannot do the same, their claim to the
successorship raust be disallowed. This
objection proves too ranch, for, follow it
out to its necess'ary consequences, and it
must be inferred also that there are no
Christians who have succeeded those of
Apostolic times. The Lord promised,
" these signs shall follow thera that be
lieve : in my narae shall they cast out dev
ils ; they shall speak with new tongues ;
they shall take up serpents ; and if they
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
them ; they shall lay hands on the sick,
and they shall recover" (Mark, xv., 17, 18).
Now if the Bishops must work miracles
at the present day to prove that they hold
the Apostolic office, then must believers
do all these things to establish their claim
to the title. The power of working mir
acles, therefore, no more appertains to the
Apostolic office than it does to ordinary
discipleship. That the Apostles were to have succes
sors, and that they had received from the
Lord the power of appointing them, is ev
ident from the fact that the first transac
tion which is recorded in the history of the
Church (Acts, i.) was the appointraent of
Matthias to take the Episcopacy or the
Bishopric of Judas.
The Lord now relinquishes his visible
rainistry, having invested the Apostles
with the chief authority in the Church.
Before he left thera, he instructed thera
forty days " in the things pertaining to the
kingdom of God" (Acts, i., 3). Whatever
they did was unquestionably done in con
formity with these instructions.
They soon proceeded to the ordination
of deacons by the laying on of hands (Acts,
vi.). This Scriptural order of ministers is
now found only in connexion with the
Episcopacy. Those bearing this name
among other denominations are not ordain-

110

ESSAYS.

ed; or, if hands are laid on them, they do
not preach as did Stephen (Acts, vii.) ; or,
if their exhortations are to be accounted as
authorized preaching, then Presbyterian
ism recognises two orders in the rainistry ;
and they do not baptize as Philip did (Acts,
viii.). Now let us pursue the chain of ministe
rial commission as far as the Scriptures
present it to our notice. The Saviour
says to the Apostles, " As my Father hath
sent me, even so send I you" (John, xx.,
31). Here the commission is given by the
Father to the Son, and by hira committed
to chosen men.
St. Paul is afterward added to this num
ber, and received his* comraission, as did
the other Apostles, from Christ himself
In process of time, and to secure the suc
cession, St. Paul conveys the commission
to Timothy, among others. It is done by
the iraposition of the Apostle's hands, with
the laying on of the hands of the Presby
tery (1 Tim., iv., 14 ; 2 Tim., i., 6). The
authority was conveyed by the Apostle,
the assent only ofthe Presby tery was raan
ifested. The charge given to Tiraothy is,
"The things that thou hast heard of me
among many witnesses, the same commit
thou to faithful men, who shall be able to
teach others also." Here the comraission
is carried one step farther. It has been
conveyed from the Father to the Son,
frora the Son to the Apostle Paul, from
Paul to Tiraothy, from Timothy to the
faithful men.
Now we cannot reasonably doubt that,
in ail iraportant matters, the Apostles must
have acted upon some uniform principle,
and, as they organized one Church, so they
organized all the Churches.
The Church at Philippi was established
by St. Paul, and it is manifest that this
Church possessed a ministry in three or
ders. His Epistle to this Church opens
with this salutation, " To all the Saints
which are at PhiUppi, with the Bishops and
Deacons." Here are three descriptions of
persons, but only two ordens of the minis
try brought to view, the saints or believers,
i. e., the general body of the faithful, then
the Bishops or Elders, and the Deacons.
The Bishops and Deacons are proved to be
ministers of different grades by this pas-
sap-e, and by 1 Tim., iii. We look,, then.

for the third or superior oraer, and find the
Apostle of the Philippians mentioned in.
chap, ii., 25 : " Epaphroditus," says St.
Paul, " my brother and companion in la
bour, and fellow-soldier, but your raessen-
ger," or, as in the Greek, " Apostle."
He was with St. Paul when this Epistle
was written, was the bearer of it, and as-
he was probably himself to read it, the
Apostle thus addresses him in the body of
it, " I entreat thee, also, true yoke-fellow,"
&c. (iv., 3).
If one Church was established upon the
principle of a threefold rainistry by St.
Paul, can we reasonably doubt that, wherev
er he planted other Churches, the sarae
principle entered into their organization ?
And if St. Paul so ordered the Church to-
be governed, is it likely that the other
Apostles pursued another raethod in ac
complishing their work ?
The Church at Ephesus, in its history
as gathered from the New Testament, ex
hibits the Episcopal principle upon which
it was founded in full operation. In the
twentieth chapter of Acts, we find St.
Paul thus warning the elders of that Church .-
" For I know this, that after my departing
shall grievous wolves enter in among you,
not sparing the flock. Also of your own
selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things to draw away disciples after thera"
(verses 29, 30). In his Epistle to Timo
thy, whom he appointed their Bishop, he
tells him to charge some of these elders
" that they teach no oMer doctrine" (1 Tim.,
i., 3). Long after this, the venerable Apos
tle St. John, writing to the Angel, or Apos
tle, or messenger, or Bishop of this same
Church, addresses him personally, and says,
"Thou" (not ye elders, but), "thou hast
tried them which say they are Apostles,
and are not, and hast found them liars"
(Rev., ii., 2). Observe, then, in relation to-
the history of this Church, the prophecy
of defection among some of its elders, but
no direction given to them to interpose in
the matter ; next, the charge given to Tim
othy to use his personal authority ; and,
lastly, the commendation of the Angel,
who was either Timothy or his successor,
because the solemn trust had been faith
fully executed by him, the responsible per
son. In conformity with this principle of Epis-

ESSAYS.

copal government, the epistles to Timothy,
who was to preside over the Church at
Ephesus, and to Titus, who was left in
Crete " to ordain elders in every city," are
the only epistles of St. Paul which contain
directions for constituting Churches and
appointing rainisters. The others are ad
dressed to the people at large, or private
individuals, but nothing is said to thera
upon this subject; other doctrines are
treated of, the Church is recognised and
described, as in Ephesians; the sin of
schism is condemned, &c., &c., but not
one word intimating authority on the part
of the people to alter or amend the funda
mental constitution of the Church, or give
a commission to its ministry.
And, finally, we see the Episcopal prin
ciple recognised in the Church /rji estab
lished in Jerusalem, and in the last Churches
mentioned in the sacred history, those of
Asia Minor.
Now, a Church founded upon this very
principle of Episcopacy is actually in ex
istence at the present day. Other orga
nized bodies of Christians are also in exist
ence, but we can specify the tirae and
place of their origin.
Methodism began at Oxford, under the
Wesleys, and remained incorporated, as it
were, with the Church during most of their
lifetime, and it has been a distinct system
of ecclesiastical discipline for about fifty
years. Congregationalism, or the sect of the In
dependents, was first heard of in the sev
enteenth century. It was the gradual off
spring of Presbyterianism, and developed
itself fully in the time of Oliver Cromwell,
or rather earlier, perhaps, in this country,
at Plymouth, Massachusetts.
In the sixteenth century the Baptists
commenced a separate institution at Mun
ster, in Westphalia, under John Matthias
and John Bokkels. In this country they
began at Providence, R. I., March, 1639.
Ezekiel Holliman baptized Roger Wilhams,
and then Williams " baptized Holliman and
the other ten."
Presbyterianism also began in this cen
tury, in Germany and at Geneva, under
Martin Luther, John Calvin, Philip Melanc-

iir

It were easy to extend this list to every
age before the Reformation, and to recall
the dates and councils which established
the numerous errors of Romanism ; but it
is sufficient to say that the essence of this
system, so far as it is contradistinguish
ed from the fundamental principle of the
Church Catholic, is found in the assump
tion of Boniface III. to the title of Univer
sal Bishop, A.D. 606.
Now we affirm that no raan can show
the beginnin^of Episcopacy, except with
Christianity ; its birthplace, if not Jerusa
lem ; its authors, if not Christ and the Apos
tles ; Its age, except the first century, be
fore the venerable head ofthe Apostle John
was laid in the grave.
Friday, March 22-

No. XI.
OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT
CONSIDERED.
There is scarcely a doctrine of the Gos
pel which has not, at some time or other,
been assailed with objections, not frora the
ranks of infidelity alone, but from among
those also who profess their belief in the
Bible as a revelation from God. Even
truths acknowledged by the vast majority
of the followers of Christ, " everywhere
and at all times," to be fundamental, such
as the divinity of our Lord, his atoning
sacrifice, the personal existence and un
ceasing influences of the Holy Spirit, have
met and still continue to meet a deter
mined opposition. Now it will not be con
tended that, in order to establish these
truths upon a sufficiently firm foundation,
it is needful to answer every objection
which perverted ingenuity or honest doubt
may raise against them, in such a raanner
as to preclude their being again brought
forward in the sarae or in some more plaus
ible shape. Could this be justly demanded
of the Christian-advocate, he must at once
relinquish the hope of giving stability to
any principles whatever, and his mansion
of faith, like his earthly tabernacle, must
be a changing and insecure habitation.

,..,„  „  ,  ».„.,, ,..„^ „.„.  . Cavilling and objecting upon any sub- -
thon, and others, but became a sect, against Meet," says. Bishop Butler, " is much easier
their original wishes, better knowledge, than clearing up difficulties ; and this last
and explicit declarations. I will always be put upon the defenders of

112
religion. Now a man may be fully con-
'vinced of the truth of a matter, and upon
the strongest reasons, and yet not be able
to answer all the difficulties which may be
raised upon it. Then, again, the general
evidence of religion is complex and various.
It consists of a long series of things, one
¦preparatory to, and confirming another,
from the very beginning of the world to the
present time. It is easy to see how diffi
cult it must be to unite all this into one argu
ment, and represent it as it ^ght ; where
as unconnected objections are thrown out
in a few words." — {Charge to the Clergy of
Durham, 1751.)
Demonstrative proof is not that which
-God has seen fit to supply for our confirm
ation in any article of " the faith once de-
iivered to the saints.'' Whether this arises
from the very nature of evidence, as ap
plied to questions of belief which are de
signed to influence human conduct, or
whether it is so ordered because best adapt
ed to our moral discipline in this life, we
may not be able to decide ; but the fact it-
¦self is certain. Now it is very obvious
that any proof short of demonstration is,
and must be, open to objections ; nay, such
js the constitution of some minds, that
truths estabhshed upon moral evidence
than which we can conceive of none
-stronger, such as the being of a God, and
the immortality of the soul, have been dis
puted. We must be on our guard, therefore,
-against drawing an inference so dangerous
as that a point of faith is of doubtful au
thority, simply because it has been often
and pertinaciously denied. This consti
tutes no valid objection against it. And,
moreover, we must be oil our guard against
demanding, upon a question like the one
now under consideration, a description, or
an amount of evidence, such as, from its
very nature, it could not be expected to
supply. The validity of the Scriptural argument
for Episcopacy has often been denied, on
the ground of its being merely inferential,
consisting in a comparison of texts of Holy
Writ, drawn from different connexions, and
of analogies subsisting between the old and
the new covenants, and requiring occasion
ally, for its full development, a reference
to the writers who immediately succeeded

ESSAYS. the Gospel age. But what other, -what
better description of argument can be ad
vanced in support of any religious truth?
The only proper question is. Has the in
ference been correctly drawn from a suf
ficient number of places of Holy Writ fair
ly applicable to the case in hand? We
contend that, in the previous argument,
this condition has been fulfilled, and that,
in its progress, we have obtained all the
proof we could reasonably expect or de
sire of the Divine origin and perraanent
obligation of the Episcopal institutioh of
the rainistry.
Those, however, who deny the force of
such an arguraent are accustomed to de
mand something more explicit. Give us,
they say, an express literal assertion that
the Christian ministry must always subsist
in three orders, with power of governing
and ordaining restricted to the first order.
While acknowledging our inability to pro
duce such an assertion, we deny the rea
sonableness of its being demanded. If God
has left such points of discipline as the ob
servance of the Lord's Day, aiid of infant
baptism, and the essential doctrines of ev
ery orthodox creed, to be sustained by in
ferential proof, can more be justly required
for Episcopacy ? If the constitution of the
Church in the organization of its ministry
is an unimportant matter, and the regula
tion of it left to every man's discretion be
cause the Bible does not speak in definite
propositions concerning it, doctrines which
we consider the most vital are also, by par
ity of reason, unimportant, and every man
raay select or reject as he chooses. If
Episcopacy may be rejected because not
supported by a demonstration which is irre
sistible, we may also reject Christianity it
self on the very same ground.
The nature of the evidence which the
New Testament offers, in support of the
fundamental doctrines and great moral
principles of the Gospel, is thus well de
scribed by Archbishop Whately : " They
are taught, for wise reasons, no doubt, and
which, I think, we may in part perceive,
not in creeds or other regijlar formularies,
but incidentally, irregularly, and often by
oblique allusions ; less striking, indeed, at
first sight, than distinct enunciations and
enactments, but often even the more deci
sive and satisfactory from that very circura

ESSAYS.
stance; because the Apostles frequently
allude to some truth as not only essential,
but indisputably admitted, and familiariy
known to be essential by those they were
addressing."— (T/ie Kingdom of Christ, page
109). Such is the language of this distin
guished writer, and so judicious are his re
marks upon the nature of the Scriptural
evidence for " the fundamental doctrines and
ihe great moral principles of t!ie Gospel;" and
yet, with an inconsistency most remark
able, and most unaccountable in so clear a
reasoner upon many subjects, he demands
for the essential organization of that insti
tution which is the appointed keeper of
these doctrines and principles, " the Church,
the pillar and ground ofthe truth," ;)j-ecise
directions, accompanied with strict injunc
tions !
We contend that the Scriptural argument
in support of the peculiar organization of
the ministry is the same in kind with, and
equal in amount to, that which can be ad
vanced to sustain most of the doctrines uni
versally admitted to be fundamental'' parts
>of Gospel truth, and we contend that the
injunction to obey in the one case is as
strong as that to believe in the other.
"Remeraber them which have the rule
-over you, who have spoken unto you the
Word of God. Obey them that have the
.rule over you, and submit yourselves, for
they watch for your souls as they that must
,give account" (Heb., xiii., 7, 17).
But it may be said that this inferential
argument will carry us dangHous lengths,
and that if it is good and sufficient to estab
lish Episcopacy, it is equally conclusive in
support of monarchy as the essential form
¦of eivU government. Now this objection,
weak as it must seem to any one who has
given it a moment's serious consideration,
has been often advanced. It has ever
seemed to me, I must confess, too unim
portant to call for a serious refutation.
Bishop Henry U. Onderdonk, however,
more than ten years ago, thought it worthy
of an answer, and in a note to his tract
" Ep^fcppacy tested by Scripture," gave it
one lOTst conclusive. To those who have
read this admirable treatise nothing need
be said upon the subject. But inasmuch -as
it may not be within the reach of many
readers under whose notice these Essays
may fall, and as I cannot myself pretend to
P

113
offer anything in so clear or condensed a
form, I shall give here a portion of the
learned Bishop's remarks, but enough to
show the utter futility, not to say absurdity,
ofthe objection now under consideration.
" It has been alleged that as clear authpr-
¦ity is found in Scripture for monarchical
governraent and its perpetuity as for Epis
copacy and its perpetuity, 'submit your
selves to  the king as supreme' (1 Pet.,
ii., 13), being as strong a precept as ' sub
mit yourselves to them that watch for your
souls,' which we have applied to the Epis
copal ministry set forth in the New Testa
ment. This allegation, however, is easily
refuted. 1. Where it is said that the king
or Roman emperor was suprerae, it is also
declared that this was the ordinance of
man ; and it is because it was ' the ordi
nance of raan' that subraission to the eraper-
or was enjoined. The office was ' the cre
ation ******* of raan.' Of course, man
may change that office for another, and
thus substitute a republican for a royal or
imperial government. But the Christian
ministry is the appointment or creation of
God. " 2. Should it be farther objected that
' the powers that be' are declared to be ' or
dained of God' (Rom., xiii., 1) ; we answer,
thaf nothing is here mentioned of kings but
only of 'higher powers,' and that, unUke
sorae of the provincial people, the Romans,
to whom that language was addressed, ab
horred the title of king;* which circum
stances show, independently of other con
siderations, that it is not to be taken for
granted that mere monarchical ' powers'
were meant in this passage.
" In our opinion, ' the powers that be'
raeans ' the established civil authorities that
at any time exist ;' submission to these is
made binding on Christians by the Chris
tian law ; just revolutions, as incidental to
every ordinance or creation of man, being
ex;ceptions to this rule. The object of such
passages is, we think, to consecrate the so
cial principle which leads to civil magis
tracy, and affix the seal of the Divine Au
thor of Christianity to the maxim, that men
are not individually sovereign, but either
jointly so, or else subject to some other
common sovereignty ; and that maxim, thus

* See Poole's Synopsis on I Pet., ii., 13, and
M'Knisht on ditto.

114

ESSAYS.

divinely ra|ified, decides that men must sub
mit to the lawful public authority under
which they live. But this has no bearing
on the case of the rainistry, which was not
only created and ordained of God, but
which all history attests to have been per
petuated in the Episcopal form, and which,
if'it ever fail, must be again appointed by
GoD,'*and ' ordained' anew, not by men, but
' for men ;' since its business is ' in things
pertaining to God,' since the ministry of
reconciliation is 'given' by God, and by
Him ' coraraitted to' men, or ' put in' men,
and since it is an embassy from Christ
(Heb., v., 1. 2 Cor., v., 18, 19, 20). Such
an office must either be perpetuated or be
lost ; it cannot be renewed or changed, like
the civil offices which are the creation of
man. It is clear, then, from Scripture, that
civil governnjent, though of perpetual gen
eral obligation, is not so in any one of its
kinds ; while ecclesiastical polity is per
manently binding in the form set forth in
the New Testament."
I had intended in this Essay to exaraine
another and more iraportant objection to
the doctrine ofthe Episcopacy, namely, the
one arising from the alleged consequence
of its exelusive claims, " unchurching"
those who do not conform to it, and thus
rendering it obnoxious to the charge of
want of that charity which is the charac
teristic of the Gospel.
But as the consideration of this question
would carry me beyond the limits which I
have prescribed for myself, I shall reserve
it for my next number.
March S6th.

No. XII

objections to the SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT
CONSIDERED.
Or all the objections brought against
Episcopacy, the one which exerts,' prob
ably, the greatest influence, in exciting
prejudice, and thus preventing a candid ex
amination of its claims, is the charge of
"exclusiveness." It is, therefore, inces
santly dwelt upon by those who oppose our
ddctrine, and is reiterated in every possi
ble form of angry reproof and bitter denun
ciation. Nor are these the only weapons
employed, but even scurrilous language
and low ridicule are taken up, and in a

spirit of sacrilegious levity thrown at the
honest convictions of men— granting them'
to be erroneous or prejudiced, yet still Aon-
est convictions — upon subjects sacred in.
their estimation, and which, therefore, no
man of generous, and dignified, and well-
regulated sentiments could thus assail..
Seldom is this charge advanced in the tem-
per of a mild and Christian-like expostula
tion, and still' more rarely is it maintained
by calm, dispassionate argument.
Why is it that the advocates of Episco
pacy are thus dealt with? Is it because
Others are " more in number, and we the
fewest of all people" (Deut., vii., 7), an in
significant denomination among more pow
erful, intelligent, and pious religious com
munities, as is often asserted ? Our insig-
nificarfce, surely, ought to be our protec
tion, and the best reproof of our arrogant
claims would be to let thera pass unnoticed..
Or is it because other denominations ex
hibit a larger amount of spiritual zeal in
their efforts to convert sinners, and Epis
copalians, the victims of a cold and formal
system, must be roused from their lethar
gy by a contrast so unfavourable to them ?'
Now while we can, by no means assent to-
the distorted estimate which human vanity
is sometimes tempted to make of its own-
righteous deeds, we cannot enter into self-
defence upon this subject. We certainly
have no zeal and piety to make a bocist of;
we have no sympathy with the spirit which
says, "I «n hoher than thou;" "God, I
thank thee that I am not as other men."
When we look at the spiritual privileges
which the great Head of the Church has
vouchsafed to extend to us, and compare
with them our manifold deficiencies, we
are little disposed to set up any claim to
" exclusiveness" in piety.
But " exclusive," so far forth as this word
implies firmly maintaining the rights ofthe
Church, and carefully protecting the purity
of its Apostolic rainistry, we certainly must
confess that we are.
Let us, then, examine the ngtare and
force of the objection which t^s course
of proceeding on our part has raised up
against us.
The doctrine we contend for is caUed
" exclusive" and " uncharitable'-' because it
relates only to a point of " form," a " non
essential," a " mere matter of discipline."

ESSAYS.

115

Now this is the very question in dispute.
In our sober and deliberate judgment, as
instructed by the Word of God, we cannot
esteem the constitution of the Christian
ministry a matter of "form," a "non-es
sential." We produce what we believe to be
Christ's direction and the Apostolical prac
tice under it, to show us in what raanner
his ambassadors are to be authorized to
speak in his name, and to administer his
sacraments. His direction thus conveyed
is to us a law, " an ordinance which raay
not be broken."
We feel under sacred obligations to re
ceive the whole Word of God as our rule
of faith and practice. We do not esteem
ourselves either authorized or competent
to select a certain nuraber of doctrines and
precepts, and elevate them into thS rank of
" essentials," and cast aside other large
portions which speak to our rainds and con
sciences in no obscure or doubtful terms,
as less profitable and less obligatory. In
our view, " All Scripture is given by inspi
ration of God, and is profitable for doc
trine, for reproof, for correction, for in
struction in righteousness ; that the man
of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnish
ed unto all good works" (2 Tim., iii., 16, 17)
Now it is, without doubt, possible that
we maybe in error upon this point ; but we
must be very fully convinced that this is
the case before we can relinquish our
ground. With us it is a cherished princi
ple that we keep ourselves in the attitude
of humble attention before the Word of
God, ever saying, as we consult its pages,
" Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth ;"
and, while ever striving, in weakness and
infirmity, to obey all positive commands,
not daring to resist what we esteem the
clear intimations of the Divine will.
As we have received these intimations
concerning the constitution of the Church,
and the organization of its ministry, so we
hold them. They are to us substance, not
show — reality, not form ; and, should we
hold them in light estimation, it would be
to us as though we should cast dishonour
upon the " Church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood," and upon
the sacred office of those " whom the Holy
Ghost hath made overseers to feed" that
Church.— (Acts, xx., 28.)
Such being our conscientious belief of

what the Scriptures teach, how can we be
justly accused of " exclusiveness" or want
of charity for professing this belief and de
fending it ? except, indeed, as this accusa
tion raay be brought against all those who
express their faith in any particular truth.
Truth is, in its very nature, and by abso
lute necessity, exclusive ; it contradicts
and pronounces to be error whatsoever is
opposed to it ; and when, in relation to any
subject, a raan affirms that his opinion is
right, he virtually declares that those who
hold the opposite opinion are wrong ; and,
moreover, it is not in his power to change
the relative position in which these opin
ions stand to each other.
If, however, he advocates his own views
by unfair methods, or in a spirit of bigotry,
or with an Unchristian temper, then, on this
account, and not because of the opinion he
honestly maintains, raay he be charged
with " exclusiveness'' or want of charity.
But if, on the other hand, " he speaks the
truth in love" (Ephes., iv., 15), let not the
exclusive character of this truth be charged
upon him. If it be not God's truth, con
vince him that he is in error, and then, if
indeed a follower of Christ, he will aban
don his error. But if it be God's truth,
it is God also who has made it exclusive,
and, " O raan, who art thou that rebellest
against God ?" — (Rora., ix., 20.)
Again, because a doctrine is exclusive in
its bearing upon those who do not receive
it, the inference cannot be drawn that it is
therefore unscriptural. The Jewish Church
was exclusive in an erainent degree, and
that, too, in an external ordinance ; but
that ordinance was of God's own appoint
raent ; and the new covenant, if it abolish
ed some rites and modified others by spir-
ituaUzing them, still preserved the princi
ple of " exclusiveness." " Except a man
be bom of water and of the Spirit, he can
not enter into the kingdom of God." —
(John, iii., 5.) " Except ye eat of the flesh
of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye
have no life in you." — (John, vi., 53.)
" There is none other name under heaven
given among men whereby we must be
saved," but only the narae of Jesus Christ.
—(Acts, iv., 12.)
All denominations of Christians profess
doctrines which they deem essential to the
integrity of Gospel truth, and, of course.

116
they exclude.

ESSAYS.

as not holding this truth,
such as reject these doctrines. Will any
who maintain what is called the orthodox
faith receive into communion those who
deny the Divinity of the Saviour and the
doctrine of the atonement ? Will the Bap
tist extend full Christian fellowship to one
who ^ has been baptized only in infancy,
however in accordance with him upon
other questions of doctrine? Certainly
not ; and why ? Because there is a con-
,viction in the one case that certain doc
trines, and in the other that an ordinance,
administered in a certain way, are essen
tial parts of the Gospel system.
If, then, we believe that our doctrine in
relation to the Church and our ordinance
of a threefold ministry are also essential
parts of the Gospel system, how are we
more obnoxious than they to the charge of
" exclusiveness ?" To those who will in
sist upon preferring this charge against us
we must simply reply, " Therefore thou
art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou
art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest
another thou condemnest thyself, for thou
that judgest doest the same things."^-:
(Rom., ii., 4.)
But, again, it is said that our doctrine is
justly "offensive" to all those religious
communities that have rejected the Epis
copacy, and even "unchristian," because
in its consequence it " wnchurches" them.
That it is justly offensive we deny, except'
when it is put forward or maintained in an
offensive manner, or made the occasion of
needlessly wounding the prejudices of a
weak brother. Then, indeed, not the doc
trine, but its injudicious or uncharitable ad
vocate, is properly obnoxious to condemna
tion. Whether or not it is " unchristian,"
is, as I have said before, the very question
in dispute.
( Suppose the consequence of the position
we assume in relation to the ministry be as
is stated, and all that place themselves on
non-Episcopal ground are thereby "un
churched," how are we accountable for this
consequence, or how are we to ward it off?
The essential principle of our doctrine is,
that man has no authority to modify the
fundamental constitution of the Church, or
frame a new comraission to authenticate
its ministry. If Christ has given the pow
er of ordination to the Apostles and their

successors, how can we dare to take it out
of their hands, and establish another meth
od by which th^ right to preach and admin
ister the sacraments shall be conveyed to
men? ^
While this doctrine manifests itself to
our understandings and comes home to our
consciences as a portion of God's revealed
will, we cannot speak or practise otherwise
than as we do. But let it be observed in this
connexion, that consequences are drawn
from our doctrine which yre by no means
admit to be fairly deduced.
Do we narrow down the circle of salva
tion to those within the visible limits of the
Church's fold ? No, far be from us the sin
of thus invading the sole prerogative of
God. While we exalt the privileges of the
Churc* and believe that Christ hath made
her the depository of " exceeding great and
precious promises," we yet maintain the
comforting assurance, that " in every na
tion, he that feareth God and worketh right
eousness is accepted with him" (Acts, x.,
35). Doubtless it is the all-seeing God who
alone can decide upon any individual case
of departure from his appointed ordinances,
Man may not dispense with them, but who
shall venture to assert that the infinite mer
cies of our heavenly Father are bound witli-
in them ? No such assertion do we make.
We believe in " one Catholic and Apos
tolic Church," and but one ; for the Gos
pel bears testimony to no other. We pro
nounce no judgment personally on those
¦who separate themselves from the visible
communion of this one Church. We re
meraber the Apostolical admonition, " Who
art thou that judgest another man's ser
vant ? To his own master he standeth tx
falleth."— (Rom., xiv., 4.)
But there is one other light in which this
accusation of unchurching may be present
ed, that shows how unreasonable and un
founded it is. We attach to the words
" the Church," " the ministry," " the sac
raments," a definite meaning; and when
we explain our views, it is contended by
some that our doctrine is superstitious and
unscriptural. For instance, to adopt an illustration frora
an author whom I have before quoted:
" The Church has ever maintained that bap
tism in the Apostolic community conveys
the most exalted and unearthly blessings,

ESSAYS.
and, by consequence, maintains |;hat the i
unbaptized possess them not. But is it not
a fact that all such persons totally reject
the notion of there being any spiritual val
ue in baptism ? Does our uncharitableness,
then, place them in a worse position than
that which they voluntarily choose for
theraselves and resolutely defend ? Surely
we are rather taking a high view of our
own privileges and grace in Christ, than in
any degree depriving others of theirs. We
leave them where they place themselves.
And it seems hard to call this a want of
charity. It is impossible to say that we are
depriving of sacraments those who do not
even pretend to them, except in form. It
is strange and uncandid to say that we un-
church those who (in our sense of the word)
do not even pretend to be Churqhes." —
Irons. With what justice, then, do such persons
complain of our denying that they possess
what, upon their own showing, they are
anxious to discard ? They will not, surely,
refuse to us that privilege which they de
fend for themselves with commendable
zeal, of reading and interpreting the Word
of God. We both acknowledge this to be
the final authority in matters of religion.
If the faith and practice we deduce from it
be erroneous, that is our misfortune, or our
sin, " if we handle the Word of God deceit
fully" (2 Cor., iv., 2). Be that as it may,
they have no better right to interpret " the
law and testimony" for us than we have
for them. The question, then, resolves it
self into one of Christian freedom, and
while we " stand fast in the liberty where
with Christ hath made us free" (Gal., v., 1),
far be from us the disposition to interfere
with the liberty of others.
While thus defending ourselves from
these heavy charges, we would, in conclu
sion, hurably claim for our Church the pos
session and the manifestation of a very
different spirit. Even they who accuse her
of being " exclusive," " uncharitable," " un
scriptural," and therefore place themselves
without the pale of her visible communion,
even they cannot deprive themselves of her
blessed influences, or escape beyond the
reach of her guardianship and care.

117
In every assembly of her faithful chil
dren, the Apostolical exhortation is con
stantly obeyed, and " supplications, pray
ers, intercessions, and giving of thanks are
made for all men" (1 Tim., ii., 1). And
the Gospel hope of these her children, dark
ened and discouraged by no irreversible de
cree predestinating " a certain and definite
nuraber to everlasting death," can and does
erabrace all the fallen sons of Adam ; and
the incense of prayer ascends unceasingly
for all, frora altars erected to that " God
our Saviour who will have all men to be
saved and corae unto the knowledge of the
truth" (1 Tim., ii., 4).
And in executing her holy office as the
divinely-appointed guardian of " the truth"
(1 Tim., iii., 15), she will still keep, as she
has ever kept, a faithful watch and ward
over it. Though discord, error, and ever-
varying creeds are around her, with her the
fundamental principles of that truth remain
unchanged ; and when, in the conflict of
opinions among those who have cast off her
authority, " the faith" becomes confused,
uncertain, and wellnigh lost, with her it
shall be found again, perfect and entire, as
"once delivered unto the saints'' (Jude,
iii.). During, then, her militant state here on
earth, she prays for all, and watches for all,
and labours for the salvation of all. And
when, at last, her holy work accomplished,
she shall be summoned to leave this mili
tant for her triumphant state in heaven, and
all her assembled children risen from the
dead, a glorious and countless raultitude,
with " those that are alive and reraain, shall
be caught up together in the clouds, to raeet
the Lord in the air" (1 Thess., iv., 13), she
doubts not that her company will be swell
ed by numbers without nuraber raore,
" coraing frora the east, and from the west,
and from the north, and from the south, to
sit down in the kingdom of God" (Luke,
xiii., 29), and to join in her song to the
Lamb, saying, " Thou art worthy, for thou
wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God
by thy blood out of every kindred, and
tongue, and people, and nation."-;— (Rev,
v., 9.)
March i!9th.

Erratum. — No. I. of Dr. Potts's Remarks having been written before the Essays
were actually commenced, its proper place would have been after Dr. Wainwright's
last letter of the Correspondence. The misplacing was not noticed until it was too
late to make the correction. The mistake, however, with this explanation, can cause
no embarrassment to the reader.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

THERE CAN BE NO CHURCH WITHOUT A PRELATE;
OR, IS THE EPISCOPACY ESSENTIAL TO THE CHURCH?

No. I.
My opponent has chosen to add another to
Jhe various extraordinary movements by which
he has sought to escape from the self-imposed
duty of proving the position he assumed at the
New-England festival. After having run around
the lists, from post to pillar, displaying various
Jeats of horsemanship, to the surprise of some
and the amusement of other spectators, he has
at last vaulted over the barriers, and now, with
great politeness, turns round to bid me " a final
farewell." But I cannot consent to part with
him, glad as he seems to part with me. This
effort to escape will not avail him. Being stiU
upon th^ arena, I am determined to let neither
Tiim nor the subject go until he has been obliged
to tell the public upon what grounds he can jus
tify his unchurching dogma, or to admit that he
has no grounds at all. The fact that I have
ceased to begin my communications with " Rev.
and Dear Sir," and to end them " your obedient
servant," does not imply, as I fancy every read
er will see, that he is to be allowed to retire
thus quietiy. My reasons for dropping the
epistolary form I need not state ; suffice it, that
I know of no law of dialectics which makes that
form indispensable to a discussion.
I am, however, rejoiced that he has taken a
step, of the consequences of which he does not
seem to be aware. He has now pledged him
self (beyond retraction, in this case, I hope) to
let us have the views of himself and those who
agree with hira upon the very question which
he has so long avoided. He has assumed his
true place, the place of proponent. I trust he
will proceed to give us something positive,
something more than mere negatives. Let him
proceed in any manner he pleases — in " calm
didactic essays" or otherwise — I promise my
self the satisfaction of responding to any proofs
he may give of the assertion at the dinner-ta
ble, " There can be no Church without a Prel-
.ate." Without wasting time in noticing various of
fensive statements in his last (to one of which
I will advert before I close), I will proceed, at
present, with the course of my argument, until
I see how he will redeem his last pledge, with
the understanding that, if he should introduce
into "his calm didactic essays" any collateral
subjects, I will leave him to discuss them with
other persons.
Having considered the absolute futility of the
'first assumption upon which the unchurching
dogma is built, I proceed to notice the second,
viz., that the lineage which our modern apostles
claim, is and must be (from the nature of the case)
unbroken since the time of their predecessors, the I
-Apostles of Christ.

We say it must be unbroken, because, upon
the theory adopted by all High-Church partisans
concerning the mysterious endowments of the
ministry, and especially of Prelates, it is neces
sary that there should be an uninterrupted
chain along which their sacramental virtues ¦
shall be communicated, this chain answering
the purpose of a spiritual conductor.
We may justly require, therefore, that the
beUevers in any such necessity should furnish
the most indubitable evidence of the fact, not
only that such a succession is promised, but
that it has been actually preserved. It is a
question of fact, and we require historical evi
dence sufficient to satisfy any honest inqui
rer that this divinely-endowed conductor has
never been broken. Never, inasmuch as a sin
gle breach, taking place at some distant period,
must, of course, have occasioned consequences
not only immediately, but remotely fatal. For
we are gravely told that any such breach in the
chain would affect all the ordinations, baptisms,
confirmations, &c., &c,, which might subse
quently occur in the broken line. We can
therefore compare such an instance of irregu
larity — occurring, let us say, in the ninth centu
ry — to a poisonous taint, which spreads, surely
but secretly, in various directions ; but what
those directions are, it is, in the nature of the
case, impossible for any one, at this moment,
to tell. Hence, should any of my readers wish
to place themselves in contact with the benig
nant though mystical influence of this conductor
of the only spiritual blessings promised in the
Gospel, it becomes an important duty to be pre
viously assured that the Prelate or Presbyter to
whom they direct their steps has not derived
his official character through the tainted me
dium. I wish to be grave in treating this subject, if
it be possible, but I can make no rashpromises-
With this intention, I proceed to remark that
such a succession* cannot be proved, for two
reasons : First, that the proof of it is impossible
from the nature of the case ; and, second, because
we have many well-established facts from the
pages of history which show that the succes
sion has actually been often interrupted.
1. In the nature of things, the existence of,
an unbroken series of individuals, claiming de
scent from the Apostles, is incapable of proof
It is, at the very best, a case of probabilities.

* Suppose I call upon Dr. Potts to prove that the
sun has successively 7-isen every day since the great
light was created ! He cannot do it for his 'first rea
son, given above. Yet who doubts it ? To one who
understands the case, the very existence of Bishops,
knowing how only they could be made, is proof, like
looking at the sun.

120

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

and so many of its stanchest advocates have
admitted. It will answer no purpose to give .us
a genealogical table such as that which has
lately been printed and circulated among the
lovers of High-Ohurchi marvels. It -requiresi
only pen, ink, and paper to draw out a hundred
handsome-looking genealogical trees, but what
wise man would put the least confidenqe in
them when he considers that the evidence for
the correctness of any one of the branches must,
of necessity, be in the highest degree apocry
phal? When the greatest uncertainty rests
upon 'many of the prominent facts of history, is
it probable that mmor facts, such as the bap
tism, the' election, the regular'conseoration, &c-,
&C-, of a multitude of obscure Prelates of the
Middl'e-Ag^ can be relied on? Even admitting
that the ecclesiastical records of every see in
Christendom were to be got at, the questions
occur. Who made those records; and who kept
them ? And do they tell the whble truth about
each ofthe links in the chain ? But, more than
this, if we are to believe Eusebius the histori
an, these records were, in many cases, entirely
lost. And StilUngfleet {Origines Brit., Lend.,
1685'j p. 81, 83) affirms that, "by the loss ofrec-
ordsf of the British Churches, we cannot draw
down the succession of Bishops from the Apos
tles' times." He elsewhere {Irenic, p. 2, ch.
6) says that, if we come to Rome, " here the
succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself"*
This question of" endless genealogies" would
be merely amusing, were it not that these High-
Church gentlemen make them the basis upon
which they claim a fee simple in the spiritual
property of Christianity, to the entire exclusion
of all who cannot or will not show a similar pedi
gree. What man of sense would make his sec
ular rights dependent Upon such a basis ? When
a Welsh gentleman points you -with great grav
ity to his family tree, exultingly showing that
he can trace, through Ap Joneses or Ap Owens-
es without number, up to the venerable Noah
himself, you smile at his credulity, and venerate
him for his simplicity. Who believes in the
pure, untainted, uninterrupted pedigree of the
Prince Esterhazy, of which a wag remarked
gravely, " L'arbre genealogique de la famine Es
terhazy sortait de I'estomac d'Adam?" We
leave it to the admirers of hereditary aristocra
cy to amuse themselves with these pretty trifles;
but we protest, in the name of common sense,
against making them evidence in a case where
such vital results are dependent. They are
only worthy of ridicule.
But (2) not only is this absolutely unbroken
succession, upon which so much depends, a
matter which, in the nature of things, is i«ca-
pable of proof ; we have various satisfactory evi
dences from history that the asserted unbroken
succession has actually been often interrupted.
Considering that there is no Scriptural ground
for beUeving that an unbroken continuity of in
dividuals is necessary to the continued exist
ence of the Church, and then reflecting upon
the nature of man as it has developed itself in
every age §ince the Apostles, we might before
hand conclude that such an unbroken succes
sion was improbable. We have but to remember

* Dr. Potts requires more than the Church ever
demanded.

that there is nothing so holy as to be secure-
against sacrilegious hands, nothing in the pro
visions of the Gospel which has not been cor
rupt^ ; and it will p6 longer remain a wonder
that history gives us facts like' the following,
viz., that the priestly and prelatical offices have
-been often- actually bought and sold ; that to
obtain possession of them has been the occa
sion for the most outrageous acts ibf violence ;
that the most corrupt men have been intruded
into them by force ;: that boys of five and ten.
years old (contrary to all riile) have been made
the Prelates of rich dioceses, and even placed
upon the Papal throne ; that heretics and athe
ists have been forced into these offices ; and
that interminable cross-fires of excommunica
tion have been kept up in certain regions for-
centuries, rendering it impossible to tell in
which of the contending parties the dcpositum
of Episcopal grace was to be found. It -would
consume too much time were I to cite the cases;
which have occurred of these and similar out
rages upon the purity of Christian truth and
order; nor is it necessary. They are notori
ous ; but if, perchance, any should doubt con
cerning them, we can give him abundant satis
faction from the pages even of a Romanist his
torian how before us.*
Now, who is to decide, we may ask, the va
rious moot points which such facts suggest?
What Prelate or priest of " the succession" can-
be sure for himself or satisfy others as to the-
question of his o-wn legitimacy, when it is pos
sible that some of these things happened in the

* All these matters are entirely irrelevant. The
simple question is, Has there ever been a time since
Christ -when there was not one Bishop alive upon
the face of the earth? Now you can show that thq
Moravian succession was ohce reduced, to a single- .
Bishop : he ordained others. But can you show one
such fact as this concerning the whole Church smcer
the Lord's time ? Though yoii could (and you' can
not), it proves nothing ; for even the Moravian suc
cession was continued, although this circumstance
and Some others have contributed (see Percei/al) to-
cast a shadow over the Moravian Episcopacy. So,;
also, in Denmark, for different reasons.
Now we can show these facts. 'Why not show us-
similar facts, and invalidate our claims at once?-
There are no such facts. People seem to think, be
cause two or three, or a dozen Bishops of Rome,.
have quarrelled, or because a boy was (?) made Bish
op, that those facts destroy or vitiate the succession.
Why they do not even vitiate the Romish succession-
We do not claim so much as people imagine. We-
do not say that a boy cannot be a Bishop. We say
he ought not ; but if a layman be consecrated by one-
Bishop (and the Catholic canons require three), he
would be a Bishop to all intents and purposes. 'The
rule h6re is, Factum valet ; fieri non debet ; the same
rule which has been, perhaps, too freely applied on
the subject of lay baptisms. Is it certain' that Tim
othy and Titus were consecrated by more than the
Apostle Paul? though, indeed, all the early com
mentators (on 1 Tim., iv., 14) declare that the Pres
bytery there spoken of means an Episcopal or Apos
tolic college. Thus Chrysostom : " He does not hpre -
speak of Presbyters, but of Bishops, tor Presbyters
did not ordain a Bishpp;" so Theophylact : "Thatis,
of Bishops; for Presbyters did not ordain a Bishop."
Suppose there were three Popes, or a dozen, fight
ing together; they might be bad' Bishops, but they
would be Bishops still. They would not all be law
ful Bishops of Rome, but they would be (if by an
other Bishop or other Bisfcops consecrated) Bishops
the Church.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

121

line of his pedigree ? And if it be impossible
for him to do so — as it manifestly is — I leave it
to rhy opponent to pronounce sentence himself
upon his dogma, "No Prelate, no Church," since
that dogma rests upon "the succession."
, Now it is certain that the orders of the An
glican Church have come down through the Ro
man Church. But the Roman Church (besides
that its own orders are liable to the difficulties
suggested above) had a right to take away what
it gave. It did take away the orders of the Re
formed Church of England by bulls of excom-
muhieation, so that allthe Prelates, Presbyters,
and Deacons of the latter body have been cast
out ofthe line of succession, and their desoend-
ents are illegitimate upon their own principles.
But it is said, in reply to this, that the An
glican Church is not dependent upon the Roman
hne, and that, at the Reformation, it oiily re
turned to the independent condition which it
held before the rise of the Papacy. Great ef
forts have been made to prove this. But it is
obviously impossible to disentangle Anglican
orders from Roman orders, because it is mi-
questionable that, at the Norman Conquest,
Prelates were ordained in England who were
of foreign extraction and had a foreign ordina
tion, and if so, an ordination which was open
to all the suspicions of its regularity we have
hinted at in a preceding paragraph. Fox (Mar
tyrs) states the first seven of the Prelates of
(Canterbury were Italians or foreigners. Good
win likewise states that the Pope frequently
consecrated Archbishops for England. Who
can tell that those Prelates might not have
come of the tainted stock, and, of course, were
incapable (upon the absurd theory of High-
Churchism, about which I am ahnost ashamed
to waste so many words) of transmitting orders ?
Besides this (to increase the complexity of
this tangled web of absurdities), the attempt to
claim an independent line of Apostles for Eng
land must proceed upon the assumption that
there is something suspicious about the Roman
line as to its integrity. Be it so ; then why
not be consistent, and openly deny Roman or
ders? But does the Anglican or American
" Church" do this ? Not at all ; for in the re
port of his doings made by the Rev- Dr. Onder
donk, of this diocese, to the last convention, I
find, among other items, this : " Annunciation
of the blessed Virgin Mary, Saturday, March
25 : received, agreeably to- the proper canon of
the General Convention, as a Presbyter of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States, and of the diocese of New-York, the
Rev. Daniel M'Manus, who had been admitted
to priest's orders by a Bishop of the Church of
Rome." This was without reordination, and
yet who can tell, concerning this gentleman,
whether his spiritual pedigree may not be de
fective on the score of some of the gross irreg
ularities which we have alluded to as frequent
in the Dark Ages? The undeniable fact that
the Roman pedigree has often crossed the An-
ghcan and American, and if (as Chillingworth
has observed) "it is not a thing very improba
ble that, among those many millions which
make up the Roman hierarchy, there are not
twenty true," the reader can infer the grossness
of the pretence of an unbroken Apostolical suc
cession. , Q

Let us now advance a stop. We wUl, for the-
sake of argument, admit that, up to the time of
the English Reforraation, the line of Episcopal-
grace was unbroken- Setting aside the fact that
all the Prelates who took part in the secession
from the See of Rome were excommunicated,
and were compelled to take out commissions
from Pope Henry VIIL, the gravest questions
have from time to time been raised in regard to
the validity of subsequent ordinations and con
secrations- Let us consider some of these in
stances, that we may be better able to measure
the worth of this boasted descent irom the
Apostles Peter and Paul.
Archbishop Parker's consecration to the pri
macy introduced a taint into the stream of the
succession at the fountain head. It is a long-
story, of which this is the sum. Queen Eliza
beth, as head of the Church, issued a commis
sion ordering certain Prelates of the old Roman
line,i. e.,the Prelates of her sister, bloody Mary,.
to consecrate Parker as Archbishop of Canter
bury, in 1559, according to the Protestant form,^
which had been restored. They refused. She
then commanded certain Prelates of the new
line (King Edward's Bishops, who had been de
posed by Mary) to perform the consecration..
The partisans of Popery denied that the conse
crating Prelates were qualified, alleging that
Barlow, one of them, and who presided upon.
the occasion, had never himself been consecra
ted. This was the occasion of much dispute
for a long time, and so serious were the doubts
raised, that Parhament was called upon to con
firm the validity of the consecration, which was
done to this purpose, that " though these Bish
ops were ordained contrary to the laws of the
Church, yet they were ordained according to
the laws of the land, and that this was suffi
cient to warrant the ordination, because these
laws had given authority to the queen to dis
pense with any repugnant laws of theChurch."
Here, then, is a consecration hanging upon the-
will of a woman, and so irregular as to have
forced even the Oxford Mr. Newman (Lect. on.
Romanism, p. 424, 429, 417) to call it "disor
derly," " a violent proceeding," " carried on,
amid human sin," a " scandal," and an " error."
He tries, however, to defend it against the at
tacks of Romanists, by alleging (what confimis
our previous remarks upon»the Roman chain of
succession) that " similar scandals" were com
mon in the Romish succession up to the earliest
ages- Here, then, we have a serious flaw in
the important title-deeds of the succession, oc
curring in a very important case, for all the sub
sequent Prelates in England, and, of course, in-.
America, derive from Parker.
If the reader has at his command the Chris
tian Observer, an Episcopal periodical, for Nov.,.
1843, he may read an article' which demon
strates that the wliole line of the Scottish Epis
copate has been entirely vitiated, if judged by
the High Church canons. If my opponent de
nies this, I will adduce the proof
I introduce this fact because it has an imme
diate bearing upon one branch of the American^
Prelacy. The first Prelate in this country. Dr.
Seabnry, of Connecticut, was consecrated by
the nonjuring Prelates of Scotland, and that a.
doubt was thus cast upon his legitimacy we-
learn from Bishop White, of Pennsylvania^

122

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

This last venerable man likewise informs us
that another case, in which it was doubtful
whether the claim was not broken, was that
"of two ofthe earliest Bishops, who had never
received baptism from Episcopal hands." Still
farther, in addition to these cases (not to men
tion that the legitimate Apostolical baptism of
some of the present Prelates and ministers of
" the Church" has been called in question), it
has been affirmed that there was an essential
part in the consecrating formula omitted in the
cases of Hobart, of New-York, and Griswold,
of Massachusetts ; some persons maintaining
that lit was (to use the language of Bishop
W-hite) " essentially defective, and that the
Episcopal succession through future ages was
¦cratainly jnvahdated."
Now I do not choose to enter into a minute
discussion of these several cases, for it is only
-of consequence to show that they were called
in question, that there was room for doubt, and
that they, therefore, furnish examples of the
boasted certainty with which certain persons
can trace up their lineage to St. Peter and St.
Paul. The idea is preposterous, and the inferences
drawn from it are worse than preposterous. It
isbut justice to say that its absurdity has been
-admitted and .severely commented upon by
many eminent writers of the Episcopal Church,
for whose good sense and Christian charity I
entertain a profound respect. I have alluded to
Stillingfleet already. The distinguished prel-
.ate Hoadly, in commenting upon the very po
sition which I am now exposing, " No Prelate,
no Church," uses the following sensible lan
guage (Preservative, p. 75, &c.) :
" I do not love, I confess, so much as to re-
:peat the principal branches of their beloved
scheme ; they are so different, whencesoever
ithey come, from the voice of the Gospel. When
'they would claim you, as their fellow-labourers
the Papists do, by telling you that you cannot
hope for the favour of God but in the strictest
communion in their Church (which is the true
Church of England, governed by Bishops in a
regular succession) ; that God hath himself hung
jour salvation upon this nicety ; that He dis-
jienses none of his favours or graces but by the
hands of them and their subordinate priests ;
that you cannot be authoritatively blessed or
leleased from your sins but by them, who are
the regular priests ; that Churches under other
Bishops (i. e., other than in regular succession)
-are schismatical conventicles, made up of ex
communicated persons, both clergy and laity,
out of God's Church, as well as out of his fa
vour ; I say, when such arguments as these are
urged, you need only to have recourse to a gen
eral answer to this whole heap of scandal and
defamation upon the will of God, the Gospel of
Christ, and the Church of England in particular ;
that you have not so learned Christ, or the de
sign of his Gospel, or even the foundation of
this particular part of his Church, reformed and
estabhshed in England. The following argu
ments will justify you, which, therefore, ought
to be frequently in the thoughts of all who have
.any value for the most important points : God
is just, and equal, and good, and as snre as He
is. He cannot put the salvation and happiness of
any man upon what He himself has put it out

of the power of any man upon earth to be en
tirely satisfied in. It hath not pleased God, in
his providence, to keep up any proof of the least
probability or moral possibility of a regular unin
terrupted succession."
These sensible remarks are in every respect
suitable to my purpose. Add to this the simi-. '
lar strong opinions of Dr. Whately and others,
and the opinions of many inteUigent laymen of
the Episcopal body in this country, to the same i
effect, and the reader will be enabled to judge
of " the moral fairness" of that assertion in my
opponent's last article, in which he charges me
with attacking "the Episcopal Church," be
cause I have attacked the remorseless arro
gance of the unchurching dogma. The above-
named Episcopalians, and especially Hoadly,
have said no whit less than I have said, and in
tend to say, in condemnation of its anti-Chris
tian character and tendency.
Much more might be offered upon the point
which has occupied this communication. But
it is unnecessary. As this Apostolical succes
sion is the darling idol of those who dare to mo
nopolize the covenant blessings of the Gospel,
being, in fact, the very gist of their whole ar- -
gument, I have felt it to be important to uncov
er some Of its incomparable absurdities.
As to the evil consequences of the exclusive
theory, of which it forms a part, I shall have
more to say in my next communication, when I
propose to consider some other Scriptural ob
jections. George Potts.
February 13.

No. II.
AccoBDiNG to promise, my opponent has com
menced his series of " essays" upon the subject
which has, for some time past, interested read
ers ofthe " Commercial" and other pubhc prints.
He has thus assumed precisely the position
which was his of right from the beginning, and
which I should have insisted upon his taking,
had he not manifested the most determined pur
pose to avoid it.
Without rehearsing the history of the at
tempted " discussion,^' farther than to remind
the reader of its origin, I shall content myself
with repeating my satisfaction that the public
will now have — what I have been attempting to
secure for them — an opportunity of knowing the
grounds upon which the unchurching dogma
(expressed in either of the propositions which
stand at the head of this communication, for
they are the same in meaning) is sustained by
its advocates. My opponent (for such I intend
to consider him) has now taken the affirmative,
and, according to a promise I have already giv
en, I hold myself in readiness to reply, with all
candour, to his vindication of the above dogma.
In consequence ofthe altered posture of the
affair, I propose to suspend, at least for the
present, the course of argument upon which I
had entered, and to plant myself once more* in
front of my opponent- I hope our readers will

* Dr. Potts confesses, then, that he did withdraw
from his " opponent." It is true, he did. But in his
previous number he seems disposed to give his read
ers the impression that his opponent first withdrew
from him, which is not true. See the two last com
munications in the " Correspondence."

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

123

Bt least give me credit for an honest desire to
make a true issue.
There is scarcely anything in his last com
munication which requires an extended notice.
When understood with a single qualification,
all that he has quoted from Dr. Mason's unfin
ished essay on " the Church of God" meets my
full assent- What that qualification is I pro
pose to consider very briefly.
Dr. Mason has proved very conclusively that
" a standing ministry" is an essential provision
in the Church of Christ. He has asserted, but
not proved, that the Scriptural method of per
petuating that ministry is through the ordina
tion of previously-ordained men. I say he has
not proved this point, not because he could not,
but because, for some reason unknown to me,
the essay on the Church was left in an unfin
ished state ; a fact which every one must re
gret who wishes to have the complete views of
his master mind. This very point was to form
the subject of a distinct inquiry. Should the
reader comply with the recommendation of my
opponent (to which I beg leave to add my own),
and turn to that " essay," he will find that the
eminent writer proposed to consider, in the close
of his essay, " the mode of preserving a stand
ing ministry." Had he carried out his plan, the
essay, which originally appeared in monthly
parts, in the " Christian Magazine," would have
satisfied the reader that the views of Dr. M. on
this point were precisely those entertained by
all persons who agree with him in the proprie
ty and necessity of a standing ministry. Those
views, I believe, I have fairly expressed, in my
previous papers, to this effect :*
That Christ appointed, in his visible Church,
a ministry to which should be committed the
great work of preaching the truth, administer
ing the ordinances, and superintending, in com
pany with Other office-bearers, the general in
terests of Christian congregations ; that in the
early days of the Christian dispensation, he
gave to this Church certain extraordinary of
fice-bearers — apostles, prophets, and evange
lists — with extraordinary functions and endow
ments, qualifying them for their extraordinary
duties, as the first heralds of the new spiritual
kingdom ; that, besides, these, he gave other offi
cers, called by various names — ^pastors, teach
ers, presbyters, or (as the word means) elders,
bishops (overseers), and deacons, with ordina
ry endowments, qualifying them for ordinary
functions; that these last, in some form or
other, were meant to be perpetuated to the end
of the Christian dispensation ; that they were
to be set apart or appointed (for this is the es
sential idea in " ordination"), in some regular
manner, to their several duties ; that in the case
of the teaching ministry, the manner of appoint
ment (certain previous quahfications of the can-
* It is doubtless plain to all that Dr- Potts has
great difficulty, and, indeed, entirely fails in the at
tempt to combine two opposite things, i. e., ] . To sus
tain his own position as a Presbyterian ; and, 2. Ei
ther yield the whole argument, by yielding the point
of a divinely-instituted ministry, which is the true Pres
byterian doctrine, or else be driven to maintain, as
he does in part, the Independent or Congregational
system, which a stanch Presbyterian abhors almost,
if not quite as much; as he hates Episcopacy. None
of his brethren will grant that Dr. Potts has been a
Presbyterian in this controversy.

didate being supposed) was usually the " lay
ing on of hands" by their predecessors in office ;
and that this ceremony was nothing more upon
the part ofthe Church (embracing both its min
isters and members) than a visible recognition
of the individual as a suitable person to take
part in the ministry, while upon the part ofthe
individual it was a solemn consecration of him
self to this service-
Now it is in relation to the method of " per
petuating a standing ministry" that the ques
tion arises. Whether any case may occur, or has
occurred, when a departure from the " regular"
process of induction is justifiable ? whether, in
other words, the ".laying on of hands" by pre
viously-ordained miaisters be in every suppo-
sable case essential to a valid, Scriptural, -use
ful ministry? To affirm that it is, is to affirm,
in effect, that an unbroken series of ordinations
from the time of the Apostles is indispensable
to the existence of the Church, because it is in
dispensable to the ministry ; for there can be no
Church without a ministry. It is to make the
Church dependent upon the ministry, in the re
lation of antecedent and consequent ; the min
istry being the antecedent, the Church the con
sequent ; the Church being the tree, of which
the ministry is the germ. It is to take from
the Church the power to right itself should its
ministry become corrupt ; a thing which has
happened, and may happen again.
Now — not to dwell at present upon these and
other consequences of this doctrine, which will
be hereafter noticed — it is enough to say that I
can conceive of cases in which a departure
from the ordinary rule of perpetuating the min
istry is a less evil than subjection to a ministry
-»-hich has become corrupt in doctrine or prac
tice. Such cases, I have shown, have already
occurred. The Reformation was one of them. *
They may occur again ; and the only question
which can be raised concerning them is this,
whether there was a real necessity to justify the
Church in throwing itself upon the power and
promise of its Lord, and trusting to him to raise
up for it such a ministry as will preach and
practise the truth.
If it be asked. Who is to judge of the exist
ence of such a necessity 1 the answer is, that
every man must do it at his own peril. i It is
preciseiy one of those cases in which Chris
tians must fall back upon the right and duty of

-* That this is a mistake, appears by the note from
Brett, on p- 40, whence it is too manifest that Lu
ther and his coadjutors were under no " real necessi
ty," 'bat a wilful necessity (having signed the Smal
caldick articles), to ordain. They had already a
Protestant Bishop, and in eighteen years the Ref
ormation was so conducted in England, that long
afterward. Usher, while but a stripling, was able to
reply to the boasting Goliath of Jesuitism, who burst
upon him with the question, "Where was your
Church before the Reformation?" "I vvili ans-wer
that question," said the youth, destined to be Arch
bishop of Armagh, and to precede the great Bram
hall and the incomparable Taylor, and fit company,
too, for that par nobile fratrum, " if you will answer
mine : Have you washed your face this morning ?"
" -y'es." " Where was your face before you washed
if!" But, alas! Luther and Calvin, not content with
washing the polluted Church, rubbed off the skm,
and the sore is not healed.
+ Ah ! "at his own peril ;" weighty and ill-consid
ered words ! Fearful responsibility !

124

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

private judgment, taking the Word of God as
their rule, and remembering that God is to be
their judge. Men have often been obhged to
do this in respect to other points of truth and
duty, and I can see no reason for supposing
that it may not be done when a crisis occurs
in which oppression and false doctrine* in a
nominal Church have become intolerable, in
the sober conviction of a portion of its mem
bers. The sin of schism in such a base must
rest upon those who make a separation from
them necessary.
But 1 will go farther; and affirm that if it
could be shown that, at some past period, two
hundred years ago let us say, a particular body
of professing Christians originated in even a
rash and culpable spirit, separating from a
Christian Church without sufficient reasons,
that circumstance alone will not necessarily de
stroy their Church character, nor invalidate the
character and acts of their ministry. On the
contrary, provided they do now adhere to sub
stantial truth, and^ follow the substantial order
of the Gospel according to the convictions of
duty, so far as to maintain among them a min
istry which preaches Christ and the obligation
of a holy life, they thereby establish the claim
to be considered an integi-al part of the Chris
tian Church- Their success in accomplishing
the grand aims of the Gospel, viz., the instruc
tion, reformation, and consolation of mankind,
is a proof that the Head of the Church is with
them, and this is the best authentication of a
Church character that can be conceived ; for it
is a palpable fulfilment of the promise, " Lo, I
am with you."t
But, after all (as I shall have a future oppor
tunity of showing), the real reason why the ne
cessity of an unbroken series of ordinations is so
irtsisted upon as indispensable to the very being
of the Church, is the false and destructive no
tion that ordination imparts a character to the
individual which in no case he could have ex
cept by ordination ; that in " the laying on of
hands" there is, not simply a recogtiition of
qualities already possessed, but a bestowment
of qualities never before possessed; in short,
that there is a sacramental virtue in ordination
which can be communicated only by those who
have received it. This notion is found associa
ted with exaggerated ideas of the sanctity and
lofty superiority of the clergy, both as respects
their authority to govern and the efficacy of
their administration,of the Christian ordinances.
Apart from these fancied notions, ordination
is simplified into a recognition of the individual
by the regular officers of a Christian Church as
one who has satisfied them of his piety and
" aptness to teach." So it is regarded in every
Christian congregation in which the opposite

* This justifies all the schisms that ever have ta
ken place, or ever can in the world I How different
the course of the branch of the Church<in England,
which, guided by the light of Scripture and the testi
mony of antiquity, dared not even separate from a
corrupt branch of the Church, but patiently waited
till the usurping Bishop of Rome commande4 his 80
ministers and their followers to separate froiii com
munion with the 11,920 ministers and others who
embraced the Reformed Faith in the Anglican
Church Catholic.
.+ This argument may one day avail the Mor
mons.

notions do not prevail ; and if they require or
dination before they receive a pastor- (as my
opponent has truly said they will), it is only be
cause such an ordination is regarded by them
as a judgment pronounced by well-qualified
judges of his fitness to minister in holy things.,
They pretend to look for no more than this ;
they see no virtue in his ministrations but what
the truth he preaches gives to them. For it is
to the truth chiefly, and to the man only as he
is a personification of that truth, that the effica
cious blessing of God is pledged. Who dare
deny that the blessing has been signally bestow
ed upon multitudes of ministers in past ages,.
who had no higher notion ofthe official charac
ter given in ordination than that which I have
just described ? That blessing is the seal of tlieir
ministry.* It is clear, therefore, that in respect.
to the Christian body in which that blessing is
found, no former irregularity in " the succes
sion," or (what is the same thing) in the series-
of ordinations, is of such moment as to justify
any one in unchurching them, i. e., in counting
them rebels against the God who blesses them.
With these things understood,! I deny that
in all supposable cases ordination by pre-viously-
ordained persons, who themselves have been
ordained, and so on up to the Apostles, is ne
cessary to constitute a valid ministry.^ Such
ordination is the rule (and an important rule,
which all Christian denominations observe), but
the rule admits, and has actually had excep
tions. Until a valid case of exception can be:
made out, no departure from the rule should
be allowed ; not, however, from a fear that the
chain of Apostohcal virtue and authority will
be broken, but because unnecessary departure
is the evidence of a schismaticaU spirit, and is
inconsistent -with the valuable ends of social
order. And here let me ask whether we have not
reason to thank God^ that the existence of the
Church and the Christian ministry is not made
absolutely dependant upon the fact of uninter
rupted ordinations through a long series of
ages. If they were, the consequence would be
that there is no Church or ministry in exist
ence ; since between the present time and the
Apostolic age the line has been often broken in
every body calling itself a Christian Church.
And yet the ministry has been perpetuated ; it
has been always in existence, just as the Church
has been in existence, although it has passSd
through numerous and critical changes. Of
this, as an historic fact, there is as great a cer
tainty as can be claimed for any other fact what-
' ever. There has been (to use the language of
Dr- Mason) a " regular successive" — " a stand
ing ministry"^ — and that is enough.
In entire accordance with these views are
those of Archbishop Whately (p. 186-188, King
dom of Christ), which I will liere quote, and to
which I ask special attention- II- Speaking of
the exclusive religionists of the day, he sajs,
" The fallacy, indeed, by which, according to-

* As the Mormons succeed, they have the seal, &c.
t That is. Dr. Potts denies Pr«sbyterianism.
X Apply this to Luther, Calvin, &c.
' ^ As if God, who preserved the Church, could not
preserve the succession.
II The approbation of dissenters must be a great
'comfort to Archbishop Whately.

REMARKS ON THB ESSAYS.

the above principles, the Christian is taught to
rest his own personal hopes of salvation on the
individual claims to ' Apostohcal succession' of
the particular minister he is placed under, is
one so gross that few are thoughtless enough to
be deceived by it in any case where religion is
not concerned— where, in short, a man has not
been taught to make a virtue of uninquiring, un
thinking acquiescence. For the fallacy consists
in, confounding together the unbroken Apostol
ical succession of a Christian ministry generally,
and the same succession in an unbroken line of
this or that individual minister. The existence
of such an order of men as Christian ministers,
continuously from the time of the Apostles to
this day, is perhaps as complete a moral cer
tainty as any historical fact can be.
" But if each man's Christian hope is made
to rest on his receiving the Christian ordinan
ces at the hands of a minister to whom the
sacramental virtue, that gives efficacy to those
ordinances, has been transmitted in unbroken
succession from hand to hand, everything must
depend on that particular minister ; and his
claim is by no means established from our mere
ly establishing the uninterrupted existence of
.such a class of men as Christian ministers.
' You teach me,' a man might say, ' that my sal
vation, depends on the possession by you, the
particular pastor under whom I am placed, of a
-certain qualification ; and when I ask for the
proof that you possess it, you prove to me that
it is possessed generally by a' certain class of
persons of whom you are one, and probably by
a majority of them.' How ridiculous it would
be thought, if a man laying claim to the throne
of some country should attempt to establish it
without producing and proving liis own ped
igree, merely by showing that the country had
always been under hereditary regal govern
ment!" In respect to the sentiments of Dr. Mason,
which have been so justly praised by my oppo
nent, it is evident in his essay he is contending
against the doctrine of some, that there should
be no ministry at all, and the doctrine of oth
ers, that this ministry may be indifferently con
stituted, at any time, by the mere will of the
people.* He is reasoning with his eye upon a
settled and orderly condition of the Church,
when there exists no vahd reason for departing
from the " regTiZar" process of ordination. That
he never meant to unchurch those bodies in
which, at some previous point in their eccle
siastical history, irregularities in the method of
pej-petuating a ** standing ministry" have occur
red, is certain from his well-known recognition
of their ecclesiastical character in his actual
practice. To this fact many living witnesses
can testify, t
I may pause at this poiftt, inasmuch as my
opponent has promised to give his views upon
the question, how the ministry is to be " per
petual," and how "regularly successive." When
he does so, I may have more to say in refuta
tion of those High-Church tenets which have
prompted him and others to- deny the name,
rights, and privileges of the Christian Church

125
to all Christians but such as have a pfelatically-
ordained ministry. George Potts.*
Monday, February 19.

* That is, Dr. Mason alters his views to suit the
times. t Which only shows how loosely his theory was
carried out in his praaice.

No. HI.
I CANNOT but repeat my congratulations to the
public that, after many turnings and windings,
there seems to be a fair prospect of a direct
attempt to prove "the unchurching dogma."
Whether my opponent anticipated all the ef
fects of throwing himself into his present posi
tion, and, farther, whether he means to give
any direct notice to my rejoinders, is of no con
sequence except to himself — not having, at
any time, intended to abandon the field — I sin
cerely rejoice at the prospect of reaching the
merits of this question- To " calm didactic" ¦
arguments I propose to give " calm didactic"
rejoinders. My opponent's last two essays are occupied
with his argument in favour of '' the Apostolical
sucession," in his sense of that phrase. Are
we to understand that this is the whole of the
Scriptural foundation upon which he intends to
rear so vast a superstructure of exclusiveness?
If it be, as I believe it is, the dispassionate
reader, no matter to what denomination of
Christians he belongs, cannot fail to be struck
with the contrast between the foundation and
the building, and must entertain the natural
suspicion that such a building, raised upon such
a basis, can never stand the blast of argument.
I now proceed to show that this is the case.
After an analysis of my opponent's second es
say, we shall find the following to be the heads
of his argument : Christ himself was " set apart
to his ministry by an external sign given him
at his baptism;" again. The names of office
given to ministers prove that " a minister of
Christ must bear a commission which can be
outwardly authenticated," all of their names
implying an office which is to be exercised in
virtue of authority not derived nor derivable in
any way from those in relation to whom it is
exercised ! Again, No ministerial authority
can he conceived of " unless its origin can be
traced to that solemn transaction recorded in
the last three verses of the Gospel according to
Matthew, 'And Jesus came and spake unto
them, saying. All power is given unto me in
heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
ofthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo ! I
am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world.' " Again, That this was " a perpetual
commission," "not limited to the Apostles them
selves," is proved from the promise, " Lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end ofthe world."
He properly conceives that this view of its per
petuity is confirmed by the practice of Christ
and his Apostles, the latter always estabhshing
a ministry " wherever they planted a Church."
These are his premises. Now let us observe

* Every one sees that Dr. Potts, having promised
to leave his antagonist and appeal to the public, yet
fills every essay with " my opponent," which is a
mere fancy of his. He had an opponent, but he left
him abruptly, and his opponent then bid him " good-
by" in earnest.

126

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

the inference which my opponent draws from
them. It is this : Inasmuch as a ministry was thus
meant to be perpetuated, there is only one con
ceivable way in which it can be perpetuated,
viz., " by the transmitting ofthe commission [he
means the commission first given to the Apos
tles] from generation to generation." -What
he means hy " transmitting the commission" is
more clearly expressed in another place, thus :
" Unto the present day there never has been
absent from the Church a ministry receiving its
commission from the ministry that immediately
.preceded it." Again, " there has been an un
broken series of ordainers-"
"All depends," says my opponent, emphati
cally — " all depends upon the original commis
sion-" The essay closes with some considerations
meant to show that any other mode of perpetu
ating a ministry is attended with insuperable
difficulty. These we will notifce in their proper
place. Let us first consider the direct argu
ment, as my opponent has presented it.
I must first call the attention of tlie reader to
the fact that there is nothing new in this argu
ment. Taylor, ^Brett, Dodwell, Palmer, Hook,
and a multitude of others of the High Church
party, have laboured it fully. I do not mention
this as a reproach to my opponent, but for the
purpose of reminding the reader that all the ex
aminations of learned and acute men, upon that
side ofthe question, have resulted in the dis
covery that the sole Scriptural argument in fa
vour of the doctrine that an unbroken series of
piacticeil ordinations, reaching to the Apostles,
is necessary to authenticate any ministry, is
the Apostolical commission itself; that part of it,
especially, which pledges the presense of Christ
to his ministers " to the end ofthe world."*
It is evident, then, that if we can show that
the terms of this commission justify no such
inference, and, moreover, do not require any
such inference, in order to vindicate the vera
city of the Redeemer, the only Scriptural sup
port of the doctrine of an unbroken succes
sion of individuals — called the Apostolical suc
cession — will be demolished. That there are
no other Scriptural arguments in its favour we
may justly suppose, inasmuch as my opponent
and his predecessors would, doubtless, have
brought them forward, t
Let us start, then, with the statement he has
made, and which he puts into a paragraph by
itself, in order to give it prominence : " All de
pends upon the original commission." And if I
be obhged to ^repeat some ideas already ad
vanced in previous papers, it will be because
they bear upon the point and have not yet been
answered. I have this plain answer to give to all argu
ments in favour of an exclusive Prelacy, found
ed upon the Apostolical commission. (1.) That
the commission says not one word about the
exclusive ordaining power of Prelates. (S.) That
it says not a word ofthe certainty that an unin
terrupted line of individuals, in direct dependance,
each upon his immediate predecessor, would be

* That is, our only commission is that which
Christ gave to the Apostles and their successors.
We do believe such a commission from the Master
sufficiently ample. ¦( See the Introduction.

preserved in the Church, as necessary convey
ancers of this commission. (3.) That the most
it does pledge is, that at no time would tlie
Church be left without some true Ministers of
Christ to bear witness to the truth ; in other
words, that there should he a constant stream
of spiritual life, a constant succession in the
ministerial office, a constant maintenance of a.
true ministry. A thing which is entirely dis
tinct from the figment that this ministry was,
in every case, to receive its commission from
the hands of an unbroken line of immediate prede
cessors.* All that my opponent has said to prove the
perpetuity of a ministry may be readily admii-
ted without at aU affecting the question wheth
er all or even the greater part of those who
have borne the ministerial office were true
ministers of Christ, simply because they have
received ordination through a line of predeces
sors up to a time " whereof the memory of man
runneth not to the contrary." The question.
Does the pledge of Christ guaranty the constant
existence of a true ministry ? and the question.
Does it guaranty that all who are formally in
this office, in virtue of unbroken descent, are
true links in the ministerial chain, and so ne
cessary to the fulfilment of the promise, that
the dropping of any one of these links will make
an irreparable breach in the ministry itself?
these questions, I say, are totally distinct. A
series of ten thousand ministers, all of them
bad men, cannot be supposed to transrnit any- i
thing, the value of which depends upon the pu-,
rity of the channel through which it is trans
mitted. They may hand down " the commis
sion" until, let us suppose, it falls into the pos
session of a sincere Christian, who proceeds to
comply with its real terms : we ask. Does his
authority depend upon the fact that he was
commissioned by such predecessors in office ?
or does it not depend upon the gift of Christ
himself, who sent his Spirit into his heart, and
qualified him to be "a faithful" man?t He
alone complies with the terms of the original
commission, and he alone, therefore, stands in
the true line of "ministerial succession," and
to him, and those like him throughout the world,
is the promise, " Lo, I am with you," confined.
That it is confined to such cases, and that it
does not at all cover the cases of bad men, is
the point which I will now proceed to establish.
It is easily proved, upon the admitted princi
ple that all the promises of Holy Writ presuppose
a compliance with the condition upon which they
are founded. That is the case here. In the
Apostolical commission a duty is first enjoined,
and the promise belongs to those only who com
ply with that duty. " Preach the Gospel,"
" Teach men to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you ;" this is the condition.
" Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of
the world ;" this is the promise. With whom ?

* Suppose the commission was not so precisely
recorded. All we have to do is, to look at the deeds
and teaching of the inspired Apostles and Apostolic-
men, and therein we shall find the unrecorded teach
ing of the Lord. ' Christ gave no command to lay on
hands, but that act is, nevertheless, Christian and
Apostolic. t It depends on both : his inward or sph-itual com
mission on his sincerity, &c. ; his outward commis
sion on the authority ofthe giver.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

127

With you and your successors, so far as you
comply with these terms ; so long as you are
yourselves, and strive to make your fellow-men,
true believers.*
I ask, is not this a common-sense limitation ?
Can it be possible that my opponent will con
tend that the presence of Christ was pledged,
in any sense whatever, to the host of impious
prelates and priests who (all history being wit-
pess) have occupied the ministerial office, and
who have occupied it only because they forced
themselves into it by violence, or purchased it
with money, or wormed into it by diabolical in
trigue ? What made such men partakers in the
promise ? Did the mere circumstance that the
hands of their immediate predecessors were
laid on them, and that they nominally held the
transmitted commission of which my opponent
speaks, entitle them to the character they as
sumed? Was Christ pledged to be with (in the
sense of blessing) the drunken boy-bishop, or
the debauched, vindictive, warlike, simoniacal,
- or heretical priesthood, who, in thousands of
instances, claimed a share in the Apostolical
inheritance of power? men not even pretending
to "preach !" many of whom had never even seen
the Word of God ! men who cared not to main
tain even the external decencies of moral char
acter ! Could such -wretches claim the verifi
cation of this holy promise of Christ, and are
they, upon the strength of that claim, now to
be counted as necessary links in the chain,
along which alone Christ's grace and authority
are transmitted to the ministry, and through
that ministry to the Church ?t
It is an outrage upon the ordinary principles
of common sense, to say nothing of higher prin
ciples, to suppose that such men were embra
ced in the same commission, and shared in the
same promise with the holy Apostles, and other
worthy possessors of the ministerial office.
And if they did not, what then? Why, the
inference we draw is just this — that the fact
that the promise recognises a ministry to the
end of time does not, by any means, imply that
every one who has been outwardly inducted
into the ministry is a minister of Christ, and
that, wicked as he may be, he holds the com
mission of Christ- Or, in other words, that it
is absurd to consider the vile persons who have
degraded themselves and the Christian and

*. This is not true ; for Judas, the traitor, haia true
commission from Christ, who knew him. '
+ These instances are simply examples of bad
men, who were destitute of the inward and spiritual
grace. We can, of course, insist upon the outward
sign only, because there are doubtless many hypo
crites who die undetected. .
If it be not so, all the ministrations of hypocritical
and bad ministers are invalid ; and then no one
knows whether he is baptized, has communed, &c.,
&c. So Dr. Potts is trying to prove too much. Be
sides, if the succession were thus, or so easily bro
ken, cannot the eleven twelfths of Christendom be
yet made lo see the absurdity of the claim? Have
they waited for Dr. Potts to arise and enlighten
them on this vital subject ? Alas ! for the Taylors,
the Ushers, the Bramhalls, the Hookers, the Bar
rows, the whole host of Enghsh worthies of whom
George III. so truly said to one (and could say now
to many a) superficial preacher, who said, "We
never trouble ourselves about these musty old di
vines." The king replied, " Sir, there were giants
in those days."

ministerial name by their atrocities, as in any
wise necessary to the conveyance of so great a
trust as the right to preach the Gospel and ad
minister its symbohc ordinances. And if this
be so, the whole structure of the Apostolical
succession of an unbroken series of persons must
fall to the ground, because multitudes of those
persons had no right whatever to rest upon the
promise, "Lo, I am with you."
Then, in order to make the argument drav/a
from this promise available to his purpose, it is
necessary that my opponent should be able to
prove this much at least, that there has been
some one line of Prelates, each linked with his
predecessor, up to the Apostles, and each of
whom has so complied with the terms of the
commission as to be able to hand down the
promise to his successor. But is this "capable
of proof? With the pages of history before us,,
can we receive it as probable that such a line
of connected individuals has ever existed ?
Much more, can it be traced? And if it can
not be traced (as my opponent, in his last es
say, seems to admit), how shall I know but that
the channel of the promise has been interrupted
in any given line, because there were individu
als in that line into whose possession the prom
ise never came, and who could not, therefore,
in any Scriptural or common sense, transmit it,
or the commission to which itjs inseparably at
tached ?
Will my opponent deny that, as a matter of
fact, Christ has not been with aU who pretended
to stand in the line of succession? that, as a
matter of fact, multitudes of them not only ac
complished nothing in the way of glorifying
Him by preaching the Gospel, but either taught
the most grievous errors, or never taught at all,
or lived the most abominable lives, and thus
proved that they were wolves in sheep's cloth
ing ? They were a curse, not a blessing, to the
Church ; and yet we are called upon to regard
them as legitimate, and they are employed to
prove that there has ever been " an unbroken
SHCcession" in the ministry, through which our
modern exclusives claim for themselves the
right to unchurch all who regard such a succes
sion as worthless- According to the theory of
my opponent, such persons are indispensable
parts of the spiritual medulla, along which the
vital influence is conveyed from the Head to the
body. In my communication of Feb. 13, to which I
beg to refer the reader, it was shown that, in
consequence of the corruption of the incum
bents, and also of the numerous irregularities
in their induction, the line of successive individ
uals, each ordained by his predecessor, has often
been broken. How, then, I am asked, can we
vindicate the promise of Christ ? I answer, by
appealing to the evidence of history, which
proves that in every age there have been true
believers scattered through the world, some
times in the Roman, sometimes in the Greek,
and other Eastern communions, sometimes in
the vaUeys of Piedmont, sometimes excommu
nicated as heretics ; and that among them have
always been some true ministers of Christ'.s
Word. That there have been such is not a
matter of mere faith, but of fact.* Such a chain

* In order to establish this spiritual chain, Dr. Potts;
would have to imitate the example of the Rev. Mr.

128

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

J admit, but no Other ; and the fact of its exist-
«nce vindicates the promise. This is the only
"valid ministerial succession, because it is a suc
cession of THE TEUTH.
In his eulogy of Athanasius, Gregory Nazian-
.2en declares the exact truth upon this subject
(Athan. Oper., vol. h.):
" This man, indeed, may have a numirwl suc
cession, but the other has the very thing itself,
the succession in deed and in truth. Neither is
he who usurps the chair by violence to be es
teemed in the succession ; but he who is press
ed into the office ; not he who violates all law
in his election, but he who is elected in a man
ner consistent with the laws of the case ; not
lie who holds doctrines opposed to what St. Mark
taught, but he who is endued with' the same
.FAITH as St. Mark."
As the sum of the whole argument, let .me,
then, observe, that if my opponent cannot " con-
-ceive" of any ministerial authority, unless it he
-after his own method of transmission, his diffi-
•culty of conception is no evidence that this is
-the only method of vindicating Christ's promise,
and maintaining a true Christian ministry.
I proceed now to observe, that these were
the views taken by all the Reformers, without
¦exception.* Many of the most prominent of
them had; been priests in the Romish body, but
they not only did not build their ministerial au-
¦thority upon that circumstance, but actually re-
nounced the orders they had received as false. t
It has been frequently affirmed by Prelatists
that the Continental Reformers, who universally
rejected Prelacy, did so, " not from principle,
.but necessitv :" i. e., because they could not
obtain Prelatical consecration. An assertion
this, contradicted by the express testimony of
iacts. M. du Plessis, an early champion ofthe
French Church, quoted by Taylor, affirms that
.there were many Prelates who joined in the
Reformation, whom they (the Reformed Church-
-es) " might, but did not, employ in their ordina
tions." »The English Reformers were glad to
liave the countenance ofthe Continental Church-

Benedict, who, in his " History of the Baptists,"
jumps from one set of heretics to another, through
centuries of time (What is time ? says the Turk ;
time is not yours, but Allah's), to establish his sub-
;a<)uatic chain of immersers or dippers.
* Some of the Reformers, in order to maintain
their own proceedings (" having," says Brett, " sign
ed the Smalcaldick articles"), took various courses,
which their previous, and sometimes later and cooler
¦opinions condemned in themselves and each other ;
for their actions were as various, and m some cases
as contradici;ory as their opinions, e. g. : Luther on
Consubstantiation, against Calvin; Melancthon on
Bishops, against Zuinglius; Calvin against Serve
tus, &c. For why was not Servetus a Reformer as
well as Zuinglius, or even Oalvm ihimself ? Simply
because the Lutherans and Calvinists do not sayao ! ,
t "Renounced their orders!" ijf they did, what
fcetter proof, comparing their writings and deeds,, do
you wish of their headstrong folly and madness ?
Even Dr. Potts and all his brethren— nay, aU Prot-
«6tantdom and the Romish historian Lingard, &c., to
boot, acknowledge the validity of these orders ; Hay,
Dr. Potts would not disallow Romish ordination,
tmless he is more unwise than we beheve him— jand
here convicts the Reformers of a spirit of mad vio
lence. "Renounced their orders!" which they ac
knowledged to be of God, to take orders from the
hands o! Martin Luther, &c., to build up a man's re
ligion, viz., the Lutheran.

es, as I can prove, if proof be caUed for. At
that early period, a number of eminent divines
(some of them Prelates) go so far as to say
that even laymen " have authority to minister
the sacraments and make priests," in a case
where no other constituting ordainers could be
had. Knox laid no stress whatever upon his
Popish ordination : CEeolampadius,* in hke man
ner, proceeded without regular ordination to
discharge the duties of the ministry at the call
of the people. — (D'Aubigne.) Luther's views
are well known, and as for Calvin's, I beg leave
to quote them as follows, for they prove two
points : (1), that he renounced all rehance upon
a succession from Rome ; and (2), that, if he
had not renounced it, he might, if he pleased,
have received a Prelatical succession. In his
Epistles, p. 339, fol. ed., Geneva, 1575, he is
replying to the inquiry, what should be done
when any Bishop, curate, &c., from among the
Papists, should desire to join himself to the Re
formed Church. He remarks,
" First, if he should be found not to have suf
ficient ability and quahfication for the office of
a minister, he should show the sincerity of his
conversion by retiring into the station of a pri
vate member of the Church. But if he should be
found able to continue in the ministry, he was
to give in a confession of his faith, and of bis
sincere and sacred adherence to the Reformed
religion. Then he was to acknowledge that his
VOCATION or call to the mmistry had been A
MERE ABUSE ; he was to request a new ap
probation ; he was expressly, and by name, to
profess that his FORMER INSTITUTION, by
the authority ofthe Pope, had been of no validity ;
and, at the same time, he was to renounce it as
being conferred by means EVERY WAY UN
LAWFUL, and OPPOSED to the ORDER which
the Lord Jesus Christ estabhshed in the Church.
After this, he was to join himself to the com
pany of the other Reformed ministers, and be
subject to the discipline and government estab
lished in that place where they are. It is cer
tain and clear that none can be accounted Chris
tian ministers, except they first RENOUNCE
the PRIESTHOOD OF POPERY, *to which
they had been promoted, to make and offer
Christ as a sacrifice in the mass, which is a
kind of blasphemy, to be detested by aU possible
means. These things being done, it wiU be
the duty of such Bishops to give diUgence that
allJhe Churches that pertain to their diocese
be*urged frqm errors, idolatry, &c."f
¦These views (and more like them that might
be -quoted) prove that the early Reformers re
garded their vocation as extraordinary, and
made their ministry to depend for its validity,
not upon a succession from Rome, but upon its

* Was CEeolampadius one in Dr. Miller's, divine
Btidunhrfihen. line of Presbyters since the time ofthe
foundation of Christianity ?
-j- All we have to say here is that we have already
quoted Calvin sufficiently to show that if he says
this too, he flatly contradicts himself. See his well-
known letter to a Reformed Bishop. But Calvin
versus Calvin is not a novelty now. Who has not
seen Dr. Miller versus Dr. Miller ?
E.g., 1. Argument against Unitarians. Thesniall-
er epistles of Ignatius have always been received
by learned men, &c,, c&c, &c.
2. Argument against Episcopacy. The smaUer
epistles of Ignatius have no authority with scholars.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

129

substantial conformity in form and spirit with
the model of Scripture itself To that they ap
pealed, and to the subsequent blessing of God.
And this is my reply to those Prelatists who
j-etort upon us what we object against them,
viz., that they come out ofthe impure and often
broken succession of the Roman body. We
care nothing for such a succession, though we
have it as, weU as they ; but they rely upon it as
essential to their official being, and therefore its
gross interruptions and corrugtions are proper
ly brought forward to put their exclusiveness to
-shame. We thank God that we are not re
duced to the direful necessity of resting our
ministerial authority upon our descent in an un
broken line from predecessors, many of whom
have disgraced the very name of Christian, and
¦who cursed the Church of God. That such
should arise, was fully predicted by the Saviour
and his Apostles.
But, it is asked, may not wicked men "dis-
^charge the ministerial office with spiritual bene
fit to their feUow-men?" We answer, yes ; but
only so long as they are not known as wicked
men. Hypocrites may speak with the tongue
of an angel, hut unmask the hypocrite, and then
what good wiU " his ministrations" do, notwith
standing his "Apostolical commission?" So
long as he remains masked, and so long as he
preaches the truth, his preaching may be mys
teriously made the occasion of benefit to oth
ers ; but the efficacy of his ministrations depends
¦not at all upon his commission, but upon the
TKUTH he preaches- It is the truth which God
blesses. Again my opponent asks, "Are the sacra
ments of baptism and the Supper of the Lord
rendered invalid when performed by an un
worthy minister ? " To which I reply, that the
Talidity, i. e., the benefit of the ordinances of the
Gospel, does not depend at all upon the official
>or moral character of the administrator, but
.altogether upon the faith of the partaker. Ro
manists, indeed, make their efficacy depend
upon the "intention" ofthe administrator (so
that the partaker, not being able, of course, to
:look into the heart ofthe priest, can in no case
be sure that he receives tlieir presumed super
natural advantages — a hard case), and my op
ponent makes their efficacy to depend upon the
genuineness ofthe administrator's lineal descent
from the Apostles- And when we know that,
in his view,* baptism is regeneration, no won-
-der that he lays siioh stress upon lineal descent.
But we hold that the view of the supernatural
-efficacy of forms is utterly at variance with the
whole character ofthe Gospel system: (1) be-
-cause regeneration is the act of the Spirit of
God; (2) because the opposite view makes a
form essential to salvation ; (3) because it puts
a tremendous power into the hands of men ; and
<4) because it displaces the preaching of Christ,
for which Paul said he was sent, and substitutes

« This is the view of the Lord and St. Paul. The
new birth consists, according to them, of the regen
eration by water and the renewing of the Holy fahost.
-John, iii., Christ says that to be born again (v. 5) is to
be born "of water and of the Spirit;" also, Titus,
iii., 5, we are saved by God's mercy "by the wash
ing Uaver) of regeneration and the renewing of the
Holy Ghost." Dr. Potts must do battle, not with us,
but with the Lord and St. Paul.
R

baptism, for which he says he was not sent.*
These are a few of the insuperable objections
which lie against this terrible corruption of
the Gospel plan. Consider the sacraments as
symbolic ordinances, representing the great car
dinal truths of the Gospel, and as efficacious
only upon the supposition of a sincere faith in
the recipient, and the spirituality of the Gospel
remains untouched, while their value does not
at all depend upon the worthiness of the ad
ministrator. Now, in order that the reader, may compre
hend the application of foregoing arguments to
the point in hand, we take an iUustratiom
Here are two congregations of Christian wor
shippers, each with its own minister. And, to
make the case the stronger, let us suppose that
in point of Christian character the congrega
tions and their respective ministers are upon a
par ; that the latter preach the same Gospel
of grace, point the hearers to the same Saviour,
press the same great moral duties, and, as a
consequence, find their ministrations blessed to
the spiritual improvement of their flocks, in
about an equal degree. One of these minis
ters, however, has been Prelatically ordained —
the other Presbyterially. What shall we think
of a third person who, with the views of my
opponent, steps in and delares the latter an un
authorized usurper, who is not in the Church
of Christ at aU, and has no right to minister in
holy things — because he has no share in the
Apostolical commission, and therefore none in
the promise ?t
We ask him the grounds upon which he
makes an assertion so shocking to the common
sense of men ; and the answer is, he only who
can show a commission derived through an un
broken line of Prelates is a true minister of
Christ, and to him alone belongs the promise,
" Lo, I am with you alway." We reply, show
us this commission, and give us the evidence
that it is genuine. In answer to which, we aro
told that the above promise proves that an un
broken line of Prelates must exist somewhere.
This is rather a begging of the question, but we
answer, be it so — ^we understand there are two
such lines, the Roman and Protestant, each
claiming to be the true one ; how shaU we de
cide between these ?| Moreover, history in-

* Does not Dr, Potts know why St. Paul thanks
God that he did not baptize or make Paulites of the
Corinthians ? And yet Paul did baptize many peo
ple even in Corinth. How many elsewhere we know
not (Acts, xix.). Some of these reasons, as the 2d,
are assumptions that a holy sacrament is a mere form ;
and the 3d is, "It may be abused" — and both are
nothing. t I should say simply, that the Episcopal minister
had received quite an important thing, which the
Presbyterian preacher had never received, viz., a
complete commission. And one of them is a preacher
of parts of the Gospel, and the other is God's mihis-
ter, who ought to preach the whole Gospel.
t A mistake. 'They are both acknowledged (see
Lingard) to be " true lines." So Dr. Potts asks us
no question. But when we ask Dr. Potts thus :
Since we are about to leave the corrupt, and terrific,
and monstrous Episcopal Church, we wish to ask
you where we shall go, to the New School or Old
School Presbyterians; to the 1st kind (Calvinistic)
or the 40th kind of Baptists (Two-seed Baptists) ; to
the Quakers or Hicksites ; to the Lutheran or Re
formed; to the Universalist or Reslorationist ; to the

130

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

forms us that these lines have been oftentimes
corrupted and broken. Now what is the reply
to this ? It must be either that the objector
should not dare captiously to caU in question a
fact which " the Church" affirms to be true —
that he must believe with reverence, for it is a
mystery — or that he must go and drag through
the muddy waters of history, and he wiU be
rewarded with an assurance that there is " a
strong probability" that this line has never
been broken. A " strong probability" is the
most that can be promised him, and that in a
case where he is told that his salvation depends
upon his being right. And this is the process
by which " the commission," so vauntingly
claimed as the exclusive possession of Prela
tists, is authenticated.
We turn, then, to examine the claims of the
other minister. Show us your commission.
Here it is : first, in the Word of God, which is
the charter of the Christian Church, and in
which the ministerial office is distinctly recog
nised ; secondly, here it is in the promise of
Christ to those who truly preach tjie Gospel ;
thirdly, here it is in the evident presence and
blessing ofthe Redeemer, proving that the man
had a right to rest upon that promise ; and,
finally, here it is, in the recognition of his min
isterial fitness, by his predecessors in office
and the Christian people to whom God's provi
dence sends him. He does not, as my oppo
nent, without the least warrant, insinuates, ap
peal to his inspiration. His authentication' is
as tangible as the authentication of any High
Churchman. I ask whether an individual, who
can adduce such evidences of his mission, is
not better authenticated than if he rested his
claim solely upon the fact that he holds a com
raission, the genuineness of which it is_ abso
lutely impossible to subject to the only test to
which my opponent appeals, viz., an unbroken
hereditary descent from the Apostles, through
tens' of thousands of individuals, living through
eighteen cfenturies ; to say nothing of the gross
corruption of many of this infinitesimal series ?*
In this connexion, let me quote the language
of the Apostle, in proof that, after all, the prac
tical effects of any ministration of the Gospel
furnish the best testimonials of its legitimacy.
When addressing the Corinthians, he says

Unitarian or the Transcendental ; to the Osgoodite
or the Campbellite ; to the Cumberland Presbyterian
or the Tunker ; to the Millerite or the Mormon, &c.,
then we do ask him a question ; for 1/ we were about
to go, we should be sadly puzzled. On the whole,
we should prefer to set up our own Ebenezer, and
establish our own sect, having e. g. for its peculiar
or denying^ tenets (as denial is necessary) :
1. i)en« women the Communion. ' Argument : the
same as the Baptist. " No command in the Bible to
baptize infants," say they. No command in the Bi
ble to admit women to the Lord's Supper, say I.
2. Deny the obligation to keep the Lord's Day
holy. Same argument.
''¦ The beauty of the Church clergyman's commis
sion is, as you will see, that he has all that the Presby
terian preacher has, and something more, viz., the Apos
tolic commission ; quite an addition to a man's creden
tials. The Presbyterian carries his commission in
his heart ; the Episcopal clergyman carries one in
his heart, for his own satisfaction, and one in his
pocket, which he can show on paper to the people.
He ought, with the Presbyterian, to show the former
m his life also.

(1 Cor., ix., 2), "If I be not an Apostle tO'
others, yet doubtless I am to you, for the seal
of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord." The
same idea he repeats 2 Cor., iii., 1-2: "Need
we, as some, letters of commendation to you
or of commendation from you? Ye are our
epistle, -written in our hearts, known and read
of all men."*
Is not this seal better evidence than the mere
signature of any man or body of men in exist
ence ? It is the broad seal of the Divine blessing.
If any one wishes to know what we mean by
the Divine blessing in this case, we answer, It
is to be found in the conversion and reforma
tion, the spiritual knowledge and improvement,.
the reverence for God's Word, the fidelity to-
Christian duty, the philanthropy, the consistent
lives and the happy deaths, which are the re
sults of the faithful preaching of Christ cruci
fied. Give me these, and I shall not fear that
I have run without having been called, or that
I am (as my opponent affirms) an unauthorizei
intruder into the sacred office. Without fidel
ity to these grand ends of the ministry, neither
in the sight of God nor of men can any mam
claim to be accounted " a minister of Christ, or
a steward ofthe mysteries of God."t
But the length of this reply warns me that I
must stop. "The vast superstructure of exclu
siveness and persecution, which in past times.
has been reared upon a false interpretation of
the Apostolic commission, seeme,d to require a
more minute examination of it than would oth
erwise have been necessary. I must postpone
tiU another time an examination of the mon
strous analogy which my opponent has dra-syn
in his last article between the evidence for an
unbroken succession of individuals and the ev
idence for Christianity itself Geokge Potts
February 26, 1844.

No. IV.
SHALL WE HEOEIVE " THE SUCCESSION," OR GIVE.
UP THE BIBLE ?
In my present article, I propose to confine
myself to an examination of that part of my op
ponent's Essay, No. III., in which he states the
evidence for " the succession." His argument^
is of so shoekingt a kind, that the reader wiU
pardon me if I dweU on it at some length- I
propose to do so, not because of its intrinsic
* There is an important difference. St^ Paul's-'
seal was stamped by wonders.
t Without fidelity he would be a bad minister ;,
with fidelity, &c., he would be a good minister; but
in both cases, an authorized minister. So e man-
may be a baptized member of Christ, and stiU be a
wicked member ; as a man's arm may be withered,
and still be his arm.
t Dr. Potts's logic depends a good deal for its
" popular effect" upon a beautiful sprinkling of such
epithets as "monstrous, startling, shocking," &c.
He reminds one of the Fredoniad, whose author, in
order to go very deep, says,
" Deep, deeper still, down, do-nrn, sunk down below,
HeU's awful empire opes its scenes of wo."
Shakspeare goes deeper, however, when he says of
the man below Dover Cliff, " Gathering samphire,
awful trade .'" So Dr. Potts would shock Us more
by showing us something really shocking.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

131

force, but because it flirnishes a strange devel
opment of that peculiar disposition by which the
very authority of Christianity itself is made sub
servient to the purposes of the ultra school with
which we contend. I will quote the language
of my opponent, that there may be no suspicion
of unfairness.
He asks, in relation to the evidence necessa
ry to sustain the doctrine of an unbroken series
if ordainers, " WiU a man be satisfied with the
same description and the same amount of proof
as that upon which he relies for his conviction
that the Bible which he daily reads is the Word
of God ?" Again, he tells us that the evidence
of this Word of God is " precisely of the same
kind," and "no greater in amount" than that
which may be adduced in support of his own
¦view of the unbroken chain of Prelacy. In oth
er words, that a duly-ordained minister, i. e., a
minister of his own Church, may be as certain
ofthe perfect regularity by which, from hand to
hand, his own commission has been derived
from the Apostles, as he is of the truth of the
Gospel of Matthew, in which the original com
mission is recorded.
Now we cannot suppose that by this is mere-
'ly meant, that the doctrine of an unbroken tac
tual succession (which word tactual* the reader
wUl excuse us for inventing ; it is used to avoid
a circumlocution, and means succession by an
¦unbroken series of touches in the laying on of
hands, as distinguished from a spiritual succes
sion of ministers, true in faith and conduct) is
clearly revealed in the Gospel, and that Christ's
promise, " Lo, I am with you," absolutely se-
¦cures its preservation ; and that, on this ac
count, to believe the Gospel and to believe in
the actual succession are precisely equivalent
things. Such a begging ofthe question (although
it is constantly exhibiting itself obscurely in the
writings of this school) would manifest too great
a contempt for the reader's understanding to
allow us to suppose it was seriously intended.
We say seriously, for there is a lurking attach
ment to this venerable mode of reasoning
manifest in many of my opponent's positions.
The argument hardly ever proceeds far, before
this secret feeling of weakness warps the wri
ters of this school round to that assumed view
of the Scriptural commission from which they
occasionaUy venture to launch into the ocean
of historical testimony. Ever and anon they
leave what my opponent caHs " their strong po
sition, which an undoubting faith in the prom
ise of our Lord convinces them is impregna
ble," and appeal to history, as if that could
make their faith still more undoubting. Yet,
we soon find them retreating to this imaginary
rock, thus continually playing round in that
amusing circle which aU the learning of Chil-
lingv(mrth, in his argument with the Papists,
cannot shame them from using: We are the

* We are under so strong an impression, judging
from the internal evidence, that Dr. Cox invented
this phrase (and it really is quite ingenious), that
we cannot resist the opportunity afforded of paying
a compliment to his known powers of anti-lexico
graphic discovery, by begging him, or any of his
brethren of all the sects, to display their ingenuity
by the discovery of an argument or two on the non-
Episcopal side ; for we are very weary of words
without a modicum of argument.

Church^ecause we have the promise ; and we have
the prm^e, because we are the Church.
But^H the argument which I am now about
to expose, I wiU understand my opponent ac
cording to the plain import of his language, viz.,
that we have just as much evidence, and ofthe
same kind, for a tactual succession, as we have
"that the Bible is the Word of God." We
will, therefore, present the argument in another
form; startling, indeed, and, if my opponent
chooses to consider it so, ad captandum, yet
warranted to the full, not only by the language,
but by the nature of the argument he is attempt
ing to sustain. '
Here, then, are two articles of faith, the first
of which may be thus expressed; "The Rev.
Dr. Wainwright,"^ rector, &c-, was regularly or
dained, with all the essential rites-of the canon
law, by the imposition of the hands of A. B-,
the Episcopal Bishop of  diocese, which
said Prelate was regularly consecrated to his
office by like imposition of hands of certain
Prelates, accompanied by certain essential for
malities, in which no vitiating irregularities
whatever took place ; which said Prelates had
all of them been, in like manner as aforesaid,
with like essential rites, and without essential
irregularities, consecrated by other Prelates,
who, in like manner as aforesaid, had been
themselves consecrated by other Prelates, in
an unbroken, unvitiated, perfectly regular se
ries, from hand to hand, for eighteen hundred
years, up through aU the turbulence, disorder,
ignorance, simony, heresy, and moral corrup
tions ofthe Middle Ages, until the series is tra
ced to the hands of the Apostles ; that along
this line alone the spiritual presence and prom
ise of Christ have descended, so that every one
of the series was a legitimate successor to the
Apostles- Furthermore, it is part of this arti
cle of faith, that (according to some) the bap
tism, and (according to all) the ordinationsiand
consecrations of the Anglican Church, during
the centuries preceding the Reformation, and,
of aU Italian or otjier Prelates, from whom said
Anghcan Prelates, in whole or in part, derived
their orders, or whose Episcopal Unes raay have
in any way crossed that of the Rev. Dr. Wain
wright ; and also of aU Prelates of Rome, Af
rica, and Asia that may at any time have min-

* This first article of faith is entirely in Dr. Potts's
ima^nation, and, with a good deal of pains, has been
stretched out through a great many words. No ad
vocate for a regular Divine ministry demands more
than this : " The Rev. Dr. Wainwright was ordained
by a Bishop, who is in the ApostoUc succession."
Thus, in two Unes, we express what Dr. Potts has
stretched out into sixty; and we have expressed all.
It would be perfectly easy for the Deist to do the
same thing by Dr. Potts's second article of faith i^l
his Bible, e. g., This book, belonging now to the Rev.
Dr. Potts, who was recently transferred from a meet
ing-house in one street into a meeting-house ih an
other street, was also, with the said Rev. Dr. Potts,
regularly, and according to the rules of the General
Assembly in such case made and provided, or in said
case not made and provided, transferred. Now this
Bible, to say nothing about the binding, doth profess
within said binding to contain certam books, by the
so-called faithfiil confessed to be the lively oracles.
Each of these said books, through all the mistakes
of the printers, and through all the blunders and fol
lies of the transcribers,, hath unto us regularly do
scended, &c., &C-, ad infinitum.

132

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

gled with the lines of said Italian or other for
eign Prelates as aforesaid, have beea|k all re
spects regular, according to the prescr^ions of
the canon law, founded on certain aUeged prim
itive and Apostolical usage ; and that on all
these lines — Romish, Asiatic, German, French,
Anglican, and American Prelates — the spiritu
al presence promised in the Saviour's parting
words has been so secured as to make them
true hnks in the spiritual chain of true rainis
ters of the spiritual kingdora of Christ. Ok
ELSE, in case of any irregularity whatever, in
any one of the lines aforesaid, arising from the
presence or absence of any of the causes above
recited, it is furthermore an article of faith, that
the line through which the said Rev. Dr. Wain-
-wright traces his succession to the Apostles
has, in its crossing and recrossing with other
lines as aforesaid, been extraordinarily, if not
miraculously, preserved from aU vitiation ; and
that any taint, arising from any cause in past
ages, which may possibly be now secretly vitia
ting any other part of the Church, does not in
any degree affect the ministerial character of
the Rev. Dr. Wainwright, or the line through
which he is derived." This, we say, forms one
of the articles of faith, between which it is dur
business now to institute a comparison.
The other may be expressed in fewer words.
The books in which we find a record of the
birth, life, sufferings, expiatory death, resurrec
tion, and ascension of our Saviour, were given
by inspiration, and are genuine and authentic
records. Now we are gravely told that the evidence
for these two articles of faith is precisely of the
same kind and of equal amount. It follows,
therefore, by an inevitable deduction (1), that
the infidel may, on equal grounds, deny both ;
(2) that the flock of the Rev. Dr. Wainwright,
who are so deeply interested — even to the peril
of the soul — in the genuineness of his minis
terial character, and whose whole faith must
stand or faU with it, and (3) that aU non-Pre-
latical pretenders to Christianity, and (4) all in
telligent men whatsoever, are as much guilty
of the damning sin of unbeUef in doubting any
item contained in the first of the above articles,
as if they rejected the evidence [which is " no
greater"] for the truth of Christianity itself
This (however monstrous it may be) is a fair
expansion of the proposition which has been so
rashly advanced to bolster up the darUng fig
ment of an unbroken, tactual, ritual succession.
Every item in the first of these articles is es
sential to an inteUigent behef in such a succes
sion, -when taken in copnexion with the " prom
ise," which, it is contended, requires precisely
such a succession. For certainly those who
claim this promise as their " impregnable rock,"
and claim it as their exelusive possession, can
not complain when the question of the validity
of this claun is made essential to the settle
ment of the question of their ministerial char
acter. And since no conditions (as I showed
in my last) are allowed by our opponents to be
implied in the promise " Lo, I am with you,"
this promise must have been verified to a Bor
gia or a TaUeyrand, as to an Anselm or a Fen-
elon ; that is, the spiritual presence of Christ
was with the former as with the latter. If the
exposition contended for be correct, that pres

ence has been given not only " alway," but " to
all." For if, in any case, it has been absent,
then and there there has been no Church ; for
who can conceive of a Church where Christ is
not ? And if such be not a Church, then every
line which passes through it must, on theseprin-
ciples, he fatally infected with spiritual and rit
ual disease.
As I endeavoured to show in my preceding
article, we do beUeve that there has been an
unbroken succession of men who, in all ages,
have held the name and office of Christian min
isters. We go farther, and express our beUef;
that there has been a true, unbroken, spiritual
succession of true ministers of Christ, at times
within, and at other times vnthout, the line of
actual succession. This succession we believe
the serious reader of ecclesiastical history will
have no difficulty of finding, although its most
visible marks are to be traced in the blood-red
lines of Papal and Prelatical persecution. iSucU
a view presents a triumphant argument in fa
vour of the vital energy of Christianity, which
at tiraes has broken through the ritual, as the
only means of preserving the spiritual succes
sion. Such a view presents the only satisfac
tory proof of the truth of the Saviour's promise,*
that , he would " alway" be with his Churcli
and his ministers. This is not enough, how
ever, for my opponent. He means such a suc
cession as we have above set forth, minutely,
yet truly ;* and it is — let the reader remark — it
is for such a one that he claims precisely the
same kind and the same amount of evidence as
for Christianity itself
Here, perhaps, we might pause, and simply
leave this statement of the matter to the com
mon sense of the reader ; to that discernment
of faUacies which God has given to every man,
and which often causes him to spum the soph
ism, even when he cannot clearly discever the
fallacy on which it rests. We might simply
advert to the fact that there have been great
numbers of men, honest men, devotedly pious
men, most learned men — with whom our mod
ern sticklers for antiquity, who keep up such a
noisy chatter in praise of their own erudition,
could not once be named in comparison — who
from their very heart of hearts believe in the
Divine records of the Gospel, and yet have
never seen, and never can see, the evidence of
this tactual succession either in the Bible or
out of it. This fact; we say, is enough to show
that there is a faUacy somewhere, contained in
the above position, however carefuHy it may be
covered over with plausible words. It is this
faUacy which we think it worth while to expose,
for we have no idea that the fortress of Chris
tianity shaU be given up to infidelity, merely
because the ultra school choose to identify it in
imagination with their own mud fort, and to
make the defensibility of the former depend
upon the security of the latter.
We ask, then, is it possible that the propounfl-
er of this venerable piece of papistical logic, at
least as old as ChiUingworth, could haVe ima
gined that any intelligent Protestant would be
deceived by a sophism so shallow, as that which
makes the credibility of an accumulation, or
long succession of proofs to a fact, precisely

* It is neither minutely nor truly set forth, but
falsely, and in a lafge number of words.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

133

equivalent to that of a long succession of facts
themselves, each of which not only requires to
he separately proved by itself, but the want of
proof in any case inevitably vitiating aU below
It in the chain. In a series of facts to be proved,
the difficulty increases in the direct ratio of
their number. On the contrary, in a series of
proofs to a fact, aU bearing upon one or a few
facts, it decreases in the very, same ratio. No
stronger antithesis can be weU conceived than
that which exists between these two proposi
tions, when stripped of that similarity of termi
nology, under the disguise of which the reader
was expected to receive them as identical-
When balanced in the scales of a nicely-adjust
ed proposition, the succession of manuscripts
looks very much like the succession of Prelates.
But -we can present another proposition, in
which the equilibrium seems equaUy exact.
Thus : " Things that are equal to the same
thing are equal to one another ; therefore, things
which are double of the- same thing are double
of one another-" Are not the two propositions
ofthe same length, very simUar in their jingle,
and therefore, if one be true, must not the oth
er, e vi terminorum, be true likewise 1
Thus, in the case before us, may it not be
asserted, with equal appearance of mathemat
ical precision, that it is just as easy to believe
in a succession of facts to be proved, as in a
succession of proofs to a fact? And, as in the
last case, belief certainly becomes easier, in
proportion to the accumulation, so also must it
be in the other. According to this mode of,
reasoning, this tactual succession, embracing
tens of thousands of contingencies, during eigh
teen centuries, is more easUy believed the more
links there are added to its various cross-
chains ; so that at the end of a few centuries
more, what now possesses only the same de
gree of probability which is claimed for the ev
idences of Christianity, wUl then become quite
self-evident, and a man wiU be no more able to
doubt that every Prelatist is legitimately de
scended through a hne of hands reaching to St.
Peter, St. Paul, or some other Apostle (the oth
er Apostles, to be sure, are seldom referred to),
thaii of his own existence ; or, in other words,
the difficulty which existed in proving a hun
dred facts will be entirely removed when the
number increases to a thousand. No wonder
that the school frora which these didactic es
says emanate make such a display of their logic
(previous papers of this controversy being wit
ness), if they can achieve by it such wonders
as this.*
But my opponent may ask (in order to es
cape from this absurdity). Are not proofs re
solvable into facts? The inquiry, which we
will suppose to be put in good faith, may be
* It is plain that Dr. Potts has never looked at the
invincible argument derived from the practice ofthe
Canonical Rule, which requires at least three conse
crators, where they may be had. These three were
consecrated by 9, these 9 by 27, these 27 by 81,
these 81 by 243, &c., &c. This progression, it is
true, is not so exactly arithmetical as here staled, be
cause one Bishop often consecrates many times ; but
the number is so great.ly increased as to give force
to the argument, viz., if only one Bishop of the 243
was consecrated by a Bishop in the Apostolic hne,
then the last consecrated would also be a true Bish
op, as any one will see on examination.

solved by referring to a distinction famiUar to
every tyro in logic, between a complex and a
compound proposition. In the former, the loss
of a single term utterly destroys the truth of
the whole ; while, in the latter, the same cir
cumstance only imperceptibly weakens, and, in
other cases, does not at all affect the force of
the evidence of its truth. In the case before
us, it seems to be forgotten that the actual suc
cession is not so much a series of independent
facts, converging with irresistible force of proof
upon some truth to be believed, as one vast
complex fact, in which the innumerable parts
are incapable of separation, and where the loss
of one link, be it the tenth or ten thousandth,
breaks the cross-chains alike.* And yet the
evidence of this great complex fact is put in the
scale to be weighed against the vast amount
of cotemporary, successive, and cumulative tes
timony, aU bearing upon the previous independ
ent facts of Christianity, and the records in which
they are contained.
"The force of this wUl be better seen by ap
plying it to some of my opponent's positions.
We are told of a succession of Prelates, and of
a succession of manuscripts, and these two
things are placed in logical juxtaposition, as if
there were no raanner of difference between
proofs and facts to be proved. Does not the
reader see that, in the one case, the corruption
of even many raanuscripts would not vitiate the
rest, nor at aU disturb the mass of collateral
proof to be derived from other sources ? While,
on the other hand, one irregular or defective
ordination or consecration (unless cured at the
time or very speedily), while it spreads great
uncertainty over subsequent partfe of the succes
sion in all parts of the Church, makes it a mat
ter of absolute certainty that, in some directions
at least, it is spreading a deadly taint to the end
of time. An evil the more to be apprehended,
because, alas ! it is utterly unknown upon whose
" commission" the blight may be faUing-t

* On the contrary, we have just shown, in the
last note, that it is completely the other way.
t Dr. P. would accomplish much more by show
ing us when, where, how, and in the case of what
individuals there was a break in the succession, than
by teUing us what might happen if there were such a
break. Where is the necessity for telling us the
evils of a broken succession, when we not only
know that it always has been unbroken, but believe
that it never will be broken ? Why not come for
ward hke a man, and give us one case where the
Apostolic chain ceased in the world, or where, until
Martin Luther's Bishops, or some similar proceeding,
one Bishop was consecrated except by another Bish
op? How much easier, and a thousand times more
effectual, nay, completely destructive of our " mud
fort" (Dr. P. sets us an example of Christian cour
tesy, and we try to mend upon it) it would be, tb
state one such fact from history. But he cannot.
Now aU he has to do is, to demolish our Episcopacy,
as we here demolish the Methodist Episcopacy,
thus : John Wesley, a Presbyter and no Bishop, laid
hands, it is said, on Dr. Coke, and Dr. Coke being
hereby no Bishop, pretended to consecrate the first
Methodist Bishops ; therefore, as there was no Bish
op to begin it, there never was, and never can be
(until they enter the ranks, as they one day will do)
a bishop, having the Apostolic succession in the
Methodist schism. John Wesley's brother Charles
knew this, as well as John himself before his dotage
and said,

134

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

Now let us look at the point in this light. If
there had been a Prelatical succession 0/ manu
scripts, or if each one had required as the seal
of its validity the imposition of a Prelate's
hands, instead of depending upon its own in
trinsic worth, and its agreement with others,
cotemporaneous or preceding, and which were
constantly subjected to the inspection of thou
sands of witnesses, there might, perhaps, be
some meaning in the parallel. The manuscript
has a character, however, which it bears upon
its face. Its title to confidence depends upon
its being a good or bad copy of previous weU-
known writings, and not upon an obscure rite
performed at an unknown time and by unkno-wn
persons, upon the mere parchment on which it
is written. Even its transcriber, the tirae when
it was made, and the hands through which it
has gone down, may be utterly unknown, with
out in the least affecting the proper evidences
by which its genuineness or spuriousness is to
be decided. The claun of the manuscript rests
not on a past and unknown fact, but upon an in
trinsic and ever-present character. It is a mat
ter for eyes and ears, and scholarly investiga
tion, and not for the uncertain faith of tradition.
The Prelate, on the other hand, carries no such
visible mark upon his person :* he has no sign
to be known and read of aU men. If his official
virtue depended upon his being a good or a bad
man, or on any intrinsic character whatever,
he might have some claim, at least in this re
spect, to he on a par with the manuscript. His
title, however, is in nothing intrinsic ; it rests
upon a past event, known to few, and often in
capable of verific,ation, after one generation, be
cause of the violence and disorder which have
often prevailed in the world. On the contrary,
the manuscript may be verified by hundreds of
eyes at once, with hundreds of others prece
ding or cotemporary- The poor Prelate, alas !
has no exemplar by which he may be tested ;
for it is, let it be again marked, a part of this
High Church theory, that his conformity to any
model, good or bad, even to that of the Author
of our religion, forms no essential part of his of
ficial character, and does not interfere with his
" sacramental" virtue- As a Prelate, he stands
alone upon that isolated fact of his succession.

" So easily are Bishops made,
By man's or woman's whim,
Wesley his hands on Coke hath lai'l.
But who laid hands on him ?"
Now why not demolish ue it once in the same way ?
We demohsh the Baptist notion in the same manner,
by showing that they are unbaptized, in their own
estimation, for they require a chain of immersion.
Now Roger WUIiams was first immersed by Holli
man, and then Holliman ',' and the other ten" by him ;
and the chain is hung upon nothing in England, for
there John Smyth began it by plunging himself
See also note, p- 31, col. 1.
* On tbe contrary, he does carry such a mark.
When was a Bishop consecrated and nobody knew
how, or by what other Bishops. All the World ac
knowledges the Romish Bishops, and only some Me-
.thodists acknowledge the Methodist Bishops- The
Episcopate has been watched and guarded in many
ways, which seem never to have occurred to Dr.
Potts ; by friends and foes, by heretics and believers,
by Pagans and Christians, by the Catholic Church,
and by parties within her bosom. It is impossible to
palm off a spurious Episcopacy or a pseudo-bishop
upon the world. — (See Chapin on the Primitive
Church.)

a fact which cannot descend with him down, the
stream of time — and a fact which, if it ever ex
isted, all the criraes of a Borgia could not nul
lify. The raanuscript presents its claims to the
whole Church, ministers and people, and to the
acute scholars of all ages ; while, in respect
to the Prelate's title, all the learning of Eras
mus could not avail to distinguish him, per se,
from any of the unauthorized impostors by
whom he may be surrounded.
To continue our comparison (for the benefit
of those who may be tempted to iiidulge in infi
del doubts, suggested so naturally by my oppo
nent's argument) : parchment, and even paper,
are much more durable things than Prelates.
Manuscripts and books live for many centuries,
and cross raany dark chasms in history. But
Prelates die, like other -men, and in a few years
are unknown and unremerabered. Many cor
rupt manuscripts might be corrected by one
faithful one, which agreed with previous man
uscripts, versions and quotations from numer
ous sources, with all which thousands and tens
of thousands of cotempofaries might have
been familiar ; but* one single corrupt conse-

* There could be no such corrupt consecration for
the reasons stated in the last note, fully exhibited in
Chapin's learned work. In the first place, the Bish
op to be consecrated would not aUow a spurious
Bishop to lay hands on him, as the transaction would,
in the mind of the consecrated, be a mere nullity ;
and all persons around him would be aware of the
same difficulty. Thus, all the world knows that
Wesley's supposed consecration of Dr. Coke was no
thing, and hence the invention about the Arminian
Bishop that would, but did not conseorate Wesley.
But we can never think of that great, and zealous,
and, until his dotage, true-hearted Presbyter of the
Church, without praying that God may grant to the
Anglican branch of the Church the wisdom given to
Rome, when, no longer castiiig out of her bosom her
most zealous sons, she shall, at least, suffer them to
go on, not letting, but aiding them to set up her
heavenly portals over the broad expanse of the uned-
ified earth, until the poor.and despised, and ignorant,
and deceived, and pagan, and forgotten children be
gathered in. O that John Wesley had been conse
crated a Bishop, and sent to the Western World !
Then had we been saved one miserable and unne
cessary schism ! May it not he healed yet .' And
wUl the Far Western Branch of the Tree whose
leaves are for the healing of the nations, be forever
content to vray, year by year, for all Jews, Turks,
infidels, and, heretics, and nothing do ? Shall the
spirit of the Church be such, that Archbishops may
ask devoted men, " if a converted Mohammedan wiU
not be beheaded," provoking the necessary answer,
that St. Paul was beheaded, and the Apostles mar
tyred ; that Christians under the persecuting emper
ors have been known to die for the Truth; that the
path of the Church, as you look back through the
long line of ages, is red with blood ? How long shall
laymen and lawyers trammel twenty-two Apostles
in the giving of the Apostolic office ; and how often
in a century will a zealous and earnest Presbyter of
fer his head for the salvation of the Turks ? Gener
ations may pass away before such another offering is
made at her doors ; and her spirit thrusts back them
who would build up her walls and adorn her palaces.
"To the poor the Gospel is preached," cries the
Lord, but she heeds Him not. " When thou makest
a feast," 'tis the Master's bidding, " caU in the poor,
and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind." What
Christian has done CArisf's bidding ? Loudly, indeed,
does the Christian world call for a Reformation ac
cording to the Canons, i. e., the Canon Book df the
Church, sometimes caUed, also, " the Nevy Testa
ment."

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

135

"cration, known only to those interested in its
<!oncealment, would, in one generation, be past
aU remedy. Thus, a wide-spread and almost
universal combination would be required in the
•one case to effect a mischief, which, in the oth-
«r, might arise from one single instance of ir
regularity from accident or design.
Again, what scholar is ignorant of the fact
that the sacred records, under God, owe their
most wonderful preservation from aU essential
error to the very causes which weaken and
render suspicious my opponent's "Apostolical
-succession?" I mean the di-visiop, parties, and
.heresies* which have from the earhest ages
fastened upon the Church. It is easy to see
how these things would create irregularities in
the tactual succession (witness the cases in
which acknowledged heresy and depravity ex
ercised the ordaining power), and it is equaUy
evident that they would contribute to the pres
ervation of the Scriptures. How would the
Roraan dare to corrupt or interpolate in the
face of the Greek Church, or the Greek in the
face of the Roraan ? Or how could either hope
successfuUy to mar those old records which
the Jew watched with such superstitious ven
eration ? Or how would any of thera hope to
effect any serious corruption or mutilation when
watched by the eyes of those whom they de
nounced as heretics or schismatics ?
But my opponent speaks of " a gap of 1000
years, destitute of aU documentary proof't
Now, not to speak ofthe utter disregard of aU
historical accuracy in such an assertion, which
we will not now stop to expose, as it would ex
tend this article too much, we wiU admit, for
the sake of arguraent, that it is so. We con
tend that to bridge this chasm with raanuscripts
in order to reach historical facts on the other
side, is a very different and much easier matter
than to connect, in an unbroken historical chain,
¦ a series of minute, obscure, and unaiithentica-
ted facts which lie right in the dark chasm it
self In one case we have the Ught which
shines clearly from the other side, and which,
with the self-evidencing power of truth (of
•which we wiU presently speak), has sent its
* These very " parties and heresies" watched with
Argus eyes (just as the " Anti-Puseyites" and the
" Puseyites," so called, now do in England) the in-
duction of every Bishop into the sacred office, i. e., is
he, or is he not, with us ? Not a voter at our tumultu
ous poUs could once enter unregistered; and could
-a Bishop be chosen by the clergy of a province, his
-election announced by other Bishops to the Metro-
pohtan, and by him to the Patriarch, &c-, and every
step of the way watched, and then after all be ac
knowledged a Bishop, though destitute of the easy,
but " all-essential" formality of laying on hands, which
may be done in a moment ? Why, it is as impossible
to palm off a spurious Bishop upon the Church, as
it would be a President that never was chosen upon
the country; nay, much more difficult still. (See
Chapin, Primitive Church. Also, a capital pam
phlet by the Rev. Benjamin Franklm, deacori, now
of Seneca Falls, N. York, The pamphlet is enti
tled " Episcopacy Divine in its Origin, and Unbro
ken in its Succession," Providence, R, I., Burnett
and Blodget, 1843. See, also. Tracts for the People,
many of them by the late most exceUent and lament-
«1 Rev Palmer Dyer, our Illinois coadjutor in the
Primary Convention of 1835. " Alas ! my brother !")
t Every word of this argument makes for the
Ji-postolic succession.

rays across it. The true scholar ventures over
much wider gaps than this. He has no doubt
of the existence of Homer, Plato, Cicero, Taci
tus, or Caesar, and the substantial genuineness,
of the writings universally ascribed to them.
But he would pay little respect to the man who
should teU hira that there is a famUy in modem
Rome which claims to be descended, by unbro
ken descent, from the last-named personage ;
that they can show documents for a number of
generations, and certain family traditions bridg
ing the rest of the chasm ; that, therefore, the
evidence for the truth of this genealogy is "pre
cisely of the same kind and amount, and no great
er," as the evidence for Cassar's Comraentaries.
Should our worshipper of antiquity assume
"the impregnable position" that Caesar must,
in aU probabihty, have lineal descendants now
existing somewhere in the world, and that,
therefore, those who claim to be so are to be
presumed to be such, unless it is proved to the
contrary; still wiU the comraon-sense scholar
smile, incredulous, and ask. Have we the same
reason to believe that a parcel of traditions go
correctly up against the stream of time, as that
a succession of Latin manuscripts have safely
come down that stream ? He wiU not believe
any such thing. That common sense — that in
nate perception of common truth which God
has given to every man of ordinary reflecting
powers, enables hira to sweep away the flimsy
sophistry at once, with the declaration, one* sin-

* It is not a fact that one spurious case destroys
the line. But pray show us one case. You say if
there were a case. Suppose, to help you along, we
say agreed. Now bring your one case, as we have
that of John Wesley. Does not all the world know
that George Montgomery West was not consecrated
by Bishop Chase, notwithstanding aU the pains he
took to prove it, and the amended Prayer Book, &c., ,
which he published in England ? Who ever had a
shadow of a thought of beginning to believe that he
might possibly be a Bishop '! Nobody.
We have a friend in Rhode Island who, secundum
populi vQcem, seu vocem Dorrica-m, murdered fifteen suf-
fragii homines, and buried the fifteen men in one hole.
"We asked all the following questions, and received
Nescio for an answer. Where is the hole ? Ih what
town? Is it in the field, by the roadside, or in the
woods? Who found the hole ? Inwhat month, and
on what day was it found? Was it found at night
or mornirig? Were the people in some undefined
neighbourhood sufficiently interested in the discov
ery of so many murdered men to run together?
Who was there then? Who dug up the bodies?
'Who saw my friend murder the men ? What doctor
was called in? How long did the bodies seem to
have been buried? What was their appearance,
mangled or otherwise? Were they shot, or were
their brains beaten out ? Was such a mass of hu
man corruption offensive, or were they freshly buri
ed ? Was the blood that flowed from the murders
on the grass oi in the road ? Were they buried in
clay or sand? With their clothes on or not ? What
were their names ? What was one of the names out
of the fifteen ? Were they married or single 1 Were
they Rhode Islanders or New - Workers ? Irish,
Scotch, American, German, or English ? Who miss
ed them? &c., &c. And as nobody knew, we ex
ercised a New-Englandman's acknowledged privilege
by saying at the close, " I guess it's a mistake. 1
guess they were not murdered." The sanie kind of
categorical questions we propound to Dr. Potts about
his, imagined posable broken succession. Where ?
when ? how ? in what country ? In what century ?
by whom? " Nescio," says Dr. Potts. I ^«»s it's
not so, then, say I.

136

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

gle Ue, or one single case of bastardy, as com
pletely destroys your descent as ten thousand ;
whereas there are hundreds of conveyances by
which the historian has been ferried across the
chasm. But, besides this, there is some light in truth
itself We see across into that ancient world
which Tacitus so graphically depicts ; not by
any Mesmeric influence conveyed along a chain
of "succession," but by a species of natural
clairvoyance, we feel the scenes to be real.
We see a world of living, acting men ; of living
-writers, quoting, criticising, approving, and con
demning each other ; historical events recount
ed by various authors, and received without
contradiction as facts ; we find there the song
ofthe poet, the theme of the orator, the exam
ples selected by the critic and ph-rlosopher to
iUustrate their systems. And shall we sacrifice
our character for sanity, by assuming that it is
equaUy probable that any given traditional line
of genealogy is untainted, as that this wide
spread, interpenetrating, mutually corrobora
ting web of history, with all its poetry, oratory,
action, philosophy, and religion, was (as Father
Hardouin tried to convince the laughing world)
the fabrication of monks in the 13th century?
The applicabUity of this iUustration of the
point before us wiU, I have no doubt, be obvious,
and I need not therefore trace it. There is an
other and a'much more momentous view of the
subject to which I beg the reader's attention,
and he wiU be able to judge with what amazing
temerity — ^to use no harder term — my opponent
has ventured to place the truth of the Word of
God upon the same rotten foundation as that on
which his tactual succession rests.
It wiU he seen that in the above coraparison
of the proofs of " the succession" with the
proofs of " the Gospel," no allusion whatever
is made by my opponent to the internal eviden
ces of Christianity — none to the fact that " he
that believeth hath the witness in himself."
Strange as it raay seera, yet so it is. This
minister of Christ expressly asserts that the
evidence for the succession, in his sense of it,
is "precisely ihe same in kind and amjywnt" as
that for the Gospel. It is as conclusive, he
says, in one case as in the other. There is,
then, no intrinsic evidence in the very nature
of the truths revealed — in their purity, dignity,
worthiness of the Divine Being, and wondrous
harmony with the condition and instinctive
cravings of man's soul. There is no " evidence
of things not seen," unless taken in connexion
with " the Apostolical succession." Divine
grace cannot, without the prelatical staff, cross
the dark gap of a thousand years ; a gap, be it
remembered, which was in a very great meas
ure caused by the wickedness and ignorance of
this very line for which such wondrous claims
are made.
We should he glad to believe that so shock
ing an assert on was an inadvertence, but our
charitable wish is forestalled, because any qual
ification of it must have been fatal to his argu
ment. Any admission that there is other evi
dence for the Scriptures, differing both in kind
and amount from that which exists for his own
title to the ministry, would be directly in the
face of his assertion, and what is more, would
have dislodged hun from his " impregnable po
sition."

On this point, vital as it is to Christianity it
self, I can use no temporizing words. To my
ears it sounds much Uke impiety. Is it not a.
direct betrayal of the citadel into the hands of
its foes ? The skeptic knows full v,fell the utter
futility of the proof for " the succession," and,
how wiU he rejoice when he hears the Apos-.
tolical defenders of Christianity assert that her
claims upon the faith of mankind are "precisely
the same both in kind and amount. "
Can it be possible? What feeling could,
prompt such a declaration ? Is it that of the
man who sets fire to a dwelling, rather than
acknowledge the right of a tenant in common ?
Or of one who wiU oast into the mire a precious
treasure, because he cannot be gratified with
the exclusive possession of the bawble of a.
casket in which he claims to hold it ? If we- -
cannot have the Apostohcal succession undis
turbed, we wiU have no Bible ; if we cannot
have our views of the priesthood, and of the
exclusive Divine right and sacramental virtue^
of our Prelates, as the only representatives of
the Apostles, and if we cannot denounce and.
unchurch ad libitum those " who foUow not us,"
we will aim a stab at the vitals of Christianity-
itself; if we cannot'have sole command of the,
fortress, we wiU open it to the incursions of the
enemy ! And this, too, from a class of men who-
declaim against rationalism ; and who are, ever-
delighting themselves with tracing infidelity
and heresy to what they modestly call " sectar-
rianism"^and " dissent !"
Every one who is familiar with " the Oxford-
Tracts" wiU be able to call to mind many spe
cimens of the same kind of tactics. Through
out, the most solemn doctrines of our religiom
are made to derive their chief authority from a,
traditional Church, and a supposititious "suc
cession," to which, accordingly, those doctrines-
are made secondary and subservient. They
are represented as dim, shadowy, uncertain,.
until "the Church" comes in with her tradi
tional wand to define their shapes, and to en
dorse and enforce them. Regeneration and the
solemn Eucharist are made to subserve the end
of elevating an order of men, by investing them-
with mysterious qualities which make the world
virtuaUy dependant on them for its salvation.
The Tri-unity of God, the Divinity of the Re
deemer, and, as we have seen, the very credi
bility of revelation, are aU placed in the same.
leakyi ship, to sink or swim together,
I leave it to the calm, impartial reader to de
cide upon the reasonableness of a dqgma which-
needs to resort to such supports. Ca,n it be-
true ? Must men throw away the Word of God, .
or admit the theory of an unbroken descent of
Prelates ?
If any apology be due for the length of my-
reply to this part of my opponent's argument, it
is found in the monstrous nature and results of
the position assumed. Unless it be greatly
modified, I must continue in the firm opinion
that I have fairly stated its true meaning, and
fairly deduced its unavoidable inferences. I
have also felt as if such an argument, coming
from one who is set for the defence of the Gos
pel, ought not to go forth into the camp of infi
delity without a loud protest against its trea
sonable nature. George Potts.
March 4, 1844.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

137

No. V.

As we have now been at sea for some time,
it may be as weU that we should take an ob^
servation, and ascertain our true bearings.
I wiU not detain the reader with a review of
the origin* of the present discussion, or the
manner in which my opponent chose to condupt
his argument in the commencement of it. My
business is now with," the Essays," to which I
continue to pay a respectful attention, unawed
by my opponent's dignified silence- 1
These " Essays" began their somewhat tedi
ous course farther back than was necessary-
Many words were wasted in proving, what al
most aU Christians admit, that Christ appoint
ed a " standing ministry" in his Church. The
next step was the proof that there is only one
possible way of perpetuating that ministry, viz.,
by the imposition of the hands of a previously-
ordained ministry, and so on up to the Apostles.
This brought my opponent to the doctrine of
an unbroken ministerial succession, in which, it
seems, he found some Presbyterians, and even
a CongregationaUst, who agree, or seera to
agree, with hira. 'The only Scriptural argu
ment adduced to prove such a tactual succes
sion was " the Apostolical commission," espe
cially the promise contained in it, "Lo, I am
with you alway. "t I have examined this argu
ment fully, and wiU not repeat what was then
brought forward to show that this promise, se
curing Christ's presence to a ministry, cannot
have come down with the outward commission
in all cases, because multitudes of popes, patri
archs, archbishops, bishops, presbyters, arch
deacons, and deacons, even supposing them to
have been all regularly inducted into office —
which is adraitting a great deal — have not com
plied with the terras of the commission,^ and.

* When there is little to be said in defence of a
side, one is apt to reiterate unimportant matters-
The New-England dinner comes up, we beheve, al
most to the very close of the remarks.
t If a man is " unawed," it is sufficient for and in
himself; but when he says aloud that he is " unaw
ed," it is because he supposes that somebody thinks
so ; and sometimes, when people think so, there may
be some reason for the thought.
} This was not the only Scriptural argument (see
Essays for twenty Scriptural arguments) ; at least
they came fast enough to give the Presbyterian di
vine sufficient work to make remarks on them.
/) Who has proved that the promise does not espe
cially refer to the outward commission ? If so, then
it has not failed. If Dr. Potts proves that it has fail
ed internally, which he only asserts, then it must
have been kept externally, which is all we claim ; or
otherwise Christ's promise has failed altogether,
which is impossible. Dr. Potts is a better champion
for than against us; especially do his arguments
come forcibly, because they come innocently ; for
the fact is, a man m-ust speak what he internally be
lieves, whether he will or not— i. e., his words seem
to him to have a certain meaning; but nothing is
truer than " out of the abundance of the heart the
mouth speaketh." Therefore it was that an eminent
Presbyterian divine of our acquaintance once said
to us, " I am otherwise content ; but when you Epis
copalians tell me that I am not ordained, that makes
mv blood boil." " I do not tell you, my dear friend,"
was the reply, " that you are not ordained ; but for my
private self, if I were ordained just as much as you are,
1 would go to the Bishop, and get him to lay hands on
my bead to-morrow. But why should my words make
your blood boil? Suppose we change places, and
o

therefore, could not hand down it, or the promise
attached to it- " Faithful men" only have per
petuated the ministry, and these " faithful men,"
wherever found, are the only true links in the-
true ministerial succession. This succession^
we may believe, has not been broken. The ad
vocates ofthe opposite view, be they Prelatists,,
Presbyterians, or Congregationalists, can get
nothing out of the commission to sustain their
views, unless they can prove that the word
"alway" means "with all;" in which case it
will be necessary that they should believe and
prove that aU who have held the office have been;
" faithful men," who " preached" and " taught
aU things whatsoever" Christ had commanded^
It requires that a man should be utterly Wind*'
to facts in order to believe this.
But granting his monstrous position, that
there is quite as much evidence for the fact of
this unbroken tactual succession of ministers-
as there is for the truth of the Gospel, he is as-
far as ever from the point he, aims af, viz., that
there can be no Church without a Prelate ;
for the question remains, Does this succession-
run in the line of the Prelacy ? Although we-
admit that everything he has aUeged in support.
of the first position may be true, still he has
the difficult task before him of proving that
the promise which, as he supposes, secures an-
unbroken series of ministers, secures an unbro
ken series of Prelates with peculiar powers.
This is the task about which my opponent is-
now engaged. In his last number he professes
to commence the argument, but, as usual, the-
argument consists of assumptions not only un
proved, but untrue. I wiU, however, withhold
my strictures upon this branch of the subject
until he has given us all he has to say upon the
Scriptural proof of the indispensableness of Prel
acy, and, in the mean time, will occupy the re-

you, tell me that I am not ordained ! I might possibly
say the doctor is pleased to be facetious this morn
ing, but my blood would never think of beginning to-
boil ; and it boils easily, too. Your temper is a great
deal better, and, perhaps, more easily controlled than
mine. Why this difference, then? Nay, let your
General Assembly, or the two General Assemblies
(for I do not know which is the General Assembly —
the one in this meeting-house, or that at Mr. Barnes's,,
for tru.stworthy individuals of both told me that each
was the Simon Pure) — nowletthem, one or both, pass-
a solemn vote that  is not ordained, and send
it under the broad seals (if they have any) of the-
General Assemblies of the ' Presbyterian Church' in
the United ^States. When the document reached.
my study, or a similar one came to the study of any
one of our ministers, we might smile, but, though
the thermometer indicated 90°, our blood certainly
would not boil, if we were in a good shady place,.
because I KNOW / am ordained." " This is too bad,"
said our Presbyterian friend. " It is too tnie," was.
the reply. " Do no« you and I both inow it ? But,
if what I have said be too bad already, I must make
it worse before you will see it. You meet a white-
man in the street, and say, * Are you aware that you
are a negro, sir?' he smiles at your joke or your im
pertinence, but only smiles, because he knows that
you both know him to be white. You say the same
to a black man, and his blood is very apt to boil a,
little, for he is more than half suspicious that he actu
ally is a negro. Apply this, if you please."
* And as most men are not " utterly bUnd to-
facts," Dr. Potts here proves that his notion of the -
succession never was received; that is, an inwar£
succession is not meant.

138

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

jnainder of this article in some general obser-
-vations suggested by the course ofthe argu
ment thus far. Pressed by numerous other
avocations, I intend to be brief
1 . I ask the reader's attention to the fact that
my opponent throughout has given us no bet
ter proof for many of his positions than strong
assertion.* This remark applies as weU to the authori
ties to which he refers as to himself Thus,
Dr. Lathrop, " an eminent Congregational min
ister," whom he has caUed in as an ally, is no
..authorityt at all, unless he gives us proof for
his opinions. Of the historical inaccuracy of
this gentleman, and therefore his incompetency
as a witness in favour of an unbroken series of
-ritual, not spiritual, incumbents of the ministe
rial office, no other proof is necessary than a
Teferenoe to a single paragraph in the quotation
made from him in No. IV. " The Roman
Church, though at that time (the Reformation)
exceedingly corrupt, appears not to have mate-
liaUy corrupted her ordinations. In this mat
ter we do not find that the Reformers aUeged
any complaint." It is enough for me to meet
.assertion with assertion. Take, then, an Arch
bishop, a man of real learning, which Dr. La
throp was not, as a witness on the other side.

¦* Et tu quoque, we would say, if it were not that
¦we do not know how to wield " the lash of ridicule"
'like Dr. Potts. His whip is too heavy for our young
and inexperienced hands. Alas ! who shall bend the
ibow of Ulysses !
t Observe, Dr. Lathrop is " bo authority" when he
js on the wrong side. But Stillingfleet and the great
Archbishop Whately are of capital authorityon the
right side. So in Dr. Miller's books. So the Fathers
-are not worth a sous to prove Episcopacy ; but what
Presbyterian was it, the other day, who quoted them
'¦by columns, that would make all Oxford blush, in
¦support of the " American and Foreign Lord's Day
¦Society" (was that the name? at all events, there is
¦such a thing !). So my good Congregational brother,
in an argument with the Baptists, was very glad to
find that Tertullian's doubts about infant baptism
were capital proofs of the Cathohc belief on that
•point ; but when I showed him Tertullian and other
Fathers on Episcopacy, he did not, he declared,
"value all the Fathers a straw." Consistency, is
thy name Sectarism? A good Calvinist Abolition-
idst, just now, quoted to me St. Paul's Calvinism at
\ large ; but when he got upon slavery, and I inno-
-cently observed that " St. Paul sent Onesimus back
to his master" — ',' I don't care for that," said he.
Alas ! their Scriptural religion is to take all of the
Bible that makes for their peculiar views ; and who
¦cares for the rest ? If it is said in Hebrews vi. that
confirmation, or the laying on of hands, is a Chris
tian principle, and applicable to all, the answer is. It
•ought not to say so. So in the West, where women
¦spout in meetings, as well as here, a preacher, by
the extempore spirit, opened the Bible at " I suffer
not a woman to speak in the churches ;" after read
ing this unlucky first text on which the extempore
spirit lighted, and trying to see if it would not alter
by reading it oftener, with some hemming and haw
ing, he handed over the obstinate Bible. " Here,
brother Smith, you take this text, for I can make
nothing out of it." "Glory! glory!!" shouted the
-women : " Paul's a liar ! Paul's a liar ! !" And this
¦and similar religions boast of being buUt upon the
Bible, and abhor Popery ! Most of the sects of the
United States are grounded on the traditions of the
"Eldirs." So Dr. Potts's Presbyterian brethren
¦•¦•'jtild be-downupon him for his Congregationalism,
4/- he were not trymg to do battle with Episcopacy.
We have authority for this.

Dr. Whately, speaking of the impossibiUty of
tracing an unbroken tactual succession, has
this passage : " And who can Undertake to pro
nounce that, during that long period usually
designated as the Dark Ages, no taint of (irreg
ularity) ever was introduced? Irregularities
could not have been excluded without a per
petual miracle ; and that no such miraculous
interference existed we have even historical proof.
Amid the numerous corruptions of doctrine
and of practice, and of gross superstitions, that
crept in during those ages, we find recorded
descriptions not only ofthe profound ignorance
and profligacy of the clergy, but also of the
grossest irregularities in respect of discipline
and form. We read of Bishops consecrated
when mere chUdren ; of men officiating who
barely knew their letters ; of Prelates expelled,
and others put in their place by violence ; of
illiterate and profligate laymen, and habitual
drunkards, admitted to holy orders. It is in
conceivable that any one even moderately ac
quainted with history can feel a certainty, or
any approach to certainty, that amid all this
confusion and corruption every requisite form
was in every instance strictly adhered to by
men, many of them openly profane and secular,,
unrestrained by pubhc opinion, through the
gross ignorance ofthe population among which
they lived, and that no one, not duly consecra
ted,"* &c., &c.
"This also is answer enough to the equaUy
bold and untrue assertions contained iii another
extract which my opponent gives from his
"able" writer ofthe present day (Irons, a Bap
tist formerly, who has gone to the extreme of
Puseyism), and which asserts " the watchful
care and pains of aU the (ancient) Churches in
the matter of ordinations." This assertion of
" watchful care and pains" is so directly in the
teeth of historical facts, that I am content to let
Archbishop Whately, as just quoted, contradict
it. I do not affirm too much in saying that the
column^ of to-day's journal would not contain
the facts that might be given in evidence, f
I cannot pass unnoticed another surprising
instance of the heedlessness, not to S8ty reck
lessness, of my opponent's assertions. We
ask for accuracy when matters of fact are ap
pealed to ; and when palpable inaccuracies are
committed by a controversialist, espeeiaUy by
one who ventures to unchurch his feUow-
Christians, whether at a dinner-table, or in a
newspaper, or in a pulpit, he cannot complain
if he should be exposed. For the purpose of
proving that gross wickedness does not nuUify
orders, he gives the reader to ilnderstand tjiat
Aaron was not reconsecrated after he had been
guilty in the matter of the golden calf, when
any one who has read his Bible with common
attention ought to know that he was not con-
* Where the State appoints the Bishops, we may
expect such Presbyterians as Archbishop Whately
to be put into a see now and then. But, as Dr.
Potts says. Dr. Whately's " assertions are nothmg ;"
at least, it seems " Irons" contradicts him in the
next paragraph. -
t Give us one fact, one broken succession, one
spurious consecration, since you have a newspaper
fuU ? yon are miserly with them. It wiU demohsh us
more than all your "i/s," and "might be," and "per
haps," and " possible." We gave Wesley, Dr. Coke,
Asbury, and West. WiU you give us one or two i

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

139

secrated at aU tiU at least two months after
that event. Let my opponent be more certain,
at least of his Scriptural facts, or we shall have
very little respect for his references to "the
Fathers."* 2. My opponent and his coadjutors pay little
lespect to the standards of their sect, in so res
olutely clairaing a " succession" through Rome.
The Jews were proud to say, " We were not
bom of fornication — we have Abraham to our
father ;" and their pride was natural, for it was
an honourable lineage. But, taking it as an
allowed fact that the orders of which onr mod
em exclusives boast come to them frora the
body coramonly caUed the Church of Rome,
and comparing this fact with the terms in
which the Homilies (which every clergyman of
the Church of England receives at ordination
-as containing " godly and wholesome doctrine")
speak of " the Mother Church," one cannot but
be surprised at the eagerness with which these
Protestants claim kin with her- She is descri
bed in the homily against idolatry, third part,
as " not only a harlot (as the Scripture calleth
her), but also a foul, ffithy, old, -withered har
lot (for she is indeed of ancient years)" —
" the foulest and filthiest harlot that ever was
.seen."+ In the same homily it is affirmed that
" all sects and degrees of men, women, and
children, of whole Christendom, have been at
once drowned in abominable idolatry (of aU
other sins most detestable to God and most
damnable to men), by the space of 800 years
and more-" More of the same nature might he
quoted from the writings of the Reformers.
This is surely not a parentage to be claimed.
Let my opponent either admit that these hom
ilies are slanderous, and not (as he has profess
ed to beUeve) " godly and wholesome," or let
him explain what kind of " succession" is that
which is derived through so debased a parent
age. " Can that be a true Church of Christ"
-<asks Dr. Milner, the champion of Popery, in
j-eference to this very inconsistency of the
* Dr. Wainwright acknowledges this mistake.
He is not infallible, like some sects and Rome. But
see ! because you made a misstep, you never walk-
-ed without falling ! that is, says Dr. P, "you made one
Serititural mistake, and, as we have to depend en
tirely on you, since we know nothing of the Fathers,
you may unwittingly lead us into errors that we
never shall discover, when you make your ' referen
ces to the Fathers.' You are a dangerous man !
you have made at least one mistake in your Essays."
Pray show us the second.
t The answer is, pure water runs through the
-dirty ground- Besides, if we are Rome's children,
the sects are her grandchildren. Was the Church
of England the daughter of Rome ? And is the
Methodist Society a daughter of the Church of Eng
land ' Let us rail neither at our mother, nor our ven
erable grandmother, if she is old and a little filthy ;
nay it will do -us no honour to give her such a bad
<;haracter. If the Primitive Church was Congi-ega-
tional, and thus was the mother of Episcopacy she
should still treat us with maternal affection ;" for,
said Bishop Griswold, "people must not repudiate
their own cWldren." But besides the British Bish
ops who were in Britain before she was England, and
from AD 52 to 599 (when Augustin came), who re-
•fused submission to Boniface III., first Pope or uni
versal Bishop— besides these, St. Austin himsell
was consecrated not at Rome, but at Aries, near
iLvoiis, and the Bishop of that city assisted; and
Lyons, as well as Marseilles, were not Romish, but
Greek colonies.

High-Church exclusives) " which is drowned in
the pit of damnable idolatry?" Dr. M. admits
that if this charge of idolatry were true, then
" the jurisdiction requisite for the exercise of
holy orders must have become utterly extinct."
So every man of ordinary judgment wiU at once
determine. This, then, is the dUemma in which
his attachment to the " suocessional" dogma
has placed him. He must reject th'e homilies
as false, and prove a traitor to his creed, or,
Etdhering to the homiUes, he must believe (con
trary to the doctrine of Sutcltff, and contrary to
every man's common sense) that Antichrist
can ordain priests for Christ ; that false priests
and Prelates can transmit a " sacramental vir
tue," which cannot possibly flow through the
medium of men, however intelligent and holy,
if they be not prelatically ordained.
., 3.' It also deserves notice that my opponent
is at variance with the creed of his own C/hurch
in another important particular. He attaches
(in common with the rest of the ultra school) a
sacrarhental character to ordination. In No, IV.
he speaks of the " sacramental grace of the
ministry." If the reader will refer to the
25th of the articles of the Church of England,
he will find a distinct repudiation of this Ro
manist dogma. That article acknowledges bap
tism and the Supper of the Lord as the only
two sacraments " ordained of Christ ;" affirm
ing that "those five commonly called sacra
ments, that is to say, confirmation, penance,
orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are
not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel,"
" for that they have not any visible sign or cere
mony ordained of God," I do not mean now
to enter into the general subject, and will make
no comment upon this manifest rejection ofthe
above-named article, except that it strongly
corroborates the charge made against the ultra
school, that they are picking up the once reject
ed dogmas of Popery, and that their via -media
has a strong incUnation to Rome. The numer
ous converts* to Romanism which have left
their ranks in England and America demon
strate this tendency.
4. The link which connects the Romanist
and the Anglican ordinations, at the time of the
Reformation, deserves a moment's attention.
My opponent has occupied a large part of one
of his former Essays with the story of the Nag's
Head consecration. He might have spared him
self the trouble- I have never alluded to that
story. It may be false ; certainly it is vehe
mently denied, and has been abandoned by some
Romanist authorities, though stiU firmly ibe-
Ueved by others. But the story of the Nag's
Head may be rejected without clearing Parker's
consecration of difficulty. The real difficulty
arises from the absence of evidence of the pre
vious consecration of his consecrator. Barlow.
My opponent gives no evidence. The fact that
an act of Parliament was deemed necessary to
affirm the validity of Parker's consecration, and
* There are actually fewer converts to Romanism
than formerly, and many more Romanists who re
form. The tendency under Cromwell to become
sectarians was much stronger and more injurious.
We are much of Dr. Wiseman's opinion. That able
Romish Bishop says the Church of England is again
using a mode of warfare which, 200 years ago, proved
so deleterious to the Roman See. It is the only war
fare the Romanist fears.

140

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

the fact that Mr. Newman, of Oxford tract ce
lebrity, calls it a " disorderly and violent pro
ceeding," "carried on amid human sin," a
"scandal," &c-, demonstrate the existence of
causes of doubt and uncertainty upon this point.
There should be no uncertainty,* however,
where, according to the exclusive, tactual the
ory, such vital interests are dependant. Those
who wish ^0 see the evidence upon this subject
at length, may consult Dr. Kendrick's Exami
nation of the Validity of Anglican Ordinations.
The case is of importance only as the exclu
sive theory makes it -so. We cannot, however,
but congratulate ourselves that God has not
made the existence of the ministry dependant
upon the genuineness or spuriousness of cer
tain items in the Archiepiscopal register of
Lambeth. 5. The principles of my opponent, which
make prelatical ordination indispensable to the
constitution of the ministry and vital to the
Church in every case, involve him in the neces
sity of unchurching not only poor " dissenters,"
but a portion of the prelatical body in Great
Britain — I allude to the Scottish Episcopal
Church : I affirm this upon the authority ofthe
Christian Observer of November, 1843. This
branch ofthe denomination, although remarka
ble for its Laudean bigotry at the time when
Prelacy was forced upon the Scottish nation,
lost "the succession" under the following cir
cumstances : Three clergymen of the Presby
terian Church, attracted by the promised digni
ty of the Episcopate, were sent to England to
be consecrated. From Spottiswoode — one of
them — we learn that when he and his brethren,
Lamb and Hamilton, we^e presented for conse
cration to the English Prelates, Andrews, one
of the consecrators, objected that " they ought
first to be raade priests upon the score of their
not having been ordained by a Bishop." Ban
croft, who was present, repUed that this was
unnecessary, because, "where Bishops could
not be had, orders given by Presbyters must be
reckoned lawful," and " that, unless this were
granted, the calling and character ofthe minis
try in most ofthe Reformed Churches might be
questioned." This argument prevaUed, and
men who, alas ! had never been baptized or or
dained, jviere consecrated, and, when they re
turned home, consecrated ten other Bishops.t
* There is " no uncertainty." The consecration
took place, but under less peaceful circumstances
than might be desirable. Di-. P. always supposes
that we claim ten times more than we do, and hav
ing set up a monster, which exists only in his imagi
nation, does battle with that Uke Don Quixote and
his windmill-giants.
-f See last note. A layman, if consecrated, would
be a Bishop. St. Ambrose and other laymen were
made Bishops, and their title never disputed. Half
Dr. P.'s talk applies to something that never was be
lieved in the world. He fights the wind of his own
imaginings. Now if he had shown that Barlow was
not a Bishop, and that the other three consecrators also
were not Bishops, or that the Scottish Bishops were
consecrated fey Presbyters, &c., then he would demol
ish English, and Scottish, and American Episcopacy
all at one blow, and we .should, all give it up, and go
to Greece or elsewhere for a genuine Episcopacy.
Nor should we have to hunt, like Dr. P.'s forefathers,
who coursed the world till, alighting in little Switz
erland, in a comer of the earth, they found (what
was not to be fopnd elsewhere in the worid), " they
found," glorious gem ! fortunate discovery ! " a State

These poor men were aU spurious when
judged by the royal ordinances of the 'tactual
succession, and there is not one of their de
scendants who is at this moment any better
than a, withered branch, through which not a
drop of the sap of Episcopal virtue is running.
Here, then, is a body, in aU other respects extra
exclusive, of the strictest sect of Oxford — He
brews of the Hebrews — deriving their orders
from men who were so unfortunate as not to
have been regularly made either deacons or
priests. Upon ray opponent's principles, they
are not descendants of the Apostles, have no
" sacramental grace," and could not be admit
ted to the pulpit of St. Paul's, New-York. They
are surely to be pitied.
These are a few coUateral matters which I
have thrown out while waiting for the remain
der of my opponent's proof, " that there can be:
no Church without a Prelate." Geokse Potts.
March 7, 1844.

No. VI.

I HAVE felt, perhaps unduly, anxious that all
who may turn their attention to this discussion
of the claims set up by certain persons among
us, should understand that I ara, throughout, the
antagonist of those claims only as they are ex
clusive. The fact that they are exclusive, and
that the exclusiveness is exhibited in relation;
to a matter of external polity, and not moral
principles ; and, furthermore, that the effect
of this exclusiveness is to divide the Chris
tian Church, alienate Christian hearts, destroy
the influence of a large body of men who are
labouring with zeal and inteUigence for the in
struction and reformation of mankind — ^these
facts I am truly anxious should be borne in
mind as my justification for the expenditure of
time and labour upon the present subject. The
unchurching dogma is not a harmless error,
which may or may not be received, and yet
produce no moral effects upon the Church and
the world- Let it be believed, and, especially,.
let it be believed for the reasons which are ad
duced in support of it, and consequences must
ensue fatal to Christianity itself A uhiversal
unity in outward form, if accoraplished through
such reasonings as those of the school which
we opposp, would be a poor compensation for
the loss of the siApUcity and spirituality of
Christian faith.*

without a monarch, and a Church without an Apos
tle." We love to change words a httle ; we are like-
Dr- Potts in that respecf. What a pity it would
have been if, in their search hither and thither, fer
and wide, the Puritan " Fathers" had gone clean by
Geneva, without seeing that pretty town ! But he
who approaches Geneva, may perceive that Servetus
has reappeared in her doctors, for Calvin's posterity
now imprison, fine, and banish the teachers of Cal-
-vin's doctrines. But there is only one path ; it leads
from Geneva to Paris — from Calvin to Voltaire.
'Tis the path of schismatics. They have reached
nearly the end of the road at Geneva — nay, 8om&
have been to Paris, and, disinclined to go back to
Geneva, are thinking seriously of a trip to England.
May their way be prosperous !
* Yet, if we are no^ united as to the body, which,
says Dr. P., is a "non-essential" (I wish I could tell
so easily what is essential, et quid non), we may glTO-

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

HI

The question before us is not whether one of
the possible forms of Christian polity may be
nearer to the primitive model, and more condu
cive to the ends of good government, than an
other. Wise and good men have differed in
their preferences as to the best constitution for
the Church and the Christian ministry, without
making their preferences matter of fundament
al moment. But this does not suit our High-
Church exclusives. They are daring enough
to brave any consequences, however irrational,
in affirming that they alone are the covenanted
people of God. My opponent has said, plainly
enough, that no amount of attachment to the
fundamental verities of the Christian system,
no degree of inteUigence in exhibiting them, no
earnest piety and consistency of life, and no
success in extending the Gospel and improving
mankind, can in any sense justify a body of
ministers and professing Christians in taking
the sacred title of a " Church of Christ,"* if
they have not the indispensable mark of Prela
cy. They must be Prelatists or nothing.f
I have repeated this stateraent of the ques
tion which originated this discussion, because
I wish it to be remembered that nothing but the
¦exclusiveness of the arrogant claims of High-
Churchism could have drawn me into such a
discussion- The question whether Prelacy or
Presbytery,t whether one or other of these or
ders of the Christian ministry be most conform
ed to Scripture, is one upon which my owii
mind is fuUy made up. It is also a question of
great practical importance. But, as it is not
one of fundamental mpment, I should not have
up all hope of a union as to the spirit, which, being
more important, is, of course, more diificult to aban
don or change for another spirit.
* That is, if they are not a Church, they are not ;
and if they are not ministers, they are not ministers.
They are " assKiciations," as Dr. Potts says, and
preachers, as everybody hears.
t Oh no ! not " nothhig." They are " Prelatists"
{he meaiis Episcopalians), or dissenters, or schis
matics, or good people in error, or very exceUent
people who deny a part of the Gospel, or men stri
ving; in earnest to be Christians, but led astray by
preachers and books, as many temptations lead men
asfray from other things which are Christian. A
young man might be in earnest, and, on the whole,
an upright and almost a sincere Christian ; but sup
pose he yield to a temptation to indulge in too
free a use of wine. Is he, therefore, to be told he
must be a temperance man or nothing ? Cannot a
man be a Christian if he belong to the Church, i. e.,
Christ's Temperance Society, without being a mem
ber of man's technical temperance society? True
¦enough, in some sects he cannot ; for they do not
mind, being already broken, how many bombshells
in the shape of abolition, total abstinence, &c., they
throw into the so-called Churches. But the sport
will soon be over; for no powder can be effective
where nothing remains to be blown to pieces.
t We here aver, and at all times, in aU ways, and
in all places are ready to maintain, that not a solitary
sohd argument for Presbyterianism can be brought
«ither from history or from Scnpture ; the novelty
being totally unknown (till 1517) to either, and pure
ly of man's invention. It cannot, with even a shad
ow of truth, after the first clouds are brushed away,
be maintained ; and every word of this we say and
will prove, when required, with Acts, xui., 1 ; 1 1 im.,
iv 14 (fee - St. Jerome and the Papists, Luther and
Calvin, Dr. Miller and Dr. Mason, Dr. Potts and our
future " opponents," for we await the onset, before
our eyes '

felt called upon — at least in this form-^to bring
it before the public. But when a war of exter
mination is commenced, and the most bold and
repeated efforts are made to destroy the minis
terial standing, and, of course, the moral influ
ence, of large bodies of the Christian commu
nity, by representing them as " gross impos
tors," "usurpers," "unauthorized intruders,"
&c., &c. (I need not repeat the whole of the
Christian-like and liberal appeUations), longer
sUence becomes treason to the truth-*
But, as I have before hinted, that which gives
to this discussion its greatest importance is
the fact that, in order to vindicate the exclusive
pretensions by which so large a multitude of
Christians in past and present times are cut off
from the covenant of God, it is necessary for
these aspersers of their Christian brethren to
adopt principles most dangerous, and, in some
cases, fatal, to the vital interests of Christiani^
ty itself This our readers have seen in the
progress of the discussion. In the first place,
the very position they assume at once degrades
the essentials of the Christian faith to a level
with its accidents. The letter and the spirit,
the form and the thing contained in the form,
the substance and the shadow, aro confounded,
and men are taught to regard them as alike es
sential. Nay, if we consider the perpetual din
which is kept up about the form,t the loud and
incessant cries of " Bishop," and " Church,"
and " Apostohcal succession," we have good
reason to fear that these things are held to be
the most vital of any in the whole range of
Christian truth, and are reminded of those of
old who counted the tithing of mint, cummin,
and anise, as mere essential than the weightier
matters of the law to the right serving of God.
Besides this sad fact, we have also seen that
in the process of proving some of their points,
our opponents have rashly dared to tamper with
the very evidences upon which we believe the
Word of God to be true, and to affirm that we
have lU) better reason to believe in its truth
than we have to believe that they individually
are lineal descendants, by an untainted hne,
from the Apostles Peter and Paul ; and, finally,
after having thus shaken the supports of Chris
tianity itself, as if that would strengthen the
supports of his own " succession," my opponent,
in one of his last " Essays," prepares his reader

* " Longer silence becomes treason to the tru^h,"
and, therefore, we strive in this matter to open peo
ple's eyes by saying things exactly as they are.. Nor
shall we stoop to apologize for telling the truth,
since two hundred years' comparative silence on this
point have shattered tliis country with every kind of
religious earthquake, tempest, whirlwind, and tor
nado; for Mormonism, Millerism, spuitual marria
ges, cant and nonsense, the spirit of the devil walk
ing in the clothes, nay, hardly that ! of angels of
light ; these and countless horrors have sprung, one
and all, from leaping over that pale which the Lord
set, " Hitherto, and no farther."
t The reason of this is, these things are now de
nied every day, and must, therefore, be daily proved.
-Who would have said a word about the Apostolic
succession in the first fifteen hundred years, when
all received it ? When all the clergy preached the
Church, Leighton said, "Let on^ preach Christ."
Now, since all the dissenters preacA Christ continu
ally, let the " molecule" say something about that
part of Christ and him crucified, called His spouse,
His bride, His body, and His Church.

143

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

for the weakness of his forthcoming Scriptural
arguments by weakening* the Scriptural evi
dence for certain great truths, which he teUs
us are not to be found any more plainly declared
in the Word of God than is his fundamental
doctrine of the indispensableness of Prelacy.
I desire the reader to consider these circum
stances carefully ; they, are not only symptom
atic of a curious condition of the reasoning fac
ulty, but they render it impossible for an un
prejudiced man to entertain any great degree
of respect for i theory which is obliged to re
sort to such desperate means of support.
It was not at aU my original purpose to enter
into the arguments as between Prelacy, and
parity, but solely to expose the evils of an ex
clusive theory of Church order. And if I depart
from ray purpose so far as to investigate that
subject very briefly, I hope my reader wiU not
imagine that I am about to be seduced into an
imitation of my opponent's unchurching spirit,
and intend to set up any proud and unchristian
claims in favour of my own preferences. My
sole object -wiU be to exhibit the objections we
have to Prelatic views, and, on the other hand,
the reasons for the doctrine of rainisterial pari
ty, for the sole purpose of showing how httle
reason my opponent and his friends have for
dogmatising, and casting off as dead branches
those who do not accord with him in his theo
ries of Church government. Nor do I mean to
enter largely into the subject, for neither my
inclination nor pressing vocations wiU permit
it. I wUl follow, as nearly as possible, the
track of my opponent, in doing which I shaU
often feel that I have little else to do but to
contradict, in brief terms, assertions which he
has advanced without proof Mere contradic
tion is as good as mere assertion.
It must have struck enfery one that he is
rather slow in his approach to the Scriptural
argument. Is this from a consciousness that it
is not quite so overpowering as to justify his
bold inference that the Word of God makes
Prelacy essential to the very existence of the
Christian Church ? At any rate, he finds it ne
cessary to cast up his intrenchments at a con
siderable distance from the main fortress, and
to marshal an array of presumptive arguments,
to which I turn in the first place.
1. We are told to reflect upon the fact that
three quarters, if not more, of Christendom are
now under the Prelatical form of government,
and thatf in eve*y case, a succession from the
Apostles is claimed, t I may make brief work
with this — argument shall I caU it ? It is meant
as such, else why should it be named? It is
not worthy of notice, but let us treat it better
than it deserves.
In a case in which a usurpation is affirmed

* Dr. Wainwright does not weaken them. He
says they are equally strong; and all so strong, that
neither the Deist nor Dr. Potts can shake one or the
other. t Whence this claim ? whence this abiding sense
in the Church of her own perpetuity? The sects
have it not. The Methodists had their first centen
nial cele-bration a few years ago ; and the sects cele
brate the Reformation as their origin. When did
the Church celebrate as her birth-year and birth
place anything but A.D, 1 to 300— Jerusalem and
Antioch ?

to have taken place, the extent to which the-
usurpation has been carried is surely no evi
dence in favour of its justice. The mere cir
cumstance that an opinion or a practice prevails
very extensively is not always, or even gener
ally, a proof that it has its foundation in truth.
Republicans must beUeve this, or they must at
once concede the superiority of the monarchi
cal* principle, to which the " quod semper, quod
ubique, quod ab omnibus" rule applies with far
greater force than to Prelacy. The greater
part of mankind have acknowledged the kingly
government, ergo, it is the exclusively tme form
of government. WiU my opponent admit the-
force of his own argument should we apply it
to the prevalent usages of the Greek and Ro
mish Churches ? - Does the number of persons-
who acknowledge a Pope,t or practise image:
or picture worship, or believe in the mass, pur
gatory, invocation of saints, &c.. Sec, prove the-
truth of these tenets, or even their Apostohcal
antiquity ? Numbers raay give power to an er
ror, but they cannot consecrate or change itS'
nature. We can therefore entertain no respect
for the claims of Prelacy, or of any other formi
of polity, if its mere prevalence be relied upon as
evidence in its favour. Show us that monarchy
has uniformly been the best guardian of human.
rights, and that Prelacy has best sustained an,
inteUigent piety in the Church, and we will
then examinet their clairas with profound re
spect. We win not then wonder^ at their prev
alence, but bow to them as possessing the best
seal that heaven could affix to them.
2. Another presumptive argument in favour
of the exclusive clairas of Prelacy is the allega
tion that, "as far back as history can trace,
everywhere and at aU tiraes, the universal

* Denied. There were republics ^nd not mpn-
archies at Rome, Athens, Sparta — aU over Greece,
&c., &c. What ! does Dr. Potts mean to say that
monarchy has prevailed from the creation, " at all
times, in all places, and among all persons ?" Sure-
lyit was penncB lapsus. That stroke of the goose-.
quill was not aimed at immortaUty. Now we have
disproved his position by the Greek and Roman
facts, &c., then let him disprove ours — viz., from.
Christ and the Apostles up to 1517. Episcopacy in-
Christendom was received semper, ubique et ab omni
bus — all times, places, and persons. Why not dis
prove false statements by facts ? We surely set Dr.
Potts a pretty good example in the fact line.
t On the contrary; the "semper," &c., rule de
stroys the Pope. He was not always received, nor in
all places, nor by all. Nay, this very rule demolishes,
every one of the superstitions here mentioned, and
leaves Episcopacy unscathed. Dr. Potts reasons
only from one clause of the rule. Let people mark
this rule and its three clauses well. It is an invin
cible destroyer of uncatholic fictions, both, popish
and sectarian, subtractive and additional. Dr. Potts
really can do better than this; but his party zeal has
devoured his logic. He is not on other subjects so
weak a reasoner as he appears on this.
t You " will examine?" — i. e., you never have ex
amined. We expected as much ; but it is neverthe
less a remarkable confession, that one who professes
to hold a heavenly office never has examined every
kind of commission for it, and especially neglected
that which eleven twelfths of all Christians now, and
all Christians for 1500 years, hold and held to be the
only commission.
^ " Wonder !" It would be weU if this " wonder"
led you to " examine" why all the changes are into
the Church, and none out of it.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

14S

iOhurch knew only of a threefold ministry, and
of Bishops ruling and ordaining as the succes
sors of the Apostles." It is not worth while to
express surprise,* or we would do so, at the
wholesale nature of this assertion. We have
had the same assertion in various other forms,
during this and other discussions. Thus, my
opponent, looking with pride at the inscription
on his shield, " No Church, no Bishop," affirmed
that it was the unchaUenged motto of the Cath
olic Church for fifteen hundred years, i. e., until
the Reformation. He means, of course, that
Prelacy was the unquestioned form of the poli
ty of the Church during the first, second,. and
aU succeeding centuries. We deny this flatly ;
and might rest our denial upon the simple fact
that numbers ofthe most learned scholars have
arrayed the strongest testimony to the contrary,
and that among these scholars are to be found
eminent Episcopal -writers. Their concessions
to this effect are exceedingly numerous. How,
then, can ray opponent assert so confidently
that not " the slightest trace can be found to
indicate" the rise of Prelacy, and that " the
universal Church, everywhere and at aU times,
knew only of a threefold ministry" and the su
premacy of Bishops, when so raany proofs to
the contrary can be brought frora the pages of
the Fatherst of the first two centuries to prove
that the only Episcopacy was a parish Episco
pacy ? Even at a later period, when, as we ac
knowledge. Prelacy had been generaUy estab-
lished^-through means which we wiU advert to
in another place — we find satisfactory proof
that the diocesan principle, which gave large
powers exclusively to one raan, was considered
a matter of custom and expediency, and not of
Scriptural authority. The well-known testirao
ny of Jerome,t so early as A,D. 380 — more
than fourteen hundred years ago — establishes
this fact, as we conceive, beyond dispute. This
writer is described by Erasraus as the most
learned of aU the Christians, the -prince of di
vines, and for eloquence excelling Cicero, In
his commentary upon Titus h£ has the follow
ing passages : " A Presbytei^herefore, is the
same as a Bishop ; and before there were, by
the devil's instigation, parties in religion, and
it was said araong the people, I am of Paul, I
of ApoUos, and I of Cephas, the Churches
WERE GOVERNED BY THE CoMMON CoUNCIL OF
Peesbytebs, But afterward, when every one
thought that those whom he baptized were
rather his than Christ's, it was determined
through the whole world that one of the Pres-
* To disprove it would accomplish more than to
" express surprise."
t Look out for St. Jerome !
t Observe well : in this long paragraph. Dr. Potts
tells us how many (some thousands, perhaps, but we
do not know, and patiently await Dr. Potts's show
ing, for they are a secret locked up with hmj)— hovv
many testimonies, and writers, and arguments, and
Fathers might be brought; and immediately we ex
pect St. Jerome ; and lo ! here he comes, all alone,
angry with the Roman Deacons, and tired qf being
caUed out so often, for having just dropped a half
Presbyterian idea in a passion ; stiU, even m this
weary and lonesomequotation, a good, sounAChnrch-
man - and, when he can keep under the indignation
roused by the insolence of the Romish Deacons, as
bad a Puseyite as the very best and soundest of^the
Oxfqrd men (see Bowden's Letters).

byters should be set above the rest." He their
gives the Scriptural evidence for the identity
of Bishop and Presbyter, and proceeds : "These
things I have written to show that, among the
ancients [i. c, evidently the earUer times of
the Church], Presbyters and Bishops were the
same. But, paulatim, little by little, that all
the seeds of dissension might be plucked up",
the whole care was devolved on one. As,
therefore, the Presbyters know that by the cus
tom of the Church they are subject to him who
is their president, so let Bishops know that they
are above Presbyters more by the custom of
THE CaJJKOH than by the true dispensation of
CHEis^if." In his epistle to Evagrius he repeats
these sentiments,
I have designedly omitted numerous other
quotations from the early Christian writers,.
because there is not room* for them here, and
because any one who wishes to examine them
thoroughly will find them in various accessible
works, in which they are coUected. One such-
testimony as that of Jerome is sufficient to es
tablish the fact that Prelacy was not the un- ,
chaUenged constitution of the Church up to the
times ofthe Apostles ; but that there was a time
when the doctrine of ministerial equaUty was
universaUy recognised, and that the opposite
doctrine came in " httle by little," until, at the
close of the third century, it was generaUy, if
not universaUy prevalent. In this connexion,
we might, but for the want of room, state the
very satisfactory evidence that the primitive
Churches of Gaul, Alexandria, Egypt, Bavaria,
Scythia, of the Culdees in Scotland and Ireland,
the Paulician, jErian, and Vaudois Churches,,
were decidedly recusant upon the subject of
Prelacy. Whoever desires to see tliis evi
dence coUated, may refer to Dr. Smith's late
work on " Prelacy and' Presbytery." It breaks-
the neck of my opponent's presumptive argu
ment, in which he cooUy claims an unchallen
ged antiquity for the exclusive ruling and or
daining power of Prelates as distinct from Pres
byters. With these facts in view, let the reader de
cide upon the temerity with which it has been
asserted by my opponent and others, that the
peculiar powers of ordination and government
have been "always and everywhere" in the-
hands of a superior order of clergy.
3, The next presumptive argument which
we are to consider is one upon which the advo
cates of Prelacy rest very much of the strength
of their cause. It is the acknowledged antiqui
ty of this form of government. Let us state
the argmnent in the language of a writer whom
my opponent quotes. Speaking of the changp
in the order of the Church, which, as we af
firm, took place subsequent to the time, and
without the sanction of the Apostles, he says,
" Such a revolution, one of the most extensive,
and important which are pretended to have
taken place in any period of the history of the
world, accomplished in hundreds of places at

* We are sorry there was not " room." We
should have been glad of these " quotations," for ia
our scrap-book they are a rarity. Perhaps Dr. Potts
will give us the "quotations from the early Chris
tian writers," and mention the names of the " vari
ous accessible works" hereafter. They would in-

144

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

the same moment, and acquiesced in by thou
sands and tens of thousands of men, of every
language and country, was effected amid a si
lence so deep and unnatural, that not only were
the actors in it apparently unconscious of their
own deed, but the whole world conspired to
gether, ever after, to suppress the memory bf
it, so that, in all the voluminous records, of Chris
tian antiquity, there is not so much as one passing
Elusion to it."
The italics in the above quotation are my
own. Let me direct the reader's attention to
the underscored words, because they furnish a
•Speciraen of unscrupulous assertion, equal to
any upon record. 'The unworthy arts of con
troversy are very numerous, but there is no art
liere. It is all plain, unblushing misstatement.
The alleged revolution in the polity of the
•Church was effected amid a deep silence I And
in aU the voluminous records of Christian an
tiquity there is not so much as " a passing al
lusion" to it ! Strange indeed is the rashness
or the ignorance which could venture upon aver-
j-nents so positive, yet so unfounded.
We deny the fact of any such deep silence ;
-we deny altogether that there are no " no pass
ing aUusions" in the records of Christian an
tiquity to prove that a decided difference exist-
«d between the polity of the first two and sub
sequent centuries. Had this writer forgotten
the doctrines of .(Erius ? Or has he never read,
in Bishop Burnet's observations on the first
¦canon, the express quotations not only from
Jerome (this we have already considered), but
from Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, 'The-
•odoret, Primasius, and Sedulius, who all con-
eurred with ^rius* in denying the Divine right
of Prelacy? Is this deep silence? Is the
assertion of Jerome, advanced as it is with the
¦utmost assurance of its truth, and contradicted
¦by no writer of his time, " that by little and
little" the superiority of Prelates came to be ac
knowledged as a remedy for schism (a remedy,
"by-the-way, which the Episcopal Dr. Whitaker
pronounces worse than the disease, since the
same remedy brought in the Pope), to be con-
-sidered as undeserving of a controversialist's
attention, or had Mr, Marshall, who makes the
bold assertion, never heard of these things?
So much for the position that the rise of the
Prelatical system took place amid "a deep
silence."  1  :  , 

* Aerius, being a heretic, we would pass him by ;
but will Dr. Potts furnish us with the "quotations"
from "Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret,"
&c., &c. ? for we cannot find them. They did not
¦deny the Divine right of Bishops, except Aerius, who
was immediately condemned as a heretic for it. Dr.
Potts will allow that the condemnation of the here
tic Arius by the Nicene , Council, A.D. 325, is good
.proof that t,he Catholic Church believed the Holy
Trinity ; just so, the condemnation of Aerius, who
afterw.ird became also an Arian, is proof that Epis
copacy was part of the Catholic Faith. Besides,
Aerius himself coveted a bishopric, and in the bitter
ness of baffled ambition advanced this heretical doc
trine* * See p. 263, Notes on the Episcopal Polity of the Holy
Cathohc Church, <fcc,, by Thomas William Marshall, B,A.,
Ac, edited by Dr. Wainwrif ht. New-York, D. Appleton
A Co. By-the-way. it is a great comfort in these days to
see so many Valuable works issued by these enterprising
puhlJBliera. It is a consolatory " sign of the timcB,"

But even admitting,'as we do not, that we have
not " even one passing allusion" to prove that
a radical change in the constitution of the min
istry had taken place in the course of three cen
turies, even then we should not be particularly
puzzled to account for the phenomenon. For
this single reason, if we had no other, that other
and more monstrous changes in Apostolic doc
trine and order gradually grew up in the Church
at an early period, and without any record of
violent opposition being made against their in
troduction. Such was the case with the pri
macy of the iBishop of Rome. Romanists affirm
the • same absence of violent opposition, as an
evidence that the ecclesiastical superiority* of
the See of Rome was acknowledged from the
beginning. The same is true of other errors
for which Roraanists claim the uncontradicted
evidence, positive and negative, of all antiquity.
Looking at the prevalent usages of the ninth
and tenth centuries, when "the mystery of
iniquity," already at work even in the Apostles'
days, had put forth its giant branches, the ques
tion is triumphantly put by the advocates ofthe
Papacy, How can you account for the existence
of these things except upon the supposition that
they had existed from the beginning ? If there
be any weight in the argument derived from
" comparative silence," let our Romanist friends
have the benefit of it, as well as Dr. Wain
wright. -" But what Protestant wiU find any diflir
culty in resisting the evidence, of "all antiqui
ty," if it conflict with the plaiil authority ofthe
Word of God?
Furthermore, let it be considered that this
change came in, as Jerome affirms, little by little,
and its progress is less wonderful. When we
know that the prominent places in the Church
were probably occupied by the most exalted
talent that could be found, and that the weak
and persecuted Churches would naturally look
to the protection ofthe most able advocates of
the Christian faith — that even the moral exdel-
lencest of these prominent men would -add to
the growth of a|eir influence^and, above all,
that the love o^ower is natural to the human
breast, we have an abundantly sufficient ex
planation of the gradual rise of imparity. Bish
ops not only, but Archbishops, Metropolitans,
Patriarchs, and finally Popes, are the full-blown
flowers of a root which began to germinate at
a very early age. For even in the presence of
the Redeemer, the sons of Zebedee aspired to
a lofty rank in his kingdom ; and among his
very Apostles " there was a strife which should
be greatest." Before Paul departed to his rest,
he 'had occasion to reprove the aspiring pride
ofthe exclusive Diotriphes, and to warn minis
ters against "lording it over God's heritage."
What do tliese facts prove ?
Many practices, which Protestants at least
regard as abuses, such as administering the
Eucharist to infants (spoken of by Cyprian in
the third century, and by Augustine shortly

? On the contrary, when the emperor wished to
prevail oh John, Bishop of Constantinople, to assume
the title^of Universal Bishop, he refused, declaring
that he would not be guilty of that sin. So it was
left for Boniface to do it afterward.
t Just now their " moral excellences" were all
vices. But that way suited Dr. Potts's argument
better then, as this way does now.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

145

afterward, as an "Apostolical tradition," a
"general custom"), together with prayers for
the dead, &c,, arose at an early age, and we
are not able to date their origin. But does this
" silence" prove th-em of Divine appointment ?
Can we believe that the Apostles would have
countenanced them ? Yet here is a change not
more easijy explained than the change from
ministerial parity to ministerial imparity— from
parochial to diocesan Episcopacy.
Many other considerations might be adduced
to remove any surprise at the early introduction
of principles which many Christians believe to
be unfriendly to the interests of the Christian
Church. But they are not necessary to con
vince any one who wiU weigh those we have
already hinted at, I will merely add here, that
-we need not go farther than to the history of
Prelacy in this nation for an instance of the
.rapid, and comparatively uncontradicted growth
of Prelatical prerogative. It is a fact not com
monly known, and for which,I give Dr. White,
late Prelate in Pennsylvania, as authority (see
his Memoirs, &c.), that, after the Revolution,
the project of introducing " Bishops" into this
country gave rise to a violent opposition. The
House of Burgesses in Virginia (a state in
which Prelacy had once been the established
religion) objected strenuously to the plan of in
troducing them, as " a pernicious project." In
this opposition. Episcopalians in other parts of
the land joined those in Virginia, and the above-
¦named respected writer, Dr. White, declares
that such was the prejudice of Episcopalians*
*' against the name, and much more against the
.office of a Bishop, that but for the introduction
,of the laity into the government ofthe Church,
no general organization would probably have
been formed," Thus modified in some degree
iy the popular principle, it was at last carried,
.and Dr. White and two others were sent to
England to be made Prelates. Now, in Uttle
jnore than 50 years, look at the developments
of Episcopal power. In one state convention,
the Prelate claimed the right of deciding who
should sit as members ; and by a vote of three
to one, it was accorded to him. In another
state the Prelate has an absolute veto power,
.and was made " the judge in aU ecclesiastical
trials." Prelates are responsible only to Prel
ates. In convention they sit apart from their
¦clergy and the laity. Their power to interfere
in the settlement of ministers, and to prevent a
minister, and (as a late instance proves) even
a " Bishop," from officiating within the bounds
-of their dioceses, is weU known. And finally,
as if to prove that no common authority is
latent under the mitre, and only waits oppor
tunity for its exercise, the reader is requested
to recall the history of the late convention in
this city. I cannot more appropriately close
these remarks upon the presumptive argument
we have been considering, than in the signifi
cant language of an Episcopalian, the Rev. Dr.
Hawks, late of this city— language which fully
explains the possible rise and progress of Prel
acy in an early age, and which also finds a
most forcible illustration in the facts just cited.
" Power," says he, " always passes ' slowly and

sUently, and without much notice,' from the
hands of the many to the few ; and all history
shows that ecclesiastical domination grows up
little by little. The overwheUning tyranny
from which the Reformation freed the Protest
ant Church grew up by this paulatim (little by
little) process."
4, I had intended to notice one other pre
sumptive proof adduced by my opponent, viz,,
the favourable opinions entej-tained by Luther,
Melancthon, Calvin, and Zuingle towards Prel
acy. But as he gives no evidence of this, I
shall simply take the liberty of denying* the
statement. To prove the Presbyterian princi
ples of those men is indeed a work of superero
gation. Having now disposed of the presumptive, I
will next pay my respects to the direct proof
adduced by my opponent, ever keeping in my
reader's view that all that I may say in reply
to the argument for Prelacy is meant to show
that the evidence for it is at least not so abso-
lutelyi conclusive as to justify the unchurching
dogma. Geokge Potts.
Thursday, March 14.

* How evident that this prejudice was simply
against everything that seemed to be English, and
hat it was a child of revolution.
T

No. VII.
Veky large bodies of Christian men, in past
and present tiraes — men of profound inteUi
gence and piety — men who cannot, even if they
were disposed, escape from responsibUity by
creeping out at the respectable opening which
our High Church exclusives so kindly offer ; 1
mean the plea of ignorance — men who, by their
writings and other labours, have illustrated
those grand doctrines of Christianity which
they have also exemplified by their lives — men
who have lived and died, performing the duties
and enjoying the consolations of religion — men
who, to judge by their sacrifices, have felt the
profoundest affection for the Church of God —
such men, and those who have received their
teachings, never were in that Church at aU,
but lived in open rebellion against the plainest
requirements of Heaven ; and all this solely be
cause they could not believe that Prelacy is the
only, or even the best constitution for the
Church of Christ, Their ministry, their ordi
nances, their government, are aU essentially
vitiated, and their hope of heaven, at the best,
so doubtful that it has become the duty of Chris
tian charity to proclaim the fact in " the streets
of Askalon," from the pulpit, the press, and the
dinner-table.t We ask. Ought not the proof of a proposition,
involving consequences so. evidently contradic
tory to the common sense and common sensi
bilities of mankind, to carry with them the force
of demonstration ? There is no such evidence.
I think it wiU be clear to the cool observer, that
the towering pride of High Church exclusive
ness rests upon a basis so contracted as to, de-

* If Dr. P. will take the trouble to refer to Mar
shall's Notes, chap, iv., he will find enough to make
him retract this denial. There he will find the
words of Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Peter
Martyr, Martin Bucer, &c. Zuinghus was, indeed,
a violent Presbyterian ; but Melancthon says he was
mad. t Notice carefully this acknowledgment.
i Here comes the New-England dinner again.

146

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

serve the derision of aU who pretend to the pos
session of inteUigence,* combined with candour.
It is, indeed, a most significant fact, and shows
the doubtful nature of his proofs, that the course
of my opponent's argument is so irregular, con
fused, and circuitous, t From the Fathers to
Scripture, and back again to the Fathers — from
assertions to probabilities, and then to possibil
ities — this is the course of his logic. It is not
his fault so much as the fault of the cause he
has undertalcen to establish, viz., exclusive Prel
acy. After labouring through several essays to
prove what is not disputed, that Christ institu
ted a ministry which was to be perpetuated to
the end of time, he recurs to the evidence of
this undisputed point, as if it were equally con
clusive in support of the point at issue, which
is, to show that Scripture absolutely requires
that this ministry should be constituted in three
orders, to the highest of which alone, as heirs
of the Apostolic office, belong the powers of
ruling and ordaining. 'This is the theory. It is
now my object, without farther preface,! to ex
amine the very circuitous and attenuated line
of arguraents by which ray opponent endeav
ours to make it out.
Let it be first carefully noted, that the later
advocates of Prelacy have greatly modified the
argument which was once relied on to estab
lish their views. It is now expressly conceded
that the Bishops mentioned in the New Testa
ment were not the types of our modem Prelates,
and that all that is said of " Bishops" in Scrip
ture " is to be regarded as pertaining to the
second grade," viz., Peesbyters. This is, in
amount, to say, that if we are to find the first
order anywhere in Scripture, it must be in the
Apostles, who, having succeeded to the author
ity of Christ, have transmitted their official su
periority — i. e., the exclusive right of ruUng and
ordainiag — to certain successors, who do not,
indeed, bear the name of Apostles, but (out of
modesty, or, perhaps, policy) have taken one
ofthe names belonging to the " second grade,"^
In relation to this strange and unauthorized
transfer of names — ^whieh, by-the-way, has in
troduced a great confusionll into the subject it
self—we shall have some remarks to make at a
future time. The first question to be disposed
of is, whether the Apostles, as Apostles, have
any successors. If the office which they held
as Apostles was extraordinary and temporary,
the notion of successors is absurd. I wiU let
the well-known Prelatist, Dr. Barrow, settle
this question :
" The ApostoUc office, as such, was personal
and temporary ; and therefore, according to its
nature and design, not successive, nor coramuni-
cable to others in perpetual descendence from

•* No doubt the "inteUigence," "candour," and
" piety" are 411 on the right side.
+ Look at the Essays, and judge for yourself.
i It is an old custom to put the preface at the be
ginning. 4 Very well staled. Theodoret says it is exactly so.
II " Great confusion" in the minds of our Presby
terian friends ; but how simple the matter reaUy is.
Thus, in the Bible :

them. It was, as such, in all respects extraor
dinary ; conferred in a special manner, designed
for special purposes, discharged by special aids,
endowed with special privUeges, as was need
ful for the propagation of Christianity and the-
founding of Churches. To that office it was
requisite that the person should have an imme
diate designation and commission from God;
that he should be endowed with miraculous
gifts and graces ; that he should be able, ac
cording to his discretion, to impart spiritual
gifts ; and that he should govern in an absolute
manner, as being guided by infalUble assist
ance, to -which he might appeal. Now such aa
office, consisting of so many extraordinary priv
ileges and miraculous powers, which were re
quisite for the foundation of the Church, was
not designed to continue by derivation, for it con
tained in it divers things which apparently were
not communicated, and which no man, without
gross imposture and hypocrisy, could challenge
to himself."— (Pope's Supremacy, 122, 123, N.
Y. edit.)*
In addition to these peculiarities of the Apos
toUc office is to be specially noted one other,,
which is frequently referred to in Scripture.
The Apostles were set apart as pre-erainently
"the vntnesses of Christ's resurrection." The-
passages in which this is distinctly stated are
too numerous to be quoted. See Matt., x., 1-6 ;,
Luke, vi., 12-17 ; Acts, i., 21, 22 ; Luke, xxiv.,
48; Acts, xxii., 14, 15; Acts, XXiii., 11 ; Acts,
xxvi., 16, &c., &c.
Now it is clearly necessary for those who
claim a succession from the Apostles, as such,
to prove their claim by giving us " the signs of
an Apostle." Who can do this? Who of our
modern Apostles can, at his discretion, commu
nicate spiritual gifts and graces, and prove that
he has done so ? Who of them can say, " Have
I not seen the Lord ?" Who of them claim in
spiration, and rule by a plenary authority?
But it may be affirmed that a part of the
Apostolic powers may have ceased, and yet a
part have been transmitted. Let this be grant
ed. In what way, by what rule shaU we decide
the question, how much of the authority given
them has been handed down to future times ?
Clearly, by the terms of the final commission in
which the perpetuity of the ministry is impUed.
What they were commissioned to do is there
expressly stated : " preach the Gospel ; teach
men to observe, &,c. ; baptize." ItfoUows, we
think, -without the need of an argument, that as
the successors ofthe Apostles can succeed un
der this commission only, atid as this commis
sion specifies no other duties or rights which
do not (my opponent being judge) belong as weU
to Presbyters as to Prelates, it foUows, I say,
that if they have successors at all. Presbyters
are quite as much entitled to be so considered
as Prelates. The commission — in which, by-
the-way, we should naturally have looked for
the chartered rights of Prelacy, if anywhere —
contains not a syllable that seems like a dis-

* Dr. Barrow wUl hardly convince even Dr. Potts
that Matthias was not the successor of Judas. Bar
row is contending against Papal assumptions. He
is sound enough on the Episcopacy.
Jewish Orderi. ChriatiaD Onlers. Fint Age. AOer Aget.
1. High-Priest. I. Christ the High-Priest, Chief Shepherd, and Bishop. 1. Apostles or Angels, &c. 1, Bishops.
2. Priests. 2. Twelve Apostles, and twalYo added. 2. Bishops or Presbyters. 2. Presbyters-
^. Levites. 3. Seventy Disciples. 3. Deacons. 3. Deacons.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

147

tinction of grades among those to whom it was
given, or was to be given.
Besides this, we affirm that there is no other
place in Scripture in which the exclusive rights
of ruling, ordaining, confirming,* &c., are spe-
cificaUy given to the Apostles, and directed to
be handed down to a superior order of the min
istry. We do not ask for an express direction
to this amount ; we are wiUing to take a plain
inference ; but there is not an instance, as we
contend, in which it can be even clearly infer
red. A very extraordinary fact, if the order of
Prelates with peculiar powers be so " essential
to the Church" that there can be no Church
-without a Prelate.
It has been asserted, indeed, and with a con
fidence which to us seems so strange that we
can account for it only by supposing that, those
who make the assertion enter upon the exami
nation of the Scripture evidence after their eye-
sightt has been spoUed by too much reading of
the Nicene Fathers — it has been asserted that
we have sufficient inferential proof to convince
us that it was the intention of Christ and his
Apostles to establish three orders in the minis
try, the first only having the right to rule, or
dain, &c. We ask, then, what are these Infer
ential proofs? Are they such as wiU satisfy
any candid man, and, above aU, do they leave
the subject of Prelacy as perfectly clear as the
subject ofthe Divinity ofthe Redeemer and of
the Holy Spirit ? This is the monstrous asser
tion of my opponent, and of his school general
ly. Let us examine the proofs he adduces, which
are the only Scriptural proofs that can be offered,
for we may be very certain that if there were
any others, " the Essays" would have contained
them. I propose to study the utmost brevity, t
partly because a brief review of these proofs is
quite sufficient to show their insufficiency, and
partly because a full examination of them can
be made by any one who will refer to some of
the numerous works in which they are discuss
ed at length. Let me specify Mason, MiUer,
Smyth, Barnes, and Coleman, as the most ac
cessible. I. The case of Matthias is the first of these
inferential proofs. But what does this case es
tablish ? At the most, that two persons were
elected by the disciples to the office vacated by
Judas, one of whom was miraculously designa
ted as his successor. It was simply the filling
up of a vacancy for the specific purpose of rais
ing up "a witness of the resurrection." This
falls far short of the point to be proved, viz.,
that modern Prelates are the successors of the
Apostles, or that Apostles, as distinct from
Presbyters, had the exclusive right to mle, or
dain, <&c. We may therefore disraiss this case,
as not furnishing even plausible evidence in
support ofthe unchurching dograa.
II. The caUing of the Apdsths Paul is next
assumed by my opponent as evidence that
"there can be no Church without a Prelate ;"

* Yet who but Apostles actuaUy ruled, ordained,
confirmed, &c. ? See New Testament, passim, as al
ready often quoted.
t It does try a man's eyes to read the old editions
of the Greek Fathers. Perhaps this may be the rea
son that Presbyterians have derived so Uttle benefit
from those musty old books.
J Sad failure in the execution of a good purpose !

in other words, that the Apostolic office is per
petuated in the persons of modern Prelates.
But again we ask. In what respect was the caU
ing of the Apostle Paul like the calling of our
modern Apostles? It. was in no sense "of
men" or "from men."* It was miraculous.
And the facti^at Pai^limay have exercised,
sometimes alone- t,^''si<imetimes in conjunction
with others, the power of ordination, by no
means demonstrates the real point to be proved,
viz., that none but Apostlest could " ordain or
rule." This needs no . argument. We raay
adrait the first, without admitting the second.
But what shaU we say to Barnabas ? He is
caUed an Apostle, and, in the journey refen-ed
to in Acts, xiii, and xiv., united with Paul in
" ordaining Elders in every Church." Why do
this, asks my opponent, if Elders or Presbyters
were competent to the work of ordaining ?
We answer the last question first. Before
Presbyters could ordain, it strikes one as neces
sary that they should first be made Presbyters ;
and to make Presbyters was one of the -very
objects of this journey. It is absurd, therefore,
to ask why Presbyters did not ordain, when
they were not in existence, and when the ob
ject ofthe missionary journey of Paul and Bar
nabas was to give them existence. That El
ders did ordain, we shaU see hereafter.
But Barnabas, who joined with Paul in or
daining these Elders, is called " an Apostle,"
therefore the Apostles and their " successors"
have the sole right of ordaining, ruling, &c.
Another non sequitur. This perpetual begging
of the question is unworthy of sensible men.
Apostles ordained ; therefore they alone ordain
ed ; therefore Prelates alone can ordain, Q.E.D.
Between the premise and conclusion there is
" a gap" wider than that of which ray opponent
informed us in a previous " Essay."
A word or two in relation to the title of
"Apostle" given to Barnabas. Is it given in
the strict or lax sense of the word 1 It means,
literaUy, " one who is sent." And as Paul and
Barnabas were " sent" upon this tour, by the
special direction of the Spirit, and with the lay
ing on of the hands of certain " prophets and
teachers" who were in the Church at Antioch,
there was no impropriety in giving to both this
title, although it is clear frora the whole Scrip
ture history that, in the technical sense of the
word, Paul was an "Apostle" and Bamabast
was not. The latter is so caUed in a single in
stance, the former in raany. The latter, was
not an eyewitness^ of the resurrection, nor the
* Dr. Miller says it was of men ; for he declares
that Paul the Apostle, commissioned directly by tho
Lord, after fulfiUing his ministty, thf^W it all up
to receive Presbyterian ordmation. (See MiUer on
Acts, xiii., 1, confuted in "Episcopacy tested by
Scripture.") t Again we beg for one case of ordination except by
Apostles. t The " Apostle BamabBs" is evidently a sad stum-
blmg-block to the Presbyterian. He knows, teo,
when the word Apostle is to be strictly interpreted,
and when not, so as to suit the " right side."
^ Just now we were told that the Apostles were all
witnesses of the resurrection ; now we find that the
Apostle Barnabas was not. This is Dr. Potts versus
Dr. Potts. But, though it seems to make for the
other side, we must ask, How does Dr. Potts know-
that Barnabas was not one of the " five hundred
brethren" who saw the Lord after his remrrectioii '

148

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

bestower of miraculous gifts, nor an inspired
instructer of the Church, nor endowed with
plenary authority. He is called by this title in
precisely the same sense as those " brethren"
referred to in 2 Cor., viii., 23, who with Titus
were styled "Messengers (AposjJes) of the
Churches," because thgy had b^en sent by the
Churches to minister '¦sjtfcW^ants of Paul,
The translators of our version, although Prelat
ical in their views, very properly make the dis
tinction between the generic and specific sig
nification ofthe original word.
But even admitting that Barnabas was in
every respect as much an "Apostle" as was
Paul, and admitting that they both, singly or
together, exercised the ordaining power, the
question recurs. Does this prove that the or
daining power belonged exclusively to them as
Apostles ? And was it never meant to be ex
ercised, under a.ny future circumstances, by the
laying on ofthe hands ofthe Presbytery?* This
is the very 'point to be proved, and very evi
dently it is not proved by caUing them " Apos
tles." III. The next "demonstration'' appealed to
is the main prop of Prelatical views : it is the
case of Timothy, " Bishop of Ephesus." My
opponent, following Dr. H. U. Onderdonk in his
tract on Episcopacy, asks us to contrast the
manner in which Paul addresses the " Elders
or Bishops" of Ephesus, whom he summoned
to meet him at MUetus, with the tenour of his
epistles to Timothy himself In the first case
not a word is said about the " ordaining" pow
er ; while in the last particular instructions are
given for the exercise of it : he is " to lay hands
suddenly on no man," " to commit the sacred
message of the Gospel to faithful men, who
shall be able to teach," &c.
In answer, we say, 1. That Timothy was an
extraordinary agent of the Apostle Paul, and
was left at Ephesus upon a specific business,
viz., to rectify disorders, administer discipline,
and, if necessary, to ordain elders and deacons.
Timothy, in short, was an evangeUst, and is
expressly so baUed in the 2d Epistle, iv., 5, an
office well known in the Church, as in some
things distinct from Apostles, prophets, and
teachers. " And„he gave some Apostles, and
some evangelists, and some prophets, and some
pastors and teachers" (Eph., iv., 11). As an'
evangelist, a Presbyter evangeUst, there is
nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of min
isterial parity in supposing that he exercised
the power of ordination as a delegate of the
Apostle ; more especially in a Church which,
it appears, was in considerable disorder, and
needed the wise management of some confi
dential coworker of the Apostle. He confided
in Timothy, and in his own absence committed
the work to him.*
2. That he was not the Prelate of Ephesus,
which implies a permanent relation, is evident
from various Scriptural facts ; as, for instance,
* We are here treated to a conjecture of what
Timothy might have been. The New Testament
calls him an Apostle (see Chapman on 1 Thess., i.,
1 ; Conf, ii., 6-18), and history declares that he was
actually Bishop of Ephesus. Now how much easier
Dr. Potts's paragraph would run on the smooth road
of Scripture and history, instead of the rough by-way
of his own conjectures.

" Paul besought him to abide stUl at Ephesus,"
where they had laboured together (a strange
thing, if he were the fixed Prelate of that Church,
to beseech him to stay at home and do his duty)/
again, Paul evidently meant that he should not
remain permanently, for he summons him to
come to him at Rome (2 Tim.,-iv., 9). Nay,
Timothy was probably not at Ephesus when he
received this second Epistle, if we may judge
from the facts that Paul informs hira that he
has sent Tychicus to Ephesus (a piece of infor
mation be was not likely to give him if he were
then residing at his " Episcopal see"), and that
he directs him to bring the cloak he left at
Troas, a place remote from Ephesus, and far
out of the way in a journey frora Ephesus to
Rome. When the Epistle to the Ephesians
was -written and sent by Tychicus, Tiraothy
was not there, for the Apostle takes no notice
of him.* ¦
Besides this, Timothy, it is weU known, was
the Apostle's companion in other places, after
he had been at Ephesus. He was not only at
Rorae vvith him during his first imprisonment,
but when the Apostle wrote to the Colossians,
Philippians, and to Philemon. Two " ancient
authors," indeed, whom Dr. StilUngfleet very
irreverently numbers among those whom he
calls "historical tinkers," teU us that ho was
martyred at Ephesus ; but that he ever even
returned to the place after having left it at the
Apostle's summons, there is not the least par
ticle of Scriptural evidence to prove. If he
were peculiarly attached to any Church, it was
to that of Philippi ; for whom, as the Apostle
Paul states, " he naturaUy" cared, and to whom,
therefore, he intended to send him.
3. That he received special instructions as to
his official and other duties, is entirely compati
ble with the fact that he was no more than a
Presbyter, invested with the special duties of
an evangelist. Eusebius expressly speaks of
Presbyter evangelists as in existence even in
his time. And that in the address to the Pres
byters of Ephesus, the Apostle gives no such
instructions as would warrant them in ordain
ing other Presbyters, is contradicted by the ad
mitted sense of the terms he there uses ; as,
for instance, he caUs them by a name (Bishops)
which certainly implies a sufficient degree of
authority for the purpose, since it is the very
name by which our Prelates are content to des
ignate their official superiority ; and especiaUy
he commands them " to feed," i. e. (as aU admit
the word means), to rule or govern " the flock
over which the Holy Ghost has raade them over
seers," Where, then, is the exclusive jurisdic
tion of Prelates ? As to the more specific in
structions of Timothy, they are aU of them.

* If this statement proves that Timothy was Mt
Bishop of Ephesus (which it does not), it prpves, at
the same time, that the " seven Angels" were the
Bishops or Apostles of the seven Churches. But it
proves neither. But if Timothy were only a Presby
ter, what 'right had this young man to charge the el
ders ? " Those teachers," says Bishop Hall, " were
as good as he ; what, then, had he to do to charge
teachers ? or what would those teachers care for his
charge ? How equally apt would they be to charge
him to keep within his own compass, and to nieddlo
with his own matters ! It is only for superiors to
charge, and inferiors to obey."

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

140

without exception, precisely such as every
Presbyter in any ofthe non-Prelatical churches
is instructed to act upon iii the discharge of his
official duties.
' And, finaUy, as we remarked of the case of
Paul and Barnabas, we may admit that Timothy
exercised the ordaining power alone (although
-.here is no evidence that he did), and yet that
would not prove that he alone possessed it. As
Ephesus contained but a single Church in the
time of Ignatius (see Bishop Burnet's Vindica
tion of Church of Scotland), it is very possible
that in that Church he never had any Ccdl to
ordain Presbyters at aU, and that the epistles
written to him by Paul were manuals, not for
Timothy, Prelate of Ephesus, but for Timothy
the evangelist, whose field of labour was far
more extensive than any single diocese.
Many other considerations might be produced,
raaking it impossible, upon Scriptural authority,
to' enthrone Timothy as Prelate of Ephesus,
But as I wish to be brief, I wiU only add, that
the force of all arguments derived from this
case is greatly weakened by the conflicting
views of those who wish to expand the dimen
sions of this Presbyter-evangelist into those of
a diocesan. Many Prelatists give up the point
entirely, and others — Dr. Hammond and Mr.
DodweU, both of them eminent as champions —
differ as to the question of the precise charac
ter of Timothy ; the first insisting (contrary to
the now-received theory) that all the Presbyters
mentioned in Scripture were Prelates, and that
Tiraothy was an Archbishop, while the last in
sists that a stationary Prelacy had no existence
until A.D, 106,
Taking these facts into view, I leave the
reader to decide whether Timothy can be caUed
up as a decisive witness that there " can be no
Church without a Prelate," and that those who
cannot see in him a mitred Prelate are to be
therefore cut off from the Church of Christ as
outlaws, however much they may reverence
Paul and love Paul's Master,
IV, The case of Titus, which my opponent
gives in the next place, can be despatched in
fewer words. We confidently affirm that there
is nothing said in the epistle to Titus which
may not be fuUy explained upon the hypothesis
that he, like Timothy, was invested by the
Apostle with the "extraordinary powers of an
evangelist. We raay beUeve that the power of
ordination and jurisdiction was committed to
Titus as to Timothy, without supposing a per-
maaent diocesan character in either case. My
opponent is mistaken in asserting that it would
be inconsistent with the Presbyterian principle
to commit simUar powers to a single person,
under extraordinary circumstances, such, for
instance, as a mission to China or Japan, If a
Presbyterian Church makes three ordainers
necessary, it is only as an ecclesiastical and
prudential regulation, not as an essential law
which in no case can be laid aside. The cir
cumstances of the Churches whicli had been
gathered in Crete, by the labours of Paul, re-
. quired the superintendence of sorae eminently
quaUfied co-worker of the Apostle. Such was
Titus. He was sent to Crete— for what ? " To
set in order the things that were wanting, and
to ordain elders in every city." There is no
evidence that elders already existed; and if

there were, it would not foUow that they were
sufficiently matured in Christian knowledge to
be capable of exercising the ordaining office.
Great care was taken by the Apostles in the
appointment of Presbyters or Bishops : and if
Dr. Potter, of Canterbury, is to be credited (and
as a Prelatist his testimony cannot be rejected),
" the Apostles used not to ordain ministers in ¦
any place before the second time of their com
ing thither. Sometimes, when they had no
prospect of returning, they gave others a com
mission to ordain ministers," Paul's express
direction to Timothy, that no " novices," i. e.,
newly-converted and inexperienced Christians,
should be admitted to the sacred office, estab
lishes the probabihty that few, if any, Presby
ters had as yet been ordained in the hundred
cities of Crete. If these be the facts, it is idle
to ask why the Presbyters were not directed to
complete what the Apostle had only begun.
But this is not aU. i It is necessary, in order
to enthrone Titus, to prove that he was the per
manent head ofthe Cretan Churches. The evi
dence looks all the other way. If a Prelate, he
was shamefuUy guilty of non-residence. Like
that of Timothy, his mission was but temporary.
In chapter iii., 12, he is expressly directed to
leave Crete : " When I shall send Artemas
unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come
unto me at NicopoUs, for I have determined
there to winter." From another place (2 Cor,,
ii., 12, 13) we learn that Paul had expected to
meet him at Troas, and in the same epistle (vii,
chapter) we find him with Paul_at PhUippi. In
the same epistle (xii., 18) we learn that he had
been sent on an embassy to the Corinthians, to
receive their contributions for the poor at Jeru
salem, And, finally (2 Tim., iv., 10), he is said
to have gone to Daimatia. What else can be in
ferred from these facts but that Titus was a
traveUing companion and assistant of the Apos
tle, who was occasionally sent as his delegate
in various directions, to perform those services
to the Churches which the numerous engage
ments of the Apostle prevented him from. per
forming in person ?
I have not pretended to expand these thoughts,
or to add other considerations of more or less
force, because I desire to state only the heads
of the argument. The reader can judge from
thera whether my opponent, following his prede
cessors, has furnished from the celebrated cases
of Timothy and Titus sufficient evidence that
they were established diocesans.*
V. Bishop Epaphroditus is next summoned
as a witness in favour of the three orders, and
of the exclusive rights of " the Episcopacy." I
am a little ashamed of this argument. It is,
beyond any other, far-fetched and feeble. It
must be meant as a make-weight — a little grain
thrown into the scale of " probabUities,"
For what does it prove ? THat Epaphroditus
was Prelate of the Philippians ? Does the fact
that the Apostle caUs him "his brother, com
panion in labour, and fellow-soldier," prove it ?
Or that, when referring to the fact that he was
the messenger whom they (they PhiUppians) had

* We are wiUing to leave the reader to notice the
difficulty Dr. Potts has in trying to explain away
the cases of Timothy and Titus. This is also seen
by the light manner in which he treats that of Epaph
roditus.

150

REMARKS ON THB ESSAYS.

sent with money to supply his wants while a
prisoner, he styles him "your Apostle" or mes
senger ? What right has Dr, Griswold or any
one else to assume that Epaphroditus is meant
by the title " tme yoke-feUow ?" And if he be
meant, how does that invest him with Prelati
cal powers? My opponent may think this an
"ingenious argument," but it requires great
keenness to see its ingenuity.
The " Bishop and Deacons" ofthe Church of
the Philippians are speciaUy addressed by the
Apostle ; but not a word of aUusion to a superior
officer among tliera ; no injunction of obedience
to hira, no bint of his exclusive right to " rule
them ;" not a word to show that Epaphroditus
was ever permanently fixed among them in any
character. Reserving for another time the other cases,
and some appropriate reflections upon the gen
eral subject, I close this article by merely ask
ing whether it be compatible with sound logic^
to say nothing of Christian modesty — to make
Prelacy a fundamental doctrine of Scripture
upon such evidence as the above cases furnish.
Admitting that there is some show of plausibili
ty in the theory of Prelacy, is it such as to jus
tify the unchurching arrogance against which
we are protesting ? Let my opponent, and those
who sympathize with him, call in the aid of
tradition. That alone can save them. Even
an Oxford Tractist has admitted the meager-
iiess of the Scriptural evidence in the following
language : " It is granted that the Divine right
of Episcopacy, the Apostolical succession, the
power ofthe Church, &c., are wanting in direct
or satisfactory proof, and are to be estabhshed,
if at aU, only by the aid of very attenuated and
nicely-managed inferential arguments." "Ev
ery one must allow that there is next to nothing
on the surface of Scripture about them, and
very little even under the surface, of a satisfac-
ftry character," &c. No : caU in tradition, as
the Oxford Romanists have done, but take care
that tradition does not bring in the Pope and a
few other smaU raatters, along with Prelates.
, George Potts.
Thursday, March 21,

No. VIII.
We now proceed with our brief review of the
Scriptural arguments which are relied on as de
cisive of the exclusive rights of Prelacy. That
those which were examined in my last commu
nication are plainly insufficient for this purpose,
is the opinion of multitudes of the most distin
guished scholars and divines the world has
seen ; a fact* which ought to lower the tone
of arrogant confldence, more especiaUy when
among these rejecters of the doctrine of exclu
sive Divine right are found many writers belong
ing to the Episcopal! denomination. We shaU

* Erratum. For " fact" read "assertion" very oft
en. There are some, but not "midlit-udes, of the most
distinguished divines and scholars the world has
seen," on the " right" side.
fThat there are some Presbyterians professing
Episcopacy, shows how popular the Church is be
coming among the Presbyterians. Even Dr. MUler
is said to have advised young men to come in and
help by infusing spirituality; and sometimes they

now see that the other arguments employed by
my opponent are equally attenuated strands in
the ecclesiastical rope with which he proposes
to hang by the neck* those who cannot see as
he does, that " there can be no Church without
a Prelate." Essay No. VIII. contains the " demonstra
tion" of exclusive Prelacy, afforded by the case
of the Apostle James. James is spoken of as
having, a degree of pre-eminence in the Church
at Jerusalem, which proves that he was its Prel
ate in the strict sense of the word, i. e., he alone
had the right of " ordination, jurisdiction, con
firmation," &c. Let us look at tlfe evidence,
and decide whether it estabUshes sUch a con
clusion. 1. In his Epistle James addresses himself
"To the twelve tribes which are scattered
abroad ;" therefore he is Prelate of Jerusalem.
If the argument raeans anything, it must mean
this. Let us extend it to other cases. The
Apostle Paul addresses similar epistles to t^e
churches at Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia,
Philippi,t&o, ; *Aerc/ore he was Bishop of Rome,
Corinth, &c. In like manner, Peter addresses
"the strangers scattered throughout Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ;" there-
fm-e these countries constituted the Episcopal
see of Peter.
No wonder that ray opponent found it neces
sary to support this abortive argument by nin-
ning,t as usual, to certain of the " Fathers,"
who, as he affirms, " all mention James distinct
ly in this connexion." But admitting (as we
do not) that the fathers to whom he refers make
James the. Pretoe of Jerusalem, with exclusive
powers, we are not yet ready^ to take the tes
timony of "the Fathers." Scriptural evidence
is in question now. My opponent seems sensi
ble of this, and admits that it is incumbent on
him to " make probable the Episcopacy of James
by fair and satisfactory inferences from the
Scriptures themselves." Let the reader, then,
lay aside the patristical eyeglasses which my
opponent evidently wishes him to use (else why
.should he in this place drag in "the Fathers?"),
and consider the naked testimony of Scripture.
Passing by what he says of the difference of
opinion among the learned as to the point
whether this James was the Apostle James, or

prove as much of Jesuits after they are in, as they did
in the covert design of their coming. Archbishop
Whately, however, is nearer a CongregationaUst.
He is not half High Church enough for Dr. Miiler.
* Dr. Potts, Uke Prince Hal, has " the most unsa
voury similes."
t Paul was the first Bishop, the Apostle and Found
er of some of those Churches. He was a missionary
Bishop. t " Running to the Fathers" was what Dr. Potts
could not do ; therefore, " as usual with the Presby
terians," he only ran to all he could ; that is, to the
angry and solitary speech of poor St. Jerome. How
bitterly (if he knows it) St. Jerome must have re
pented that slip of the tongue, for which the Presby
terians have given hi'm no rest the last three hundred
years ! .
(j " Not yet ready !" but just now, on the " right
side," the venerable, but fatigued, Hierome appeared
as large as life, By-the-way, St. Jerome, according
to Domenichino's great picture, and other authorities,
lived almost a hundred years. Was he almost half
a Presbyterian nearly five angry minutes of that long
Ufe?

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

151

another of the same name, called "the brother
of our Lord," let us admit that he was the Apos
tle. The next argument, by which he is made
" Prelate of Jerusalem," is founded upon the
fact that, in the conference held at Jerasalem,
at which other Apostles were present (see Acts,
XV.), James is represented as " delivering the
final opinion, and in this style of authority :"
"Therefore my sentence is that we trouble not
them which from araong the GentUes are turn
ed to God, but that we write to them," &c. This
is the whole of the argument. When James
says "my sentence is" (ego krino), he pro
nounces an "authoritative decision;" but this
he could do only upon the supposition that he
had pre-eminence in the council ; therefore he
was Prelate of Jerusalem. The major propo
sition is an assumption, the rainor hangs upon
it, and is, therefore, irrelevant, and the conclu
sion, hanging upon both, is false.
Tor, first, as to the " authoritative" character
-of James's* word, we remark, that the words
translated " ray sentence is," may mean a strict
ly " authoritative decision," but they may also
mean " an opinion," or personal judgment, so
that the sense of them would be, "it is my
opinion." I wiU quote but one ofthe numerous
instances given by Dr. Mason, in which the
Greek word (krino) has the latter sense. John,
vii., 24 : "Judge not according to the appear
ance, but judge righteous judgment." Is an
authoritative sentence meant here ?
But, secondly, not only may the word mean
" a mere expression of opinion," it must have this
restricted sense in this case; because James
had no right to decide the question upon his
¦own authority. The case to be decided had not
been referred to him. There is no evidence
that he even presided in this councU. We are
expressly told that " the Apostles and elders came
-together to consider the matter." There was
a diversity of opinion ; Peter first rose, and gave
his opinion ; then Paul and Barnabas, and then
-Jaraes. The opinion expressed by the latter
-(probably a summing up of those given by the
others) pleased the assembly, and was adopted.
"To estabUsh this view beyond aU reasonable
doubt, let us consider in whose name this " au-

* As' to the Apostle James, aU antiquity declares
him positively tp have been first Bishop of Jerusaleni,
and not a hint to the contrary is extant : with this
historical /art the words of Scripture accord. Now,
on the other hand, see Dr. Potts's conjecturing, i. e.,
guessing, that St. James was not Bishop of Jerusa
lem, in the very teeth of history, and against the uni
versal interpretation, for 1500 years, of this chapter
in the Acts also. A bad situation enough : but we
-wish to call attention to the foUowing comparative
positions of the Presbyterian and Episcopal sides m
general : , .^ , u »i.
Presbyterianism is supported forever, 1, by the
-same only two texts (Acts, xui., 1 ; 1 Tim., iv., 14),
which are abundantly shown to mean something
.«lse ; and, 2, by a sohtary quotation from a single in
dignant Father, and he not one of the eariiest— nay,
'not of the first three centuries— after the corrupting
union of the Church and State. And, as is the case
with error in general, no new discoveries are ever
¦made on that side. . ,.,,„, ,,
Episcopacy being true, as is usual with Truth,
who veils her face from mortals, we are allowed to
Uft up the veil and get a new peep now and then, as
we go on ; and, as we think wUl appear, even from
ahis sUght production.

thoritative sentence" of James is sent out to
the churches of the Gentiles. Not in the name
of James (as it ought to have been had he been,
what my opponent wishes to make him, the su
preme authority on this occasion), not even in
the narae of " the Apostles," nor of " the Apos
tles and elders," but " of the Apostles, and elders,
and brethren." How comes this? Even the
laity, it seems, took a part both in the delibera
tions and the decision ; an evU example this,
if Prelates only have the whole right of " juris
diction." That this was no authoritative "sentence"
of James is farther established by the fact that,
when Paul subsequently visited Jerusalem, the
elders, who met him in company with Jaraes,
expressly claira to have shared in the author
ship of the decree (Acts, xxi., 18-26). And
this they iraraodestly did in the very face of
their "Prelate."
Moreover (for we have not time or room to
dwell upon this fact, which is a sufficient con
tradiction, of a plenary authority upon the part
of this Apostle), let us remark, that the argument
drawn from this passage proves too much, and
is, therefore, worthless. For if it prove any
thing, it goes the whole length of assigning to
James an authority which no one pretends that
he really possessed. He is more than a dioce
san Bishop ; more even than an Apostle, for,
upon the assumption that he speaks " ex cathe
dra," the whole Church of the Jews and Gen
tUes, and not the See of Jerusalem only, was
subject to him. This decree was raeant for aU
Christendom. And thus the Apostles, Presby
ters, Deacons, Deaconesses, and private Chris
tians throughout the world, were his Bishopric,
and the modest ApOstle, who little dreamed of
such an investiture, is transformed into " a
Pope." This is a fair reductio ad absurdum,
and cuts the throat of the whole argument for
James's Prelatical authority drawn from the
words " my sentence is."
The other facts, or rather aUusions, relied on
by my opponent to estabUsh the diocesan char
acter of James, are ready unworthy of notice.
Take them together, and what do they prove ?
Must Christian men be cast out ofthe Church
of God, because they cannot see the Prelacy of
James in such facts as the foUowing ? Peter,
when escaped from prison, says, " Go and show
these thirigs to James." Paul speaks of " cer
tain who came to Antioch from James ;" when
speaking of " the pillars ofthe Church" whom
he met at Jerusalem, "James, Cephas, and
John," he puts James first ; and finally, when
visiting Jerusalem. Paul "went in unto James,
and all the elders were present," as if this were
meant as a visit from one Bishop to another.
Such arguments, I repeat, are not worthy of
reply. What, then, was Jaraes? An Apostle, by
whom probably the Churches in .Tudea were
superintended, and who resided commonly at
Jerusalera. An Apostle, and, as such, allowed
on aU hands to be endowed with extraordinary
gifts, for extraordinary purposes, at an extra
ordinary crisis in the Church. But no raore
the fixed Prelate of Jerusalem than Peter was
the fixed Prelate of "Pontus, Galatia," &5. ;
or Paul, who resided a long time at Rome, was
the fixed Prelate of " Rome." The acknowl-

152

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

edged superiority of the Aposlfles, their or
daining and legislative jurisdiction, proves no
thing in favour ofthe sirailar claims of modern
Prelates, unless by giving us the "signs of an
Apostle" they can show that they are succes
sors of the Apostles as such. Until they do
this, the claim is evidently presumptuous.
James had a certain prominence in the Church
of Jerusalem, therefore he must have been a
Prelate ; and as to the Prelate alone belongs
the ordaining and governing power generally,
therefore he had it, therefore his successors have
it, therefore none others have it, therefore — and
this caps the climax nobly — " there can be no
Church without a Prelate." This endless cir
cular reasoning, beginning with a begging of
the very question in dispute, becomes tiresome.
My opponent really gives up the whole point
in the concluding paragraph of his laboured and
wire-drawn attempt to make James a " Bishop,"
for he distinctly admits that aU he has adduced
proves no more than that he may have only held
a sort of presidency, as primus inter pares, first
among equals, unless we call in the testimony
of ancient writers, who affirm that he was the
fi^rst " Bishop"* of Jerusalem. And can any
sensible man suppose that the Head of the
Church would have left the question of its es
sential constitution to be settled in future ages
by such shadowy arguments ? And, finaUy, is
it not a fearful, an almost unpardonable insult
to the Divine Redeemer to assert, as my op
ponent has dared to do in this very connexion,
and to repeat in his Essay of last evening. No.
XL, that the proofs of his Divinity are of the
same attenuated, remote, and utterly inconclu
sive character as those of James's Episcopate ?
The next argument, which occupies the -whole
of Essay No. IX., is drawn from the case ofthe
Angels of the seven Churches of Asia. I wiU
endeavour to despatch it briefly. Notwithstand-
uig it is loudly boasted of as " a demonstration"
of diocesan Episcopacy, it has been entirely re
jected by many inteUigent and candid minds as
quite insufficient to establish the existence of
such an Episcopacy, and, ranch more, its exclu
sive and unalterable Divine right.
Who are meant by the Angels of the seven
Churches ? To answer this question correctly,
it is necessary to remember that the Book of
Revelation is a book of prophetic symbols, and
that the names star, angel, candlestick, are evi
dently symbolical names. This must be grant
ed. Then comes the query. What do these sym
bols denote ? Does the word angel, for instance,
denote a single individual, or is it employed to
denote a nuraber of individuals ? Is it not some
times used in the symboUcal language of Scrip
ture as a collective name ? That it is, is proved
by the following citations. "The angel ofthe
Lord encampeth around the just." "And I
saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven,
having the everlasting Gospel to preach unto
thera that dwell on the earth," &c., &c. Does
this angel denote a single person ? Is he not
plainly the symbol of a numerous ministry ?
Now, in the case of the " Angels" of the
seven Churches, we are perfectly justified in
* Here we have, therefore, " ancient writers"
affirming that St. James was first Bishop of Jeru
salem, and Dr. Potts guessing he was not.

assuming* that the term is symbolically applied!
to a coKechse body of ministers in those Church
es, and if so, the claim of Prelacy is refuted at
once ; for, hy a parity of reason, the term angel
may be understood, in this collective sense, of
the whole body ofthe ministry, since the term..
candlestick is evidently used in such a sense to-
denote the whole number of persons composing
the Church.
If it be said the Angel must be a single per
son, because the diractions given to him are in-
the singular number — "I know thy works,"
" Thou hast not fainted," &c., &c. — we reply,.
this is not true. The number, in several in
stances, changes from the singular to the plu
ral ; a fact which my opponent never notices^
as in fairness he should have done. Take the
foUowing sentence, in the address to the Angel
of "the Church in Smyrna." The Redeemer
says, " I know thy works, and tribulation, and
poverty ; but thou art rich ; fea'r none of those
things which thou shalt suffer. Behold, the devil.
shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may
be tried, and ye shaU have tribulation ten days,"^
&c. " He that hath an ear, let him hear what
the Spirit saith unto the Churches." The ad
dresses are, in fact, so worded as necessarily
to imply that the whole body, more or less, are
sharers in the approbations, warnings, and
threatenings which they- contain. We might
give many proofs that this interpretation is the-
only one which can account for the language-
used. Take the single instance ofthe " Church
of Ephesus." Sorae think that Timothy was
stUl there. Let us admit it, and can we sup
pose that he alone is charged with "leaving his-
first love," and caUed on "to repent," and,
threatened with " the removal of his candle
stick?" This latter phrase must mean, that
his flock should be "unchurched" — a sentence
raost unjust, if the Prelate be the person who-
alone is addressed, for in that case he alone is^
the guilty person. However easy the "un
churching" process may be in New- York, and
among our modern exclusives, the Redeemer
of men never would cut off a Church without a
better reason than the misconduct of its Prelate.
But, once more (for we must not dwell), let,
it be admitted, that by the " Angel" we are tO'
understand, not a coUective body, but a single-
individual. It does not follow, by any raeans,
that he is to be invested with a diocesan char
acter. He raight be the prases, or raoderator
of the whole body of Presbyters, without an ex
clusive supremacy in ordination or jurisdiction.
Now the latter clairas are the very points to be
proved. Bishop StUlingfleet, who shows at
large the insufficiency of the whole argument
which is founded upon these Angels of the
Asian Churches, argues thus (Iren., p. 289) :
"If the name Angel imports no incongruity,
though taken only for the public minister of the
synagogue, caUed 'the Angel of the congre
gation,' what power can be inferred, any more
than such an officer was invested with ? Again,
if the prcestos, or President of the assembly of
Presbyters, might be so caUed (viz.. Angel),,

* Here, again, all is guessing, " assuming," asser
tion. We shall say no more, because we have said
enough on these points; "for," as Dr. Potts says,.,
" we must not dweU."

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

153

whal superiority can be thence deduced any
more than such a prcestos enjoys ?"
This leads me to remark that StUlingfleet, in
this aUusion to the angel of the Jewish syna
gogue, perhaps* furnishes a key to the character
of these Asiatic angels. It is a fact, as un-
doubted as it is conclusive in establishing the
doctrine that parochial, not diocesan Episcopacy
was the original form of polity adopted into the
Christian Church, that the titles by which the
synagogue officers were known are the very
titles employed in the New Testament Church,
The chief synagogue officer was called " Bish
op" sometimes, and sometimes "Angel," He
presided over a bench of" Presbyters" or Elders,
and " Deacons," whose pecuUar business was
the care of the poor. As I shaU have occasion
to revert to this subject hereafter, I wUl only
remark that, as each synagogue had aU of these
officers, so every Christian congregation had
them, and therefore the strong presumptiont is
that, vvhen the Apostle John addresses each of
the Asiatic Churches through its chief minister,
and caUs him by the synagogue title angel, he
meant to designate not a diocesan, but a parish
Bishop. Certainly, these addresses contain not
a word that is mot as applicable to the latter as
the former. I ara content that the reader should
review the addresses, and see if this be not the
fact. The most that we can admit, therefore, is,
that the case of the seven " angels" is not de
cisive proof in itself either way ; although, from
the considerations just thrown out, there is a
strong presumption against diocesan Prelacy,
We admit their official superiority, and we ad
mit their representative character, but where
is the proof that they were "Apostles," or that
they had exclusive powers of ordination and
jurisdiction? Our opponents are very restiff
when the argument drawn from names is used
against them, and they say, we look for things,
not names. Let them be consistent, then, and
cease to find in the mere name angel the things
by which alone Prelates can be identified, viz.,
exclusive ordination and jurisdiction. Let them
prove that to these angels alone belonged these
exclusive powers, and we will then admit that
"there can be no Church without a Prelate."
So niuch for the "angels," With a very
brief notice of the only other Scriptural " argu
ments" which are brought forward by my op
ponent (who, it must be aUowed, has let slip
nothing that has been heretofore relied on by
his side of the question), I wUl finish this re
view. The Jewish hierarchy was constituted in three
orders ; this is part of the old dispensation,
which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil ;
he did not, at least, " disapprove" of ft, there
fore, the Christian ministry must foUow this
type. Its Bishops must displace the high-
priest ; its Presbyters, the priests ; its Deacons,
the Levftes. (See Essay No. X.) This is the
argument. ,-, r t -
Now setting aside altogether the fact that in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which there is a
fiiU discussion of the typical character of the
Jewish priesthood, there is not the shadow of
a referencet to any analogy between the Jew-
* "Perhaps!!" + "Presumption!"
t Not "Christ, the High-Priest," &c.?
U

ish and Christian ministry, either in respect to
the number of orders, or the functions of each ;
setting aside, also, the fact that our Redeemer
and his functions are in that Epistle expressly-
treated of as the antitypes of the Jewish priest
hood, that He, and He alone, is, in the emphatic-
sense ofthe term, "the High-Priest of our pro
fession," let me ask, in what conceivable re
spect, except the aUeged resemblance in the
number of orders, was the Jewish hierarchy a
model or type* of the Christian ministry ? In;
name? Not at aU. In functions? Did the
high-priest ordain the priests? No. Did he
confirm the people ? No. Had he the exclusive-
right of government 7 No, On the other hand.
Do the Bishops discharge any duty analogous
to the offering up of the yearly sacrifice on ths
great day of expiation? No. Have they the;
peculiar privUege of entering into the immediate
presence of God ? No. Is the oracle of God.
attached to their persons, or have they any
special right of declaring his will ? The case-
is no better if we put simUar questions in rela
tion to the other two orders.
In what respects, then, is there any relatioa
of tjrpe and antitype between the one ministry
and the other ? Is it ever mentioned in Scrip
ture ? Not at aU, although aU the real resem
blances between the old and new dispensations.
are repeatedly pointed out.
But our Saviour did not expUcitly " disap
prove." Neither did he disapprove of many
other things, which have, nevertheless, disap
peared ; the jubilee year, the cities of refuge,.
and the privilege of the manslayer ; the feast
of tabernacles ; the laws for personal purifica
tion, &c. But are we therefore authorized to
introduce these observances, and especially
shall we make them, when introduced into the
Christian Church, essential to its very existence,.
and say "there can be no Church without
them," merely because there is not an explicit
" disapprobation" of them ?
We think it is worthy of notice that the prin
ciples upon which this argument is constructed,,
if carried out, will introduce into the Protestant.
Episcopal Church the whole paraphernalia of
rites and ceremonies which were cast off by
the English fathers at and after the Reforma
tion, Take as much as you please of the Jew
ish ceremonial, upon the ground that it was.
meant as typical of the Christian Church (and
not, is is the fact, typical of Christ himself)^^
and that the Saviour did not, by an explicfr
abrogation, set each item of it aside, and you.
become Romanists at once. Quit the broad
ground that, in " fulfiUing the law," the Saviour
abolished the ceremonial law as " a law con
tained in ordinances," and overlook the spirit
uality as distinguished frora the formality of re
ligion, and then you wUl find types enough in the
Old Testament dispensation to warrant a Pope,.
Cardinal, festivals and fasts innumerable, togeth
er with all the glitter of mitres, croziers, and
significant vestments. The Romanists alone
are consistent, for they foUow out the principle.

* Now we say, as to Dr. P.'s faith, is the Sabbath^,
or Saturday, actually the Lord's Day, or Sunday ?
Is circumcision just the same thing as baptism ? Is
Agar actually Mount Sinai ? and is Jerusalem physi
cally the mother of us all ? Does Dr. Potts know-
that a type is rii joj ?

154

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS

-of typical resemblances without fear, Oxford
looks in the same direction, and e^en in this
vicinity we are not without premonitory symp
toms that "the-imystery of iniquity," by which
Christ, " the substance," is displaced to make
room for shadowy rites, " the commandments
of men," is busily at work. On this subject we
shall have more to say at another time.
Finally : the three orders, thus shadowed by
the Jewish hierarchy, were perpetuated by
¦Christ even while on earth. He himself was
the first, his Apostles the second, and, to com
plete the number, " he appointed other seventy"
also. " Does any one," asks my opponent,
-" imagine that these disciples held the same
.place under our Lord's personal ministry with
¦the twelve Apostles?" Why yes, there are
some simple people, such as Lightfoot, Selden,
and others, embracing all Protestant Christen
dom — ^with the exception of those who think
with my opponent — who cannot see any dis
tinction betwe^ the twelve and the seventy,
•except in one single point, viz., that the twelve
afterward becarae Apostles, whUe the seventy
are no more heard of after they returned from
-their temporary itinerancy as preachers of the
^' coming kingdom." Look at the commission
given to them in Luke, x., 1-17. In what does
¦it differ from that previously given to the
" twelve disciples," as they are uniformly caUed,
-before they were finally commissioned as Apos
tles, after the resurrection of their Master?
The reader is requested to compare those com
missions — Matt., xxi., 1; Mark, vi,, 7-14;
Luke, ix., 1-7 — and if he can find an essential
¦distinction between them, indicative of differ
ence of degrees, he has more ingenuity than I
pretend to.
Thus ends the chapter of evidences of the
exclusive, unalterable. Divine right of Prelacy.
Those who cannot admit their conclusiveness
are to be oast out of the pale of the Christian
Church, upon the strength of such reasonings.
They are to be hanged by inference. There is
no room aUowed for mistake — none for honest
•difference of opinion on a question which is, at
hest, one of form. But, as I perceive in this
•evening's " Essay" that my opponent proposes
lo answer this objection to his unchurching
¦dogma in his next number, I wiU forbceu- at
jiresent. • Geokge Potts.*
-Wednesday, 27th March.

No. IX

After having reviewed and exposed the fal
lacious arguments drawn by my opponent frora
Scripture in support of exclusive Prelacy, it
* We beg the reader to compare Dr. W.'s Essays,
and Dr. Potts's Remarks on them. He has here the
advantage he desired. He has "planted himself in
front of his opponent," though he promised never to
look at him again. How he labours through the
" Slough of Despond," and how he brings loads of
guesses, conjectures, probabilities, assertions, assump-
tUons, impressions, peradventures, anHperhapses, striving
in vain to dam up the broad streams of evidence
rff-om Scripture and antiquity, which, peacefully
;mingUng their waters, flow down by our times, as
Ihey will, according to Christ's promises, forever run.

may be expected that I wiU proceed to furnish
the counter argument -which, as we believe, es
tablishes the doctrine of " one order in the min
istiy." Adhering to my original purpose, 1 wUl
not enter largely into this subject, which is suf
ficiently worn out. Those who wish to see the
topic handled in detaU, may readily 'find the
means in some of the numerous and able publi
cations recently made. The foUowing is a sum
mary of the argument which proves ordination
by Presbyters to be Scriptural.
1. AU the considerations which I have addu
ced to invalidate the exclusive claims of Prela
cy, go to establish the opposite doctrine of par
ity. If, then, as we have sho-wn in former com
munications, the Apostles, as such,,have no suc
cessors ; if the last commission given thera is a
commission to perform those acts only which,
as aU allow, may be performed by Presbyters,
viz., preaching the Gospel and administering its
ordinances (and that this is the whole of that
commission, any one who examines it may see,
in Matthew, xxvii., 18, 20) ; if aU the admitted
superiority ofthe Apostles was the result of ei-
traordinary miraculous endowments and powers,
• which were given to them alone, and cannot be
perpetuated by succession ; if, finally, those vvho,
in addition to the Apostles, are relied upon as
models of the Prelatical order (such as Timo
thy and Titus), cannot be proved to have pos
sessed or claimed any exclusive ordaining and
governing power (although an extraordinary
authority is conceded to them on aU hands, as
evangelists who acted in subordination to the
Apostles, and as their agents, which very sub
ordination proves that they did not hold the
Apostolic office) — then it foUows that the as
sumption which makes our modern Prelates the
successors of the Apostles, and as such gives
them a sort of plenary authority, is groundless.
If they claim the office of Apostles, let them give
" the signs of an Apostle."
We might rest the question here, because the
extraordinary powers of Apostles, Prophets, ajiS,
Evangelists having ceased, what remains to be
inherited but their ordinary powers, as " minis
ters of the Word," sent to preach the Gospel?
Ordinary office-bearers have inherited these or
dinary powers. But what, then, becomes ofthe
three orders ? If modem Prelates have not
succeeded to the Apostolic office, where shaU
we find their prototypes ?
It is no longer allowable to trace the three
orders in the functionaries caUed in Scripture
Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. This was
the old argument of Prelacy, and was once
stoutly maintained as irrefragable proof that
Scripture recognises three orders in the minis
try. In the ordinal for the consecration of Prel
ates, the authority, for the Prelatical office is
assumed to be taught in that portion ofthe epis
tles of Paul and Timothy which treats of the
qualification of "Bishops." It is accordingly
directed to be read as a lesson suitable to such
an occasion. Why should it be read, if it were
not meant to-convey the idea that Timothy's
Bishop and the modern Bishop were the same ?
But the whole of this argument is now antiqua
ted. It is a remarkable fact, that the most distin
guished advocates of Prelacy, in modern times,
give up entirely the long-contested point that

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

155

•the Scripture Bishop and the Scripture Presbyter
¦were precisely the same in order, and that " all
that we read in the New Testament concern
ing 'Bishops' (including, of course, the words
¦•overseers' and 'oversight,' which ha^e the
same derivation) is to be regarded as pertaining
to the middle grade. It was after the Apostolic
age that the name 'Bishop' was taken from
the second order and appropriated to the first."
(See Dr. H. U. Onderdonk's " Tract," &c.) We
need not, therefore, waste any time in proviqg
their identity. It is now admitted.*
The consequence is inevitable, that when the
" Apostles" are, as they ought to be, left out of
the hierarchy, one ofthe three orders vanishes,
only two varieties of office being left — ^that of
"Presbyters," sometimes called Bishops or
overseers, and that of "'^Deacon."+
II. One order bein^'thus annihilated, let us
now inquire into the Scriptural authority for
making the " deacon" a minister "of the Word, "
and we shall find that another of the " three or
ders" wiU disappear, and we shall then be left
-with one only, viz.. Presbyters. We have al
ways considered it as one of the most surpri
sing evidences of prejudice, to make the "dea
con" apything else than a care-taker of the poor
of the Church. Look at the occasion and the
terms of the institution of his office. When the
HeUenistio or Grecian Jews, then in Jerusalem,
complained that their poor were neglected in
the daily distribution of food, the Apostles com
posed the difficulty by teUing the disciples to
look out fit persons to superintend the matter,
and serve the common tables. This was to be
their especial business. These men were not
already " ministers ofthe Word ;" no one affirms
this ; this was the business of the Apostles and
Presbyters. That the Apostles restricted the
duties of the deaconship to the " serving of ta
bles" is evident from the very reason they gave
for their appointment : " It is not reasonable that
'we should leave the Word of God, to serve tables."
We wiU give the superintendence of this secu
lar business to particular persons, whom you
must elect, and we wiU ordain. This is the
-whole. In no case in which " deacons" are af
terward named is there any proof that they
were " ministers" of anything but the poor fund
"Of the Church ; a very iraportant office in that
and subsequent tiraes, when so large a portion
of the Christian community were composed of
the poor class, and were dependent on the rich.
This view of the design of the office is forti-
¦fied by the weU-known fact, that the office and
the name of "deacon" were no new things.
Precisely such an office was attached to every
Jewish synagogue, and was known by a title
having the same signification. This we shaU
see more fully at the close of the present arti-

* Here are the fragments of President Dwighl's
exploded argument gathered up again. The strong
¦corner-stone of Presbytery is built upon words.
t As to the deacons, we observe, their ordmation is
recorded in that inspired Church History the Acts of
-the Apostles, chap. vi. ; they were not only men of
" honest report" to " serve tables," but " full of the
. Holy Ghost and wisdom" to minister ; and Acts, vii.,
•contains the "deacon" Stephen's sermon; Acts, viii.,
the account of Philip's preaching and baptizing, as
well as the first confirmation, or laying on of hands,
by the Apostles Peter and John, who went on pur
pose from Jerusalem to Samaria.

cle, in which we wiU show that the synagogue,
and not tbe Levitical priesthood, furnished the
ecclesiastical model ofthe Christian Church.
It proves nothing to the purpose to say that
" preaching and baptizing" were also functions
of the deaconship, because we find Silas* and
Philip, two of the persons who -were made dea
cons on the occasion above mentioned, perform
ing these duties at a subsequent period of the
history. What is to prevent us from supposing
that they had subsequently been advanced to the
office of " Presbyters," having " purchased for
themselves this good degree" by their exceUen-
ces ? For the precise nature of the diaconate,
as such, we must look to the occasion upon
which the office was instituted, and to the anal
ogous office which existed in every Jewish syn
agogue. The true nature and limitations of this office
being thus evident, we infer that the " ministry
of the Word and ordinances" does not belong to
it, and that it is not, therefore, one of the " three
orders," If so, the Christian Church is left to
the spiritual superintendence of those office
bearers called Bishops or Presbyters, constitu
ting, as even Prelatists are forced to adrait, one
order. We -proceed, then, to observe,
III. That the power of ordination belonged
to this order in the' New Testaraent times.
This is clearly proved by two instances in which
the power was actually exercised by Presbyters.
The first instance is that recorded in Acts,
xiii., in which "certain prophets and teachers,"
whose names are given, are divinely directed
in the following words ; " Separate me Barna
bas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have
called them. And when they had fasted and
prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent
them away."t
There is a difference of opinion among learn
ed men whether this was an original ordination
or a special appointment of men already or
dained, Prelatists and Presbyterists being found
on both sides indifferently. But it is not ma
terial, so far as our argument .is concerned,

* Doubtless "Silas" here should be Stephen,
f We give five reasons, each of which alone crush
es this attempt at argument from Acts, xiii., 1.
1. Paul and Barnabas, Acts, xii., 25, could not re
turn from " fulfilling their ministry" 'to be ordained,
if there is only one ordination, or iiparit-ybe true.
2. Dr. Potts himself has told us that Paul says he
was not ordained "of men" nor "from men," but
sent directly by Christ, " Paul, an Apostle not of
men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ," Galatians, i,,
which also proves that Apostles may be sent by -men.
and of men, otherwise why this distinction in the
sending ?
. 3. This was the first Episcopal visitation by mis
sionary Bishops to the Gentiles, of which mission.
Acts, xiii., xiv., contain the history. They went
out from Antioch through parts of Asia Minor, the
Greek islands, &c., &c., returned to Antioch, gath
ered the Church together, and told their missionary
story. 4. If " the prophets and teachers" Simeon, Lucius,
and Manaen, could ordain the equal prophets and
teachers, nay, according to Dr. Potts himself, the su
perior Apostles Barnabas and Paul, then surely the
last two could ordain the other three, for all the five
were ordained already, and Presbytery and Parity al
lows qnly one ordination.
5. fiistory declares Paul was, at this time, already
eight years an >\postle. Having the direct, he also
needed no ordinary commission.

156

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

whether Barnabas and Saul were now ordained
to the work of the ministry /i -^ the first time or
not. Certainly they are here set apart with all
tbe solemnities of an ordination, and they are
set apart through the laying on ofthe hand of a
Presbytery composed of persons inferior in grade
to " the Apostles." The authority of these per
sons is so far recognised as to prove that the
directing and governing power was not exclusive
ly in the hands of "the Apostles:" a point
which is assumed through the whole of the Pre
latical argument. Here are " teachers" — the
lowest of the list of office-bearers raentioned by
the Apostle Paul in that passage, "And he gave
sorae Apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some,
evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers,"
&c.— exercising an authority which is, to say
the least, closely akin to the act of ordination
to the ministry. Admit that it is only an ordi
nation to a particular field of labour, stiU, the
fundamental principle of Prelacy is violated by
the fact that inferiors authoritatively commis
sion superiors. Who ever heard of such a
thing in modem Prelacy ? Say that Barnabas
and Saul were already Apostles, yet here you
have "teachers" setting apart and directing
" Apostles." If they could do such an act with
out a breach of ecclesiastical decorum, I beg
leave to ask whether they might not with equal
propriety ordain such a one as Philip, or SUas,
or 'Timothy to the office of " Presbyters."
The second instance of ordination by Presby
ters is stUl more explicit. It does, indeed, set
tle the question. Timothy* was ordained " by
the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery."
In spite of the ingenious shifts and quibbles by
which the overwhelming force of this fact is
sought to be evaded,-there it stands, a conclu
sive proof of the point at issue. Presbyters
conferred the "gift" — ^whatever it was — upon

* Calvin says, on 1 Tim., iv., 14, and 2 Tim., i.",
6,' " Quod in altera epistola de impositione manuum
presbyteru dicitur, non ita accipio quasi Paulus de
seniorum collegia loquatur ; sed hoc nomine ordinatio-
men ipsam intel.ligo ; quasi diceret, Fac ut gratia quam
per manuum impositionem recepisti, quum te Pres-
byterttm crearem, non sit irrita"- — (Calvin, Institiit.,\A>.
iv., cap. iii., (j 16.)
^ Grotius approves and receives this opinion: "TJt
npeoSvTipiov officii sit nomen, non coetus, admodum
probabiliter sentit magnus ille Calvinus." Thus, in
the "opinion of the Presbyterian founder, Calvin, and
in that of their greatest defender, Grotius, it is the
gift or office of the Presbyterate, and not the ordinary
Presbytery, here meant. This were sufficient, for
these two men were scholars, nay, theyjiveregionis
in those giant times ; but, farther, who has proved,
1st. That Presbytery, i. e., literally an assembly of
old men, does not here mean a college of Apostles or
Bishops, as well as one of Presbyters.
2d. Who has proved that it does mean an Ephesian
Presbytery, Uke an Albany Synod. If so, there was
none other " Presbytery" heard of for fifteen centu
ries at least, for this American thing is a very novel
invention. 3d. Compare 1 Tim., iv., 14, and 2 Tim., i., 6, and
either he was twice ordained, and once by an Apos
tle, or which makes the
4th. fiha, meaning " together with," and ita, mean
ing the agent through whom, both passages mean,
" neglect not" " the gift of God which is in thee by
the putting on of my hands," "filrji together with
the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery ;" ex
actly the mode of ordination for Presbyters in the
Church, for the Bishop always lays on his hands to
gether with two or more Presbyters.

Timothy, by the laying on of hands. Suppose-
the Apostle Paul was present and laid on his
hands also, the fact is the sanje. Presbyters
united in this act of government, and this rec-
ognifees their authority to do so. It is idle to
say that tbe ordaining virtue came from the
Apostle, and that the laying on of the Presby
ters' hands had nothing to do with the actual
authorization of Timothy. If the Presbyters
were there only to testify their consent — as is
said to be the case in Prelatical ordinations
now — the question occurs. What has their con
sent to do with the matter ? Suppose them to-
refuse it ; suppose thera, in any case, to oppose-
an ordination, would this prevent the modern
Apostle from proceeding to confer " the Holy
Ghost?" Are Presbyters, in modem ordina
tions, anything else than useless portions of a
pageant ? Do they confer any office, any rights^
any character ? Not at all. But in the case of
Timothy, the very fact of the prominence given
them is conclusive proof that they did share*
in conferring " the gift" of office.
IV. We observe, once more, to estabUsh the
ordaining power of Presbyters or Elders, they
are called by titles, and their duties are descri
bed by terms, which imply that they were au
thorized to exercise all the necessary acts of
government. One of these acts is ordination.
I am aware that this idea of ordination, being
no raore than an act of government, is utterly
shocking to our High Church theorists of every
name. They cleave to the notion that ordina
tion is something mystical ; that it is something
raore than the act by which one who has given
suitable evidence of his fitness, in aU substan
tial respects, is openly and solemnly recognised
and inaugurated as a minister of the Word and
ordinances of Christ. Hence the absurd pre
tensions of the Romanists and of those semi-
Romanists, who maintain that what is called an,
" indelible character" is impressed by ordina
tion. In what that indeUble character consists,
where it resides, and what infallible tokens it
gives of its existence and its powerful proper
ties, we can never learn. It is a mystery, and
caUing it so answers every posing question.
Our reply to aU this is, a demand for the Scrip
ture evidence that such is the virtue of ordina
tion, or at least for some " sign," which will
satisfy us that mortal raen receive at the hands-
of mortal men some inherent quality which they
cannot have before ordination, and cannot get
rid of after it. UntU then we are constrained
to class this notion of ordination, with that of
the necessity of a tactual. Apostolical, unbro
ken succession, among those idle superstitions
which are unworthy of a sane mind, which are
entirely uncountenanced by the Word of God,
and constantly put to shame by the obvious fact
that many persons have received all the ordain
ing " virtue" which Prelates or Presbyters can
bestow, and yet have given the most ignoble
proofs that they have not the " gifts" even of
common probity or common sense. Where,
then, is the mystical virtue of ordination?
I wUl not enlarge upon this point now, as it
is my purpose, before my review of my oppo
nent's principles is completed, to speak more

» Suppose they did share, that does not prove that
they can do the whole alone, or that they can do a,
part without the Bishop or Apostle.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

157

fully conceming the true basis of tbe ministeri
al character and office, with the hope of rescu
ing it from the contempt into which these
absurd, mystical, hierophantic. notions have
brought it in the view of sensible men. Let
me reaffirm, then, that ordination is an act of
government, and as such may be performed by
those to whom government is committed. Such
are Presbyters. " Feed the Church of God,"
says Paul to the Presbyters of Ephesus, " over
which the Holy Ghost has made you Bishops."
The word " feeding" (poimanein) is expressive
of governing authority. So, also, is the word
translated " Bishop, "which, as every one knows,
means "overseer." And to confirm the au
thority of Presbyters, we are expressly told in
another place, that " the Presbyters that rule
well are to be counted worthy of double hon
our." What more is wanted to prove that
whatever government is to be exercised in the
Church of God, belongs to the "Presbyters?"
which Presbyters are raised up by God and
through the instrumentality of the Church it-
'self, and thus hold the double relation of ser
vants of Christ and equally servants of the Church.
I have but glanced at the various passages
which confirm this view of the subject, for I
¦bear in mind that my purpose is not to denounce
Prelatical views, or to claira exclusive rights for
the Presbyterial office, but to sbo-w that exclu
sive Prelacy is an absurd pretension. I proceed,
therefore, to observe, finaUy,
V. That a perfectly conclusive argument in
favour of the rights of Presbyterial popular gov-
emraent is found in the fact that the polity of
the Christian Church was evidently framed ac
cording to the model of the Jewish synagogue.
If the synagogue government was diocesan,
that is to say, if many synagogues and officers
were under the superintendence of a single in
dividual, to whora the sole power of ordination
and jurisdiction belonged, then I wiU admit that
the early Christian Church was arranged in
like manner. For that the one was the pattern
ofthe other, is the opinion ofthe most eminent
scholars who have investigated the subject,
among whom the naraes of Seldon, Lightfoot,
Stillingfleet, Grotius, Vitringa, and Whately
are faraUiar. In evidence of their substantial
identity, let the reader consider the foUowing
facts : (1.) The original names synagogue and
Church are of the same signification, " an as
sembly or congregation." (2.) The office-bearers
of both have the sarae titles. A Bishop, Pres
byter, and Deacon were found in both. Each
synagogue had a coraplement of these officers ;
the first being called by the interchangeable
names. Minister, Angel ofthe congregation. Bish
op, Presbyter, Pastor. Precisely the same titles
are found in the Christian " congregation" or
Church, described in the New Testament, and
are used to denote the same officer. (3.) The
functions of these office-bearers were the same.
1 quote Bishop Burnet : " Among the Jews, he
who was the chief of the synagogue was called
Chazan Hakeneseth, i, e,, the Bishop of the con-
sregation, and Sheliach Tzibbor, the Angel ofthe
Church And the Christian Churches being
modeUed as near the form of tbe synagogue as
they could be, as they retained many of the
rites so the form of government and the names
remained the same." Again, " In the syna

gogues there was, first, one who was caUed the
Bishop of the congregation ; next, the three or-
derers and judges of everything about the syn
agogue, who were called Tsekenim, and by the
Greeks Preshuteroi or Gerontes, that is. Elders.
Next them were the three Parnassin, or Dea
cons, whose charge was to gather the collec
tions of the rich and distribute them to the
poor." A StiU more explicit statement is given
by Dr. Lightfoot, also an Episcopalian, but I
wiU omit it on account of its length. *
(4.) The ceremonial of ordination by imposi
tion of hands was the same in each. The above
officers were elected and ordained by Presby
ters. It is highly interesting to trace the analogy
between the synagogue and the Christian con
gregation in other particulars, but time forbids.
The above points of harmony establish, beyond
a rational doubt, that such an analogy was in
tended. Archbishop Whately (lately refuted,
we are gravely told, by a Rev, Mr, Buel,t who
must be a young man) has the foUowing pas
sage in his " Kingdom of Christ."
"It appears highly probable, I might say
morally certain, that wherever a Jewish syna
gogue existed, that was brought, the whole or
chief part of it, to embrace the Gospel, the
Apostles did not there so much form a, Chris
tian Church (or congregation, Ecclesia) as make
an existing congregation Christian, by introdu
cing the Christian sacraraents and worship, and
establishing whatever regulations were requi
site for the newly-adopted faith ; leaving the
machinery (if I may so speak) of government
unchanged, the rulers of the synagogues, elders,
and other officers (whether spiritual or ecclesi
astical, or bsth) being already provided by the
existing institutions. And it is likely that sev
eral of the earliest Christian Churches did ori
ginate in this way, that is, that they were con
verted synagogues."
Now we need only turn the attention of the
curious reader to these notorious facts, and ask
him which of the two systems of Jewish polity,
that of the Temple, with its High-priest, Priests,
and Levites,t or that af the synagogue, with its
Bishop, Presbyters, and DeacoBS, was the model
ofthe Christian ecclesiastical polity? Prelatists
claim the first, with what plausibility I have
shown in my last communication ; and Presby
terists claira the last ; candid minds may judge
between these claims.
I now leave the question of tbe comparative
claims of Presbyters and Prelates, into which.

* Just now the Jewish argument was " nothing,"
and when drawn, too, from God's mstitution of High-
priest, Priests, and Levites; now drawn from the
synagogue and " the traditions of the Elders," it is
" perfectly conclusive," because it is on the " right
side." t And the Archbishop is refuted by Mr. Buel.
Lord Chatham was also charged with the crime of
being a " young" man ; and when that world of learn
ing, theology, eloquence, and poetry visited the earth
in the body and soul of Jeremy Taylor, the Bishop
of London told him he preached too well for a young
man. "My lord," said the "ruddy-faced" Taylor
(" for he was but a youth"), " I will strive to mend
that fault every day."
t Thatis, whether God's institution, or the Scribes
and Pharisees' arrangement, became the Christian
model ?

158

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

however, ± am not sorry, upon the whole, that
I have been forced to enter, provided it be un
derstood that I advance no pretensions to an
exclusive Divine right in favour of the former.
If any one chooses to see differently, and to
maintain that diocesan, and not parish Episco
pacy, was the original platform of the Christian
Church, or should anyone take the ground that
Prelacy, although not known in the early days
of the Church, is yet an aUowable and expedient
innovation, I merely ask leave to differ from
him, without considering the difference funda
mental. There is, I affirm, a rational foundation
for Christian charity in relation to such differ
ences. They are important, but not essential.
My opponent thinks otherwise ; and as his
position leads to consequences pernicious, and,
as I think, fatal to Christianity itself if they be
carried out, I hold myself at liberty to attack it,
and to contribute my feeble aid in rendering it
odious* in the eyes of mankind ; more especial
ly, as it is a position which involves the duty,
upon his part, of assaulting the cherished pref
erences of those who differ from hira. He feels
the odiousness of the position, and claims the
benefit of " conscientiousness" in maintaining
it. But aU martyrs who plead "conscience"
are not, therefore, to be reverenced as " mar
tyrs to the tmth."
In his last two Essays he has done what he
could to answer the objections to his "unchurch
ing dogma" ofthe dinner-table,t and it shall be
my object to examine and expose the utter fu
tility of his answers. George Potts.
Thursday morning.

No. X.
the unchukching dogma is ONCHaKITAELE,
schismatical, and opposed to popular
RIGHTS.We have at last got back to the New-Eng
land festival,! and the now notorious dogma
which was there so offensively uttered by my
opponent. I am tmly sorry for the trouble it
has occasioned him. Twelve Essays, not to
say anything of the letters whjch preceded them,
have been deemed necessary for his yindica-
tion from the charge of having wantonly assail
ed the cherished opinions of raen, who Uttle ex
pected that the occasion would be seized for the
purpose of telling them that they and their no
ble Puritan ancestors raust be left to the " un
covenanted raercy of God."
We have had the argument for Prelacy large
ly spread out before us, and, on the other hand,
but very briefly,^ the counter argument which
establishes the more Scriptural doctrine of min-

* We have no wish to make Dr. Potts or his sys
tem " odious ;" we seek truth only.
t AU haU, great dinner ! " "Thrice have we met
thee." t "New-England festival!" Isn't that dmner
over yet?
^ " Briefly." This brevity, vrit's soul, is some
thing like wit's body, in Butler's hero.
" We grant, although he had much wit,
He was very shy of using it ;
As being loath to wear it out,
And therefore bore it not about.
Unless on holydays or so,
A.S men their best app?.rel do." — Hudibras.

isterial parity — the doctrine of the whole of
Protestant Christendom, with the single excep
tion of the Anglipan establishment and its de
pendants. I wUl not apologize for the very sum
mary view I have given of this argument, as I
was determined to adhere to my origiiial reso
lution of not allowing this discussion to degen
erate, even in appearance, into a contest be
tween two sects for exclusive claims. I sin
cerely deprecate such an impression ; for, not
withstanding the differences in respect to the
details of Church order which are to be found
among the various denominations of Protestant
Christians, I rejoice in beUeving that in each of
them, not even excepting the Prelatical, are to
be found the essentials of a true government ;
that is to say, a govemment which, if weU ad
ministered, wiU secure the essential benefits,
which government ought to confer — purity and
order. If there be individuals in any of the
anti-Prelatical denominations who think that
their own precise order is not only right, but
absolutely essential under aU circumstances, we
do not sympathize with them. We sincerely
pity those who think they can show from Scrip
ture an authority for every separate naU in their
own temple, and, upon the strength of such a
prejudice, hold up their heads loftily " and de
spise others." "The number of such individu
als, we believe, is exceedingly small ; the prev
alent opinioiis, at least in respect to matters of
ecclesiastical govemment, being decidedly cath
olic. I have reason to know that the discus
sion, spread as it has been, and wiU be, before a
larger nuraber of readers than usual, has con
tributed to the great end of strengthening this
catholic feeling. Of aU the dissensions of the
Christian Church, those which have created
the most irabittered feelings have been pre
cisely those which in themselves were the least
important — such as the proper forms for the
government and worship of the Christian Church.
God grant that these disgraceful contests may
speedily be brought to an end by the mutual
agreement of Christian Churches to leave the
question of their conformity to the Scriptural
standard, in either of these respects, to be deci
ded, not by arrogant claims and incessant at
tacks upon the arrangements of their neigh
bours, but by the activity and purity of their-
zeal for higher objects. After all, the best ar
gument in favour of any policy is, that it makes
good Christians. " By their fmitsye shaU know
them." So long, however, as a portion ofthe Church
refuses to place its claims to the approbation of
mankind upon this common-sense and Scriptu
ral foundation, but, on the contrary, insists upon-
denouncing aU who do not conform to a certain
model of government, as no part of the " one
body" of Christ, it becomes a duty to resist
such usurpations, not merely because they are
insulting to respectable men, nor because they
involve pffensive assumptions of power, but.
chiefly because they put Christianity itself in a
false position in the view of the world, making
it a question of "tithing mint, anise, and cum
min," instead of a weightier matter of "justice,
mercy, and faith." So far as this is done, just
so far is countenance given to the greatest
heresy that can afflict the Church of God — the
heresy of formalism.

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

159

I have repeated these thoughts because I de
sire most earnestly to avoid the imputation of
doing the very thing I ara condemning in oth
ers—viz., disputing about matters of govern
ment and order. Such an imputation would be
unjust. The contention in this case is against
the doctrine which makes anyone ofthe forms
of ecclesiastical pohty an essential of Christian
ity. This doctrine is anti-Christian, and I shaU
consider it an honour if, in the sraallest degree,
I may contribute to malce it odious,* and dis
pose the Christian people of this land to set
their faces against it, come from what quarter
it may. I now proceed to this task. My opponent
has attempted, in his last two " Essays" (XI.
and XII.), to reply to the objections brought
against " exclusive" Prelacy. If this be the best
reply that can be given, it wiU not be difficult
to demonstrate its weakness. To preserve
some definite order in my remarks, 1 propose to
recur to the pledge given in the outset of this
controversy, when I declared my readiness to
prove that the unchurching dogma ofthe dinner-
tablet was unscriptural, uncharitable, schismati
cal, and anti-republican. The first of these items
has been sufficiently discussed during the course
of the previous argument. Let us advance to
the second, to which I wiU confine the obser
vations I have to make in this article.
The unchurching dogma is at war with
Christian charity. No wonder that, when
actually brought to the test, my opponent has
attempted, by the use of a studied refinement
of language, to conceal frora the attention of
his readers the odious nature and consequences
of this dograa. He coraplains of the unreason
ableness of the charge of a want of Christian
charity, when he has only been (see the lan
guage of his last Essay) "firmly maintaining the
rights of the Church, and carefully protecting the
purity of the Apostolic ministry." This seems
to be a very harmless, nay, a very laudable un
dertaking, and before we can find fault -with H,
we must be able to show that his mode of per
forming the task really involves consequences
which he is afraid or ashamed to state in their
length and breadth.
What, then, does he mean by " firmly raain-
taining the rights of the Church ?" What is
the " Church," whose rights he has be^n so
stoutly maintaining ? It is necessary to uiider-
stand this, in order to make out our charge of
uncharitableness. Out ofthe Church there is no ordinary possi
bility of salvation. This is the just doctrine of
the Thirty-nine Articles ofthe Protestant Epis
copal Church. But as there can be no Church
without Prelates, it follows that out of the Ro
man, Greek, and Anglican communions there
is no ordinary possibility of salvation. The

rights of " tbe Church" are aU the peculiar ad
vantages accompanying this salvation, and they
belong exclusively to the above-named commu
nities. Araong thera is the right of caUing thera
selves Christians, of indulging the fearless hopes
of Christians, of resting upon the Christian
promises, of being recognised by the world as
Christians, of claiming to do the work of Chris
tians. As a fair inference, it follows that all
others, no matter what be their correctness
of belief and practice in other respects, are
usurpers of the name of Christian Churches,
because they have not the " sign" of Prelacy
upon them in the view ofthe "exclusives."*
So much for the people. How stands the
case ofthe ministry? " To protect carefully the
purity of the Apostolic ministry" means, that or
dination hy a Prelate — be the Prelate a Papist
or Protestant — is an indispensable sign of a
pure ministry ; that aU the ministers Of all the
Churches in Christendom are " thieves and rob
bers," if they have not come into the fold by the
door of Prelatical ordination. That Watts, and
Doddridge, Payson, Summerfield, Robert HaU,.
Chalmers, and others equaUy distinguished,
whom we might name as types of a vastly nu
merous body of devoted and inteUigent men,
were not pure ministers at aU, and not in cove
nant with God ; that they have to answer for
the deadly sin of schism and rebeUion against ,
the essential constitution of the Church of
Christ, having been virtually guUty of the da
ring sin for which Korah, Dathan, and Abiram
were signally punished — the sin of usurping
functions which the God of the Church has con
fined to PrelaticaUy-ordained men. If we par
ticularize the melancholy pUght ofthe ministers-
of these various bodies of Christians, it is he-
cause the chief guilt rests upon them. For
what can the broadest charity do for them?
Common sense tells us that there is no excuse
for them, since it cannot be derived that they
have had all the means of forming a candid
judgment, and must thereibre be set down as
wilful rejecters of that constitution of the
Church of Christ which my opponent makes
absolutely essenticd.
Such, then, are, in part, the consequences
fairly dra-wn from the exclusive theory. That
theory must mean all this and more, or it means
nothing. Words, however plausible and flu
ently poured out for the purpose of concealing

* Though we must smile a little now and then at
the funny assertions, &c., which are brought to sup
port sectarism, yet we really have no wish, like Dr.
Potts, to make it " odious." We only desire to ex
pose its unsupported folly, which wiU be enough to
induce people to abandon it. " Odi prpfanum v^gus
et arceo," is Dr. Potts's declaration concennng i!-pis-
copacy, the popular religion of neariy aU Christen-
t I.sn't it almost tune to qlear off that "dinner-
table?"

* The short answer to all this has been given ;.
but let us give another. The hint comes from our
friend, the sagacious Bishop of Edinburgh. The-
British army is one body ; deserters are still members
of that one army ; but if the deserters should meet
and form a regiment, while each man would still, by
law, belong to the British army, and if taken would
be punished as a deserter, yet the regiment, as such,
would evidently be no part of the British army ; nor
would any one acknowledge it ; it would justly bear
the stigma of a rebellious assemblage. The schis
matical Puritan Fathers left the Church as far as
they could ; but they, were stUl baptized members
of Christ's one body. They formed associations,
like regiments. Each individual was a member of
the Church ; but the associations were unlawful and
rebellious. Their descendants, inheriting their posi
tion, are doubtless less guilty, but surely, when their
eyes are opened, ought to return home — come back
to the one fold of the one Shepherd, until
" One song employ all nations, and all cry,
-Worthy the Lamb, for be -was slain for vs."

reo

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

the' odious results* of the dogma, -wiU avaU no-
-thing with those who ask for more than words.
Now, how are these consequences avoided ?
In the flrst place, my opponent and those who
.agree with him lift up their hands in pious hor
ror and indignation at the charge of " narrow
ing down the circle of salvation to those within
the visible limits of the Church's fold." I use
the language of his last Essay. • But, we de
mand, what possible sense can be affixed to the
proposition "that Prelacy is essential to the
"Church of Christ," which does not really in-
•volve these consequences, unless, indeed, the
proposition be a brutum fulmen, a mere idle ab
straction, to the terras of which no definite
meaning is affixed, and which it is not worth
while to announce, even at a dinner ?t The
Ohuroh ! What is it? It is " the corapany of
faithful men" — the covenanted band of true
"believers. To it belong the promises, rights,
immunities, privileges, hopes, and sacraments
which constitute the spiritual treasure of the
Christian. To be out of this Church is to be
out of the covenant of God. So far we agree
with our opponents. We maintain as strongly
as any the necessity of visible union with the
people of God, where a union with them is pos-
¦sible. But, then, we have a more catholic
-creed than that which confines the Church and
its blessings within the Umits of any one single
denomination of Christian believers. We have
a different notion ofthe " Holy CathoUc Church,
the communion of saints," from that which is
lield hy persons who, at a dinner-tablet or in a
pulpit, announce to the world that they and
they only, in common with Prelatical Rome —
ithat corrupter of the truth, and " mystery of
iniquity" — have a right to that sacred title.
We can hold the doctrine "extra ecclesiam
nuUa salus," without the melancholy necessity,
or the hateful bigotry, or dogmatizing spiritual
pride of assuming that we alone constitute that
Church. We do not first of aU draw a gjiarmed
circle around our camp, and then denounce as
Tebels and usurpers those who will not consent
to pronounce our Shibboleths ; and yet, when
held up to the wondering indignation of by-stand
ers, try to save our charity frora impeachment
by denying that we mean all that we say. We
¦do not first affirm that communion with our
priesthood is an indispensable condition of sal
vation, and when pressed by the monstrous
-consequences, say we mean by indispensable,
ihat man cannot dispense with it, though God

* Even if these " odious results," these lamenta-
4)le " consequences," do follow, it cannot alter the
truth. Alas ! Homer, Socrates, Plato, Tully, were
Pagans ; Haroun Alraschid, Abderahman, Sadi, Fer-
dousi, Solyman, were Mohammedans, and believed a
falsehood ; and better be a Mohammedan than a Pa
gan — a Mormon than a Mohammedan — a Baptist
than a Mormon — a Presbyterian than a Baptist— a
Cathohc Christian than a Presbyterian. And if we
could learn, out of a true heart, to love one another,
and fulfil the Master's prayer, " that we all may be
one," in deed and in truth, it would be better than all.
O, let us strive for unity, that matchless pearl, so
loved and commended of the Lord, and then, if any
man cast off this " clothing of wrought gold," let us,
when compelled, " contend earnestly for the vesture
of Christ, that faith which was once delivered to the
paints !"
-f Dinner's done. } Take away the things.

in his ipercy may. (See " Hobart's Apology.")
This is the precise posture of my opponent
throughout his last Essay. The foUowing is
virtu^y his reasoning : " Prelacy is essential
to tbe Church ; the Church only has certain
' rights' arid a ' pure ministry ;' you must be in
'communion with the Church through its author
ized ministry,' or you are not in ' communion
with Christ,' and so forth : but, after aU, do not
say that in announcing these doctrines we
judge you, for that would be usurping God's
prerogative ; we do not pretend to ' pronounce
judgment personally upon those who separate
themselves frora the visible communion of this
one Church.' Tbe Church prays for you ; you
cannot escape beyond the reach of her guardian
ship and care ! and we trust you wiU think
well of our liberality, when we express the
hope that you wiU be of the number who come
from the East and West, and North and South,
and sit down at last in the kingdom of God."
(See Essay XII., passim.)
Now, if this mean anything, it means that the
salvation of Christian " dissenters" must be left
in dubio, to certain "uncovenanted mercies" (the
ph'rase is odious, because it conveys a slander
ous imputation upon Christianity itself) which
they are to share in common with the heathen.
Before such a sickly charity — the forced con
cession of men alarraed at the consequences of
the flagrant violence done to common pubhc
feeling by such a tenet — we prefer the hold
avowal of honest DodweU, quoted in a former
communication : " None but the Bishops can
unite us to the Father and the Son. It is one
of the most dreadful aggravations of the condi
tion of the damned that they are banished from
the presence of the Lord, and the glory of His
power. The same is their condition who are
disunited from Christ, by being disunited from
his visible representative." " This is consistent ;
and more, it is true, if the unchurching dogma
be true. Prelacy, or the alternative, perdition,
except in those extraordinary cases where an
invincible ignorance can be pleaded. And this,
we boldly affirm, is the esoteric style of talking
of many who exoterically, i. «., in the hearing of
the public, are obliged to employ more discreet
terms,* But the arguraent is now shifted ; after try
ing to soften, my opponent endeavours next to
justify his proposition. Let us, then, look at
the ground, and the sole ground upon which this
high, or, rather, this grovelling dogma is justi
fied. After sifting the argument in No. XII.,
we find that the sum of it is this : " The consti
tution of the Christian ministry" is not in its
nature afcrrm, but an " essential" of Christianity.
The force of the charge against the unchurch
ing dogma, viz., that it violates Christian chari-

* We do not weartwo faces now; but when we
were Congregationalists we were often told it was
"prudent," "proper," and "expedient" to do so;
therefore, on our way from school at Exeter, New-
Hampshire, we boys neverused to laugh aloud as the
stage-coach took us through Andover, Massachu
setts, for fear of being " reported." " Esoteric and
exoteric." " Judge not, lest ye be judged ; with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you." The
vulgar proverb is, "Judge your neighbours by your
self" (For Protestant Jesuitism, see work by Rev.
Calvin Colton, once a Presbyterian or Congregation
al preacher.)

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

161

ty, depends, then, upon this simple question :
Does the constitution of the Christian Church
necessarily require, in order that the grand ob
jects of Christianity may be attained, that those
.who appear as its ministers should be ranked
in three orders — Prelates or Apostles, as they
ought to be called — to whom the sole power of
•ordination and general jurisdiction belongs, and
under them priests and deacons? And must
(the very object of aU religion, which is to save
.sinful men, and purify them in preparation for
heaven, be defeated, should these three orders
-coalesce and form one, and share aUke in aU
.rainisterial duties ?
Now admitting — which is the strongest sup-
:posable case — that Prelacy can be absolutely
demonstrated to have been in existence in the
¦time of the Apostles, this question raay be rais-
>ed ; Is there anything either in Scripture or in
the nature ofthe case, which absolutely inhibits
.any change in the form ofthe ministry, any more
than in other forms and detaUs which are no
longer practised, although we have abundant
evidence that they were sanctioned by Apos-
toUcal usage ? The early Church had deacon-
•esses, held love-feasts, and practised feet-wash
ing as a religious rite. Why has the denorai-
¦nation to which my opponent belongs dropped
these forms ? Because they are forms, concern
ing which there is no intimation in Scripture,
or any proof derived from the nature ofthe case,
which makes the maintenance of this precise
arrangement essential in the same sense that
the cardinal doctrines of Christianity are essen
tial ?*
? Dr. Potts nearly admits all that we require,
and then, like Naaman, the Syrian leper, asks if he
" may not wash in Abana and Pharpar," " better than
.all the waters of Israel ?" And Jordan was, in drought,
(but a turbid stream. Doubtless Abana and Pharpar
were better rivers, and as clear as crystal. But
-when will men see that obedience is Christiani
ty ? Naaman saw his error and was healed. But
^his way ofvNaaman, who knew better than the
prophet Elisha, is the prevailing American rehgion.
¦" What good can a little water do in baptism?" cries
<the multitude. " Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
-of God," replies the Master. " Baptism is not a sa
ving ordinance," say the people. ' " Repent, and be
^baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ, for the remission of sins, andyeshall receive
"the gift ofthe Holy Ghost," preaches the Apostle
Peter. "How can water wash away sins?" says
the popular religion. " Arise, and be baptized, and
-wash away thy sins," is the voice of the Lord, speak-
¦ing through Ananias, to the already-converted Saul.
•" Regeneration is the new birth of the Spirit," sounds
the voice from American pulpits. "According to
his raercy, He saved us by the washing (Xiirpov, laver,
font) of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy
<5host," writes St. Paul to Titus. " Confirmation is
rat best an innocent, if not useless and superstitious
¦ ceremony," say the Sectarians. " Repentance, faith,
•baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead,
and eternal judgment, are the six elementary princi
ples of the doctrine of Christ," says the Epistle to
the Hebrews. .
So we remember, at Halle, Professor Wegschei-
<ler, a descendant of the Lutherans, and still a Lu
theran himself, in his lectures to 500 theologians,
proved, to our satisfaction, that St. Paul was a Trin
itarian; "but," continued Dr. WegsOheider, "1 dif
fer from St. Paul." We concluded to be a Paulite,
and not a Wegscheiderean. j ^ „ .
So here ; the Lord and the Apostles, and the Pnm-
X

To perceive the force of this distinction, let
us go into this place of Christian worship. I
have employed this iUustration before, but it is
to the point in this connexion. We hear the
sum and substance of the Gospel doctrines
taught — the faU of man, his depravity and dan
ger, his restoration by a Divine Redeemer, his
absolute dependence upon the atoning sacrifice
of that Redeemer, and the necessity of a pure
Ufe as an evidence of his interest in Christ,
Men listen, believe, and are benefited. We
enter another house of worship ; reader, it is a
conventicle, a meeting-house, but we there find
equal intelligence, ability, and fervour success
fuUy displayed in defining, illustrating, and en
forcing the some themes. Now, in what con
sists the difference* between the two places
and persons? What makes the one minister
legitimate, while the other is in fact a Korah,
who has usurped an office which it is sacrilege
to enter except in a particular way ? Why, the
former was ordained by a man caUed a Prelate ;
the latter, by men caUed Presbyters, It is more
than any reader wiU require of me to prove that
the difference between these individuals, after
all, turns upon a question of form. For what is
the method of ordination but a formal investi
ture with office? The qualifications for office
must precede ordination, and these qualifica
tions are the essential things ; these being want
ing, ordination is not only a form, but an idle
form. Now there is but one reply that can be made
to this view of the method of constituting a
ministry ; it is, that the act of constituting the
ministry, when performed by a Prelate, is inva
riably accompanied by the bestowment of cer
tain gifts and graces, which affect not only the
outward relations, but the inward character of
the individual, so that his ministerial acts pos
sess, in consequence, peculiar virtues ; and this
notion is not obscurely hinted at, but actually
taught by some of our High-Church exclusives.
If this be a correct notion of the effect of or
dination by a Prelate, then we admit that it is
not a form, and that to make it an essential is
perfectly justifiable. If it can be shown that
the provisions of the Gospel are dependent for
their efficacy upon the channel through which
they come to us — if the Divine Author of Chris
tianity has implicitly taught us that no one can
receive the jewel, truth, unless he take it in a
certain caskett of peculiar form^ then, indeed^

itive Church, m-ay have been Episcopal; but Episco
pacy "has proved itself a /or«|-7i and unwholesome
element" in our new Christianity, or foreign to that
human association which we call the Church. Thus
reasons Dr. Potts.
* The difference is, both having the spirit, 1 . that
one is lawfully commissioned, allowed of all, and
standing up in the name, and as an ambassador from
Christ to the people, professing to be God's minister
to the people ; 2. the other, having the inward spirit,
has neglected the outward commission (hke Korah
and his company, and like the seven sons of Sceva),
and professes to be sent by the people with an em
bassy to the people, i. e., the people send the messen
ger, and give him the good tidings to bring to them
selves. He is the only ambassador in the world who
is sent to the senders. He is not God's minister,
therefore, but the people's ambassador, and, of course,
usually adapts himself to the taste and wishes of his
master Vvlgus.
t "Casket." The eggsheU without the meat is

162

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

whfle we might wonder at such an arrangement
as an inscrutable mystery, we should be obUged
to bow to it, and there Would be an end of con
troversy. But is this so ? We demand the evidence.
It is impossible to show anything in the Word
of God Which assigns any! such important, such
astounding effects to the external arrangements
of his divine system. Everything, indeed, looks
the other way. Everything tends to disabuse
the mind of a superstitious and carnal reliance
upon times, places, and persons, as the neces
sary instruments of spiritual good. The Gospel
points the soul of man to the grand tmths
preached, and'not to the circumstance that the
preachers of them are arranged into three or
ders, at the head of whom is a Prelate. The
same thing is tme of the sacraments. Point to
a single place in Scripture in which it is ex
pressly taught that they are invariably attended
with spiritual effects when administered by any
ministry whatever, and then it may be admitted
that the rite which empowers a man to admin
ister them is more than a form.
But there is another way of settling this
point besides an appeal to Scripture. We ap
peal to fact. If a ministry constituted in a par
ticular way be an essential of Christianity, be
cause an essential virtue is conferred on it, it
is surely reasonable to require some psilpable
evidence of the existence of such a virtue. The
virtue claimed is supernatural, and the proof of
its existence ought to be of corresponding fofce.
Now where is the proof? Has the preaching
ofthe truth, in its substantial purity, or the effi
cacy ofthe tmtb, when preached, been confined
to any one of the Christian denominations?
Without entering into a comparison of the dif
ferent degrees in which different evangelical
communities have adhered to the truth, and in
which they have been, accordingly, prospered
in the great work of benefiting mankind, the un
deniable fact that each of them Aa« been instru
mental in making raen wiser, better, and happi
er for this world and the world to come, is a
conclusive proof that the value of their minis
trations does not depend upon the circumstance
of their having or not having a ministry com
posed of one, or of three, or of twenty orders, any
more than upon their officiating with or without
a surplice. It is a proof that the great pead of
the Church blesses their labours, because the
aim of those labours is to glorify Him, by per
suading men to beUeve and obey the tmth ;
and if so, may we not justly infer that any body
of his foUowers who dare to forbid and denounce
such labourers are sinning against the law of
Christian love, and flying in the face of his o-wn
positive instruction upon an analogous occa
sion—" Forbid not ; for he that is not against
us is for us?"*
worthless ; yet without the shell there is no perfect
egg. This worthless shell was made as complete as
the other works of the Creator; for, as every rustic
knows, it is, when pressed one way, an infrangible
arch. You take out the meat, and tread down the
shell which God made. Does God care for egg
shells? How much more for the God- made shell of
his Charch, which is also infrangible, and which
breaks to pieces and scatters the spirit when men at-
teinpt to improve on its perfect ovaliiy, by shaping it
rjjund, square, and according to their new fancies.
* When the Christian religion was first proclaim-

If the " rights of the Church" and " the pu
rity of the Christian ministry" are to be secn-^
red only in my opponent's way, then we hold
him bound to show that, as a matter of fact,.
they have actually been secured in this way
only. He should be prepared to show that no
thing but heresy, Hypocrisy,* formalism, andi
fashionable religionism is to be found within the
periphery of every other so-caUed Christian de
nomination, whUe nothing but purity and unity
in doctrine, iUustrated by practical obedience
to the moral laws of the Redeemer, is to be
found in his own fold. In putting him to this
task, we are not making an unreasonable de
raand. The honour and consistency of the
great Head of the Church require that He should
pre-erainently honour his Church by such pecu
liar tokens of his presence as wiU leave no one
in doubt that it is his Church. For if he should,
equally bless bodies which (according to ray op
ponent) are not of " his fold," I pray him to teU
me of what value is the promise which is count
ed the exclusive property of Prelatists, " Lo, I
am with you ?" If a Christian faith and prac
tice are attainments quite as common araong
the " advocates of dissent," sehisniatics.f un
covenanted lay-teachers, whose ministry is a
usurpation, and whose service is like that of
Korah and his company, it ¦would really seem
to be qf no consequence to contend for " the
Church" any longer. It is no reply to this to say
that " the Church" has "no " zeal and piety to
make a boast of" (as my opponent admits), be
cause it does not make a proper use of its priv
ileges. For this is the very question. Can it be
possible that the only true Church wiU be left tos

ed, the Masta: said, he that is not against us is for
us; but when it was farther established, he cried,
"He that is npt with me is against me, and he that
gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Both, nf
course, are true. One applies to the infancy of the-
dispensation, the other to its adult years. We are in
the latter state. Besides, this man seems to have
bpen commissioned also ; for he " cast out devils in
the name of Christ," believed in him entirely, and.
only followed not in bodily presence with the im
mediate disciples,
* That is, to say we are " miserable sinners" in
God's Church, is to declare that we are no longer
men, but angels. We leave this to the sect of .Per
fectionists, and to those who " cannot fall from.
grace ," to those Antinomians who cry, " to the pure
aU things are pure;" in short, to those venerable
Round Heads of whom, in Cromwell's tune, it was-
sung, " The self-same thing they will abhoi
One way, and long another for :
Free-will they one way disavow.
Another, nothing else aUow :
All piety consists therein
In them ; in other men, all sin."
Or, since we have taken up a book written after A.D.
1644, which applies just as welt to the returning
cycle in A.D. 1844, and therefore ought to be re
printed and circulated as a valuable "Tract for the-
People," we wUl venture on one more, applicable to
professed Aatred of Jesuitism, and the use of it.
" For saints may do the same things by
The spirit in sincerity.
Which evil men incline to do.
And at the deviCs instance too ;
And yet the actions he contrary,
Just as the saitits and sinners -vary." ,
t But schism itself is a sin (Numbers, xvi. ; 1 Cor.,
i. ; Jude, &(!.).

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

163

faU behind* other self-styled Churches, when,
on the contrary, inasmuch as it claims the ex
clusive use of the Divine promises, it may be
justly expected to be pre-eminent in holiness ?
The sum of our argument is this : The ar
rangement of the Christian ministry into one or
three orders, and ordination to it, by the impo
sition of the hands of one or three persons, is a
qnestion of form ; that neither of these fcrrms
_ has any sacramental -virtue, is proved by the
fact that such an idea is riot only not counte
nanced in Scripture, but contradicted by facts ;
since, as a matter of fact, the blessings of
Christ's presence have not been confined to
any one denomination of Christians holding the
cardinal truths of the Gospel.
I leave it to the reader to drawthe inference,
and decide whether it is not a gross breach of
Christian charity to refuse to acknowledge the
Churchship of those whom Christ has acknowl
edged. Time forbids me to enlarge. The no
ble and cathohc Robert Hall uttered the whole
truth on the subject before us when he ex
claimed, " He who is good enough for Christ,
is good enough for me ;" and I hope sincerely
that the day wiU speedily come when Christian
men will universally attain to that " spirit of a
sound mind" which will enable them to distin
guish between the accidents and the essence
of Christianity; between those errors "which
do but ruffle the fringe of the seamless robe of
Christ, and those which rend if."
George Potts.
Tuesday, 16th of April.

No. XI.

THE UNCHURCHING DOGUA SCHISMATICAL.
The point to which this communication will
be devoted being nearly aUied to the subject of
my last, I propose to be as brief as possible.
If the unchurching dogma be at war with the
principles of Christian charity, little more need
be said to estabUsh the charge of schism against
those who maintain it.
By schism we understand, not every diversi
ty of sentiinent, nor every separation and differ
ence of organization founded upon such diver
sity, but such division among those who are
substantially agreed in great tmths, as makes
their substantial agreement nuU, by magnifying
and maintaining their minor differences, in a
hostile and intolerant spirit. We look for
schism more in the heart than in the head, and
there find its origin in pride, ambition, self-in
terest, and in the absence or iraperfection of
the kindly graces of the Christian systera. This
spirit has been, in aU ages, the curse of society,
but it is only when brought into the Christian
Church that its most blighting effects are visible.
But I do not mean to discuss the general
question. We see the Christian Church divi
ded. For these divisions we are bound to be
lieve that the Church, not the truth, is respon-

* The Pharisee who "went up to pray" forgot his
business, and only offered a thanksgiving that he
was so much better than other men, "or even than
this publican." As we are often told " there is no
piety in the Church," we can only say the Master
was very fond of bemg with the publicans and sin
ners.

sible. That responsibility is a dreadful one,
and we do not hesitate to say, that every man
should honestly examine how far he shares in
this responsibility, and contribute, by every
practicable means, to remove this great stum
bling-block out of the way of the worid. For
certain it is, that the oneness of Christians is an
indispenslibie preliminary to that grand con
summation, "that aU men may know that thou
hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast
loved me."
Without, however, attempting to decide in
this place all that may be consistently done to
wards such a result, may we not set it down as
certain, that the work is not forwarded, but ob
structed, by those who insist upon terms of
Christian communion, which are not plainly set
forth, as such, in the Word of God ? Let it be
admitted that the difficulties in the way of es
tablishing a perfect unity of doctrinal truth may
be very great, and, moreover, that a similar
perfect unity of order is an equally remote de
sideratum, still we may ask whether there is
not some common ground upon which Chris
tians may stand and where they may more or
less cordially recognise in each other the com
mon lineaments of the Christian faith. If di
versities of judgment upon some points are in
evitable — whatever be their origin — must they
also be so held as to destroy all Christian com
munion ?
In the case which gives rise to the present
discussion, we conceive that the responsibUity
of fomenting schism in the Church of Clirist de
pends upon the simple question. Whether the
Word of God makes an agreement in the crder
of the Gospel essential to the unity of the
Church, in the same sense as an agreement in
the faith of the Gospel. In other words. Is any
one outward form of the Christian Church aa
necessary to its vitality, as the great sph-itual
principles which constitute the doctrinal code
of the Gospel, so that if the former be in any
particular altered, the latter become, ipso facto,
extinct ?
These questions must be answered affirma
tively by our opponents of the exclusive sect,
or the consequence foUows, that, in making
their own external order not merely a matter in
which they may lawfuUy entertain decided pref
erences, but essential to Christian communion,
they are guilty ofthe sin of schismatical separ
ation from the other portions of the Christian
Church. If a man is to be virtually cast out
from the visible Church of Christ as soon for
rejecting the Apostolical sudcusion in three orders,
as for rejecting the Divine character of JlTlZ
Christ, it must be because the former error is
as fatal as the latter. Accordingly, the un
flinching and consistent worshippers of Church
order openly assume the monstrous position
that, as the " order," as weU as the "faith" of
the Gospel, is " equally the revelation of Al
mighty God to the world, they are alike funda
mental to the hope, limited on the observance
of them, as Divine appointments. Nor can I
conceive upon what principle of justice or faii-
reasoning a corrupt and erroneous view, as to
the order ofthe Gospel, is less an offence against
God, than a corrupt arid erroneous view of the
faith ofthe Gospel." We have quoted the very
words of Dr. Ravenscroft, the Prelate of North

164

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

Carolina, who goes on to iUustrate his position
by affirming a denial of Prelacy to be as inex
cusable as a denial of the Divinity of the Re
deemer of men.
Now while we admit that this is the only
consistent ground for exclusiveness, we say at
once that it .is altogether idle to debate any
question whatever with a man who can make
such /an" assertion as this, for, upon whatever
principle we may account for it, that any one
pretending to ordinary powers of discrimination
should fail to acknowledge the radical difference
between faith and order, it certainly makes ar
gument a hopeless matter. We must leav6 it,
therefore, to the common discernment of man
kind to decide whether a belief in the Divinity
^ and atonement of the Redeeraer does hold the
same or a similar place in the Articles of the
Christian Faith, as a belief in the Apostolical
succession of Prelates. For our own part, even
adraitting the latter to be true, we, should as
little think of putting it upon a par with the
forraer, as we should of affirraing that the col
our of a man, or his want of a limb, or any oth
er such peculiarity, was as destructive of his
claims to be a man, as his want of brains, or
heart. And so every one must decide who has
not an end to gain. So the vast majority, even
-of Prelatists, who are not quite so much inter
ested in this glorification ofthe clergy, wiU de-
•<:ide ; and such wiU at once acknowledge the
.jerfect justice of the charge we bring against
•the unchurching dogma, that it creates a schis-
aaatical condition, not only of Christian commu
nion, but of salvation. We do not pretend to
conceal our emotions of abhorrence . towards
such a doctrine. If the Son of God, as the ma
ker ofthe house, be no greater than the house,
then, indeed, High-Church dogmatism may be
excused for insisting upon our paying an equal
reverence to both. But when the whole tenour
of the Gospel, and its obvious spirit, denounce
any comparison between the shadow and the
substance, the letter and the spirit, we are at a
loss to characterize, in terms of sufficient
strength, the degrading and perilous consequen
ces of this High-Church position.
Is there, indeed, no difference between ques
tions of faith and order ? Does the Word of
God lay an equal stress upon both ? Are the lat
ter as distinctly revealed as the forraer? Nay,
must we believe that raatters of order are even
mare distinctly revealed than raatters of faith,
so that men are justified in selecting them as
the principal tests of Christian communion ?
This, we affirm, is done, in fact if not in theo
ry, by our exclusives. For whUe (as we shaU
see presently) differences, which deeply affect
the vital parts ofthe Christian /ai(A, are suffer
ed to subsist together among them, like feuds
under the same roof or diseases in the same
body, those differences are not supposed to de
stroy the unity ofthe body, so long as the unity
of order is preserved. What a strange concep
tion of the relation between small and great
does not such a state of things demonstrate !
What a confounding of the means and the end !
Of essential principles add the forms in which
they are imbodied ! Men may agree to differ,
or they may contend violently, if they please,
about the vastly momentous questions of bap
tismal regeneration, justification by faith alone.

and other points which enter most deeply into
the formation of the Christian character, but
wo be to thera should they differ in regard to
the question of an unintermpted succession of
individuals, of certain grades and powers, in the
offices ofthe Church I Can any reasonable man
do anything else than wonder that terms of
cominunion are set up, the most stringent of
which is, as it e-v'idently is in the case before
us, a belief that a Prelatical constitution is in
dispensable to the existence of the Church of
Christ? But I have. said it is vain to argue such a
point. I cannot, however, withhold an appeal
to the good sense and consciences of men
against the schismatical character of the dog
ma which insists upon such a terra of commu
nion. And I lay the appeal, not so much be
fore those who have accustomed themselves to
an evil odour until their sense of its offensive-
ness has become blunted, as before the calm
and unbiased of aU evangelic Christians. In
doing this, I beg leave to refer to my last com
munication, in which I gave the reasons why
the unchurching dogma was a sin against Chris
tian chanty. The sum of these reasons is this,
that the question of the polity of the Church is
a question of form. That it is so, is evident
from Scripture and from tbe nature ofthe case.
And as an irrefragable. proof that it is not con
sidered by the Head of the Church as essential
to communion with Him, I adduced the fact,
that his Divine blessing has accompanied the
truths of the Gospel, irrespective of the diver
sities of form.
Now there is no averting the force, of this
practical argument, unless by denying entirely
tbe Christian character and usefulness of the
several Churches of Christ, in which the car
dinal doctrines of the Gospel are taught with
more or less distinctness. WiU my opponent
venture to do this ? He dare not. And if he
dare not, we pat it to his conscience, how he
can adopt a course of argument so signally re
buked by the actual history of Christ's dispen
sations to the Church, and persevere in schis-
maticaUy rejecting from the body of Christ
members who prove, by their vitality, that they
are drawing their life from the Head. We
make this appeal in sober earnest ; but we
make it far more for the sake of those who are
so fearlessly wielding the pruning-knife, than
for the sake of thQ branches they are striving —
but in vain — ^to cut off from the tme vine. The
attempt is impotent so far as the latter are con
cerned ; but we greatly mistake if it do not ul
timately prove disastrous to those who raake it.
It is so directly opposed to the common sense
and right feelings of raankind ; it is so manifest
ly inconsistent when made by a body of Chris
tians who have, in their own carap, aU the ele
ments of strife in active commotion ; and, above
aU, it is so obviously condemned, both by the
letter of God's Word, and by the actual dispen
sation of bis Spirit, that it raust necessarily in
jure all who undertake to carry out its proscrip
tions. I am well aware, indeed, that exclusive
claims of any sort, especiaUy if advanced in a
tone of confidence, are not without their effect
on certain classes of minds. There are some
persons — near akin to those who beUeve every-

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

165

thing which they see in print — who are ignorant
enough to suppose that confident assertion is
an evidence of truth, and these are ready to be
corae proselytes to the first religious or political
empiric whom they may chance to hear. And
there are others who, after being tossed upon
the waves of doubt, are anxious to receive
some system which comes with pretensions to
an indefectible authority, and who gladly lie
down to sleep upon the bosom of infaUibUity,*
And there is yet another class who feel, in reli
gious matters, much in the same way as our
fashion-worshippers, who admire exclusiveness
for its own sake, and consider it a distinction
to belong to a set around which a barrier has
been raised to shut out the vulgar world. But
I am loath to believe that a policy of this sort is
at the bottom of High-Church exclusiveness.
Persons belonging to all these classeswUI be
the more readily gained the bolder the assump
tions ; but being gained, will they add to the
purity and efficiency of any Christian denomi
nation ? The gain of such proselytes is a poor
equivalent for the kindly Christian charities
which are sacrificed by such intolerant, irra
tional, and, we must add, insulting excommu
nications of vast numbers of the wisest and
purest men, who have lived and died in the ser
vice of our Master.
There is one department of the subject be
fore us which cannot be passed by, although I
would gladly omit any notice of it, for I have
no satisfaction in dwelUng upon the history of
human inconsistency. But, as there is a valu
able end to be gained, we consider it our duty
to advert to the facts. It is, then, notorious,
that the exclusive claims we have been dis
cussing proceed from persons belonging to a
denomination of Christians which presents an
example of real disunion, in point of doctrine,
far greater than that which exists between all
the other branches of the Church beside. That
a great diversity of sentiment upon doctrinal
truth has always existed among the members
of this body wUl not be denied by any, for it has
been often adduced by themselves as a proof of
the comprehensive liberality of the denomina
tion, that sentiments so diverse raay be held
without destroying unity.
It becomes, therefore, not only a right, but a
duty, to refer to the wide divergences, and the
consequent painful animosities which exist in
any body of Christians, when that body assumes
to be the unit, the pure. Catholic, undivided
nucleus, around which the whole of Protestant
Christendom is invited, nay, commanded, upon
peril of salvation, to gather themselves. The
extent ofthe claim justifies us in exposing the
reasons which make ft preposterous. AU non-
Prelatical Churches are denounced as in a state
of schism ; as at war with the unity of " the
Church." They are, in unmeasured terms, de-
* One would suppose that so-called Christians
had doubted, discussed, dismUed, denied, &c., almost
enough ; and no wonder, if some people are almost
ready to begin to believe, and glad when they see
something that looks like truth, \yhen she has
-been long hidden from men, they would gladly once
more, like that remarkable man, President—-—,
" contemplate her countenance in the slill air of de
lightful studies." Woiild that New-England, espe
cially, would begin to discover that truth may be a
more Christian exceUence than "expediency."

rided as a mere bundle of sectaries and dissent
ers, who have no principles in coraraon. And
the relation they bear to " our Church" (which
is " our" Church ? the Papal or Protestatit, see
ing that each has the Apostolical succession) is
thus set forth by my opponent in his concluding
Essay, in terms at which we could smUe, if we
were not sad. " Though discord, error, and
ever-varying creeds are around her (' our
Church'), with her the fundamental principles
of the truth remain unchanged ; and when, in
the conflict of opinions among those who have
cast off her authority, ' the faith' becomes con
fused, uncertain, and wellnigh lost, with her
it shaU he found again, perfect and entire, as
' once delivered to the saints.' "
We can only say that, before this can hap
pen, there must needs be a vast revolution in
her internal condition. The reader of history
wiU know what to understand by the purity
and unity of a body, in which Archbishop Laud
and Archbishop Whately were dignitaries. To
show how "perfect and entire'" this unity. of
faith is, let me use the language of an Episco
palian, for it wiU be less invidious. "The re
ligion of the Church of England is so far from
exhibiting that unity of doctrine, which is rep
resented as her distinguishing glory, that it is,
in fact, a bundle of religious systems without
number. It comprises the rehgious system of
Bishop Tomline, and the religious system of
John Newton, and aU the religious systems
which lie between them. It comprises the re
ligious system of Mr. Newman (of Oxford), and
the religious system of the Archbishop of Dub
lin, and all the religious systems which lie be
tween them," The writer from whom we quote
means this as praise, but let others judge of the
worth of such unity, when it is considered that
these systems are not simply different, but oppo
site to each other. And let it also be remem
bered, that these opposite systems have not
been held in quietness, but, as we might sup
pose from the nature of the case, have genera
ted the most virulent controversies. We have
been told by the Prelate of New-^Tork (I mean
its Protestant Prelate), that, in his ordinations,
he has exercised the utmost tolerance towards
" the Catholic, the Calvinistic, and the Armin
ian views of our standards," though he frankly
avows his own predilection for " Catholic
views," He has shown how far his " Catholi
cism" goes in the ordination of a candidate who
did not " fault" the Church of Rome for a num
ber of things which have been generally consid
ered her peculiarities. For this he has been
taken to task, with what justice we do not un
dertake to say, and a storm has been raised, the
extent of which we describe in his own lan
guage. Addressing his diocese, 'he says,
"The necessity for addressing you at this time
is connected with a very pecuUar and unprece
dented state of things in our Church. Evil
principles appear to be strengthened in their
league against us. Infidel, heretical, and schis
matical influences are powerfully at Work.
There is also enlisted in the same ranks the
interference of the merely worldly, careless to
what interest they may be joined, provided
worldly motives, principles, and agencies, may
be brought to bear upon its views and designs.
And in unhappy iUustration of the infection

166

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

which remaineth even in the regenerate, delu
sion hath so far come over members of the
Church, that she hath within herself agencies
tendiig to the same result, much more worthy
of tliose that are without. Hence have resulted
•consequences truly painful to the pious heart.
Many of the most sacred principles and require
ments of the Gospel have been subjected to
profane, if not blasphemous, treatment. Sub
jects essentiaUy and solely connected with the
Church of Christ — that kingdom which is not
of this world — have been degraded into entire
subservience to secular principles and views.
Unblushing efforts have been made to array the
sheep of Christ's flock against their pastors. '
The more faithful these, and the more influ
enced by holy independence of popular errors
and delusions, the more have they been held up
to scorn and ridicule, the meanness of which is
lost, to the "truly Christian mind, in its painful
sense of their wickedness and impiety. Con
sequences most baneful to evangelical affec
tions and morals have followed ; the courtesies
of society been violated ; Christian friendships
sacrificed ; fraternal recognition denied ; and
tbe proprieties of relative station sadly over
passed." By what blindness must the eyes of that man
be smitten who can, in the face of innumerable
facts similar to these, venture to advance a
claim, the force of which rests upon an aUeged
unity, of which these are the proofs ? Has he
no fear of retort when he derides other Chris
tian denominations as a mere chaos of discord
ant opinions ? Why, we venture to affirm,
fearlessly, that, in respect to all the cardinal
tmths of the Christian faith, no two of the
evangelical bodies diverge so far frora each
other, as those who are in the Protestant Epis-
. copal Church diverge from each other. Hear
the testimony of Mr. Newman (the real father
of Oxfoi-dism) : " In the EngUsh Church, we
shall hardly find ten or twenty neighbouring
clergymen who agree together ; and that, not
in the non-essentials of religion, but as to what
are its necessary and elementary doctrines ; or
as to the fact whether there are any necessary
doctrines at all — any distinct and definite faith
required for salvation." Again, " In the Eng
lish Church, by itself, may be found differences
as great as tliose which separate it from Greece or
Rome." Now of what other denomination in
this land can this be said ? Take any twenty
or one hundred ofthe ministers of a neighbour
hood, belonging to the several evangelical
bands of Christians, and although they may dif
fer in "the non-essentials" of religion, we ven
ture to prophesy that they will very generaUy
agree as to its " elementary and necessary doc
trines. " And this, though they are " sectaries I "
with " ever-varying creeds !" And yetthey are
invited to abandon their discords, to quiet their
several organizations, where they enjoy great
" unity of the Sphit, in the bond of peace,"*
* We know of no unity among the sects, except
on two points : 1. Fightmg the Romish branch. 2.
Fighting the Anglican branch of the CathoUc
f Church; and if the Greek branch were here and
prevailing, there would be a " Protestant Union" to
fight her. The other " unities" are breaking up— wit
ness the secession of the Baptists from the Bible So-
iciety ; that of the Methodists from all of them, though

and to place themselves under a roof which
presents the most painful form of schism, a
family schism ! A house divided against itself
is the last, we should think, to deride its neigh
bours for their differences of opinion.
We do not mean to affirm that there is not
far too much of the sectarian spirit in all the
various denominations of evangeUcal Chris
tians. But we do affirm, that we know of no
sectarianism like that we have just described.
Not only is each one of these denominations at
this moment more internally harmonious than
the sect from the bosom of which these sneers
at " ever- varying creeds" are constantly com
ing, but their general feeling towards each oth
er is far removed from the exasperated bigotiy
which denies their mutual Churchship. And we
appeal to obvious facts to sustain our assertions.
When, therefore, we are invited to leave our
own homes and enter into "the Church" for
the sake of unity and to avoid schism, we should,
in the first place, be driven back by the hatefiil
spectre of "exclusiveness," which keeps the
door. And if we could surmount our repug
nance to this, we should be farther alarmed by
the strife which meets our eyes, in the very
penetralia ofthe temple ; a strife, not of aliens,
but of brethren.
We have no pleasure in adverting to these
things. Would to God there were a universal
harmony among Christians, even in things in
different. Nor do we claim exemption from
possible discords in fhe several families of the
Christian Church. Each in its turn has been
disgraced by them. But let this be remember
ed, that no one of thera has set itself up as an
example of perfect unity, and claimed, upon
this ground, the fealty of aU Christendom. Let
a candid Episcopalian, reviewing the present
state of things, be heard making an appeal,
which would be considered invidious did it
come from us :
" Or have we not, to a great extent, wrapped
ourselves up in our dignity, and estranged our
selves from the great cause of human happiness
and virtue? Have we not profanely boasted
of ' our Church, and our Episcopacy,' instead
of ' glorying in nothing save in the cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ ? ' Have not too many among
us, once our most faithful watchmen on the
waUs of Zion, been ' corrupted from the sim-
pUcity that is in Christ,' by an unholy ambi
tion for the mitre ? When we look upon the
unhappy divisions and contentions in oth^r
evangelical denominations for some years past,
instead of grieving over these things, and pray
ing for our brethren, have we not taken occa
sion to depreciate them and glory over them, in
' great swelling words of vanity,' about our
unity and peace, when we knew aU the while
that there were serious differences among our-
we beheve they never entered into this " unity :" the
thrusting out of the New School, as far as they
could, by the Old School Presbyterians, because the
New School wished for " union" with Congregation
alists. But mark well : May not these repeated,
though abortive attempts at all the union they can
get, be a kind of proof that God has implanted this
love for Divine unity jn the bosom of his creatures?
He created the man, and he created the unity, and
they both bear the impress of the Maker, and, there
fore, forever strive, like Plato's separated souls, " to
meet and be melted down into one."

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

167

-selves, yea, differences so great as to amount
to another Gospel ? And has not the present
awful outbreak of Popery only brought to Ught
those differences in our ranks, which would long
since have been exposed and corrected, had
there been spiritual Ught and life enough among
us?" To conclude this communication. It is not
our purpose to say how and when the vastly
desirable union and communion of true Chris-
tiaBs wiU be brought about. But we are per
suaded that the tme " Irenicum" wiU be an in
crease in holy reverence for the vital principles
of "repentance towards God and faith in the
Lord Jesus Christ." In the mean time, we de
sire it to be understood by the world, that the
great body of Christians, and they not the least
active and attached to their own municipal reg
ulations, do make the distinction between the
-/essence and the form; and consider the latter
as important only in its bearings upon the for
mer. The generally received opinion upon this
point is, that Holy Scripture has left the sub
ject ofthe details of polity an open subject, fur
nishing only certain great principles, and leav
ing room for diversity of judgment in the im
bodying and applying those principles. This
diversity of judgment is not without its evUs,
but those evUs are felt the less when each con
fines itself to the work of proving its superiori
ty, not by unchurching denunciation, but by the
practical results of holy living. So long as
they do this they can be at peace, precisely
iipon the same principles as neighbduring fam
ilies can be at peace, and recognise each oth
er's family rights with the utmost courtesy, al
though they live under different roofs. Brought
beneath the same roof, it is more than likely —
such is the infirmity of our nature — their differ
ences of opinion in relation to the education of
their children, and other points of family order,
would lead to painful coUisions. Hence, aU in
terests are the better promoted by a certain de
gree of separate action.*
Is this separate action an evidence of schisra
in the neighbourhood ? Not at aU. Kindness,
-respectful courtesy, and love, even, are quite
compatible with pecuUarities of practice ; and
he only is the schismatic who is not content
with his own domestic regimen, but must in
sist upon its being adopted by aU his neigh
bours, upon pain of exclusion from his friend
ship. This we consider to be i fair illustration
-of the character of the unchurching dogma.
It is the fomenter of discord.
I shaU trespass upon the patience of the
reader by one raore communication, which wiU
terminate my part in this discussion, George Potts.
Friday, April 26.

No. XII.
TME HIGH CHURCH EXCLUSIVE DOGMA OPPOSED TO
the 'rights of the PEOPLE.
As your columns are now reUeved of the

* The answer to this analogy is, simply, as the
answer before, to the analogy about the State. God
has made each man governor of his own house, to
make the rules for himself; but God himself is the
isole governor of God's house, the Church, and those
who Uve in His famUy must submit to all His regu
lations.

great press of matter which has occupied them
for the last two weeks, I hope you may find
room for my concluding remarks upon the un
churching dogma. ;•
I have shown it to be anti-Scriptural, unchar
itable, and schismatical : I now propose to
prove that the principles upon which it is found
ed, and the consequences to which it legiti
mately leads, are inimical to sound views of
the rights of the laity ; that it unduly exaUs the
clergy, and especially the Episcopal order. I
speak of High Church, or, as they are now term
ed, Puseyite views, and wish my remarks to be
so understood.
The charge we now make is not a novel one.
No intelligent scholar is ignorant of the fact
that the High-Church notions of the constitu
tion of the Church bear a striking resemblance
to those entertained by the advocates of the
monarchical forms of governraent in the State.
This resemblance has not only been admitted,
but claimed as a merit by the warm advocates
of Prelacy, in aU the countries of the Old World,
The Oxford writers endorse the following pas
sage frora Bishop Hicks :
" Can you, sir, when you consider that Bish
ops are appointed to succeed the Apostles, and,
like them, to stand in Christ's place, and exer
cise their kingly, priestly, and prophetical office
over their flocks — can you, when you consider
this, think it novel, or improper, or uncouth,
to call them spiritual princes, and their dioceses
principalities, when they have everything in
their office which can denominate a prince?
For what is a prince but the chief ruler of a so
ciety, that hath authority over the rest to make
laws for it, to chaUenge the obedience of all the
members, and all ranks of men in it, and power
to coerce them if they wUl not obey? And
now, sir, I pray you to attend to what follows,
and then teU me if the office of a Bishop con
tains not everything that is in the definition of
a chief or a prince."
Similar views might be quoted to any amount,
¦These views, we are happy to say, are reject
ed by American EpisoopaUans. The people, as
distinguished from the clergy, claimed to share
in the government of the Church after tbe
American Revolution, We learn, indeed, from
the "Memoirs," &c., of Dr. White, of PhUadel-
phia, that Dr. Seabury, the Prelate of Connec
ticut, " disapproved of submitting the general
concerns of the American Church to any other
than Bishops," and considered the introduction
of the laity* as " incongruous to every idea of
* The Church not being perfect nor infallible, the
American branch doubtless needs such a reforma
tion, that twenty-two Apostles will no longer be
trammelled by the opinions of laiyyers and other
laymen when they are taking measures to continue
the Apostolic line, by sending Missionary Bishops,
according to the method of the Gospel and of the
Primitive Church, to such destitute regions as Tex
as, Africa, &c. Yes, may the time soon come vvhen,
as Titus the Bishop was first sent into Crete, "to
set in order and ordain," and as Paulinus was con
secrated to carry the glad tidmgs to Pagan Northuna-
bria, so the Bishop shall ag^in go foremost, begin
ning at the beginning, himself carrying the standard,
and preaching at the very outset to the throne, as
Austin to Ethelbert. Then, when the Episcopal
Church ceases to be Presbyterian in her Mis^ipn^,
shaU "Truth again descend iipon the heathen, untu

168

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

Episcopal government." But the opinions of
Prelates of this class, fortunately, did not pre-
vaU. They could not prevail, indeed, because
the principles of popular government were too
firmly held by those members of the so-called
Church who took part in the Revolution, and
did not, as many did, side with the King of
England. Although attached to the forms of
their Church, they were decided enemies to the
absolute principles of the hierarchy. They
even opposed the introduction into this, country
of Prelates, nor could they have been introduced,
except under the distinct understanding that
the " people" were to be recognised as sharing
in the right of governing the " Church." It is a
remarkable fact that the members of that Church
in South CaroUna were induced to enter into
the proposed organization, by an express provi
so " that there was to be no Bishop settled in that
state." We look to the introduction of this very fea
ture ofthe Episcopal denomination in this coun
try as one of the most encouraging evidences
of the extension of the truly RepubUcan spirit
of the Gospel. And we are much deceived, if
it be not the means of preserving that body from
the corrupting errors which have introduced
schisra into it, and which threaten it with the
overthrow of its Protestant character. To the
laymen of this denomination are our hopes di
rected, when we see the progressive movements
which have been raade since the time of Dr.
White towards an aggrandizement ofthe clergy.
We beUeve firmly that among them are to be
found patriots as sincere in their attachment to
RepubUcan principles as any in the land, and who
entertain principles in relation to ecclesiastical
poUty very different from those which have of
late years instigated the cry, " There can be no
Church without a Bishop." With such Epis
copalians, we say distinctly, we have no desire
to be at odds. We gladly acknowledge their
perfect right to prefer their own forms both of
worship and of polity, and that, too, upon the
ground that they conceive them to be best con
formed to Scripture and antiquity ; while, at the
same time, we _ are not afraid to say that they
wiU find, if they have not already found,' upon
a narrower examination of the workings of
their system, that in several respects it rests
upon principles which only await the proper
crisis to show that they are unfriendly to the
equal distribution of the powers of govemment
between the people and the ministry.
That this is likely to prove tbe case is evident
from the late developments of what have been

once more a " nation shaU be born in a day ;" then,
no longer shaU the devoted Martyns and the Apos
toUc Schwarz labour for years and half centuries,
and, through lack of God's Divine Institution for ex
tending the Gospel, see (if spirits stoop to earth)
their labours, and their tears, and their prayers scat
tered to the winds of heaven. When the Bishops
shaU be^rs( sent, and the converted shall be " ordained
Elders in every city," then shaU the Church indeed
be planted— then shaU she " lengthen her cords and
strengthen her stakes."
Ultima Cumsi venit jam carminis setas ;
, ', Magnus ab integro s»clorum nascitur ordo.
, Jaip redit et Virgo, redeunt Satumia regna ;
Jam nova progenies ccelo demittitur alto ;
0 mihi tam longae maneat pars ultima vitae
Spiritus et, quantum sat erit tua dicere facta

caUed " Church principles," both in this coun
try and in England. What is Oxfordism, Pu
seyism, or Newmanism — call it what you wUl
— but an exasperation of the latent disease of
hierarchal despotism? The eamestriess With
which it advocates a return to the exploded prac
tices of Popery is not so worthy of notice as
its doctrines concerning Church power, and the
grounds upon which it claims such power. The
limits of this comraunication forbid us to give the
evidences of the unequi-vocal despotisra of Con
trol which writers in England now claim for
" the Church," in aU questions relating to eccle
siastical govemment. Who constitute this
"Church," whose voice is to be so implicitly
obeyed — whose authority is so" indefectible?
Not the people who belong to the communion,,
but solely the several orders of clergy. To them
the government ofthe Church is committed by
the Head ofthe Church. They are — let it be ob
served — ^his " ambassadors," appointed by Him,.
and responsible to Him, and from Him, through
the medium of an ApostoUc succession, they
have received supernatural, mysterious gifts,.
which, if fully recognised as theirs by the peo
ple, do really place the people at their mercy;.
Their office is not simply persuasive ; it does not
consist in expounding and enforcing truth mercT-
ly ; but they, and they alone of all the classes of.
raankind, have it in their power to perform, or-
refiise to perform, certain rites upon which ther
regeneration and sanctification of the souls of
men depend.
Let it be admitted, we say, that they alone
have the commission of Christ, by Apostolic
succession through an unbroken line of ordain
ers, and that they alone can perform these sa
ving rites, and we must admit, also, that it is at-
once impious and absurd for the people to hold
them responsible, or claim to share with them in.
the exercise of government. The broadest
doctrines of absolutism in the state are not
broader than the doctrines of these writers, who.
claim for the rainistry such astounding powers:
To say that they are akin to the despotism of
the Papal hierarchy is to stop short of the fact>
They are more than akin ; they have more than
a tendency that way ; they are the very doc
trines of Hildebrand and Gregory — held ia
check, indeed, by the external pressure of the
popular principles of the nineteenth century, but
not the less wiUing to take any advantage which
circumstances may hereafter offer them. They
are not new doctrines ; they come with all the
prestige of antiquity ; they are " Church princi
ples" revived. Smitten to the heart, as it was
fondly believed, by the Reformation, they were
resuscitated by Laud, checked by the overthrow
of the Stuarts, revived at their return, agaia
checked by the revolution of 1688, again re
vived, and again checked by the rise and prog
ress of Methodism, and now again revived
with great abUity and zeal in the halls of Ox^
ford, in which, indeed, they have always found
their most secure shelter. " The glory," says
Macauley, "of being farther behind the age*

* " Behind the age." No wonder that they do not
wish to keep up with an age which is taking immense
strides backward. The "schoolmaster has been
abroad" so much, that he has had Uttle timeto teach
the chUdren at home. If be does not come back from
his travels pretty soon, the rising generation will ba -

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

169^

than any other class of the British people, is one
which that learned body (the University of Ox
ford) acquired early, and has never lost." No ;
these " Church principles" are not new. The
virus has always existed in the Church of Eng
land, and the question is now to be settled by
the people of England, whether its latest devel
opments shaU be aUowed to advance uncheck
ed until the religious Uberties of the people, nev
er distinctly acknowledged in theory, shaU be
entirely abandoned in fact.
The " British Critic" — one of the organs of
Puseyism — in an article meant to be laudatory
ofthe Protestant Episcopal Church in America,
gravely denounces the introduction of the ele
ment of lay-influence into the government of
that Church, caUing it " the power usurped by
the laity over the Bishop's jurisdiction, which,
at present, is an utter bar to the tme develop
ment of Catholicity. The Americans boast that
their Church is not, like ours, enslaved to the civ
il power ; tme, not the civU power in name and
form, but to the laity ; and in a democracy, what
is that but the civil power in another shape ?"
We should not consider it necessary to refer
to the views of Church power maintained in the
EngUsh established Church, were it not that
there is a natural sympathy between it and its
descendant in this country. Is it not the fact
that the clergy especiaUy, in this country, have
to a considerable extent hailed the revival of
these "Church principles?" Have they not
endorsed many of them expUcitly ? Have not
their doctrines concerning Apostolical succes
sion, the authority of the Bishops, the " voice
ofthe Church," &c., found wiUing admirers and
defenders in America? And stiU more, have
but sadly educated. It is a simple fact that this pigmy
age has been surpassed in all but the mechanics. We
still admire and despair, when we contemplate Ho
mer, .^schylus, Euripides, Sophocles, and Aristoph
anes ; Xenophon, Plato, and Socrates ; Demosthe
nes, and a host of orators ; Herodotus and Thucyd-
ides ; Phidias and Praxiteles ; Zeuxis and Apelles, in
OM little Greece ! I Who built the Parthenon? Who
moulded the Venus, the Apollo, and the Laocoon ?
There they stand in Rome and Florence ! Go and
see, if you doubt that we are but puny mortals ! And
where is your Cicero, statesman, orator, philosopher ?
Where your Dante, beneath whose tread the solid
earth herself seems to be shaken ? Where are your Ari-
osto and your Tasso ? your Chaucer, Spenser, Shaks
peare, and Milton? One old man eloquent may in
deed say of this glorious company of English poets,
as the greatest of modern poets, and the mighty Vates
ofthe Divine Comedy said ofthe ancients and himself,
" Volsersi a me con salutevol cenno :"
" E pin d' onore ancora assai mi fenno :
Ch' ei si mi fecer deUa loro schiera.
Si ch' i' fui sesto (quinto), tra cotanto senno. '
' But, alas ! our " marching mind" and " enlightened
age" appreciated that patriarch of Ambleside so Ut
tle, and held him, her greatest treasure ! so lightly,
that one of the leaders of " popular opinion," the
veritable Edinburgh, in a " crushing review," would
have finished the poet, had Jeffrey been able "to
crush Skiddaw." Our wonderful and glorious fac
tory age ! quotha ! " behind the age ?" Poor Oxford !
would that some immortal Alfred might descend to
the earth and plant in this boasting, repudiating, im
moral land an Oxford or two, for surely there is am
ple room " and verge enough." While the universi
ties of England stand as " schools of the Prophets,"
England cannot fall. 0 that our big country were so
provided for Uke that Uttle kingdom !
Y

not the last few years furnished practical proofa-
that the " laity," the people, have been losing,
while the clergy have been gaining, in point of
prerogative ?
We rejoice to know that there are individuals
in the Episcopal body who are alive to the dan
gers by which the just rights of the laity in the
government of the Church are beset; and to
prove that we are bringing no " railing accusa
tion" against " Church principles," we take the-
liberty of quoting the language of an Episco
palian, as less liable to suspicion than simUar
language of our own.
" There are many persons among us well in
formed on other subjects, who look with a
favourable eye upon any extension whatever of
the Episcopal prerogative. They have seen sa-
much of division and contention in other de
nominations, and have heard so much of the-
conservative character of our institutions, of
which they seem to think that the Episcopacy
is the only one worth remembering, that they
fancy themselves doing the Church good service
when they can in any way strengthen the
sinews of executive authority, A simUar de
lusion prevailed until lately upon the field of
politics. Many an accomplished jurist on the
other side of the Atlantic, having read the
American Constitution, has shaken his head a&
he laid down the noble document, and, with
oracular gravity, uttered the prediction that a
nation so constituted could not outlive a cen
tury, because the executive is too feeble ; and
yet events have proved that there are times of
party excitement when the chief magistrate of
the United States may boldly plant his foot on
high grounds of authority, which no potentate
in Europe would dare to assume. Our states
men, compeUed by circumstances to look be
yond the paper constitution, the mere title-deeds-
of office, to see their systera working out its re
sults in practice, have learned the foUowing im
portant lesson, viz., that in aU countries, but
especially in one situated as ours is, patronage
is power. And so, my brethren, it is in the
Church. " Imagine to yourselves a diocese whose con
gregations are feeble, its clergy few, and its
resources undeveloped. They caU to their high
est position some man of ardent temperaraent,
overpowering energy, and vigorous talent, ani
not entirely destitute of that too frequent con
comitant of superior talent, ambition.
" The first movement in the tactics of such a-
man wiU probably be to get hold of the purse-
strings of the diocese. Its resources must be-
developed, and then paid into the hands of some
committee or irresponsible society, of which he
is himself the regulator and mainspring. Then
let the Church be pushed in all directions. Let
missionaries be multiplied; and each mission
ary be appointed by the Bishop, and entitled to
a seat in the councUs of the Church. If we
must have a convention, let as many of the
raerabers be held in the Bishop's pay as possi
ble. It is a humUiating and yet notorious fact
that there are many important questions re
specting which even honest men, before they
decide, wiU take time to consider on which side
those persons stand whose favour it is well to-
propitiate. An admirable stroke of policy wiU
also be to breathe into the susceptible minds ef

170

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

"the younger clergy the before-mentioned ' pas
sion for Catholicity.' It wiU teach men to de
spise everything modern, and to venerate every
thing that can be made to loom largely upon
their vision through the mist and smoke of an
tiquity, yet wiU dispose them to look above and
beyond those most inconvenient of all impedi
ments in the road of an aspiring ecclesiastic,
' the constitution and canons,' and to substitute
in their stead any mutUated fragment of early
-ecclesiastical jurisprudence which may be pick-
¦ed up for them out of that grotesque pile of
shreds, and patches, and malleable rubbish,
which 'history, with her huge drag-net,' has
succeeded in fishing up out ofthe gulf of time.
" Give to any Bishop who may be capable of
¦using them, such instmraentalities as these for
the expansion of his prerogative, and then, in
stead of a plain Protestant diocesan, who, in
-common with his brethren, acknowledges the
supremacy ofthe laws, we shall soon have some
lordly hierarch, who feels himself raised above
aU law, and whose authority, vague and coming
'4o wn from remote antiquity through title-deeds
which he alone may interpret, is equally un
founded, unUmited, and intolerable."
******
We quote another writer of the same Church :
'' This Puseyite controversy, and the exposi
tions it has produced of Episcopal pretensions,
suggests an important inquiry, whether Episco-
.pacy and Republicanism can coincide. If the
claims , of Episcopacy be such as represented by
Bishop Onderdlonk and by the Bishop of New-
Jersey, there can be no doubt that the almost
.universal voice of the American people will de
nounce it as a scheme of man's invention, at
¦war aUke with the institutions and commands
-of (jod, and the tme interest and dignity bf
man. The attempt to convince the people of
America that it comports with the designs of
Providerice that the minds of men should be
subjugated to any worldly tyranny of Church or
.State, wUl be as futile as disastrous to the
Church that asserts the rightfulness of such
claim. Ofthe inhabitants ofthe United States
ninety-nine one hundredths are essentiaUy Re
publican in their principles, opinions, and feel
ings, and, with the great apostle of human lib-
-erty, have ' sworn upon the altar of their coun
try an eternal hostihty to every forra of tyranny
over tbe mind of man.' Such men can never
¦be raade to believe that Christianity, in its gen
uine claims and spirit, and Republicanism are
not essentially identical. Any form of Church
poUty or worship that conflicts with the free
spirit of this country and age cannot escape
-the general conderanation. But this is not all.
No form of Church govemment and worship
that does not faU in with the poUtical principles
and prevaiUng tastes ofthe American people
<;an ever prosper in the United States. We
may not and will not have a state religion ; but
we must have a religion that concurs with the
mational sensibUities — that conforras, in all its
-exhibitions, to the simplicity of Republican
habfts and tastes. If the legitimate tendency
,-of Episcopacy, besides the arrogance of the
Sishops, be to nourish in the inferior orders of
4he dergy a feeling of reUance in any degree
lupon anything else than upon their own talents,
•diligpnce and fidelity in the discharge of their

clerical office, and the consequent attachment
and affection of their people — if it tends to
make them proud and aristocratic in their in
tercourse with society, and servUe and syco
phantic to their Bishop — if it causes them to
look upon and treai him as a sort of spiritual
superior, rather than a mere elder clergyman,
and to prefer his approbation to that of their
people, its fruits will be decidedly bad. It wUl
be a serious question, whether more wiU not be
lost frora the obsequiousness of the clergy to
their Bishop than is gained by his supervision.
There is, of course, a just respect due to those
in authority ; but aU raen are equal, and in their
sphere equally entitled to respect, and equally
bound to respect theraselves. The people of
this country want a bold, independent, and
fearless ministiy, who will not bow the knee to
any mortal man — who wiU consult their own
dignity, and the high character of their office,
by resisting in their sphere all the encroach
ments of ecclesiastical power, and aU the im
pertinence of ecclesiastical pride — who wiU
stand between them and their Bishop (if they
have one), and while they practise and inculcate
a due respect, will not be guUty themselves of
any servility, or become the instruments of any
ambitious Bishop to prostrate the just rights of
the laity, or elevate unduly the Episcopal office. "
These are sound views, and deserve to be
thoroughly considered by all the religious de
nominations of the country. They are not the
offspring of an ultra radicalism, but of that tme
spirit of Republican freedom which is cherished
by the Word of God, the glorious Constitution
from which we gather the purest views of hu
man rights, as well in the Church as in the
State. That great charter teaches us that if
the rights of the ministry are jure divino, no less
so are the rights of the brethren. In the first
Christian council these last are acknowledged
as partakers in the govemment of the Churoh
of God, and in circumstances which prove that
they are equal and of co-ordinate authority.
The denomination of Christians which does
not, in some greater or less degree, act upon
this fundamgntal principle, cannot hope to main
tain itself before the spirit of freedom, which
requires that the subjects of government should
have a voice in the appointment of their govern
ors, and a certain degree of control over their
acts. Whatever difficulties there may be in adjust
ing the boundary lines between the ruler and
the ruled, or in defining the mode andidegree
in which the popular principle shall be admitted
in any constitution, nothing can be clearer than
that the principle must be recognised by Church
and State. The question is. How is it recognised
by that constitution which claims for itself an
absolute Divine appointraent — ^which sees in
its spiritual governors functionaries who derive
their personal authority, not in any sense " by
the appointment, negotiation, or consent" ofthe
people (see ray opponent's Essay VIL), which
acknowledges the Prelate's right to ordain, wfth
or without the consent of his clergy or his flock,
whomsoever he pleases, subject only to an
impeachment, which can be tried only by his
brother Prelates, his peers ?
We pass by aU the other developments of
High-Church prerogative, which may be charged

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

l^l

Avith bemg inimical to the rights of the people,
and submit it to thei candid whether this power
of raising up a ministry, according to the judg
ment of one single man, and checked only by
remote restrictions not easUy enforced, is not
at the root of the evils which now threaten the
Episcopal denomination. Taken in connexion
with the peculiar and mysterious endowments
which are unagined to be conferred by him on
those whom he ordains, it cannot be doubted
that there must always be a powerful sympathy
between the ordainer and the ordahied, and that
their influence wiU be, virtuaUy, his influence.
They wiU sympathize with him and support him
in the exercise of prerogative. Of this we are
not without instances in very late times. This
is a great power to put into the hands of a sin
gle individual. It is, in fact, the power of say
ing who shaU mould the character ofthe com
munity. We have only to add to it the power
clairaed, and, we believe, exercised by the Ro
manist Prelates, of locating the clergy whom
they ordain, and we shaU then have a full de
velopment of the theory which gives the govem
ment ofthe Church into the hands ofthe priest
hood. " Power and prerogative in the Church,"
says the Protestant Prelate of New- York on a
late occasion, " came from Christ to the first or
der in the ministry,* thence to the lower orders
and to the brethren or laity ofthe Church. As
the last game no power or prerogative, it is difficult
to conceive how they can demand responsibility to
them as a right." This is the theory in a few
words. Upon this theory, whatever distribu
tion of " powers" may take place, depends
reaUy upon the concession of the " first order"
to whom all "power and prerogative" belong
as a gift from Christ.
This theory wiU not bear the test of Republi-
•oan principles. Its counterpart in the state is
¦ an absolute monarchy, in which aU the subordi
nate functionaries derive ¦ their authority from
the head. As yet, there is but one denomina
tion of Christians in which this theory has been
fully carried out, and in which the Prelate not
•only claims to ordain and locate his priests with
out the consent of the people, but requires that
the title of aU Church property shaU be viested
in himself We have yet to see how long a
system like this, brought from the Old World,
where Church and State are alike anti-popular,
wUl be endured in the New World.
We hold the tme theory of Church govern
ment to be this : Thewhole powers of govem
ment were given by Christ to " the Church,"
the ecclesia. f To this Church is given the ad
ministration of the laws of Christ, and among
those laws that which requires the appointment
of office-bearers with defined duties. In the
raising up of these .office-bearers, they have an
indefeasible right to pronounce upon their quali
fications, and to say whether they shaU or shall
not be invested -with ministerial functions . The
office ftself is derived from Christ, fts qualifica-
* A short time will satisfy aU men that there is no
danger that any of our Bishops wiU become Popes.
A Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or Layman may advance
¦a. high theory and an untrue one. It is only, as Dr.
Potts says, an " individual's assertion."
t And yet not a word is said id the New Testa-
;ment to intimate even that Christ gave aU this power
ito " ecclesia."

tions and powers come from Him, but it is pri
marily left to the Church, embracing both min
isters previously in office and the members, to
decide who shall exercise among them those
qualifications and povpiers.
We are not now considering the comparative
excellence of the Presbjrterian or Congregation
al raode of introducing the popular eleraent in
the investure of the ministry, but we cannot
refrain from saying here that the former as dis
tinctly recognises the popular element in the
appointment of the ministry as the latter ; the
only difference being, that in the former case
the ecclesia or Church does that by representa
tives chosen by themselves for this very purpose
among others, which in the latter case the whole
body of the Church chooses to do directly. In
either case it is true that the ministry alone ap
points or invests the ministry, although the lay
ing on of hands is ordinarily confined to them.
They cannot, however, lay on hands without or
against the consent of " the Church," The caU
of " the Church" is necessary to rainisterial in
vesture. ,
This is a system which is safe and eflicient
for every good end, upon the supposition that
"the Church" has not become rotten to the
core. It is safe, upon the same principle as
Republican institutions, which acknowledge the
" people" as the source of administrative power,
are safe. Any form of govemment is liable to
evUs ; but no one in this land wUl question the
assertion, that the safest govemment, upon the
whole, is that self-government in which the
governed voluntarily submit themselves to a
constitution, and commit the carrying out of
the defined purposes of that constitution to
agents chosen and removable by themselves.
In proportion to the virtue and good sense of
such a comraunity, wUl be the likelihood that
its office-bearers wiU be intelligent and virtuous,
and that a proper harmony wUl be preserved be
tween the governors and the governed. AU ex
perience has proved that the " happy accident,"
as the Russian Alexander properly called it, of a
good despot, is not so likely to happen as to make
us' wiUing to trust to it. RepubUcanism has its
evils and dangers,* but not so great as those
* " Dangers !" And the only conservative element
now left in this republic, which is likely to ward off
these dangers and save the State, is, we openlyaver,
tbe Church Catholic. The very veto is to be taken
from,the President : the tendency of the world is to
Republicanism ; the tendency of this republic is to
Democracy ; the Democracy (look abroad and judge)
tends to mobocracy. And what dam do ye buUd up
against this.mad and mighty torrent ? A few books ?
a Uttle education? Away, away with such futUe
medicines I
" Noa tali auxilio, nee defensoribus istis
Teinpus eget."
" I verUy believe that the salvation of Christia'nity
in this country depends upon the Episcopal Church,"
were the weighty words addressed to us by Ihat
meek, and mild, and charitable Low Churchman (?),
Bishop Griswold ; and as verily do we believe that
the republic may look to this solitary conservative
element for tbe Uttle leaven which shall mould and
save " The fierce .democratie."
The Church was always the only ark of freedom ;
and if an aspiring pontiff, upon the pavement of St.
Mark's, could pknt his foot upon the neck of a blood
thirsty and otherwise lawless and godless tyrant, it

172

REMARKS ON THE ESSAYS.

which have encircled the absolute monarchies
for which jure divino theologians of two centuries
ago claimed the passive obedience ofthe people.
There are few Americans, we presume, who
are not prepared to agree with the humorous
remark of the Rev. Sydney Smith, who, when
threatened with the consequences of the popu
lar principles which be desired to see introdu
ced into the Church of which he is a minister,
replied, " Be it so : I ara quite ready to be
swept away when the tirae coraes. Everybody
has his favourite death ; sorae deUght in apo
plexy, and others prefer miasraus. I would in
finitely rather be crashed by Democrats than,
under the plea ofthe public good, be mildly and
blandly absorbed by Bishops." It is possible to
shun either of these extremes, by adopting a
forra of government in the Church which, like
the admirable representative Constitution of our
state, makes a just distribution of power, and

was well that there was at least one thing upon earth
above the despot ; and that was God's minister. So,
when the successor of St. Austin, the meek and ven
erable Dr. Howley, marries "Albert, this man, oto
Victoria, this woman," a prince to a queen, as he
would marry one beggar to another, the equality,
and freedom, and' democracy in the true spirit (over
looked, indeed, but ever there, and, as then, appear
ing in all its subUmity) of the Church of God are
manifest to aU men.
Surely the Church which commands, "Call to
thy feast the maimed, and the poor, and the halt,
and the blind," is a democratic Church. If she
fulfil not the Canon (and we are verily sorry for our
guilt), if she " preach not" (and we have sinned here-
m) " the Gospel to the poor," and despised, and for
gotten, and ragged — to the pubUcans,^ and harlots,
and sinners — then is her neglect, indeed, a greater
blot than would be the loss of the succession from
the Lord ; but both calamities may God avert. But
the General Cojmcils of the Church were the very
models, and the first examples, of a representative
government. So much for the RepubUcan character
of the Catholic Episcopal Church of God.

provides an equal check to the despotisra of the-
few, and the more fickle tespotism of the many.
I wiU here close ray reraarks upon the ten'
dencies of the High Church, Puseyite dogmas,,
which have of late so offensively obtruded thera--
selves before the pubUc, in the pulpit not only,
but in the press and at the social board. My
object has been gained, if, as I beUeve, I have-
succeeded in contributing my share towards the
exposure of the system, as such. It is yet to
be seen how far its various developments wUl
be tolerated by public opinion. It is at war
with the Word of God and a rational freedom.
It is essentially intolerant, and has proved itself
to be so, whenever it has had the power. If,
like other ecclesiastical forms, it has suffeied,
it has never yet suffered in behalf of popular
rights. When fully developed, it has made-
slaves of its subjects, with rare exceptions. It
is the foe of the highest prerogative of the hu
man mind, the right of private judgment. Let
the people of America beware of any system
which claims the right to mle their consciences
through the medium of officers in whose ap
pointment they have no choice, more especiaUy
when those officers claim to be the exclusive
agents of Heaven, and supernaturally endowed
with the power of performing soul-saving rites.
It has been truly said that these supernatural
endowments forra the initial of spiritual despo
tisra ; and in spiritual despotism we find the
germ of that giant power which ultimatfely
clairaed to control the bodies as weU as the
sonls of men, set its foot upon the necks of
kings, and laid its deadly ban upon the empires
of the earth whensoever it was so pleased.
The most terrific forra of absolutism which the
world has ever seen, was that of a priesthood
which, claiming to be the representative of
Christ, buUt its power upon the promise, " Lo, I
am with you." George Potts. '

Note. — Our Presbyterian brethren must confess that we are at least impartial ex
clusives, for we exclude ourselves ^ra?. Can Episcopal Presby terSj with a commis
sion, ordain ? We answer, " No." Then can Presbyterian Presbyters, so called, who.
have no commission, ordain ? How, in the name of common sense, logic, self-re
spect, and truth, can they expect us to answer Yes ?

NOTE TO THE WHOLE.

Facts have been truly stated, or we have made mistakes. These can be corrected.,
But if there is anything uncharitable, we believe it to be in appearance, for it is not, we-
trust, in the heart of one who was a Congregationalist, is a •Catholic, prays to be a
Christian, and therefore must be an Anti-Skctarian.

Almighty God, grant that we may constantly speak the truth, boldly rebuke error,.
and patiently suffer for the truth's sake. Send thy Holy Ghost, and pour into our
hearts that most excellent gift of charity, the very bond of peace and of all virtues,
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

APPENDIX.

THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND.
First, or Apostolic Period.
Page 21, col. 1, 1st par. " Now it is certain that the or-
fiders of the Anglican Church have come down through the
Roman Church."
A.D. 52, and sixteen years before St. Paul was beheaded
'Under Nero, A.D. 68, and nine years after St. Peter could
Arst have been at Rome, A.D. 43 (see Prof. Tholuck's In
troduction to Commentary on Romans), a British prince was
¦Ijaptized, Lucius. This, then, was while Apostles were
,_yet alive, and almost half a century before the venerable
head of the Apostle John was laid in the dust. Next, Ter
tullian, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Hilary, speating
frora distant ages, tell us of Churches of Christ in Britain.
Theodoret says they were founded by Apostles. No author
ity or historians, after the New Testament, can have great
er weight than these.
Second, or British Period.
Three British Biahops, of London, York, and Lincoln, rep
resented the Church in Britain at Aries, A.D. 314. A.D.
359, in the Synod at Ariminam, British Bishops were pres
ent. In the fifth century, Germanus and Lussus, Bishops
from Gaul, visited Britain for the purpose of aiding the
British Bishops against the heresy of Pelagius. A.D, 432,
the Irish Churches were founded by Patrick. Such are the
Apostolic origin and first history of their foundation.'*^
Third, or Saxon Period.
The Pagan Saxons persecuted the Christian Britons. A
-conquered people always fiy to the mountains and the isles.
Christianity fled to Wales and lona, and other northern isl-
smrift. Who has not heard of Columb 1 But some Chris
tians remained among the heathen Saxons, and " Theonus
"was Bishop of London and Thadiocus of York about A.D.
586." The Britons made many efforts to convert the Sax
ons. Kentigern was also Bishop in Glasgow and Cumber
land. Fourth, oh Roman Period of Usurpation.
Thus far the British Church has had no connexion with
Rome, and, of course, does not originate from that city.
When the Church of Christ in the Heptarchy was 547 years
old, i. e.j A.D. 599, the first mission from Rome was accom
plished. It was begun a few years sooner, and the well-
known story of Gregory, who thought that the Angle slaves
should be Angels ; that, coming from Deira^ they should be
fiaved from Dei ira ; that, being subjects of the Saxon king
£Ua, they should sing AUehtlia, seems the first record of a
Roman Presbyter's thoughts on this theme (see Hume).
•Gregory himself set out for Britain, but a tumult of the
people called back the beloved Presbyter, and he became
Bishop of Rome before that novelty Popety was heard of.
He sent Austin and forty monks ; they reached Paris, and,
¦despairing of the conversion of the barbarians, begged to be
Tecalled. Their Bishop, Gregory, denied them, and urged
them on. Hearing that Ethelbert, king of Kent, had mar
ried a French Christian princess. Bertha, Austin resolved
*o go thither first. The devoted missionary landed bare
footed in England (and if a missionary Bishop must have a
salary in order to be sent), he preached in the open air to
Ethelbert on the throne, and " a nation was bom in a day ;"
for the king and ten thousand Saxons were baptized. Seven
British Bishops met and conferred with Austin (Bede, 2d
book). Therefore the British Church was far from extinct
when Austin was sent from Rome. Augustin himself was
not consecrated at Rome, but at Aries, the Bishop of Lyons,
a Greek, and not a Romish colony, assisting. When, by the
King of Kent, chosen to be first Archbishop of Canterbury, he
strove to bring the British Bishops lo receive Boniface III.,
the first Pope, they refused, and, in the memorable language
of Dunodd, abbot of Bangor, remains to us ; " We owe al
legiance to the Bishop of Rome, and to every other Chris
tian man, to love him ; but our Bishop is CaerIon."t This

* Palmer, vol. i., p. 215, London, 1838.
t See translation of the Welsh manuscnpts, printed late
ly at London.

last name may, or may not be, correctly spelled. It was a
similar name ; but we write from memory, the book not be
ing at hand. It should be reprinted here. Thus the
Church in Britain, persecuted by Pagans, was at last visit
ed by an Apostle from the primitive, but not Papist, Church
at Rome. Austin founded or revived the Churches of Can
terbury, Rochester, London, &c,
Irish missionaries founded Churches at Lindisfain or Dur
ham, Lichfield, York, <fec., or revived them. Scotland re
ceived Christianity from the Irish and Saxon Churches
(Dr. Johnson).
The British and Saxon Churches disagreed at first, which
gives the best proof of their separate existence and founda
tion : one dating its origin from the Apostolic age, and the
other frora the un-Papist Church at Rome. They united,
and were everywhere confessed as a pure Branch of One
Catholic Tree. They have existed ever since. Their acts
in each age are history. In Wilkins's Concilia these acts
are found from A .D. 440 to A.D. 1717. They ordained Bish
ops, held Synods, corrected abuses, enforced discipline ;
they were protected by kings' charters, «fcc., &c. They
never separated from the Catholic tree, but the Pope him
self cut off his withered and feeble branch; 80 only out of
12,000 clergymen. Britain, Gaul, Rome, are the mothers
of the Church in England. The eldest is British and Apos
tolic. Nay, the three are Apostolical.
As to Rome, who that knows the ancient laws of England
does not recall the acts passed in each century against the
usurpations ofthe Roman Pontiff? Does not the first arti
cle in Magna Charta guaranty the " rights of the Church
of England 1" And even John, who cowered beneath the
stern glances and before the spears of his own barons at
Runnymede, dared oppose in the 13th century the arro
gance and exactions of Rome. An interdict convinced hira
that the old minister at Rome was yet too strong for the
tyrant, and brought him to the feet of , the Pope. Three
centuries and more rolled away before bluff Harry, wicked
Harry, sensual Harry, did what John could not do — cast off
the usurped power ; and declared that, as the Bishop of Lon
don was not the Bishop of Rome, neither should the Bishop
of Rome be Bishop of London ; t. e., the Romish Bishop
hath no jurisdiction in England. And yet this brutal and
beastly tyrant was " the defender of the Faith," and we
have had in our hand the very copy of his book which he
sent to the Pope. He lived a persecuting Papist, and died
a bigoted Romanist. But he drove the schismatical Bishop
of Rome out of other men's dioceses. He was for the State,
like his successors. Head of the Church ; but in spiritual
matters the king is no more than any beggar, who is not
ordained a minister of God. Can he preach or baptize ?
Never. Thus the Church has gone on from A.D. 53 to
1844. The Essays contain the History from the Reforma
tion. See Essay, &c.
No wonder she hath a deep, settled, unshaken, and im
movable conviction, and an abiding sense of her Apostolicity
and her Perpetuity. Esto Perpetua. Perge modo.
It is plainly sheer ignorance, or folly, or wickedness (if
well informed) to belie the Church of Christ ! How great
is their loss, and their sin, who, with these facts (and his
tory ever endures, for " facts are God's footsteps") before
their eyes, talk of Henry the Eighth's Church, or, like our
l3r. Potts, of Pope Henry VIII. ! It is worse than senile foUy
and credulity. So the Romanists, when they ask, *' Is not
your Protestant" a new term? we confess it, and answer, It
is not in our standards. We "believe in the Holy Catho
lic Church and one Apostolic,'' and no more. That some
timid, prudent, and, not to judge them, time-serving, well-
meaning men, inserted "Protestant" in the title-page '(for
it is nowhere else) of our Prayer Book, was their fault ; and
it will not be ours, if the attempt to erase it, and other un-
Catholic alterations, should fail ; the attempt will be made ;
the folly of resisting it will lie with its rejecters. Time
will give Truth the upper hand. But when the Romanist
says, " Where was your Church before Luther V we can
answer, as Usher the Jesuit, or the English knight at Rome,
" Where yours was not— in the Holy Scriptures." ^

INDEX.

I. Preface .

Rge

II. Introduction  y
One Church and no more' •.,'.'.. ib.
1 . Old Testament Witness . . , , '. ib,
2. New Testament also '.,.',, ib,
a. Historical Argument - . . . ! vi
b. Scriptural also . . . . ! viii
Conclusion : it is of God  .* ix
III. .Correspondence  H

The Challenge by Dr. Potts's Letter
The Church not Exclusive . * . . ib.
M'>tto of Christendom  fj.
Theology of Denials, Catholic Creed, and Creed of Ad
ditions  . ,12
Which of 83 is the Puritan Church . . . ! 13
The first Acceptance by Dr. Wainwright . . .15
His after Thourfits and second Letter .... ib.
Dr. Potts's first Letter re-examined by Dr. Wainwright ib.
Di. Fotts -wishes, 1. An Oral Debate . . . .18
Or, 2. A Newspaper Controversy  ib.
Dr. Wainwright declines 1, and meets Dr. Potts half
way, 2  19
Dr. Potts asks. Who is the Aggressor 1 Answer 20
Evidence gladly given  21
Dr„ Potts tries to change Sides  22
Vox .populif vox Deij fSse . .... 23
LuAjjSr's sad Position  , . 24
Urr^&iX^B Doctrine that Men make Churches . . 25
Dr.iPotts'a Questions answered Negatively . . . ib.
Dr. Wainwright refuses to change Sides . . ib.
Expediency and Truth  26
Popery of the Sects . .... 27
Tlfree Musty Old Proverbs  ib.

2930
ib. 3132
ib.
ib.ib. 33
ib.ib. 34
35
ib.
ib. 36
ib.

Dr. Wainwright explains Parties' Positions . . .28
His Speech at the famous New- England Dinner . . ib.
Dr. Potta changes Dr. Wainwright's "Bishop" for
"Prelate" 
Charges Dr. Wainwright with " Exclusiveness"
Mathematical Argument for Episcopacy
Dr. Potts declaims, and is noticed. . . »
His History ofthe attempted Debate .
His Ecclesiastical Genealogy from 1517, &c.
Churchmen must not speak in " Unions," &c.
Dr. Potts differs from (j-ibbon's Facts ....
He. makes Assertions and brings no Facts
Misunderstands Stillingfleet 
Dr. Potts gives for Dr. Wainwright, Definitions of
Church, Bishop, &c. , . . . .
And his Own. Suits Presbytery ...
Looking back at tbe Tabernacle, reluctant .
Hudibras on the 1649 Religion of Opposition
Things cannot he right because they are Episcopal
Protestant Fragments versus Popish Unity .
Dr. Wainwright still refuses to change Sides
Waldenses and Albigenses  ib.
Dr. Potts is besought : " Proceed" . . . .37
Irrelevant Matters by Dr. Potts  ib.
Consequences alter Truth .' .... 36
Episcopacy is Primitive  39
Presbytery is Popish  40
Public Extempore Prayer is Ditto . . ib.
How two or three new Sects can be made . . . ib.
Dr. Potts's first Assertion, miscalled Argument . . ib.
Which is the General Assembly! . . . . .41
The seven Sons of Sceva and Satan in New-England . ib-
A Novelty, "the Apostolic Line of Truth" . . , ib.
An Inference which is not inferred . . . . 42
Dr. Wainwright shows thq,t the Episcopal and Presby
terian Doctrine of a God-sent Ministiy are the same :
Difference in Order  43
This proved, Dr. Potts, a Presbyterian, "unchurches"
Sects .  44
Dr. Potts begins to be a stanch Congregationalist . 45
Dr. Wilson, Presbyterian, '* unchurches" Dr. Beecher,
Independent  .46
The only proper Word for a new Baptist Version cf the
New Testament  ib.
M'^hammedanism is True because of some Use . . 47
Episoopacy receives People wAo come to the Lord's Table ib.

Truth is Exclusive . . . '^
Sermon under the Catholic Oak . .' ' ' 48
Direct and indirect Commission . . ' ' ' ib
Dr. Wolff and the great Bogos . . ' ' ' .Vib.ib.ib. 49
ib. 50
ib.

The Former is convinced and ordained
How can a Cobbler teach vnthout Jcnowing ?
Dr. Potts is the Judge on " Fundamentals" .
Games on his Fancy of Truth's Line .
Pres^tery destroyed by New-England Lay Element '.
ijr. Potts makes a true and eloquent Appeal
Desert Island and no Minister ; also, no Bible
Quesuon reduced, by Dr. Potts's Change of Sect, to " I^
there a Divine Ministry?" . . . ci
Presbytery answers "Yes" . . . [ ' {k
Independents reject Presbyteiy • .... 52
Presbytery excommunicates Congregational Fresbvte-
namsm  ^
Dr. Potts would have to battle the Pre'sbyteriansif he
were not fighting the Church .
Presbyterian partly sound Theory and false Practice .
No Ordination necessary «...
Dr. Potts's Dilemma as a Presbyterian !
Dr. Wainvn-ight's plain Question unanswered
He thought it was Presbytery versus Episcopacy .
General Assembly agrees with Dr. Wainwright .
The true Presbyterian Doctrines set forth from Pres
byterian Standards 
Episcopacy and Presbytery contrasted . '. '.
And the Former is the most Merciful ....
Dr. Potts grows Facetious and Syllogistic . . ' .
Quotes 17th Article, which has not Calvinism enough
to satisfy the Genevan Confession of Faith . . 62
Dr. Potts says he loiU, but does not answer Dr. Wain
wright's Question, " Yes" or " No" . . . .63
His false Analogy about a State King and a God-sent
Minister  g4
Resemblance between Congress and General Convention ib.
Dr. Potts pursues his false but darling Analogy . . (j5
Three Points for Dr. Wainwright to prove . . ' ib.
And three Points for Dr. Potts to prove . . 66
Dr. Wainwright a better Presbyterian than Dr. Potts 67
Dr. Wainwright's Appeal to Presbyterians ... 68
Dr. Potts suddenly sounds a Retreat .... ib.
Quits his Opponent and sticks to him ... 69
Men make States : God made the Church . . .70
Dr. Potts shows that the Church rests on nothing but
Christ  j5
His Figure of a large House and a small Cellar . . 71
Reasons, as Dr. Potts says, " plenty as Blackberries" , ii.
Dr. Potts overthrows himself with Mark, xvi., 17, 18 . ib.
As " Believers" cannot now drink Prussic Acid, there
are none 
Dr. Potts begins to use his Whip, Ridicule .
But is very Merciful  jj.
Dr. Potts having gone. Dr. Wainwright takes a finai
Leave l 

ib. 53 54
5657
ib. 5859
6061
ib.

ib.

73
IV. Twelve Essays, by Dr. Wainwright ; or,
the Scripture Ar^mentfor the Episcopacy . 75
I. Dr. Mason on the Christian Ministry . . . ib.
All Denominations require an outward sending . 76
Three Things do not, and a Fourth docs make a Man
" sent"  . , 77
Dr. Mason's sound Church Doctrine . . .78
II. How does a Man become a Minister ? . . 79
The Apostolic Ofiice successive ... 80
It has not failed, 1. Because Christ promised; and,
2. As an Historical Fact  81
The Congregation cannot send an Ambassador to
themselves  H.
The inward CaU is not enough . ... 82
III. The Apostolic Succession .... 83
Dr. M'Leod's sound Presbyterian Doctrine . ib
Episcopacy and Presbytery agree here . . .84
Differ only as to Parity and three Orders . . ih
Nature of the Evidence  85
Succession and Bible depend on similar Proof . . ib
Nag's Head Ordination is a proved Lie . . • St
Positive Testimony of its Falsehood . . , . i!>
Given up as False by Romish Historians and Bishops ib

176

INDEX.

IV. Apostolic Succession continued . . . .
Dr. Wainwright's Confession of a Mistake
Priestly Corruption cannot Destroy Christ's Appoint
ment  . .
Dr. Lathrop (Independeht) is sound . . . .
The History of the Succession .
The Care of the Early Church for it .
List of the Bishops in four Churches, from Eusebius
Names of 121 Bishops in regular Succession from the
Apostle John, through the Greek Church, dec,
down to the Bishop of Illinois ....
v. The Episcopacy . . ' 
Parity and Episcopacy examined ....
1500 Years saw only Episcopacy ....
If not, the Change was a Miracle ....
Origin of the Sects stated 
VI. The Scriptural Ministiy in three Orders
Unreasonable Demands 
Jewish and Christian three Orders ....
VII. Subject continued 
Apostles receive Matthias 
And ordain the seven Deacons .....
The Deacons preach and baptize
The Apostle Barnabas 
Timothy Bishop of Ephesiu 
Titus left as Bishop in Crete i . . . .
He alone ordains Elders 
Philippi an Episcopal Church 
Bishop Griswold on Epaphroditus ....
The seven Angels, Rev 
VIII; Continued 
St. James Bishop of Jerusalem 
Objection to a Ministry in three Orders from the in
discriminate Use of the "Titles Bishop, Elder, and
Presbyter, answered . . ...
ilX. Continued 
The Apostles not limited to a Dioeesan Episcopate,
and the Reason , 
The Kingdom of Christ established far and wide in
the Lifetime of the Apostles 
The Angels of the seven Churches . . . , .
IX. Summary ofthe Scriptural Argument for the Epis
copacy , . . , 
The Jewish Priesthood 
The Priesthood during; the Personal Ministry of
Christ 
The Commission ofthe Apostles ....
Origin of the various Sects 
XL Objections to the Scriptural Argument considered
Bishop Butler quoted 
Demonstrative Proof not necessary to confirm any Ar
ticle ofthe Faith 
The inferential Argument sustained ...
Archbishop Whately quoted 
The inferential Argument from Scripture cannot be
brought to sustain any Form of Civil Govemment
Bishop H. U. Onderdonk quoted ....
.XII. Objections to the Scriptural Argument concluded
Reply to the Charge of Exclusiveness and Uncharita
bleness 
The Church does not narrow down the Circle of Sal
vation to those within her Fold ....
The Church embraces in her Prayers, Watchings, and
Labours, "all Sorts and Conditions of Men" .

104

V. Remarks on the Essays by Dr. Potts.
'There can be no Church without a Prelate ; or. Is the Epis~
copacy Essential to the Church? . .119
1. Dr. Potts expects us to prove that the Sun has risen
every Day, even before Adam .... 119
His Pleasantry on the Welshman and Esterhazy . 120
Irrelevant Matters swept out in a Note . . , ib.
Dr. Potts's " Long Story," and not Strong Story . 121
Quotes the Christian Observer, and calls it Episcopal
Periodical  ib.
Bishops Seabury, Hobart, and Griswold : a Molehill
turned into a Mountain by the Folly of Churchmen 122
n. Dr. Potts cannot be and not be a Presbyterian at the
same Time  123
The Goliath of Jesuitism and the Stripling Usher' . ib.
Schism justified; Dr. Potts defends the Mormons;
Success is the Seal .... .124

Eighty Romish Clergy, &c., in England secede from
11,^0 ofthe Reformed Clergy
Dr. Potts denies Presbyterianism . . . .
Archliishop Whately quoted, and comforted by Schis
matic Approval 
Thinks God can preserve Truth, but not Order
Dr. Mason's Esoteric and Exoteric Doctrines .
His sound Theory and unsound Practice .
III. Dr. Potts leaves and does not leave " my Opponent"
Says Prelatists have no Commission but the Master's
Thinks an Inward Mission alone better thui the In
ward and the Outward together ....
The Lord taught all that the Apostles executed
Judas, a wicked Traitor, but a chosen Apostle
Our Times waited for Dr. Potts to rise and enlighten
them 
King George on Mpdem Pigmies, and Ancient Giants
Dr. Potts's Spiritui^l Conductor and Mr. Benedict's
Subaquatic Chain ...
The Reformers versus ti^e Reforiners, and Dr. Miller
versus Dr. Miller 
rV. Shall we receive the Succession or give up the Bi
ble ? . . . 
The Secret of the Popular Effect of Dr. Potts's Lo
gic, Note 
Lexicography distanced by Dr. Potts
Dr. Potts misunderstands and mistakes Dr. Wain
wright's Argument for the Succession .
The Episcopacy of Wesley, Coke, &c., Note .
Dr. Potts's Supposition about corrupt Consecrations
idle, fur none such can bo adduced ...
An Illustration from Rhode Island ; History of Dr.
Potts's Argument 
V. Dr. Potts, being at SeB., takes an Observation (Lu
nar ?) to " ascertain his true Bearings" .
Anecdote of a Presbyterian Divine, whose Blood boil
ed at Episcopal Doctrine 
How the Force bf Arguraent depends upon being on
the wrong or the right Side 
VI. Dr. Potts defines his Position ....
He attacks Dr. Wainwright's "presumptive" Argu
ments  ii
St. Jerome, the great stand-by of Presbyterianism ?
Dr. Potts referred to Marshall for Calvin's, Luther's,
&c.. Views of Episcopacy 
VII. The New-England Dinner served up again .
" Great Confusion" in regard to Names cleared up,
Note 
Dt. Potts now goes to work to examine the Scriptu
ral Argument , ¦ 
VIII. Dr. Potts continues his Examination of the Scrip
tural Argument 
IX. Dr. Potts having demolished his" Opponent," pro
ceeds to build up hiinself . .' .
Archbishop vV^ately not to be refuted by a young
Man's Arguments 
X. The Unchurching Dogma Uncharitable, &c. .
The New-England Dinner not over yet .
The Spread of this Discussion will promote Catholic
Feeling . . . " 
Dr. Potts is not disputing about Church Government
or Order, but considers that it will be an Honour
to him to make Episcopacy Odious
The New-England Dinner-table not cleared off yet .
Consequences of the exclusive Theory as stated by
Dr. Potts, and the short Answer to him in a Note
The New-England Dinner finished at last
Popular Notions in Religion and Scriptural Assertions
contrasted 
A Book written A.D. 1644 applicable to the return
ing Cycle, A.D. 1844 
XI. The Unchurching Dogma Schismatical .
The Unity' of the Sects, Note 
XII. The High Ciiurch exclusive Dogma opposed to
the Rights of the People 
Reformation needed in the American Branch of the
Church, Note 
" Behind the Age," Note 
Republican Character of the Catholic Episcopal
Church, Note  171,
Impaitiality of Episcopal Presbyters, Note

Page

ib.
ib.
125 ib.
ib.

ib.
ib.
127

ib. ib.
ib.
128130

ib.
131
132 133
134
135 137 ib.

138140142143
145 ib.
146147150151
157
158 ib.

159 ib.

ib.
160

161

163166

ib.
168

172172

3 9002 00817 5490

a o Z3

I

¦%