IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) '/■ // 1.0 I.I 1.25 ISO "^ 13.2 13.6 12.5 M22 IK Itl u ■llklft 2.0 150mm >IPPLIED J IIVMBE . Inc .^5 1653 East Main street ^^^^ Rochester, NY 14609 USA *" Ptione: 716/482-0300 .s=r.s=s Fax: 716/268-5989 1993, Applied Image, Inc., All Rights Reserved ^^ iV \\ <\ '^ CIHM Microfiche Series (■Monographs) ICIMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques ] The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D n Coloured covers/ Couverture d« couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagte Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicula I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Caites giographiques en couleur n Tight binding nay cause shadows or distortion al( Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bl«ue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound witn othor material/ Relie avec d'autres documents D D along interior margin/ La reliure tttrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^ lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete film^s. Additional comments;/ Commentaires supplementaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filme au taux de rMuction indique ci-dessous. ^0* UX 18X L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de f ilmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ I Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/o; laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pellicultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dteolories. tacheties ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages d^tachies 0Showthrough/ Transparence H Quality of print varies/ Qualite inigale de I'impression □ Continuous pagination/ Pagination continue □ Includes index(es)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header taken from:/ Le titre de I'en-tCte provient: □ Title page of issue Page de titre de la □ Caption of issue/ Titre de depart de la I I Masthead/ livraison livraison Generique (periodiques) de la livraison 22X 12X 26 X 16X Tflir J 2QX 24 X 28 X ID 32 X 1 lu'il cet de vue e tion The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thenks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^> (meaning "CON- TIIMUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grAce A la g4n4rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6tA reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film«, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fiimage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmAs en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en comnranpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microf.'che, selon le cas: le symbols —i^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols V signifie "FIN ". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmte d des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul ciichA, ii est fiimA d partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iilustrent la mAthode. D 32 X M£TJ Rl TH£ DiviN 9. ' t U /'ThatChrii fio'pei ordioai God. But whi oriiower over an equality of i raomj' toritert cramenta, and si BISHOP Waks. i»tti THE METHODIST mmSTRV FURTUrn . AGAINST or '« A SBRlBg OP r r. » OP LETTERS ADDRESSED TO The Rer. Charies J. Slirevc W WISCoPACr MAIsJ^S. ""^"'^"''■' of power over nil y '*•" wweed the «ni-M '? *''« ^ord of -Si' **RINTE. B Picf.wi. ¥ i« . ^ J STILES 1840. a; 83 3 4- The fullowinj centljr publishod Giiysboro', inw Origin and unii; My assailant has the ramparts of Efated with the s] fies a defeat .' Bi with the truth, tl ( dable GoJiath. » <. Jf <» o . A22)'^ismsnsiBM2iEsy5?G The following pages contain an answer to the pamphlet, re centlypublishod by the Rev. Cha.Ies J. Shreve, the Rector of Giiysboro', in which he has endeavoured to maintain the Divine Origin and uninterrBpted Succewion of Diocesan Episcopacy. My assailant has produced the strength of his cause, and; from ihe ramparts of his asrial castle, blown the trumpet of victory. Elated with the spoils of (an imaginary) triumph, ho proudly do- fies a defeat! But there isstill « .tone in the brook, and, armed With the truth, the despised stripling again encounters the formi- dable Goliath. May the reader calmly view the contest ! s i Reply to several Pamphlet. Ksv.SiR, I ACKNO tied, "ThbDi CEsaioN or Ei to bo a reply to reasons which v in candour bount produced convic sive claims you i government. In order to crc a small compass 8iyle, which, th( ance of severity, cative of angry f express, as you i striving to imprei that, in writing tt ence of a wralhfi It is not so wel England does not formed by presbj episcopal governn enter into its mini ss I know, a has thorized official y churches is scripts never unchurefifd " the pure word o I aiB'2'l?22 2iSj) d^Oo I*ef ter I. Ucv. Sir, .n candour bound to .J? Ah." yoVr^Z^ra/e' wo?ra ' n^"? governmeni: * ^"' °'^"'' episcop.l form ol Church '^Imau'^co^i::;^^^^^ can i„ I ance of .evori.y. I humSy\Cvou\T„T l?,r'!f 'P*^"/' cat ve of ansrv faalinit TkV- k ^ ? ? * 'egard as indi- » in 6 third p,r. of .h^/lJol u V/.i„Tt "Sr'^r^^^ Th. roiDt of f,o». unchurch ihfrom™'"'^,'*"' *«>*'?ver, i„ known n.«opi„.oo oVVh•ch^l^'''''^ P'" «"" ""•''m; ject of Church gov.rnii,ent Vo« . 5 "^ ^""" y"" *»" '»•• aub- '"»'• -hell of . narrow. .SinhSo. / u ^.°" ?'•'"•' •»•. •ip«n.ive field of. IrulJ chl Zn I^^K 7'. '" *••• *"•• •?•« "d «y. I •uppo.e. iri th ■ Ld o? f!r.i •'''''J'',y*'" •'••« 'iber. choice. Bulifvou'.hnMi ''^*''®'"' '» '»"«»w your own y- «.««:! r.^°:i„aX iCc? f r ^""[ili-'l^^CnC b'gotry. You ..eni to be Ifr.W nf,i ^^* "^ J*"' «»'"«• of your feeble „.,.„pT,o^„%'•;J°'^•''V,?^''*""'^^ »'•»<'• follow," «ay vou "ih.! K-i. ». ' '"'«e«noinecemrilv firmnoMhe mike.' known .ndi.^''.**'* "k""" *'"' ""d"" "ni Cert.inly . - . cler«m.„- 1 n« ''k' '""f*"'"'"." (lb. p. 4 ) known /nd mefnuK: op 'nir. ^'^^r^''/ ■"•"•• The »nanner of ennouncemen m.^noi .^ ?T •''*'^'''"»»"*. you forget th.t the thing hXvTilT,^^^ him. b.got. but re.peclm4 :he •nini.t.r Jf cU ralof I«u/T""''*' ""^ Now you h.»e irfopted un.c ip.orT.nd m«. 't''*!l*'''«.'' '»'««»'ren, «hu. ,,,«,*en I know not- but •« «- »« u *''°™ >«" ''•ve were /Ae true tmurcTxo the excIuio"n ^^'' !f "'('» " '' '« now you tcknowledge it il on v ^ * I *'>"• *"» Church f Well thi. •- r«L- ^ * *'""'•«* of the true all that i. in ytr'h\ ^ r"w r.i;:5rr' *"* ^''^ "«»••'• —for at the •Dirjf of ^— 7 ri ^",.*ni. appartnt •• iberaliiy" do you no. eZVefy t^'^vt tu;'fa7: "'7 ^"' ^" '«'- •".•Church in the Brhiah domfnio".' 'Vf ?«? "'',?*"• <»f ">« the k.ndneas to mention by nan,« .he «/*:, k ' T'" y*"* '"^« peraon. would like rerv mucTf« ! *"^ ^""*'^*' • »• '"■nv «he Church informt.i;7on"'.":f. ^I!^ ^"^ « ""• »«" of •nd rih of yoiir P«f,ce, I have only (oMy, I hav« never, to thi» d«y, heard a hint thai any one perion of my own conare- gaUon.prop.rly ao oalled. waa diaaaiitfled. but to the contrary. You feel indignant at the idea of my giving lo the world" a pnvate letter wiihoui the Banetion of the author." and bint at the unjuatifiableneia ofauch a courao. (lb. p. 7.) Charae It all. Sir. to my aiupidiiy. In my aimplicity, 1 really thought yow requeit to make it public conveyed that aanction. Shall I tell you rnore ? I alao thought from your manner of eiprea. eing youraelf m your note. '• the membera of the Church; and all oihera who deaire. ahall $ee and hear it." that you intended to publiah It youraelf. However, one thoughtleaa. improper act on my part cannot jualify an mtentional Improper act on your p., t. By whoae • 'aanction" did you publiah my private Jeiler to you f If I made it known to my people, thfl .. no reaaon why you ahould p.int it in . book But my defence you think waa unneceiaarj. Whj ? Becauae you aaaert that 1 •' have not advanced a tingle new argu- ment nor gtnen a new idea in aupport of my plea." Thia may be true ae it regarda y,ou: but the aubject waa new alto. '*li* '•.* J '"W'*'*"' **"* ''■'' "*»* •cceea to worka already publiahed. And then, you know, my object waa aimply to anawer your alatementa and ahow the follacy of your prelen- aiona. Had you given me neur arguments for epiacopacy by. divine right. 1 might poaaibly have met theae A new argumenta againat it. Aa to the leading argumenle you edv.nced. there waa but one, aa far aa I knew, that waa peculiar to vouraolf-the one derived from your three diflerent tenatnge forth, commit$idn$, an'iorJinatione of the Apoa- "•a. ihaltome.I confeaa, waaa a«u» argument. d,,^^ered. I dare Bay. by youraelf in the courae of your very dev > .e.earch. At all eventaj^ou ahall have ail the credit of the profound dia- lllP:, *•»■"'' V •!;•• *•••'••» «"• of «he whole. It waa perfectly atllp, and had you nothing more plauaible than that to oner, your caure would indeed require a •• prop " Af v at ricturea. however. I perceive, have .baled your confidence •n It. aa. m your reply, you are careful not lo attempt toaay a word scarcely in juatifiration-not to matte en effort tf. rescue tho offspring of your fond conceit (See your Pamp. 12.) To the appellation of polemic" (lb.) I have no decided objection. Tou yourself aay. •• I love lo see liuth aiipported and error corrected." Thia ia not pecoliaiMyou. I al.o love to see truth SMpported and error eorre^RT" On thia TJ fri"'^ Ipublished my Defence. You. Rev. Sir. made the ailack. You thought proper to doUie privately on a wo- rn n. I thought proper to nph publicly lo yourself. If >ou had not made iHa .tiacb ik- n'r .*..■/-" " •' • . ' ••••' ^i-'vin.^ TtuuiQ jiui nave ap- peared. ■ .i.Ti'm^fT.k'*'^ * *»'•'' *!"" ' "'*^' ""'e Pl«in. simple etaiement of the case." waa thia. You were atriving. ao I was informed, to make an imprcFsion that I had attacked you, and •hmkfouh.^dL? ^""'opinions «, i^fanhT^^'y-^^^i'^i expect heC3l|''\''/'-<^«rf«W' Ofcour.? 'S'^orant of f-'-n make it opp'ej'/'' ff^'P'" ^'^ '•tt' ^ too*^"'" ?2 « / ■» "10 imputotion. A» (o Ilia hufband. I bJitve r am correct in layinff il.at ha I, nof a commumcant m jour Church. ...d can be .u.rJ ,o be a •• mem. ber of ,he Church'' only w,.h the ..me proprie.y .. 1^ cTuZ M.d 10 be • .nember of ihe We.lej.n br.nch o( ,he C?.u d. lie occ..,on.lly .tiend* Church .nd p.y .omeihing fur yoT; •upport : the .ume may be .aid of him m re.pocl lo u.— You .re .were ih.t. .i the requo.i of (he father; / b.piiied ihe very child m iiue.lion. u-j^i^ea ine .. Jv'lV„'„'.""i ^T «!*■• °'">°"' interference of «„.*?,!«? T'\.'* P'«""»»le. bui unfortunately for you, not correct. Mr. Cunnmgli.m ht. .uthor.zed me to ..v that nrrS^k?Jlt -J"' *"'•' "" Epi-opacy, .he e,pre..ly .aid. Mr Sfireve wtshe, you to read it. Thi. M,. C. t bought wna. on your part, an unnece..ary interference-.n effort made by you to iinaettte her mmd a. to the validity of the ordination «fthemm..try of her choice. That it «J. your hope thM the re.dmg of that work would .o convince her of thi divine in.tilulion ofEpi.topncy, a. would induce her to abandon Ihe M//.««j«»tfd mm..try of Ihe Methodi.l.. and return to the ''Hoi!, Mother Church." I ahoutd conclude from your o"« [.S tU 1 *! uH °^"'• "'?• • ^'•^ *••"'" •'" •*" having writ- ten the •• illeberal remaik. m pencil" to which you refer: but. hoping that It would convince her of her error, .he thought J?Z'l^"^T^UT^'^t^K''' r'i"«y«>» » writing the re.uli of the peruaal. f h,. .he did. end you thought prSper to ei.- l!i.j. ' ? • •"?'•"••* •• yo» by letter, her determination to receive Irom you no more communication, on the .ubiect In coming to thia conolueion .be wa. influenced by v.rioue ^iVn j".''? J'C*'""i '^"' ■''• ^"^ •■'*' "'«" '^'•h «o have her wind di. lurbed by reading any thing more r«.pecting the ex. cluaive c»«ims you put forth in behalf of epi.cop.cy 7 but .he » free to confe... that the princip.! reaaon wa.. tbat.m her JtZZ: ^T ."•' '• ''V ""•••"••l ••nguag h.r.h and in- decerou."-l.»guageth.i no gentteman, to .ay nothing of a clergyman of he Church of England, ought to use to a lady -that .he could not bring heraelf for a mumoot tocon.ent to leceive any further communication, from the.ame source. T« your unqualified aiserlion. th.t .he '• afierivards expreased to- her friend, her regret for what had tran.piied".o a. lo-incul- pate her.elf. -••.!. ted that .he had been urged bv others to write a. aho had done, and wa. de.irou. that all 'should be pawed over, as though it had not been," .he feel, hereelf compelled by a due regard to tiulh. to give a mott posilite, vnquahfied demal-»nii. cannot buta.y, if no more reliance can uep.acoa on the correctnea. of your other siatementa. and of your whole performancp. than ia to be placed in your vcraion of her ca.e, the truthfuliteas qf (he whole ie to b« re- garded with the greatest bucpipioq, • 1 i9 '-"cla of the iase hat"' ^°" J<>""elf w-JT^" f "'''^''^ on '" the Sirse of h?« fredet^puSn," (Lh ^ toT^ ^" "« pious part of l!^i '"'"""' Mr C. took n'.i • '^ *"J'«« »''»' They ren/i J J'''* ">« ^^iscourse hI JV «en"eniai» your nojes of « J • '?*"« ''««" duped bv i„^^* °«"""'' *'' C. you say ycu «• i f,„l !"' "'ore ihan I really rf 11 not know Ihat you had been so busy and ao successful in Man- cheslor. To what other circumstances you alludo I know not. This I do know, that wherever I went K continually heard something of the sayings of Mr Shreve as to the invalidity of the baptisms &c. of Methodist ministers and others. Ace- neral impression was attempted to be made that we had na scriptural right to baptize &c I was grieved that any person calling himself a Protestant clergyman should lend himself in any way lo the propagation of such absurd stalemonts. founded as they were on the fable of the uninterrupted succes- ■ion. Itwastimeto speak out-and I intend to speak still more plainly.--.and hope to be able to m»ke oven you bp' m- ea of this worthless conceit. I^etter II. No positive command in Scripture in favour of Diocesan Enisco- pncy-Miscellaneoui matters-Tho Christian Church formed after the model of the Jewish Synagogue-Miscellaneous. Rev. Sir, Ha.vin« replied fully to the statements contained in your preface, I now turn ray attention to the contents of your Letters. I do not however think it necssary on this occasion tonotico all the matters you have introduced, as some of these are totally irrelevant to the subject in debate; but those whicL era essential will receive consideration. You certamly must feel as far as the decisions of scripture are concerned, that the ground on which vou stand against the non-episcopal part of the religious world, is exceedingly slender. Hence in the commencement of your first letter, I find you asking this question, «• Is a plain, positive, and di- rect command absolutely necessary, to decide the point in question?"(p. 1.) Thisisnot a very flattering beginning, but the query itself deserves an answer. My reply isf if you make Diocesan Episcopacy essential to a true Church, as you ftre evidently striving to do, I think you ought to produce something positive by which ihis form of government is either enjoined, or the Church restricted to it. It is very reasona- ble that j/ou should not presume to unehurth all non-epis- copal denominations of christians without you can produce from the New Testament some precept, rule, or law, by which the the divine will evidently declares Diocesan Episcopacy to be necessary to constitute a true church: " For where no law is, Ch«,ol,.",o inil»c.,.„,.°'"f. '.i'.""'."™"' cortom of to "Jiornl ft,™ of cliorch nolii. Ik l^'»fecence Id iba oie» 18 will not affirm. Bishop Tmomne I.as evidcnily Jnkon U.a same view of li.e subject as I have here expressed-.. Tho°.„l * iiaja he. ■• I flatter myself that I have proved episcopacy Jo hee IS no precept, n the ^ew Testament which cow.maJs 19 It no bmdmg on •• every church to be govornid by bishop "" Evidently becauae .hero is no precept in the NewVstament which command it." The Now Testament pomo.ands cimrcl foZTh"* '"/T;"'l^"' *">•'"« "« par.icular form; o to use the words of Bishop Tomline. «« .1 e Gospel only bvs down general prmclples.nd leaves ,he applica.io'^n of fern o men as free agents." Your inferences may juslifv tTi n « Jrhir.?* '"J"* ""••Prif^d at my asking of vou more than I roenl which I advocate, (hat is, •• a niain nosiiivo .Iro,, .r^Tih': 1?""-?'""*' »''-i' be^it" hafrr • i '" : bing in the New Testamect to prove the d.vine riaht of .W oTvrZTn^''7' ^V •'^'"'^ » «'" Jl-'ifiable in de^rn nj. ing of you more than I ought, on mv own principle?, to be re- quested to produce. Were I ,o assert that our form of c urci governmeni is essential to a true church, that U.ce is no I aesSm. „n ? "." '""' P"'""'" P'oof of my a.serl.on.^ But Uut churrh^n '• """^""i P0«'"«": wl'ilst I acknowledge rar icSr.r tej""'*"V*?'''^*' °^ °''**' ' •''"> Relieve that no rnicllh^n"""'"""' *««°«8««nt*«l >hat without "tlero tteTc":i'uter^"''^ '"'''''' '"'"^•" •"« -" o^God I Again: your argument is what logicians call ar^umentum S^ler"r?;^',''".'PP"!'° "^y *«''opinione^Nov '7 ; Jlf cVcEe' M^"*«^ '""'' o?.,gumcntis n?t m liueorTlse Ton!iiTr'.°". °">er subjects may be £^0^ of j::^!:^ :i-t':^ -rz^*;i:tK- he opinions appealed to are absolutely true BufZ. vo, h. e not done; and this is not the place^ for mo fo ju ?y^n%' Dr««n'. I.r "';P'"'«! "^'-aracter of infant bapti.m &c A't to adduce tometl " ting I inferences from doubtful pre^ ,!l M i ' !!' I ft ! ^' l\ 14 "ir ^"SS "^ '•"'"' P-''- ^0" Have assumed .card for tins nmong oihor reaso^H ?J„? n^P."'"P'Jcy •' CerlainJy no. : •"ff. nnd u.uful„e8sUvraf,lrdehr7"^'™'"^"'P^ ^e.i .heir decided belief. ,,«"(« 'nfernr '"*'"' 'g"""". Profea- •'00. nn. prove diocesan ep iclVcv^^^^^^^ ' v"""'">' '"'' °'«J. d.vnes of equal q..al,ficaUo„srv? ^ Lvid y^" """""y """ •ef. But what does .hig nrolr' ?' "" opposi.e bp- 'o"ofdiocesHnepi9co»acvTd«h«, K^"?' ""•' the quoa- ^y "•'''\•^*'i««^emp?ed^obe : „i?;h'^™''''« '"•^'""".v n'oana clear, that d.rd! B..t surely you vvirnot «""'"'''','"""' '"*y°"'-'>*^n judgment! ' "^^'i-ve tl/emal 1st' ",";^„'''' "' *1 "^ " ^"'- Truly c-eason cpigconacv InH T * . P'""® "'^ divine right of dio- n.sh s„flfcL„Tr?a;o„ffiro'E^^^^ ' «hall be able .oVur- iieC. "*' ""''era •«» entertain a similar be- ^I'^play .n striving .„ conn„a Anos^olie d'"''-'^^ '"^'"'""^ y°" "O'Mou have quoted from l^romJ.?°u'''°" "''''''*'« ""'■ «hop'slicensene..her pesbvter nor' « "' ^'""'"' '''^ **'- b»Pt.=^e." Yougravely ?,?oVm " ..'1^**'°" »»" «» ''gl't to opinion was derived Jerome d?er„^. / "' "'''"* '°"'<'« 'his -i'b great propriety conclude tj^t ?^' - "'"V '^'''^""^ Apostles themselves-! At nrst I vi, n r^'^r'^*^- '^"^ •*»« credit of being .ho origina.o if .hit , ''"!•*.? «"" 3""* "'« firilifism." urail I rpmol^u i'" '«'n''rknble " canon of ;■'-.. i.np;"ari t«rrm^^;t;\i;;^'?.^//-/--'^'s. of •bings which tifec .^hTni/ rsa Xwr*""'''*-^^^^ "^^"^^ mined by councils tra .o h? ^ . , ' ""' '*''' '^°""'' ^eter- rrn.. .b/.radiu"n;?Tho Apostlel"'^'' " '"'"'"S ''«"«"^«'^ --ydrop.«;^;-,t:;^:;j-K':;:£^:Lr assumed loword 15 legiiimately drawn. I believe Jeuome was ein.ply declarinj^ the praa.ce of the church " ««> wereZt t ,e Apostles, and secondly their successors. On tbesurnositi.n that grant what you assume respecting those who are em do !v" nlr/7 l''""'?^' •" '"'P''"' ""'' •»"" the Apostfes wer; "' tho first place the source whence .he right, in its subseaue u •"Sso7s>'\?t';;"s""''' '°r r ' '° "^-^^ ^^^^ -- "- successors to this especial office ? You tav bishom, so ».. order superior to presbyters, are. If 1 ask 'you from wha Tt o/Ti''''"'V'"^ '"'■»^'"«''"". y«" canno't adduce any par of the iru-piied writings. The new Testament i»A7- F^tH;^s^'X■;r;^h''/^? ^"'^°" teTme^T". ejclusive power to confer so as to have the Which of the Fathers on others the right to bapt condescend t give you this information ze. rourth you do not say; whether those of the first, second, third century. Ignatius, I am aware, h or nil as said '• It is not I mil I ^1 II 16 Jawful wi.hout the bishop, eiiher to b «... I'oly communion : but wUitol ' h- .V ' "" "'•l>'ale (he ai-o pleasing unto God*' (£0!^ »,?«'"'' "T'''"' ''^' «'•'" « " lawful A, on/y another word f.!"'^''"- -^ "* ^ '^''« •«^"' oan be proved ,0 .mp'y a law e;.abthrd7"'i''^* *"^ "«^" To Bay (hat « presbyier hA „K. 1 . ^^ ''^ **"""« authority. or admims.ertheeucha is. «i?hou u^ "" "«''* "> «»P«*^ B.on of a bishop. « comrTrv x^lT * «o""nand or permis- and therefore Rija in'S ^''refaion' bv Jo ""'«'' "^ '"is akjecf. nothing. The lau^fJJ... ^. P^^^'ng ««o much pioveB «o an/cc/.«a S"n"d"noT tn^'di" •""" 'hrerefore'ref" as the manner in ^hich vo^ .?» """** "'•""gemen.. But volves the ques.ion of od.„?.iJn •.?'*""'*'' "•« «"bject in- »how from\he genuine wrii'''^^^^^^ ^."^ '*'"'' «"°"«h (o or P01.VCAHP. tlfat even CTi ev d wl'^'r T" '°''"'•^'• o.rder superior to pteabvliirs h».l thy . • ' '"••»op». as an cavilling, 1 ^ould belJave tJZ?!,u """ 'J''"'^" '^"'»»'^ *ta»tc» are nothino «« • # "■P««'"^""y to remind tou that ^ScnptureiVrJ'ai :Jti;fe "tes^^^ '''"' •"""?• ^a (he as you affirm that The FAxTEHn!-'^ ^ '*""*- ' ■"** w" you arso inform t^^tX^l declare that they are. Mlly inspired fortT^ebaJlJLl;^;^/' "1?' ^''•J' "'•'^ »»Pwnatu. be it 6bsSrved. on\vhiK?wfl^^ thlBi,oint-.Vpoin". •ven allowed (otlXu^l^f., * con{royer8y (urn. ?J.For have plainly declaJe?fhathr'"' '*''•*"'' ''^'"""^^ presbyter*, are in (he Ji'l df .h ^"' ".*" «»"'«' -uperior to •hi. purpose*. Jheir ',iS,7;Ul'Kj;7'b; inspire/ ftfr d'v.ne; in which case you cJuld M^ifKi. „ f ?^"'**'» ■"^ "" '^or episcopacy. Bu( vou kn«i .f . . ""'^ ''"'"»" ■uthority in hi. Epistles to (he Magn«,aL» h '^ "". ''•^'** ^/»«:*//e». (presiding) ,n the vlaeeJihll^ i" '/^.' yo«" /TMftyf ^r, to the Thax.i.,1?, ^b'f^V;";"^ (§ 5.) to the ^poules of JesustKis ."oC hope^-'^/a^r.'L'r • ." Smyrneans, " See that va -iiV»»i ""P®' \§ 2 ) and to the -Apostle,." (^ 4) ir'j; dJL°S7""'*^^'^'^y"^'.^ " th6 the testimony of Ignatiu7 if if "15J7..*''"^ ?'"*'««' "P<"* byterscameintlfpirce^^heAt'oM,^^^ »ve .bought pfes- we need not require. The iaturKr ' ""^ """'^ than this cording toIgnatiu8DrP.h!t.r! ■'"'!'''"''*'"'• that, if. ac^ tie., (hey poioss by vuTofomrt '" /J' ^'"'^ °^ "'« ^V"' minis.er'(h'e ^acramVnt" ol^bafia;?;?!?' ^1'^' ''»'*'• to ordain and .0 DerfoMn •«««,„ .u • • " ^o"* « "upper, ■> •helrLthren.^alledP btsh.To?;.''^''',^^ '>'"'*» °"« ''^ it under his direction ^hi3«r?an^m«^^^^^^^^^ '° "^° mis arrangement, is however, purely ec- 11 cleaiaslical. in no woy effecting iheir divine right in the mat. ter. Wherever ep.gcopacy wqs estabiisncd. such, I believe, was the cose in the pritniive church; but this arrangement, being only prudential, is not binding in all churches; aHd prea. byters now have the divine right, a right inherent inihelrof. fice, to perform any duty of a ministerial character, which the Apostles in their ordmary capacity as ministers ofChrist. were overpowered to do. IJenco my former proposition is es- tablished. '.that, nolw.tstandmg your quotation from Je- KOME. the ordained Wesieyan Ministers have as muth right to baptize, asany other ordained ministers. "-(Defence p 13.) You could not allow my statement to pass uncontradicted that,' much light 18 thrown upon the constitution ofthepn- mitivo churches, by recollecting that they were formed very mush upon the model ol the Jewish Synagogues;--and not- withstatidmg this opinion has been adopted bv Divines of su- penor abilities, eminent learning, and deep research, you, "an W/e country Rector." have undertaken to decide that there is something extremely week in this method of hand- mgthe subjeri!" Where the real weakness lies. ,t may not be necessary for me at present to say, but I have my own opi- nion. I grant there may boa few points in which the re- embiance may not hold good, but this effects not the gene- a similitude The same may be said as it respects the Jew- h Church. You will not affirm that the Jewish Church i. the perfect model after which the Christian Church in ever^ rarttcular ,, formed. How " t/,e«A-." then, is your ohjec- w. /«il .'"■'r''r®^'"'8°8ues afforded." because Ihern were some points of d.ss.m.larity. In the Temple, there was f/Z. /•."'* '^r"'"'^ '^ exhortations or sermons, and no administration of sacraments: but all these more or less ap- sacraments, a these wem n nnrf nF «i,» c..„ rri • I ,. "^'"' "«-io a pan ot tlie synai/osue-servicR There IS therefore, in all material points, a p*^refter res m- b ance m ho eonstituHon of the Christian Chu?ch to the Sv- itis fvTdinrlr ;'"=^TP'«; ,^^ il regards the sacramtnts, here in li 'own r?"' ""''^ i"**^ "'" """'"'"y '" ^^'^l^''^'' lip "''•«,,*^^" Cl'urch; and even in the appointment cf n A.*, ''«/"''°««'l "o r"«s connected with the Temple or its coiiimemorntion of the dp"irrvm-» a^ i • "'"■"^"8/" • - " U8„irov!n0 aimlo vcssiiis ovtr i(:o aron and his sons were appoinifid In Jewish families, before A„.„.. „„„ .'voiST„"!r''- *^"' "'^ •^°^'^^' P''«^'« ^fi'^'^d ^^p Sacrifices larac. ri -r 7'^' "r"^ ."''^ formed their dist.nj.nf. . Characteristic, which is fatal to your assumed model. F or IT IS especi./,; whin ^"m K i ^1,";^?'^ '"'''"" »*» P'"" ' gret that you have nat *!?«« ™? ' " " " •"»"" «>f '«• 1. •• There werrr«/il?„Z'''J «*'«:•»'"»«'''"<'• of these. minister, angel o b^ho7J,"he^Ie/.Z'' «>"»!,''«"« ^^"h «»»« Did you intend ih^r^ ■ e *° '"^ public devot one." Elders. orPre.fv?c.8 ofwhom on/""*"*"! *""' ''" «"'•'•• Church, or Minisier of «h«s- """. '*"* ^"«*' "^ "'• public service Zee.:; \tfe'W;r^ who euperin.ended the Now here yo? aro epeaC «'' ' '^'^ '*^'"'"'*^' ROgue: and ihilaryou'^affi "* °. .["•'" '''^u* .J«*«h Syn«. finedtoaainglecoVocation" vV. '•' ■""!*»"'y was con- caae in ih. CbristJ^n^cfurr" ^luJ"^' "V" ''" ""* ""» Jewish Synaffoffuea" I..H n« '.t«''5''« "J for •• rulera of Churchea.^ B* t'yo; inlind J*^ authority at all .i„ Cbriatian not confi„ed"T„\7s aurhor?t;^r^. ^r. i ?'*" '•'""'P" *" Then it could have doae vo« n« I ?r' "on^'egation." ?o plainly, without JTavC "3 \T.'JL ^7 '"'' ''^^ " 'ng- You should diatincoL. hi,^! J^ * u " •** ^°"' "•■"• what is accidental sftTJeeJfiJtr "''"' " ?««""*' and he must exercise authori I oveJmlm/.„'"'P'""' ""''''P «''•» cesan bishop we are no no» /n b^ congregatrona .' A dio- bishop or minister '^°' """^ ^P«a""ng «>f. but of a acriptHtal Oosp?| marbe sTaituated asVoter* l^'r' '"'"'•"" '^ »•»• important and essential poin Is ^^ Synagogue .n more : «o!;e''*iru?'tW*"* "''' "?"**'' ** •»« """"bera of the Syna- Rogue. but they were under an obligation from «,hi,.K » human power could absolve them. JlT.4 tb? tem'^e'-e"," | For whs! purpose you made this remark, or the hi..rin. has on Iheeubject in Jiand. von h«v- „'.'..?' _?.•"*':•"« bject io iiand, you have not taken the i*'JI. ' '***• •' j"»t where 1 find i Vu L* . "^^ " J"" *"*'« » find ii- 4. The b.shop of the Synagogue had ao pruideney il pains to over the f," onee ofiered Bceaaity fof the eldera; (he bishop ofthe Christian Church had, by the consent of all parlies." The play here is upon the word " bishop," as oppiicd both to the Synagogue and the Chrislian Church. Define your terms and the mist will vanish. And then it might be asked, whether presidency over other ministers is essentially ne- cessary to constiiute a ncripiural bishop? But there wa8"« presidetit of ihe council of Eldera or Rulers" in the Syna- gogue, who •• was called by way of eminence, the ' Ruler of the Synagogue,* though not of an order superior to his cof. leguea; and hence Mr Wolson was led to say, as quoted by me In ihe Defence, that the modal aflTorded by the Jewish Syno- gogues, provided, amjng other things, " for the government of the Church by a council of Presbjiers, ordained solemnly to their office by imposition of hands and prayer; and it allowed of th^t presidency of one Presbyter chosen by the others, which was useful for order and for unity, and by which age, piety, and ^ifta might preserve their proper influence in lh« Church." 6. •• The first had no dtvine commission, the last had." This might bn granted, and our cause still remain uninjured. The quahfications of the parties fonn no part of the compari- son : the similitude goes to the mere fact that the constitution of the Synagogue. Auman let it be, eSurded the wodel after which the pitmitive churches were very much formed. 6. •• The one administered no sacraments; the other did." This objection, if possessed of weight at all, lies equally against your own scheme. The priests under the Law ad- «)ini8tered no sacraments, as peculiar to their office. The observance of etVcumctiton and of the po«5ot;er was otherwise secured. 7. •• The one was the messenger or angel of God; the other the messenger or angil of the people." But would this prevent the one from being the model after which the other was formed? The fact is, «ll of your reasoning taken from Dr. Bowden, without whose assistance I should judge youwould be sad' ly at a loss, is only calculated to prove the synagogues as synagogues, were not christian institutions. I never affirmed they were : but, as it respects a model, after which the Ciiris- tian Church was formed, the points of similarity are decidedly more in favour of the Synagogue than of the Temple service. It is also evident that our Lord himselfand his Apostles «anc* tioned the synbgogical institutions, in all probability they were members of the synagogues established in their respec- tive places of nativity; at all events they regularly repaired to them, and look pari in the services. Need I add, thai when the Christiaa Church with its ministers and services wa? -3ta- biished either by our Lord or his Apostles, no matter wt o- del they observed, it waa truly a christian institution, as to the improbability of the Almighty taking the synagogue ser- m Vice ii 26 .'• ,?'.?'!'"" '»': "'« Ch'i-tian Church. which you mention ^P^'^;^^\X\;:iryr!^';!>b'^^ |ain, in :he eUabhbhinent of I •■ . — --••"■•iiiciii oi one o !>optim. the improbability of our L one of 11)0 Sa Vou niighi as Hell m ain- ieh practice in r eupocl ord follow trnrncnis, that of tt^e a moie Jew- 'y aiini'lar, '^^'rar^VweVnow'^as'innri ■^*'? """ "'« P'-'ecUViv «3y that God never could or woddX')". '"»'""'*°'>; and to •l'« Jewish Church is cerlainll?„ fr! "^ "'f external form of The Jewish econon,;::;'7bLVt°iTsi;J''' "''^ -'^yfl^nol more reasonable to conclude thM^l!!*.'"''^' ""^ '» '» f*' the Church would bo aUeJej J'VJlfi "'*'""' 8^'""'"°"' «>f stances. """*'' ogreeably to its varied circuiii- ChIrcf^G::e'len?'a:::o;';.^"'f "'« P-«'>>-«' '•-- Of Christiatj Church woL model/ daffu.lV' t*^!.'^'' ""' "'^ adduce the testimony of one or iwoerilr^ i*""' '^>"««°8"«. ^ Dn. LiGHTFooT savs "f °r.7'»«r'8Copal wnlers:- Temple 6e/«g o^S/rf as bJnr"" ""'' "°'«'''P '^l" "'° planted the wmhip and nuM^ ?T * ."'■^'"""ial. Cod tran^^ ^'!/nagogues, nS'as'^^J^ ';;/:::!'"" "'pf "'^ .««" '" ^;i/^f ';'«•'"" Church being mo- asthey retained m.-^ny of ibe rkf o^.h!"/ "' '^-'^ ""'^ '"^ • opiJu^;orpt:"r.i;jr°eli:nt''v?7^'"'' - «"- reg.men or pol.iy of the Clrisfian ri *" f "'"'«'«. " «»Je whole thepa»er/o//Aesiwi^'^^ was conformed, o .Tl'ese writers I humbfy fhl^k TtSaT V" '!' ^"^^ fiical world, as either nl nil', "'"«'» '" «he theolo- Shrevc; and at pre en I I fe.^T" i"" "'* ^^''- <^^«'-/''* ^• i-por.aoce.o Zro^tV.ZTJr T"'' '"""^ " "-'' ^'■ofesior of Moral PhiZall;^ '"^J^*^' "« ""''at of the ««C the -ALi/e.. SrTf'c^uMoTa'''' ''"'""''•'' ^''''«««' Ch!rrcr;ooVa;r,t'con"""/'" ^^'«"- -**" •"»*'« '«"» ;^.«e you would have perce led fUr^f*"T"'"?'"""'«' °"'«'' Church, was not foundeTon\l^.\ f •'"'"^''' ^^'"'cb, as a twelve patriarchs wer" the Dronrni/""^' pahiarchs. The buiU.o..Covenan.'':a marfviKL'L'''* ''''\'' ''">"! '«velvo patriarchs. If you will 7n. V *r P^T"'"*" »'" "'« whom the Jewish Chi ri „•«« r "^f i" T*^ " '"'"'"" being oti li >oumeniion 1 free to do as ' as well main- icnis, that of [ a inoie Jow- ' o'e precisely "•ion; and to Jrnal form of one of I.-rae/ and it is fat oyernmont of ried circuiii* •erial form of lief, that iht Synagogue, I irs; — rehip of ilie I Cod lranfi» used in the ian Cliurclj i God's worn '!» being mo- sy could be; governmeni. — (Ol«erva- . on whose " the wJiolo nformed to 11, 30) Church of ■> hav« lent nts, other- urch, aa a chs. The ve tribes; renovvpd ara of iJie ) being on certainly U others. in The tign r.f peculiarity commenred with him; llie prnmiae o'f the progenitorehipof Messiah was orisjinnlly given to li;m; und he is culled the father ' tlie Faithful. Uui passing over this, the parallel will nut hold : for, you connol so soon have for- gotten, that St Paul was added to the twelve ns an jlpot- tit by our Lord himsoll, so that llio nu:uber of the Apostles was just thirteen! You al^o f:el that believers *• aie built upon the foundation of tho prophets''^ as well us *' tlio Jlpos- ties," and that " Jesus Christ himself" is ** the chief cornsr- 8ton«."— ('Eph, 2. tJO.) I pass over another Btnlemenl of Dr. Bow den's, (p. 4.,)tha't •• there were lUvn thiee orders in iho Jewish Church; in tho Christian three likewise— tho apostles, ihe presbyters and the deacons; to the first of which succeeded tho bishops." This is rather loo early a stage of the discussion for you to take for granted the very things you ought to prov«. If mere assertion la sufficient tc decide the 'question, you 'raighl have spared Iho remaining part of ybur pamphlet. " The facts" (query, what •• facts" ?) '• which have been staged" by you aie not " euflfi- cient to convince an impartial mind, that the christian ministry was not conformed to that of the Synagogue :" the evidencu preponderates in favour tff the bolif^f that it was. and the force bf the argument drawn frOtn this souYce and stated in my De- fence (p. 14. 16 ) remains unlouch'sd. I shall notice your -quotations iroin Jerome (p. 6) in a lubab' queni place. The testimony of " Isidore, a bishop of Seville," (p. 5) re- quires no particular comment. Only observe!. Voa have fallen into i. alight mistake, very pardonable in ^oit. who have boasted so much of your perfect knowledge df this subject, biit which in me would be charged to the score ofignoranee: You 'make Mosheim call Isidore of Seville. " a, man of uncomiuoh learning and sanctity," whereas he gives this character to "Isidore o( Peluiium" who flourished In the ccntuiy.precet/- tigjthe former. Mosheim's character of •• Isidore of Seville'* is thus given—" whose grantmatrcal, theological and historical piwiuctions discover more learning and pedantry, than judgment and taste." 2 Isidore of Seville lived in the sixth century. His testimony rests only on the statements of others. He knew not from personal knowledge that "bishops," as un order su- perior to. presbyters, succeeded the "Apostles." 8. He saya bishops "are appointed throughout the whole toorlJ to the seats.of the Apo-Jtles " Does he speak of his own times, or tff the limes immediately succeeding those of the Apostles ? If of the former, his testimony proves nothing in your favour: if of the latter, Ire contradiels Ignatius, who says '« ihc Prcs&yicrs pro- side in the ijjfttce of the CDuneil of the Apostles." 4. He does not say by whom this a/>j}omfment was made, the very point in question. It may be tiue that bishops were " ap- porniad to the seats of the Apostles," and yet it may not be ^r«e that they were tftt>inc/y appointed. 5. By whom was Irs I 2^ ••» •'" «y our J.ord! Z' o;'.r' /''"'? ""^ oJpWy pleaBe point out tl,e Dlarl i. ■ '"•?"«'' «filerf .'If,© perauade ||,« poon/e tl.- . "°" ''"^ "'» K^od fcrtuue fo .uccded to .rctt; ': 'r/'-V^ «».• C J,i.ti.„ cZch "h priest hood J" and li« f«r.i * !' ""' P'""l«fi«» ofibo Jew- •on of officei. «o intirery d .t nT. r^'?"'' ""' '*""'^ "">*•". A« yet, you have nm tV? "P>^'f* <>' P^ecediiig writert. of your ploa. l^Zh^ if n""** ' *'"«'« •'*''» 'hT-uppori •hall .ee aa we/r^ceej " ^"" '"'"•'l«n"y .«cceeTS^ /r Idler IH. Rev. Sir, ^:?:?R^S:n?^;^i-j;- ^^(P^«-. ^n favour or the You yourself acknowlediTeih.r-. """ ""^ •"eniion. »"bject. ei.her defining t^fsClll,; f ° *'^/"' '"^ o^ ''.e "•"king it absoJuielv Jeceesarv « -," ^''"" ^^ «overnn.e... of God. "^ ""'^'*>''""'««enceoftheChi,,;'; Your only evident* «h«» • • ^ your inferences muS^'e dthe'r cVr/^"'"',:"'- '^^' Cround. of would be apparent to every si„clr«°',*'^"!!'« = '^^'wr. «bey fcure, by what .cr,>/„% 'J/J"?J't T^'' ^J'" '""hj iV ob^ r -.-°^vL:y«>- --.sirs .,-r «... . c "'.;.;'r„',-..-"j.f;::;:t-,-' ■".' ^ii - »"• . * P.2C' ^ luoi. have feJ hiatl^l ' ""^ "ripture. the British rH»Tir - • • • " '^y ' christian mj-iom-v Church governn^cnt is Bo;a,wriaddowr *'"'"«' ''"^"^ «f 23 >n itio high prj«at rured I he pretby. wrileri? |f,o, 'nd com my, Bty a i^good fcrluiie to -hriitian Church >£«• of (ho Jew- , indeed, highly absurd comptri- ihroufch ignor. n." Ifidore, in fwriiert. ' in ihtt dupport 'j* fuecDti, we 'hrist— Miscel. ravour of the "ention. » law on ihe vernnit..!, or fthe Chi-c'. e grounds of ^ clear, I bey fulh; if Ob- ner? That men of ihe Y in seeking all. It re- fiey ore ob. Xure. nee, apeak- translation Qiissionary, Va, •• Few I form of pture, that 18, 1830. p. 134 ) From this ho arj;io3 the necessity of liav. ing recoumo to the Ancient Pdlhera to ascertain what this form was, which is as fjr as hi* judgment is concerned, a yietdinjr up the point tiial (ho Apn«to!ic form ofChurch G to he found at nil i i ihe Scriptures, ovornmen( is If, \\\i' . (here be a ny truth in your own admission, and in the stM, II. fit jiiat quoted, it ciri acurceiy bo imagined, that all Chntimn Churchei aro under divine obligation to pluro thoiiuoives under an external form, so imperleody delinoated in Sacred .Scripiuro. undor (ha awful penalty of utter ejcuion from (he fold of God. He (his aa it may, I will now consider (ho scriptural proofj you advance in vour favour; and I hopo you will no longer ihinK you have cause (o repeal (he objec- (lon, which you urge in reference (o ray former Letters, *' I think, that on (he contrary, you have no* really considered (hem a( all, but havo dexteroujiy evaded (he consideradon of (he powers and au(hority (hey speak of, by (alking onlv of (ho name$ wi(haul any itlention tu the things —(p, 32 of your pamphlet.) In conduntinf (he enquiry, you lay down (he following ns a fundamen(al principle—" A'amea are nothing, i( is K\\b power and aut/iori/;/ exercised for which wo contend." (lb.) On this ground I have no ohjec(ion to meet you. Your nia( proof, (aken from (ho New Testament, is the state of (he Mmistry during the penonal continuance of our bleated Lord on earth, (p, 6. ) The utmost you can prove from (his is (hat our Lord, as (he Supreme Head of the Church, exercised that rjthorily which by right belonged and still belongs unio him. But (his is a very slender ground on which (o build diocesan episcopacy. In your first nolo to your sermon (p 157) you yourselfseem (o feel (his ground to bo scarcely sufficient to produce conviciion. — •• I feol," sayyo.i (here, '• perfecMy satiaHed (bat Christ api pomle t' ee orders in his infant Church; but if all will noi agree to this," &c. Do you intend to say He appointed him* self as the ytrsf order .' What Ciirist, our adorable Lord, was, (o his Church, on ear(h, he is now, and ever will be. in heaven. The only dif- ference is, (hat on earth he was personally present; now he is personally present in heaven as our Hig(»''^rie3t, " the Shep- herd ond Bishop of our souls." Whilst on earth previous to his death he, as (he hoad of (ho Church, appointed his Apos- (les ando(herfl to a very limited ministry : as the hoad of the Church, ho, in heaven, now calls and appoints hisaorvants to (heir mini6(erial work. In the essential official powers he ex- ercised, his absence from our VYorld makes and can make no difftjrsnt Th.,> tl.n A po=! !== pcrst^r.rc: ministry of our Lord, were inferior lo Chri8(, it would ba presumption (odony: (hat they, after his departure, were his equals in official powers, who will be so presumptuous as to afTirm ? s 1; ii^'i The mere fact that Christ the head of the Church, whilst on li r 24 earlh, waa superior Jo the /in/.;«« .„j I of the divine appoinjmcn, oH .r J i'"'"'^ "" ^^ "<> proof official powers he was s "penor ^ V ' " "'*' ^^"'*='' »^ |l'e high I'ries.8. as muX m ° '^V"'?' 1° ^"«"' ""d «o all fa.h more honour Ih^, ,h"e hou e " «?;„"'\''"''''^'-' "'« ''«"«« ^.^ o„.„ house., is e"perio;.tT^3err;"^t;;K.v,^r ^" rogated. Mekhisedec ^vas i nri„,. ^^1*^ " '^^ «""'e'y ^b- upwards of four 1-ur.dred ^ears EeforefhJ''' "^r' "'e^" God was esiablished. Christ him lir •''® priesthood of Avon «''o family out of wl eh a o?e hH "°* "'*"'« fo-nilyof L^" vme appointment to be ,«?«„ .f ct '^"T ^'J'V' ««'« '>y ^i- 'o be made an hlghpriesr." af.«rM "/'""'^^'^ "«' '•iniself •' called" or appointed ..of r. H "'f °['^" «f Aaron; but was of Melchisedec.^. ^Heb. 5 5l'',r,'"^i' ^'''''' '»'"'«^ '"« o^^er »niperfeclion and svmbolirAi ,.k ■' "*"<^® '" P^oof of the ^.ood the Apostle a^^s !' iV.I erXl"n"'r'''^^""*''«' P^'«'' f'eviUcnl priesthood (for under it rf.'^''?" ^«'« •'^ «he . Jaw.) what further need was there hi. '""^P '^^e'ved the after the order of Aaron p Fo?.h * ""1 ""^ •« •>« «=alled «crf there is made of neccssiiv „ ', ' P"«^."'o«d ftein^ chan- For there is verily a S«X-..f "r*t *''° ^'■"'« '^«'- ** '"g before, for the weakness anl^ °'^' «' '^""'""'ndment go- (Heb.7. 11-18.) Theenirrf.rP'^'^''''''^""' "^e'eof" economy with i.s%r,^Srhoo7ls heTC^^^ 1"'^ I-^vitical decisive language. But to affirm .! ^^'^'"ed m strong and «;as abrog,fed.'as it al ^edTy w whe'^ ^-^vitical pries.'hood complishment in Christ and in -« .u l^ '«"ived its oc try" remain... typicJl ofthe c^'!,^ "'"'•'^'' '* •'*«'«h Minis- any. warrant fror^fhe Word of G?d -^7^.7^'' """^ *^''''°"t contradiction. "If Aaron I.«^.' f "'""°"""g ^cy M«e a •he Jewish dispensattTnrhe :'migKtt lo' '7" P''^'' ""^^' knowledge, in my " reasoning "Yut 1?,?' '^"''^' ^"'' «^- necessity for other high pnef . m fnii 1*"''* ""' * physical not St. Paul expressly recognise his Ih*'''^ V°" ' >^nd does heaaya. " And they^tru'y^weJe ' I ^'''"' ""essity when were not suffered to continueblrZT^ ^'JT' ^''"'"'^ 'hey anxiety to make the JpLiih ^ *««»"« of death?" In your youseL .ohav\t^;,7„ e'dXrL^S'^d"' "'"'« ^'•^»''- ivhy every subsequent high prie ! a. win f'''/""'^"' reason of Christ." It remains i.L r ®" "" ^^on, was a lyne »"c. r.c.i,. i„ fSS'. rc:";,i;:'' '.';"■ •• 'f •>•• 'yfe *■ enty can be no proof! s in the Church. Inf loAaron.nndloalll ih buildedthehousei "cb •• as a Son over! 'oftha« bouse. Iiisedec (p, 7) mjij. Ihing proves that ■ist, and, Chat when 'il was entirely ab- le Most High God iricsthood of Aa/on llie family of Le?i, ! priests were by di- orified not himself of Aaron; but was lest after the order ;e in proof of the le Levitical priest- ction were hy the •'pie received the tber priest should " not^ to be called liood being than- io of the law. • * commandment go- iileness thereof." of the teviiical ed in strong and vitical priesthood received its ac- •* Jewish Rfinis- ry," and without 'ing very like a iigh priest under force," you ac- re not a physical on? And does necessity when s because they o^thV^ Inyotir rihe Christian, 'ipturat reason ron, was a type " if «be type a contradiction •• consequenilv, icaj of any su. therefoce, can- ll)« Christian 25 Church, that the High Priest oeeupied in th« TempJe." (Sea Defence, p. 16 ) r \ «'• To meet an objection which you were conscious presented a foimidabla array against the conclusiveness ofyourargu- [ ment.you assert. •' Under tiie Gospel dispensation, the first ; order is not confined to one person, because the Gospel , Church embraces all nations, and temples dedicated to iho I service of God, may be erected without «ihnb«rs. as th« ot- casran may require." (p. 7,) Then, lira •' lirstor^er" was not confineti to our Lord alone. as I presume, when on earth, he wat under the «• Gospel dis- pensatioii." And4f not confined to Him, who shared the first order wuii him i Again: the Christian Church itself is o«c. as the Jewish Church was one; and there is as much reason on this ground 10 confine the hrst order to one person under the Gospel, as there ^yas under the Jewish dispensaiion. According (o this we ought then to have a universal bishof! No, the GospelChurch embraces all nations, afld temples may be erected without number &c. Then if there be any force at all in the argu- ment, there should be in all nations astnany of the first order as lh«re are "" """• *" comparing the 10th chap, of Matthew with the 10th chap, of Luke, in thic'i their appointment and sending forth are mentioned. I found similar powers were given to both, which is not at all consis- fJJL'^n .«''?'m°"T**'.""P*"°' •"•• '"ferior orders. (De- fence p. 16. ) Now here I referred particularly to official j»otccr*, and yet you have broadly and unqualifiedly asJerted that I overlooked these, and took refuge only in name,' This IS not the only mistake >ou have i^ade.-That »Sr torV.nt fi?'P'*^' above mentioned in proof: I wioh them to read for themselves. In what wavs hiva vou nrn„-d 'o me contrary .' In three ways. ' ' '' MouT L^LTJ'H" '^'"'' ■^'''^ chosen, and had the high ho- Zrrf/pi *. ^"""".'"^ attendants of iheir Lord-S//,,-. 15. appointed the seventy." (p 6 ) Afh.r ?l.u""* ''"'/«»»®». "nd a very important one it is sorely! •rd" oftiZ Vo .'h ""^*rr^. •''»' -''"ever is cho,en Jir,t in •raar of /.we to the work of the ministry, i. of a rank supo- 5ij; i 'll 1 1 i : ■" ' 28 Iho On, would really thmT;ouL3'"V'«'"°. •''" ""''•'r^anding o< one party going by themnehl. Z. '*' "'" "'"« ^-ct ^««.e«« will ^oncU bo?rw V8 '^Th! TPr'""'^ ' ^he «r. -elves and were tl.ereforo suoerior- *''" "'""' ^' «»'°n>- two by themselves, and heXre « ''" ^« *'«'">' ^^«"' '"o and r'or.ly refers mu.uai/v to the Tw' . V^ «"Per.or. As thi, Mipe- of H»e on, neulr.CstVe!.r' '''•*•'''"'* '''««"P«"ori.y ".oreforo they were both e^,,;/'''''"'"'''-^ *"^ 'ho other. an5 ,^No;\^.!rrr.:ry:^ the Church?" Not rfLLJ T 1 r ^^^ ''"^ "'« *' <"»« govern cannot be controverted, iha Z I ^7" / 'V '^*"' "''"■«'> «;'o». or/A. took the soe\ZenU,1'..'''''^' *' »e«amerf »ant C.urcn; admUtinannn,J' m-nagemenl of his in- »vork." (p. 6 ) vvhi?f. "' ^"partner:, with him in the ♦or you are striving .0 pro'e h"? «A.7"?r'''°"' "«"•"«"'? ««rth,"our Lord himipir L tV I *f*''«' ''« remained upon «'«ut.M.iaexa,„ple T Jharn« «' 't^'" """^ "^•^"'^ ""^ Apoa.les on the subiecVouMht ?''''*'" P"'*'^"'"'-'^ to f.is to cont.nue the three orders 'w 07" ^T. t '"^"^''' "'«"'"'« Uas d.d afterwards is to b tl,rotL'u.""o'f prisonr"' '^ ^P'''- Nownoflies are nothinir- „«,.,-^i '*'*'°"' *'''"'"'<'r««ion. Produce then proCf h^t* d-^n ... T''*' f'*" "^""^ 'hing. tinuance on ear.h. t he :ve Ive LL T J"^ ""' '^°'<''» <:on. rior to those of the .evin.v C. " °^",<'i Pou:ern eupe. and henne your good y so, LeTad." M?' " *" rP"^«'»"« •' ^' you well know, received Th-L i '^*^'«°''«^ the seventy. «eJf personally as ^eM as he ««! '^T'""'""" ^'^*"" Christ hirj. presbyters to^reJoTve the o„rfnL''"'rr''°"'^"''«»« «"«» ther circumstance fatal t^your^t'"* a'^ f""'.!,^'""^'' '' -"«- ffone we find a perfect ea.iah. v rl^ ^" ""'" " «'» ^ore Cimst. ^.deed^u^Lor3 express f';Zr'"M* I'"* """'''•«" "^ o«rselfloy«uiownpo«..r8 you tell me wiih ureal energy. No, sir, tne ««lhorii,|committed to thesuperior officers of The Church ,.eaten,al, they are empowered to confer the exfer- ndcomm.sMon, bull, IS the great Shepherd and abiding Bi- «iopofb.sCh,irc», who gives, ihroogi, his spirit, the inward d pos.„o„;„nd,et he will have the au.hor.t; he has fixed „ 1.8 church so far honored, .hni e,en ti.o.o called hv him are alo commanded to receive the ex.ornalcomm.ss.un he has left in hie church." (p. 9 and 10.) In ih iH seiii ence. by nb menns eminent for perppicuily, I lirist'stnalieiiable understand you lo affirm. 1. li is C gotive ,o give the inward call to ll.„ m,„,*,ry. j cordially as.cni. 2 li is the duly or privilege of the prero- le minrsiry. To this f superior HI ii ,1! '' 'I- ii! 28 ■ of 11.080 "called of G„*i-M '° *'?';""" "« "^ "'e propriei v -inu..e though y«rd; no? «SrP«?" «"'"''''*"• *' "*""" '•»• «re scriptural mmS b». .1- '"'"*'• •'>"" "«•» ♦''*• none bishops, in lour sTnl. oHhi I /''° '""^ ''"" «'«'»*"««• »>y «orc"», do« God fim 'a f I nar-L /! ** "'" "•""•».' *•» •«l'er .on 6r*t receive Uia eitirnS? .«™ "?" "I.'""*^' *"" *'•»"»''• per ward. ,.c.ivTt*her„:«;r. irjTGod" Tif".?;' "'/•'?; precede ibeexlern»l i. n«i k- r • ^ * " "•• ""»•'«* «»ll iheoulwiVd i.Z' :"i* precede, end be independent ef doe. |/u;"i:.r.''j^x-^^^^^^^^^^^ '•••» h called of God lo the ^slw «J;i.A •''•'"^ " •^'** the Church in vour «•!.. T r ^* . • . . •"?•"«»' officera of miMioo" do.y^,CrVf;"rjhTiVrV*'i" ^'v^? "'""■' ««"»• B. Have none been c.""!""/^?//^^^ * •!«' "'? "" of God J have been epiacopauj ordaS? V H«r"lL'^. "^'^ """• "''• djinedanjr £ho h^v.^'ot Ten cafte "eV^o^^r'^fraV/L^^^ wo/Hen io l7« fn^" i^°. " *'" perlecily ii.decoroua for poiiiis oi aoctnne, cases of conscience &c. * * All tl.«i n wer« ^trtaii- 29 l'.t*„\iV-„o*''".'-""^*'^l!'''' '"«««'>" with the ailempt. to usurp any Buthoiiiy over ih eman. by setting up their judiimcnt .nj.pp<„,/.o«.o,hcrn; for the Apos.le ha. i„ view.Tpe- the sDiH? If r./.'f^ ^n '^^^ "" ""«*" 'he influence of -Thia i atJu °" . ^''"""'J' 2. II. 12. he soys. |.rIacA<;/'' H^.h'T^^r''' '° ''^ » Prohibition of wome'n', the -«flJi*.? J"'*^'*''" •'"" J""' quoted, and makes n their ofr^inT'"''^ °" T'"" '" ^"« ^^.h verse to consist itated in Jil L 7* Tn" "*""« ^"""°"* *=•" '^e same a. theAolt'.^ °" » Cor. 14. 34.86. "The direction of vtcleThJi.J'"'"' "«'"y'*'in«^'«e;" and your cflbrl l« r^oiyi/^r"" ' "-^'""^ *'^ «P'«yer to Almighty God « Apostles." to el"Se auuioriij? i^z-awe " betokens «tt/Aort7v" aa much m Zi neti.'lin^'"*'' ^^' °"^y *^*«'«'«"'=«. in'ma^ny ««;. - by Derfoil r.'i ""^ '"«'""" 'Poken in the usual tone of voice Sfri Und^n J '*". ^"'^ '"^ "• ""^^ '"""• ""«'«d by persona •"amho. i?v ff ''*".?'*' '" " ""r^ •""« »'■'">'«• B"i doe" not pointedoulirh " "'"'"".f «be Apostle's argument, aeem woman exce.V^ * ^'""^ '^\"S ""^«* '^''^ ""' t^/o/ig «o the PraTnr«!h« I J Ti" "'^' "'" '"* of in».piration ?" (p. 12 ) my ore the ladies that sing in your church on the holv sab oath supernatura V •' inBDiradJ'* ip„«i i "'« "o'y sao- i!x/A .' " f '** ^"'' ""^ «" ««enipl,f„:aiion of Sir " Whiie'a polm .nue,Uon"'cr' ''•. " 'i; ^.°" """"' ''"''-•J •'-«-« oftan h««.^ .1, . ''«"*' .''«'^End in the room of ii ?•• I live orten heatd .h.t example is more powerful than pi.ceVi! I*" ' . -a. Ml ^•« But. when you penned «hat pungent, striking question, had you for4ro«len Ihnt ynii had not ev«n placed before ua ihe •• Apoatolic fxampleV I am ready, however, to make il- lowunce. Your mind, no doMbl. o\i\.atripi vour pen. J ili I^efter IT. Diocesan Episcopacy not established by the Apontlea— Chorees answered. * R^t. Sib,' I NOW propose lo consider your scriptural proofs in favour of diocesan epsscopacy, drawn from (he state of the Church durins the lifetime of the Jlpoaties. To support your views, you have laid down a veiy goodly icheme, (p. 18.,) but it must appear evident to every '• im- partial examiner," excusti mo for using your own woids, that It is graiuiiously assumed. Vou do attempt lo offer aome rea- sons fnr its adoption, but, 1 ihink, it will not be difficult to •how they are built on a aandy foundation. To convince you how little I dread the circulation of your prime argument from the Bcriptore, I here transfer il to my own pages. — " Ti.o subject," say you, •' under consideration will be bet- ter understood, and much confusion avoided, if we keep in view the official powera which were exercised by the first pieach- ers of (!iti Gospel. In order they will stand thus : — " 1st. Apostles. 2d. Presbyter— bishops or Elders. 3d. Deacons. " Their officiai. Powcrs and Dutie*. 1st, Apostles lo govern the Church~io oversee the Presby- ters and deacons — to ordain and confirm. 2d. Presbyter— bishops or Elders— to preach, administer the sacraments, and superintend or oversee their respeclivs flocks. Srd. Deacons— To serve tables— to preach and baptize." The manner in which you have presented your scheme, I humbly conceive, is not calculated entirely lo prevent " con- fusion;" for, a person, not acquamied with Ihe subject before, on reading your remarks for ftie first time, would very natur- ally conclude, that, to •• prench and administer the sacra- ments" formed no part of the official powers and duties of the Apostles, but that all their official powers and duties were % ipofUles— Charges raee ((i« Prebby- comprised in governing the Churoli, in overseeing tlie presbr- Cers and tJencona. and m ordixnmu' nnd ci.i.firinin);. I presuma you meini io8..> tlieso were;)ecM/ior lo li.eif "ollice, wliiUl they hnd oth-sr diUies in common with PresbMers. In m,v forinur letters I sidled, " Ti.e Am»8tmcs, nnd EvAW- 0ELI8T9, llieirnssisunls. are to be regarded ^/-s/ as inspired men, p<)s»ec8in>r exiraordiiiary powers for ll^-'J- «l.e efficient opera tio^ 's.^ccesf.nTn*'' ''''^ """8 "*«^'""' f"' Miniatry. It «ae in ?Lm ^^n ""*' P"P'"""y of tl.e Christian 'hi sacraments, and when ,-'•'" *^''"".''"' '^ "^minister to the Ministry • •" "q^'^'e. to ordain, or set .pari ^^^!^z:':::ii::'i^::t^jf r p'^ ">-— were .he fiorin rank or ordlJ inL C ? ^ of christian ministers aupe- *ere these. Jr riJinlP;:!?" »' -cripture-bishop.? ?), in their office a, Jrdin.vJ^Zf"'' '^"''"^ Peculiar to them of office belon^Iot/rSKiSlSSL:;.''," '''' ""' ^' -- .nd^S;a7d'S;i".,re''^;^ ""•^'"' '» '»^ "'^« "-" »imes/,,/ors CnheXrth I -h ii"' 7'" ""' '» Apoatolio- power; of what you would cantir*? ""^ '"'""'" "* ""• Some powers and dot?., vm. •k^I*^'"" ""'' "'"»"' *>'der>. Apostle. conbSered i^?i ^- '""•'' ""• P««"''" •<> f'o Minister., and wS iid noT bv?T'^ of ordinary ChriatiaJ Presbyter-bishop.. o^re?de„^ tIZ"["^V ''*'°"« '» ""' duties you make to ron.;.- • ?««"'">«• powers and Beeingi^he pTesby era .nd d---'""'"* l''^C''"''»'• '" over- •ng ; and hence /oS^JLafl!r„T' !" '"'''""'''8 -nd confirm, wnisiers in the ChrS, r "\''"*"y °f •• ""anding order of «"rc-bisl.op.. in Som tl efJ '""''• '"P"'°' '" elder.%r .crip, clusivdy »est ''"" P*"**" ""•»' necessarily and ex- •pe'ak'"fi'r tTem'elv^J"* ^T. '."'?'"« P''>*»''-- The scripture. form ou^^wr;' i",^. TnJCi ll^V^ "' '5''^ ^^V^ ' " 'each, and not lo adont win.?. . S",pfurc8 do or do not opinio'ns of tTe pZlZ flTs ""rhLT"''' «''«-"""««.. or posilors. F mnive ittlherfl. They are not in/a//i6/e ex. erning'^l^ciu^cV aSei''Dri'fr'HY t'' "' P''"" °^ «- exe Jively. as ordlnT/V^^fisff S.^s.^"" '^"'^ ^P"«"" y «.» uiBcier. in proof of your assertion you quot* aty cliaracler of 88 on oar... .Lu be 'boCin Z.eJ'Tc''Zrr "''' "'"•' ."b.equen,ly given ,0 .|| I e Apo..Je?M: "iV'lT'Vu" in« your own rommcnt on ll.e,e io?rfi .1 ' ''*• ^•'" ed indeed by Selden Buxiorf ?n^ i .%' '""""ent support- understand/., ihaubfy ;Sl^u ^"^ L.ghtfoo.. tb.i w. .Te to •l.e question „. w«J ! rlo^lr nl'^T*'''' «»"«"' «' rf/tt.e." ^'rrfmary Ministers of cS is,? ' cII. • 7 "••'" /owidered .. «ers can claim this pnler iTtll « ^' •'^° ■"''feq-ent mini.^ «o the Apos.les. •• Thf hiLk ^ "r !!' *:''"''' *» *" f''*" ..Iv.tion. and preceois „f fh.?3 ".**'^^ cleclaring ih« ,erm, of joy in i>. f.,n ex'^en, Ti The meS^^'h '5' ^P^*""^^ ''*<' «"»' "• •hey received .he Ho y CbrtTn .h!.?^ ^'^^'"'t^^^^ -II «iv.n by inspVelTon w«eS?«i°;'r' '"*' *''"/• *•'"« inhe.ven. Here ihen w«Vnim!i '*'?''"'''**"■•"'' '•''«•'' «l'e Apostles. .„J wj^" must viS'"".''"""'" .''•"''•"•'' »» pious There is noVh „T j V r , ?'"* consolaiion to lh« discoveries .herrriade J u. I ll". "••'k" °^".1' ■°"'' »» "•• •My from God." 7?^ poieV .t?„ ^ ''■*' ''J ''°"« "'t'"- d... of ordinary ministS^'te. Vhrdi.'''''""' '' V' been and si ill remains comnl»,«i^ • .« ?! <*'»"•? "non ha* from which no -ubJ ",?o„.'^cin l^e m^'J""'* " V'^''"''""' '^^ impunity. To ar«ue rhCf^f^^ ? \1f* *'"' '""^Mnce or era ofthe Apostle?Tn'favo: o?'- irl^" "'^ordinary pow- ministers poS.ess.W.niexe'r.in'h"'''"^'*'^ "^ ""''""7 •he Church, in the sJJseVn »h!LK* " "«'»»'e governance of when you .«{mi .hat" " wer^^^^^^K'^ '' '° 'l' /Po-tl- 'H I •III 11 iffl .ill * i 'i S4 Tjii« it ihe amount ofyour real argument, but itv abuaurdily need scarcely be inoiilioried. lt.you Kiiy yoii iiuenc to oMert that tUe ApoMlea weregovcr- nore of the Church m llieir ordinary chorac.icr. then, you ahould not have aiirmpted lo prove ihia by a paosage which can only reier lo lliem m Ihetr exiraordimiry rapacity. .You alai. r.fer to Matt. 28. 19. 20. Bui :heae versea have reference I o ,,ro»e/^«rt^, baptizing, and tearhing. These duties you »«ursel(ollow are noipcfu/jar lo what you call the^r«/ Older ofmmialers: and theinfore ihe veraea in quea- tionfail to prove that the Apoailea, in li.eir ord.nary capacitv, were ihf ex< Iurivh governora of Ihe Church. The woMi •• Aposiles" and •• Church" require. I think. aoma little exphinaiion. By Ihe w..id •• ApoMloi." do you mean only (loe/ve with the •dditionofPAUL? If so. Ihentheae thirteen persona were all thai f..n.p..i.ed ihe yirs* order, in your viev> of i: during inetr life lime, that la. aaiung as Ihey or any ofthe-Ti livcd;for youare qoiie poaiiive if cannot admit of n doub«. that the jj. po$tle$ diring iheir lifetime governed the Church." In t )is case, what becomes of ihe^ra/ order of Timothy. Tituc, Epa phrodiUiH. Barnabas, and the Angela of Ihe Aaiuiic Churcbe*.' ¥ou muai either retract what you have so unqualifiedly asser- led thai •• the Apogilea during their life-ume goverened the Church, or yo„ must yield Ihe point that Thus. Timothy, Kpaphordiiua. Barnabas, and the Angela, were not of the JlrsI order If the thirteen Aposilea were the only gover- nora of ihe Church during iheir hfo-lime. as your words evi- denlly n.eiin. then, if Timothy, T.lus. &c. were of the firat order, ai.d ao were governors of the Church, ihey must have been «««r/;fr», and intruder$. Agoin:-if, during iheir /i/e- fj I ""''"'* "*'^o 'he only goveinorsoftl.e Church, ihey could have had no fellow-governors whilst ihey lived. Then Hjter their dtath, \ttay,tDho created their aueeeiwr$7 who raised some o| tt,e .second into i\\e first order ? N ji the Apos- l/esthemseUes. unlesHthoy could aci o//er ihey were dead. If. however. >o, do not use the woid •• Apopiles," in its r«»lricledbeii,e hs rt-f.-mnif lo Ihe extraordinary Messengers, endowed with especi.i qu„lificuiions, and sent forih by Christ nimsell but m a in.ue «f uenil sense, so as to include Timothy, iHos, BirnabHi., uud oihers, during the life-time of iSe Ihii- r Pi: !'?'", " "" "'"' " i'-«lfgoe8, it shows the eovernance 01 IheChur.h was not exclusively confined to the Apostles truly 80 cafltd, d,trti,i<>i,eit l.felime, and contiuns nothing to f)rove tiMi !,.,se whom you call presbyier-bisiiops were not admiiicd to a .sh^r». m tj,- govsrr.iints of «he ru^uch If once it be nllowi! * -■ - - tife-l ime. the exrlus place Iho bouiidiirv? who si ilie rert/ apoBiles were not, during their vf giivernors of the Churcli. who shnll who exriiided ? H IihII say who were admitted or can ii be proved that these very pres- uvcrnors of tylcrbJBhopswere iiu(, wiih Ihe Apostles, the G lit ilM abusurdily e, I think, loms 85 cAo ciUZf'',, no ,-j£„7,„r^ *^''. '''■-*""' «-""• volvo ll.e exclusion of TMuirJ tI?. "r""'; """P' " *"• »aba.. .nd ,l,e Angles. al«o ""'^' ^*'"t^''^"'^""*. D.r- As lo the word •' Cimrrii ••> ir.,-... believers, .t mi^ht bog/ald 1^.."^" ''^" ."" *'"'^ "^^ and ye. ,i would no. ne^cerl S.w^,;:r"^' " *^''V^''" 2. Another power or dufv Decntinr il. ti T "'", P"' dinary ministers, and which o^oveU.e,^ /''V''"'^''"' " °r. rior in order to he DreJhvJl t '"*"* •*"" ""P"" foTv tLa, , '"ew8. In Iheir extraordinary cai.»oitv I am over n.tf ? ^ *" " "'''''"5 »•■ "" «»«" '-» f-" "- ovraordin.. 7 •"aowmenis, t fatherly oversight or •tiper«nrerw/«ne,. \\m, in tiet\t, it not lufficiflnt lo prove tiiom an order •uperior to preibyicrii. But you in«k« ovemghl. liinply coniiJered, onsprouforthe supeiiority orUifl Apoalles in llieir ordiiia'v character;— but this admila of debate. To make your argu- ment conclude you rnusi altotv that ovenight, or supennten- 4tnry don necr»»arily imply auperiority o( order on the part of the oveneer. Thie you have not done: this you cannot do, Overaight can, overaighl doea exiil. without the pariiea for a moment entertaining the idea that, by divine right, there ia superiority of order in the une, and inferiority in liie other. Proofa ol thia aurround us on every hand Take for eiamplo the proteatunt cpiocopui Churches on the Eurupeai. Continent. The founrfera of tliese were no more than presbyters, and couW give no more than presbylerian ordination. There are new in these Churches classes orolBcers called bishops and archbishops, exercising siipermtendency over other ministers; but these bishops and archbishops do not inisgine they are by divine right, superior to presbyters. Take also the Church of Scotland, and superinlendency prevails with perfect equaiiiy ofihe individual ministers. So also as it regards the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. The bishops exercise oversight or superintendency over the presbyters, but not as occupying a superior rank by divine law. And lastly, take the Wealey. an Connexion: All of its ministers are regarded equal by di- vine right, and yet in no other religious denomination is a strict- er, more constant, and efficient superintendency of ministers over each other maintained than is to be found with us. The fact it, it is a system of superinlendency. Take away the figment of divine right from yonr own Church, and would the superintendency of its bishops be less efficient than itisnow.' Oveirsight or superintendency alone, therefore, csn never prove the divine right of bishops over presbyters. This is the mis- take into which you have, perhaps, innocently fallen: you have not aayet been able to embrace the idea of the existence and operation of superintendency without in^plyinp a superior rank by divine right in thesuperinlendant or overseer. How far you will allow yourself to comprehend the subject now I will not piesume to say : but whatever you may do, 1 think, i unprejudiced people will already see that superinlendency ii perfectly compatible with equality between ministers by divine Jaw. ' 3. Ordination is the third particular which you adduce in proof of the superiority of the Apostles in their ordinary characlor over presbyter-bishops. This, I believe, will be found on examination, aa faliacioui aa th« nrecedino. The scripture firoof you adduce is—" They" (Paul and Bar- sabas) " ordained elders in every place." See Acts U. 28. , The qtievtion then to be decided here is simply this— Does the act of ordination neeeasarily imply auperiority of rank on the part of the ordainer, and inferiorit/ of rank on the port ion, M fftllaciouf 87 of llie ord.iined ? If ko, llionitural inference i«, an equal ne- vcr Clin be ordained. ,\ bishop cannot bo oidamcJ l>y a hinh- op, but must bo ordiined by a pur-^oti o( supi-rior lauk, wlju must bo ordained b> a nupt.-rior, find Koon ad iiijinilitm. Now you atknowlcdgo no ordor m ilio nniiiMry by divine lit'lit snpo. rior 10 bislinpa ; but if iho act of ord.n.ilKin does necessarily imply iuporioruy of rank on llio put of ibo ordamor,' how and by vvliot liiglior order ^to persons ordained or consecrated bishops m your Church? As long oh ynii pracllcully mainiain that bishops can ordain binhops, il is evident that Iho act of ordinalion doe« not in iiie\( neces»arih/ imply the superiorilv m point of order of tho orduinor, an-1 the infenoriiy of (he por- s«n ordiiined. You beliovo ihat S». Paul ordained Timolliy • but are wa to conclude ihat Faul in iii3 ordm.uy character vvaJ superior ni rank to Timothy in hid ordinary characior ' 'I l.i^ I lupposo you will not allo^v : in wiiich case, the coHcl.iMon above italed is corroborated. Agam. ifii.o Proabyiory ordair- ^.^dTimolhy to the Ministry, as I believo is the real stale of the case as taught in the Scriptures, then, if the act of or- Uaining implies of necessity superior rank un the part of (ho ordainore. the presbyler-bishopa were superior in rank lo Ti- mothy, whici, of couree you wdl not admit, but is another cor- roborative prool of the above conclusion. Thore seems, also, a little fallacy in your mode of slaline Id* matter respecting ordination. ° " 2'Aey ordained eWers ;" therefore •• they." (ho Apostles TxZiVl °^ """"^ '" ".'"*' '*"^'"'"y c°P«^i'y. '• claimed and f,-Mf * r"'" '"^."■""" *° ^^''^'^■"-This argument, in .isolf. IS just as sound as the following: "Bishops orda ned XX^IS;;.^""'"^' ''''"''' ""^ "-'-'' ^ P°-r „JI'.*N'*"''r;'°''^r'''''^«'^«"'-'' but these persons we,e not • elders" before their ordination. If the Apostles xvere « Ministers ofChrist. superior to these persons ftX: 'the; hT^V"*!'."'^' ".^''' "•" necessarily follow that they mus^t be a//,r ihe.r ordination, otherwise an equal c.n never be Zi^T^' ,u^V°''' "«"■"«"' '" evidently founded on he as SSn of ^''"" "** ^P^"''°' were superior beLe ,,« ordinatior^ of these persons, they must of necessity be so af er a^SL^'"."!, '"r '" •'•«"• ^''P^i'y of .rdinary Ministers. ordl.Yied elders, therefore they were superior to elders ! "^""'"o^ th.l"thrAn!l".'i *''*"''■'.'■" '**"'''°P°^«' of ordination prove ieJor to 1^1? • "', ""'^'""y Ministers, were in this cafe su fn o^hir ii!« '" • ,'*»=-""'«" 'he exercise of the powo" B«l d.e. .h„. ,„ „..|f, prov, ,h.. ,he, w.r. .'[^rS .I [i i?' '! i f, 38 porior in order to these elders, in the character in which nr .Imal.on appertained lo their office ?-Ifso then ,ho« it xvl.o 8ho.ld exercise the power of ordl^n. o.te J !hon5°''' declared by an jnsp.red writer to have been made ov^eeers of .1.0 Church by the Holy Gnost. they restricted 'll; officTaTow ers of hese presbyters ,n the case of ordination. Could Jou prove thai the Apostles ordained presbyters or bishops merely as an, „/eno, order, and positively restricted them K ?he rghtoforda,„mgr,r8etti,.go.her/apart to the officeTf ! mloflice? acknowledge you would make out somethina l.ke a case : the scripture proof so adduced would decide hS ma er But thi, proof you know you cannot adduce No resir ct.on was p aced upon them, but as I sl.all show hereaf^ ter. they were addressed by the Apostles as if they were not n any way mfenor to the Apostles themselves, considered in ihe.r ordinary capacity. You affirm the power of ordination was vested m the Apostles alone, and nol*^ in the presby er" bishops: certamly. to justify .his affirmation, you must show from the Scriptures, that, when the Apostlee ordained llleso elders they did positively withhold from them the power of lot". M "L J''" ^""^V °^ '"^"^ ''" "P"" y°» ; and if you fail o establish his point by an appeal to the New Testament. IrH r^'.r""'^''*"*'? '"^"'** «''«" 'hese persons were ordained to the ministerial office, they were, by virtue of office, mvesled with every right or power essential to that office, and consequently the right of ordaining or setting apart other pro- perly qualified persons to the work of the Ministry.— If vou have scriptureproofofthe character required to substantiate your assertion. I call upon you to produce it, and loshow from the word of God, that the presbyter-bishops were ordained as a second or mferior order only, and that the power of ordina- tion or setting apart to the Christian Ministry was abaolutelv restrained from them, -otherwise your affirming they were an inferior order will appear only as a vagary of your own mind. 4. Confirmation is the lasi proof yoa mention of the eupe. nor order of the Apostles in their ordinary capacity over pres- byter-bishops, or in fact over deacons. The scripture proof you bring forward to support your posi- tion, is Acts 8, 14--17 : •« Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John : Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive tne Holy uiiosl: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them ; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Je- sus.) Then laid they their handa on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." 89 ■Ur in which or- sn, (hose Lishops ther bifehops, m e superior to (ho ovo (hot when o are expressly ido ovcreenrs of t lie official pow- in. Could you bishops merely (hem from the 8 office of the in the mlniste- ou( something ould decide (he 't adduce. No II show hercaf- (hey were not considered in ir of ordination (be pre8by(er. you mus( show iirdained (heso the power of ; and if you fail )w Tes(ament. persons were irirtue of office, :bat office, and part other pro- listry.— If you o substantiate d to show from re ordained as >werof ordina- vaa absolutely they were an our own mind. of the eupe- city over pres- tort your posi- osTLEs which ived the word Who, when T might receive jpon none of (he Lord Je- (hey received On this passage you ask, •« why was it igh he worked mirucles) No other reason can bo »po«Hb8 Should go 10 Samariu lo confirm these nc Lvjdently because that Philip (allh had not the authority vested in him. assigned."— (p. 13 j Philip was a deacon ; and your argument is do«icned to show (hat the Apostles were superior fo deacons, to w fich J have no objection, as I do no( believe, as formeri; r^e U u deacons were, m apostolic (imes, Pastors of Christfan Chu "che, Bu(, ,n cases where miraculous or extraordmury Luers arc not concerned, to argue, that because the Apostles we re'imj? r.or (o deacons who were not Pastors of the Chu ch lliereZe "'«y «ye superior to presbyter-bishops wl^o were „ ^ ov^r* seers of (he Church by (he Holy Ghosf. is no( so ,nd reason ^ But the Apostles did not send elden or preabvler^ m rn» firm, but those who were truly Apostles -i 13,/ • tirmation ih<.A»„..i " "«"y "posiies , (herelore. m con. Lv«!,.;Li V "''*«''" '''*""PP«'' f'ora >he passage you have quoted above. You ask wi(h an air of triumph * why was .tnecessa.y that the Apostles should go o Samaria tJ confirm these men converts ?"-Truly I couldnever w asce, yZ wL"m :; l'l\J T'' '"'« >«" •" '"e PlVn?t^"de of your wisdom to make the discovery. But if you would not yoTZZ^Zd, tT'"^^ "^"'^ '" "hich VJLJ,- L ^"® *•"•• »ay noth ng at all about con. firmatom and yet your whole argumeht, in (his ca e a •ify Vh. pl.cUcr " '"" "" """•«• '»" •W"" '» J"'- i'm m :J-.'£al Hi m HI i-m n iO Holy GIiosl in iiis miracul ousgifig, OS instruments in (lie Iiond »)( God, was peculiar lo tiie Apostl iraordinary tupacity ; and for litis reason al Jolin w Ca ere senl by iheir brolliren lo Saniaiia, that tl more properly some of those, who liad th 08, as Apostles, in tlieir ex- one, Peter und lose, or • re received tlie word f God, "might roceiio the Holy Ghost" in his miraculoiw gilis. Philip wrought miracles no doubt tliro' the power given unto liiniseIC ; but the power of conferment being restricted to ilie .«/)OAfo/jc O^ce, is a siiflrcient reason why I'liilip did not on this occasion alt Ml attempt lo confer the "gift of the Holy Ghost," and by so doing attempt to invade the prerogatives of tho Apostles. 1 humbly appreiier.d that neither Timothy, noj Thus, nor Uurnubas, nor Epnphroditus, i>or the Angels, wham you consider lo belong to \Ue first order, ever attempt- ed to lay hands on " new converts," tliat they might •• receive the Holy Ghost," in the sense in which tho act is attributed to the Apostles : if not your argument here is literally good for wolhing. Among those extraordinary gifts may be mentioned the power to u>orA;j?)jrac/es, and to tpeak with tongues — (See Acts 10, 44-46. That some, in almost all Churches then established, should possess this power, is leasonable lo eupposo ; being necessary, in the infant state of the Christian Cliurcl), to convince gainsayers and opposers of the divinity of Christian Religion, as well as lo estobiish and encourage those wbo had already believed. Hence Paul writes to the Church at Rome, " For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye mat/ be established."— (Rom. 1,11. That this " gift of the Holy GhobI," was ROi beBlowcd indiscriminatefy on alt who had been baptized is ori- denl from the case of Simon Magus. He had been baptized, but it does not appear that he received the Holy Ghost ia his miraculous powers. Be this as it may, i4 is certain that in this affair the Apostles acted in Iheir extraordinary, and not in their ordinary copacily ; and therefore its introduction by you IS altogetlier irrelevant lo the subject in hand ; as, you expressly concede that the Apostles *' were not to be succeed- ed in their extraordinary gifts." Whitby thus expresses himself on these verses : "As for the other opinion, that thesn hands were not laid on to confiiin them ; if hands were not laid on all that were baptized, this makes nothing for confirma- tion ; if they were, then Simon Magus must be confirmed, and receive the Holy Ghost. And both these opinions teem dan- gerous, on this account, that the Holy Ghost was never thus conferred hut by the hands of art Apostle ; and consequent- ly, if confirmation and ordination be laid on this foundation, they maybe said to cease with the Apostles." This commen- talor is also of opinion that the " Holy Ghost" was not on Ihts occasion given to all the converts indiscriminalely. *' JVot that all wbo had been baptized, might receive it ; for it was never so in any Church, no not at Jerusalem ;" you can therefore draw the inference. The porticular now noticed, 41 fails, Ihorefote. to prove, that in ll.eir capacity as ordinary M.nis.ers. t he Aposi cs were of an o.der superio^r to Zv"l balers or elders of the Church. ^ .sTrr^r'^'^ ?''""^* '" '"*'■ °" P°P"' <■«•"« "> »l'e "round as II ere does not appear a particle of he uoid of God to ren der u support. You have assuwed a great deal, and w,°Z Mand"1h:tes.'Tav'°'"""i" ^»'«'^'->our posi" ion's S stand the test, have^uwpcrf to a conclusion. fcon.e neoole however, ore sm.ple enough to believe, .hat .omTl^in. n.o,« than an a,svmzng a^r, and an expert^e^s aO'««S is re The preceding discussion will enable the reader tn #.«t;m..- according ,o their real value the lerna'ks you rnaklfo UM T«o ES/" r '" '''■'■"' "«''•'"'«'«■»» to the Scrimure.'' 1 wo thing, here claim attention- 1 nsFerled. ^ pro^ved"-/* Th.Vir "•'''""'.•'on «««> «hmg8 must be first their -'^f rvf "^^^^^^^^ *" ler bevon J diBn...- .. tV / ex'racta will place this mat- Kilh «r„rf 5" .„","'• " ;^" pi""". '• 'I'"" I come unio von ...10 .„, .cl if ll'.° f;* '""' -^P"'""" oulhoriiy. ni n !i i: 1 i! if 42 Apostle, in speaking of C(»wi«g with a rod, olludea (o llie power which he and the other Aposllos posseseed of punishing obstinate offenders by miracle. For that they had often such a miraculouapower, extending even in some cases of aggravot- ed offence to the inflicting of temporal death, appears from several other passages of Scripture ; (Seo Acta v. 6, &c. xiii. 10, J 1 ; 1 Tim. I, 20) : and is referred to more than once or iwico in these Spiatles to the Corinthians ; (as 1 Cor. 5 6-2 Cor. 1,23; 10 c. 6, 8 ; 13 c. 2. 3. 10 )" To this view of thei case agree Henry, Macnight, Benson, Dr. A. Clarke, &c. ; and Grotius, your favorite author, has the following comment : •• En rabdo, ^c. [Intelligit poteslatem immittendi mortem, aut morbod." By the rod, he means the power of inflicting death or diseases. So also Jerome, •' In virga veninm ad *oe, &c.] Quali virga venit Polrus ad Ananiam et Sspphimm, et ipse Paulus ad magum." Shall I come to you with a rod, &c. With the same kind of rod as Peler came to Ananias and Sap- phira, and Paul himself to Magus. The case of the Corinthi- ans IS not in point, and therefore proves nothing ia your fa- vour. In regard to Diotrephes. 1. Who or what was he ? Was he a Minister set apart by the Apostles? If not, the fir« thing to be proved by you fails. But allowing that he was. 2. In referring to him, did St. John speak in hiscapacity of an Apos- tle, possessing apostolic authority, or of an ordinary Minister of Christ? You assert that he did so in his latter capacity, and in giving this opinion an appearance of plausibility, you make his spostleship to consist in his being •• endowed with extraordinary gifts," tho' you expressly confess that " many others besides the Apostles were endowed with the like gifts." (p. 14.) Did then their being "endowed with estraordinary gifia" constitute them Apostles in the sense in which the title is peculiarly applied to them ? If so, why should not all others who possessed the " like gifts" be also truly Apostles ? You mistake:— As extraordinary messengers, sent forth as especial delegates by Christ himself, they were clothed with authority not inherent in the common ministerial office, instances of which have already been given : and in his truly apostolic ca- pacity, St. John, beyond doubt, wrote respecting Diotrephes. I asberted—2. That " there was then no ambition, no strife for precedency of rank, no assumption of higher or more ho- nourable titles." (Defence p. 28.) This is attempted to be rebutted by the case of Diotrephes, of whose '♦ love for pre- eminence" St. John writes, and of those of whom St. Paul speaks as being " puffed up," &c. My remarks were >.it«nded simply to bear on one point, the distinction of orders. I did not intend to say there was no prido, no ambition, no strife in OnnArnl. A norenn in iKa «M*n*BiM>t« I ^ix:«.«^ •M»:^|.« t a - ^ Q — -ai .. ^«s-wsx pS. »»^ ?4^--"«Tivt tai viriC'c mrgrti Slave DCCn •• puffed up" with pride, or wi'h an idea of his own import- ance, so as (o have thoufiht of himself more highly than be ought to think, and to have despised others ; a thing in itself by no moans commendable either in ancient or modern times. Such 1 believe was the case with those of «hom St Pau epeaks ; but I think this is not sufficient ,o prove that even lhov7.VT'/f.""^ *'''"«"•='' '" ^'^^-'^ 'hemUlvestoanorder above hat of the general body of Ministers. Then as to iha pre-emmence o Diotrophes. it'is very evident thi Xre U hlv«?h!h7''r' "'''"'"''> ^^ ^"'"^ "''" ">«•" desire to have he chief place among equals. The Gre.k verb»A//o^ fobefirs't 'fih'^"'^''' "'^'^ ^^^epnmus, I love, or de re Inffioi „. .' •'"T^ "PP'^ ^° ^'l'"*'^' '^"'1 ia not in itself sufficient to prove that the person having this desire wshVi thereby to become of a rank superior to his associates «hL wt;lh.!^r'"' «°'"«'l''"fi "-ofe in the case of Diotre- phes. which strikes my attention. He not only loved the '• pre- eminence, .hat IS to be xhe first among equals, buf when this was at ained. tho' he strove not to elevate hmsefTo 2 ZTtl^r* ""^ rZ'r'^r "'2''" «' "'ore hoZ ble tf- brethJenrornn''T'''^'''V'"''''*''"''>°'''>'' «^«=''"J«d ^i. with whi/hT/ * '''"^ '" l.^" "»n8gement of that Church r«l.,«« . * "'" f«"nected, and exercised the power of ?Tordinih«l" T^r ''^^^ *"'' " >•nc^ependant^y^a"any us ?thI\^n.?P\'''^ '"»'"'!"'"* "'"''«• "« •' 'eceivelh (even) wor^ii* intt' ^ not"-... praung against us with malicious rSht '*""'*;••.*"'' forbiddeth them that would, and .la?.l nV •" T'' ""^ "'° S*'"'''''" '^''«"'" 'his recorded in. ■lance of contumacy, and of assumption of the exclusive power . e;?«!.Tv'"^ the Chorch indepenSen.fy of fellow-ministers Jresbvl J J ff IhV"- •? '5* 'J^Fivationf as by divine right, of fo!./n 1- i,^*''J'i'''''"<''"'P'"^''' rights, by those whom coSdSSt of &''!:• ® •• ''t'?" "'" ""' »«" P'«"ed with the conduct of Diotrephes in this respect. Letter V. The Church at Jerusalem affords no proof of diocesan episcopacy —St. James not a dtocesun bishop. ''piscopacy Bbv. Sir, -J! J"" Church at Jerusalem." is your next testimony, which you suppose aflords a strong proofof diocfson episctpacy," Howstrorig a proof u ofTords we shall endeavour impartially «o aiceriain, "^ ' 44 .,3 ■> I Reducedto order your argumenlson this head stand thus-— Proposition : James \va» a diocesan bishop of the d of Jerusalem; "just bucIi a bishop as hod the su ol the kfcjBof coijfiiniaiion and oidination. Iioiese pteme power Proof!. •' There onu . . (P- 16. 17.) ere myriads of Christians at Jeiueal contequently numerous congregations. Let the assertion he granted, and what d em, vail ? " Myriads of Christians and „ abttroctediy considered, ore not in themsel.^ prove minister ofChiist to be a diocetan bith ley had myriads of Christians and nu oea it in reality o- numerous tcngretraiions. »C8 sufiicient to cp. Mr Wes- . . -Jinerous tongregations un. derhrspagtoral care, therefore, according to your reasoning he was a diocesan bishop! '' 2. But St. James presided over these congregations, and o- ver the Presbyters who officiated in ilicm." Allow that he did thus preside. 1 answer, until the powers of this presidency be pointed out more fully than ever has been yet done, tho mere fact of presidency is no proof of diocesan episcopacy a;r held by high turthmen. Tlie primus inter oa- re» presided over his brethern; but this did not make him su- perior in order. The Wesleyan President presides, as does al- so every District Chairman, over their brethein; but they are not superior to their brethren by divine right. 3. The part which he acted, cannot be accounted for on any other supposition, than that he really was the fixed bishoo of the particular Church orJerusalem." The term " bishop." on your own reasoning, can prove nothing. JVawM are nothing; official powers are every tiling. You use the word in an ecclesiostical sense, and tell us James was •• just such a bishop as had the supreme power ol the keys of confirmation and of ordination." I cannot in this debate lake your ipse dixit, your mere word, for proof. Show by anconlrollable evidence that James exclusively con- Jirtned, m your sense of the word, and ordained without the presbyters. You knew you cannot, and vet you have the con- fidence to assert in the face of the world that'he was just such a bishop asnad ihe ««/)refwepo«pcr of the keys of confirmation and of ordination!" 1 should like to be present when one of your uneducated parishioners, coming to this part of vour pamphlet should innocently look up in your face and atk, Par6{)n Shrevo, where do the seriptutes say that James had the exclusive rfficta I powers of confirmation and ordination'^ I (Jon t recollect of ever reading it in the new Testament'" But •• the part which he acted, cannot be accounted for on any other supposition than that he was" such a bishop. That he was a diocesan bishop is then only a •• supposition;" and yet you very consistently think that " the Church at Jerusa- Jem affords a «/rong proof of diocesan episcopacy !" Jfyeu .lave i.o siicrper picofof the tiuihfulrefsof your claims, than supposition," query, how sirtng is it ? But what •• part did Jarr.es act ?" You have not informtd us, as I can see, 45 cgalions, and o- (I.at lie acted as a d.ocesan bishop. W..at oll.crs said and d.d you have menlioncd; but you l.avo not narraicUne soli- .aryb..l,oply act of James! How is this? h your omission a opecwBuf oversight'? But there is particular ineotion made of James : for instance— ,xW:,^?u^^"f\ V;" '"'''acu'oi'sly delivered from prison. Irethien. But uhy-'youask, '• to /a»,c5 in particular? Ur. why weie the brethren with James rather than with John, flf^Jeldemf-'"' "" '" "' '^"' /-'ye.,. .//e,tt,«rd,: But who was James? An. o«//e of our blessed Lord- one of the twelve. Why was he .0 much in Jerusalem? It appears that /anifs, Pe• P'^'P" bi'hop of Jeru. salem. Indeed, may we not as reasonably, yes, and as " na. lura ly" .w;,;,^*. ,hat the elders were in the habit of meeting ror the despatch of church-business at the houce of James mere y for the sake of convenience and accommodation ? Do the elders always meet m the houses or places of bishops? And IS the entering mto a brother's house sufficient to make him a diocesan bisTiop? If eo, I can prove, according, to your sago way of reasoning, that Peter was bishop of Jerusalem.- « :«\ ".'.'• I ^*'"'" **'*"' ' "P •» ^«'""lem «o them which were Apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned agam unto Damaecus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to ,€« Pe^er, and abode with hm fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's bro- her. (Gal. 1. 17_19 ) But why did St. Paul go to Jerusa- lem to see Peter m particular? Why abide with Pc/er fifteen J?^^ ,'f =f o 1", ''''"' •'"'""• *^° "'" "'en 'n Jerusalem ? \r hy did St. Paul do this, except Peter was the fixed and pro- per bishopof the particular Church of Jerusalem ? Confute this if you can. But this is not all : You proceeded— •• In the 2 Ch. of Ep. ders (o be with 47 /r«« /ame5j.e( Peter) d.de«rw.h..rr[* ?"'"'" «"""« you enquire. ..induced St Paul .rsav ' ffh^:'" ^^ ^^^*'••• Judea came from James ri?h«r fhL r .'" ^''^^ """' ''""J and elders, of whom mJnv wlr! .V '^"'•T ""* °"'«'' »P°*"e« The ana Jr to7h^aZv^roor.l„r '!.'"'"'« »« J"'-'"'em ? is .imply James, Z TpL"/ sen tT** «'>"'""<= "S question But how d,d Paul know .hVt J ' Per-ons m question, .upernatu.al revelation! V bee Z T- nJr ' .,''"''" "^ gave him. o, other, wl o comrun?"ted!o Mr"?/''"^"" tion. UJohn or any other A no,. Uh!^^ . ?' "'" '"'^"'"'a. AnliochfromJe-usalem ih«„ rA^''1.""' """« persons lo reply to this said Dr. Bowden. fore James was their ecclesiastical Qovelrnor ' ' *^'''- CiLin?. *"""?"""•' communication to make to the Sne^Jf p;rU;'t*o" 57' "?k""' '' ''* inconsistent with their doc- .nfluence. to bo by him imparted to the t^.X of the Chren 1 im 48 N.ij, is not lliid, in oil Presbyterian, as well as oihcr roun- tries, the oidinory method of proceeding ? When the Cleijjty of any (own or district convene for niututti consuitnlion, does their assembling in the house of some nged and venerable bro- ther in iho Mini^iry consiiiulo thiit bro'iher their Sishop, in the L()i8cop,il sen>o ofihovvord? To propose questions of this kind serioHsltf is little short of an insult to the understand- ingof the reudor. Do not facts of the very kind related of James, happen every day to Presbyterian Ministers ? When gentlemen who would bo thought io argue, and not to trifle, condescend to amu^se their readers with reoresentations of this kind, under the garb oCreasoning, it is really difficult to • Bswer them in the language of tespecl or gravity. (Conti- nuation of Leiiors, Lo. p. 107.) For some very judicious remarks on the real worth of the lestinriony w^ich you derive from •• by speeches in histotical relations," I refer yrm to the Ecclesiastical polity of the imtnortal Hooker, B, 8, § 5, and commend them to your spe- cial attention. ' 4. •• After the Council holden at Jerusalem, we find him al- ways in his diocese :" this is your fourth proof that James was diocesan-bishop of Jorusalem. •• In his diocese" ! Pr&y, who informed you that James had a " diorese" ? I mean in your sense of the word. Do any of the writers of the New Testament say that James bad a dioceise? I am astonished that you. who have such an ••abundance of Scripture proof." proof enough and to spare, {spate enough I assure you,) should depend so much upon mere conjecture,— gratuitous, unsupported assumptions !— First prove, by something more convincing than Dr. Bowden's mere assertion, that James had a diocese, in the ecolesiastical sense of the word, before you attempt to argue from the ••supposition." I beg your pardon, you do endeavour to prove the assumption. •• St. Paul," you say, •• in hisEp. to Gal. observes, that some Jews came to him from Antioch— several years after this, St. Paul returned to Jerusalem, and there ho found St. James, and the presbyters with him — (Acts 18," rather 21.) What a dearth must there be in the land of Episcopacy, when Dr. Bowden, who '• has written so well on this point," brings forward such weighty reasons to prove that "after the Council holden at Jerusalem, wa find Jarnes always in his diocese," and when you, the Champion of Episcopacy, who feel yourself able to meet all the hosts of parity combined, •• cannot do better than to give his own words !" The amount of these reasons is simply this^Jaines was 111 Jerusalem in the year A. D. 62, about the time the Council was held and the Epistle to theGalatians ^aa written. In the year 60, or eight years afterwards. St. Paul, on going tt Jerusalem, found James there, with the elders ! And this IS gravely quoted to prove that James was always in bis Dio- CESE ajter the Council at Jerusalem ! 49 Allowing ll.al J ^me» mUeJ permanent/,/ in JerMsaleni for (en je.r, .hat .-. from the .in.« ,ho Cou.a.l w... he hi i Je u .a «,n unt.l the ...ne he «a» put to de.lh. ,h,. su.ely s , ot sufhc.enttoprovo,huthe«'a«a dioce.an b„h..p. pLeJm onu e,erc.8u,g p-wers incompui.ble w.ih (hose of presb '.1*- n he ..a.e .n wh.ch chns.„n..y «„, ,hen placed' n.l.n.:; lef. without the presence, .dvice. and nuthoniy .,f ono c of ihe other Apostles re..ded ntd^fforcnl inne. m, Jurusalem.^ /J«r««/«;.rv. considered ,„ iuelf. cannot prove dioc-e.an epi«. ^opacy ; o.hcrw„e. the elders, ^y■U reUj pcnnannt'in Jorusalen. w^ro diocesan b.ehops ! To mak.^o r a" ,nu. I €0«clu..ve. you Bhonid «how from ,he Scr^p.ure. iharjan'^l \ ""• * professed successor of tho ira":otr;!o"r.;iriix ::r ^" '^' «'^^"'''' ^^'-^^^ S..''sfe"ri7a;Vron"^*;^a,f ^«^"".- 'V'^' Hegessiptts is the earl ri ! And this I •"»•»/ |>a« any direct bea ieat writer you adduce, who! ya in bis Die- I *'''"• '" *'>« second cent ing on the question btfore H c'arei St. Jatncs B - •» •juwaiiwii utiiure u». Ho Ufy. andyou say bo erprcsf/y de- k-as appointed bishop of Jcrusa levi. tJ Id aay- m 60 rng I believe it preserved by Eiifebiiis in his Eccleiiablicll Hi*, •ory. ilia words are diadekelai de ten ekklesian meta ton apostul.m, (ganitwe p\^lta\) ho adtlphoi ton kiitiou Jnfeo- bos." Jamon, the brolher of I lie h.rd, received ihe Cburcli, or undcriook llio governance of llie Ciiurth, with iho Aposllea! Tiie phrn»o, ho proa ton apottolon ho te$ epitkope$ tea en JerosoluiHoia egkckeiriato thronoa, •' lowborn (Jamei) llie Jipiscopal choir at Jerusalem was cdmmiUed by the Apoailes," which appears in ii former part "f the chapter, is to be attri- lulled to Kiisebiiis, and not to Hesossipus. (See Eueeb. Hit EccI Lib. II. Cap. 28.) Clement of Alexandria : You have not condescended to re lei to the place in Eusobiua's works where Clement's opinion la given ; but taking up the quotation as you have presented it, it i& evident thai Clement's views of Episcopacy differ from yoiir.i. He makes " preiiding over" synonymous with •• biah- op." Presidency is not in proof of o superior order. Indeed this is iho great question : — Let it be granted that the Fttiherscall Jimos •' bishop" of Jerusalem, and whol does the mere name prove .' You have taught ine that names are nothing; offiiial powers are every thing. Does the word *' biahop" here convey the idea of exclusive right to ordain ? Ifso, why should it not in every other case .' And what shall liinder the Scripture Bishspa from having the power to or- dain ? The nome bishop, applied to James, avails vou r»oth- ing unless you caiishow his official powers, and thai he exer- cised Ihom to the exclusion of the presbyters. It will not be necessary for me to enter into an examination of the testimony »f Hippolytua, Cyrtl, ^e. : " Admitting the (act, "says Dr. Miller, that the Fathers a^serl that /a»ie* was bishop of Jeriisaiem ; "and admitting, bIho, that there were no circumstances tending to invalidate their testimony ; to what does it amount ? Why, simply, that Jamea was one of the Clergy, perhaps the Scntor Clergyman of the Church of Jerusalem, and probably the moat conspicuous and eminent of them all. For let it never be forgoiien that our Episcopal brethren themselves acknowledge, that the title of biahop was applied in the Apostle's days, and for some time afterwards, to the Pastors of single congregations, and of course, that this term alone decides nothing in their favour. That the Apostles and primitive christians sometimes employed it in a sense differ- ent from that which is adopted by our Episcopal brethren, is confessed on all hands. And that those early writers, when they speak of Jctmes as bishop of Jerusalem, mean to say that ho was a prelate, a bishop, in the modern and perverted senae of the te.'iH. IS what we conBJently call in question, and what Dr. JBoiuden. witii nil liji* lirothren lo niil lijm. cannot Drove- I know tliai the learned profnssor loses all patience at intima- tions ut this k nd ; but it is by no means the first time that a man has been provoked by a demand i>f proof , when he had iiutliing but a. ertioH to produce." (Contin. Letters, p. 109.) A biiho| 10 called. Jimos fron thought yo Apostles .' 6. •' An you, '• is ti unanimous li this a succeed J.i cd him at a Miiiisier of Apuflles. are nothinj what were J.iinss, posi virtue of of " It does duce any m er evidence lem." Ind nuily, I thill clearer and James was may be spec potted by d vur Lord Jt James, in bi that of pies formed such manner in never wit net ity, without you can pro lident of th< ed before, pi op, jou say, '*ly ** the f sliowing, do( You also i more raliuna passngos whi mony of the «(l, and you t ifilerpretalio Jjnios." TI lA r ..- palians put a "appeal" m to prove this B8 these you 81 coleiiafclicaf Hi: esian meta ton a ktitiou Jaho- ivod ihe Cliurcli, nth I ho Apoalles. pifkope$ tes en mm (Jamei) llie >y lite Apoatles," r, ii to be atlri- (See Euseb. Hig. idesrendei] lo re- lenienl'a opinion have prescnlcd apacy diHer from luuff widi *• bi$h- • order. )e grnnted that ID, Olid what does I that names are Doea the word ight to ordain 7 And what ahall le power to or- availa vqu nolh- nd th&i he exer- an examination " Admitting the sert that James tlHO, that there heir leatimony ; Jamei was one of the Church of land eminent of our Episcopal le of bishop was le afterwards, to ourae, that this hnt the Apostles in a sense differ- >pal brethren, is ' writers, when nean to say that I perverted sense stion, and what cannot Drov?, ienre at inlima- first time that a ', when he had L9II618, p. 109.) A hiiliop of a diocese is not equal to an Apostle. 10 vailed. How can you connive at Ih Jimoa from his apoaileaiiip into a properljr e ancients de{;r.iding mere dioce»an bifliop > 1 il.oujfl.i you would have been moiejoalou"."'of"iho "honour oV 6. •'Another cirtum&tanco which proves our point, " s.iy you. '• Ii the an.co.!.,,,,, of S.meon to lames accordmg to ihi un.inimous report of the aiinents." h this a Sf/i>/«,e proof? In what capacily. d,d Simeon .TlZn^r*/ '^"•"Apos.leoraswhat? Ifhesocrcd cd h,tn alalK ,1 must ,«ve been in his capacity of an ordinary Mimser of Christ. The Apostles could riot bj succeeded Is Apofilea. bull you are as far from your pomt as ever. JVames ore nothing : wo are to look for oHic.al powers. And i" what were the offical pouers. wh.ch S.mJon, a. succe^so" of virtue o( office vested m presbyters? " Ii does not oppear possible." say you (p 17,) •• to pro- duceany mailer oUaci that is supported by cliarerand s-ro^ng- er e dence than iIms," that •• James wai bishop of J uT : ..'."'^?r W.lhouHaying claim to any espeuiai ,..«. naily, I thmk I can produce « matter of fact: „ '^piMcd Ty James was a dioctsan bmhop. |f your cur.o.ny ia excited it I^oIh'kP"/''"^ «'""'^"**' ^y y«"^ 'e«"embenng^he}aV^s;.p- potted by rfmn, , estunony. that James w.s on Apostlb of Il« 'ii r'"' a'"'"- "■>''" "y "'«"« «"«*«"»» meant th:; hat of p.esbytcrs, I thmk it only fair to ask, on what they formed such an opinion ? James him.elf they never saw : thj manner m which he mano^ed li e affairs of the Church ihev ever witnessed : that he ever ordained a person to the Minii^ ou TnZ "r P'*''?^""' '^-y <«««o' »ffi''n. '1 he ulmost Kl ^ P'e'byors of Jerusalem :-but as 1 have remark- ed before, presidency creates no higher order. An arch-bish- l?°"."h''fi". " "'* P'"'^«'" °' "'« •>«"<=" <^f bishops.' 'and *ly ;* the iirst among equals :" his presidency, on four owri showing doe. not make l.m. an order superior lo bislfops. I Vou also mfurm 11,0, /p. ig.) .. x,,„,e cannot, .ir" be a more rational way of ascertaining tl« meaning of Scripture passsgos which relate to a /«/. Than to appeal to ihoTesti^ ledTnd vi",""TT" '^•''«'»"«""l method you have „iop - d. and you thmk the result is "in perfect umson with the Ce's" "" ^.P'''^■"P''''«"- give to\he texts relating to S^ I Jjmes. 1 he •; mearimg of the Scripture passages." relating ssnoivi6ug.j, iheii, is not palians put an " interpretation very clear: Episco- lo appeal" must be made to '• the prove this interpretation to be upon them ; and after all of the an ancients' Ks these you would unchurch ali testimony corre non-episcopal pj^o^esTonl da 0(1 such grounds M 52 :; s m\ rorninatioM, anc! leave tliem to llie uncoven.inlcd mercy of d ! And all tins, loo. under colour of the Scripture, ond burning zeal for nposiolic 4;Gvcrnmenl ! Tlie Icslimony of llie nnricnts in lliir pariieiilnr relales Jo Ike "/arl" of James liaving bveu, in )oiir een.-o of ilio phrase, bishop of Jerusalem. Well, by which of Hie flf«st» Ani the ancienia nomo lo the knowledge of thu/ac/. that J.uncs was lliui bishop? Did lliey live at ihc same lime, in Ihe same phce. »ntJ, from per-- sonal intercourse and int-pection know, that Junes was bishop, in your t>en.«e of the word, of the diorese of Jernsnlem, nnd exercised ofiicini powers incnnipaiible with those possessed hv presbyters? If not, Iioh could they testify fo a fact, as "a fact, which never came under the knowledge of ony of their senses? ProvQ the fact first by the credible testimony of ci>- temporaries ; and then the dttc'oratioua of subsequent wrileri* itm be adducpil to show (hat litey gavecredeace to the »»rigi. jicii rye-witresrcs nnd narrators. liiinUe passages ef Scripture " relate »o ih» faet" that Jimes was the diocesan bisbop of Joruealen I How stupid 1 um—yce— Isceit now ! The " Scripture passages relate to !ho fact"— yel they are so perfectly dark, ar cmginalical, that «vc mukt ** appeal lo the testimsny of the oncients t« aseertaitt their meaning." What a value we ought to place on the urilings of the Fathers ! What a meicy iliey had such sharp pyes, o^r penetrating minds, to ascertain t!ie meaning of Scrip- lure passages, which lo «», poor dim-sighted creatures, is per- fectly mdiBcernibie ! If ihey had lived in these modern diys, they surely would have taken out a *♦ paleni" for their ma- nujfactures ! What naughty people theie aie in the world to refuse to profit by such deep-sighted discoveries ! They do i»ol deserve to have a bishop at all ! Diit what rather surprises mo is, that these passages relate to •'a fact," atid yel neither directly nor indirectly do they disclose the fact. I have been puzzling myself to discover, if |to«8ibie, how they who lived many year's ofier St. James, knew these passages related lo the fact in qMestion. If the passages reUto to the f.ict, and yet contain nothing in them- selves wUicb conve}9 the smallest idea of the fuel — how, for instance, did C'cment of Alcxundria, Iliiipolytus, the Cjrils, Ep'phnnius, Chrysnstom, Augustine, &c, ever come to the knowledge that thes) versos do relate to the fact of James having been a diocesan bishop ? 1 must leave you to solve the diHiculty. All your array of ancient testimony, as yet, proves nothing ; no, not even that of Jerome, ile never intended, by the word hiahnp, as applied lo James, a person of an order higher than thai of a prcshylur by divino right, and iiaving "the SHprenid power of (he keys of confirmation end ordination, " as he hiin- Eolf says tSat ecclesiastical bishops " are gieaier than prrsby- ters rather by custom, than the truth of the Lord's disposi'iJn and ordering." Votj sa (ho ^pos\ pus, tho^ subject ; lum a Ch it was ail ed bishop nius, and cannot bo how subse of Jamos'i The cases i copac) Rev. Sir, Your ne, is taken fn pose a fiord of the thre have not e; ordinary ch ters, and e which rigbi And yir*i 1 would I you are nol being " ex siaiants oft rity and dir ters suited and, in effe tnessengors in "preach presbyter is philologist, tlie word •* day.'' B,b obligation fc Timothy wi Tim. 4,5, n which follov infcd mercy rf Scripture, and lestimoriy nfllie 'art" of .lames >p of Jerusalem, la oomo lo the I bisliop ? Did and, from per-- mea was binhup. Jeriisiilem, nnd ise posfesscH by » a fact, as n >f ony uf Ibeir lalimony of ci>- )8C(}uetit wrilerit ice lo the «rigi. lh» fuel" that How stupid I Mgen ftlatt lo fviginntical, thai mis l« ascertain > place on the bad such sharp caning ofScrip- realures, is per- e modern d lys, ' for their ma- I in the world to rics ! They do passages relate direcily do they r lo discover, if ficr St. Jiimes, lestion. If ihe '•hing in them- fact — how, for Ills, the C)ril^, r come lo I he fjcl of James B you to solve proves nolhiiig ; led, by the word ler higher than " ihti SHprenid on," as he him- ler than presby- !/•«/'» disposi'ioi) 68 Yon say thai James was appoinfed bishop of Jerusalem by «he Apostles ; such you make to be the teslimony of Hegessi- pus, the ^rst writer you adduce who speaks directly to the subject -, and yet " Vetus haec fuit traditio, Jacobum nposto- /um a Christo episcopum Ilierosolvmonim fiiisse orriinntum," It was ail ancient tradition that James the Apostle waa ordain- ed bishop of Jerusalem 6,y CAm^ Cbrysostum and Epipha- nius, and others were of this opinion. Both of theso opinions cannot be correct. Will you reconcile them ? And inform us now subsequent writers came to know more about the "facV ot James's ordination than Hegessipus, who wrote first ? I^etter VI. The cases of Timothy and Titus, not in proof of Diocesan Epis- copacy. *^ Rev. Sir, Your next Scripture proofin favour of Diocesan Episcopacr 18 taken from ihe cases of Timothy and Titus, which you 6up. pose afford uncontrollable evidence of the divine establishment of the three orders. You wish to make it appear, tho' you have not expressed yourself very perspicuouslv, that in their ordmary character they were of an order superior to prcsby- Sh' ^,T,f't^ ''^'''"'^ .P°**" incompatible with those wh ch rightfully belong to the latter. Here wo differ. Ana first of Timothy. I would obseive, en passant, that in speaking of Timothy you are not always consistent. I spake of him and Titus as being extraoidmary messengers, called Evangelists os- ZTAi'''\''r,''''\ ^'>° ^''^^ ""«^«r 'heir spe1.T;f 'a'utho- ity and direction,'' and, as such, were only tempos arv Minis- ters suited to the first age ofChristianily." This vou opplse • and, in effect deriy that '• Evangelists" were -< exirZZan, messengers, ' making .« the work «f an Evangelist" to cons J^ m "preaching the Gospel faithfully," which every ordinary presbvter is bound to do ; and, as a specimen of you^skHI as ^ philologist, yon inform me. •• from this we, no doJbi donvo tv" Rti*^'rr'r''"'° frequently used i„ tha'presTnt da . Biblical Siudents, no doubt, will feel under peculiar obhga ronfor this important information ! You also deny iha! iZ^'r Z\K'- ""^ ^"'P"'^ '" ^^"''g'"^' = *' The 'ex, 2 which fn^lio ^ I, 7"" """": "" Evangelist, than the words which follow make him merely a deacon." Bo not these pas- 54 i J! •ages compared make Timothy in reality an eitraordinary MiniBler? 1. An Evangelist is not an extraordinary niesten- ^or : 2. Timoiliy was not an Evangelial : hence he waa not an ordinary Minister. You quote oniiquiiy to prove that lie was an eecleniatiical liihop, and you usserl, wiihont quaiiricaiion, (hat he was an "Jpostle," and that "the duiies which he performed at Kphesiis, were doubtless exercised in virtue of the apostolic oflice." Tlien I find you positively contradicting vourself in regard to Timothy. Pajre 2«, you say, •• Timothy is not only called an Kvangclist," winch certainly implies he was called an Evan- goliss, •• but on Aposilef Page 27. you affirm, •• Timothy was an apostle He is not called hn Evimgelist, but is ex- horted to do the ergon, the work of an Evangelist, or in other words, to preach the Gospel fitilhfully." You write very con- fusedly, confounding both names and things ! This last crilicicm. I feiir. will luin that character for philological acu- men, which your former specimen was calculated to establish! Consult Piirktfursfs Lexicon, and you will find thatrr^oit eijt- nifies*' o/^«r«," as well as mere " work j" in proof ofwbick lie cites, among other pass.igcs, 2 Tim. 4, 5. tha very passage on which you have exercised your criticising nowers \ So also Grotius renders ergon by "functio," office: his words, on 1 Tim. S. 1, are " ergon est ip«a/M»if /io." Afier this, we ire to understand, that he who discharges the office of a presby- ter is 120/ a presbyter, he only does the work of a presbyter, and by the same rule, he that performs the office of a diocesan bishop is not a diocesan bishop, fur the best reason in the world, he only does the work of a diocesan bishop f Thi? last specimen of criticism is a very large dead fly in the/iof ofoirU- ment. YoH a!so make Barnabas an "Apostle." (p. 27.) I men- lion this here to show that you use the word Apostle, not in its restricted sense, as applying to those exclusively who were commissioned by Christ himsblf, and whoso office was incom- municable. Taken out of this sense the word signifies nothing but a messenger, and may with equal propriety apply to all Ministers of Clirist. And yet yon are repeatedly charging me with taking names for things ! Wrts Timothy, I ask, tkn Jlpostle \n ihi sense \n vi\\\ch Si. Paul was, or Peter or Mutt hew, or John .' If not, why play upon the name Jlpostle ? Why tell ine 'hat the duties which Timothy performed at Ephcsus waa performed " in virtue of the apostolic office" ? Surely Timothy is called an " Apostle !" Yes: but you witl not allow the " term to define the office ;" (p. 26.) oiherwice he would be " a deacon !" Ahd yet Timothy must have exercised his powers in virtue of his apostolic office ! Ill arguing against the Christian Ministry having been form- ed on the model of the Synagogue, you make, as was before 65 extraordinary 'dinarjr mesien- ce he WHS not eceletiaatical hat he was an ) performed at r (he apottolie self in regard to only called an ;alled an Evan- m, •' Timothy elist, but is ex- jlr8t,or in other write very con- r / This last iilolo{ical acu- >d to establish! tiiat rr^on sijt- proof ofwbick ^ very passage vers ! So also IS words, on 1 ler this, we are re of a presby- f a presbyter, e of a diocesan reason in the op ! TIlif last ibepot ofoint- ■ 27.) I men- postle, not in vely who were ice was incom- ignifies nothing y apply to all y charging me )« in which St. not, why play e duties which ** in virtue of Ves : but you ;•• (p. 26:)=- Timoihy muat >ltc office \ ing been form- as was before stated, the numher of the Apostles twelee; but if you include (beside St Paul) Birnabas. Epaphrod.tu*. Timothy. andTiius, yru will make it ieventeen ! All tl of some little confusion. If ilie fi lis is, I think, an indication were no "our persons last mentioned I /;M/y Apostles, why miike them equal to the Apos- tles properly so culled ? W|,y attempt to found sn argument on their •• aposlolic office?" Consider we now your proof that Tiraofhv, in his ordinary capacity, was of an order superior to that ofpresbyters. Charging others is your first proof. You quote 1 T,m. 1, 3. •• I besought thee lo abide still it Ephesiis, when I vein mto Maced-nJa, that thou mighiest charge some that Ihey teach no oii.er dotlrine." Say you. ••St. Paul requests Timothy to take the oversight of the Church at Ephesu9,"-Ae. and Ae alone, was to charge or command others not 10 leach any other doctrine than thai which Ihey had heard fiom ' ■ fonuth of the Apostle. Now he candid and tell me. sir, .; not appear fiom this that I .moihy, was superior to > I ;r8o''Epliesus ? Nothing can be plainer than that he had authority over them, and authori- ty belongs only to a superior," (p. 22.) I. Whatever character Timothy sustained, it appears evi- dent from the words of St. Paul, that his visit to Ephesus was but temporary, and not permanent. •« I bcEought thee lo abide still at Ephesus." This by no means harmonizrs with the Idea that he was the fixed Bishop or sole ruler of the Ephe- Bian Church.-For what was Timothy sent, bat to establish the constitution of the Church ; and this he did as a special mes- senger acting under Apostolic direction and authority. •• J besought Ihee &c."-say8Dodwell;'^ bill truly, that the t-^rc 01 (liiKothy) was not^xerf, but Cinerary, many arguments do evince. It was required of him to abide at Ephesus, is testi- fied by the Apostle, 1 Tim, I. 3. He was therefore, when thus demanded an itinerary The work of an evangelist, 2 Tim 4 5 _so mony journeyings with St. Puul, and his name being join- ed m common with the Apostle, in the inscription of the epis- lie and to the Thessalonians, are all of them oiguments for this " (Paraones, sect. 10. p. 404. 2. You aeeume that the persons whom Timothy was to charge were christian ministers or elders of Ephesus That thou mightest charge some." But who were these some ? Not christian m-nisters, but Judaizing teachers : tlie fourth verse applies to these with more propriety than to gentile minister.^ of Christ. •' The ancient commentators." "-^i" !^i"'^J' ^^""^ '° '"• EP'" '''''"•) " «" «gf«e in 'his- mat St. Timothy was left at Ephesus to preserve that church trom the endeavours of the Judaizing Ciirislians. lo induce circumcision and the observance of the law, and to amuse nv'ith llieir genealogies from A brail 'm4 am and the patriarchs. S. As not names but official cial powers are now undsr contide- fid ':'My; ^ : I i ! ! ration, 80. if charging others prove superiority, it must do so neeessarity and universally, otherwise the argument will not conclude in any particular case. If charging others prove su- poriorily necessarily, and universally in every given case, then Paul was of an order superior to Timothy, os Paul charged Timothy, •' I charge the— preach the word &c." (2 Tim. 4. 1) If the Apostle was of the ^rs« order as yon affirm, then, on your principles of reasoning, Timothy was of the second. J3ut if Timothy was of theirs*, ii follows that an equal may charge an equal; hence charging others does not necessarily imply superiority; and there is nothing in the language of Paul to Timothy (o prove that he was superior to presbyters. Ifyou say, that Paul charged Timothy as an Apostle, in iiis extraordinary character, so it may be said with equal proprie- ty, thai Timothy was to charge the persons in question, in his extraordinary capacity ns a special delegate sent forth by tho Apostles for a special purpose ; and so nothing by you is gain- ed. You take for cranted that the first epistle of Timothy was written after Phul's interview with the elders or bishops, at Miletus, mentioned Acts 20 ; and hence you wish to make it appear that over these very presbyters Timothy was placed aa a superior officer. You have no right, in this discussion, to assume this to have been the case, until you first prove by un- controllable evidence that the epistle was written after that event. As to the time at which this epistle was written commentators have entertained dilTerent opinions. Very many eminent biblical critics have placed its date not later than A D. 58. or 60, before the interview at Miletus. A- mong these may bo mentioned Athanasius, Theodorel, Baro. nius, Ludoric, Capellus, Blondel, Hammond, Grotius, Sal- masius, Lightfoot, Br Benosn, Witsius, Lardner, Michae- lis. Hug, and Joseph Benson. In his Preface, the Rev. Jo- seph Suiclifle has the following observations. «' Those who fi.ic it (the date) in the year sixty four or sixty-five 8r6 not aware that Paul travelled five ynars, says St. Clement to the Corinthians, to the utmost boundaries of the west, and on com- ing a second time to Rome, received the crown of martyrdom under Nero in the year sixty-six. By consequence Archbishop Usher could not fix it later than the year sixty." You cannot be certain, that there were, at the time St. Paul wrote his Epistle to Timothy, any elders at Ephesus; and, as yon 8;^^„«I to my condour, I do cawrfjrf/y tell you, it does not appear, "that in your sense, he was superior to the elders ait Ephesus" or" that he had authority over them." •' Authority," you say, ".belongs only to a superior." Ti- niothy was to charge Judaizing teacbeis, titerel'ore lie was superior to Christian Ministers! And ministers loo who for ought you :an show were not then in existence! " Authority b?l on gs to a SI) iperior;" and this authority is assumed on the ground that he was to charge some to teach no other that ! . it must do so nent will not ers prove su- n case, then 'aul charged " (2 Tim. 4. affirm, llien, the second. n equal may t necessarily language of presbyters, ostle, in iiis Itial proprie- estion, in his forth by tho you is gain> 'imotby was bishops, at to make it as placed as iscussion, to >rove by un- tt aHer that was written ons. Very te not later >filetus. A* 'orel, Baro. rotius, Sal' er, Michae- >e Rev. Jo- Those who Ive are not ment to the and on com- 'martyrdom Archbishop Yuu cannot u! wrote his yoH a;-^weIongf.4 only to n superior." In epiie of yourself yon will ir>ake Tirn'::;iy of i lie second order! Even could you firove there wcro elders h.' Epiiesus", li.e mere fact that he wad 10 " charge Bonie" i3 iiol m iieelf snilicieni to esiaSlish the as fUtnpiion thai lie in his ordinary cupacily was^ by divino rijjhlj of on order superior to proaliyiera. On the suft'posiiion tliit< •' some" of your prealiyiers had fallen imo docliinul errors, find your bisliop were to despatch an arrh deacon to "charge" ihein not to teach such erroneous doctrines, would this consiitufe the .Archdeacon an order superior to pres- byters ? 1 irow not. How ili* n chu the mere fuct of Timothy having been left at Eplesiiis on a special occasion to •' charge some" that they shoyld leach only Apostolic truth, consiitu'e him supeiior to prtc^viets ? Ordaining is your second proof (p. 23.) The remaiks previously made on '* ordination" are sufficient to prove that this alone does not necessnrily make Timothy, in his ordinary capacity, of un order superior to presbyter*. To these remarks I refer you and the reader. If Timothy oo- tud as an extraordinary Messeoeer, of course no ar^rument can be drawn from his runduct under these circurostances in fav )ur of a standi.ig order of Ministers superior to presbyters ; 03 the extraordinary minis'ers or officers of the Church were t» have no sitccessnre. In the case of ordination, as in the case prAceding, you a«- suine that there were numerous elders at Ephesus, when ihia ppistle containing directio.is lespnciing ordination, was written, (p. 23.) The objections urged previously, 'ie equally agiinet this part of your argument. From the minittenest which the \- post Ie observes in giving Tiii.o'hy instructions re-apeoting the qu.-ililications necessary to be pnses.oed l)y those set apart to tha ministerial office, the Epistle itself affords strong m/«rna/ evh dcnce. that there were then in Ephesus few or no bishopd or presbyters. •' One qual fication for a b shop," says Archbishop ToMer, was that he should no' be (JVeophutos) a novice, that is one newly converted ; lime being required to }>ro\e n:cn, be- fore they could be en«ru:iied wiih the care of the church, ^nd therefore the Apostles vstd not to ordain ministers in any place before the Second time of their coming thither ; ^omellmes, when they had no prospect of returning, they gave others a commission to orduin ministers. For which reason Titus was left in Crete by St. Paul to crduin minisleis in all cit;e.s But thorn will soarcn be found anu instanet of their ordaining ministers tk\ X\\b first time of_tln/.r coming to any Placo," (Diacoursn on Cliurth Gbvcrnment, p. iOl. 102.) This will apply to Timothy unless you can prove that Paul had previous to the writing of this epistle ordained elders at Ephe- sus. If vtien there were previou«ly ro eiders at Ephesus, ■m K 111 lili B 4 If! f • ^ 'ii' ' : ,||i ; i t I 1 i 1 L 58 wliicli is most reasonable to believe, it does not appear that m giving direclions 10 Timothy the Aposile did •• reatrain Iho Fiesbyters of Epheaus from ibe exercise of (heir »jV^,/oCordain- ing without any apology for 8o doing, or thht they were •' dealt wiih by St. Paul exactly as he would have dealt with them, had they been originally precluded from the right of ordain- ing." This is all pure imagination : before vou talk in this way, or propose such quest ions from your oracle Dr. Bowden plouse prove, what you have not yet done, and what you can never do, that there were elder» at Ephesus previous to the time you suppose 'I'imothy ordained. Even allowing the utmost you can wish, that there then were elders al Ephesus. will the mere circumstance of an official letter writen to a fpecial Mes- ■onger, in which directions re."pecting ordinuiion and other mat- ters are given, prove Tirnclhy in his ordinary character to have been superior to presbyters i These epistles were written not to the Church al Ephetus, but to Timothy solely, He knew of course how he himself h&d been set apart to'the mi- nistry, "by Ihu laying on of the hands of the presbytery;" and in giving him directions as to the qualifitjtions of mnislers the advice would be necessarily directed to Timothy personal- ly, the Apostle knowing that when these directions were car- nod out, or acted upon, in cases where assistants were at hand. Timothy would not depart from the usual custom of more than one performing the solemn act of ordination. The learn- ed Dr. Willet, an eminent divine of yonr own Church, records Ins judgment thus-" Neither can it be granted by the words «rihe Apostle, /<7yAond»»Mdt/en/y on uo man. «-c., that Timothy had this toU power in himself; for, the Apostle would not give that to him, which he did not take to himself, who associated to him the rest of the presbyters in ordainipfi of Timothy," (Synops. Papism. Conlr. 6, Q. 8.) Th« foundation of your whole argument here, is built on the wienceof the Apostle: presbyters are not named, therefore they are excluded! "There is not." say you. "a word a- bout the presbyters uniting with them, or even being consult- ed," (p. 23.) This on the supposition that there were elders then present : if there weie none, this alone would account for their not being mentioned. On the ground that there were, the circumstance of the Epistle being directed to Timothy only, would aflord a satisfactory reason for their not being particularly specified. Si/fnrr respecting presbyters, in this rase, does not necessarily exclude them ; any more than the silence of the Apostle respecting female rommunion excludes women from the Lord's Supper. But you know that the Apos- tie says nothing against the riahl of piesbylerB He does not tell Timothy not to associate them with him in the act of ordination, and not to consult them. The silence, therefore, on this side of the question, speaks as loud, in favour of the rights of presbyters, as the silence on the other side does against them. 5« appear that reslruin the ;:/i were •' dealt t with them, ;!»t ofordain- 11 talk in this Dr. Bowden, hat you can }vious to the igihe utmost isDS. will the special Meg. id other mat- character to kcre written, solely. He t to the mi" ►ytery;" and 3f rp'nisters, hy personaN la were car- ere at hand,. >m of more The learn- rch, records *y the words , ^e., that jostle would imself, who rdainipg of built on the ii therefore ' a word a^ ing consult* were elders account for there were, 10 Timothy not being ers, in this e than the in excludes It the Apos- He does 1 the act of , therefore, vour of the ' side dges Suppose the Wesleyan Conference should send a general superintendant to the East Indies, In writing to him as an official peison tliey give him directions in regard to oidination, &c, specifying Ilia (|unlifica(!on3 of llie Candidales. &c. Oil receiving this official document cdilressed to himself personally, he knows the instructions must be carried out agreeably to tlio usages of tho connenioM. Though addressed to himself in his official characier, ho never thinks his brethren are excluded bucause not particularly named, or that because ha is acting ns a general siiperintondanl he is thereby elevrs.cd to a rank above that ofliis bretiiron. Yet, a strnnaer might as well argue from this document, that the suporinlendant was of an order superior to his brethren, as you Iromihe Epistle of Paul, that Timothy was, in his ordinaiy capacity, superior to pres- byters. " Jieproving, rebuking, commending,*' from the other proof which you advance in support of your tiieory that Timo- thy was a diocesan bishop, (p. 23.) If those duties could be performed only by superiors, there would at least be some force in this part of your assumption, that Timothy in his ordinary capar'iy most have been superior to elders or presbyters. All these duties may ba performed by equals, and, in fact, are performed by equals in those Churches which do not plead the divine right of bishops, and as effici- ently too, be it observed, as they are in those Churches which do. To make your argument concluile you must prove that the discharge of theso duties ntcessarily implies in the person acting an order superior to those who are reproved, rebuked, or commended. This you cannot do. St. Paul, it is well known, reproved or rebuked St. Peter to his face, " becausa he was to be blamed }" (Gal. 2. 11,14.) hence, if an equal cannot reprove or rebuke an equal, or if the act of reproving or rebuking constitute an higher order, then, on these principles, Paul must have been superior to St. Peter, an Apostle ! As to the commending of presbyters, I find St, Paul's words are, " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of dou- ble hononr," &c. •• Almost every critic of note allows that time, here signifies rctcard, ««/>«««/, wages" (Dr. A. Clarko inloi.) IMiowever you make the words speak of commen- dation in the usual meaningof the word, I reply, that St. Paul, on one occasion, says to the Corinthian Church, *• I ought lo have been commended of you," which, on your mode of rea- soning, would mako the private members of the Church supe- rior to St. Paul, who, in the same verse, states, " in nothing am I behind the very chiefest Apoatloc, though I be noi.hino." From your manner of arguing, one would suppose that nei- ther reproof, rebuke, nor commendation, ix to be found among non-episcopalians. To say nothing of other denominations, a strict and conslant oversight is kopt up among the Ministers of the Wesleyan conae.xion ; and if occasion require it, a pcop«r ^ < Mi : .k,\.A ::■ f n .«^''^ V II 60 •nd fRlcient vxcrcise of discipline, wlie'.her of icbuke, or re- proof, or even ol' expulsion, is maintained ; and frniii lliose wlia discliirge tliuir dulita well, a due tnuutl ofiipproval is not witli- lield, but on fiuiialile occasions is) joyfully tendered. Ttio instance* you have adduced do not necessarily imply su- periority by djyjnc rii>lit ; and iT ihi^ oupcrioriiy did exist, it must be shown l>y other reasons than Ihoee asjigncd. It does not, llierelure, follow that, in his ordinary cnpaciiy. Timothy was, in your 8«nse, " to ovfrsee and ryiu tlie whole Ciiurch bf Kpl.csus, Cltrt;i/ iuiil people." Ho was a special tnessjn- ger, left in b^phetiitii by St. Pjut for a special purpose. If yon makn him, in his ordinary CHpacity, an overseer or tuperin- tendant, it has been already shown that superintrndeiicy is no proof of a fiipcrior oidor. Vou refer to Timothy's charge, and, in the words of Bishop Hoadly, say, " When he (St. Paul) giv<39 bis charge to Timo- thy, it is in plain words', that lie is \o gocein and otdainpres- l)i/te>s" (p. 23 ) You may think it not very becoming; in me, a poor, misiguided Meihod'ut Teacher, to di<>9ont from a diocesan bisliop ; but if you mean by these words that Timothy, in bis ordinary capacity, possessed ofliuial powers incompati- ble with those of presbyters, 1 may be allowed humtily to ask where these " plain words" are In be found i I have never yet seen them in any part of the New Testament. If, in his txtraordinary capacity ho had a certain degree of authority (t«er presbyters, this fails to render your cause support, aa in bis extraordinary capacity be was to have no successors. — You proceed, " When he gives his charge \o these presbyters, it is to feed the flock of /ny-christians. Let any one observo the ififferonco, and judge whether these presbyiera were ever designed for the same ollices for which Timothy had been set- over ibem."— (lb.) For what oilicea, pray, was Timothy set over •• these presbyters" ? Surely not to oroain them ! — If thoy were presbyters they had been ordained already ; and you will not ifiirm, with all your zeal for episcopicy, that Timothy war -et over them to ordain them over again as pres- byters! If Timothy ordained these presbyters in the first place, they vere not presbyters fte/orc their ordination ; and if he were, as an ordinary Minister of Christ, superior to these persons before their ordination, it does not necessarily follow that he wa aftervonrds. But you may aay, he was set over (Ae«e presbyters to ordain o^/)fr5. Was this to be done in his extraordinary or ordinary character? If in the former, you yield the case: if in the latter, then I lequest you to prove from the New Testament, that Timothy ever did in one single instance ordain any to the Ministry solely by him- $elf, nvei tho head:) of the presbyters already in oilica, without their assistance. You have already read the decision of the learned Dr WiHet, that the words, " Lay hands suddenly on no man," dr, not prove '' that Timothy had this sole ptvotr in himself;'" at all events, allowing that ho poneased Luke, or re- nin those vtlio at is not vvitli- J. \riiy imply su- did exisr, it iicd. It does ciiy, Timothy kiiule Cliurch leciul mess3n- pose. If you or luperin- nttndeiicy is rds of Bishop jrgo to Tiino- otdainpren- becoiiiii!(( ill iEisont from a ihat Timothy, rs incompati- iiimbly to ask I have never It. If, in hiii of nuiliority pport, aa in successors. — e presbyters, ^ one observo ira were ever had been set i Timothy set ■ IN them ! — already ; and copicy, that ignin as pres- I in tlio first alion ; and if tsrior to these ssarily follow was set over > be done in I the former, (iiest you to ever did m olely by him- tRua, without cision of the id$ tuddenly i.id this aott ho poneased the povver of ordination by virtue of his ministerial office, they do not prove that this power vested in him aoldy, or lhat he exercised it to the «X(r/usjort of presbyters. But you offirm that Timothy was set over these presbyters to *' govern them."— . Was this to be done in his extraordinary or ordiiiury charac- ter .' If in his extraordinary, the case is yielded, as in this capaoily he was to have nosuccessors : if in his ordinary, then I call for more proof than you have as yat given that these presbyters were committed to the governance of Timothy ua their ecclesiastical and permanent ruler. You have failed to prove that he was to ordain, ruprove, rebuke, commend, or charge, in his ordinary insteid of his extraordinary capacity ; and you have not shown that, in case he was to act thus, these duties do necessarily imply superior order. You refer me to the difTorence between the charge given to Timothy, and the one delivered to the presbyters, for a proof that Timothy wa» their superior. The whole of your argument hero does, in fact- depend upon the nature of the ohnrga given by St. Paul (olh^ presbyters at Miletus, which will be noticed hereafter when' yeur objection respecting ordination (p. 23,) will bo satififac- terily answered. You suppose the hccond Epistle to Timothy aflTords confirma- tory evide.ice in favour of the views you had previously ex- pressed: •' That Timothy d;d, after this, govern and otdain at Ephesus, and not these presbyters, is plain from St. Paul'e second Epistle to him ; in which he is supposed in the samo office as in the first. (p. 28, 24 ) I readily grant that Timothy was in the same office when Paul wrote his eocond Epistle to him as he was when the first was written : but the question is. what was this office ? Was he acting as an extra- ordinary messenger, or as ordinary Minister of Christ ? I be,. Iieve, with the most learned divines, that he was actina as an Evangelist, in an exlraordnuiy capacity. You affirm it is ••^/ain from St. Paul's sccon he had left t lie in the hy was desir- ' Michaelis lactly where inttuated to 9 been Ty- an order to (Introduc. tent modern ularly distin* th the Greek liat, '* there en the A pes* In this opi< le is in all If the opi- ley show, as I continue to e to him — I written, he Y as a super- ?gard to the raust appear >th " incon- you might le divine ori- I all this the mging, first immediately le right of it ards putting )iece of pure 1 this I per- Why? for leted as you 6S repretent Mm to have done ; and no person in his senses can ever believe that he acted thus. Hut you add—*' and 3et this mudt be supposed, if there be any thing implied in the text now before us, to the purpose of tho presbyterian cause." Really ! This is a discovery, with a wiiness. First— you have not told me what •' text is before us." Secondly — Will you produce ilie text, and not only suppose but prove from it the above confequencos, whicH you asHort must necessarily flow from It, •• if there be any thing implied in it to the piirpo»e-of the Pre*bylerian cause?" Thut paragraph from (he " Brief Defence," proves thot jou know about as much of i lie " Pres- byterian CEiiee," as you do of that very rcspcciabJe, but changeful gentleman, who lives in the Moon ! When you iissign uny rensonoble proofs in support of your ossertion in queelion, it will be lime enough forme to reply to them. The cnse appears to be thun. Paul left Epfiesus before of- ficers of the Church were appointed. Jiidaiziiig tcachcra were delivering doctrines subversive of Christianity. Paul sent Ti. molhy to Ephesus to charge these teachers not to deliver per- nicious doctrines, and to guard the members of the Ephesian Church against these errors. Whilst there, Paul wrote his first Ephxle to Timothy, giving him directions respecting or- ditialion, &c. In this official letter to Timothy, who acted in this mailer as the Apostle's delegate, no mention was made of presbyters uniting with him in ordination, bacause in aH probability, there had been none appointed, and if there had been, it was not necessary in a letter addressed to Timothy personally to mention Ihe presbyters particularly in relation to this matter, as he well knew the usual apostolic practire of more than one uniting in performing tlie solemn act of orui- nation. The silence of the Apostle, under these circumstan- ces, is construed by you into u restraint imposed on the Ephq- sian presbyters in reference to ordaining powers I Afier the interview at Miletus, it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that Timothy resided permanently at Ephesus, that he governed the presbyters there, or that he o\eT solely ordained a single individual there, separate and apart from the presby- ters. There is abundant proof, however, that, ifTimothy was a diocesan bishop, he must have been very erratic in his move- ments, and if he was thel diocesan bishop of Ephesus, thaf ho dwelt less in his own diocese than in other places. The in- structions in the second Epistle make Timothy no more a diocesan bishop, with official powers, in his ordinary copacity, superior to those which by divine right belong to presbyters, 'L"!*'°''® '" '•^"A*'- w''ich have been aheady proved not sufficient for this nnrnnge. The case of 'lixus now demands attention. I have no objection to grant that •« the same authority which Timothy exercised at Ephesus, was vested in Tilu'i who was U/t m Crete by Si. Paul ;" (p. 28.) as I believe they sustained the same office of Evangelists which is allowed, by ■ ' HI .■ If: } '■i' .;ii 11 ii 64 U.» moat letrned comnrienlatori, lo have been extraorilinarj. But that lit •• ia declared by iho eonrurrenl testimony of all uutiquUy to h»vo been the fitH bi»Uop v( Cfttie." ia a bold a$$ertion which you cusinol poaaibly prove. Can jou briny are forward r aingle aiUhor who aaaerti lliat T lua waa biahop vf Crete beTore Eutebiut, who hvcd in liio fuuvlh century ? And doea he not give aa the foundation of hia araerlion, a mere tra- ditionary report, in regard to which there waa no certainty ? " It n reported (iitoreitat) that Tiinoihy waa iirat allotted {eilekenai) or appointed the biahop of the dwelling (pntoikiaa) or in eccleaiaatical language, of the pariah at Epherua, aa TituB woa of the Churchea in Crete." (Eccl. Hia. Lib. 8 Cap. 4.) The later writera of antiquity followed Euaebiua. Hovtever. you think that 'liiua eierciaed powera aupaiior to tboio which belong to pre»byleia. You quote Titual.6, "For this caure, &c." and aay. •' here the preibylery are not aaaocialed with Ti>ua." (p. 28 ) Really, how fa^t you run ! Who told you that there waB a preabylery in Ctele before Titua waa left there lo •• ordain eldera in every city ?" You ouiihi to have proved that there waa. bejore you ao haatily concluded, ** the onoiaaion cannot be accounted for in any other wny than that the authority waa not veated in thetn."— (lb. ) Well 1 think, if there were no prcabytery, tbia accounta for the omiaaion moat aatitfuctonly, without the adoption ef jour theory Aa it appeare. (p. 1 18 cf your pamphlel.) that you have not " heard" of aome of the bi$hop$ of your Church. 1 would enquire, have you heard of ABCHBiauop Potter ? And have you read hia '*J)i8eour»e on Church Oovern'mentV If not, 1 can inform you that he acknowledgea that there are no grounda for the belief that, previoua to the time at which Titua waa left at Crete, there were any Mimatera of the Goi- pel in regular chargn there ; or in other worda, that there waa no preabylery in Crete. (Dia. Ch. Gov. p. 91, &c.) "Thia aimple conceaaion," aaya one, " when traced lo ita legitimate consequences amounla, ao far aa Titu$ ia concerned, toe Bur« render of the whole argument." No: aay you— you think you can grant what you cannot refuae, ond atill prove the diocesan character of Titua. '• But should you any. perhapa there were no preabytera at Crete when Titus waa left itere— then it ia evident that there waa a auperior officer in the Church in the daya of the Apoatlea, who had auiliority to ordain without the concurrence of a body of preabytera. ' The Epistles lo Timothy and Tilua clearly ahew that the concurrence of preebytera was not necesbary lo inati' tute a valid ordination," (p. 2fc.) St\eral ihinga here re- quire notice. 1. The quealion ia not what is "necessary to instsiii'e s vtJttw Oidin&iiofi," but what is really essential to ordination itself. The concurrence of a number of presbyters, may not, under all circumslancea, be necesfary to inatiiute a valid ordination ; and yet they may have the power to ordain in them^oivea. 2. You assume that no ofKcera but those who exiraorJinirj. timony of ALL t," is ■ bold [?an you briny wai biihop of ctnlury ? And on, • nier« tra- no certainty ? I first alloued ing (paioikias) I Epiierus, aa ia. Lib. 3 Cap. Bcbiua. ers auptrior to >re Thus I. 9, byleiy (ire not ' faM you run ! le befort Tilua city ?" You fou BO hastily d for in aivj id in ihcm."— , tbia accounia B adoption af amphlet,) that fyour Church, lOP PoTTBK? Jovern'menlV that there are iine at which a of the Got- thai there waa &c.) ••This > its legitimate rned, toe sur* \ you cannot TiiUB. •• But ters at Crete at there was a Apostles, who of a body of B clearly shew sbary to insti- lings here re> * necessary to y esseniial to of presbyters, to inalilula a }wer to ordain but those who 66 are •• superior" to presbyters have the right to ordain. Thia lejust begging the whole question. •' In truth," saya Dr. Mil- ler. •• the whole argument, drawn from (he mission of Timo vices of this kind : therefore Timothy ond Titus, wr u ' san bishops." In this syllogism, tire msjorprop>iiiion, TCQ- that which asserts that none but bishops, ai « au^ erior ord* , can ordain, la token for granted. Bui doea not e er ono sti^ that this IS precisely the point to be proved ? Unti. !L> fundu mental proposition, then, be first eslablished. the wh i", -::•■ j. roent IS such as logicians agree in stigmatizing ea J. .eptT\o and worthless." (Letters p. 101.) 8. You have overlooked one little circumsinnce which is of sufficient potency to over- rt of your argument. Did you not read in my throw this pQii til ^uur argument. Llid you ...,. .„.„ ,„ „,, Defence, (p. 29.) in regard to ordination, that •• it waa a right in eac/j" presbyter, " aliho* used by several together, for bet- ter security ?" We do not say that the concurrence of a num- ber of presbyters is estentiajly necessary to constitute a valid ordination : yet your whole argument is founded on this assum- tion. and therefore falls to the ground. The right to ordain, or set others opart to the ministry, ia inherent in the ministerial office ; and all who are set opart to this office have this right by virtue of that office. Anyone presbyter has a acriptural right,a8far as right is concerned, to ordain to the Christian "'"'"[>• '"° ""y "*« ^'" '■•iflit, if not controlled by the usages of the body to which he belongs. The mere fact of Timothy and Titua ordaining singly in cases where there were previ- ouBly no presbyters is not sufficient to make them superior to presbyters. "^ .k^*'^'^*'"*^"'' "• *'"' anoi'iera'Berlion : •• Dr. Bowden proves that Timothy and Titus were the stationary bishops of their respective Churches, the former having never been absent that we know of, but on a short visit to St. Paul before his martyr- dom, and the latter absent no longer than on a visit to the Apostle at Nicopolis and at Rome." " Dr. Bowden proves!" How does he prove what you assert ? From the Scriptures ? Certainly he had no other Scriptures on this subject than vou and I have. Why then did you not prove it from the Sc'np- tures ? Or why did you not givo bis proof? I know that many a man has attempted to prove, and that bis too partial Iriends have thought he has proved, many points, when the proofs, passmg under (he revision of a less partial judge, and sabjectcu to a rigtd cxaminaiion, iidve been found to be built on iinlenable grounds. I have no dout/ that you and your partial friends verily believe you have proved •• the divine ori- gin of episcopacy," yet I have more than doubts whether you have in reality succeeded. Dr. Bowden has proved you say that Timothy and Titus were " ihe stationary bishops of their 1^ ■I 4 ni ii h', f i t i ) i I V. l"l 'i I'l !il I '"/I 66 respective Churches," &c. Now heor JDr. Milltr : •' Ii is evident from the JVew Testament History that neither of these Ministers too« long stationary in any one place. They appear to have been almost constanily itinerating, lo preach the Gospel, and organize Churches. With respect lo Timothy^ we find him at one period with Paul at Philippi, and Thea- saloniea ; a little afterwards at Athena ; then at Theasaloni- ca again. Some years after this, we find him successively at Epheaus, Macedonia, and Corinth ; then returning to Ephesua ; soon afterwards re-vieitiiig Corinth and Macedonia; then gomg to Jerusalem ; and last of all, travelling to iiowic, where the sacred hisiory leaves him. In like manner, we may trace Titua in his successive journies, from Syria to Jerusa- lem; thence to Corinth ; from Corinth to Macedonia ; back ngain lo Corinth ; thence to the Island of Crete; afterwards lo Dalmatia, and, as some suppose, back again to Crete. Does this look like a fixed Episcopal charge ? Nothing more unlike it." (Lett. p. 106, &c.) As you have appealed to Dr. Bon den iti this matter, I may in all fairness appeal to Dr. Whitby, as you know, a learned Episcopalian. " The great controversy concerning this, (the Epistle to Titus,) xnd the Epistle to Tiinoihy, is, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made'bishops, the one of Ephesus and the Proconsular Asia, the other of Crete, having authority to make, kai tosouton episkopon koisin, and jurisdiction over so many Ifisbopa as were in those precincts. Now of this matter, I confess. I cslXi find nothing in any writer, for the first three centuries : but this defect is abundantly supplied by the con- current suffrage of the fourth and fifth centuries." You un- derstand, I suppose, what the phrase *' the^rs^ three centu- ries" means. " Now to paEs my judgment in this case^' says the learned Doctor — "1. 1 assert, that ifby saying Timothy and Titus were bishops, the one of Ephesus, th^ other of Creie, we understand that they took upon them those Churches or Dioceses, as their j^j- td &nd peci^liar charge, in which they were to preside for /erm o/Zi/e, 1 believe, thti'. Timothy and Titus were not thus bishops. For "1. Both Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, and therefore were to do the work of an Evangelist: now the work of an F-vangelist, saith Eusebius, was this, ' to lay the foundations uf the faith in barbarous nations, to constitute them pastors ; and having committed to them the cultivating of those new plantations, they passed on to other countries apd pntions.' Vlie original is given in a Note.) " 2, As for Titus, he was only left at Crete to ordain el- ders in every city and to set in order the things that were ^canting : having luerefore done that work, he had done all that vas assigned him in that station ; and therefore St. Paul »ends for him the very next year lo Nicopolis. Tit. 3, 12,— Uer : •• Ii jg lat neither of place. They ng, to preach t 10 Timothy, jj, and Thes- t Thessaloni- ucce«sively at returning to d Macedonia; ling to Rome, inner, we may ia to Jerusa- idonia ; back e; afterwards n to Crete. — Nothing more appealed to !S8 appeal to Ian. m Epistle to ' Timothy and B8VS and the only to make, over so many this matter, I he first three d by the con- s." You un- t three centu- ys the learned were bishops, iderstand that B, as their jfio;- preside for 'U8 were not lELisTS, and ilist : now the 8, ' lo lay the 10 constitute be cultivating countries apd lo ordain el- gs that were 1 had done all xforeSl. Paul Tit. 8, 12.— •7 And 80, according to Bishpp Pearson'; Chronology, he was left at Crete only A. D. 64, and sent for thence A. D. 66 ; and returned tbither, as the ancients conjecture, after the death of St. Paul ; for they say. (Sophronius apud Hieron, &c.) he died in the 94th year of his age, and was buried in Crete. "As for Timothy, St. Paul sailh, he exhorted him lo abide at Ephesus when he went inio Macedonia : now, as he writes to the Church at Philippi in Macedonia, A. D. 62, and the ninth of Nero, that he hoped to be shortly with them, Phil. 1. 25, 26, and 2 c. 24 ; so, sailh Bishop Pearson, he went thither A. D. 64, and the llih of Nero, and writ his first Epistle to him A. D. 65.* Two years after this he sends for him to Rome, 2 Tim. 4. 9, 21, and there he continued, as the ancients conjecture, till the martyrdom of St. Paul ; af- ter which time he most, as they suppose, return lo Ephesus: for they tell us that, in the reign of Domitian, he was martyr- ed in that city, and lay buried there. But since we read not any thing in Scripture of their return to either of iheso places ofterwards, and the authorities on which this return dependeth, are not very ancient, we cannot much rely upon them." After treating of the oflicial powers Timothy and Titus ex- ercised, the Doctor proceeds— " Now, I confess, that these two instances absolutely taken, afTord us no convincing arguments for a settled diocesan epis- copacy, because there is nothing which proves they did, or were to exercise these acts of government, rather as bishops l4»an Evangelists : for it is certain that the order of Evangel- ists was superior lo that of governments, and so included an authority to do those acts of government which belonged to bishops. Accordingly, in those places where these Evangel- ista preached, they did constitute pastors, and then went on to preach in other places."/ (Pref, to Titus.) " Quid tibi videtur 7" However the matter may now ap- pear to you, I think, to others it will appear as if you had placed a reliance loo unqualified on Dr. Bowden's proofs.— That Dr. Whitby was not singular in his belief that Timothy and Tilus were Evangelists, the following e.xiracts, the most of which are from episcopal writers, will show. Dr. Willet, says—" It is most like Timothy had the place and calling of an Evangelist ; and the calling of Evangelists and bishops, which were pastors, was divers." (Synop's. Pa- pism, p. 236 ) Dr. Whitaksr ;— «' In the Apostle's times there were many things extraordinary. There was another form uf government • The reader is reiiiiested to observe that Bi.shop Pearson and Dr. Whitby adopted the theory of the Inter date of the Ist Epis. to Timothy, previously referred to; but this effects not the pre- sent nrgurncilt. V ; -M -M: 68 •if!! ;ji,; in the Church in the dayi of the Apostles, and another ftow 18 acknowledged by Stapleton : for it was then governed hy the Apostles. Evangelists, and Prophets, but novjr only by Pastors and Doctors ; the rest are all removed. From this it m&yjuttly be inferred, that Timothy and Titus were not ordinary officers, but they, being both Evangelists, are not succeeded to by bishops." (Controv. 4, Q. 4, C. 2, p. 374 ) Dr. Stillingfleet : •• Such were the Evangelists, who were sent Bometinies into this country to put tho Church in order there, sometimes into another ; but wherever they wore, they acted as Evangelists and not as fixed officers. And such were Timothy and Ttttts, notwilhilanding all the opposition made against it, as will appear to any who will lake an impar- tial survey of the arguments on both aides." (Irenicum p. 340.) ' Mr. DodwelVs opinion in regard to Timothy has been al- ready given in the former part of this Letter. Respecting Titus, he ptoceeds—" Moreover, the Apostle commands Ti- tus only to ordain, in Crete, presbyters in every city, Titus 1, 6. He says, he was left there, that be might set in order things that were wanting. And he was a companion of the Apostle when he was left. And, truly, other places make it appear that he was a companion of St. Paul, and therefore was no more restricted to any particular place than the Apostle himself." {Poraenes. Sect. 10, p. 404.) John Le Clere, who, say you, is "j-jstly celebrated as one of tho most famous scholars of the 17ih century"— " rj/Kin non fuisee Episeopum, sed Evongelistam, qui singular! nulli loco erat adfixus, sed aut cum Apostolo Paulo, aut seorsim inter faciebat, ut, &c." Titus was not a bishop, but sn Evange- list, who was fixed in no single place, but travelled either with the Apostle Paul, or apart, that the Gospel might be the more widely spread abroad. (His. Eccl. p. 425.) In ^the same manner he speaks of Timothy : "It is said, in the subscrip- tion to the Epistle, that he vaB first bishop ofEphesus ; but It is well known that Timothy was not a bishop ol one place, but an Evangelist (non unius loci Episeopum sed Evangelist- am fuisse.) having no certain place, but preaching the Gospel anywhere as occasion required. (lb. p. 442 ) In respect to the testimony of the ancients, he has language to the effect following—'* The testimonies of the ancients about this mat- ter, who judge rashly of the limes of the Apostles by their own, and speak of them in the language of their own oge, are of little moment. And so do no more prove that Titus was the bishop of Crete, than what Dr. Hammond says proves him to have been distinffuifihed wjih the title cf Archbishop." (Sup^ plement to Dr. Hammond's Annot. on Epis. Titus, p. 630.) Enough has been adduced to show that in this whole matter ofTiinothy and Titus, you have studiously kept out of sight the real character they sustained. Thev were not Jlpostles properly eo celled : they hod not teen CJi»»5/ personally either 6f i another now, II governed hy : now only by !• From this it ^itus were not elists, are not , C.2, p. 374) ilists, who were liurch in order liey wore, they •». And such the opposition take an impar- (Irenicuu p. \y has been al- Respecting commands Ti- f city, Titus 1, '■ set in order a)panion of the ilacea make it d therefore was n the Apostle ebrated as one ry"— " Titum i singular! nulli 0, BUt seorsim but en Evange< lied either with hi be the more In (the same the subscrip- Ephesua ; but oi one place, ed Evangelisi- ng the Gospel In respect lo to the eflect bout this mat- is by their own, I oge, are of Titus was the I proves him to itus. p. 530.) s whole matter }t out of eight not Jlposths rsonally either before or after his resurrection ; nor were they commissioned by Christ himself ; nor were tliey endowed with the p!«nary inspiration of the Holy ypirii so as lo be qualified and autho- riied to declare infallibly the mind of God, announce with in- fallibility the doctrines of the Gospel, and lo complele the sacred canon. They might be termed secondary Apostles, eitraoruinary Agents employed by St. Paul, and sent forth by his particular authority and directions to various parts of Iho world, to preach the Gospel, constitute Pastors, and set affairs relating to Christian Churches in order; for the f iper dis- charge of which duties they were cndawed with sit^ernatural gifts. They were not placed in ary fixed or permanent spheiA of labour, but travelled from place to place as the Apostle directed. They required apostolic daeciiuns in regard to their behaviour in •• the house of God," and the discharge of their important duties. These instructions were given lo them ia the Epistles which bear their narnea ; and so f^r as the general principles contained therein are applicable, they are binding en ministers and people to the end of the world. Wherever they went, when no real Apostle was present, they were, for the time being, by reason of their extraordinary office, acting under the direct instructions and authority of St. Paul, the tuperintendants of the Churches they visited and the minister* they ordained. Yet, their office being extraordinary, they were not to have sueeessots in tinr nffice ; and thus the Bub> jecl of the divine right of Episcopacy is left ae free, as far •• Timothy and Titus are concerned, as if they had never existed. No argument can be drawn from them in favour of the necessi* ty of a standing order of ordinary ministers, invested by 4ivit>« right with the exclusive powers which you ascribe to diocesal bishops. Considered, however, in the light of ordinary ntioie- lers, laying aside every thing which belonged to their extraor- «]inary office, they possessed no official powers incoinpttiblt wttb those of presbyters. JLetter Til. The Angels of the Seven Asiatic Churches afford no proof of Diocesan EpiHCopacy. Rev. Sir, Your next and last scripture proof is taken from the Angels or the seven Asiatic Churches, addressed in the book of Revelati> on. Before examining the powers you ascribe to ihete Angela "Si| IJ <» is; 70 in proof of (heir superior order, I beg leave to call your atteii- tion to one exprefision in your own admiseicn winch I thinii you iiave not properly noticed. You say, " In every aociety we know it is necesBrry lo have a president or head, and tliat from tlie nature of this office he is invested with more authority ihan rny other of the membars of ihat Society." I^I^nce, tho* an Archbisiiop is thus president or head of thebi- ■hops, and of course, if there be any meaning in your words, invested with more authority by virtue oToffice than any of the bishops, you will not allow him to be a fourth order; which is as if you were to say plainly, that authority itself or an increased degree of authority, is not in itself sufficieni to con- stitute a higher order! If then neither the name nor the au- thority erercised, is sufficient to deteimine the order, by what other means are we to judge ? And yet, as if you iiad intirely overlooked this stelenient of your own, and which on my page must have looked you full in the face, you say, •• I hope you are convinced from all that has been said that the powfra exercised, not ihenatne, must determine the order"! How can I be convinced of this, if it be true that a president, from the nature of Mb office is invested with more authcrity than any other members of a Society, and yet io not thereby of • highor order than his brethren? You tell mo I •• astert without proof ih^t the angel* men- tione it'liich I think every lociety or head, and d with more hal Socielj." ^ad of the bi- 1 your words, ice than any fourth order; ity itself or an icient to con- I nor the au- he order, by as if you had and which on , you say, •• I I said that the i the order"! I a president, ore authcrity not (hereby of angelfl men- prcdbytcrs." )/ that these 1^ asset tion is, le, that " in Jent." That 1 you yourself necesaily, so presbyters, or lid have been ' If the term you may call ante will not dst whom Mr olestantism," e Holy Ghost, and that this r united coun- t together in the tti emb'y t in the R«ive- d to whom h'. to ih.ii otiiers. rwarda in the lignold's Con- your remarks you would fa- n vour me with a little more information. You think I *' surely must be aware that ou'e man may preside over a diocese con- taining a number of parishes, while anotiier only presides over a parisii; and that therefore nothing can be ascertained from the name." (p. 30 ) The distinction you make ia not Tery difficult to be understood; but in what way is it appli- cable to the case in hand ? Will you answer the following questions? 1. During scripture-times, were there dioceses in existence beating a resemblance to those of modern times, over each of which a bishop, of an ordersuperior to pres- byters, was permanently placed ? 2. In these dioceses were \lien parishes like ihoao of modern times, over each of which a single piesbyler or more, was permanently placed by the bi- shop of the Diocese, and to whom he was subject as his ecclesi- astical governor ? 3. Will you name these Dioceses and these parishes? 4. Is there any thing in the New Testament said cf dioceses i Leaving you to answer these questions at vour /«isure, I now proceed to consider more particularly the ar- gument in favour of diocesan episcopacy derived from the An- gels of the seven Churches. You think from an examination of" the powers with which these Angela were invested, it will clearly be seen" that iMy " reasoning isfar from being conclusive." (p. 30 ) You ought first to prove that the •• powers" are ascribed to the An- gels of the churches solely. Some, even of eminent Epis- copal writers believe that the ministers in each Church, if there were more than one, are addressed collectively, under the title of " Angel of the Church." '• By angels," saya Dr. Henry More, •• according the apocalyptic stylo, all the agents under their presidency are represented orj insinuated— and it is so frequent and obvious in the Apocalypse, that none that is versed therein can any ways doubt of it." (Exposition of* the seven Churches, Works, p. 724.) "If," says Stilling- fleet, «' in the prophetic style, any unity may be set down by way of representation of a multitude; what evidence can be brought from the na?«e, that by it some one particular per- sori must be understood?" Again: "If many things in the Episltes bo directed to the Angels, but yet so asjto concern the whole body, then of necessity the angel must be taken as a representative of the whole body, and then, why may not the word angel be taken by way of representation of the body it- self ; either oflhe whole church, or, which is far mote proba- ble, of the consessus, or order of priesbyters in that church? We see what miserable, unaccountable arguments these are, whioh are brought for any kind of government, from metapho- .!ca. or 8fn._.!g!!f!«5 sspressions or names proiuiscuoiisly used.*' (Irenicum.) The following extract is from Mr Powell'a un- answerable Essay: "The term Angel is here most probably te be taken in a Collective sense, as the term beast in the I3th chapter. A similar mode of speaking is not uncommon mlbo sacred scriptures; for instance, by lh« two witnesses, .^^1 • I hfU'^ i i 'M T2 Rev. II. 3, nobody * nderstcuida (wo precisely, but. a tium'h^t of vvilnesdus; and tlic Angel iiitiritinned, Rev. ^4. C Sic, h-v- ing the everlatitin^ gospel to preach, eviden^y ineana a// iha faithfii! mniisters of Gud'a wurK in general, as then going fortii to preach tlie everlasting goepei with more ii<:%n oidinary zeal and success. And compare Dm;. S 3 am* <^^ where a ram signifies the Kings of M^dia and Persia. Again, in Daniel chap. 7. the same idiom is used. The four b^ast-.' are .oi factory is the evidence arising from the seven Chirtchcv mentioned in the Revelation, that " the learned adv^eutu for prelacy, Mr. '' ^-utsll^ expressly gives up 'Hi« . hole argument. In hit i < fk, entitled. One Priea^^; ^.nd one AllaVt publisi.oii in 16S3, he expresses i^- ^.pinion commonly held by Episcopal wriieis, that the A.!;:^-l8 of the seven Asiatic Churches were diocesan bisho.^i^< ' '.u! in his Paraeneaia, published about twenty years •Ueit^t^.'iii'i hee.'plicill much unci gols, and c he rather it sent from . ed Zech. 4 Giulfro -h 11^) Tho poM' 1. 01 E " Tho A them whic he hnd foui the Church who preter without a ( thority whi (p, 30.) This is t much it fat certain. 1. This Supposing Church, is bishop ? day, says, rits whethe gone out in who preten proving the copacy, th ho exhort e<: presbyter I 2. He m wise, &c. have exerci not have tr presbyter I 8. You I posing thej sioH." Tl To support rized libert prove to th comviissiot work mirac christians t trinesthev " Hereby I fesseth tha' every spirit but a num'f.'i: € Sic, hiv. ine^^nt all tha en g>)!iig forth I oidinar/ zeal where a rain ain, in Danie! isis'.-i ore Toi'r iiigc xn, '. 27 »we< , for 9i>;ne ; by ont per- i spokeri of EB d thai the Re- iniel. This it leseiigcr or mi- irs, as i>aniel of govtifnora what furli.ar of llie Ci' irch V. 10;ari!) the Idiessed in the h ofThyatire lasons, that as each of these e similitude of I of atarst ■• o. d : it follows, rch, tneaas the ink is the true cannoi then be 10 to these An- ir ministerB of in all of them. nilar addresses conveyed to a rely occupying 'ou allow there >riiy, or to de- were exercised rs, and unless ing by divine opacy receiviis ed so unc '' - iven ChifiC'jCj rned adv huC^ ip -hie '. hole let ' md '■ wpiaion he A !i, -Is of iahofi'' ' '.'JJ in rs auef'^a.-riSs 78 he (f'pliciil ' ianounces this opinion ; and, while he expresses riiuch unr;.;iinty with respect to the character of these An- gols, and concedes the impossibility of deciding who they werei he rather intimates his belief that they were itinerary/ legates, sent from /erMsaZem, answering to the seven spirits, mention- ed Zech. 4, 10, that are the eyes of the Lord, which run to ar.dfrftes»«n Church, which you do nr. u.ieinpi lo do in behalf of the Church of Kngland ; and now be cardid and tell ma if it is not domewhat strange, that the very succession, from which Dr. Bnrjess has solemnly declared, " is derived the commis- sioii to preach and baptize, and perform the several duties of the T'l rislian Ministry," has flc. iner qualities, but as the overseer oi • C^ some r. gleet, Ihave a few thing agu The, I t.ast them that hold the doc.rine of Salaam So al'^ them tiiat hold the doctrine of the JVicolaitanea. He is gbu ed upon to repent of this neglect, and is severely threatened, if this admonition should not have the desired etliecl. This surely proves that he had power to correct those evils."— >(p. 90.) On these statements you build your system of diocesan epis- copacy ! This Angel bad neglected his duly, therefore be cl for his pers'^ial h is charged \ iih it thee, says Chr^t, was a dioce the doctrin( bers of the a diocesan and threate cesan bieho and obligat " this surel Yes : he ha pent" of hi and Nicolai by putting t does this pr Have you r Have not I ister in the Ghost has ti 8. Of the "The Ar vuflering Je: 4nd 10 sediii her." (p. The Bmoi led B- i, •• of his Churt vants of Ch Seed unto ii otcod of rep expelling he chuich-meni doing evil, i sin I Ho h as a p ^jfess sufficient to Have you, i a member fi 'lave not I, ter ? Why, your Churci ly you woul prophbicss t doctrines co Why then n superior to 4. Ofthe "The An ftrengthen or says Chri And is thi to have ben have been e T» tithful men,' on, by Ihein if which you Men" of the lio in behalf nd tell ma if n.from which the commis- ral duties of If}ou can byter$, con- the diocesun lat St. Paul's jid like to see ccestion of all or there iv irgeBs'e Gate- kbbath-school I iuppoit«d. ne authority e." Confine ng them, by is mentioned lied in Timo- ir 8«ne« than iet. Private 1 John 4, 1,) finiilere bad then, appear, >, unless you the same of fact, you )ur people, in era, tind da- froii't a dioc«- 1 ;** the very ihe EphesikB his persnnal sliarged with , eaya Chntt. am So al I. Heiacou y threatened, itliect. This evils."— (p. liocesan epic- therefore be was a dioceaun bishop ! He permitted some persons who held the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolnitanes to continue mem- bers of the Church, instead of expelling them, therefore he was a diocesan bishop ! He is called upon to repent of thisneglect, and threatened severely if ho do not, therefore he was a dio- cesan bishop ! Three weighty reasons for the divine origin and obligation of diocesan episcopacy. I mutt admit ! Rut •• this surely p.oves that he had power to correct these evils." Yes: he had "power," through the grace of God, to "re- pent" of his own sins, but not of the sins of the Balaamites and Nicolailanea ; and to exercise thedisripline ofthe Church by putting them away from among the faithful. Ser ig|y, does this prove the Angel to have been a diocesan bishop ?— Have yoii not as much •• power" as this in your parish now » Have not I in my cinuits? And has not every Christian Min- ister in the Church over which he presides, and the Holy Ghost has made him an overseer ? 8. Of tho Angel of Thyatira. " The Angel of the Church of Thyatira is also accused of sufTering Jezabel, who called herself • a prophetess to teacli 4nd to sediico' the servants of Christ, ille had power to silenco her." (p. 30, 81. The flmounlof III roof is simply this: this At.gel permit- led P' " woman" at Thyatira to leach Ihe other members of hie Church abominal . doclrinrs, and lo "seduce the ser- vants of Christ to ccn . forniration and to eat things sacri- ficed unio idols," w I ich was c rary to the divine will. In- otead of reproving her, and ir - of tier proving incorrigible, expelling her from the Church, < allowed her lo retoin her chuichmenibership, which gave lier g . ater opportunities of doing evil, and therefore, in somo measure, connived at her sin ! Ho had powerto e>pel her.andnot EufTer herlo'Meath" as a p jfesfed member of the Church. But is this in itself sufficient lo piove this Argel lo have been a diocesan bishop .> Have you, a preEb}ter, not " power" to reprove and to expel a member from the Church under similar circumstances.'— Have not I, a presbyter ? tias not any other elder or presby- ter ? Why, you would not sufTer ^ pious wvman to pray in your Church, or to " leach" the purest doctrines. And Mire- ly you would not allow a noman, who should call herself a prophfciess to teach in youi Cf urch, as a member of it, the doctrines condemned in the Epistle to Ihe An^el of Tl.yat:ra ! Why then must this Angel have necessarily been of an order superior to you or me ? 4. Of Ihe An^cl ol Sardis. "The Angel ofSardis is commanded !o "be tstitrhfal r^r.i*. strengthen ihe things which remain, that are read' I'o de," or says Christ, " ' will come to thee as a thief ' , ,. 31.) And is this in ) our esiimation sufficient to prove this Angel to have been a diocesan bishop .' Would not iWs Inpgusge have been equally applicable, hod he been truly and only a V !, • ( rf K»'» i 'I . *t 71 H' 'I presbyter f Wliol of- ial.powen ore poinfcd out licte to indi- cate a •iiporior ordci To •• be walcliful und atrengthen ihe tilings wliicit remain, dial are ready to die ?" Can a bishop do tiiia by virtue of office 7 It it liia peculiar ofiico aluno ? — If ao, Anw and u)Aen di)ef> ho di8cliai(.>o tins pbrt of hia offici- al duty ? la it not (he duly of every prcK'')lcr, and of every privole member of a Clirisiian Cliurcli, who ia in theaame iniacrah -) circumatancca, to " be wotcl.ful and alrongihcn the thinga which remain, that are ready to die ?" Il doea not appear that official powert ore referred to at all in the text. Do you affirm ihat tliis Angel waa a diocesan biohop, because our Lord said unto liim, •• If therefore thou ehali not watch, 1 will come on thee as a liiief?" If bo, it would be easy to mako dioceaan bishops at thia rale ! You do not adduce any thing fiom theJlpiallea to Smyrna, Philadelphia, and Laodicea j and we may, liietelore, conclude you could find nothing in them to show these Angela to have had peculiar official powers. The mere name of Angel you will oot allow to be sufficient to prove them to have been bishops in your sense of tiie word. How then can you prove them to have been of on order superior lo presbyters.' You have nothing on whic!i lo ground an argument. You have adduced nothing fiom tliose Churches which you lia^e men- tioned lo support your system ; aid as far as these Asiatic Churches ore concerned, the liivine origin and obligation of diocesan episcopacy are left without a foundation. No : say you, '• These Angels then being made chargeable for the disorders of their respective Churrhes must have had power to correct all abuses, and consequently had the supreme power." (p. 81.) Totl.ia I reply,— 1. They were chargea- ble for their own neglects and sine. 2. A distinction is obeerv- ed between the Angels and the people when punishment ia threatened, which shows that tbo pastors were not absolutely accountable for the sins of the members, and not at all so, if they had done their own duly fdithfully. *' Repent ; or else 1 will come unto thee quickly, nnd will fight against them with the sword of my mouih." (Epis. to Pergamos. See also Epis. lo Thyaiira.) S. They had power through divine grace, to reform themselves, and to exercise christian discip- line. 4. All Christian Ministers have ihe same power. 5. It is not clear what you mean when you say these Angels had the " supreme power." If, by this, you mean they were superior to presbyters, the answer is, there is nothing in the Epistles themselves either to warrbnt or justify such a con- struction ; but the reverse. If you mean ihey had, under Chriet, the power to rule in the Church and exercise an effi- cient uifciplinR, this is no more than appertains to presbyters by virtue of office. But •' Grotius says, •* Christ, writing to lliep '>ishops, thus emineni anjong Iho Clergy, vndaubledJy app, oved of this epiicopal tuperiority." (p. 81.) Of course you do col in- ut licie (o indi- iirengthen the Can a biehop fiico alone i— of his ofBci- and of every I in ^ilie SBine irongllicn the 1 1 doea not I in the text. — 'bop, because it not watch, I i be easy to PS to Smyrna, fore, conclude ngeta lo have of Angel you o have been can you prove lyiera? You You iiave )u lia\e men- there Asiatic obligation of tn. Je chargeable mat have had d the supreme were chargea- lion is obgerv- punishment is not absolutely t at all so, if ent ; or else I ist them with OS. See also liroiigh divine ristian discip- i power. 5. )e Angels had n tliey were Qthing in the such a con- y had, under ircise an effi- 10 presbyters Mshops, thus ooed of this }u do cot in- T9 tend this as a teriplute proof. " Episcopal suprtiorlly" it a phrase doubtful in itself The word " ephcopacy" is no more delerminalo than iho word ovcmoer. I holiovo iri a icriptural ipiacopaty ; and I have no objeciion to tlie supcrinlendcnrv o( on« ininisler over others, provided ho claims no supcrioV powers by divine riRJit. Theso bishops- 1 use iho word bishnps, because there were ncriptuie bithops— were "eminent among the Clergy :" in what sense they were lltws eminent, you have not told us, except (hat ihey had •• episcopal autho. riiy," AsforGrotius.it i^ evident from somo puiis cf bit wotks, that he did not phco this '• episcopal auihorily" on the fooling of divine right. " In his posihiimous work," aays Mr. Powell, •'quoted by many episcopolinn writers with the greatest confidence, and even with something like triumph, ho plainlj/ dtclaref, that • Episcopal pre-eminence, or the su- perioriiy of one minister over others, is not nf divine right' I This," says ho. ' is sufficiently proved, because the rontrary K tt or proved,' (De Imperio Sum. Potest, p. 827.) Logio this, which these writers are well pleased tojorget, but which their readers should always have in mind." (Essay p. 196. 2d Ed.) > / t ». Your extract from IJoadly, in which he says, '• it will be hard to shew how a prince pre8bylc|, should become chargea- ble with the faults of other Churches, wiih which he had nothing to do," is nothing to your purpose, unless you can shew that the other ministers of these Churches were not ad- dressed through iUeh svperintetidants or presidents; arid if the episcopacy of those times was parochial and diocesan, ax there are good reasons to believe was the case, the remarks of Hoadly touch not the merits of the case. The Fathers are /uggfti in under the hcnd of scripture proof, as your usual cuetuni is, to show thai these "seven angeli" were "so many diocesan bishops," But do the Fa- Ihers say they possessed official powers which scripture pres- byters did not .' If so, we might ask on what their opinion was foijnded. If not, the term "bishop" proves nothing. On this subject. Dr. Miller, whose authority is as good at loust ns Dr. Bowdeii's, says, " we will admit tlie fact. Some of the Fathers rfo say so, i. e. that these Angels were bishops. And some of the Fathers go further, and tell us" (as in tie case of Timothy and Titus) " that they were j^jrc/ bifhops ; nay, some of them go so far as to mention the names o''iliese Archbishops ; though, unfortunately, they disagree nmong' themselves in making out a list of the names, and, therefore, excite a suspicion that all their testimony on the subject is un- worthy of credit. But, farther, it is certain that some other Fathers equally entitled to respect, represent these Angels, not as individual bishops, but as collective bodies. Now which of these early writers shall we believe i No wise man csn be at a loss to answer. Their mutual contradictions teach us to put no confidence in this ' ind of testimony " (I.ettera if.!. ,-1 IM it' 60 p. 113. I submit another quotation ficm Dr. Miller: "Dr. Bowden appears, indeed, lo be sensible, that the Scriptures, left to speak for themselves, by no means decide thai the An- gele in question were prelates : he, therefore, has reconrre to Irenaeus, Clemens of Mexandria, Eusebiua, Ambrose, &c. to help him out of his difficulty. Thetft it seems, assert that these Angels were the bishops of the respective Churches mentioned in connection with their names. But supposing these Fathers to be, in ell respects, ciedible witnefsts ; and supposing, too, that their assertion is founded, not on conjec- ture, but authentic records : it still remains to be ascertained in what sense they use the word bishop. What ftmd of bish- ops do they mean ? Such biebops as the Presbyterian, and the great body of the Reformed Churches, allow to have exist- ed in the days of the Apostles, and still retain? Or such as our Episcopal brethren contend for ? Dr. Bowden undertakes to assert that they were of \he latter kind ; but he saya it without authority ; for the Fathers whom he quotes as wit- ne8^es, do not say so. They might have been trriptural bish- ops, without, in the least degree, serving the Episcopal argu- ment." (Continuation of Letters p, 79) You con therefore answer the following question. Do Ignatius and Irenaeus mention (he official powers of Poly carp, and say he had the exclusive right of ordination, and in fact that he ordained with- out bis fellow presbyters ? 1 he same question may be asked respecting "Onesimus." If the ofiicial powers of these per- sons are not pointed out, the name, on your own reasoning, proves nothing. The testimony of those who lived subsequent- ly lo the time of tne Angela is built on tradition. They knew not personally that these Angels were bishops in any sense, and are thcretbie dependant on the testimony of predecessors for their belief. That they were " Angels" of the Churches, an inspired writer declares ; but that they were diocesan bish- ops, with powers incompatible with (ho«e of presbyters, no contemporary sflirms, and therefore no subsequent writer could huve assurance that they vere. You wind up your testimony on this part of the discussion in the language of Dr. Bowden, by s (firming ** that thVse bi- shops— bishops in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, having nresbyters srd deacons tmder their direction, as Ignatius testifies — bishops who had the supremo jurisdiction, and con- sequently, the power of commissioning the inferior orders in tho Church— are declared by our Lord himself to he stars in hii own right hand. This makes their fffice a eft vtne ap- pointment &c." (p. 81.) Let not the reader te deceived or imposed i^pon by fair words. The whole of this is rank so- piiiciiy, wilii<>ui a shadow oi |)iuuf. The bishops here particu- larly referred lo are Polycarp and Onesimus. There is nothing absolutely positive to prove that Polycaip was bishop ofSmyr- na, and Onesimus bishop of Ephesus, when John wrote his Epistle. Whilst you speak with Icssdoultfulrers ofPolyrarp yau admit i bishop of £ sons were matter. Y tlie rest wi as Polycarj it was only yet, from tli the rest we really like i at your .^// be bishops John wrote proof of thi ception,no The script siastical bi: the seven a Why then ( oflgnatius Ignatius '* carp of Sm tal sense, you think I BRnse"? 1 and deacor proves tha tendency, superior lo Because th lion" you i subsequent power) of I Superintei sense in wl they had tl convincing cumstance their dired this, and 3 had the ex( in the Chu iinsupporte the phrase, rence from gumont I h duty of inft sophistical no foiindat tho phrase or Angels Miller: "Dr. e Scriptures, that the ^n- as reconrre to Ambrose, &c. 9, Dfsert that ive Churches iut euppoeing ilnefetfc ; and ot on conjee- >e ascertained I kind of h\sh- hyterial), and to have exist- ? Or euch as en urderiakes lut he says it notes as wit- riptural bish- piecopal srgu- con therefore and Irenaeus y he had the ordained with- may be asked B of iheee per- vn reaEoning, >d subsequent- They knew ill any sen^e, f predecessors the Churches, liocesan bi$h- resbytcrs, no squent writer the discussion that lb«8e bi" word, having as Ignatius lion, and con- rior orders in lu be gtars in i a divine ap- be dereived or is is rank so- 9 iiere particu- lere is nothing ifhop of Smyr- ihn torote hit fs of Polyrarp 91 you admit it was only " m^ist probable'^ Ihnt Onesiiniis was bishop of Ephesus. Now bouaufe you f/ii/t/f these two per- sons were diocesan bisliops — for there is no certainly in (iio matter. You very logica.lly argue," we may be sure that all tlie rest were bishops of their respective churciies, as well as Polycarp ai>d Onesimua!'' To say nothing of Polycarp it was only /;ro2«a2>/e that Oiiesimus was Bisliup of Ephesus, yet, from this mere probability, we may be quite sure, that all the rest were diocesan bishops as well as Onesimus! I should really like to know whether such reasoning as this wouki pass at your ^tlma Mater. Tlien you make these two persons to be bishops m the " ecclesiastical sense" ot the time at which John wrote, Will you be kind enough to adduce some othnr proof of this than Dr. Bowden's mere assertion? This is de- ception, not intentional perhaps, but it ia deception in reality. The scriptures nowhere declare them to have been " eccle- siastical bishops^" nor do tbcy drop the least hint that any of the seven angels were. But " Ignatius" testifies that they were* Why then do you not openly rest your belief on the testimony oflgnatius ? Twelve years after the writing of the Epistles, Ignatius '* names Onesimus &s bishop of fipherus," and Poly* carp of Smyrna; therefore they were bishops in an eeeletiasti- tal sense sVrHsu the Epistles were written! But why do you think Ignatius styles them biaho.ps in an "ecclesiastical snnse"? The sole reason you assign is, they had " presbyters and deacons under their direction." But this at most only proves that they whom Ignatius names bishops had svperin- tendency, which is no proof at ail that they were of an order superior to presbyiers, as has been already abundantly shown. Because they had '* Presbyter^s ^^nd deacons under their direc- tion" you argue, they "had the supreme jurii^diction, and subsequently, the power (of course you mean the exclusive power) of com!ni;^3ioning the inferior orders of the Church.'* Superintendency does not imply supreme jurisdiction in the sense in which you use the phrase; and you should prove that they had the supreme jurisdiction, in this sense, by some more convincing argument than the one derived from the mere cir- cumstance of their having, *' presbyters and deacons under their direction." A Wesleyan Superintendant may have all this, and yet not have the supreme jurisdiction. That they had the exclusive " power of commissioning the inferior orders in the Church" is only an inference — an inferer>ce from amero unsupported conjecture, viz. thnt they had in your sense of the phrase, " the supremo juri.idiction." How much an infe- rence from an unsupported conjecture is worth in the way of ar- gument I hope I may be fully exonerated from the onerous duty ot iniorming m^" resucia, p»osv rn^fii the ciixiis.x g: you? sophistical deductions. From premises which have absolutely no foundation in Scripture, you infer that our Lord apj^lica the phrase, "stars in my own right hand," to these person or Angola as ecclesiastical ot diocesan bishops, so as to make ti ,;,! 1 J i d 1 I II 82 •' lliefr ofiico," as superior to ihat of preebjierp, '« a divine eppom(nien(;" when lie applied it to them as ihey were when he addressedlhein! When jou prove by scriptural evidence that these Angels were of an order superior to presby.ers, and exercised official powers incompaiibie with those which by divme right belong to the latter, then and not till then, may you affirm, their office, as such, to have been appointed of Christ. This you have not done; and this, I fear not to say. yon never can do. You eay •• it is unnecessary to add more." Certainly it is qiuie umiecesaary to add more, if you have noilnnc more to ^ive ihari '• violent assumptions, strained or/«/.,v nnahgies, forced tnterpretciinns, and human or ecclesiastical autho- rity. Lnouyh of these yo.i have added together; and more 18 not required to convince me. thai the theory of the divine •riginalid obligation of diocesan episcopacy, as maintained by you, is perfectly destitute of scripture warrant. It is equal- ly prata that the precedmg discussion, in which your declara- tions in favour of your theory have been largly considered, en- titles me to raoommt:nd to your especial attentioi>, the canons ot criticism annexed to While's defence, the second of which runs thus, ' Consider what end you write for. If it be the dis- covery and manifestation of truth, ond the conviction of those who oppose it, use fair ond dear reasoning; but if it be only to keep your party in countenance, your business will I e to decline reasoning as much as you well can, and to make use of declnrnation and harangue in the roum of it." The sixth runs thus-" if you cannot defend the true point in ques- tion, change it, and slip in another which you can better de- lend in (he room of it."— (See your Pamphlet, p. 32 ) Letter VIII. The Official Powers of Presbyters considered— Objections an- swered. * Rev. Sib, Having fully and satisfactorily answered a// your scripture proofs in favour of diocesan Episcopacy. I design to devote this Letter to the ?onsidera(inn >if ih- "«P(>i-i -,-„ - i • >- belong to Presbyters;- in which I believe I can show good cause why they may be justly ranked on an equality with A- posiles themselves, considertd in their ordinary capacity 1. IVe have no record m the J\'-ew Testament of the ap- poinlmeHl ry ministt dera. Thi duubless h; Christ, to I point its of as its ordin ring their 1 nary minisi that neith from the n appoint or nister, to t official pov byters. Si lacy have i from the pi claims to maintain I rather a si hand proof dinary mini bytera or t {preibuter 23.) •• Fo set in orde ipresbuter thee." (Til bishops we which rend the commu asserting, a or highest Apostle." I not the coi strange and superior in cessary to t fer a valid s preach the sacraments dination of pointmenta of elders or strange," ii quite nature sidde, ihat, Ministry is t ia no Rccoui pointed or < by any of t! e, "a divine ey were when lira! evidence esbj'iers, and )«e which by (ill then, may oppointed of or not to say, Certainly it ia fling more to '.•-■<; analogies, tslical autho- >er; and more of the divine maintained It is erjuul- )our dectara- onsidered, en- >, the canons ond of which it be the dis- :onviction of :; but if it be jiness will I e nd to make of il." The point in ques- n better de- K 32 ) >bjectioni an- our scripture n to devote ■>wef3 wJiiiii show good lily with A- n pa city. nt of the ap- 88 pointmenl or ordination in a single instance of an otdina- ry minister of an order superior to that of presbyters or el- ders. The AposiIeH, and their assislanis, the Evongelisla. doubless had it in charge, aa the extraordin»'y messengers of Christ, to settle the constitution of ihe infant Church and ap- point Its officers,— those who should feed, and rule the Church as Its ordinary minisiers, conjointly with the Apostles fee, du.. riBg their life, and after the Apostles and the other exlrAordi- nary ministers were taken to their reward. Now it is notorious, that neither Apostles, nor Evangelists as far as we know from the new Testament, did ever in any one single inetance appoint or ordain a person, in hia otdmaiy capacity of a Mi- nmter, to theoffice of a diocesan bishop, or invest him with official powers incompatible with those which belong to Pres- byters. Such an instance of superiority, ihe advocates of pre- lacy have never been able to produce Aom the Book of God, from the period when they first began to urge their exclusive claims to the present lime, in which you have presumed lo mnm^am the divine origin of diocesan episcopacy! This is rather a singular feature in the controversy. On the other hand proofs are abundant that, in the appointment of the or- dmary ministers of the Church, they set apart or ordained pres- byters or elders. " When they had ordained them elders {presbuterous, presbyters.) in every church, &c— (A.cta 14. 23.) •' For this cause left I thee in Crete, thai thou ehouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders {presbuterous, preabyieta) in every city, aa I had appointed Ihee." (Tilusl. 5.) You yourself admit that the scripture bishops were not superior in rank to the scripture-presbyters, which renders ii unnecessary for me to notice your remarks on the community of names, but that they were one and the same, asserting, among other Ihings, that, ••in the scriptures the first or highest order of Ihe ministry is lo be found under the name Apostle." (p. 19.) Now on the grounds you advocate ia not the conduct of the Apostles and Evangelists in ths matter strange and unuccountable ? A diocesan bishop— an officer superior in official powers to presbvters— being essentially ne- cessary to the lixislence of the Christian Church, and to con- fer a valid and an acceptable ministry, and qualify others to preach the Gospel and rightly and usefully to administer Iho sacraments, ami yet not an instance of the appointment or or- dination of such a superior officer!— but invariably the op- pointmenl and ordination in "every church," in •• every city," of elders or scripture-bishops. This I must repealis "passing strange," is perfectly unaccountah'e, on your principles, but quite natural on mine. You have stated in a quotation abov& siiutler, iiiat, " in the Scriptures the first or highest order of iha Minrstry ialo bo found under the name Apostle;" and yet, tuere la no account in the New Testament, of any person being ap- pointed or orduined to a higher o'der than that of presbyter by any of li aee apostles! They never ordained one, ea far ta m ^ W 84 'I I':, It f' tbe Sctiptures tcslify, either as copartner with tlicm or succes- sor (o litem in tti's first or highest oider, other than an eider or presbyter! Tiio Apostles then either had no coparl tiers or successors in respect to t!iis highest order ; or elders or pies- byters wore these copartners or successors : if the latter, ilien, presbyters may be justly ranked with Apostles, consideicd in their ordinary capacity. 2. " JVo such order" as that of a diocesan bishop superior to presbyters, " is mentioned, nor even alluded to either in the salutations of Paul's epistles to the Churches, or in his directions for the performance of relative duties. Had prelacy been of apostolic origin, liad Paul himself been dis- tinguished for his zeal in establishing it, would there not have been something, in hisepiailea to the churches, appropriated 10 their chief oHicer ? He gives very exact instructions to every other class of christians; points out, minutely, their duties to each other; carefully distinguishes between presbyters and dea- cons; drasvs their re-pective characlere, and assigns their func- tions; salutes indiviuual ministers anti private Christians, both men and women, by name; but n )where says one syllable to the superior grade of ministers! How is this fact to bo ex- plained ? That Paul, who observed the most scrupulous pro- prietyinall hia addresses — who left no part of religious so- ciety any excuse for neglect of duty — who overlooked nothing which might tend to counsel, conciliate, or console — who care- fully avoided everything contemptuous or irritating — who was even solicituous, as we are told, to assert the dignity of pre- lates above that of presbyters — that this very Paul should take r.o manner of notice of them in his letters to their dioceses, should enjoin respect and obedience to their subalterns before their faces; and not so much as hint at the obedience which these subalterns owed to them, is p'^st all beliefl It would bespeak not a man of discretion; much less a wise man; less still, a great man; least of all, an inspired apostle— but a downright idiot. He could not have fallen upon a more ef- fectual method to diisgrace them with their people; to encour- age insubordination among their presbyters; and by Ivantonly sporting with their feelings to convert them into personal enemies, How then, we ask again, shall this omission be accounted for ? !t will not do to reply, that as the names of bishop and pres- byter wore promiscuously used, he joins them in common di- rections, salutation and honour. This answer relieves not the diflionlty ;" (nspecially with you, as yon have conceded that the scripture bishops wore not prelates,) '* for it cannot extend to the deacons, whom he e.'jpressly distinguishes from the pres- K«ttAi*a IVaM fliorj li^a ainrrjaa f^ivt l{'>a loHi SRt Qrdsr ^f ihC Clergy, pays them marked attention, and, by this very act, insults (he pielates whom his silence had sufficiently mortified. Further, if one set of particular instructions suits difTerent sets of officers, how csn their /uwc/ton« bo different ? If the pre- rogative of the prelate couaist in the power of ordmatiou and licm or aucces- than an elder no copartners eldura or pies- le latter, ilien, consideicd in >ishop superior led to either hurches, or in duties. Had rnself been dis- Ihere not have appropriated clions to every their duties to ytcrs and dea- gns their func- hristians, both mo syllable to "act to bo ex- crupulous pro- f religious so- ooked nothing lie — who carc- ing — who was dtgnity of pre- ul should take tiieir dioceses, )aliern8 before ledience which liefl It would vise man; less ipostle — but a ion a more ef- tie; to encour- by Ivantonly sonal enemies, Lccounted for ? top and pres- I common di- slieves not the :oncedcd that cannot extend from the pres- ordsr 6f iho hia very act, sntly mortified. 9 different sets ? If the pre- irdmatioi) «ad government, how can hia duties be comprised in a drauglit of instructions for officers who have no such power?" (See your Ifote p 22 ) "It would be as ratijnal (o insist that the very Mme instructions would suit the Governor of a Province and: the Constable of . town. And did not every rule of decorum require on the part of the Apostje, a primary attention to that order which wasemphatically to succeed him? that order, with- out which, we are taught the Christian Church can havQ nei- ther form, nor governritent, nor ininislry, nor sacraments, nor lawful afsemblres; no, nor even existence? That this order shoi I first be instituted by the Apostle, and then passed over . in absolute neglect when he is writing to their Churches ; or be lumped with their inferiors, while the grades of these infe- riors are addressed in a manner which ii is impossible to mis-, take,— puts all credulity at defiance. The question, therefore, returns; how shall we solve !hi9 enigma in the. conduct of Paul ? The simple solution i.o, he takes no separate notice of bishops as superirr jo presbyters, because no such bishops ex- isted. Other solution there IS none. For it is very certaiit/; that after their introduction they figured gloriously. Whoever was left in the back gl-ound, the bishop camp conspicuously, forward— whoever was thrown into the shade, the bishop was , irradiated— whoeveir was treated with neglect, due homage to ihe bishop was nevel forgotten. Not such was the fact in the days of St. Paul ; therefore, not such was the order which iie ; had instituted." (Dir. Mason's Claims, &c. p. 74, &c.) 8. " it is evident that Christ gave but one commission f or the. office of the Go?pei Ministry, and that this oj/ice of eourie is one. The commission which our Lord gave to hw Apostles, and in them to his ministers in every age is expressed in the following words.— 4/irf /esus came and spake unt« . them, saying, Jill power is given unto me in heaven and, • in e^rth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptize ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost- Teaching them to observe all things, what- sotver I have commanded you: and lo I am with you ql- ways, even unto the end of the world. (Matt.2S, is— 20.) This commission, it is confessed on all hands, was originally pivon to one order of ministers only, viz. the eleven Apostles'. That this commission eihbraces the high'^^r 3n»<,^ %w «.r.I-n'.* r.T ''*'"' "° '"«"^°d of evading the force of this Sbrt'ht" L^""''^'''"^'"''' ''"' minisferial powers 00,^ vejed bjr this commission, were afterwards divided- and that onlyVZVonirs' ""* ""^''^^ '»"^«" were inteeted w th oniy ti part ol these powers. In toiher wnrria ih.» «k- — —« o;^». clothed wwth the high'est powers, and others presbvter, ZTc'Z"::hu "^""'"''"'^l kmd. But does no. tEuXpos ! lion carry with it its own renitation? Car. one formof mvea- titure constitute different ordAri ) fr«i.^! . • "''"•''*'" be necftfls.ri .« Jl. j °'°^i"' ^^^I'^^l reasoning cannot oe nece8sar> o set aside such an absurdity. But were the .upposiiort wn.ch has been stated aver 8o^eguimate!on be Whl s7hT"'"f " isal'ogether unsupported fn pofnl of fi^ct Twers Wh;':""*."'^ '*!,*' Pretended "iiriWpn of roinisteriai powers? When was it made? By whom > 'in whit manner gives no hmt of such a division. No subsequent passage of fnlhL '•?«'■«''«•■«• "gned ti'atitdidnotcbnrttifute the Anostles fially delivered, no Minjalers of ssion.fof ibere )Jre with them, alt ages. But (boae. who are lis commission ler ihe sealing f the Gospel, >r(he Apostles, 1 a footing of ally delivered, iispensing the held forth as es of Christian lot mentioned !au9e the com- and duties of tot infer then, have a right, » spir;. of this lich are men- I ap pertaining er, which is !her order i-r- tant and dia- mutit be con* tth joined to- r force of this I powers cpn> id ; and that, ivested with hat the same Bs some pish' presbj/ten, thie Bupposi'- Qrmof loves- ning cannot ut were the irn.ate,(Bn the point of fact, af ministerial vhat manner Tiission iifvl' t passage ot the Apostles, Church to the '.u'jtui. Jab ,i. 87 scripture suggests any thing of the kind. Nothing that so much as seems to warrani such a supposition, is to b« found «o«« r''l^"*''.^^y'**"' '""''"y niosi man/festly aT.,1 I. ' '^''^"."f'er our Lord's ascension, wo tind thj Apo8iiaPa<« and other inspired writers, giving instruction! concernmg the ministerial office and dJiies they always rCjj •^««P'''">f'f'«' original commission ; 'and Je^ls J teaching men the way of salvation, edifuing the Church and .d|hm.8termg the seals of the covenanl.a. tht highest function, belonging to this office. These are ev'er the p SubS to wnch Ihe.r precepts and e hort.tions are directed aS ptcrn:ra;tr*'^.;;«"''*' P".mo«„t.oan ,uesis":*} •'IJni. I., ben, the friend, of three orders in Ihe Christian that whch we have seen ; or find some explicit warrant for a threefold .d.v,s.on of the powers »vhich this one commisaioJ ZITh r "'' "'"P/""' 'o conclude, that our Lord cSm plated but one standrng order of Gospel Mmisters in S» Church ; and that alf who are empowered to preach Kis Word and admrnister hi. Sacraments, belong to tbii order/' fSr Miller's Lett, p 28, &c.) *- .i **" ,MWfr^•5 ,,Wif* *r Official power, arfe dttHbuted to^JMsivUn aslr^e^t as appertained to the Jiposlte, iri theirlri^'i^^ raJfe''"''*w' ^V^^'A'^^ of d.stmction. may ^ ffi Tr- Sn "^ t"n."« ^u* °"''^'''' ' Adminiiti^it{giheSde- raments That presby.ers have official power tf perform these acts you yourself d.i.inctiy admit. (See your pa^pffi Jeiss tv Vl il"n '"•°^°""''' P'oof of this miit'er there is no newssity. This power must be conveved by the oriainal com. rn,s.,on or nbt. If not. from what source do pStf a ^ecS the power to perform these official Act!,? Is there one cS m.ss,on for Apos.le, as ordinary Ministers. anS a.KMSer f^ ErTve'd lV?h"'^''"- T'"^»'>'e is not has been, tread; proved. If thrs power is bonv^yed by the original commission Ifri'h'" P"'"' °f^"^.'.'he officiaUc.s above sfa"edTemCe' all the official acts mclgded in the commission r-ur.lenckJ be shown »V..m good authority tUt itie ^rand and "olemn com m.^>on of Christ investinfe his Apostles wi.h.ministeriarpoweJs Tow^ ;';,''"""""^ defective. If. however, this cannoTbe 8hown-.,f he comm,s8i.rn of Christ was both compreHen ive and perfect, expressive of the real view, and mteniions of the Supreme Head of the Church.-the inference is ■unavoidable! that It contnina nver<' iKi^-^-->- • . . _ " "'"»w»"» T^rrcijtiui I ;_„ •..• ■ . i- - o ^....... vvc iiiu UU.CO Ui tile Litl en.s "r«?- ^•i" »« P'«"l'jng and adu.inisteririg the sil menls are expressly mentioned, it o ins oince ol iiie Chris- ,cra- they are the highest acts tonnecl6d with is reasonable to believe. t,hnt and that all others the ministerial office. IS are of a subordinate character. On very evident, iftat in no one place of the New Test le thing a'ment is i w .'i 89 ordination, on which you place so much 8»res«. declared to be •uperior to these official porfonnances. Tiio opinion that it is certnoi plead divine auihoriijr for its foundation ; it is purely a figment of human ingenuity, and serves no better purpose thau to elevate ecclesiastical bi.hops above Sciiptuie piesbyiers or bishops, and to keep a party in countenance. If then, preach, ing the Gospel and administering the Sacraments are the hiah- tal acts of the mmisterial office, they, who are divinely nulho- mud to perform th^i-e, must of necessity rank among the highest order oJChristiaii Minis'.ors, and be scripiurally «njalifiod to perform all other duties inherent in their office. This qunnot to dertied, unless you are prepared to prove that inferior! may Jawfully, a» tnjerior a, pex rot m the hiehtst duties of superior*; • proposition which I humbly imagine you will not be very for- ward to wairt/am. jBut you admit that presbyters have the •ctfptural ri^ht to preach the Gospel and. admimsisr the Sup- rattenrt ; therefore presbyters aie ampng th^ highetit order ^f Christian Mmislers, and have divine authority to perforn) all other acts inh^rertt in the ministerial o(fice. Ordination being anooffhese, they have iho divine right lo^, ordain. Since I Jo6k opoft the sacramental actions, aa the highest of sacieil j^rroimances, I cannot but acknowledge those who aia eq^- powered for ihcm, must be of the Ai^/iesfo^ce in the Church." ifi . ^*'"*"!?*i'' V'no'«a»«o« of ibe Church and Slftt* of Scotlaira, p. ^3I(.) Z.^Govefnihs Me CAurcA.— You mVt) the official duty ol* ptMbyters, beside that of preaching the Gospel, and adfninia- loctngiha Sa^ramentB. to consist in simply " superintending or 2'if",""* """ "spective flunks ;" but I think it will not bo difficult to show that ihti fiovirnment of the Church, ia its prb|[>er sense, is ascribed to presbyters. " There are three terms employed in the New Testament to •tpress the authority which i«. to be exercised in the Cbriatiau Chtircb, and they are a// applied to presbytow, These Urn» ftiOff ,••1. JCgMmat.— To take the lead. 2. Proistemi.—To stand before ; to preside. -i." '■■?: -P^'waino.— To act the part, to fulfil the duties, of a Snepherd. " Every power wliich Christ hath deputed to his officers is conveyed by one or the other of these lermfi, " For the greater precision, we shall shew, Jirst, that they do express the power of governmem ; and then, that each of them is applied to presbyters. "1. Egkomai.— To take the lead— signifies to "rule." Matt. 2. 6. Thou, Bethlehem, in the land of J^da, art not inc icust among the Fhinces (egemosin) of Juda ; for out of thee shall come a Governor (egonmenos) that shall B.UI.K my people Israel. The force of the term, then, cannot ■ho questioned. It is applied to ptesbylers. **i^^^' ^?' '• Remember them wliich Hav« thje Rutjc Over yoi tie is spea adds, whi, Jaith foil of their i have the i teatrhfor "That single coi •' ruling" Gospel to '* watchec of presbyt power of j '• 2. Pi before — tc one that house. T Raphelii / Nooum Le •• The p by t era. " 1 The them whic tamenous) "It is a lates, for episcopacy tion, taken an intimac cannot posi characteris out of all c the elders ; ed worthy •• Pres'bi this is one' feriority, in Apostle, th of •• ruling with the po •' 8. Poi hence, to p direct, to c "This te former two proof of thf ' "As earl we I e in fam highest aut Homeric p 19 eclared to b« lion that it i» it it purely a purpote thau jieabyiera or iboii, preacli* are the bigh- vineiy nulho- g tite higliBBt qiialitioU to Tliia cuQnot tferiort may ofsuperiort; t be very for- it9 iiavs liie isr (he St^p. iieut order p^f i. perroriif all illation being ii^. Sinc« I It or Mfueil ivlio aia en>- he Church." id St«t« of ficial duty ol' »nd ftdtninift- rintending or t will not b« urcbi io its 'estaiQent to rie Cbriatiau Tbese tarma duties, of a s officera is tt, that they hat each of to •' rule." Ida, art not '■a ; for out that shall hen, cannot rHB Rvhs OVKB you, (ion egoumenon umon your rulers.) The Apos- ••« '■ "peaking of their deceased pastors ; for ho immediately adds, who have spoken unto you the word of God ; whose Jajth follow, considering the End, the issue or termination, of their conversation. Aguin, •• ver. 17, Obey them that have the rule over you (tois egoumenms umon) for the^ watch for your souls as they that must give account. "That these ••rulers" were presbyters, is evident from a single consideration ; the Apostle ottribuies the power of "ruling" to those deceased pastors who had preached the Gospel to the Hebrew converts ; and those living ones who ••watched for their souls ;" which are undeniably the functions of presbyters ; therefore Paul reco^-jnizes in presbyters, all the power of governmen* expressed by the first term— rulers. " 2. PaoicTKMi, or Phoistamai.— To stand or place before— to preside— to rule. 1 Tim. 8,4. ^ bithofi must be one that RvvRTH Well (kalos proiitamenon) his own house. The same in ver. 5, 12. (For other references, see Raphelii Annot, Phil, in N. T, ad locum, and Schleusneri Nooum Lexicon in N. T. " The power expressed by this term also, is applied to pres- byters, "1 Thess. 6, 12. We beseech you, brethren, to know them whtch labour among you, and are Over You (prois- laraenous) in the Lord. " It is a description of ordinary faithful pastors ; not oC pre- lates, for there were several at Thessalonica ; and diocesan episcopacy admits of but one in a city. The whole descrip- tioii, taken logoihor, supposes the e-xercise of functions, and an intimacy of intercourse, omong the people, which a prelate cannot possibly observe in his diocese ; but which is exactly characteristic of the presbyter. However, lo put the matter out of all doubt. Paul charges Timothy, I Tim. 5, 17, " Let the elders that Rule Well, (oi kalos proeslotes) be account- ed worthy of double honour, &c. "Presbyters tiioy are, Episcopacy herself being judge : for this 18 one of the passages which she quotes to prove their in- feriority, in the Church of Ephesus, to bishop Timothy. The Apostle, then, here formally attributes to presbyters the power of «• ruling," which we humbly conceive to be much the same with the power of •• government." " 3. PoiMAiNo — To exercifeo the office of a Shepherd ; hence, to provide for the safety and comfort of any one— lo direct, to control, to govern. •• This terni being more comprehensive than either of the former two, we crave the reader's indulgence to a more minute •• As eorly as the days of Homer, this word and its relatives weie m familiar use, to designate not only authority, but the highest authority in the commonwealth. Thence that frequent Homeric phrase, •• the Shepherd of the people," for their P •0 "king." No one who ia in the least convaraan* with th t pre-eminent Poet will atk Tor examples." 8ee II. A. 263 — II. D. 85. — li. I. 640.— II B. 487. (The quotutions are given in the work from which I am now (ransi^ribrng ) '* iio that by the great mnsler of Giei'iaii Language and LileralUre, tiid • three terms Poimen, E^emon-. Kuiianof, i. e. " shephetU," "leader," "prince," are inlercliangeably used of tlie same rank, and are all explained by the Ureek conuneniaior," ur •choliast, *' Batileus, i- e. "king" Insumes might easily be multiplied, but we fur bear. We have the rather appealed to ilomur, because he depicis t ut same tUle of society in which a great portion of the Scriptures was written ; and aU ludes to those same objects from wliich they have borrowed much of the'r imagery, and many of their lerma, " Proceed we now to the septuagent version of the Old Te8< tament,'which was completed between two and three centuries before Christ. 2 Kings 5, 2, in our version 2 Sum. 5, 2. — The Lord laid unto thee, viz David, thou shalt Feed (poi< iuar.ei8,shull flkct as a Shepherd to) my people Jtraet, and thou shalt b\: ti C&.PTAIN (egoiimenon) ovir Isiael. " Precise i '.ba '.lame sort of example isto be found inChron. 7, 7 ; 1 Ci • r, ^», 2 ; 17, 6 ; also Psa. 48, 14. Death shall FscD i.; . i. \ ; 'vnianei, shall have the rule over) them. "The Is vv Jt'taslament is equilly decisive. Matt. 2, 6. — Thou Bethleht:.u,&.c. for out of thee shalt come a Governor (egoumenus) that shall Rule (poimanei, feed, superinten'i as A Shephetd,) ttty peeple Israel. The prophet speaks of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the " good Shepherd," and the " chief Shepherd ;" and who had, and has, " the government upon Ills shoulders." Isa. 9, 6. " This term, likewise, is applied to presbytera. " Acis 20, 17, 28. From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephcaus, and called the Presbyters of the Church, and said unto them, Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Feed (poimanein. like good Shopheids, to provide for, watch over, and govern,) the Church. of God, &c. •• 1 Pet. 5, 2, 3.. The Presbtters who are among you I exhort, who avi also a Presbyter. ' Feed (poimanate) the fluck of Gnd which is among you, taking ion$ rnore are used in or the posdi en by Chria shewn that »1 It with that il. A.263.— 008 aro given ) "So that teralute, tho "shophetd," ot° llie tamo entalor," oc iniglit easity llier appealed of aociely in lien ; and aN Lve borrowed ft he Old Tea. hree centuries Sam. 5, 2. — It Feed (poi- hrael, and tael. >und inChron. Death shall ) them. Matt. 2, 6.— a Governor superinlenr': as tpeuks of our rd," and the le government •• Acta 20, ), -and called \o them. Take er which the (poimaoein, , and govern,) re among you (poimanale) eOVERSIGHT 9 ) thereof, not er God't heri- |8, that these considered as and they are 1 in ihem, by >rt of the flock rge of the pas- ; " Lords over 9 government ; or, as we commoT'ly saj*, to " lording it" over them. Tli» lontraat cou'.l have had no plice, hud not tiin^e presbyter* been Church Uuvuiiiors ; for ,i is idle lo warn men against abusing a power nhich Ihey do not poseofj. By instructing iheni Aoto ihey were lit giivern the Church, the Annxiid has decided ihiil iha power ofgowriiinenl was conimitled lo them. No iiigher uuHoniy than he has recognized in ihem cun belong to the order ut prelaiuii- For Ihu very snine (eim i>y which he marks the power of the presbyters, ia eroploj ed irt Scripture to inarif the auilioiity of our Lord Jeius Chri«i. (Malt. 2, 6 — egoumcnos uatia Fuimanet ion liion nion, &c. ; " (he govern- or ihaf hall rttle (margin A. V feed) my people, &c.") " The reader cunnnt fur a niunieiit snppoiie that we put any power le't in the Churcli on a levt with that of hsr divino Master, V it from us be the thought of such blasphemy. — But we ronteiid tor these two things; 1st. Tl:ai the'ierm which both Paul and Peter apply (o the oflicc uf pietbyters, undoubtedly expresses the power ut govern- ment ; fleeing it is tho term svhich expreBses the office of Christ, us l!ic governor of his people Israel. ' 2d. I lut ui the term, applied to the office of Christ, ev- presses the highest power of governineni in him as the chief Shepherd, so, when applied to the odice of the under Shep- herds, it expresses the highest po\ter of government which ha baa delegmed lobe exercised in his na'-ie for the welfare of hie Church. But this power is vested, Paui and I'eter buing judges, in presbyters ;i\ieTei'<)Te piesbyters by the a|ipoiiiiment of Jesus Christ, are inveHtfcd with the hij;hest puw^r of government known in his Church. *• We go further: the authority conveyed by tho charge lo "feed ihe flock of God," comprehends the ortenng of alt things necessary to her well-being ; and ihereforo the power of ord'iNa/iou likewise. An essential part of the Redeemer's pastoral office was>, and is, to provide underpasiurs for his iheep. This at fust he did m person, by immed.ate vocation ; but having " ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things." he performs the same office through ihe nitdi* urn of the pastors whom he has left in the Church. The ques- tion is, to what pastors has Mb commitied the trust of ordain- ing other pastors, and thus preserving the pastoral succession i We answer to |)/-e.siiy/ers ; for he has affixed lo their office that very term \iliich designates his own rigl.i and care to fur- nish his Church with pastors or lawful ministers. Let our Epii- eopal brethren shew as much for their prelates, if they can. " To sum up whit has been said on this article: no expree- ■>on? more clear snd '.l>^cis!vn 'hHQ tiiosM vv» have cons.dered are used in the scriptures to denote either the communication, or the possession, or the exercise, of the ordinary powers giv- en by Christ for the well-ordering of his church. And we have ihawn that the New Testament has, in tha most direct aad H-i-J ,;t II ":'' t IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) & // A ^ p^ '/: ^} y / /^PPLIED^ IM4GE . Inc .a^ 1653 East Main street ^=-^ Rochester. NY 14609 USA J^S-^ Phone: 716/482-0300 .^SS-J^Si Fax: 716/288-5989 1993, Applied Image, Inc., All Rights Reserved |\^ « J,V ^\ :\^^ *'*'Kb "^X ^\;^\ 4S ^ A \^ .^' /^ fT- s ( « I ffi •mple manner, confided tharn'o// to presbyleri." Dr. Maion't Cliinii &c. p. 76. &c.) The cdurite of argument pursued with lucli convincing effect in the preceding quolaiion, was, in toine important points, touched upon briefly in rny Defence, p. 28 -26: Yet you have the asiurance topublisii to liio world, that my arguments in fa- vour of ministerial parity are deri\ed merely from the inter, changeable use of the teiniu, presbyter and bi$hop. Hence your quesiiona— •• Do you not now, sir, perceive the weakoeta— the follary of your aigumenta ? Do you not see how absurd is tho conclusion at which you arrive ? You in efleot say- presbyters are called bishops in scripture, therefore there is no order in the church higher than presbyters!! Is this sound reasonig?" (p. 21.) I cannot spare the space here necessa- ry lo be talien up in quotations from my comments on Acts 20, 17, 28; Thus I, 5. 7; 1 Pet. 5, 1—4, otherwise I would con- vince my readers that, tho* youptofest lo maintain the divine origin of episcopacy, you have not in the above extract main- tained a dtie regard to a just representation ol my arguments. To those Comments in my Defenci 1 must refer the reader ai containing a'full confutation of your mis-representa'ion. but wbot will you say to Dr. Mason's argumenta ? They go to the very terms in which ministerial authority is conveyed; and il there be any meaning in language, those terms, applied aa they aie to presbyters, without restriction, or explanation, and in their full meaning and extent, do most incontrovertibly in- vest presbyters with the divine right of governing the Church. But you think, •• wiien I examined so minutely Ihe powers given lo the presbyters ol Ephcsus," that, •• in omitting the word ordain amongst the epecial duties of the highest orders of ministers, I omit a very especial part of their duty; and I omitted il, "because I could not find that (W power wcs com- initted to them." (p. 2.1.) This objection I have already pro- mised to answer. Obcerve. then, 1st. You here acknowledge that I minutely examined the powers of the Epbesian pres- byters, and attributed to them -• the ej»/)ecia/ duties of the highest orffer of Ministers." This contradicts your assertion that 1 rested my argument in favour of parity on the mere inter- changeable use of names, withog^^any regard lo things! 2ndly My object in this examination was to prove that these presby- ters, called bishops, were of the highest order of christian ministers; which being proved, it would naturally fo Hoy that they had the divine rigiit to perform all the acts inherent in the miiitsteriol office.- It is true I did nut mention ordination in ci- press terros,though I considered it was included in the power con- veyed in the commission—" Feed the Church of God"— •'Feed thefloekofGod;" and thearguitientsofDrMason prove that I was ni»t w;/urig in the viaws i had takon. I grant that St. Paul does not mention ordination in express terms; but if this is an objection against (he power to ordain vesting in the presbyter bishopa of ^Epbeius, it will lie with equal force against the eleven the i dination ex; nisterial otl wy theepi' chosen (o (I to the sam mentioned i duty, to any ertuordttin the 8ubsei|u( loherently ii propriety as lies of the h Ifoujinow i icripture, of thirteen J pi vas an ordtii ing was vest word orduin of niaisters ( But why did powers gif er was not com this rate beci lioced by oui •f their minu «nd 1 do not isglheEphei ctnnot deny, 'ination to t) Ilia presbylei >iet, as ia uaei iddressed by Kccasion. •rOXKN OF CI "Ontofihe ^.)«'">llcomc wnor.ihotsh poiinanei, fe people IsroeJ. U.) This is as m "><> phrase wa in." Dr. Maion't convincing eflect important poinlg, 16: Yet you have y argunienta in fa- Ij* Trom the inter- I bi$hop. Hence ve tile vveakneH— t Bee how abaurd ou in efTec! say— ereforo there ia no >!l la thia aound ace here neceesa- menia on Acta 20, wise I would «on- tiintain the divine )ve extract main- at my arguments, eferlhe reader ai re»enta!ion. liut ? They go to the conveyed; and if ie,apphed aa they ilanntion, and in controverlibly in* ning the Church. utely the powen " in omitting the :he highest ordera their duty; and I f power wca com- lave already pro- lore acknowledge le Epbesian pres- al duties or the uia your aaaertion in the mnr« inter- o things.' 2ndly dttl these presby- rder of christian iraily rolloy that a inherent in the or(Hnation in ei- in (he power con- \reh of God"— fDrMaaon prove i grant that Si. SB terms; but if ordain vesting with equal force 98 eleven the or.gu.al comrniBBion our Lord d.d not ment.«.< or- Bisterial oflice: nor d.d he when hecominuml«d Fti-er. " Kkkw «y sheep; not did the eleven mention it uh.„ Mutthiaa wa* cho.0,1 ,« ,1.0 Apoatlealii,.; no, did Christ, when ho called PauJ iJl ^-'"""'hce. Not a Biiigle syllable in ejipru« terms i. mentioned re»peciing ordi.iun„» aa « Bopara.e a.wi ...ore aolemir duty, to any one 01 tho Apo.tloH truly so called. Nonv if the pow- er to o.dam was not conveyed in tho original coni«i..3.on, or in iheaubae.,uent cammqnd. " Feed my ahee^" or if it vest not /nherenlly u, .ho mmi.^iial office.-I ,„,g|,i a«k w.tii the same r/n'r X *»>:"--** '- "«' ordainiHti one of ,h« especial d.- Ilea ol the highest prdera of m.ni.t.ra and a pri.iiipal one? Ifoujinow itis-andyou know that Here is not a hint h. Sn!/?!.'//'' T" f r'^T"' being entrusted to the thirteen JtpoHttes of our Lord. It is evident then that there «ras an ord«r superior to theira. in which the power of ordain- mg wa. vested. Did it not r.ccur to you thai in omitting th. word ordain amongst the especial duties of the highest "rder miaisters Christ omitted a very especial part of their doty ? But why did he omit it, when he so minutely spak« of tb« KTn«.'"*" "* .'•'* ^P""'""-' Simply becal.se Mfl/ power wtsnot commitedio them!" (p. 23.) Now were I to i«lk »t ;J! 'at ".*• 'i* *°''* " «'•''««'»." w'*" not expressly men- lOMd by our Lord to Any of his true Apostles, when -peaking •r their mmisler.al powers, I should talk " simply" enough \ ■Is."."' P""'*^" enygood reason why your talk respect' mg ibeEphesian Presbyters deserves a belter character. You ttnnot deny, thai, wjiil.t no express mention is made of or- *matJontoiheApoelles. the same expression is addressed to Be presbyter bishops, when speaking of their ministerial du- AA " '".!?" '"pecting the duty of Chriai himself, and as i» idarassed by our Lord to Peter on a moat aolemn and aOecline vecasion. ^ •POIKJI OF CHRIST. jADDRKSSED BY CHRIST " Out Of these, (J< J ■""'"''«• , ti^'l^llTi'' .? ^T " "*' (Christ) eai.h wrnor, that shall rule unto htm, feed (poim- Joiinanei, feed) my aine.r«/5)n,y sheep." P«opIe Israel. (Aiatt. John-^j, i(i/ ^ ADPRK88KO TO TRC PRKSBTTKR-SISHOP* BV TIfK APOSTLKS. " The eWera which lire among you, I ex- hort, who am also aa elder— /«•«(/ (poiman- "te, rule) tho flock of God,&c.(iPer.5, 1, 2,&c. '• 'Vit feed (no'ima'm' «>ii.i:K^e,)tlio Church of God." (St. Paul, .^cls 20,21^.) Johri'.!' """'l.^" *«y«'l"''''i «"«! unless you can shew that »"» phrase was uddre«ed i„ the presbyters, or scripture bi- .4^ I'' ■1 i , !i I i 04 •hops in a rtntricted »enge, by ilio Apostles, (here is every rea- •onto believe Ida. ihey had t>y »iMuo of office the aanie minia- terial powers" as vested in Peter as an ordinary miniaier of Christ; and if Peter, without express mention, possessed the power to ordain, so these prcsbyiers, Iho* no expraas menlion of ordination is rntde, possessed the power to ordain. It is also worthy of remark that unless the comm;88tOrt to the Apostles or eowe one of the throe terms commented on by Dr. Mason, conveys tho power or right to ordain, then there it no one thing in the New Testomeiti by which Ibia right or power was conveyed to the A post lea. Bat that this power or right wan conveyed to the Ap<»8ile», you allow: — hence, if con- veyed by the commsaion, the commission appliealo presbyleri, ■ndao all ita powers: or if by any one of the three terma, these «ne and alt ere applied to presbyters, and so all theii powers. To preabyters. therefore, belongs th Rf>d th?rff»re eoiild not have been at this time the diocp- aan bishop of Rhesus. He wi\s an inspired Apostle, and ihii •ccountb .or his superintendency over, and addressee to ordmst)! ministers. .Was he Timothy ? ' Many Episcopaliana say yes but how is thii known? From what source do they mmented on by rdain, then there icli this right or at this power or : — hence, if con- lies to prerbyleri, hree terms, thert all theii powers, ight to ordain to ning the Church, ri seriously and im- the piosbyters, or nrly perceive-'h«l {cr order of ordi- t as being posioi- I ofAce. He wai no more : he fore- mselvee; he givei to discharge tht'* ^ Ghust hns m\ I thai they arv .- niecessary Tor iti ise and perpetuity: liable, drops not 'tern, or their duty isf lime, with the truly and proper- no respect, in re- tiinseir, considered other ordinary of- an this conduct be It cannot: iho con- tbte. Either these erview a diocestn vas he, and whtre arewell discourse! iiself? The whole I '-ad no fixed dio his time the diocr J Apostle, and this idresHeato ordinary copalians say Jti jurce do they de utar juncture T\- mothy was the diocesan bishop of these Presbyters? From I no divine source; from no inspired wntingH; but from mere, iher than r is know to pure, sheer conjecture.— Put was this pielute any other Timothy? No other hao been named: no oihe have been such. If then neither St. Paul, nor nmothy, nor any other, was it this particular time, prelaie of Ephesus, it is clear as light that these presbytors at that time liud no diotse. itfi bishop. But if they had, secondly, where was he, si (h« time of the charge ? Was he $ick ? If so, it would have been natural on such an occasion for ih«» Apostle to t>ympathize with the good afflicted prelate and with his poor Hffl.cted presbyters. Bet crue;, cruel, Paul r he shed muny tears at the thought of never 8eeii;g theso well and hearty preaby tars any more, but never one iear, that we know of, for the poor sick diocesan bishop hat lay confined to hi': palace at Cpliesus ! Was he dead 7 Why, •• a living dog is belter than a doad lion ;" lod a deadprelate is not much better than no prelate- But, if in were dead, this would have been a most excellent lime to ippoint hia successor from amon;: 'hese presbyters. It would have been in the highest degree eaorilegioa* in your estimation fsf these presbytors to ordain their diocesan : but you ihink the Apostles might have ventured to lay hand$ upon Aim.— Well, if their diocesan were dead, a successor must be ordain- ed by St. Paul now or never, as he never expected to see thuir fico again. Perhapa St. Paul, hearing of the great loss these presbyters had sustained in the death of their bishop, called nil together at Mjleius for the purpose of ordaining a sue- V!&f ! if so, fo; aught the record shows, he neglected, or urgol, this especial duty of his apostolic office : for I have (* i the narrative over and o.er, yes twenty times, and I can- Bot see any account of the appointment or ordination of a nperior officer to these presbyters : so that if the Apostle found them with a dead bishop, he left them without a living one • tod that a living one was ever afterwards appointed (or Ephe- m by St. Paul or any other Apostle, the New Testament poirhere declarea. But was their diocesan on a journey ? It Nextremely difficult at thJi period of time to say positively.-^ Imclino to the opinion that be wae not, aa the presbyters, a< ftras we can Judge from the history, did not tell St. Paul that M was away fioro his diocese oral a distant pait of it, and the Apostle does not regret the circumslance. Was he present f Now who can tell ? Who can say with positivity that he was? Ooe tiding is certain St. Paul never mentions his lordship; "•*•'■ »""<••» to him either directly or indirectly ; passes over this officer— ao officer so superior, so important, so neeeasary, ••*"^out whom there c»n he no Church— in peifect silence j irsstRhim with aovcreign contempt } and to make the neglect »r»corn ten-fold cutting, he addresses himself to his inferior tMirgy men, Aecfors, and Curates, in the moat friendly and af- wtltipnate manner; refers to hia paat familiar and endearedint«r« coarse w,^b, i I .;■;■ .; * 99 Hi'. Wnn ^''T';^ ""'' ' r"! ''""V •""'«A'''«nd r«/. Ihischurcl, ns i.ie appomcd officorHofthe Holv Gl.o.i ! And all ihia m .« . j ini.eApn..lepoMe«odonepaflic>e of (hot eourteouBTtesl which S,. Peter recommended ,o priva.o chr,Mi«nT( , pT, "' 8 ) »"d v'„ch Luke record, ,o .he honour of Publl. (Ac, fLdV^r" m""' '-vo 'reaied a prel... with «uch indi,! S«iPed and cruel di.re-pect h»d he been pre.enl. PreBent. then vreZn) "nr^/" 'I'T^'J'' "" "'"'• "" '»""' ''« *" "« S Oh ! he Apcsile mienccd lo appoint on« ! Well, wiio rr.ide mvLT'^ U'hy d.d he »;t' ,ell lh«e pre.b ter. ac 1 Why did he not eay. •• | shall see jou no more, but I intend to ^rrfnin! Tk ^'•"^'•'"•'P.''*'''""'' jurisdiction over you. ordam all the presbyters, .nd confirm all the converts''' DrlabT.L'ri ' """""''" "J •''»• •""•• '">«• can hia charge to these prosbyterJ comport uiih common honesty, to say nothina of <:h ,s.,„nsmeer.ty ? He told them that fhey we?e the r«/m of the Church, and were appomted such by 'the Holy 5ho»t Xn ;^V r* T •"" ""»''*"*'"' °" thefrmind. ; and ve . d d dfom ?..'"' ^T^" ': "fP"'"' "'"" "•«"» "" «ffi«=". ' "bout iir«.^d?''""f' '" ?"• ""' " 'y"""'*' "°' '•'"PP'^J 'he least i « o ,1 eTn'n.'"* "'",■■ '!!''""" "rdeportment t'o'w.rd, nhom he gave them no a smgle direction I Let those believe this belief tT,.t ft il '■^' •" "•*? P;esbytera confirms me in the hel.6f that they ivero appomted of God the superior ofBcers of the Ep!.es,.„ Church, a.d as such were snbordin.Te TZk or capaci,;"""" '" "" "'"^ **"•""" ^-•'•'dered in hi. ord^n.?; ••^m«„!*^ffi "^T"* ^"J "''"a/Zy «xfr«se the power of go- Ternmenl officially .s n fact capable of being proved by divine testimony. In the J5th chapter of Act. wa Imve a pa^rticu « -ccoont of a Church Council, assembled at Jerosafem to j, r««r..w / n?^-'*'"". ^*"'"'^- Of whom was this Coincil Sh i^^'^.-^r"''"'"*'^^'''''' ^'"'omel together, con- iiw Jews taught the brethren at Antioch, except Ihev were tzrfjiiv)! "'T'\ "'■ M-e-. they Souu Lrb. ■aved. Pau and Barnabas having had no small dissension .nd d..putation with the par.ie.. b"ut not being able ?o ...isf; .Jr;„"d''ce7am'''M"' "l^" .!"'""*' *' "" determined th.^ ifBL!?« .n?^//""'.'*"'*'''^ 5' "P '<• Jerusalem unto the JipotUes and £/i/ers aboM". thi» question. Thev did «a and LT: "S'' r-^^n" '^'''"'•' "'' *'^"- Apo,ZVnd' Kr".' frd p/J^ ^^ que^mn to be decided. •• the JlpoitUt fi ofn^^V""" "*«'""•■• '^' •» «»•"*''" 'hi* matter." Af- l^r.? I. ?"'],?""• "•'P'««Md theApowle. and Elder.. with tb« wbol. Church. 10 .end eho.«n ntn of their own com' :i *■! And rrf/« I liis church Andall this in anad- i be his Inst lo liieni! liBl eourtcouinesn, iriMiflns. (I Pel. 3, of Publiiis, (Ann l« with euch nndii- eiU. Preaenf, then, then he was neither where was he ?— Well, who made e presbyters RC ?-. nre, but I intend to your bishop, one idjction over you, lie converts ?" If his charge to these o say nothinj; of y were the rulers the Holy Ghost, minds ; and yet did on officer, about ' dropped the least lent towards whom hose bejieve this inute examination :onfirms me in the uperior officers of rdirtate in rank or ed in his ordinary t the power of go- proved by divine have a particular rerasniem to de- »eply a fleeting the was this Council lel together, con- Certain men of Jtcept they were By could not be small diMension tgoble to satisfy determined that iisalem unto the They did so, and Kiss end Elders. • " the Apo$ttt» ii matter." Af* let and Elders, fibeir oivn com- 97 mencing thus. -The Apostles and P.. "'". ^''""''"' "•"• greetinj. ftc.'and conf.Ki ^cj^fj^ ^VoV'"'' "j:""""' ""'' Jowog. ..eee have heard "L." if .tT.,hP'''i'' " "" f"'" " ^fehaveeenf-«.iisMm./l ! ' "j «°'"' ""'« ««"-- •oustolayuponyou. kc' »§r,Ji"'''%""'^ °''«" '"d t ve synod." say, Lr. Mason. " 2iZ\i nTf ^k"""*'' P"""'" than to ascertain what share the «r,.fc^ "^"u ^" " P'"""'. ceeding. ^The fono^ving'^tLVsVp^tS^^^ "' P- ■^.^i:'ZlnT^^^^^^^ ; that and a •• house of cfericti .Th I ^^ Of a «' house of bishops," " 2d. The nyA/orheDrlb^v.l! •?''"•''. ""'^ ''»'' ""> 'Sca- the Apostles »pVn alVeX,« J" 1° "' '" J"''.«"'«"» «i«h fo be decided by .peci!l revela «! *r"""';.*"''''^ ""'• "»» the Churches. ThrDroof of 'h -'"■''•". "»''"»'oo'' in ttrm, of the referencrrom An.ioi''"'' v'''"" ''V '" ""» ^'^y bow the Church there sSdtJSc of .ulmil! " •'«'«"' "''^-blj •0 weighty in itself and so .,,-„•''•""""'« » q«o«tion. the ••ildew.'-conjoimlt wUh Z .?^''^'^"''''"""''"• <° not been tau'ght ihlt Xbyers we 1 .r'^n'' *'"""'^ "•«* governors and were to continue ..rh.f.^".u''''^'''"J' Churcl, i^rsoni^e^^y t;3ii';;tSr .T'rT'y^' •"•""• n.ry. which w.s he^ apostoS oh.,'!i.? '^'^ ""»*'. "'"ordi- into thedeliberationsofihe..l!«kf "'*'•'•«''*'' introduced of/ac<, ofthe«X« scrV/Vr aL'o7 '"^'""?'^ •»"' '"•» on the comparison of both All ,hi; « rf^o^'ngT founded diitrust ofhis integrity! a hiSdredmirrL.'*''-? " '"' P°*'"' *' instantly haro relieved the ^bJucr „ * ''^""•f^r. «^ould " Ve fSThTJi^ l-'^^^^^^^^^^^ u:;er;srK: •"• •- They^b:,';.::ni\it;t '':h«:;r' perpetual, such as preaching thrword*.H™ii° ?'* ?'''"'^'^ ■««* •iments, and governing the Chorin ."""•'"'"« ">« Sae^ ' 'ft p i moved by the Holy Ghoftt :" their judgment wet inftllible, end their authority paramount. But, Tor the ordinary government of the Church, or any part of it, they do not oppear to have enjoyed these extraordinary communicationg of the divine api- rit ; nor to have exerted their eitraordinary powera ; nor to have claimed ft panicle of authority above the presbyter*. Without such a distinction as wo have now staled, their history is ft tissue of inconsistencies, and their conduct in the Synod of Jerusalem must bo given up as a riddle that baffles solution." (Claims p. 83, &c,) ^ " Decrees" also aio said to have been *' ordamed" by the '* apostles and Elders which were at Jeiusalem.?' (Acts 16, 4 ) These decrees may have been those passed at the Coun- cil just considered in reference to the circumcision of the Gen- tiles.. Be this as it may , whether these or others, it is evident, that, in the ordainment of ecclesiastical decrees, designed for the guidar^ce of the Church, elders or presbyters had an equal share with the Apostles. "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which wera at Jerusalem ; And to were the Churches established in the faith, and in- creased in number daily." Of course you will feel it your duty to reply to the above plain instance in favour of the Church-governorship of presby- ters. Be pleased to take this caution with you in your attempt: do not assume, or take for granted, as you have heretofore done, bet prove in some satisfactory manner, that the Apos- tles, in their ordinary capacity, were superior in order and powers to the presbyter-bishops. 4. Ordaining to the Jl/tnisOy.— Reasons have bebn assign, ed to show that the right to ordaio vested officially in presby- ters: I will now prove that they .actually exercised this right. The first instance I give you is taken from Acts 18, 1>.3. «• Now there were in the Church that was at Aniioch, certain Prophets and Teachers ; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrach, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost taid, St- parate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whertunto I have railed them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them they sent them away." Two things here claim attention. 1st. This is an ordination, or a solemn setting apurt persons to the Ministry. 2. The ordain- ers were presbyters, ornot of an order superior to presbyters ia their ordinary capacity. First —This was an ordination or a Mlemn Mtling apart of {Ntraona to the Ministry. Barnabas and Saul were (he persons nt apart ; and every pirtofthe transaction is expressive of an ordination. There it ^ eafl of God to a certain work, preaching the Gospel to fAf CfeutUes—ilioi9 was to be a $epar4itien of Paul and Bar* 99 waiinrallibie, and Unary government lot appear to have I of the divine api. y powers ; nor lo the presbyter* laled, their history ict in the Synod of bafflaa •olulioo." ordamed" by the ilem.?' (Acta IG. aaed at the Coun- iciaion of the Gen- hera, it is evident, rees, designed for yters bad an equal Arent through iho keep, that were ere at Jeruaalem ; he faith, and in> ily to the above norsblp ofpresby- U in your attempt: 1 have heretofore , that the Apoi- ior in order and have bei^n assign, fficially io presby- ircissd this right. A Aot9 18, 1—3. ' Aniioch, certain Simeon that was anaen, which had i Saul. As they Ghost said, iS<- u)ork tohereunto ited and prayed, m away." Two D ordination, or a 2. The ordain- rior to presbyters n setting apart of apart j and every -dinatioR. There ng the Go$pel to of Paul and Bar- oift«r»o//AeCAttrcA-in setting apart the chosen DoPaons these oRi,er, failed, prayed, and laid their ha,td8onthem Nothing more aolemn or impressive could be done iS perform^ nS; dJX' °"''r'*'">-'«»^g«d ordination. " And^ co3- «-?.? /^piacopacy. does not scruple to pronounce it a ..« .. H I Tl" "''''""•'o'-. ; for speaking of Pdut. h\ •ays-" He had the special honor to bo chosen in an ei taor inl7, "^V y"' ^' '""^ -omething of the ordinary too -for ia TeiLen AnJatl^ ".h *k"u '" r* "•' •"""e*'^'« - that of ine eleven Apostles, though his ordinat on was not '• th!- alw was the judgment of the Jearned Dr. Light foot -No ttoeh," and quotea the thirteenth chapter orZletilnh^ Apostle. ,„ support of his assertion,-*^ (mK jf/t't! pf M* To this you have a ready answer : •• but it may be renlied i« /eir words Paul and Barnabas were JtpostleTMortihlm rl^^^-' "t • ^"P"*'* ""» B^^'bas fnS Saul/ &c ~th«2' fore this could not be ah ordination." (p. 27 ) Your .'?«t* words are not so satisfactory or so po.Tnl as you Im.gi J- They are not strict ly correct. That Paul was in St f7 "not of men. neither by man. but by Jesw Chn" " tS term Jlpostle a« apniv Vi (« p.._-.,-^ 7 ^** ""' *"• _ ^ *rP7'"g 'o cariiabas can only lueah a msj- ^.^^' . ! :^1., r| ! M H nnger, one tent forth; which in ll.ii mhm wm w«II luited to him ai he had been •' aent away," wiib Paul a Irue Apoa- tie. by ihoProphelaandToacheraatAntioch. Toucan never prove from (he Sacied Scripiurea that ^drnnbaa waa ever a irue Apoaile in the aenae in which Paul or any ©f die twelve w»j much loM that he waa before the eeparaiion above men- ijoned. Thatefore, aa it regarda Barnabas, there ia no reaaon why thia circumstance doea not refer to his ordination. " It i» read.ly granted (hat Paul and Sarnaba» liad been enffaced Jn preaching the Gospel long before ihia time. But (here is no evidence that eilher of them had ever been ael apart bv human ordainera. 1( seemed good, therefore, (o (lie HolV Ohoat, (hat before they entered on (heir grand miasion to ihe Genlilea, (bey ahould receive (ha( kind of ordination, which wa( in(endcd to be perpetual in (he Church. No eiam- pie ofauch an ordination had yet been given. If the prac(ice were ever (o be eatabliahed^ i( waa neceasary that a. beginninir .•liould be inade. And aa ibea^ Mifaionanes were about to ,U*vel entong a people, who were not familiar wi(h (be rite of oidioatioo by (hoimpoai(ion ofhandj.ao well underaieod by IheJovt, It waa judged proper by infinite wisdom to aat Ihw enrople for imitation in itH tubsequent periods. And •■ if lo j^ve the atrongeat practical declaration of mini«lerial parity Paul, with all the elevation of hia gifta, and ail (he lua(re ef ""•■?*!■'?''* «''*"«»«r. aubmiited to be ordained. tofle(her «W "i* ^"••l*" B^amahat, agreeably to (he regular princi- Wee orChurch order, iy the Prophets and Teachera of the CIiurSchalAnfioch." (Miller'a Le(t. p. 60.) Second.' "^Iie 9rdaiiiera were preabylers. or not, in their ordinary capacity^ of an order auperioi (o pretbvtera. Thia ia tpe next point (o be proved. ' ^ the ordainefB on (hie occaaion vtttt>prophet$ and teathert. -Ml the /r»" Mtlnnl h" ro..l»»J }.:»!.-. - If the practice t|»at K beginning were about to r with the rile of I iinderil^od by dom to aet thia l8i And aeif 10 nialeriaJ parity, tU the luatre of dained, together I regular princi- Teachera of the Df not, in their tbylere. Tbia ia '.t$ and teaehtn. sre concerned in Certain propheta they miniatered, a and S«ul, &o." their handa on teachers" were ined ia a aettled etely in the way I miserable coo* tlieso ordainera lie apostolic or- rhey were not B can only be ist three officera le Church. Sd. isn" pfcsbyfcrs: rt$bytera men- d and doctrine. r," as propheta, were, like the Apostiei, «xtrnofdinnry (-fficerc, hut not equal in rank to the Apostlea in llieir exiraoidmnry clmrarler: in their ordinary capacity us Miniviere tlicy coimoi on tl>e principlce you advofcaie bo ranked higher than prc»byier8, olI.erHise jou will niako more than three orders. At ull cvenia, tliey were not of that order in the Church mIucIi joii suppnae only had the right then lo ordain. Vet, if woids und facta c an point cut an ordination, iheee tfficcra being prtebylcra. or holding no higher rank in their ordinary copocily than pitsbylera, did ordain, or fcolemnly act apart by losiing, and prayer ond poailion of handa, oihors lo the v\oik of the Minist im- nisiry ; am ihia too ••under l!»e immcdiole direction of the //o/y C'Ao*^ be jppofcd from en eaaenlini principle of Church gavernmcnt," •• But, oftor all, it doea not dealroy the argument, even if we concede that the case before us was not a regular ordina- tion. It wo* certainly a eo.'emn reparation to the work to which the Ilohj Ghost had called them. This ia the lan- guage of the ini-pired writer, ond cannot be controverted. — Now it is piinciple which pervades the Scripturea, that on inferior is never called formally to pronounce benediction on an ciBcial superior. It la evident, ti.ertfote, that those who were competent to aet ajrart ecclesiastical officers to a parti, cular Ministry were competent to set them opart to the Mi- tiistry in general. So far, then, os the office sustained by Paul ond Barnabas wos ordinory and permanent in its nature, the preihytets in Jlntioch weifi their equals. Paul, indeed, considered as endowed with inspiration, and with miraculous powers, wos their superior ; Lut aa a regular officer of tho Church of Chrirt. sent forth on established and ordinary ser- vice, ho waa not their superior ; and he embraced frcqnunt op. port unities of testifying thot this was his own view of the tu!)- ject." (Millei'H Lett, p 52) The next instance of oidinution by presbyters is the oidina- lion of Timothy. «• Neglect not the gift thot is in thee which was given thee by prophecy, with tho layina on of the handa of the PRESBYTEny," (I Tim. 4, 14 ) 'i his pajsoge com. pared with 2 Tim. 1, 6, I adduced in my Defence, (p. 27.) in proof that the ••solrninond impottant right of ordaining to the Sacred Ministry vested in prefbjicrs." But to my views on this subject you oppose scleral oljeclicns, which siiall be stated and answered in order. •• The question is," say you. " who ordained Timothy ?" You reply •• St. Paul sa}s, 'stir up the gift that is in thee by tho putting on of mt/ hands ;' " and you conclude, "then St. Paul was the pcrson'who oidain- td him." (p. 26.) I would here tike the liberty of saying that I have brsu)v\ cd much tlioi ght on this part of the discus- sjon, end .iiifr oil tic consideration 1 l.nvc been s!;!c lo give the subject, I nm more deeply convinced then cxer that the presbyters ordained Timoihy. If Tmoihy had supernatural gifts, of which there is no reason to doub*, they must iiavs Hi; r I I il U-i ■ 'iiii . "( £• lOf been conferred by lome truly opotiolic man, in all probability b) St. Paul. To Ihia *• g\h" of fupetnalura! power*, the Apoatlfl rerer8in2Tim. I, 6, aa having been imparled by Iho laying on of hi» iiondi. but, beside tliia. it if evident that ho •peaka in the oilier Epiaile, wliicii by il;e wny, waa wrillen first, of* •• gift" wliith waa conferred "with the laying on o( \he handt odhi preibytery.*' Iftlicreroro there wua no gift ron.r^oricaled with the laying on of the handa ofilie piea- bytery, the Apo»t!e did not alaie the truth ; and Timothy would naturally think St. Paul tlio next thing to being besido himself for commanding him " not to negleit" a tertnin •• gi*"!,*' when no " gili" had hcen bestowed ! You must try to let the Apostle maintain truth, even if you connot tnain- /am the ** divine origin ofEpiscopacy." The moat natural in- ference is, that the Apostle in the fiiat Epistle referred to Ti- mothy** ordination by the preshyiers ; m the second to his •upernatuial nualitications cnmmunicaied dy the pulling on ol his, the Apostle's hands. Whether ihese versca lefcr lo one event or to iwo separate tranasctions it ia perhaps impossible now to decide with unerring accuracy ; iho' I now, after ma- lure deliberation, incline lo the belief of the latter. But on (he supposition that they refer lo one thing, the ordination ofTimoihy, it is plain, as any'axinm in mathematics, that the presbytrra were equally with the Apostle concerned in the matter. But you ask " did they join in the act by right, and of necessity V I answer, they had the right to ordain by virtue of omce ; th« exercise of this rifiht in ordaining Timothy would depend upon circumstances. But you asvert, *' their right is not so much as hinted at in Scripture," and hence you conclude they had no right ! Neither is the right of St. Paul to ordain, or any other Apostle, expressly mentioned m the Scripture ; and hence, according to your logic, St. Paul hod no right ! That pte^byicre possesfed the right lo ordain to the Ministry has been already proved, and as lo their right lo unite with him in the ordination of Timothy in particular the Apos- tlo waa the best jtidgtt of that. I humbly conceive that he would not countmnnce them in on act of usurpation, nor re- mind Timothy to improve a gift conferied on him by such an act! But ** d;d they join in the oct of necessity 7" You think not, " because all will admit, tint ordinations performed by St. Paul alcne were perfectly valid." Necessity is abso- lute or relative: there might have been no absolute necessity for them to unite with the Apostle, as, were none others pre- sent, he himself would have been sufficient. But there might have been, so to speak, a relative necessity, arising out of ex- pediency, and a due r<;gard to solemnity and what is becoming. Ecclesiastical canons require generally three bishops to ordain another. SuppoEO, then, in an ordination of a bishop six bish- ops and Hia Grace of Canterbury were In unite ; query, would four of the seven join in this act " by right and of necessitvV' ty- Would tho fact that three were aufficiont for the purpose, and that their oi and tliooth) there waa ni they had no stani'o that the Apuntle Now how c lion ? Uuv By tho com we know Ih positive del lual •xerci»i belief of the exnrciso of i (ton, be it n the presbyK ordination o that they di rpeak, and i bylcrs in thi of one who J not presume stance, for i currence." byters in th( presbyters a the right at ly of the cat unite with t dained a |)r palians, in was, at this were ao, ho ordination ? Church, are thefttsAo^, the Christie presbyters fered presh con^ecraiioi would be ar kind. To t case joined ordainers, probation. 'inposing ha Or were the Besides, aft hands in on their appro Scripture ; II probabilily poworft (lie arled by tlio .'ident ihat ho wos wrillen he laying on there waa tio J< ofihe pies- and Tiniolhy being besida t" a cerlnin You must try ;onnol main- oit natural In- ferred to Ti- econd to his ) pulling on of !s lefcr to one ps iniposiibie ow, af'ier ma- iler. But on ihe ordination iticf, that the corned in Ihe by right, and to ordain by ining Timothy Bstert, " their and hence you ht of SI. Paul ntioned in the it. Paul had no ordain to the r right to unite ularihe Apos- :eive that he }ation, nor re- rn by auch an iity ?" You ions performed essily is abfo- >lute necessity no others pre- al there might sing out of ex- at is becoming, hops to ordain jishop six bish- query, would ofnecessilyl" I purpose, ond that their ordination «a« perfectly vol d, prove that His Grace and llio other llirre bi^liopi had no r lojoiii in the act, they had no right loordiin ? Yuu proceed: " tlio mere circum- stani'O tliat the prpiihyterB laid on their hand;* togeilier with the ApuKiie, does nut at itll prove their ri|>lit to urdijin."— Now how CO you know thiK .' Who gnve )nu ihis informu- lion ? liuw do you know the right ot Ihe Aposllus lo ordain ? By the commisxon and authoriiy given them: in like manner we know the nght of presbyters. Scripture is silent, as to any po$ilive declaration of this ri|;ht, in regard lu buili. The ac- tual >xorcise of tins right by ilio Apostles confums us in our belief of their previously purrcsaing this right ; so the actual exercise of this right, tinder apostolic supervision and direc- tion, be it observed, confirms us iii a similar belief reppeciing the presbyters. Their union therefore with the Apostle in the ordination olTiiNoihy proves beyond all reasonable doubt, that they did really and truly possess the rigiit of which we speak, and ihnt the Apostle recognized this right But *' prea« bytcrs in the Churth of England lay their bunds on tho head of one who is lo be ordained j7rtes( by the bishop, but they do not presume to claim tho right of ordination from Ihis circum- stance, for Iho ordination is equally valid without their con- currence." But whit does this prove, that, because ** pres- byters in the Church of t'ngland" r/oiHi not their right, the presbyters at Lyatra and in the Apostolic Churches, had not the right at all ? And then you strangely overlook the impari- ty of the cases. Tho presbyters in the Church of England unite will, the bishop in laying hands on one Mho is to be or- dained a priest ; but *' let it be remembered, that all Episco- palians, in this conuoveisy, take for grunted, that Timothy was, at this lime, ordained a dioiesan bishop. But if this were so, how caw\ presbyters lo lay their hands on him at his ordination? We know that presbyters in the Episcopal Church, are in the habit of laying on their hands, with those of Ihe bishop, in ordaining presbyters; but was it ever heard of, in Ihe Christian Church, after the distinction between bishops ind presbyters arose, tlial thoro who admitted this distinction suf- fered presbyters to join with bishops, by imposing hands in the consecration of a bishop 7 No ; on Episcopal principles, this would be an irregularity of the most absurd and inadmissable kind. To this our opponents reply, that the prtsbytas in this case joined with the Apostle in tho imposition of hands, not as ordainers, but merely lo express their concurrence and ap' probation. But do presbyters, even in IhiK sense, unite in imposing hands in the consecration of a diocesan bishop 7 — Ur were they ever known to do so in the Episcopal Churches ? Besides, after aii, tho whole idea of some laying on ihcir hands in ordination, not Ds ordainers, bu( merely to express their approbation, is a conceit without any foundation in Scripture; contradicted by the oailiest and best records of a hands ; hut in 1 Tim. 4, 14, it is only tneta, with the layirg on of the hands oh liaye noticed Dr. Moson's reply to thisarytment.as urged by a wri- ter styling himsell Layrnnn? As in all probability you allow yourseFflo read but oiie Bide of this controversy, except when forced upon you as my ccmmunicalions have been, I will (n- vour you wiih nn extract to show you how this stole objection has he«n answered. •' We are sure that a very little acquaint- onto with Giftk is sufficient to plutk away the feathers wiih vhich poor dia end mtta have been mace to adorn his (Lay- man's) plume. •Z>jasignifies,tmphatical!y,thecaiiseof a thing.* (Layman.) " For exuirple : It is easier for a Camel to go through (dia) the eye of a needle (hnn, &c. Matt. 19, 24. Jeiut u jSndag days. Ml ?'Now here? Di nify the cc of the day the (irst ?- spending I Layman si in tbea^ in •• The fi of a thing, idea of tri to correapc Whether ,ii muat |>6 dt " But in that we ha •itjofi of P, excluaion c coiDDiisaioi tedent fw and' we ow M>«r a^t>A ifit aow.^v "From ever or wl guatitranaai M'egleet n< pr0pbecy, PaSBBTTl moihy was gine that a the aecQun who had m criticaj.((g( no! Ibia iaj not presbyi the presbyt I arn to)d b wae given I did not ord tion! '• N this Layma he will eith suit him, \i Irary to wb mouth of ai tion by the Iha Virgin J 105 to evade the iiiy one to pro- , or iVoni any cd jeats after is fanciful cup- hicli Si. Paul I of tny hands I ordination (of I. Pati'8 con- fed is dia, by 14, it ia only eiibytcry. For and meia iho Timoiliy, with er Eolemnily of lUo." (p. 2e, cd the manner B ; but I do noi r cause. 'J lie n either you or advocatee of ly puerile and parity. Says n thofe epithets 'e ; ror ehall I ics of that cause 'oundcd on tlie . It is enough are not able to ticifm and quib- • regard ; that nfwith, and ex- it the objection in their applica- ance even of the iocetan Epieco- u, if >ou liave urged by a wri- lility you allow sy, except when leen, I will fa- s Etaie objection y lillle atquainl- he feathers uiih idorn his (Lay- ng.' (Layman.) dia) the eye of Jtiut went ranovOM (dia) the earn field$. Mark 2, 2S. Jnd ag am he entered into Capernaum, ArTsn (dialaome days. Mark 2,1. ?' Now what •" cauoe" does the preposition dia ezprnaa here? Do«b it " emphatically" as the Layman epeaka. •'•ig. nify the cause" ol the needle's eve? -of the corn-fielda?— or of the daya^-orthe " cause" of the Camel's going through the hr8t?-of our Lord's going through the second ?— or of hie spending the third before he wont into Capernaum. When the Layman ehall have found his emphatical aignificMtien of dia m theae instaiices, he rosy oall upon ua for a hundred more. *• The fact is, that this preposition never signifies the cause of a thing, whatever Ihe "Lexicona" say. Itekpreses the Idea of trantitioH or tran$mi$$ion, and has no Engiiah word to correspond with it so well as the preposition •• througktl' Whether It is accompanied with the notion of a eaue* or not, must be determined by ihe phrase where it occurs. " But in spoiling the Layman's criticism, we «cknowledM that we have net overthrowB his argument. For i/the mp»- sitiop of Paul'a hands was the medium through which* to lli* exclusion of the presbytery, ho alone conveyed the ministoriel coi^mission to Timothy— and V" this act of his formed a pr«. cedent for all subaequent ordinations— the Layman haawon, and we own Timothy to havo been episcopally ordained: wiie- thei a WaA^p or iiot would still remain a queatioa. Tliese */«. oowevMT seem to be rather anti-episeofkal. !•< i " From the words of Paul, we should coitclude, that who- ever or whatever else might have been concerned in this au- gu«,tranaaciion, a matecial part of it belonged to the presbytery. JVegJeet not the gi/t that it in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on or thk hands of thb PBSBBTTBRT, A plain reader would certainly say, that Tl- mothy^ was j»re#6y/erioMy ordained J as he could not well ima- gine that a presbyteriao himself would have choaen to word the account differentljr. But this would be the error of one who had never heard what marvels can be effected by a liitio criln«i.l|tgarderoain operating upon Greek prepositions. Ob* no! this lathe very text which provea that his ordination wae not presbyterial! Astoniifhing! 1 see Timothy bowing before the preabylery. 1 see them imposing handa upon his 'lieadi I aiu. told by the apostle Paul that the gift which waa in him Was given him with the laying on of their hands; and yet they did not orrfam him! •• No!"~Had no share in his ordina- tion! "No!" Gave him no gift at all! "No!" Verily tlira Layman is unceremonious in his behaviour to tvordt; for lie will either allow them no meaning at «!!; or else, as it may «uit bim,^ they shall mean in the mouTh of an apostle the ooti^ trary to what they ever have m^nt, or ever ahall mesni in the moulhof any other man! JVb ordination I JVo commonioa.. lion by the preebytery 1 Why* that old Jesuit who had foiated ina Vjrgiq Mary iptt^ every chapter of the book of Proverbi^ >: , ,; t V b ■«^iij-'i It ! s! 3 i i! i ;|i 106 could not himielf been more fnniaetrcal! How in the name of common aenke, is the presbytery disposed of? Softly, zealous friend, softly; ihou shall see. Hero comes the mBgicion; hm wand shall louchlhe little four-leitered vocabule '•with," and, lo, the whole presbytery will evanish, and leav« only a lingle ordaining hand! •• The circumstance of the apostle using a word in relotion to himself, which denotes the instrumental cause," viz. dia; ." and with respect to the presbytery, a word which, particu- larly as distinguished from dia, expresses agreement," viz, meta, " ahotos clearly that the authoritative power was ves. ted in him; and that t'lie act, on the part of the presbytery, was «n oct of mere concwrrence."— (Layman.) •• So they wrap it up ! Let Us try to unwrap it a little, and iwewhether the bundle will bear examination. So far as we can perceive, there is nothing here but a play upon words; and the argument consists in the jingle. The interpretation of the word used iy the apostle is bent and twisted in Such a manner «s to induce the unlettered reader to suppose thfat it expresses the ojseni of one person to the aet of another. We db not object to the Layman's translating meta by "concurrence," for, according to our great English lexicographer, •' concur- rence" signifies •' union, association, conjunction;" •' agree- mtnt, met of joining in any design or measure;" " comfcination •ofmteny agems or circumatances," fcc; tHit popiilar and col- loquial usage often employe it when nothing mote is intended than an approbation of an opinion or a measure. It i* in this «ense that the Layman uses it; and it is here that his Criticism puts a fraud upon his reader. We do not say that the fraud it intentional; before we can prove this, we must prove that he understands Greek— which we humbly beg leave to decline. But we shall freely give him the ••eight or ten yeafs" which his.friend has craved, (Hobert's Apology, p. 260.) in order to ^•uppoit his construction of me/a by tl»e proper authorities; and be shall have •• the best lexicons of the languoge" into the bar- Aain. . " But as we do not ask for credence to our bare assertron, we shall sui»ject the Loyman'fl distinction between dia and meta to the test of fact. «• It is to be recollected," says he, " that the passages are in his (Paul's) Epistles to Timothy, relatirig to the same sub- ject; and of course the terms (viz. dia nnU meta) must be re- garded as contrasted with one another." •* Be it so, I open my New Testament, and read, that • ma- ny signs and wonders were- done Bv (dia) t/jc Jlpostles.' (Acts 2, 4S ) Proceeding in the narrative. I read afterwards that Paul and Barnabas rehearsed ail thin^fs that_ God had done With (meta) them{A it a little, and So far as we ipon words; and pretalion of the ikuch a manner lii it expiesiea '. We do not • concurrence," >her; *' concur- ion;" •* agree- ' •' comkination poptilar and col- nore is intended re. It is in this hat his eriticism f that the fraud let prove that he eaVe to decline, n years" which 250.) in order to BUihorititioTt. d^ Timothy had remained a layman. The-prtoiftyterB did thus concur ; they did lay their hands on Tifflcthy, and 'he receivi^d hf^ office.—- Now, as the prophecy made no piirt of his ordination, it fol- lows that he was ordained by the pfresbytery. If the gift which was in him by the imposition of Paul's hands was his ministe- rial commission, that Apostle had no share iii it which was not common to every member of the pt-esbytery ; or also hiadec- iarfttion, that Timothy was ordained by prdpheey, with tfao laying on of the hands of the presbytery, woiild not be trae.— Nor is there any thing in his exprMiion whiteh might not be used by every one of his coileag«ies,«hd with peculiiiir proprie- ty by himself, if, as it is not improbable, he presided at Time* (by's ordination." (Claims p. 1 18, &ti/) This lengthy extract, which I hope yon will excuse, will convince you (hat I g to the nature B conferring of ifsons in a con- \e of them, not ged to produce i of the apostohc lands was used I the Rev. Char- er of (he Divine lyterian Ordina* •'To say that it The poitit to be did signify. If, aed authoritative -dination of Ti- beg the ques- plainest mean- ian construction ys that the gift \h the lading on t that prophecy, designated hhn nvest him with ftfennothlifgeise nissioh. '■ It was the •prbsbylery' in, 6t Timothy us hecy, with the I not be true.— I might not be >eculiiir proprie- eaided at Timo- lengthy extract, )u that t 'hbve s of the ordina* lity assist you scopacy^ " iticism on dta giiment to prove •• It is Ifeyond sbyters-; in the er and' St. John jstlea thea, ooi- 109 lectively, may not improperlj be styled a presbytery." (p. 27.) 1. It is not beyond doubt ihiit the Apostles in Iheir ordinary capacity were superior to (lie presbvier-biiihops of the Scripture. That they were, you have all alor^g assumed, but never proved. 2. 1 grant that S(. Peter and St, John call (hemselves presbyters ; and therefore arffue, that m (heir or- dinary cspocily, (hey were (ruly and properly presbyters, and no( superior (o (hose presbyters who were made overseers of the Church by (he Holy Ghodt. 8. If you allow (h«{ by (he term *' presbytery." the Apostles collectively are meant, von destroy your own arguments respecting (he difference of rank be( ween Apostles and presby(er3. For (hen Apostle and pres- byter will be convertible terms and prove sameness and not diversity of order. A presbytery must be composed of indivi- duals: if l!io collective body is a presbytery, the individuals of that body must be presbyters, otherwise the whole would dif. far from its parts. Hence it (he Aposdes collectively consti- tuted a presbytery ; then the Apostles individually were presbyters ; and as ordination appertains to them in their ordinary capacity, then if the Apostles were collectively a presbytery, and individually presbyters, the ordination of Timothy was presbyterial. 4. This criticism overthrows your whole argument drawn from the meanings of rfia and ntese who concurred with PaiU in the imposition of hands were simple presbyters, then, '* 4. What ordination did Timothy receive .' Was he ot- diined i presbyter or » prelate 7 If the former, his Episco- pal character, in eo far as it depends upon his ordination, is swept i^way ; and we have not a single instance of the conso- oration of a prelate in all the New Testament, If the latter, then, " 5. How came simple presbyters to impose hands upon the bead of a bishop at his consecration ? Or supposing these pres- byters to bftve been prelates, where was Timothy's commis- sion? By the terms of the argument, he was ordained by Paul alone ; but according to the Episcopal order, which we are assured," by its friends, " is the spostolical order, tteo or three bishops are necessiry to ordain a bishop. (See Can. ,&pos. Apud. P. P. App. torn. I. p. 442, ed, Cleriei, and Bisif op Beveridge's Comment.) And so poor Timothy was net or- dained a bishop at all" — (as you affirm that he was ordained by Paul alone.) If, in order to give hiin his rniirc, wo inakd the presbytery to consist of Apostles, or men of apostolic rank, we not. i9(ily prostrate the Layman's famous criticism about dia and meta, but are left without the vestige of aa ordination by a preiaio alone, in so far aa that point is to be made out by thoordii example of presbyleria •• We ca prelatical f " Two tl and that a our Episcoj in laying hi jointly with BO Timothy second, the they did no pressed the •• • The I fust, we loi second, we makes dia vested in P presbytery shows, will not vested i bylery, wai is nothing i a circle anil for prelacy p. 128, &c. vincing pro Ynur las presbytery Church offi presbyters.' Not to me of the same styled bishc or goveinai you have a Why if the] WAS OROA sent to orda wonder afi« nion, a con have been : Vou have b Paul atom ther a Cour "lily cowci tually con concurred cedes the p VJERT Cou Ill • " of eourstV ind Mr. Shreva f* '« origin of 9u --.t main- drift of the ar- words : well let 'Epiacopacy lies y ia upon it, and n. Your feeble of the ndvocalea lauie by anawer- I they must na< irvice i as hia ordination we have a com. jon. If the for- of their hands, inds on Timothy relates? If the imself a power right as it could 'ender thus their how could the iriai gift, while the very sume eir assent ? red with Paul in I, than, ' Was he or- ler, his Episco- s ordination, is ce of the conso- fthe latter, then, hands upon the osing these prei- lothy'a Gommis- as ordained by order, which we cal order, two op. (See Can, 'leriei, and Bisk- ithy was net or- B was ordained itiirc, \vo tHikt f apostolic rank, criticism about of as ordination to be made out by the ordination of Timothy. There remains nothing but an example of ordmation by a presbytery, which is all that tho presbyterians desire. ••Wo cannot dismiss this point without remarking how our prelstical friends shift their ground. •• Two things are to be proved : that Timothy was a bishop ; and that a bishop alone ordains. For ihe first, according to our Episcopal brethren, the presbytery, who joined with Paul in laymg hands on Timothy, were bona fide prelates, who, jomily with the Apostle, imparted the Episcopal dignity ; and so Timothy is a bishop without any more ado. But for Ihe second, the presbytery were not prelates ; or, if they were, they did not ordain jointly with the Apostle ; they merely ex- pressed their approbation. •••The legs ef the lame are not equal.' If we adopt tho fust, we los« the proof of ordination by a bishop alone. If the saeond, we lose the ordination of bishop Timothy. The latter makes dta bhow " clearly, that the authoritative power was vested in Paul," and meta, that •• the acton the part of tho presbytery was an act of mere cencorrence." The former shows, with equal clearness, that the authoritative power was not vested in Paul alone ; that the act on the part of the pres- bytery, was not an act of mere concurrence ; ai:d that theie IS nothing in dia and meta to eatablish the contrary. When a circle and a square coincide, then shall these two argument's for prelacy be consistent with each other." (Mason's Claims p. 126, &o.) This extract, also, will sflford you another con- vincing proof of the verity of the old adage, •• Doctors differ." Your last argument reads thus—" It is incredible that the presbytery heia meant should be a Council of the grade of Church officers, who are called in these Epistles elders or presbyters." But why is this •• incredible ?" And to whom ? Not to me ; and to many others. 1 verily believe they were of the same grade exactly as tiiose who are promiscuously styled bishops, elders, presbyters, and to whom the oversight orgoveinanceof the Church was divinely committed. But you have a reason lor this incrediditiiy ; and what is it I— Why if they were—" then the absurdity results that Timothy WAS ORDAINED by a Council of the very men whom he was sent to ordain «nd govern !" You may well put a note of wonder after this senlenco ; for it contains, in my humbte opi- nion, a concession which contradicts point blank all that jov have been striving to maka out respecting this ordination — You have been endeavouring to establisti l^e assumption that Paul alone ordained Timothy ; that " the presbytery, whe- ther a Council of Apostles or of presbyters, pror riy so called. mly concvRRED WITH, together with St. ^ :, He ac- tuatly conveyed ministerial authoritv. Thhy assented, concurred in this act." Yet the above senlence actually cor»- cedes the point " that Timothy was ohdatned by" that rjjRY Couwcii. I Now if Timothy was ordained by that Hi!' ,|;N "'1 I . \-, I I' t III Council, or by (he pre«byl«ry, one of two lliingi muil rdlow. l«l. Either 8l. Poul did not ordain him at all. 2d. Or that he did not ordain him solely. Tiie simple quoMion then to be decided is, who compoxed this presbytery ? Were they preu- byieis acripturally 8o called, or wore they of an order tuperior to presbyiert ? Reasons have already been assigned, in a quotation from Dr. Miller, to show that iheierm " presbytery" doea not here meun any other than presbyters truly so desig- nated ; and Bishop lay lor, in his £pisfopacy asseried, (p. 191,) says, "The piewbylery that imposed hands on Timothy, i*, \iy all antiquity , expounded either of the o^ce, or of 9 College 0/ presbyters •' (Powel, p. 55.) Igniiiiug uses the word •* presbytery" to eignify a number of presbylfr$, as dis- tinguished fiom him whom he styles bishop. *• To whom," Ihe bishop, "your venerable preibytery, worthy of God, are fitly j<»ined, fcc. (Epie. to Ephesians, § 4.) <' Obeying ytmtMi$liop and yoiv pteabytery, &c." (lb. ^ 20.) •• I sa- lute your very worthy bithop, and your venerable preehytery." (Smyrnaeani;. § 7.) The •• presbytery" here, beyond all rea- •enable doubt, means the pretbytere fit elders, or those whom you call " presbyter-bishops." Hence, if Timothy toat or- gained by (he presbytery, as you aiBrtn in tiie above quotation, then, beyond alt reasonable doubt, be was ordained by pres- bjrtera or eldora, or (hose whom you style presbyter.bishops. But this you think involves an •• absurdity :" vix. •• that Ti- ,moX\tj waa ordained by a Council of the very men whom he was sent to ordain and to govern." The absurdity results only from (be manner in which yoa put the case. There ia no .absurdity in the idea o( equal» ordaining an equal; otherwise U would be absurd for bishops to ordain a bishop. But your maoner of stating the caso makes it appear as if Timothy was ordained by ♦• the very men" whom he waa ofterwardt sent to "ordain and to govern." This was not the case, however: b^ waa ordained by presbyters, already in office ; the persons that he was afterwards to ordain were not presbyters or in of* fice, before hands were laid upon them ; ai>d hence, if two and two make 8tle was present, ds on Timothy," ou, who abound leal so largely in guilty of what the question.— HI The presence of an Apostle ond the laying on of hi$ hands would certainly prove his right to ordam : but how this neces- sarily proves that presbyters who were also present, and laid on their huiida likewi>e, hud no right, ia what you have never shown, es«>epl by mere anerlion. Prove thai the presence snd the laying on of the hands of the Apostle nece$iiar% excluded tho presbyters who united in the act of Timothy's ordination /row flWij-AMo ordain, ond then you will write to purpose: but this you know you cannot do. "By comparing these two texts," I have gained every thing I wanted, and have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Timothy teas preBbj/lerialli/ ordained. Another instance of presbylerian ordination, is recorded in Acts 14. 23. "And when they (Paul and Barnabas) had ordained them elders in every Church, nnd had prayed witlj fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they be- lieved." Observe hoie that this ordination was by the con- joint *ci of Paul and Barnabas : " they" ordained eldeis, &c. Paul was truly an Apostle : but what wa« Barnabas ? You have, 1 am aware, associated him with St. Paul, as an Apostle. Both, I grant, are called " Apostles :" biit that Barnabas was not an Apostle in the actise in which Paul or nny of tho twelve was, is so evident as not to need any formal proof.— He was a Messenger, a Missionary, a preacher of the Gos- pel, and had been sent away on a Christian Mission with Paul by the propliota and teachers at Antioch. He was, as hoe been already observed, in this sense an Apostle, but not in tho sense which implies his participation of th6 prerogatives of " the twelve" and St. Paul. That he was in the true aposto- lic office equal to Kt. Paul, contrary to your own professed mode of reasoning, you build your belief on the more nanie of '♦ Apostle :" on tho same ground, if the prophets and teachers of Antioch who ordained Barnabas oitd Paul, had been called " Apostles," you would have them also Apostles truly bo call- ed, or have associated them in apostleship with St. Paul and the twelve. JVames are nothing, soy you in another place, official powert are every thing ; or •• for names we must not contend, bocause that would lead to endless confusion, as it is very svident, that in many instances, the name neither con nor does define the ojieta/ flowers." (p, 18.) Prove then, in some other way than by the mere name, that Barnabos waa an Apostle, in the sense in which the title is predicted of Peter, Paul, and John, before yon argue that he wos of an order highet than that of presbyters. " Besides the twelve Apostlei appointed by Christ hinoself, there were in tho primitive Churches, Apostles, or Messengers, chosen either bjr the twelve, or by the Churches themselves, to go to distant places.' on special servicet*. In this vngue and general sense, the word Apoatle is repeatedly used in Scripture. In this sense, Barna- bas and Jlpaphroditus *te called Apostles. In this sense John tilt Baptist it called an Apostle by TertttlUan, And in the llii: 1 ^ liif ill ' r^y' '*li ^ :.- : ] » •ame Mme Ihi. name i« opplied by early Christian wrUeri Jo he ttv,„tyd„c,pha, end to those who prop.g.ied the Go.pel long .fler the ■po.tolic age." (Dr. Miller'! Lett. n. 60.)- See Ihia alto abundantly proved in Powell', learned and el«. borate Eaeay- On Apoitolical Succeaaion." (p. 86. &c.)-a work which I take the liberty of recoinmendinif «o you as a perfect antidote to the high-church/wer; the reading of il would have a cooling effect, I have no doubt. It 18 perfecily evident then that you cannot justly claim any superiority over presbyters for Barnabas from the mere title Apostle, used as it is. in reference to him, in o general sense. Indeed his ordination by " the prophets nnd teachers at Antioch. who were either presbyters, or did not ranit high- er than presbyters, is sufficient to settle the question : by them ho could not have been ordained to any rank higher than that of a presbyter. But Barnabat, with Paul, otdnined ; which IS another unii^nswerable poof of presbyterian ordination. 5. There is not o.^c znstanck rkcordkd iw the New Testament of an ordination perfomed by a l?iocESAN Bishop, either by himself alone, oh con- jointly with any of the Apostles. In a certain publication, which you rull •• Aw Address," you have asserted in Capital Letttra that "Ordination By Presbttbrs Is Not Supported By a Single Text OF Scripture. " How for you understand texts of Scrip- ture, the previous remarks and proofs will convincingly show. That presbyters united with the Apostles in ordaining to the Ministry cannot, with any propriety, be denied : No, not un- less we deny the Scriptures. As for tho quibbles, invented in modern tiroes, to evade the force of Scripture testimony, the Word of God knows nothing of them ; neither should we.— The necessity of having recourse to these auibbles should ex- cite suspicion in an ingenuous mind, a mind open to conviction, and convince it of the erroneous character of that cause, which requires the support of such pitiful aid. However, when I read your sentence against ordination by presbyters, I could not help but say to myself— «« Mr. Shreve would have us bo- lievo that he wishes to be guided implicitly by the Word of God. Let him then carefully examine that word, and he will discover that Ordination By Diocesan Bishops Is Not Supported By a Single Text of Scripture." Where IS the text ihat proves to the Contrary ? Such a text never has been produced ; such a text never can be produced. Apostles. Evongelisis, and Presbyters, are said to have ordained : but never that ordination was performed hv a diocesan bishop- It is true you have assumed that Timoihy arid Titus were dio- cesan bishops, 6ut the Scriptures do not say either directly or indirectly, that they were. Thot the Angels of the Seven Churches were diocesan bishops, you have also taken for grant- ed ; but that they were, the Scriptures either directly or indi- rectly, do not affirm. Not one hundredth part so much can riilian wriiera (o ;aled th« Goapel K Lett. p. 60.)— >arnttd and ela* (p. 88. RDEI> Iff THK RFOMBD BY A LLOME, OR CON- An AoDRKaa," " Ordination SiifGL.E Text lexta of Scrip- ivincingljr ahow. rdaining to the d : No, not un- iles, invented in testimony, the r ahould we. — bblea ahould eX" »n to conviction, lat cause, which owever, when I byters, I could lid have ua bo- Y the Word of ord, and be will I8HOPS la Not URE." Whore a text never has iced. Apostles, I ordained : but cesan bishop. — Titus were dio- ither directly or i of the Seven taken for granl- directly or indi- :l so much can 113 be said in favour of Iho tcriptural validity of ordinatione per- formed by diooeaan bishops, as can be said for those porfurined by presbyters. Not even conjointly with any one or more of the Apoalles is it recorded that a diocesan bishop ordained to theMmistry. If I err here, you c— easily provo it, by ad. ducing the passage of Scripture, which declares that diocesan biahopa united with the Apostles in the act of ordaming. No\f see the poaitiun in which you have placed yourself, by your bold aasert inn, an assertion too, not warranted by the plain words of inspiration. You have affirmed that •• ordination by presbyters la not supported by a single te.it of Scripture," when I have adduced three instances in which they did ordain ; and the real atnle of the case is, that you cannot adduco a sin- gle text from the New Testament to support ordination bv dmcesan bishops ! ' It will avail you nothing lo say that diocesan bishopa have taken the place of the Apostles and Evangelists; as we are now considering the $eripture examples of ordination. Whe- ther they have in reality aucceeded the Apoalles, to the exclu> sion of presbyters -ia another question: but that they ever did tolelt/, or conjointly with the Apostles, i.rdain lo tho Christian ministry, cannot be proved from the New Teatamenl. So that as tar as Seriptureexamplea are concerned ordination by pres-' byiers haa decidedly the advantage over ordination by diocesan bishops. 6. The New Testament, in no one placx, Ar- FIRMS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT DlO- ceban Bishops, to the exclusion or Presbyters, ARE THE Successors of the Apostles; and *ibncb the Divine Obligation op Diocesan Episcopacy falls unsupported to the ground. To support your theory two things are to be proved : • « 1st that the order of the twelve Apootles was to be sn otdinnry, ttandmg order in the Church; and 2ndly, yoo must shew di- sine law. Positive divine law, for the exclusive succession of modern bishops to the rights and authority of these Apos- tles, tor if the order of the twelve Apostles was extraordinary and temporary, the claim to succeed them in that which bad no contmuaoce beyond themselves, iso vain presumption: and » there be no divine law for giving to Bishops the exclusive rights and authority of I jie twelve, then the assumption of such rights and authority, without divine law, is an impious as- su.Tipiion, and an attempt at an intolerable usurpation in the Church of Christ. " This being the stale of the question, On this point, we come to enquire into the proofsi. " The proofs produced are of two kinds, first, geriptural; secondly ecclesiastical. As this is .. question o( divine right, scriptural authority alone can decide it. Ecclesiastical or human authority, as authority is impertinent, and can decide nothing, Hovever, we shall exomine it in its place. ;|j i! i¥ iH 1)1 H i ■ ** Firel (lien (ho leriptural proofli. The cliime being ao high end anful, (he pruof* must be cleir, plain and powerful. Dr. Barrow'e reniaika on (he matter of proof t aa (o (he Pope'a tiipremacy, will hold with equal force aa lo Ihe aupre- macy of Biahopa. We aiiall in«erl ihem, with word* in braok- «(8, ahowing (heir application to this ayetcm — • It', at.)8 ha, ' God had deaigned the Biahopa of Rome \_Bi»hof>a a$ •«- prtme over miniatera and people] lo be for a porpetual course of timea Sovereign Monarch [Monarchtt] of hia Ctiurch, it may rcaaonobly be auppoaed (hat he would expre$»ly have declar- ed hia niind in the cave, it being a poiii( of grealeat impor- tance of all iliat concern the adminittration of l.ia kingdom in the world. Prince* do not use to tend iheir Vice- Roy a unfur- niahed with Palenia f/ear/y aigniTying iheir commiaoon, (hat no man out of ignorance or doubta concerning that point, oscu* (ably may refuse compliance; and in all equity promulgation ia requisite to|the erlahliehineni of any Law, or exacting obe- dience. But in all the Pandect* of Divine Revelation, the Bi- abup of Rome [or, the tupremaey of Bithopt,] ia Not so much OS Ohce mentioned, either by name, oi by character, or by probable intimation; they canno( hook him [ihem] in other- wiao than by straining hard, and framing a long chain of con- sequences, each of which is too subiiio for lo constrain any man's persuation. In the Leviiical Law all thinga concerning the High Priest; not only his Designation, Succession, conse- cration, Duly. Power, Maintenunce, Privilege of its High Prieal, [of Biihops, a$ High Priestr} whereby he [ihcy] might be dirouied in the administration of hia [their] office, [of their Supremacy} and know what observance (o require. Where- as i-. . , :., p. ^??5,&c. ed. Lond 1630, 4 lo.) Thusalso speaks t -?^ in in-I ^uMin^fleat in his celebrated Irenicum: ' \¥a shvii r: ■ .s't. sise naturt: ' 'a r>iviNE RiQHT, arrdshev whereop "(■ un .'scrablo Divi vi! Right Most be lounded." Very wel! : now high churchmen say that modern Bishops havo t/irine rig:At to Mho rights and authority of Apostles.'. Let Stillin^fleet state the law of the case. ' Jui (Isw) is (hat which makes a Ih ng to become n duty : to jus quasi Ju$tvm, BndjussaJHra,»» Feslua explains it, i.e. thot whereby a thing is nut only lieitum (lawful) in men's lawful power to do I IT cUinii baing ao n and powerful. rooft ■• to the ki lo lh« aupre- word* in brook- — • It", ••,)■ ha, i»hop8 a$ iu- lorpetual oourie iCtiurch, it may 'y have dttlar- greaieat impor- 1.18 kingdom in ica-Roya unfur- mitiion.lhat no at point, oscu* promulgation ir exacting obe- relation, the Bi- m Not ao much haracier. or by [liipni] in nthei- ^g chain or con- > cnnatrain any linga concerning icceision, conie- ge of ila Higli he [iliey] might I office, [nf their iquire. Where- I Boris, and doth :l and obedience a it not airange 9by we might b' the UniverBBJ ally considerin , and ivho inteii- ie perpetual in- Bile auch a pre- it one auch pre- J void nil con- 1 the Pnpe'a Su- 4 to.) Thus alio rated Irenicum: iuHT, artushri' BT be founded.' modern Biahopi V of Apoailea.'. Tui (law) iathal s quati jut$um, I hat whereby a wful power to do I M it or no, but ia made dehitum (duly) and ia eon$titulfJ a iltt' ty by the/orre iiid viriuo of a Divine CoMMA^o. Whai- aoever bmda Cliritlmns ae an umverHxl aiandiiig law, viitst be elee.ilif revealed a* bUCH, and lid down in aciipture in atic/i Evident Termm, aa nil whr> run their aenfea exercined iheroin, iniiy di«cern It live l! oaptJRni, urid llie Lord's Suppea>* (Irenitum. Part ) . ip. I ) Lot, ihen, siicii a lnw, bucIi • a divino Roininar . , i' e end of the world ?" After poinimg nut •• lh« difierent significaliona of Ihe term Apostle" and '• the prerogativea of the twelve Apostles, aa were Exclusivei.t poaseased by them, at diatinguiahed from all other gospel ministers whatever," Mr Powell pro- ceedk— **1 believe there is nothing more than these five prtirog lys, ' Those who d Apostles. But ip;i'ime re$emblanct Mtles, exercieed. ? of the eB8e.>-- it prove? That limself positively in his day, they nd Ambrose, as le ancient Bish- ns, that .ipssile iahops.that they lelves the name ies destroy their 3le«s fabrication ) was the Ap- \ of it catch at 9 fifth century ; iptures, or the 119 purest and earliest writers of the Christian Church ' Tha Strxptures give no evidence for it, but the contrary. In those authors whom hi«h Churchmen quote with the greatest tri- umph, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Cyprian, all the evidence is agains this position of Apostle being the appropriate name for bishop. Everywhere their highest declamations are made for them under the name-wot of Apostles, but of Bishops.— What humiliation to men of learning, to lend themaelves to the propagation of such strange perversions of the facta of the early history of the Church ! " But does not Ambrose say, that bishops were, by eccle- siastical writers, called Apostles at first? He dses. But he does not say that bishops exclusively wore called Apostles.— He knew better. • Many were called Apostles by wavofimi- tatton,' says Eusebius ; (E. His. L. I, c. 12.) an earlier and better authority on such subjects than Theodoret or Ambrose. So he calls • Thaddeus. one of the seventy,* an Apostle. The learned Valesius's note on the place is as follows :— •• Apostle here is to be taken in a large sense. After the same manner every nation and etty termed them Apostles, from whom they first received the trutl. of the Gospel. This nmme was not only given to the twelve, but All their Disciplbs. Compa- NioNS and AssisTAWTs were gkwerally called Apos- TLBS. They all acted as Missionaries in spreading the Gospel. The word Apostle means a Missioqary. See. then, the goodly company of A post Its. Indeed Suicer shows that WoMEW. as well ai men, were sometimes called Apostles by eecesiastioal writers ; and that the Emperor Conslantine and Helen, were both frequently called, by ecclesiastical writers, ^ly J* • *' -^Po^tolic compeers." (Suiceri Thesam. I. 477 and 14o9.) So St. Aagustin says. •• that generally" in hiB time, •• It was applied to such as were introduced irtto the Ministry. He divides Apostles into four classes, and says the third sort who were called Apostles, in his day. were such as were smuggled into the Priesthood by popular favour — •' favore vulgi in sacerdotium subrogati." (0pp. Tom ' 4 App. p. 9, ed. Sugd. 1664) Jerome is plainer still. He makes the same division of Apostles into four classes. In the hrst he places Isaiah, the other prophets, and St. Paul : in the second. Joshua the son of Nun j the third he states to be. When any one is ordained by the favour and request of men. As we now," says he, •« see many. Not according to the will' ofGod; but by ftn&mg- the favour of the multitude, become smuggled into the priesthood." (Comment, in Epist. ad Ga. Jat. Lib. I. cap. 1.) Here it is plain from the testimony of these treat men. earlier and hAtfAr nothnriiioa than "i'S -(--li 'K" ^^ their days, any priest, all priests, even the Worst of priests, or presbyters, were Commowly denominated Jlpostles.— Groiius shews, that the Emperors Honorius and Acadioa. iti their laws, called the Jewish Presbyters. Apostles. (Grotii Aiinot. m Poll Syn. IV, I, 280.) Tertullian expressly callith* ►/ ''•" W ¥ ir f'. 't 120 nevtnty Disciples, JiposileB ; (Advorsus Marcion L. 4, cap. 24.) Ihouflh Bishop Taylor declares that ihoy were only pres- byters. Chrysoaloine and Theophylaci, also, are mentioned by Esliuson 1 Cor. 15, 7, as applying the term Apostle to the seventy ; so also Erasmus and C ilvin, on the same place. " Such is the result of eccleniaithal authority, as to the ap- propriate name of bishops. Bishops were sometimes called Apostles ; but not bishops qnly. * * " But if the argument from il>e name fails them, what was the fact, as to the thing itself? Do ecclesiastical writers soy that bishops were in fact, the successors to th« prerogatives oflhe AposlleH ? There is no doubt that they soon began to write in an inflated style about bishops. Their opitiioHS arc worth no more than their rensons for those opinions are worth ; their opinions can decide nothing without, or against, the Scriptures. We have seen thai, in fact, bishops possess no scriptural claim to \\\9 prerogatives of the twelve Apostles, But do ecclesiastical writers, really say that bishops possessed these prerogatives? Do they say that bishops have iV/imedtQ^e inspiration of vi\i!ii they loach ? that they are infallibWi that they have unlin\ited authority as to doctrines of faith and morals? or that they have the prerogative of communteaftng tliej)«u>cr to work miracles} Spe.\k, ye lofiy succession men ! Ye are silent ! You dare not say that they do ! I dare say that they do not. Prove me mistaken. Nay, so far p8 possess no 'elve Apostles, hops possessed itkve immediate ire infallible 7 lies or faith and ommunicating tfiy succession at they do ! I I. Nay, so far cessors of the tiquity for bish- f his Epistles, le place of the your Pretby- 9t all reverence AS THB Cojc- be Presbyters ly bishops go- They say that 1, i. e., by the resbyter (Am- 's sake, and for ap. 1,) ^oalled the presbyters Apoalies — the I Trail ) And )Ut bishops, de> I of Presbyters ; to act in this ishops now go- Conference, at .) Declaration, exercise their o/prtibyteri. 121 Bishop Goains (one of the most learned bishops in the Canons, Councils, and Fathers) presently replied, " If your Majesty grants this, you will Unbishop yowr bishops." (Calatny'a Abridg. of Baxter's Life and Times, Vol. 1. p. 171, Lond. 1702, 12 mo ; and see decisive evidence on the same point in Abp. Usher's Reduction of Episcopacy.) V Do the early Fathers say that bishops had, by divine right, the sole power and authority o{ ordaining to the ministry * — Never ! Ignatius says, that presbyters were not even to bap- tize, nor do anythinn, without the bishops. This no more proves that they could not oidain than that they could not baptize. But the Fathers give us the reason of this restriction upon presbyters, \'i7. that it was for the Honour of (he bishop, for the peace oftho 'burch, and to prevent divisions: so sav Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine. All this proves 'heir opi- nion of a iftvme right for good order, and peace in the Church, and that such an arrangement was the best way of securing these ends ; and it proves nothing more. All deduc- ed from it besides, is mere sophistry and chicanery. • * • " The early bishops were, indeed, frequently called Apostles by ecclesiastical writers, because they then were the chief in preaching the Gospel, and converting the heathen to God. — This is what our Missionaries now do. They are the mo- dern Apostles of Christianity. Xavier, who never was a bish- op, was the Apostle of Japan. But when do our modern bish.. ops undertake this labour ? At the time of the Reformation Latimer lashes them for their entire neglect of preaching > Stimulated by the zeal of other Churches, a few peisons have gone out from the Church of England as bishops omongst tbb heathen, aa the Bishop of Calcutta, &c. Let them have their due praise. The writer honours such men as the present Bishop of Calcutta. However they are not strictly Aposto'li* cal Bishops: they generally go where tbe labourious JIftsston dry has First /ate/ the Foundation. There perhaps ha. not been a siu^/e instance, fur the last thousand years of a bishop deserving the title o( apostolical Bishop, by going t« preach Christ whore he was not named. Away, then, will all this parade about Apostolical Bishops !" (Powell's Essay« 2d Ed. p. 34, &c ) That diocesan bishops, to the exclusion of piesbyters, havQ come in the place of the Apostles, there is then no proof, nei* ther from Scripture, nor from the earliest and purest antiquity. There remains, as far as I know, but one objection of yourt unanswered respecting the validity of ordin&tion by presbyters ' It is stated (p. 28,) as follows— " And, Sir, to allow you thq very utmost which can be allowed, aa, by yoiifown confessioi! presbyters only assisted, or ordained * in conjunction with Apostles and Evangelists, it must of necessity follow that t« assume that right alone, is in direct opposition to the word ot God, and is a usurpation." You confound two things, which ate perfectly distinct. 1st. Tho right of presbyters to ordain ^-^ r; • i ' S *1 ♦• i' 122 m- I ii. M -; by virtue of office ; and 2ndly, the exercise of this right. Ob- serve, their mm«o« with iha Aposiies did not confer on thorn the right of ordination : but on this notion your wholo objection isfounJed. They had the right before Ihev exercised it, in- hcronily vesting in them by virtue of office." It is true they exercised this right in conjunction with the Apostles ; though in the ordination of Paul and Barnabas it appears to have been by presbyters, or those not superior in order to presbyters, alone, and also, in the ealinrjation of some, as it respects the ordination of Timothy. But be this ua it may: suppose in every instance they united with an Apostle ; yet it is true that iheir right was not the result of that mere union. Hence, they could e-xercise it either with, or without, an Apostle, as circumstances should require. If their right did not result from ■ mere union with an Apostle in performing the act o«'ordina. tion, then the presence or absence of an Apostle could not af- fect their right ; only, the presence and actual conjunction of an inspired Apostle in any one instance would prove, beyond all successful contradiction, the approval of such Apostle, of the exercise of (he right to ordain by presbyters. Thus the exercise of their right io ordain in the absence of an Apostle, which did not depend on (he presence or union of an Apostle, would not by any means be a usurpation. Again— the Apos- tles and Evangelists were but men, and as such, were subject to death, and did actually die. After their departure, with whom must presbyters unite to save themselves from the charge of being guilty of •• a usurpation ?" With Apostles and Evan- gelists, they could not. after the former were dead. With Diocesan Bishops? Why with them .> The Scriptures do not say that they are the exclusive successors of the Apostles and Evangelists: in fact, it says not one syllable abuui them ; it knows them not. But if they were successors of the Apostles, must presbyters unite with them i Why then, do diocosan bishops cjiic/jiic presbyters from the right of ordination?— Why do they assume that right alone 7 And thus act «' in direct opposition to the word of God," and prove themselves guilty of *• a usurpation ?" It was zeal, without either prudence or knowledge, that led you in haste to affirm, " The truth is, sir, that the more open- ly our opponents engige in this controversy, the more do they expose the weakness of their cause." (p. 28 ) A pply this to those who maintain " the divine origin of Episcopacy," and I will subscribe to the truth of the fact contained in the state- mant. That you have exposed the weakness of y.iwr cause, is but too evident. Why you canmt prove from the Scriptures, that the Apostles and Evangelists, in tl.eir ordinary capacitv, were superior toSonpiuro presbyters— nor (hat a presbyter was ordained a diocesan bishop by any of the Apostles or Evange- lists—nor that such an officer as a diocesan bishop was ap- pointed in any ofthe Apostolic Churches— nor that the New Testament once mentions such an officer, or inculcates any r (his right. Ob' confer on (hom • whoio objection exercised it, in- It is true they postles ; tbougii srs to have been to presbyters, IS it respects the nay : suppose in 9t it ia true that iniop. Hence, an Apostle, as i not result Troni le act o<*ordina< lie could not af- conjunction of d prove, beyond luch Apostle, of ers. Thus the a of an Apostle, 1 of an Apostle, ;ain-~the Apos- ii, were subject departure, with from the charge tstles andEvan- 9 dead. With sriplures do not le Apostles and abuut them ; it of the Apostles, 1, do diocesan r ordination ?■— 1 thus act *• in ove themselves riedge, that led the more open- j more do they Apply this to scopacy," and id in the 'state- i/iiur cause, is the Scriptures, narv cnnAoitv. I presbyter was les or Cvange- ishop was ap- that the New ncutcates any 128 duty in respect to him— nor that such an officer ever did in any one instance, either separately, or in conjunction with an Apostle, oidain a person Ic ihe Chrisiian Ministry — nor ihat diocesan bishops lu the exclusion of presbyters are the succes- sors of the Apostles and Evangelists— nor that diocesan epis- copacy is at all binding on the'Ciirislian Church— nor that or* dination by a diocesan bishop is essential o a valid ministry— in a word, you cannot prove from the Word of God, one single iota of all that which goes to constitute the exclusive system of high-churchispi ! Whilst I have proved from the Scrip- tures, that the Aposiles did ordain elders or presbyteis, and none to a higher rank — that elders or presbyters were officers well known in Apostolic Churches— that they preached, and administered the Sacraments— that to them was committed the governance of the Church by the Holy Ghost, and that they did rule the Church— that St. Paul, in taking his final leave of the elders of Ephesus, addressed ihem as if he consi- dered them the responsible officers of Ihe Church— that eidera or presbyters, or persons not of a rank superior to prosbytert, did actually ordain to the ministry, both separately, and in conjunction with the Apostles— and that, in fact, they po8ie*> sed by virtue of office, and actually exercised, all the p9v;era, which appertained to the Apostles and Evangelists, as ordinary Ministers of Christ. And yet you talk about our exposing the weakness of our cause by engaging in this controversy! If you do not find you have exposed (he weakness of yours, bj this controversy, then it will be, because Scripture testimony is out weighed by your confident assumptions. Xetter IX. The Testimony of the Fathers considered. Ret. Sir. You seem to think it strange that I "do not respect the testimony of the primitive Fathers more than I appear to do," (p. 35,) tho* I firmly believe that their testimony wheh impar-* tiallv considered ta&V.^i Qfainst instead of for Ihe cause you espouse. I answer once for all in the language of Chillinq- WORTH, an eminent divine of your own Church — " The Bible, I say, the Bible only ia the Religion of Protestants ! What- soever elee they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a mat- m i .1.' 1 t *-i''l 1A\ 124 ter of Opinion ; but as matter of Faith ond Religion, neiiher can they with coherence to their own jKfoi'i'da believe it them- selves, nor require the belief of it o( others, wuhonl most high and most schismntical presumption. 1 for my part, after a long (undl verily believe and dope) impartial search of the true way to Etetnal Happiness, do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my Fool, but upon this Rock only. I see plainly and with mine own eyes, that there ate Popes against Popes, Councils against Coun- cils, some Faihets agdinsi others, the same Fa'iiers against tkemaehes, a consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another ago. the Church of one ago against fho Church of another age. * ♦ In a word, there is no suffici- ent certainty hut of Scripture only, foi any considering man to build upon. This therefore, and this on/y I have reason to believe: This I will profess, accordmg to this 1 will live, and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly, butevea gladly lose py lile, though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me, Propose me any thing sut of this Book, and require whether 1 believe it or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said so, therefore it is true. In other things I will take no man's liberty of judgment from him ; neiiher «Aa/; any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse man, nor the worse Christian : I will lovie no man the less, for difienng in opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others I expect from them again. I am fully persuaded that God does not, and therefoie that men ought not to require any more of any man than this. To believe the Scripture to be God's word, to endeavour to find out the true sense of it, and to live accordinc to it." (The Religion of Protestants, a safe way to Salvation, p. 379, 1687.) A few cxlrecls from Bishop Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying, will also show reason why I am inclined to pay so little attention to the writings of the Fathers as auMori/y in determining questions, which should be decided by the Scriptures. " I find," says he, *' that the ii'a- thers were infinitely deceived in their account and enumeration of traditions ; sometimes they did call some t'aditions such, not which they knew to be so, but by argument and presump- tions they concluded them so" •• If I should but instance in all the particulars, in which tradition was protended, falsely or uncertainly, in the first ages. 1 should multiply them to a troublesome variety ; for it was then accoun'ed so glorious a thing to have spoken with the persons of the Apostles, that if any man could, with any colour, pretend to it, he might abuse the whole Church, and obtrude what he listed, under the spe- cious title of apostolical tradition." " I consider, if the report of traditions in the primitive times, so near the ages apostoli- cal, was so uncertain, that they were fain to aim at them by conjectures, and grope as in the dark, the uncertainty is much inert upon an in that (here how easy i first, to ih< thirty-five ous, all mc demned by est admirei and eigthy it is eviden and no mai impaired, apocrypha apostolical did give as the one ha were calle« the testimo of believini (Section V auth'ority < ofdispuie, things, to I am certain the writing termixSure iiames, so i clearly ex) fession mac what theme is a great ir that we ha receive fror as is the a " There is of any com touched." ceding slati Church, I ( iDgs of the not worthy BS being in " Address,' loo, altho' •nitive Fat!- tame souri I have yet Having, ments, in f ly drawn fr Religion, neither I believe it tliem. s, wiihoMt mo»t 1 for my pari, iripartial search profess plainly )f my Fool, but mine own eyes, s asfainst Court- Fa'liers against gainst a consent ago against iho ire is no suffici- isidering man to '. Iiave reason to i 1 will live, and illingly, but even that Christiins ing sut of thia I seem it neverso iribeit with hand le stronger than [n other things I m ; neither «Aa/^ man the worse man the lea*, for sure I mete to IT persuaded that ot to require any Scripture to be ' sense of it, and oleslanls, a safe >cls from Bishop w reason why I writings of the which should be " that the Fa- and enumeration t'aditions such, It and preiump- 1 but instance in Blended, falsely litiply them to a ed so glorious a Apostles, that if he might abuse i, under the spe- ler, if the report le ages apostoli- aim at them by uncerif inly is 125 much increased since." "And now that I am casually fallen upon an instance from the canons of the Apostles, 1 consider that there cannot, in the world, a greater instance be given how easy it is to be abused in the believing of traditions: for first, to the first fifiy, which many did admit for apostolical, thirty-five more were added, which most men now count spuri- ous, all men call dubious, and some of them universally con- demned by peremptory sentence, even by them who are gieot- est admirers of that collection ; as the sixty-fifth, sixty seventh, and eigihy-fourth and eighty-fifih canons, For ihe first fifty, it is evident that thete are some things so mixed with them, and no mark of diflerence left, (hat the credit of all is much impaired, insomuch that Isidore of Seville says, * they were apocryphal, made by heretics, and published under the title apostolical ; but neither the Fathers, nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them.' " " No Church, at this day, admits the one half of those things, which certainly by the Falbera were called traditions apostolical." " We are acquitted, by (he testimony of the primitive Fathers, from any other necessity of believing, than of such articles as are recorded in Scripture." (Section V.) "It is not honest for either side to press (be authority of the fathers, as a coi^ctuding argument in matter ofdispute, unless themselves will be content to submit in all things, to the testimony of an equal number of them ; which I am certain neither side will do." " I shall only consider, that the writings of the Fathers have been so corrupted by the in- termixture of heretics, so many false books put forth in their iiames, so many of their writings lost which would have more clearly explicated their sense ; and at last, an open pro- fession made, and a trade of making the Fathers speak, not what theiiiselves thought, but what other men pleased ; that it is a great instance ofGod's providence, and care of his Church, that we have so much good preset ved in the writings which we receive from the Fathers, and that all truth is not as clear gone as is the certainty of their grtut authority and reputation." "There is not any one of the Fathers who is esteemed author of any considerable number of books, (hat hath escaped un- touched." (Section VIM.) If there be any (ruth m the pre- ceding statements, taken from eminent divines of your own Church, I am justified in recording my opinion, that the writ- ings of the primitive Fathers, in the way of authority, " are not worthy of much regard." And yet because i quote " them 88 being in my favor," you represent me, in your remarkable " Address," as being guilty of a " contradiction .'" And this, too, altho' I had expressly told you that I relied upon the pri- mitive Fathers " only to meet your ss-jjumefits drawn from the tame source J" (Defence p. 12 ) I ("this be a contradiction, I have yet to learn what a contradiction is. Having, as I think, successfully apswered all your argu- ments, in favour of the divine origin of Episcopacy professed- ly drawn from the Scriptures, and established from the Word ii Mery impartial reader, that this account agrees only with the system of parochial Episcopacy, and ihat on any other principle such a plan of procedure would be ot onceim- practicable and absurd. •• Tho last cireumslance relating to the primitive bishop, which serves to fix his character, as the pastor of a single con- gregation, is the nature of that service which he was accus- tomed to perform. The early writers speak of Ihe primitive bishop as performing, in general, all the baptisms in his flock ; as the onlv person who, in ordinary cases, administered the Lord's Supper, as constantly present with his people when convened ; ss the leader nf their worship ; as iheir slated pul»- Jic instructor ; as visiting all the sicji under his care ; br cate- diising the young people several ;ime8 in each week j as having the suporintendency of the poor, none of whom were lo be relieved by the deacons without, in each particular case, con- sulting the bishop ; a? cclobruling all marriages ; as attending t ■ I III 1 { i • ii8 ill funerafs ; ai under obli »ilh every individual of l.i« flock, not overlook •orvant Igaliona to be peraonally tcquainlad « flock, not overlookinir cvnn i»,« -nier, and maids ; as employed in"hVt^,un d2?J}l^ among no-Khboure ; and besides all ibe.e a VnSa.f.T" apbne o. Ins socie.y. receiving and Irct^d 'ng" i "er" t pastor, of particular CburcC To rppJae^ t" a,".h«J" "'" dK^cesan bishop. Laving a number of coKga ol wf.hZ' n^JtoVT"' ""^" 'heir control, is *a s^o hio: too ab ■urd to be for a moment admitted." ( Miller's Lii loa t. \" " Respecting the primitive Churche . and .he nature if .hi Epiacopaty which first prevailed." sav. ProfLnr u I e'tSor;'""* ""/ '' ««'^-«'^ frZi'rf Ro"^^^ spoken *o^^». ,;''"«''•.*''' 5"^ ""» «''«'"»' P^'n^itivo bishop town or city agreeably ,o .he uJago of the New Te..ame"«: mmmm% Mart. Apol 2 ) • ?or^ ^sLva Ian 'T'''"^ -none place;' (Justin follow iZ ' Tf Y! "" P^i"""''" •h''^^' " »''«P. do yo thebishoprd,!.TwhXoirrA^''A *'.,*''"'' '" ""''* ^y ooep,aco''ofmee;i:;aher p an3 s'p^oT.rrS was one communion. • There is but on« « f«. . "^ ' i *'" • a. there is but one bishop!' The • wl^le fa A h-fV h""''"'' present at .he celebration^„d Justi^ Mar.l^^V 's lar^if any were absent, the eucharlMt was 'sent .„ fhfJt'.u 129 >nally tcqnainled ooking even the etlihg tliflerences ending lo the die- g members, &c. d perform these Can any impar- il these details of other than the that they were atione, with sub- pposition too kb- 9 Lett. 198, &c.) he nature of the ifcssor Hoppus, ent of Rome, the leus, Teriullian, rimitive bishop rhe church ov)r 1. tn, or at e. v lew Testament, or neighbour- mber of houses I of this 'parish Carthage;' and churcii parish- that locality, Ipist.) On the t place;' (Justin the bishop is, lotbing without sheep, do yo so much force, h is made by was commonly opie, so there aajB Ignatius,, herhood' were eejB, that, if • them by the praying in the Jhristian poor, and strangers; ) extent of the i bishops, we ioned inciden- [uently,' says It would ap- > was but one I that • Paulus Samosaleniis, tlio horiiical bisi «f Iho cliiircl».' Wh lop, refused (ogive up ihe Iloudo on Anierus bisliop of Home, died about A. D. 236. "all iho brethren met (oaoiher. in (lie •I^Hurch, II) order lo choose l.is successor. Cyprion. bishop of Loriliagp. knew every one of his p.?riple of l.is charge; and when he v\ us exiled, he cent the brt'thre (rod ids. II, and to nid any who niiaht wuni a iiif!«snn^jers lo pay offilie debts of issistaui-o in their We leurn that Fuuliis Sainosalctius} me tioned abovp, had many (luderers among the bishops of the udjacrrt « ..uuiry ploct-e and ciiies. Zolicus was bii>hop of the villa;y ..f (Jon.iine; and it is probuhle ihut many of the eiahlv- eovei. h,^ho,,^ as.«mbled at Curlln.gn, in the year 258. were p/.. tors or«!j«cure vill«ge.diurclie.s for ilio very names of the piacee are unki own lo iho ger.grnpherp. In i>.>ine inilances, the tongre- gadon came pirlly from >he neighbouring rural districts; and all who composed It, both of city and country, met together; and I he biahop preached and administered the eucharist. (Jus- tin Martyr. Apol. 2 ) Now it cannot be doubted by anyone who impartially examines these and other testimonies from the fathers of the primitive chuich, (hat Urn EpUcopacn which ;ir»*prevr.Jcd. was congrega(ionalor;>arocAJa/;and (hat what- ever flM/Af^n/y there may be in early precedent, /Aa/ autho- rity is ^erlamiy not in favour of diocesesan Episcopacv."- (Prize Essay or Schism, p. 147, &c. where references are made to tbe authors quoted in support of the various position* ad- Uaviog thus abundantly proved that primitive episcopacy waanot diocesan hut parochial, I now ask, what proofs d» you offer that the Primitive Fathers considered Ihe officer whon» they style a bishop, to have been of an order superior lo a •cripture presbyter or bishop, possessing rights incompatiblo with those of the latter, and especially the exclusive right of or- duialion? * (1.) That a bishop was of an order superior lo a presbyter » Doe^Ci.KMKN8 RoMANus? No. Hetproves the Contrary. You think, on (he passage I quoted.' he speaks of three dis- tincl orders. Thus' Chnst was sent bv God—the Apostles by Christ. Thoy (Ihe Apostles) appointed the Hrsl of their con- version to be bishops and deacns over such as should after, wards belie»e.' Now, if one and two make three, then we have here the /Areeorrfcrs. i>7r.-i/— Apostle?. Sectwid— Bishops or Presbyters. rAirrf-Dcacons. " (p. 36. ) Are you serious ? Can you impose on your own mind after this rate ? Why commence first with (ho JlpostlesJ Clement begins wiih Christ, and you believe (hnt be was nn order in the ministry. According to your mode of (reatmeni Clement speaks of four orders, and not of three. If you reject Christ. 1 alsorejVcuhe Apostles. God sent Christ- Christ sent the Aposlies-and the Apostles sent— iisAojffs end doscons. Now here you un- designedly prove your own a.^serlion false, staled, p. 68, thai the term •' bishop" was applied and •• confined'* by the pii* iill :::i . ;3i ISO W. ijuiive writers to wl,at you c.ll "lUrt/if order"-; e >n or ««' d bishop, for prrnbyUr,! If .|.en .!,« ^p„,r/« .e.u owiv n fnt ' f . *^ '-•»*'>"'" •' Not .he ApoMles according .o Cle- BO oiler all, ,ou can make only i«o orders, allowmj dencons iive 'a.her* Your qnoiai.on re»peclmg ihe " hi"k vriett Ch.m • ""^ '"« ""'hmg lodowi.h .he orders of Te Ch. m, an ,«„„«„y. ^,^ j^ i„culc«.,ng on ,he Corm h an ^SaT/Ziir''^ "f;uhm.M,n,. ,o .ite., payors and of aoing all things m ort/rr, whnisoever the Lord liaih rnm ••witilhrl 7'""^?^' "''"''>«^^" manifested by , hose «l o hgl.i under oarll.ly leaders." «nd .o ihe order and subor d.na.ion observed by ,ho m.n.s.ers cf ,he Jewish pr.es.hood in V? 'n P'"fe<'«-" Let every one of you therffore brMhren Tn^i ■ T f" ^''«''«""»'^ Sacrifices am ottered only at ihe fh-T . u "'«" »''o«8 .hat the Anosiles... provided bv toold";;^; •''•^"PJ- r. P'^'^y"". '"d deacon, ovr.uch nl .hould a/Ward, bei.eve:" ,hat -.he Apos.les knsw by o" nameof 6„Ao;,rK/r.- .hat having .his perfec, knos^CdL thel not only cons.i.u.ed ihose we have nurned llzvrlb,Tj.,JA deacon.) but further gave direc.ions .ha. w e^Sf/^^^^^^^^^^ £{^^.;^:::f^:^u,;^-;a/^-ts^.-:J:^ TlZ^lT^^n ""'"'"'^';' «""eedtoihe.r m.nis.ry;'- (Row- «l ) — that '• those therefore ouaht not to be mst J„\r ,h «n.n.slry. who have been con.i.iu.ed 6v tV^voltl. nf T" Zr'c?' «i'-,"-"ent men. w„l. t.fe'ti:!^ fo^'ih^, hole ^i;:^;rp=;/'^n:;^;b^ iiiai the fiotk of CitriBi With the elders (or presbyters,) who I might be again in pea ce. The re IS not, then. 1 reassorl. the si .<»i. .f «.„..„,.. kpw.-;; .h. co„ZZ liave been set ghlest allu oi>fr sion it. in the to an officer su- ordor' ■I. e. Bti or- I Clcrrcnt iisca iho Ipotlles mm onlv who Kcnt the order » accurdiii(; lo CIb- yiers and duaioiia! , ullowing dencons ncienl o» I'loPrinii- ilie •• hif,'h prieit, urder8 ol lli« Jew- ilie orders of (he on the Corinthian iir poBiurs and. of e Lord lialh com- refers to the '* or- anifealed by those le order and siibor- wish priesthood in ce after these bUu« here/ore, brethren a cunscienc* void le appointed rule llbred only at the htert. And Ihejr a will, are punish- how much more lie greater is our ti», " provided bv ons over such as Mies knew by our iotiua about the : knovN 'edje, they z. pre s by I era and leii //J^y (preibj/- men eliould sue- aliona for these rtlien they died, ninislrj;" (Pow- casl oui of their postlfs; or after- ent of the whole y to Uiejloek of ; for it IS not a opric/t »vho have * He then ex- he sedition and msolvea In their again in peace, sen set over it." allusion, in the to an officer eu- Ifl governors, the ab,ete „!l'u i'lj';':!'''"/ eccles,„,tical r.nk. c»n U, MtiHf.ct.ir.ly aJcoZ. T^ 'f that no sud. officer was ecogi ze^ " . , " ■. ""'^ °" "'« ^^'^^ authority would. .„ the gi.enTehav. L '''""' '.'""^•'' than that of ' '"»«* Church Ueenrei,„rdo Tv rinlnn. *^;;"V''*** "'« Corinthian M deficient in fl « , Lo „ of .T. "^ Church at Rome. co,»form.d to anZlZl LZTT'""' r^""" "»' ''"^'"S ment. or from \V."lZ^^^^^^^^ "'^ church-govern'! faithful mm have exhorleS !e cho^ch ,„ r""i *'""'/"* '^" in? with the divine ordinance" " ^"'^ "^ °omply- div';nd;''ar.pt:rto r.::' VhosV;"" ^^^^^^ ''-• - -^ -- not for'.he li?st li^:. ,7 , ^ eK'S?::; "'""' "T' «"'* ments from the power with whirh .1 ^'?"""' •''^»* ^fg»- were invested, ife sS J'Uo j'ov' Kte'^on ''*''"""" authority, if such there were- o, Vr.l^ "° *"/"•«»»» rity.thal he .hou Id a I to rsis^'on hr ''"' "» «'"-V"'l'o. iog immediately consthutedT Vh,t er'w^rl .^^ ** '" '*" which Clement himself stood will re,Z^^^°"*.i"^ °" Church, certain it is EmsooJl.l 1 P^*"' '° "'" """»»'» epistle to the Coria tiifn'^t To^L"'"" "^''"P''«^' ^^«"> hi, l.avmg become ep.sctpTi ? ttluVo^/the'ti'';'? th'r"' co«i centHry. • Till the dati, of wi ni '""'«'c o( the se- .«a government (ihat o^t'he urcf. at^^rtl; ZfC ^*^'i ''> lypreHbvteriaU and wa dn nni 1 ^,''"""') had bean clear. ham, b. 2, c. I.' Historv of tJ,V r^ ■ ?' ''"° ^'"A^' Waddington. M. A. pJlZd's ;^^ ? ^s ^r'^ L'^'^rH ^'• p^8•8 Schism p. 127 &c ) isfhi«.T.- P ^"''P- right ? ^ ^^ *' ^'*" "'« "^"y yo" set person* op°w« ofTLTr"*^"" ""^' "'" °^"'- *^''»'" he styles bish- mous with presbvtar * rll aI T"*"^- '*"'''°P "» sjnorty- prove that he was not tiuiy and properly a presbyter. Epiiko- I ,. 132 pos signifies an overseer, a superintendmt : but one presbyter may be n suponn'.eridant of a parish, on wbicl. other presbv- ters are placed and be styled a bishop or oversfer by way of ^distinction, and yet be of no higher order than his brethren— I he word bishop, then, proves no higher order by divine law any more than th» word Hector proves that he who has the title 18 by divine Uw of a rank superior to the Carafes he may nave With him in his parish. ' Does PoLYCARP affirm the seperior order of a bishop over a scripture presbyter ? So. la the whole of his Epistle to the I'hiUppians, no reference either directly or indirectly, ismad^ to any Church-jrovernor superior to a presbyter. The just in- ference IS. the Philippian Church had no such superior officer. Ihe question is not, whAt officers had Smyrna, but what had t-hihppi ? The mere title of bishop being applied to Polycarp oversper by way of (in hia brethren der by divine law, : he who haa the le Curates he may r of a bishop over >r his Epistle to the indirectly, is made •er. The just in- :h superior ufHoer. na, but what had pplied to Polycarp boperior to a scrip- ed before, and as writera used the But you think *' if >t prove that there an it proves that t then his men- oere three. The as he mentioned. S the occasional ot in point. In I made of Chief ioftheNewTes- :arp, is there the ifficer superior, in or bishop ! You ne have been de- tth or driven from }rove that Philip. > expresses sym- hiiippian Church, ipentence :" it is ithv for the sups- , if the Philip. ther of the above owledge the das- )r" Episcopacy ; t. Indeed ! His e congregation, • or bishop, to mi WMparoehi- Bident"of Jastin a "bishop." — : the question ; Justin wrote.— 133 •• Reeres. the Transittor of Justin, a churchman, and who loses no opportunity of opposing Sectaries, allows, in his note^ on the pu3s«ge, iha tho pro^slas of Juaiin. the probati semort, oMertullmii, tho majores natu. in Cyprian's Works, (Ep. ^^'J,'"L^ ^['^ P';"e^iotea presbuteroi, or presiding presbyters, of St. Paul. (1 nm. 4. 17.) were al4 one and the saL. Now rertulhan Cyprian, (or rather Finnillian, the celebrated Bishop olCaeaarea, in Cappadocia.) and St. Paul, all mean fRKSBVTEBS. Their language cannot bo otherwise interpret- ed without violence. • IVesbyier,' gays Bishop Jewel. • is expounded in Latm by natu major.' (Defence of the A polo- gy.) The Bishop was, duubtless, included in the presbyter ; they were both one. Indeed. Irenaeus. in an Epistle to Victor. ! n ol^l^' days Bishop of Rome, thus addressed h.m, (about A. U.IQO) • The PRKSBifTKRs who. before Soier. Prksid- ED over that Church which you now govern.-i mean Anice- tus and Pius, Hyginus, J^elesphorus. and Xyslus." Hera this ancient and celebrated wr^i.. expressly calls those person- PRESIDINQ PKESByxERs, whom later wriiers Call Bishops of Korne. Ihisdemonsiratesthattlie President ineach Christian Church, in the time of Justin, was a presbyter." (Poweir. Essay. 2d Ed lOl.) You acknowledge (J. 138) that Justin here spake of the •• Church generally :" then the partieular Churches wl^ich corapr>ae the Church general had each a Pre- sident who has been proved to have been a presbyter. Now as Epjscopacy at that tiiae was parochial and not diocesan, it IS very evident that the f.resid,ng presbyter of Jusim was pre^ cieely the officer.-who at other times, for the sake of dislinc tion, was called •« bishop." Does IRS.VAKUS say. that the then bishop was of an order superior to a pcriplur.. presbyter? No. The preceding qUa*^. taliotj proves that he considered p-esbytere and bishops on. and the same order of Church officers. Anicet,„» and Pius. Chur'J^r^rr^ ^'■"'..""Ir P**=*BVTER8 presided over th» Church of R9me. The following „ from Mr, Powell's EssSy On Apostolical 6ucce85ion"-(p. itfi. 2d Ed. which is (he Ed tion from which all the extracts in ib.s Pamphlet are made.) K„.k '"""r' flourished about Ann. Dom. 184. He mentions boO^ presbyter and bisnop. but he uses them synonymomly.-^ Some persons who have only seen the Partial quotationn of nM.f in'; .?''"'"."*" *''"*""" <""«'• " «PP8ir in your P.un- phlet p. 50 '• tnaydoubt my assertion. However, they shuti ,llt "-^ '*«/«";'»"» "/'*«*« writer,. The^e divines ^have fl?r,!lK / ''"°'*'' Irenaeus about the succession of bi-hops. au InOliall.hA nioanl •> •••..»- — :._ _r. . , ... . . • -|. »T . • !'■ vT,-,:,,^,,, o, bisiioDS by dtviue »ighl, and U„r h*"'""^':"''"." ««<'«•""•» o' the Apostles. Lotus iZvZ 7 '^' °""»'."d«. He is in the foMowiog parage, S"/^ fr'"" "^'^ '•^' "" S-"-*/"'"-'. and pretended 2>a- «• that Tradition which has been preserved to us by the Soc- A"' : 'I I -<. 4 m\ fr'" 134 In the very celebrated Ep,?.le .hn„ ^ ' *'' ''^ J'°" P- 60.) B'Bhop of Rome, he speaks nfi®''"®"'"'"«<'. lo Victor of Ron,e ; though tl.e.e pe^sofs J u?^'**"' "*•" ">« Church oned as B.shops of Rome jre^a L'.k'."'"'*"' «'• •" 'eck" Pap'sts and high churchmen nuif,T^J*" "« •"• "ven by Cham : they have no chai^wSho-H .1'"*' ""° "•« '"cceesio J •aina mode of speakinrof ,hl' « '".'"• "« '«Peats xZ ••».es over in ihia /ette" ttoni; . r'"'^'"« P^^^ytera ,h .! a«y «^Aer; never Jalla'.rfahoor h"*' ^""^ ^^^^h " H op- «a Che Asiatic, but not as to T« p "'" "'° "'*»<' «>*«•»• a/mo,, lead one to think ,h«,',Le term "t"' ' ^''"='' '^o-'d hat age. was »tiU considered he mT/ T*"''^""-' •»' ^"'"e. in "ou. as ,t certainly „ems to ha v«^„ *"'*?'"'"*'* ''«'«'"«»na. and for some «in,e after For ih.tn '" "'• ^P^stle's days, vnte to the Archbishoo of cL^lri P"""5"«' b'^iop would haf-a-dozon of his pred^ecea^ar" r^h^*. %"'' '«^«^''"/h,ra ,o call them any thinj but «r!!/?? ''"" ^««' would yet never was the -nos.\ono*urab' f o:;'r%o"u?7' "* '"-^ht'l^ri J deemed rarfe and >aucy, who ehouirl""' \'*^ ""n ""^ bo Archbishop i (BarrowKn- e ""' '" ""»' «yle' to the f«re obedience ouJK b^ r^endeTedTn'^r^ ^^»'"' ' "'hVri! 'ers ,n the Church. WhoW as i A *•*'''" "'" ^""^y- from the Apostles, and who ^^hJu*'"!"''''*."' '«""««>« Episcopacy, have a sure depo^ of ,|1% ""f"'""* of Their to ibem aooordinff to tha o««^ i "* ''""'* divinely crantad properly ,„cA. • oui i« pZi ■ "*'*' '° ''« Presbyters, i • these p4fty,,;. hJ,"J Je7r. /'^;r/; ''V""'=«' ' Bui « presbyters have EpTJoiacvftTf'''*^ Succession, ^nd Church, rtt/c the Church in P?i^ ' ^'"."'* P'"'**''* over the fPaakin* still of preSr^a^r^^^^^ '" "'^ "«' "h-Pter! e'l. «. that we oSght Tfoh\k1'1'^u! °'". '^' ^'•"'«''. "o hough they held the chief seat .nH^ """" '*«'« "''c^erf! o .hose who joined ;,«rjy of rf^iJllT r'*'" *" <"•"»'« . Now those who arebv mmv rf^ 7*^ "* holnesa of life :_ ;n« their own ,„,„. and'no "L vi«7fhrr'*^'*^'"'' ^«» ""- •hem ; but being puffed up with , he .A.- 5" ?^ *^»'' before fjnsessio.) use other, with con.uj^el/ „'^"'''*' fP""C'Pali« None see the evil, we do inTZt.' .u "^ '" 'hemselves, heLord. whojud^e. „". ."- T ' '''•''« are reorov^rf hJ but according ti .?« W;;'-F;;t"^A;?*7J"» appearance"/. Bbpaiit; and to c/e/iH, #„ .u . ''^ *^<'H we ousht tn 185 "tion. The Church will «ourih !.' u '"•P~»=»'ablo conver- in Peace, and lhy£Uhon,inrTh, ' '^"'8"'« 'hy Prince, 'he Lord-pako/.wKJeSfoVfLT"'!?' ^f whom .lei whom his Lord shall dIaco o«!l a' I ^°°'' '"'' "«« servant. "P-44.) What canCraJeMtn .??{'''''•'*'*'• <'''''• ^ of presbyters and bishop, as IVeal'" """"'''"^"P"''- •Pafce of ihese presbv.ers whin h ' a '1* ">"• ""e Prophet were the iamb obdkb «„d j'?"i/"'''*'^''«' "'*"' 'renaeo.. lies." ""'■• «"«' equally sucee»»or$ of (he Apoa- Mr. Powell proceede— •• On. ««:-. ustorec.ify. 'i he hi/h Church T "**"* ''«""«• will help he meant /hat a *«. t.w'V.t,?.' ''""'^ 5"" " '^^8^ cording to their views wb?L. "^'"'^ of bishops «c- exutence of ChriSnl.rand fu''"^^''' NEC.aaARv'io th. ., that he means no such hiW "" '^'''""'"cea. We shall ..J leave those Ministers Jir/eaw/A;^!* ',1 •''"^*'' '^« •'« '• aims at IS this, to DrovB nn .,««„. j """' «• principal v or delivering ^oJ7^ZZlcal7:r, """^l"'^' 'une.iiZ n«» to succeeding genSonsf.ndh''"' '^^^"»' '"^ A^'»* *t<«m»o« of jtf/f,*; ""'T'' \ '.""^he U8e. the argument of a tiehops, .„ prove theTu; Ji J^ j^'';?;;!''"^^''"*^''-' "^ trous heresies of his darfni^lifiT* '«"""' "•• »"<»•«- or corrupted: jus* .. i,l .. " '* *'«ripiure. were rfenf*d terrupted'^and'urcorJord 7r!.2"' "^^'T' '''«'^«''' ""^ «mJ^ selves, and Scripmr^TRuxH to h"" ''^""' !<=«"^»«" 'hem- Irenaens soys. ^ We LTnoiVnowtrT ^^- Ao^-'dingK. otherwise than by .hosHeViZ .t^P^^^^ «/ -ivalioD. S/j *" come down ,0 us iSh'tfi?"^'' "''om the OospeJ tonal ministry. J//^ J«^ .? fir«i proclaimed by I he,, „«.. •ousi„,|.eir^divin1tefd'l''/''''"T*''*'« «^" •"•god' «'AK/i«-.re Ae«c.//,;":,T.J r. he^t '^^ Scored 8crip»„re7. I.AR of our F.,TH.' dTb 3 V M ^tT""^''"' ""^ ''''- ••avoid I he force of th 8 • Wh!n ' ''* heretics shi.ffled ;ures ,hev (,he here. i:' j acclnArV^? '"'"'" •"* ^^'P^ •he right do.inne. nei hi as ii/^w '^'^'"'^'"'•""s no. having contain views so rf/J,- . ,Va, S /" ''"'.^'"■''y ' 'haf they Jhose who are ignorant of tJI^ '"""'" ** understood by Dr. Hook, and 'e 0:?orS T^L.'ir^H Vk"" ""^^ '^"P"^ of thoravingsof the heretic/ and s." . ?* */'*" '««*'«»-ome "gaiPst whom we contend -nl ^V '^"'^ "'"'heper^on, but who wri««ie. /.r;;4 ' ?r h? *'"*'" ""'"'"^ ^"" *«'"* J,«mthe graVpoftiu.h ^Wh' £. *'*'^ '^"""•" '« •"""»?« Mode ofargumg against .h.m...*V*" "•"'» "'"' Eve/t thediscover^flhet'/rJr • "'• ^•"« confounded with •o.the truth'. (Lib 3 c 2 TT^e'' '' "'*"'';•'• ^''"^-' 'hem M.n...er.. (presbyter, and hi.\o;:;%rj,rhlS:rt?ly:; '■ft: M ■jiisi IK in the Chrislian Church, was one mode of nrgumcnt. Thi« was teeondarjf and auxiliary to another, which was the aucces iwnuf the doctrine ot Christian Ttuth,[ho sucression of the True Faith. Hear the great Protestant Champion, Whilakor, in the days of Elizabeth, speakiny of the suc- cesiion maintained by the early Fathers, Irenaeu:., &c.~ • Faith, therefore, is as It were the soul of this succession which being wanted, a naked succession of persons is as » dead body. The Fathers, mdeed, always much more re- gaided the succession of Faith than any unbroken series of men.' (0pp. v. 1. p. 606. ed. Gen. 1610 ) Ironaeus first r«- ,««saioa of Ministers in that Church : •• We shall declare that which was delivered from the Apostles, which the Church of Rome possesses, the Faith they preached to mankind; and which has «ome down to us throvfih a tticension o/bithopt Teaching to the present time.' (Lib. 8, c. 8.) Here a sijc- vcaasion of persons is made atixii'tary to the iiiain point, the ffucceasion of Faith. We allow this argument iis full weight. Where a real succe^ion of faithful Mmisiers has existed, it is •He mode of proving the true Faith But does Irenaeus say ihtt there ia no other mode, that no Churches have (he failh lirho have not this succession ? He never sqvs ao. He says *Mha Scripture* are Aence/orwar In his Epistle to Florinus, Irenaeus, styles Poly carp jjresfttt- _ ter. *• I am able to lestyfy before God, that ifil.at holy anda- ■f08tolicBlj»reflJ(yfer(Polycarp)had heard any such thing. "iic. > *'irAndfcU3," (himself.) we are told, wan Bishop of the Church of iyons in France. While he held this siuiion, he u^%a aeni by the Church of which he was pastor, on «ome spe- -<«ial ecclesiastical business (o Rome On this mission lie car- ried with him a letter from the presbytery of his Church, directed to Elentherius, Bishop of Jiome; in which he it ealled a presbyter, and in which they style him their brother and colleague. ' Father Elentherius, we wl^h you health in hII things, and always in God. Wo have requested Irenaeus, •ur brother and colleague, to deliver you tins letter.' &c.— •Hod the Ht\e of prc'fbyter imported at that lime, an order dia- ttnct from thill ofAitAnA nnH inforinr tn U ,..<>. .!>! tt.. ..,.:.«.. ••f this oj^rta/ recommendatory letter, bavo chosen a subordi- nate title for a man whom ihey meant to honor ? To use lbs language of Bishop Stillingfleet, • What could any one ima- gine from this mode of speaking, but that the bishop waa no- [iimcnt, Thia was was the aueces the succession of slant Champion, >kin(.' of (he suc- Irenaeui, &c. — f this succession, of persons is as I much more re- nbroken series of Irenaeus first rg- -■ous tenets aa (he 3n.'he««ilb, • Ui« itipn of the truth '.avhtdby them; iniioning (he euc- shall declare that ich the Church of roankiiid; and fttion of bi$hop» 3.) Here a sue- ilia in point, tht III its fuil weight, has exitited, it it loes Irenueus sav 8 have I he faith ys so. He aayi iho lime of the Faitk ' Does he iti> who are in tht sake those whose P|^\ycarp.presbt/^ ifilial holy and a- such thing, "&c. 1 Biehup uf the this stuiinn, ha or, on eonie spe- I mission !ie car- of his Church, in U'hiL-h he is im their brother ihh you health in iiesti'd Irenaeus, B letter.' &c.— me, an order die- • '*••** • I-^ »»Ft'?:FT hotiec) a suhordi- or ? To use the d any one ima- bith0p was no- 137 thing but the 8enior;,r«6y/cr, or one that had a primacy of order on.ong. but no div.nengh, .o o power of jnrJ,.,r.„Vr his fellow pie^byiers.' l.enicum '• (Miller's L-nt p. 154. &c DoesCLEMENsALEXANDHiNt/sp.ove thatbisl.ops «ere 01 an Older superior to scripture presb,iers? The whole retigth of your cause, as far as his '^e.uL.^ is cllernet 7)1J 'r''!,°"'« mentions. "Bishops. Presbyters, and 'fh« M*' ""^ °T "^'•"*3"f". £i-^hops, and Beacon,''' J he old argument from mere "names!" The woid bilhov granted that i does ; and hence wherever vou see the three JJAM.s you think this an ur.con.rollable svidence in flTvour of /Arce ORDERS ! Clemens was a presbyier, and he sny.. •• TVe wiio have r«/c over the Churches, are .^epherds oi Pastors, after heima^coMhe Good Shepherd." (Paedagoa Lib har '"P'^"'"/"'* i'"Propric.y 'of women ^e'.n^g^^re'n hair, among other arguments he uses In.s. • On whorJ or what will .lie pre..b!/ter in.pose his hand ? To\vhom or ^^hat wS he g ve his bie.8ine . . Not to the woman who is adorned, bu (lb. Lib. 3 ) 'Just so m the Church, the presbyters ore in- o'rdnatT' %', '''*"'>^f''«'*-«'ry ' d- DeacousVnU Zsl .„„' (Stromal. Lib. 1.) The Apostle John, • behold- lWrT^""'V'{' f'"-^ ^'^y' « ?"»'^*""« countenance. IJpr.ll ^t"""^'.''° '°°*'^'^ upon the iis/io/,, who was se overall, andeuid I commit this young man to thy custody in presence of the Church, and Christ bearing me wifne W^he" he had received the charge, and promised the performance of tiontet",!''''.,'" "• -^'^^ "/"'" "^e^*^' •'"'' "^«^« ^'OiLZ tionoflhe same thing; and afterwards departed to Ephesus. own l^:j:t^''!:t"^ ..».« vouno man.'bro,.ght him'lo his own nouse.&c. {L\b. Quts dives, &c.) •' From these px- ^ChJ^r r'/r^"'!^ •""' ^/-'^«^ '•>ough a presbyter of Ihe Church of Alexandria, speaks of himself as one of .(s Go- verriors, and claims the title ofa • Shepherd or Pastor after U^tmageofthe Good Shepherd,' a tifle which the firea" fhi r.r . f T' ""T"' ""'"««ledge lo have been g,>en in Jnl . r ^''"'.'^ '" "'« '"8''"' "'de' of M.nis.efs. He epresenlsihe^,fs6j,rers as inirusied with the dtgnified mini,. [li,^Z:'"^''f''"'ry afterwards a 'prs- byter, which we cannot suppose would have been done, had the supenoriiy of order (or which prelntisia contend, been k^nown in his day. I, ia fu„her supposed bv som.^ Z X" f^ZTllfJT "',7^1»'''''« "/hands on'ihe heads of iho'se hin? w« bit M ''''"'' " ''^'^^"'^'y doubtful, it is t».e first „ fl,7.? f ';" " ' °""1"")'' "f ""8 r"«» being practised ; but unforluna.ely for the Episcopal cause, the impVsiiion ol hands mi i' ■1-..-1 ' iel Ji^^ 1S9 here mentioned, ii ascribed (o presbylers. From these circuni' •lances, we may confidently infer, that Clement knuw nothing of an order of buAops, distinct from and superior to preaby- tern." (Miller's Lett. p. 167, &c.) Thus have 1 examined your proofs from the principal writers o( tho fir$t two eenturie$. Not one of them distinctly states that the officer styled by them a bishop was superior in oider to a scripture presbyter ; whilst all of them who use the terms, except Ignatius, use them as perfectly synonymous ; and the whole M^ength of your argument from Ignatius consists in the mere names o{ bishop, presbyter , and deacon, whilst Clement, and others o/Ker Ignatius, em;. Icy the terms, bishops and presbyters, interc.bangeably, in regard to the very same per- sons ! (2-) What proofs do you offer from the early writers that the officar whom they style bishop had rights incompatible with scripture presbyters or bishops, and enpecially thit he had the exclusive right of ordination \ Any from Clemens Romanus 7 Not one. From Ignatius 7 Not one. The only thing that looks like a proof from him on this part of tho subject, is the /'ollowing—" Let that Eucharist be looked upon as well established (or valid) which is either offered by the bishop or by him to whom the bishop has given consent. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to cele- brate the feast of charity." (Epis. ad Smyrn. Your pam- phlet p. 41.) Now keep to the point— the official powers of presbyters, as presbyters, and those of bishops, as expressed in this quotation. Pray, have not scripture presbyters divine right, or auth«rily, to baptize, and administer the Lord's Sup* per ? Why you have stated this to be their ofBcial duty, result- ing from their official powers ! (p. 13.) Audit' they have divine right to administer the Sacraments, they have diviim right by virtue of office to celebrate feasts of charity, which are not Sacraments , the greater includes the less. What superior powers, then, docs Ignatius here claim for his bishop thnt do not by virtue of office vest in scripture presbyters? None whatever. Ignatius Aas neoer said, in any of his smaller Epi8tle)>, which alone are considered as possessing any claims to genuineness, that a presbyter has not official right to or' dain. As a parocniai bishop, with a number of co-presbyters, or colleagues, he might not permit the acts in question to be performed without his consent. To this, and to this alone, do his expressions, as qm Clemens I one. The is part of tho looked upon Pered by the eonsent. It I or to cele- Your pam- al powers of as expressed )byters divine e Lord's Sup* il duty, result- if they have have divine ity, which are What superior shop thftt do yiers? None f his smaller Iff any claims t right iP or- co-presbyters, uestion to be this alone, do oes Polyenrp ion ? Not a ) any official ) them belongs farlyr ? Not kttributed any vest officially ordination. — e. In no one 189 place has he recorded it as his opinion thai scripture presbyter* were in sny degree officially inferior to those whom he calls bishops, and that to ordain was the peculiar and exclusive pri< vilege, or right of the latter. Thus not one single wriier of Ihe first two centurie' esta- blishes the ^rst pomt which you are required to prove, viz. that they considered the officer whom they styled a bishop, a diocesan bishop, and of an order superior to a scripture bishop or presbyter, possessing rights incompatible with those of tbt latter, and especially the exclusive right of ordination. Secondlt.— What proofs do you ofler that the primitive Fathers (sty those of the ^rsf /too centuries) considered dio- cesan episcopacy, as thus explained, '.o bean institution of nod, affd so essential, as without it there can be neither a valid ministry, nor a true Church? Ifour friends in Guysboro', and throughout the Province, will be suprised^ ' find that from the writers of the first two centuries, you have uoi quoted a passage which touches the point ! Observe, thequestion now under consideration is not whether they considered the institution o( bishops divine and spostoli- cal : for I believe as firmly as you, that the Apostles by the Holy Ghost appointed •' bishops," or presbyters, over the Church of God, or in other words, that scriptural episcopacy is divine and apostolical. Any proofs, therefore, that you may bring from these writers, to show that they considered the ap- pointment of bisAops, merely, as divine and apostolical, only go to establish what is never denied, but touches not the point in dispute. The precise point you are here to prove is this, that the writers of the first two centuries, considered diocesan episcopacy to be divine, that the office o(a bishop, as an order of the ministry, superior to scripture bishops or presbytets, possessing official rights incompatible with those which by virtue of office vest in the latter, and especially as a higher order, having the cc/uxtve right to ordain to the Christian Ministry, was of divine and apostolical institution ; that this diocesan episcopacy, including thret distinct orders in the mi- nistry, and being so essential as without it there can bo no valid ministry and no true Church, was the appointment of God. On all these points Clement Momanus is silent os death. — Your quotations from /graafttts, (p. 89, 40, 49.) only go to the appointment of &tsA<'jps generally, without coming home to the point in debate, as above stated. You tell me I " know that he applies the turm bishop to the first order." (p. 40.) Indeed I know no such thing, that is, if you mean an order higher than a scripture bishop ; and you cannot piove to me that you know so either. Ignatius never says he applies it to an order superior to scripture bisiiope. You talk, (p. 36,) about certain "r«ser««d powers" of the Apostles, and jtay, " it is but a modest question to ask, in what text of SeripturCt or in what record of the Churcb. is the important grant of tbes9 Tf il Wt ir^ Wlisl .{ : 1 ■■! . i ; »'tft'i.sliltti.'i^ 140 io all Die presbylere ihey ever ordained in it to he found '•- These reserved powers refer lo •• goverim.en. in «.ene,al and to special. n„n<8.ern.| ads ba^.dcl" but vvl.al ail. o. dnn„. -pec.fy.and vouofil.m ll.ey «e,cn,., .mpa.::; o «/ ^ « p."' bylers or bml.op, m llrst o,d«,.,.d. Wl,e„ you alien DiiOflivn mo ,cnpturat proof .f Una pra.uMous ..s.-r u", i "tb" S^', nistrv 1 '^ M ?'.'I"""*^ prt^byte,. lo ,f,e „ffice of ihc mi- nistry bey ordamed Ihen. only an an inferior or second order and du^ posil.vely restrain f.o.n ibem any po«er« e«sen.ral To fo;lH^■w•„^""'^' '''^' "-^ «m>/,.,4. is Ibis reslriction found ? Will you be so •• n.odesi." as -o .HI mo ' ^'"'"'*'" Frocisely of ihe same naiu.e ,,re vour quoimions' frdx» Hes- one of ,^"r?^-; '"' ^r"* "'^^ ''' '•*-'^'-'"> ^"«"' on every one of ibe parnculars to be proved. Y.,, gpeal of ii,e suverior ran* beheld in .beCburch. Tbisi.only b%g,n to nuS Might he not have been only a chief, or f tit orelbv i«r «n i" .0 fordisiinciion-s.ako.calledSu:^^?"^ presbyter. .nd r.J.,."*'.'[ ' ""*'"''« "«"• are all ihe Fathers of the first two one of them, deposes in your favour. From them diocesan Episcopacy ha. no support : neither has the « n ption S J bmhop IS. by divine right, superior in order ,o a sc ip ur, oat hC w r.'^'r ' ""' """ ^'« '•" "ffi^'i^' powers incom palible with the latter ; nor that he possesses the exclusWe ^h?rLr '?•"'' "°'""" " i«"e««ntiol as Milh'^ut^ there is no valid ministry, and no t,«e Chuich.-This is the c.sa your own witnesses being jw/gea ' * « L°i„!,"' '°"'i""«"j' 'hrow.ng out the reflection that -there 18 no inslanre of presbyter ordination in the Scrhtures \i noonc«H*""';'r.f'' )' •''« '^"■"*"^« Churchlbut ^Xspr noonced invalid" (p. 57. &o.) As to to the first. ibZ £ TecLi 'f c.?ll "'"* ^""' '"'""^^ " Slaringly fai.e. As to . J yjr./ .1; '^''""^"g^ J°" to P'ove by any of the Fathers of the jirst two centuries \h^i ordination by scripture presbyters or btshopsis pronounced scripiurally invalid. If you cannot pro as well as 1 hnHr"'''' ""«"PP«^'«d assertions. You know tvvo rlr ' r '^^"" "'^'^'° '''»''='> "'« "filings of the first two centuries from one end to the other, you cannot find a . tngle sentence to justify your bold and unwarranted ded.r. •f .he Fa"her: !'°" "" ^""^ '* " '" ""' ''^'^'" ''^ '"> "''' Now I will turn Ihe tables upon you. and I assert. wi.ho..i iTJl'- """"''';•' «"'"radic.ion. thai you cannot pmdoce "a ft the^/»< two centuries. Episcopalians ! what think jo of 141 t lo he found."— • in jjentfial, and at a Us )oii do not L'd to all lite pies, ni uiitmpt to give «iii. It will be time are to show that, 3 ntions (r^fi\ Htg- (1) not tlie point. y fciienl on every il of liie superior gin^ llie quesiion. I presbyter, and s of the first two of tiiem— no. not 1 tliem diocesan issumption, that r 10 a scripture powers incom- es the exclusive in Episcopacy is bI as without it -This is the case lion that "there Scriptures. It ■but always pro- I first, those who f Presbtterh »lfe. As to the e Fathers of the e presbyters or i'ou cannot pro- not very much 18. You know iiings of the first ou cannot find a rronled declara- if" in my view* assert, n-iihout mot produce a diocesan bishop ly oft he writers lat think ye of this? N6W ask your champion for an insfnnre. cfcnrand nl Of nn nrnnn I irkn !.•* « ^;v « «^ _> •. ■ ef an ord nation by a diocisan- 1. Frnrri tl ain« And and There attention 'romnny of the wriicr.* of the fiist t see il he can prodme either I le New Tesiiunent. v>o centuries ; , BU nonotlei thing to which 1 wish here to call your **"ge 56, you iiwert, in proof thnt n bishop was of perior order to a prest.yic/, thut " bishops received the tpiscopal e'hibit Its prelensiona ; and Bucb multiplied proofs of wide i.pread.ng degeneracy trowd inte Tiew. that the testimony of flvery suhi>i>qiient writer is to be received with suspicion. Besides, if diocesan Episc;opacy ex- piated, and were of the fundamental importance that our Kpis- , copal brethren make it to be, we may snrely expect to find acme r«feience to it in the records of two hundred years ; ahtf eapetially, when we consider that those were veTirs of the grea est simplicity and puritj ever known in the Church."— (Mil e. s Lett^ p I2fi ) Not only so, but the manner in whicli you baxejumhled together the usages ofthefiist two centuries, and Ihosb ol subsequei.t times, is another reason to induce me to confine you to the former. The positions which you aisune will render the propriety of my remaik «r>p8rent. Position 1. " Thete is but one bishop in a Church." Eu- seoius IP quoted to prove this. 'T7"~r'^\y ^^^^ops received the episcopal office by anew ordmattvn" Cypi.an, Cornelius, and a bishop at Capsis are , quoted in proof. ' ^ —-; r-S. •• Bishops had the sole power of confirmation:^* -..yprtan, Jeiomo. and Firmilian, whose meaning you havt misrepresented, are quoted in proof ' . ~: — \ " The bishop, rtr the chief officer of the Cfiiirch, nad the so.'e power ofordinaHon " (p 66 57 ) This, you af- mm, " we ieara from Scripture:" when it is notoriout, •• we Hiir 142 ', letrn" no auch Ibina •• fu v.,„ „f - «rip»ure,"butdlrecllj the re- verse, of course, undortlanding Ih. word •• biihop" in vou, r,;™- °^""' ^"i*'"- C»>'>«*«i«n'. Cyprian. Cor'ieli«,/.„J Jerome, ore quoted III proof. '"""«■, enu ^J^V* y°»«» over I he ground, tndlell mu what you have proved, 1.1. From .he Scripture,, when no .uch proof ha, all? iS a Intl "7 r^*"*'" :""•"• ' •">?• ""in.ention" Sd „f u ««'«»'•'•<> «o make • falae Jmpresaion on the E.„ unwary reader. It la. thf-refore necesaary. to bring you to aon.e definite period, asy. the fir,t two centuries •tUch to the word bishop, in reference to ill Chriaitan Church. h..Pr"*"" *P'""P»'y *•• 'he «o»ernmei.t of the Church; but if jou c/...not, ihcn it will foUow that Diocesan Lpiacopaoy was not /Ae„,h. government of the Churoir a"! from the teatimony „, „.. Father, will be the very he^h^of I hope you will properly appreciate my moli*ea for not at iZilT: ^J'P''""' "•*' J^ome &c. which, I am confident copacy. I call upon you to prove what your preaent DamDhlet U.rcr.ur"ch""j T ""'• '"H' ''""''» •he'fir.t^wo"ceES.' enurcb. 2. 1 hat bish«ips received the episcopal office bv a ? rhlt'IiT" ""•'' "'*"• " '''"»»y" r»"« being ..ScS,.' 5. That bishops in your sense of the word, had the sole power .f confirmation 4. That bishops, .s officers of VnordT." ■ Jo Lhufflin'!:"*'^'*"'^'* """°'° P"'^«' of ordination Now • proSf "t?t?.'rpr.;''"*' "*• ""« """"•p'-"' "•" «'-« I thmk it right, however, to •• set rov right " aa it reirardii . quotation you make f,om Firm if ian. p. sf Th'qu?.'.' on ;"rii;r..r '.:'-;?" ";r= '^':''"""'" •"•• »" "i. er^sS:^ c; thiohlT* '• * ''"• <"""'« 'he ftisAflps.) whogovefn dina?o„ . ' Cr"" ^"""V «''^«P''-". confirmition a' d or- Thlth: „^°"^t*T"*''' '*"""'"''"' « unwarran.ed, that is »r, bythe M-ord •• bishops." which yoe have thrown in as ZlT.':l f ^"n*'""*' "•""'"«?• >o" in'end thoJe-upe! Trds a^L mX'"- °" '"'"*"« '" Firmilian'. Letter. I find hi. M^ViL 1' /^^^f^" Natu:" Now Cvprian h.ms.lfparaphr.. .ion" ic he renders. '^rfreVsJ.M.roH;; rix^" SS] fi^TTer [tT:% ^''"* ^*'- /"''"-• i^'^ 3 "ap%r; b..L.? I 1^ ^'•* 'P'"'"" °f «"''«» -nd B'8hop Jewel hai b«n already g.ven. The former admit, that «,«>r« na- tu of Firm ding presb The latter ded in Lati than you 0{ question in PRiAtr, an is required preibvler$, qualified. II ming, and Cyprian, he ment, other lian's leslin make it. i practice of to preside o pose this chi iliink you hn\ ihro' thick an igainst positii probati quiqu( limonio adepi ^'sek ianguai Ecclesiaalical Indeed this ia, Scapula saye, fM, Preabyter directly (ho re- jishop" in your I. Corneliufl, and what you bav« •uch proof hat 'athera; when no enturiea of Ihe ope uninienlion- mpreuion on the necesaary, to i tteo centuries; Ihe meaning yoo lo all Ohriatian y acknowledge, ernmeni of the r that Diocetan tt Churoli, and ofepiacopacy" 1 very h«rght of livea for not at he mtimony of I I am confident t oH^in of epia- reaent pamphlet two ceniurieaof rour sense, in a pal office by a being sufficient. I he sole power of an ordsr su* lination. Now n>, but give us ," aa it regards Ths quotation is epistle toCy> »,) who govern mation and or> rranied, that is thrown in as and those aupe* etior, I find his msolfparaphra- iterum, by ma- )oi an accusa- NATV aeeuaO' 8. Cap. 76. p. fiishop iewel »t mojor€$ na- 141 tu of Firmilian wore one and the same with Si. Paal'a •• «r«i dmg pr,sbyler,r wh.ch you allow w.re not d.oce.an bifhoj * The latter «. very positive that the term •' pro.byter ia eSn ded m L.t.n by natt major." Unleas vou h..- LT.!. '^ r than you can adduce to /how that F.rmiirustJ^he X""in V^TrTZ'irr uf'r !""^^'* contemporary sT^^^^^^ PRiAir, and in winch Bishon Jewel nxnUin. .. — pre$bpers, or elderg; and thua hia opinion is decided .n,l „« quahhed. that presbyter, had the pow.r^f JaSn* conZ' ming, and of orrf^min/f. -and as thi. letter waaadd/essefrj Cyprian, he must have acquiesced in the propriety of the aiatl msnt. otherwise he would doubtless ha vi opposed , pfn^ han'a testimony is a. high and a. rfecWerf ^arCusge caL praotioe of the Church. It waa the practice then for Preabvtert 10 preside over the church, to confirm and to orrfa<« Sun pose .h.. chiefly to have been confined to .he ooujrnr of Fifmi i..n, that IS to Asia M.nor; this is abundant*reno,,„h S' ;'!'ijV?' ""'''"""'' " «i'.««nd. .'r'i„r;,.r.','"°"('p':;i!i J./™." "'!.*''t"?''' '•'.•""'■• ■'••' ">• '"PPOMd "tMlra. lou are not led aatray here by •• names" I do assure vou- but ^.oek language, called Presbyter,,'' ..v.^The^'lVarnLd PoniHh fcclesiaatical Hialorian, CabiMut ut. ^Jfititia E„«ll ! '^« Meed .hi. i., beyond all doiKT direct nd p^^^er'^^^an"* «pua..ya..prM6M/„o,,.e„ior;' Schreveliu. f • i/esJiS- fp .' 't :; \ i 144 nioT.* Reavos, wlio w.u, as hus Iieen remtrkod, a ri:(id church- man, in In* note on tha pl«co, »n\g, (he proiiditij BIderi liera are undoiiliiedly (he same with the proettos in Justin Martyr.' " (Powell p. 108.) To these miy be tiddoJ the opi- nion of Umhop Jowell: ndJro*:iin(i II iidiii4. his hipidiical op- ponent, he attys, •' If ya hud boon eithot bo sngety studied M ye pretend, and your Jit ienls hive th)u:»iit, ye mi^ht •0011 have learned, Hut Presbyter a Pnont ianoihing else, but »en»(»r '.liil li an Elder. Your own Duclor Tnoinis AqmnA aailh: Prejbyteri in Qneco dicuuinr. qiiisi aenioroa. Your own aniiiiin •,iiih : Presbyter Gr.iece L.itine senior inlerpra- taljr Presbyttr in Greek is rendered in Lilin Senitr." (Da- fanoe Part tf. p. 527.) Bisliops, accordnnr to yon", receive llioiroidinalion from bishop*; but those aeniores received the honour referred to by testinmny, or as " testitnonio" may be rendered by '•suffrage" This accords with oir views: aa to «rder ihey were presbyters, bu*. they were elevated to a hi^h- cr teat by the sulfraga of tli'jir co-seii">rot i>' a<>p-e*hv<»rt, and for the Hake of distinction were called bishops Undoratand then, that by the term bishops, us used by (he primitive eccleiiiastical writers, we mean persons who as to order are no more Jian presbyters, yet, who, where there were several presbyters appointed to a church, were primiin'er pares; and therefore, Iho' bearing the title of «' bishops," fur disi motion's take, were in reality only of the presbyterial order. Some- tinias. by the earlier writers, they were cal'ed bishops; at o- ther t>mo9, seniores. mctjorea natu, and Presbyters, keep (his ia mind, and all youi declarations respectinif " contradictions" and" changes." will appear just mere pure flourish! (See your Pamphlet p. 79 80.) ' Nor do I think it out of place to " set yoit right" in re- gard to Cypriar;. You assart that he consulted his Presby- ters, " not by right, or of necessity, but because ha tho ight pr0per todt ao." (p. 80.) No»v ho did nothiiig withoiK his presbyters because that had been tlie practice of the priwi inttr pares- Cyprian's language is, " Frodi the beginning of my episcopacy 1 determined to d j riftking of my own accord, but only ky your council, and with the content of the people. When, by tho Grace of God, I return unto you, then we will, as our mutual honor requires, confer in eomrnon upott those ihiDgs which have been done, or which still remain to be done." (Ep 6.) " But ha goes furlhar thm thi^. He shews his opinion th a the Presbyters hid jjotoej-*, by divine right, i9 jKr/arot A.Nr uf a bishop's duiios, in his ab-ienoe. In his sa- viusiun fr(»rn the rage of iiis persecutors, ho writes to his Pres- bytery and Di».»cou8, saying, <* I beseech voo, according to youi Uiih tinu religion, ti^ai you periorm your own duties, and also those belims(ing to me, ao that nothing m»y bo wanting •ithar as (/«ct/>/»/»eor diliijance." Ep. 5. Again, fiivingmon- lioned matters of ohat ah gaternment; " 1 rely upon your love aadyour leligiaa, which I »#eJlkBO*, and by thete letter$ I a rl^jid church- -o^rdiiii* GIderi tlos III Justin (iilduJ (lie opi- t» ipifittnal op- igefy ntuiied :,'iii, ye mijjiu tiling oli^e, tiut loiiiis Aqiiin.1 inioros. Your nior inierpre- vnitr." (Da- you, receiva s recQived the onio** may b« ir views: aa to led to a high' "e'ttvinm, and Undorttand (he primitive order are no were several \'er pares; and >r diaiinction'a order. Some- bmhiips; at o- ertt koop this ontradictiont" ish! (See your right" in re- bJ his Presby- 30 he thotght , haughtiness, &c. which Pupian had mentioned to him a a letter, he stands in the defence of the divine authorit;/ of his office in tha church: hb sovb tho Lord strenglhoned tins divine authority by a revelation in a dream; and he plates it upon Mb, that he was a Priebt, sacerdos. None of our high churchmen deny that a Presbyter ia a Priest, or iineerdo$. The council of Carthage, in the canon just now i>!»ntioiied, use the word saeerdotes for Presbyters only, •• Episcopua—colU' gam se Sacerdotum esse cognoscat—Lm tiie Bishop knovr that he is the Colleague of the Prieata, or Presbyters."— Such is the solemn determination of 214 Bishops, the great Augustin amongst them. * * Indeed, according to Dr. Bar- row's view of the following passage. Cyprian distinctly de- clares that at the first, "for a time" there were no bi- shops as now; but that they were ajterwards, and by human authority, constituted to lake away schisms, exactly accord- ing to Jerome's statements, Cyprian says, •' Heresies are sprung tip, and schisms grown from no other root but this, because God's Priest was not obeyed; nor was there one Priest or Bi- shop/or a time in the church, nor a judge thought on for a time t-3 supply -he fe:;ni ofChrist.'* Ep. 53. • Wiiere.'FaysDr. Barrow. 'that by the church is meant any particular cliurfth and by Priesi a Bishop of such church, any one not betbitehed with prejudice by the tenour of Saint Cyprian's discourse, will easily discover,' (Pope's Suprcra. p. 141." Powell's Es- \ 14C uJ;^*"^?**'^".''"* Cyprian's Sestimony in considered al large.) tnough, however, has been quoted to shew that his views, and yours, as to the nature of episcopacy, differ essen- Fott ailso require to be "set right" in regard to Hilary. His wordsare, ••After churches were cons'.iiuled in every place, and offices appointed, things Began to be arranaed Differently from what they were in the beginning; for at l..!;f!" •u''"M""«'i'* '"'^ "" baptized. But if all had conti- nued to beallowed to perform the same things, it would have tteen absurd, and the ministry would have become vile and con- temptible. The Apostles writings are Not altogether agreea- ble to the order ofthingaaa Now practiced in the Church. *or Timothy who was ordained a Presbyter by Paul, he calls « bishop J because t he yirs^ or chief Presbyters worn called oianops. • First, or Chief Presbyters, were called Bi- «*op*,- and as one departed, the Next swcwrfed to the of. Jiee. Uut because the next in succession were sometimes found unworthy to hold the Primacy, the Citsxom was Changed by the provision of a council; so that not the next in order, but the next in merit, should be made Bishop, and constituted such By the judgment of a number of the rsKSBYTBRS, lest an unworthy person should usurp, and be- come a general scandal." (Com. in Ephes. cap. 4.) ••The Pr«6yf«r and Bishop, had one and the same ordination. I he Bishop IS the chief among the Presbyters-^pwcoijw e*t qui tnterPresbyteros Primus." (Com in 1 Tiro 3) The language of Hilary is too plain to require comment-it is as wuld'*b""''** " ^" " '''^'"* "'*'** " concerned, as it cleverly The following quotation will set the testimony of both Cry aoatom and Jerome in a proper light, and you ••right" also, in regard loit.-^^Chrysostom. who flourished A. D 400, says «..!!.; "P^'^'^S about bishops and their ordination, what they ought to possess, and from what they must abstain, havins omated (I Tim. 30 the order of presbyters, he passes oil tJ Zll o '*"'"'P """^ '^* presbyter is Almost Nothing.- For the Presidency of the Churches is committed topresby- fers. and the Qualifications which the Appstla fequires r„rV/tK^'.^- "**'!/"' '"''Presbyter also ; being abonethem SOLEiY by their ordmahon, and this is the Only thing, they, the bishops, seem to hare more than presbyiere."- (Coin. in 1 Tim. 3.) This last remark refers to what is sup- posed to bd the sheet a«cAor of episcopacy, in the modern sense, I. e. the power of ordination. (See your pamphlet, p. ST.) Chrysostom says they were the same in svar» thinff ?!"j J***" " '" °f^'n»''on he only mentions the Fact o"f the difference, and not the divine right. And as to the fact. his language is by no means decided. , » remark of « similar kind in his Epistle Jerome also himself has tragrius : •• What f in considered at d to shew (hat his >acy, differ essen- egard to Hilary, la'.iiuied in every to be arranged beginning; for at if ail had conti- ^3, it would have orne vile and con- Itogeiher oi^reea- in the Church. by Paul, he calls Iters were called 9. were called Bi- '.eded to the of- were sometimes le Cdsxom was hat not the next ade Bishop, and number of the lid usurp, and be- cap. 4.) «• The E ORDINATION, \exa—Epi»eoput n 1 Tim. 3) The fnment — it ia as led, as it cleverly >ny or both Cry* ( "right" also, A. D. 400, says, ation, what they abstain, having he passes on to > difference be* T N0THINO.~- litted lopresby- postle requires >ing above them Onlt thing, presbyters."— what is sup- in the modern ur pamphlet, p. in At*Ai*ft iKittM the Fact of IS to the fact, i\»o himself has rius : •• What 147 I'fi'nl''' ^■f'*'0P;^''!ch <'>e presbyter may not do, except ordi- .nVJrl, T ° '";e[Prelat.on of the one may be sufficient for th, jnlerpre.ation of the other. Jerome, then, it should be r. mombered does, m that Epistle, tnost plainly dechre thai bishops and presbyteis are the Same. He then says thit «//.r the Apostles, times, o.e presbyter was placed ote the rest a, a rcmerfy against schism For at Alexandria (torn the Evangelist Ma.k up to Heraclas and Dionysfus. Si b.sh«ps, (about A. D. 26».) the Phesbvtkrs Always fi! i.CTKD one from amongst themselves, and placed him in th« Sfhtr.l".T* """^ '^'^' '^* presbyters, gave him the name of hi: L ''T^nt'"''' """ "'^ themselves whose Industrf they know, and call h.m Archdeacon. For what doe, a bS aL .' ^'' L- """^ ''* •"*""' *•">"' A. D. 400.) •• except or. evident, tha^ Jerome speaks simply of the fact and eu$tom Sif *'"/ ^"r • '" *" ''"V* '•"°'"« established a. tSwh,^ tiXiZt' "k"**. P'^'^y'V" ""y «"' do ; not of the pou>7rl] f . .? ? 'u''^'*."^ •*' ""• "'«y ^o"'"* not by divin; riahi J. wha the bishops d.d. This custom, or ecclesiastical, fan., meni, which for the honor of the bishop and the Church, mad. Z2117 ^"""L*"-" ■ P'"««"iv« of the biPhop'8 office. Je" ml adv, es the presbytery to comply with. Therefore •• they mT^ TctJZ7"" °^'J" """u"™' especially without She bishop'. loSi., ., ^"^ °'^" *"PPo»i«ion would make Jeroma taTnld H " 1. ^"'"• P"«''' *^***'' ^« '''«' ""OBt firmly ma" rZ L ""' '""«''«"on8 shew the same. The cti.^oi of the .Zi?h?„awi'"Lr/-^ '"■"*»'*"' «'se why mention it a. TheCXT.r^^"*^*^'^^'^"''"'"''''''^' •»''*' common J inep}esbyters, at Alexandria, ptior to A. D. 250 e.. cted on. of themselves, placed him in the' chair, (all ^e onsecra^^^^ be had)-and gave h.m his title of bishop. It is tr.flma te sar Lrh^Pw''""'.'^"' ' •'"'"•P" "^«'« ^«'« bishops prLeenlwh,; ; dfctina"??"'' «^°r ''"•*'' '"'"• ' T"'« i« 'i»l'^ short of r„ Irad.ct.ng Jerome. He certainly makes the presbvters the doers of all that was done in making the bishop^ The case of \t:Z'ir,'''"^ ""fr"' ''""°''^«' i^«tance^h ci heme„. hat thV " ^" "^'"'' Pr*'°"- ^'''y schoolboy knows that the Kom,n Jlrmy ,n those days, frequently creaied their UlTZ J "'/'"'r/'"''' V^ " '« •» ">««« proceedings Jerome alludes: the /a«,/M/N„» of the thing was no more necessarr to his ar^M«,e„f. than the /««/«/««, of the unjust Ste7' ardr, conduct to our Lord's argument. It \Bihi}Lt[^d Its Jearmff, which are iinporiBn. 'ji,? -/^-.^^n- , ,1 .ppoinied-on. o/ .A.„,e/.fes as their le:/^^; Im'^liT. In l?jrA ' ^'■f'fy'''-' "««*« « pre.6.y/er the.r head, and eall Urn bishop. The army made the (general ; the deacon. ni. . nf"".""!' """^ '^^ P«ssBVTERs Made ;«= Bishop U,8,s plainly the sense. Presbyters, then, Ordained ",Fii .h^, 149 eren Bishops, in the see of Ale««ndria, from the time of St. Mark up to Heraclaa and Donysius, that is, for about Ihefirsl 200 years after Christ. What need be clearer, than that Je- rome's exception only regards the Custom of the Church in his day, (about 150 years after what he ruTers to at Alexan- dria,) and not the power or right of the presbyters to ordain. Stillingfleet has moreover quoted, in confirma'ion of this view, the testimony of Eutychiiis, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who expressly affirms, <' that the twelve presbyters constituted by MarHi upon the vacancy of the See did choose of their number one to be head over the rest, and the other eleven did lay Their Aani/s f'pon him, and blessed him, and mads him Patriarch," or Bishop. (Iren. p. 274.) The manr»er ii seems varied, the thing was the same. There Never was any uni- versally established manner o( making bishopi> in the Chris- tian Church, excepting the scriptural one, by which every man if made a Minister and a Bishop at once, by one and the same ordiiiation. Chryaostoin's language is similar to Jerome's, and admits the same interpretation. Fie positively says, that the bishop had then nothing above presbyters but ordination ; and ipeaks do^btingly as to this : •• This (ordination) is the only thing they sesMI to have more than presbyters." But even were he to speak with the utmost certainty, his language only states thafaet, and not the law. It was the fact, I beli.)ve, generally, in Crysostom's days, for the Honor of the bishop 9nd the Church, and (as (hey supposed) to prevent divisions, that bishops only ordained bishops. This is perfectly consist- ent with all we have said to shew the identity of bishops and presbyters by divine right. Hoviever, Calderwood, Alt. Da- mascen, p. 160, shows that « more accurate translation of Chrysostom's language will give a very different view of his meaning: the latter member of his sentence, correctly trans- lated, being as follows—" The bishop being above the presby. terselely by their" (the presbyters') "suffrage ; and by this tlone they seem to assume an unjust superiority over the presbyters." This proves that Crysostom considered bishops and presbyters to be really and by divine right the same in all things, and taxes the bishops with abusing the power given them by the suffrage of the presbyters, injuriously to dupiess those very presbyters." (Powell's Essay, p. 124, &c.) As to Jerome, Stillingfleet observes in hishenicum, '* Among all ihe fifteen testimonies produced by a learned writer out of Jerome, for the superiority of bishops over presbyters, I c»n- not find one that does found it upon divine right; but only on the convenience of such an order, for the piece and unity of the Church ;" and Dr. Miller observes, " Jerome, therefore, notwithatanding &\\ iho aris which have been empioyed to £«l aside his testimony, remains a firm and decisive witness in sup- port of our principle, that the docinne of ministerial parity was the doctrine of the primitive Church. Accordingly Bish- op Jewel, PRorcssoR Raxgnolds, Bishop Stillimq- 149 n the time of Si, for about the first rer, than that Je- rf the Church in irs to at Alessn- abyters to ordain. ii.ion of this view, Alexandria, who ra constituted by e of their number eleven did lay and MADS liim manner ii seems VER was any uni- opt, in the Chri£. which every man one nnd the samo to Jerome's, and ly says, that the t ordination ; and ation) is the only 679." But even lis language only > fact, I beli'.)ve, R of the bishop revent divisions, 3orfectly consist- ' of bishops and rwood, Ait. Da- e translation of ent view of his correctly trans- bove the presby. ge ; and by this riority over the nsidered bishops t the same in all he power given tusly to depiflss 124. &c.) nicum, •« Among led writer out of eshyters, I c»n- 'ht; but only on :e and unity of rome, therefore, employed to b«i e witness in sup- linislerial parity :cordingly Bish* [OF Stillikq* FLEET, and other learned divines of the Church of England, interpret this Father, on the subject of Episcopacy, precisely as I have done, and consider him as expressly declaring that bishop and presbyter viexa thesamein the apostolic age." (Lett, p. 190.) As to the ordination of bishops by presbyters in the Church of Alexandria, you undertake to say it is only an as- sertion of mine, and deny its correctness, (p. 115 ) Read the following, and learn to be a little more modest in vour po- sitive denials—" Archbishop Usher being asked by Charles I. in \ha Isle of Wight • whether he found in antiquity that pretbyters alone ordained any r answered, •• Fes; end that he could show his Mnjesly more, even whote presbyters alone successively ordained bishops ; and brought as an mstance of this, the presbyters oi Alexandria choosing and making their own bishops, from the days of ./V/arA, till Heraclas d Diony- sius." (Miller's Lett. p. 267 ) A few quotations will close the present Letter — "That pres- bytersboih possessed and exercised the right o( ordaining minis- tersin the primitive Church, appears moreover by the ISih canon ofthe Council of Ancyra, AD. 815:— 'Tis n' .; fined to village bishops to ordain presbyters or deacor {.a is it allowed Even to City Presbyters to do this \ ri.^oTHrR diocese WiTHOVT the licence of ihe bishop." High Church Episco- palians decUro they cannot understand this canon ! It must be imperfect, or corrupt, or I know not what. So Socinians treat the Scriptures when they are plainly opposed to their schemee. However, no man who understands the Greek text of the canon, will deny that the above is a fair translation. Here, then, in the first place, the Chor-episcopi, or country bishops, are utterly yorfcirf to ordain, and'are evidently treated as in«- ferior to city presbyters. Now Bishop Taylor, and many other learned Episcopalians, fully admit that these Chor- eptseopi, or vi-llege bishops, had, by divine right, the Power to Ordain. Therefore the Power ofthe City Presbyter to Ordain presbyters and deacons, is c/ear/y supposed in the canon ; and is Not taken away, but only limited in its exer- cise. He was not to ordain ' in ano^Aer bishop's diocese U)tf A- (lut his license ;' very proper: but then it is clear as thougk the canon had said so, that the cily presbyter might and di^ ordain presbyters and deacons in the dioco«e of his own bish- op ; and might do the same in any othat thire are "•now and never have been, such thing, as nrchb"ho„, patrjarcbB. or primates in the christianized world "seeing thai ky the assumpuon of the argument they have ..o^divine'origl nal ; end by ..a terms they could not b'avo been introduced fr ma a human conlnvence... (Claim, of Episcopacy IBiZX ' •«-««fl(fc h) I reply in tiic TnoT9 pointless ind ihe Layman, and ) " on ih« change e Church. They e muat have hap- 'y ; and then they >otsibility of euch je was n<»< instan- srome, which de^ ' little and little, an of iheir edifice, d to take up more • turn their own They do not pre- tea, are ofaposto- jnderatandi.igand officers have no len, were all the n these creatures Church? Among 'd ? Where was »r piety, and its era ? Where the once? All, all nit their necks to n or remonstrate ! ions, and a thou- le for the divine i force as they tie ■ And so by voci- ofmen's eyes and v& that there are as archbishopf, rid ; seeing that DO I divine origi. en introduced by opacy Refuted, 151 lietier X. Bsr, Str, w.n^p^evSL'V''''''' "'y. "•^n'arkshave already extended, first intPnln if K J ^ ^"""®""P'«'' Succession, as I at ahU M ° ^"J^ *^°"° 5 *»"' ^ have no doubi 1 shall b. •trong. and convincing. Tho /w/ of names, at least should J ordaiSed C a SLh "^ '"P.l'""'';'' *. P'"''^ '"' orda.n.d'^B- hal S vou donl ,h 5 "''<='""« ^J""'" 'o i's present lir.k. Bu Yo,f ifr. . ""'• ""'^ y°" attempted to do so ? No - McJl Z "?"',«'' ^°""«"f .«-ith quotation, from ^shop STbuUnto th"*-?'''"'r«' °' '°"'' °"'y «'«"n,ents J length ^orwi^V-r *"'.''"««/ P'*'"'^ y°" ''"« "«' '"'"ed *» -nd'arguerheif :ir'Zt .^1°" '"'' '"'^ '''" P'*""'"*' i:^:^^^^ -^y -^ - P-- «hJ- p'" STTer'^/s,'"?;' ''""°' «'r''tHe?cri;trs";rk." rLTLil7„ndTit.?«°^ '"''"'"' ^'''^^ "'^ succession •r vn Jimolhy and liiusat the present day ? Has it tierith^dt J so hss not Christ fals,fied his promise u't LZrtt that the succession frnm Tin»n!h"s"rf Tim- =-';••* Then vl.Tf V' 'u ^" " *"• ''"°^' ''«<='>"'« «»''"«' ? Jhen you refer to the "Angels" of the Seven Churches- ..."S'op?"V:i'! ""Tf^t' '.' P"^-^' ""' they we;, d": w«n bishops. WolJ, what has become of their succession? m m -'1 i ■ 162 Who did ihey ordain as their successors to "the apostohcof- . ■ . ,^"",J"!J '•" • ^""^ ''"« 'heir succession also become ^ximcl ? Alas for the uninterrupted succession ! You then quote Irenaeus, «• We can enumerate (he savs^ {hose who were appointed by the Apostles bishops in the Cliurches, and to be their successors even unto us- leavine them the same power and authority which ihey had." (p 71.) But I have shown that he calls this succession, •< tiie ■uccessiohs of presbyters." and styles several of those, whom you call bishops, presbyters, who presided over the Church of Home. Irenaeus does not say they were diocesan bishops havmg rights mcompatible with those which belong to presbv- ters : the phrase •• leaving them the same power and authori- ty which Ihey had," of course, in their ordinary capacity, is not sufficient to prove that they were, as I have abundantly shown that presbyters possess this by virtue of office Youthen pass over to the Church of Rome. (p.Vl.) and state that Irenaeus •• has left on record the succession of those who had been bishops of the Church of Rome down to this time or writing, viz. about seventy-eight jears from St. John." (ID ) , But why do you not mention the names ofail the '• bishops appointed by all the Apostles in all the Churches they esta- blished .' The promise of Christ was given equally to all of th« Apostles Has his promise then failed in regard to anv of these ? Has a regular succession of persons, as diocesan bishops, come down to the present times from all the Churches established by all of the Apostles? if not, how do you account tor ihe interruption ? ' Who then was the first bishop of the Church of Rome f- was S>t. Paul ? You have read the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles which he wrote, and, you know there is there the Jeastfihadow of evidence to be derived from any of these in- mspired writings, that the City of Rome was his fixed sphere o labour. Nor IS there on record ^ny authentic account of St. faul 8 having ordained n presbyter as a diocesan bishop oyer the Roman Church. You know that the present Church of Rome claims St. Peter as the firsf bishop of Rome to th« exclusion of St. Paul. Was St. Peter then the first diocesan Dishop of Rome ? You must have some person as the first Imlc •urely. Pray was it Peter ? '"A proton pseudos in this case lies nt the bottom.' says Dr. Cave, 'it being generally taken for granted, that St. Peter was in a proper sense Bish- op of Rome, which yet I believe can never bo made good.'— It la a question never yet settled, whether Peter ever toot at if«mt ; but all the authority there is for Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, as links in the chain, make ihem to have detived it jrom Peter, and not from Paul, Now Archbishop Crannier ?i'** ' .' 1? 1*' ®*°" certain that Peter ever was at Rome.' (Burnet sRef. Book 2, A. D. 1684 ) The very learned Fla- ciut lHyricuB declares himself doubtful whether Peter ever was in the first Bishop or Roma • th.?r. a' ^?" '«'^'"'" ^e'" war. on ear/A can L? On "'^'' *"««de'' i»cffr ? JV<, «o prove the poir,t. • Thi p. f ^ «^""es»e8 who are cited ever sincero/andhowevt Sir"' W*"" *""*«*"• ' ^°-- muclicf What took nl J.« I / m. ''."'*'. ''ol'^ved and recorae* evidence.. BilJ ^l^, t^fs /" 1':" 7'''-' '-'" - page, " 8ays. Mhe F«,l 1, wlr^ i *'"^^^'' "" '^ '"'»''"»' their account and enumlrronX '^T"^'!'*-^' ''^'•««// i. Rufinus, and EpiphanrnV 7r[l'^^^^^ Now Ter.ullian. Jerome ^leclarca Z ' Jio ^of 'fe rj.*"'"f *'' ^^'''•- the order lobe C7cm^n),i J ^ '" """'Ofs ♦"'•pp'sod i'e/^r ;Chry909,orn*eel,TL^?^ "'^ ^'~»^" .^«cc«rf.J .on h33 proved tha?i -r uS ImTpJ;/: ^^jt^ ';-^"- ;orianof.heSct««>^:'Cr„'v:Hvn"'' "'""«" "- /ion concerriing MnuB Cle u« .n/ri ^°''*'^*'"'' 9«e»- thein succeeded Prr-DrV>. '""'• "' '" *''''^'' «»<" •he Church of England eavl" ^,Z 1' " ?? '''""^'^ '^'^i"* o'" f-//e. and the.ef^e X^^ r/.JrT ^'b l!'' "*' ^- •BuiLr> opoN AN III Ro^^ ', • ^^- "• Roman ste) •n Councils," Par. f 7^,*=j"'^°«' (On •• Uoaun Forgone. Hear Dr. Comber aga!„ The /'i.r n'"' ''"' ^'^'"^ '"• bout the Mxi Pon« rn Ii , „ '^*^ "lundeh there ia a- and to haCe been Kpe. at*d7 ''"f r''''" "^ ^«**''"»' ""'*«"«. •ween them. ¥«;.?,« Ires^id'p V""^'' f"'""^ ^'«'"«'" *>«- P«ov.s these were onlt rl' '"^ of Chester (Pearson) •on; but the Notes' /of .ID ^^M"^" "f "'e «amic per- •attempt to jus.! ;H..^l;!:!/r^f'^^ '^"^« ^^-"«"«) Ewet^u,. S t. ISine ^anro r •"•"'«'"'">^''^V) Iren'aeu-. all wronged by ErJr'ri-P'""'' ""« «" n.i..,.aue„. or every caSdid/eade Jif "a er'Kl,''*'" '?^« ""' «^'«'"''- «"» V^rnicn 18 a mere heup of errors) and in the Ro. Vf .\ M' If} IM *ian Martyroloflty a/td Miisal. which blindly followed it, rather Ihan in those an«ieiit and eminent Fathers. And every one may see the folly of the Roinieh church which venerates two several saints on two several days, one of which never had a reai being; for Cletua is but the abbreviation of jlnacletua'i name.' Dr. Comber, ut supra. •• It must be evident toevery reader, that as Dr. Hook, Ac." (■nd the Rev. C. J. Shreve) •' maintain th« same unbrohen line of Bishops with the Roman Pontigcial, Dr. Comber's re. marks apply directly to their succession in cr loroon with that •f the Papists. The PontiHcial is the Romish Book containing the Lives snd pretended Decrees of the early Popes, according !• Ih« opinion of the Church of Rome. Their Catalogues are generally made from it: it is justly denominated a Forgkrt by Dt Comber. What a triumphant succession! who«e main authority is a forgery. (Note.) That this Pontificial is a forgtrjf is proved beyond a doubt by numerous authors; a- mongai others, see Howell's Puntificiate, Dupin's Bibliothica Patrum, Jewel's Defence. " Then tohe was fourth Bishop of Rome ? The Papiats, Dr. Hook kc. (and of course, the Rev. C. J. Shreve), say Clement was. Dr. Hook does not distinctly make Peter Bi- shop of Rome, but this makes no tnaterial difference. Now we have hoard that Tertullian. Rufinus, Epiphanius, and ac- cording to Jerome, ' Most of the Latin authors.' say he was terond Bishop, and succeeded next to Peter. Plalina, the po- pish biographer of the Popes, a high authority in bis way, aays that just before Peter's martyrdom he appointed Clement to be Bishop of Rome; and all this while he gives twenty- Ihreti yeara to the presidency of Linus and Cletus as preceding Clement in that Bishopric Peter had been dead twenty years when Clement is said to bectfnie bishop ; and yet they say Peter made him Bishop of Rome ! Cabassutn says, • the whole qnestionis very doubtful. Prideau*. a staunch and Jearned Chuichman, says 'No Certainty is to be had.'— Howel, a thorough Churchman, and learned writer, after jio- ingat length inti what he calls the stupidity and fables of the Romanists on this point, concludes:— "• Here it is evi. dent how very doubtful and uncertain is the personal succes- sion of the first Popes.' Dr. Hook must set hia priests, curates, and deacons to work. Here is enough to do for the Rev. Mr. Ward, the Rev. Mr. Ayliffe Poole. &c." and the Rov. Mr. C. J. Shreve, " with the Rev. Dr. Hook to assist them." (Pow- ell's Essay, p. 207.) A writer in the Colonial Churchman of December 27, 19S8, In an article headed *' Succession of Bishops," among other uspressions, has the fallowing.^.** The sneeession of the bish- ops of the Roman Church, especially of the earliest of their number, ia full of intricacy. Little attention was paid to the sntnuhae of dales and successiona by (he earlier Christian iiistbrians ; and the conaequence ia, that modernt are unablt accurate which de christian thorized i ofintrici Cbriatian moderns Truly oui this write and Paul by all!" the Roma I thought Episcopal most com tion I Bi possible t of the first writes tru successiot Eusebiu tainty res " trod a 8( so much ai same pati cere follow aa auflicier founded, it may be col Paul give a a legacy u tainty in re " Eusebius terof chun Sd Book, t that were I than what I and the £i Timothy f< that this Ira but taken f was only ar thing left hi thought it s Apostles, m obscure bisl Ir mqch mo Atndofbish vho they w their definiti raise up auc 1«9 Vhlth^i''^ *? determine (heae particUra." A .uccession. o» which depend the very ex.sienca of ihe Clrisljan Chu ch chr„t.«ne«crament8.chr>8li«n covenant, chfisi.an hope, au- thonzed minister, and the promiaesof the Redeemer. •'«/„// onnlneaey--^' little attention was paid to it by the ea/lier Chr.at,.„H.itoriaria"-.Mhe consequence of which i, that modern, are unable accurately to determine" re«pecfinff it .' iruly our religion han^a upon a very slender thread ! Again this writer aaya. .. h la agreed by all, that the Apostles Peter and Paul foui.ded the Roman Episcopate." Indeed • "Agreed by «///" ..That Peter and hajy conjointly. •• fo^S he Roman Episcopate !" Do the Papists agree to this '- I theught they claimed Peter aa the sole founder of their *.pi8Copale ! The preceding quotations f.om Powell move .Tn."T'.T"«'^'^'J "a//-' agree in this wiier's assump- tion ! But he proceeds, "^//er their martyrdom, it is im- possible to determine the dates of the bishops before the close 7uecession^' " '""PosaxBL. to prove the uninterrupted Eusebius. also, gives lists of bishops ; but what is the eer- tamty respecting their accuracy ? He himself says, that he .« «, K /u"^,.'""' '""'"'^•I.'"' way-and could nowhere find .omucha8the6ar*,f^;„ofany man who had passed the lamepath be/orr" Again-- Now how many and what sin cere^llowersof them (Paul and Peter.) have been app.oved as sufficient to take the charge of those Churches by them founded, .1.8 not easy to say, except such and so many as may be collected Irotn the words of St Paul.' Did ihenV Gi Paul give any succession lists i Has he left any behind him. as a legacy to the Church? If not you see the extent of thecer- ttinty in regard to those of Eusebius-the AVw Testament ' lf„Ti""'u u"^" "*• celebrated Miltoo, - the ancienreTt wri^ ler of church history eitant, confesses .n the 4lh chapter of his M Book, that It was no eaey matter to tell who were those hat were left btahops of the Churches by the Apostles, more l„?.h„ i''"!?" might gather from the Act, of the Jtpostle,, .TTfi*^. '^"'i.^"'"'? oiEphesus. So as may plainly appear, that this tradition of bishopingTimof Ay over JEphesus. wai but taken for granted out of that place in St. Paul, which was only an entreating him to tarry at Kphetus, to do some- hmg left him .n charge. Now i( Eusebiu,. a famous writer, thought It so difficult to tell who were appointed bishops by ih. Apostles, much more may we think it difficult to Leontius, aa obscure bishop speaking bsyond his own diocese ; and pertain- t.-«j eu- u ' "~i~ '•" vMBni Oj .Hciji lo aoiarmine what *»mi of bishop, these were, if they had so little means to know^ Who they were ; and much less reason have we to stand to their definitive sentence, seeing they have been „o tash as to raise up such lofty bishops and bishoprieks. out of places of ). ' 4 : t >i , V IBI Scripture merely miiunderstnod, Thus while we Jeene the Sible to gad afier these traditions of the nncienta, we iiear the ancients themselves cunfessing, (hat what knowledge Ihey had on ihis point was such as they had gathered from the Bi- ble " I have already referred to the confusion oxisting on the tub- jeci of the first bisliops of Rome : — '* SimHar confusion," •ays Mr Powell, " is to be found in fo^vral succeeding parts. Platina, who hod as good opportuiuiy, as any man to know the truth of history, as to the succession of Popef, tic. acknowledges that the authorities on the subject, in several of the following centuries, wero full of confusion. (See his Lives of Aneclolusl. John XIII. and XV.) * And he complains,' says Priduaux, * that they who were appointed as Pronotaries to register the passages in the church, were in his time become so illiterate, that'some of them could scarce write their own names in Latin.' Fine chroniclers! on whose faith- fulness and accuracy to place the existence of our chrintianity! Prideaux remarks if) another place, A. D. 858, that Onuphrius, Platina, Ciaconins, complain much of the neglect of registering (and) the cenfusion of their Popes' Lives, notwithstanding their succession is mnde such a convincing argument."' "The EVICTIONS of the Bishops of /tome increase the ^oubts of a serious inquirer here. * * Bishop Burnet shews that for about 300 years * the Popes were made upon the em- perors' mandates. Nor did the emperors part easily with this right, but, after that, theOTHOs aikd theHeNRTs kept up their pretentions, and came off to Rome, and made many popes; and though most of the Popes so made were generally •nti-popes and schismatics, yet some sfthem, as Clement the second, ore put in the Catalogues"— the Succsssioir— " of th^ Popes by Baronius and Binnius; and by the late publish- «T8, of the Councils, Labbee, and Cossartius. There was in- deed great opposition made to this at Rome; but let even their «wn historians be appcnied to, what a Series of Monsters, dnd not men, those Popes,"— auccesston Bishops,—" view, how infamously they werteteeted, Ofteiv by the Whorei or Rome, and hoW flagitious Ihey were, we refer it to JBaro- ntM« himsetf, who coold deny this for all his partiality in hia great work,' (VIrid of the Ordinations of the Church of Eng- land.) A fine uhiiiterrupted 'Series of Monsters' — A- postolical Bishops— • elected often by the Whores of Rome'!! A pretty SPtRtT0Ai. Descent for high Church priests!! "As Cardihal Baronius was ono t>fth« greatest championi of popery, hie testimony to the wickedness employed in the Ebfc'CribN oFth'o I^opes is above all exception. He says. • nt. I ?h.st "i^Mthen tbie faeeof the Holy Roman Church ! how filthy whet \h«tilt»t and riiosf ponbtrfnl tohores ruled in the Court oK KoMO ! by whO«4» arbitrary sway dioceses were made and un-^ Bisd*, bishops w«re consecrated, and which is inexpressibly ) wfl leene the ^cienta, we hear knowledge Ihey edfrom the JJi- Biing on the aub- i!ar confution," iucceeding parl». 19 any man lo ession of Pope», the subject, in ull of confusion. I XV.) 'And he ere appointed as l)urch, were in his lould scarce write r.' on whose faith- four chriitianity! that Onuphrius, led of registering vithstanding their It."' ome increase the hop Burnet shews ide upon the em- part easily with Henrtb kept up and made many le were generally as Clement the jcCESBioir — •* of the late publish- ). There was in- but l«t even their S ofMoNSTERB, 3ishopB, — "were; BY THE WhORXI refer it (o Baro- his partiality in le Church of Eng- Monsters' — A- horea of Rome".'. iirch priests'.! eat«8l championi employed in the )tion. He sayi, '"' jl '-'" ■ — •"'- ! how filthy whet in the Court oX sre made and un-^ I it ineipressibly 15T horrible to bo raentioned ! False Popes, Their Para- MovRi, were thrust into the chair of Peie.r, who, in being numbered aa Popee eerve no purpoee txohpt to Fill up t>if Cataloques of tb« Popes of Rome. For who oao aay that persona thruat into the popedom without my law by whores of .hia sort were legitimate Popes of Rome. In these elections no mention ia made of the acts of the Clergy, either by their choosing the Pope at the time of his election, or of their con- aent afierward. All the eanons were suppressed into silence. the voiee ofthe decrees of former Pontiffs waa not allowed to be heard, ancient tradiiione were proscribed, the customa for- merly prectised in electing the Pope, with ihe aaored ritea, and pristine uaagea, were all extingeiahed. In this manner, Lust, supported by secular power, eicited to phrenzy in the rage for domination. Ruled Iw All Things.' (Ann. Eocles. tem. 10, p. 679, 1108, aa cited by R. Southey, Esq., kc.) *' The ScH»M8 of the popedom are another proof of the imposiibility of tracing this * unbroken line' from Peter. Some of the Popish Historiana themvelves, Onnphriut Panoviniua for inalance, grant that there had been above twenttf eehieme in the popedom before the end of the 14ih century. Some of theaeaohisma continued for /orfy year*, and aome longer. — Sometimes /oMT pretenders to the popedom existed at the same tine ; and the whole Church, the whole of Europe, waa equal- ly divided againat itself. Now when two, three, or four pre- tended Bishope of Rome laid claim totheehairat the $ame time, it ia imposeible that they could all be legitimate claim- ants to the aame chair. It waa generally contrived either to depoee, or ianwA, or poiaon, or murder, one or more of them. Frequently the moat cunning, the moat powerful, the roost warlike, or the moat wicked of them succeeded in depoeing hie leaa canning, leaa powerful, leas warlike, or leaa wicked oppon- ent. For the proofs of all that ia here said, Itft the reader per- use Platina's Lives ofthe Popes, Bishop Jewel'a Apology, and the "Defence" of that Apology; ae well aa many other authori- tieeof the like nature. Now, who can trace the trueaueeeaaion, when the whole Church was divided againat itaelfl Cardi- nala againat Cardinala, Countila againat Couneila, and na- tiona againat nations? Could faction, and poiaon, and mur- der, and toart . and bloodshed, which alone decided in theae aehiama, oould Th^se settle the True 8uc4eaaion 7 An- swer, ye modern boasters about your apiritual descent, through tbia unbrtfA;en line !"— Note. 1. " According to the general principlea of tlie Church, no man can be a bishop who waa not previoutly a preabyter : ■vsfmwn tfl«AM l«i rfu v^*?«*?^'. iw- tion of a biahop was not ordination to the Christian Ministry, but a mer* ecclesiastical ceremony. Now numbers of the Bishops of Rome, were nothing but /aymen at their eonseeration,— They never were, therefore, ordained to the Christian Minis- try. They had no christian orders ; of course thay could not f-'Y : . r Mi I'SI lOS giv what Ihey had not. Yet the auccesiion. the tpiritual de ent of ordination, contait through iheoQ mere laymen to OHt high < liurch clergymen ; and to all who depend upon po- piih aucueation and popiah episcopal ordinationa, for ihe vali- dity of their mtniatry. 2. " Severol of these pretendera to the popedom being noth- ing but prevbylera, were, after being elected Biahops of Home, deposed as usurpers : yet theao mere usurpers, who never were really biahops, Ordained bsvBRAi. of the ENOLiau BiBHOPs and Archbibhopb, who, acoording to this aohemo, oonimued for many yeara to give/a/«e orders to the Bishops and Clehoy in England. " The ExRiiV History of the Bishops of Rome abounds in contradiction ; the later records are all confusion ; the elections were frequently acenetot bloodshed ; and the numer- oua achisms about the popedom were tnternanable. There- f^)re— " HisTORBi Evidence of an "unbroken line of descent from Peter," and Paul, •• down to the present Bishops of Eng. land, UTTX9JLY TAILS. The bold bravado t> a FabiiE ; and is discreditable to those who make it." (Powetl's Essay, d. 209, &o.) ' "^ Again : Simony, or the buying and selling of ordera, ren- ders all ordera obtained by it null and void afr iniiio, or from the beginning. Into fonmai proof of thia atatement, it will not be necessary for me to enter at this lime. See Apoatolical Canons, No^ 22. Canoii 2 of Council of Chalcedon. Ditls. 22. Council of Constantinople. Canon Law bv Gratian.-~ 49th' Canon of the Church of England, &c. The Canon 2d of the Council of Placeniina, A. D. 1096, has the following— "Whether Ao/ytfrdera are obtained by Monct. either given or promised to be given, we deelare that ihoy w,ere Null from the beginning, and Never had any validi- " The lawful auccession of true pastors is interrupted and broken by aimony ; and every person who ia simoniacally ^ro< moted, is irregular, and, of right alien from the priesthood, sus- pended, deprived ofhisofRce, and lies under an anathema." (Dr. Forbes' Instruct. Hist. Tlieol. p. 731 ) " Now henoe," says Dr. Whitby, an Episcopalian, " it de- monstratively follows that most of the ordinations per- formed by the Church of Rome were null and void, and con- veyed no prieathood, they being too often simoniacal from Ihe ninth to the sixteenth century. For the continual or of Eutro- piiA declares th»«t in the time of Sergius the Second, ' simony •0 prevailed, that bishoprics were sold publicly, and that ha had them who gave most fur them.' Cardinal Barrooius aays, • How very filthy was the face oi the Roman Churcbi&c' as quoted before. Platina, in the Life of Sylvester III. aaith that ' the popedom was come to that pass, that not he that oxcelled in virtue, but he that was most ambitious, and gave most, IM the spiritual '.re laymen lo pend upon po< II. for iho vali- loin being nolh- ihops ot'liome, •», who never (he Enqlish to this ■oheme, the Bishops tlonM abounde onfution ; the and iho niimer- r orders, ran- niiio, or from ement, it will iee Apostolical Icedon. Ditts. by Gratiaa.-~ u D. 1095. has edby Monbt, lare that they lad any validi' (errupted and loniacally 'pro- )riesthood, sus- in anathema." alian, <* it se- linations per- »id, and con- liacal from the jator of Eutro- L-ond, * simony y, and that he iarrooius says. >urchi'&c.' as Ill.gaith that e that excelled d gave most, obtained that degreo of dignity ; good men being oppressed and rejected.' Glaber the Monk informs us, that the Emper- or, Henry 11., having convened all his Archbishops and Bishops in France and Germany, told (hem, ' that all ecclesiastical degrees, from the popedom to the doorkeeper, were oppressed with simoni/, and ihal this spiritual robbery obtained in all places ; and that the bishops, not being able to deny tl.ft charge, fled to (he Emperor's mercy, who said (o them, ' Go your way, and what you have unlawfully obtained, dispose of well.' He adds, 'that a boy often years old was chosen P*r», by a great sum of money ; and (hat the other preUtes of those times were exalted to (heir thrones rather by gold and st/er than by merit ; and that this wont af evils sprung up, » t •nty amongst the French Bishops, but throvgh all Italy ; a' occlosiastical prufermenis being at that time set to sole, at commonly as secular wares were in the market,' • ♦ Ho- netius Augustodiviensis sai(h, ' (ha( the Popes, Cardinals, and Prelates at Rome, made port-sale of ihiogs sacred, and par- chased that which is wicked.' St. Bernard, in hie Boek •( Considerations, addressed to Pope Eugenius, insinuates, that ambitious, covetous, sacrilegious, simuniacal, incestuous per- sons, fernicators, and such like monsters of mankind, flowed from all parts of the world to Rome, that by the apoatolical authority they either might obtain or keep ecclesiastical hom- ours ;' and he puts (his question to the Pope, • Who is there of that whole great City, that received thee aa Pope, without the interventien of some price, or hopes of price?' (Dr. Whit- by's Appendix to Sermen No. 11, in which further biatorioal proofs are given.) " Now," says Dr. Whitby, "to sum up this argument.— Siace an inspired Apostle hath declared this to be one neces- •ary quaiilioBtion of him that is to be ordained a bishop or a presbyter, that he must not be desiroua of filthy lucre, as aer- tainly all persons who buy and sell these oflices must be ; sini^, by ibe c6nciliar determinations, judgment, and practice of tha universal Church, such ordinations were made null and void, so that he who simonically confers such orders gives nothing, and he who receives (hem receives nothing; seeing, lostly, the ordinations of Popes, Bishops, and Prekbyiers in the Church of Rome for six hundred yents were vejy frequently simon' ld a thousand I evidence that a FsaiAiiK in III. ; "that." of those about vay to the La- hat her *Pon- .' He remarks seure } yet ha body affirmed leauz deelarM Ite Church or mthortties at nies of authors rerai hundred »ted ; and the Df Popes, &«,' 89, ed. 1697.) uth in it, there I chain, as a iriests, Oaford ive ! ! (Pow- tmoralities of lear first what Rt would be a note, (p. 82.) loese." " A of one wife, o hospitality, r ORicBDT or t cotetout ;— »m tohiek are re of the de- ) Let us now Scripture. voadee to the bsors') bloMl.' orian,) says, >ple, the Ro- loading him kc* • * • 8 said against lim to dee for son of great ut was taken te Popes who he aboundingi 161 sins of ihe people, and the world, at that time.' What a holy line ! Stephen VI., Howel eays, is called by Labbe the cele- brated editor of the Councils, ' the most wicked of men ; and that he is reckoned in the Papal Cfitalogue' — the tuccessio7i, —' to prevent the danger of scliisim.' '*Theodoru8 II. is reprerenled by Platina as 'seditious;' John X. as ' idle and worthless ;* and the rest, then abouts, as 'lascivious,' Christopher throws his predecessors inlu prison, with great tumult, sedition, and the loss of many lives- ' In eo vicious a state,' says Platina, ' was the pontiti- cal authority then, that a private person could, by violence and faction, seize it in a moment.' He calls this Pope Christopher ' a wvlf* The short lives of many of the popes about this time he interprets as a proof that God in judgment, removed them quickly, as ' Certain Monsters'— ^anguatn nion- stra quaedam,' Oiil of ihe w&y. Platina says that Clement II., A. D. 1048. 'was poisoned with poison, prepared, as it was supposed, by his successor. Pope Damasus II.' 'This Damasus,' says he, • invaded the chair by /orce. And this had become so Established a Cbbtom that any ambitious individual had the liberty of invading Peter's seat.' Here are apostolical successors ! And even earlier than this, in the life of Benedict IV., A. D. 898, he says, 'the chair of Peter was USURPED, rather than possessed by, MoifSTERs of Wickedness, ambition and bribery.' "Sergius III., A. D. 903, ''escinded the Acts of Pope For- tnosus, compelled those whom he had ordained to be re-ordain- ed, dragged his dead body from the sepulchre, beheaded him as tho' he were alive, and then threw him into the Tiber! See,' says Platina, ' what a degenerate race ! They seek the po,i- iijicate by bribes, and having obtained it, they cast behind them all regard to the viorship of God, and contending with each other like the most ferocious tyrants, that they may reigf alone : afterwards, none being left that can restrain them, they give themselves up to take their fill of voluptous- tess and licentiousness.' (Platina in Vila Clem. II. In Vita Dam. II. lb. Sergii III.) "A. D. 931. 'The next.' says Howel, 'that lakes the chair, is one whom they ought to call a Devil, instead of pseu- do — pope ; and yet he must be irtserted in the Catalogue of the Popes ; though, according to their own confession, tho vilest, blackest monster that ever yet defiled the holy purple. This was Pope John IX., son of Pope Sergius III., by tiie strumpet Marozia, (a blessed stock to take an infallible guide from) by whose means he was intruded into the place of Ste- phen Vil., though, besides all other impediments, he was in- sapable of that high office in the Ch^arch through want of years. This pontificate was a series of debaucheries, incest, kc, which would offend the modest reader to repeat.* (Ponti- ficate, p. IBS ) "John XIII.,' I quotd Platina, 'usurped the pontificdie. |i. J -' I:, :|«i! 162 From his youth up he had boen contaminated with every vice, and &\\ iniquity ; and if aoy of hia time waa spared from his libidinous pursuits, it was rather given to hunting than to prayer. A Council of the Bishops of Italy was called by the Emperor that they might judge of the life of this most vjieked of men. The Pope, fearing the judgment of right-miRded men, flies into the forest, and lies hid for some time in the woods, like a wild beast. The Emperor departing, his ft lends recall him, (the Pope,) but he is supposed to have perished by the judgment of God, lest the Church should be rui'nrd by the sedition arising on the subject. Some say that this most ini- quitous man, or Monster rather, perished by being stabbed as taken in the act of adultery.' Such is Platina's account of this progenitor of high Church Bishops and Priests ! ! " The scene becomes darker still through the following cen- turies. But the reader has had enough for proof of the point before us. It would be tediou^t and disgusting to wade through the filth of their proceedings. Platina, as we have seen, ex- pressly calls some of them ** Monsters ;" and says, • they left no Wickedness unpractised-' Pope Sixtus lY. licensed Brothels at Rome. Pope Alexander VI., A. D. 1492, is thus designated by Howel : ' We are now come to one of the greatest and horriblest monsters in nature that could scan- dalize the holy chair. His beastly morals, his immense am- bition, bis insatiable avarice, his detestable cruelly, his furious lusts, and monstrous incest with his daughter Lucretia, are at large described by Ginosardine, Ciaeonius, &c.' (Pontif., p. 612--514.) • • * Maximelian, (A. D. 1610.) the Em- peror, was wont to say, ' Eternal God, if thou shouldest not watch over us, how ill would it go with the world which we govern ? I, a miserable hunter, and that drunkard and wick- ed (Pope) Julius.' (Introduction for reading Histories, by Prideaux, p. 148. ) He that wishes to see more, may be wear- ied with the detail in the authorities mentioned; and also in Bishop Jewel's Apology and his Defence." (Powel's Essay, p. 217, &c.) Mr. Powell shows that severa/ of the Archbishops of Can- terbury and York, as well as some of the Provincial Bishops, from A. D. 66S to 1414, ere uidained by the Popes of Rome ; thus alTording " proofabundant that the Episcopal otdina- tions ill, Ihe Church of England Rowed Bleadi\y through all tbe filth of Popery," A specimen or two may be piven. Plrymund, a. D. 891, was ordained Archbishop of Can- terbury, at Rome, by Pope Formosus, whose episcopate lasted for 26 years. (Godwin's Lives, &c. p. 48.) "Every body Knows tuo liisiufy of Fopc F ofiiiOsus. Siophon Vi., his suc- cessor, at the head of his Council, having declared the ordi- nations which he had administered void, caused all those to be re-ordained whom he had ordered. Sergius HI. renewed all that Stephen had done against Formosus, and caused his ordi- nations to be declared null over again," Courayer's De- 161 Hth tvtry vice, tared froin his nting than to called by the i MOST wicked f right-mipded e time in the ing, his ft lends tve perished by ) ruinrd by the this most ini- > being stabbed na's account of ISIS ! ! following cen- of of the point wade through have seen, es- id soys, • they us IV. licented >. 1492, is thus to one of the at could scan- immense am- eity, bis furious •ucretia, are at ' (Poniif., p. SIO,) the Em- >u shouldest not >rld which we kard and with- Histories, by >, may be wear- ed; and also in Powel's Essay, mhops of Can* incial Bishops, Popes of Rome ; scopal otdina- ly through all be f iven. aishop of Can- )isoopate lasted " Every body 1 YI., his suc- lared the ordi- i all those to be I. renewed ail caused his ordi- lour oyer's De- ftnte of the Ordinations in the Church of England, p. 259. Courayer was a learned Roman Catholic. His work is highly «8teemed by Ihc divines of the Church of England. Now For* mosus ordainfad Plejimund Archbishop of Canterbury. He was never re-ordained. He ordained most of the Bishops in England fur twenty-siA years. What became of the succession here ?" Richard, was ordained Archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1174, at Anagni, by Pope Alexander III. whose episcopate lasted 9 years. (lb. p. 78 ) " According to Onuphrius Pan- vinius, one of the Popes' most devoted biographers, the twen- ty-fourth schism in the popedom was between Ale.: n,— viz. 4,000 mark<«. It will not be uninteresting to hear his answer. * Behold!' says he, * Thou hast created' me, forasmuch ai it is natural for a creature to desire to be perfected by his ereator, so, in my distresses, I desire lo be re> freshed by your Holiness. Truly a writ of execution, horrible to be seen, and terrible to be heard, has lately reached me, declaring that except I answer to it within a month after the feast of St. Michael, by|paying|into the hands of the merchants of Lur ,, the sum of 4,000 marks, according to my bargain with ie court of Rome, I am then lo be excommunicated, I am 10 be cursed in my own and other principal churches, whh Bell, Book, and Candles.' Admirable Successors — of Simon Magus!!" Henry Chichley, A.D. 1114 was ordained Archbishop of Canterbury, St, Sienna, by Pope Gregory XII., whoso episco- pate continned 29 years. (lb, p. 125.) " I'he consecration of Chichley by the hands of Pope Gregory XII. is even put into Chichley's Epitaph. Now this Gregory was one ol the then Three Pretenders to the Popedom; to end which schism Uie Council of Constance was assembled. The history of inCEO COniUSIOIlS lias iliicu -•■jtuutca. nurrcrcr, urcgury .xil. was deposed, and John XXIil. or XXIV. kept the chair. Yet Chichley received bis Episcopal succession from this Gregory, declared by a whole council to be no Pope of Rome, NO Bitnop at all; and he, Chichley, continued to communicate these /a/se orders to the English Bithops and : F h 'I' ■ IM 164 JJrchbishops, even in the fifteenth century, for twenty nint years! What an unbroken line of valid ordinations!!" Thon as to Simony. " The old adage ia, • The receiver is as bad as the thief.' The English Bishops rfgw/a/Zy traded with Rome insimoniacal traffick; evidence enoiieh of this is found in Bishop Godwin's Lives of the English Prelates. The court of Rome sold every thing. « Sometimes,* says Godwin, • those who had purchased, were, by a fraudulent clause in a subsequent Bull, thrown out of their purchase." It was then sold lo a second huclister, and the Pope received double: p. 106. John of Oxford, Bishop of Wincester, paid 6,000 marks to the Pope for his consecration, and the s&ne Buai to Jordan, the Pope's Chancellor: p. 222. Greenfield, Archbishop of York was two years before he could attain his confirmation and consecration from the Pope, and then he paid 9500 marks for the favor: p. 685. When Moreton became Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Godwin says, 'hespunged from the bishop of the ftrovinces a large amount of money, compelling them, by the authority of the Pope, to bear the cost of his translation to that See— to the amount of £15,000: p. 131." " The incapacity of these Lord Bishops was often ludi- crous. When Beaumont was made Bishop of Durham, God- win says, • he was lame of both feel, and so illiterate that he could not read the documents of his consecration. The word metropoUticae occurring he hesitated, and being unable to pronounce it, he exclaimed, • Let us skip it and go on.' So also when he ca.-ne to the term aenigmate, * sticking in the mud again,' says Godwin, « he burst out into these word*,— * By Saint Lewis! he was very uncourteous who wrote that word there.'— Hianaxl Fuccessor but one in the same See, was Thomas Hatfield. When the Pope was reasoned with, lh*t Hatfield was a young, trifling fellow without either know- ledge, gravity or sincerity, he answered,— If the king ef Eng- land (who had requested the Pope to consecrate this Hatfield,) had asked me now 6i/;7y of proving an "unirilerrupeed suecession" of persons by valid Episcopal ordinations from thn Apostles, will now be submitted : by which it will be seen how much tbey and ycu differ on this subject. Bishop Jbwkl :•' But wherefore telleth us P. Harding, this long tale of succession ? Have these men their own sec- cession in so fair record ? Who was then the Bishop of Rome next by succession unto Peter ? Who was the second t Whe tltf) third? Who the fourthV After quoting the diSerent opinions on this subject of Irenaeus, Epiphaniua. Opiatus, and Clemens, be proceeeds— '• Hereby it is clear, that of the four JirsJBishopsof Rome, P.Harding cannot certainly tell us who in order succeeded other. And thus talking so much of Succession, they are not welt able to blane their own sue- eescion." (Defence of Apology p. 128.) STXi.LiN6ri.EBT: "Is it come to pass at last that we havo nothing certain but what we have in Serifturesl and must tradition of the Church be our rule to interpret Scrip- ture by? An exdelleht woy to find out the truth doubtless to bend the rule to the crooked s'ick to make the judge stand to the opinion of his lacquey, what sentence he shall pass upon the cause in question; tu make scripture stand up in hand to tradition, to know whether it may havn Uave in >nssk cr net! Are all the outcries of Apostolical tradition, of personal suc- cession, of unquestionable records, resolved at hst into the Scripture itself, by him (Eusebius) from whom all these long pedigrees are fetched ? Then let succession know its place, and learn to vail bonnet to the Scriptures. And withal lei ' hi; ilW \3' ^ if A" : !' "J ■ II .. '■■* m Hi Men take heed over-r«acliing[ Ihamsolves, when (hey would bring down so large a eaiJogue ai single bishops from th« Bret «nd purest lime of the Chuich; for it will be hard for other* t» believe them, when EuiebiuB professeth it is so hard lo Jind them." (Imnicum.) HowEi. and Dr. Comber have ai'<:>:tdy been q>.v>;ed: Also Pridkaus, who asks, "whether th,;i sfiec«su.,v jnoy cob- tiuce to the Pope's Supremacy, which fauUereth, and FAit- BTH in ihe first fourtdation ?" Dr. Whitby: A rcjular snd uninterrupted fluccessio', of B;;,hop8 cannot be ntftce8-r.ry to the being of a Chrisiior Vlatch. * *• Tf! regular 'succession of Bishops being tlis- continued. (I.; > y .p.mcniaeal ordinatioiu, which by the ruies of the Church, a ..> nijv, rtuililies. and yet were comiaoxA^ practiced and compi^i'iffrf. foe many ages. (2.) When the Pop«>.«i were for a lo, ^ iint, upiistatici, magis quam Jlposto- iiei, apostaie'j js'byir than A;;ostles,— and such as, in the judgment of t>aronih«, no man could allow to be lawful priests. (3.) aocI whea about forty years, they had either two or three Popes logaihat, all exercising the office of ortfaining Bishops, Gtftgory Xil, Bandict Xlll., aod John XXIII.; two of which must be usurpers. All which ate just exeepiiops and prejudices sgainst the claini of a regular, uninterrupted suc- cession: seeing that a tiullity in him that ordains must make a nullity in (hem that are ordained; and sO on succes- aively. * • Were such succession owned to be nitessary, then uncertainty upon it would rob men of all spiritual com- fort." (Appendix as before.) Another quoiadon will close thiA~ part of the subject: ^. E. Riddle. M. A. " Whatever may become of apos- tolic succession, as a theory or institute, it is impossible, at all events, to prove the fact of such succession, or to;trace it down ihe stream of time. In this cbss, the fact seems to In* voive the doc(rine; and if the fact be hopelessly obscure, the doctrine is irrecoverably lost. * * /I is im|>osst(/0 to prove Ihe personal succession of modern Bishops in an unbro'ken line, from the apostles or men of the apostolic age. Ae a mailer of history and /ac^ apostouc sucoissiow, in this accepta- tion of the lerBj, is an absolute nonentity. Call it a theory, a fiction, a vision, or whatever you choose, you cannot give it a Mv^9 too shadowy and unsubstantial." (Christian Anti- ^uities, Pref. p71,&c.) The true nnd only needful succession is that of rAiTH and DOCTRINE. , Scripture: ••The things that thou hast 7i«arrf of ma a- mongmany wiinesies, tho xamc commit thou to faith fut then. who shall be able to << others also. " (2'Tim^ /^ ? ■ Here is no mention of (rn .' ssion of" orders," but of*' 'Mi- irine" only. Tertullian: Page 45, and 104 of your pamphlet I E.-i the f«llo«ving expression— •• According to Toriullian, the w?>. ., n'hen ihey would liops from (hci Rrst hard for oikert is ao hard to Jind een ''; retk :^^ed: Also .. may con- und Fail- ed flucuessio'. of g of a Chrir.tiBi lehopa being (tis- vhicli by th« rules wer« (»mmon4y (2.) When tha is quant Jlpotto- such ■>, in the w to be lawrul ey had either two ffice of ordaining FubnXXlII.'.two 1st exeepi ions and ninterrupled sue- lat ordains must d s<> on succes- to be niletaary, ill apiritual eem- le subject : become of apos* 1$ impoasiblei at ion, or to;trBce it fact seems to in> ssly obscure, the poaaible to^prove n unbro'ken line. As a matter of in this accepts- )ali it a theory, a u cannot give it (Christian Anti- it of rxiTH and It heard of me a- to faithfut men. f: (2'Tim^ A • f I," but of*' v I pamphlet I f,. i uilian, the ^^" ji 167 tohcu! ,:kar'f.e(tr < '* a church depended upon its being able tv Uftcf? ihe ' s:jtces;' lUi Gv 1 diversify and con'rariaty, pronounce against them. T( tmsform of trial will tppeal be made by those churches henuiforward daily establishing, which though they have KiiTHER any of the Apostles, nor apostolical men for THEIR FOUNDERS, yet all agrectng- in the samk FA'iTH,are, from this eonsanguity of Doctrine, to be esteemed not the less apostolical than the former." (De Praescript, c. 82, Pow- el'fl Essay p. 269.) I advise you to be less positive and more careful in your assertions. Why did you not produce the a- bove ? On page 51 of your book you have given a quotation from this very chapter. The above extract commences with- m two lines of the place where yours terminates! And yet you came to a full stop! And so positively misrepresented Terlollian! And yoi you "lake the liberty io set me right, whpre you think I have not clearly understood" the Fathers! A " liberty" truly! Terlullian has great reason to think you iiave taken an unwarranted <* liberty" with him! "Gregory HAtnAnzEK:—" This succession of piety ought to be esteeafted the true succession. For he who main- tains the same doctrine of faith, is partner in the same chair ; but he who defends a contrary doctrine, ought, though in the chair of St. Mark, to be esteemed an adversary to it. This man, indeed, may have a nommarsucnession, but the other has the very thing itself, the Succsssioir in Deed and in Truth. Neither is he who usurps the chair by violent means to be esteemed in the succession ; but he who is pressed into the office: not he who violates all law in his election, but he who is elected in a manner consistent with the laws of the case: not he who holds doctrines opposed to what St. Mark taught, but he who is indued with the same faith as St. Mark. Except, indeed, you inlend, to maintain such a sue- cession as that of sickness succeeding to health ; light suc- ceeding to darkness ; a storm to a calm ; and madness auc- ceedini; to soundness of mind," (Atbanasii 0pp. vol. 2. — 'owell.p. 271.) *' St. AMisHOsK i-"'- They have not ihs inhariianco, are not the successors of Peter, who have not Peters's raitb.' " (D* Penitentia, Lib. I. cap. lb.) " Melanothon : The Chureh ia not bound to an ordina- ry SvccBssieN, as they call it, of Bishops, but to the Gospel- When bishops do not teach the tritth, an ordinary Stfccsa- ") *; I 'I 1«8 •low avails nothing to the Church ; they ought of necessity to ^eforBaken." (lb.) " PcTBR Martyr:— « It it ■ moat trifling thing which they, (the Papists,) 'object against us.» (the Rftfotmers.) that we want the right tueeession. It is quite enough for ua that we have $uete«ded to the Faith which the Apostles Uught, and which was raaintained by the Holy Fathers in the best ages of the Church.' " (Loci Com. Class 4.iGap. I. lb.) Bishop Jewel:— "It is not sufficient to claim succession of place : It beheveth as ralher to have regard to the tuccet- «Mn of DocTHiSK. S. Bernard saiih. • What availeth it, if they be chosen in order, and live ottt of order.' So saith, S.Augustine, ' The outward mark or right of a bishop, many gwe to Wolves, and be Wolves thtmtehes.' »' (Oefence. p» 139 ) Chillinoworth:— •« JiTothing but want of trvth and holding error, can make or prove any man or Church hereti- cal.»' •• But now suppose I should be liberal to you, and grant WHAT y»» cannot prove, that the Fathers make auccesnon a certain and perpetual mark of the true Church ; I beseech you what will beeomeof U ? What, that want of succession is a certain sign of an heretical company ? Truly jf you say so, either you want tegick, which is a certain sign of an ill dis- puter ; or are not pleaiMd to use it, which is worse. * * Yoa roust not content yourself to shew, that having it (the succes- siou) IS one sign of truth ; but you must shew it to b« the onlit itenotH^ndinteperablefiomit. But this, if you be well advisedjvou will never undertake." (Religion of Protestants A Safe Way of Salvation, p. 357, 866.) •• Field :-«• Thus still we see that truth of doitrine is a necessary note whereby the Church must be known and dis. cemed, and not ministry or succession, or any thing else with- out It.' (On the Church, B. 2, chap. 6.") "White:—' Wheresoever the true faith contained in the Scriptures ts professed and embraced, there is the whole and full nature of an Apostolic Church. • For the Eternal SuccBssiow WB CARE NOT.' (Way to the true Church § 62, «d. 1612.") " Francis White, Bishop or Elt :— • The true visible Church is named Apostolicai.not because of local and persona! succession of Bishops, (only or principally,) but because it retaineth the Faith wA Doctrine of the Apostlea, personal or local succession only, and in itself, maketh not the Church apostolical, because hirelings and wolves may lineally succeed lawful and orthodox pastors: Acts 20, 29, 80. Even ss 64, fol. ed. 1624. ") '^ "Stillingfleet:—' The succession so much pleaded by the writers of the primitive Clwreh, was not a sueceuion of person* «{i apostolical power, but a tiuccsssioN iw Aposto- lical Doctxinb.* (Ireoicnini) it of nsceuity to \g thing which ihe Rnformers.) ) enough for ua h the Apoallei y Fathers in the I 4.!cap. 1. lb.) I aim auccesaion rd to the succet- it ataileth it, if er.' So sailb, a bishop, manif ' " (Defence, of TBVTR and Church hereti- lyou, and^rant ke succetnon a ; 1 beaeecb you Bucceaiion ia a if you say ao, I of en ill dia- oree. * * Yot I i(^(the Bucces- t to b« the only if you be well I ef Protestants doitrine is a nowa and di8< thing else with- mtainedin tht the whole and [■HB Etbrnal ueChnrcb §62, le true visible iai and personal but because it ea, personal or ot the Church lineally, succeed 80. Even as ) (uurB3, p. ich pleaded by I succesmn of >ir lir Aposto- m For further exlracla to the* same point, you may con»uIt Powell's elaborate and unan8*\erable Essay on Apostolical Succession, from which the most of the preceding have been qAoted. I conclude this Letter with a few quotations from a work published in London 1 338. written by a Clergyman of the Church of England, and entitled, " Letters on the Writings of the Fathers of the First Two Centuries, with Reflections on Ihe Oiford Tracts, and Strictures on 'The Records of the Church'- Signature, •♦ Misopapisticus." I. Of Apostolical Succession. " To infer the character of the Christian .Ministry from an a&rflgafcd priesthood, as the writer in the British Magazine does," and as you have done in your episcopacy maintained, '• is surely an absurdity which might have well been left to the mother of absurdities, the Church of Rome. Apostolical Succession ought to have been proved by the writer, instead of being assumed. The subject haa more difficulties than those who thus deal with it seem to know. It has no djrecf proof from the Scriptures. If they plead that it has, let them produce it. • The fact is, and let them disprove it if they can. that there is no command, no rule, no regulation in the New Testament, on tha subject of apostolical succession, io the sense intended by them. And why 80 ? The ans vcr is. because the God of wisdom did not thinkit right or needful to appoint any thing specifically on the subject ; and his wisdom has been abundantly proved by the event. As it is, where there ia no command, no rule on the subject, the assumptions of men have produced mischiefs that are incalculable. They have prided themselves on their supposed exelusive privilege, hedged themselves in by an en. closure alleged to be divine, and anathematized all others.— God has never raised such an enclosure." (p. 8, &c. ) 2. Of Orders :—'* Thit Sacraments have any virtue of themselves, or that any grace is inseparably connected with theni, has no countenance from Scripture ; nor is the sentiment consistent with it, nor with reason or common sense, nor with facts. * The same may be said o( orders. It is not the con- ferring, but the receiving, that is to be chiefly regarded. What a difference on this subject is there between the writings of these (Oxford) divines, and the Epistles of St. Paul ! Their absorbing subject is the apostolical succession, while St. Paul, speaking of ministers, dwells mostly on their qualifieations.— These writers seem to think that the Bishop by the very act of ordination, confers some spiritual gift, irre.<)pectively of any thing m the candidates. • What does ordli»ii^« n do for those who coisiB uTi^ife*/ for the work they unj ..ake.' Does it qualify them by the bestowment of any spiritual gift ? Does it enlighten their minds to understand the Scriptures, or make them apt to teach, or translate them from a thoughtless state of mind into sober and serious piety ? Does it give them a new heart, or does it give a netf bent to t! cir wills and afiee- f I' 1 ' 1 '1. J . all* auiL-H ^ .""' r '=°»'^="'"g orders on iho.e not spiriiu- Intu? 'r* "":? ''''°'^ '° "«=«'"« ""^''by a cttr« than anJ DO « „!"h"' ^'r '"«• .' ^*» '«'^« "'J"" therefore without poMe«aiojr those things which qualify for ' ' ,, ,he iTofi°J/^''^^^°'''' ''" "'«^ everbe j...,y conferred. »an « o/ ""^^ ■^"'^^°- (pl68. &c.) «D.^V«„"!,r '''''!/*•' -T" V" '■""y P«""de«l that many n«f tini^nf^\'"'^TJ'^'\".\"''^°''^''''^ «' «« by men" are thl f , ?.'"*'' •'^- * '^'?''"' P'*^'-'^' '"''' «'"J »«'"«»'«' blesses hem f -r the conwers.on of soula. as he did St. Paul. And all i..-j '*i. We TRUTH, and can produce credential, of this i». Itctter XI. Testimony ofBishops, Doctors, and Clerffvmen. Ac offh»ri,.., ! of England on the subject i« debute-ffirof em,ed „'J^';7;^' other denominations. men ot o- Bcv. Sib. rw my Defence I quoted the opinions of some eminent Eni. eopalian Divmes to show that they considered hah«n«'^!i presbyters of the aam. order, m LTby opjo 'g »?%"'' by con8.ciuence. were opposing 'hem. Butyou i. li n^'nUrB « .omelhing exceedingly unfair and ungenerous on the nart A r" I "PP''"^""'' '« q^o'e a line St two fJo „.„?"* and trom these to draw an inference directly at variance wU; the author's real opinions," (p. ill.) nt«T,'.L w the r.«^ opinions ofWautho/Vconlv T JT^l quotations cant ..n the real opa.ons of the ho hit then ' Is .1 either .. uu.air" or •• ungenerous" to quote those ooini" ons? And surely you must know. I never said theZ.ons in qa-^.onwereNOT£^,„«p«/ia„,.butit was became ih«; .TJ^.'/.Tp'"^""'"'"".''*''^®' * H""iod their opinions to prove that you, an Episcopalian, presumed to anathamatize others in d? ract opposition to the expressed and deliberate judgment of many of the most eminent divines of your own Church at onca yo«r fppenor. m age. in talent, in JeJrning. and inrfluence ot (he efTsctfl.'^. hosL- not spiritu- .h« wholly tn/il. eurse than any ■hetehre without I the cunferred, is an IMPOSTURE ; gofa spiritual ) i that many not U by men, are iwns and blesses Paul. And all denliala of this ian Ministers." c. of the Church fned men of o- eminent Epis^ I bishops and > .ygvae, yoU; oli n«, "there ' on the part 0(j; ,*a a ithor. variance witii od. a' thereby i >ut if ^he n hat then i t those opini* the persona in because thaw to prove that ) others in di- judgment of lurch, at once in influence. 171 But •« Dr.Hoba I 's remarks on Church govermient are so ludic.ous that" you " quote litem for" mt "information." Well let us see how "judicious" Dr. Hobarl's remarks are, as fliey apply to the subject in hand. " Episcopalians do not contend thai in an extensive and unqualified sense there is any form of Church governmenl of divine right. Church go. vernwent is ofien applied by Episcopal writers, in a confined sense, to the orders of the ministry, and in this confined sig- nihcaiion Episcopal g /eminent is of divine right. • The «n^/e point for which ihey contend is. that Episcopacy was insiiiuted by Christ and his Apostles ; (hat the three grades of mmisters, bishops, priests, and deacons, with thejr appropri- ate powers, are of divine and apostolical institution." (p. 111.) But to meet (he poin(. Dr. Hobart should have eirried you lurther, and told you, that episcopal writers generally b«. Iieved these grades of minisurs were so essential, that, with- out them, there could be no true Church, and all. who possess- ed » hero not, were left to the uncovenanted mercy of God The persons, whose opinions wore quoted, were Episcopalians, and doubtless thought theii- ministry was not contrary to the get ..; principles of (he i-riptures. But what thought thev ofothers? Did (hey er -de others from the pale of Iba Church of Christ ? Or dt their nsinislry as invalid— their Sacraments r^ vain ? If you ^ere as well acquainted with lb« writings of the heformers as yi ought to be, you would know that they do not speak of Chi , s^overnmenl in the " exten- sive und unqualified sense" whicn yc lention, but that they speak (0 ?he very subject of orders nd you would also learn for your own •« information," t. ' Dr. Hobart's iu- ^icifftts remarks," are altogether/ reigrt to ih, subject '— Now for the proof. •* I begin with Crawmer.— You wish to make it appear, (p. 110.) that C nmer's opinions were peculiar to himself, end that afterwards he changed them, and subscribed others di- rectly the contrary. But you have not proved that all this had regard to his opinions respecting ministerial orders. That the op-nion of Cranmer as quoted by me was not peculiar (o iiimseli 18 80 evident, » hat It is "singular" to me how any person eho d attempt to show the contrary. The following decl ration ib Mgned in solemn convocation, viz. " The truth 18, (hdt m tht New Testament there i« no mention made of my degrees or distinctions in Ordbh., but only of Deacons or Ministers, and of Priests or Bishops"— by "Thomae Lord) Cromwell, who was then the King's Vicar General.— homas Cranmer, Arci.biahop of Canterbury. Edward, Arch- bishc.n of Ynrli TnKn R:>h^» "f* T -_j.,_ ^..>> . » . 01 Durham. John, Bishop of Lincoln. GeoflVey IDownes.-- John Skip. Cuthbert U shall. Marmoduke Waldeby. Ro bertOking. Nicholas H.yth. Ralp Bradford. John, B.«hop of Bath. Thomas, Bishop of Ely. John, Bishop of Baniior. i^icholas. Bishop of Sai.ibury. Edward, Bishop of Hereford. i! liii Ml. [ ■■ 172 Hugo, Bi«hop of Worcester Jolin, Bishop of Rochesler.— Kicliard, IJisliop ofChithoslt;. . Richard Wolnian. John Bell. William Clyde. Robert A IdriiJ^e. Richard Smith. Simon Matthew. John Prynn. William BuckmoBtre. Wiliiam^Ia- JO. Nicholas Wolton. Richard Cox. John Edmumli. Tho- (iiaH RoheriBon. Thomas Buret. John Naso. Jo m Barber." Burnet adds—" Somo other hand^j there are that cannot be read"— and ti above are styled, *' Professors of Sacred Theology, and of Cioil ami EecUiiatti(al Law,'' (Bur- nefi Reform, vol. 2, Ad. 5.) The Article thus aigned, is headed, •• ^ Declaration made of the Functions and Dirine Institution of Bishops and Prio»t8," and among other things it contains the following—" We will that all Bishops and Preach- «rs shall imtruet and teach our people conunilted by us unto tbeir spiritual charge. "First— How that Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordained in the New Testament, that— there should be certain Ministers or officers, which should have spiritual power, autho- rity, and commisaion under Christ, to preach and teach tha Word of Go(i,unto his people, and to dispeose and administer the Sacraments of God unto them ;>-to order (ordaio) and consecrate others in the same room, order, and office, wbere- upio they be called and admitted themselves. &c. ** //em— that this office, this power and authority, was com- milled and given by Christ and his Apostles unto certain per- tont only, that is to say, unto Priests or Bishops," fee- Then qfter this comes the decimation already quoted respect- ing the •* Distinctions in Orders" mentioned only in the New Testament. Here then, by the Vicar General, Bishops and Archbishops, and Professors of Civil and Ecclesiastical Law, it is determined as plainly as words can make it, that presby- ters are of the same order as bishops ; that, to them, is com- mitted the power or authority to ordain and oousecrate others in the same room, order and office, whereunto they themselves are admitted ; and that this power and authority was commit- ted and given unto them by Christ and his Apostles. "The Bishops and Priests were at one time, and were no two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ's Aeligion." Cranmer. "I think the bishops were fiist, and yet I think it is not of importance, whether the Priest then made the Bishop, or else the Bishop the Priest ; considering (ufier the sentence of Je- rome) • that in the beginning of the Church (here was none (orif it were, very small) difference, between a Bishop and a Priest, especially touching the signification," Bishop of L0ri!K>ri. "Nor do I think it absurd, that a Priest should consf crate ■ Bishop, if a bishop could not bo had." Dr. Robertso " Although by Scripture (as St. Hierome saith) Priests and Bishops be one, and therefore the one not before the other : Roche»ler n. Juhii Dell, imirii. Simon William -flla. dmunritj, was com- certain per- ihop$," &c. — uoted respect- ily in the Nsw , Bishops and siasticai Law, t. that presby- hem, is com- isecrate others ley themselves ir was comma- ties. and were no ing of Christ's ik it is not of tishop, or else ntenoe of Je- jra was none 1 Bishop and a Bishop or Id con8«>crala oberlso h) Priests and re the other : ' J78 yet bishops, as tiisy be ttow, were after priests, and therefore made of (ty) priest*. •• Dr. Cox. " Tl»ey be uflike beginning, and at the beginning were both one, tts St. Hierome aid other old authors shew by the Scrip- lure, wherefore one made another indifferently." Dr. Red- MAYN. The above shows most convincingly, that Cranmer was not tingular in his belief, that presbyters and bithopa were origi- nally but of one order : nay, if after your quotation from Bur- net'a Reformation, you had turned over another leaf, you would have read— " The Scripture, they said, made express iriention only of the ttoo orokrs oi pti'eatt and deacons." VfiCKLirrs, •• the Morning Star of Reformrlion," and Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, had staled before this lirne, "One thing I boidiv assert, that in the pri- niitiv. Church, or in the lime of the Apostle Paul, two orders of Clergy were thought sufficient, v«. Priest aud Deacon ; and I do also say, that in the lime of Paul, a priest and a bish- op were one uiid tbo same ; for in those times the distinct ordera of Pope. Cardinals, Patriarchs. Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, Officials, and Deans, were not invented." In the Book, entitled. •' The JVeceemry Erudition oj a Chrittian Man," and •• drawn up by a CJinmitlee of Bishops and other divines, afterwards read and approved by the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and the lower House of Parliament, prefaced by the King, and published by his command," it is also stated, " Of these two orders only, that is to say, Priests and Beacons, Scripture raaketh express mention." Speaking of the 23d Article, Bishop Burnet snys it •' is put in very general words, far from that magisterial stiffness m which some have taken upon them to dictate in thifi mat- ter. • They who drew It up, had the stale of the several Churches before their eyes, that had been differently reform- ed ; and although their own had been less forced to«o out of the beaten path than any other, yet they knew that all things among themselves had not gone according to those rules, ihat ought to be aacred in regular times. • • Whatever some Ao/tera;)irt7s have thought of this, since that lime, yet we are very sure, that not only those that penned the artithn, but the body of this Church, for above half an age after, tlid, notwithstanding these irregularities, acknowledge lhe/or€»ifn Churches, so constituted, to be true Churches, as to all the essentials of e Church, though they had been at first jrregu- isr.-y icrmca, and continue to be m an imperfect stale. And therefore the general words in which this part of the Article is framed, seem to have been designed on purpose not to exclude them." •_* An Act of Parliament was passed, in the IStbyear of ihe Reign of Queen Elizabeth, to reform c( ain Disorders touch- ing Ministers of the Church. This Act, as Dr. Strype, an EpiscopalHistorian, informs us, was framed with an txpresa ■i ' 174 tiaw to admilling into the Church of England, those who had received presbyterian ordination in the foreign Churches, on their subscribing the articlei of /o»7A. But can we suppose, that boih Houses of Parliament, one of of them including the bench of Bishopi, would have consented to pass such an act, unless the principle bad been approved by the most influential divines of (bat Church .'" " So in the J2lh Carolj, cap. 17. • Be it enacted, that any ecclesiastical persons or minister being ordained by any ecclesiastical persons &c.' By these Acts hundreds of minis- ters, who had no more than Presbyterian ordination, or or- dinationby Presbyters alone, v/nhoul ihe presence of any Bishop, were confirmed in their livings as true ministers in the Church of England." •* The conduct of the English Reformers corresponded with their laws and public standards. They invited several eminent divines from the foreign Reformed churches, who had receiv- ed no other than Presbyterian ordination, to come over to Eng- land; and on th^ir arrival in consequence of this formal invita- tion, actually bestowed upon them important benefices in the Church aad in the Universities. A more decisive testimony could scarcely be given, that those great and Venerable Di- vines had .MO scruple respecting tha «alfdiiy of ordination by Presbyters." ' "Another testimony as to the light in which ordination by Prea. byters was viewed by the ost distinguished Reformers of the Church of England, is found in a license granted by Archbi. SHOP Grzndat., to the Rev. John Morison, a Presbyterian .Winislrr, dated April 6, 1582— "Since you, the said John Mo- rison, were admitted and ordained to sacred orders, and the holy ministry, by the -m/joathon of hands, according to the laudable form and rite of the Reformed Church of Scotland. We, therefore, as much as lies in us, and as by right we may, approving and ratifying the form of your ordination and preferment done in such manner aforesaid, grant unto you a license— throughout the whole province of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, and to minister the sacraments, &c." " An r iknowledgment, still nr^ore solemn and decisive, is made in one of the Canons of the church of England, in which lior clergy are commanded to • pray for the churches of Eng- land, ScoTLAWD and Ireland, as parts of Christ's holy Catho- lic church' &c. This canon (the 55th) among others, was en- acted in 1604, when the church of Scotland was, as it now is, Presbyterian. The idea that those churches which were not Were not to uu coftsidcfod as ;«uo churches of Christ, seenrs at this time to have been entertain- ed by no person of any influence in the church of England. Thise-xtravagance was reserved forafier limes, and the inven- tion of it for persons of a very different spirit from that of tha Cranmers, the Qrindals, and th« Mbots of the preceding age." ^ ' I those who had I Churches, on n we auppose, I including the IS such an act, most influential enacted, that dained by any ireds of minis- ination, or or- esenee of any le ministera in responded with levcral eminent 'ho had receiv- ie over to Eng- I formal invita- enefices in the sisive testimony Venerable Di< ordination by nation by Pres> eformers of the 'd by ArchbI' a Presbyterian said John Mo- irdere, and the cording to the h of Scotland, tight we may, '•dination and frant unto you Canterbury, to amenls, &c." ind decisive, is land, in which irches of Eng- .'s holy Catho- >thers, wasen- 8, as it now is, vhich were not dcfcd as Siuo leen entertain- li of England, and theinven- om that of the the preceding Jio occdsion in ifi«« '^ ^' ^*»'"ermon, delivered on a po' and ,a ?r%'l'„'f„'. «-« l^ri^ff-ce to many of the Sr tisfied w.ih the doctrine ;.hichirc?„5""?'^'' """'•' '^"» RAic«oi.Dsprofesso ofDivi'SSv inth T''' '"°^"' ^«- and who was acknow edgerty a^i, hi ''L?"''^"''^«f O'f^'d, prodigy of learninff for k^«" • ^ ""contemporaries to be a ed Pro-wX^iLsaid or»«r'*'''r That learn- varsity in his day • re.Hrnld .„* ^"^ '?""''' °'"'^"' ""'- .hing/. con.ain:^he7o CiVpaZr' ^^^^ ^"8 oib.r which your honour meminnL ;„ ?! ^ "' '"® *-^° ©pmions the first is tha whid. ; erf, ?h« ' '"'""°" "'^ ^'' ^""'roft, lates among ; have over the it JTT''^*''*'^ "^^ **"■ He does not, indeed atsVrt.S*^' '" ''«'''^"'''« institution, it by necessary co"se«uZl 5„ VT^' ^Z'""' *»"' ^^ does of tLso that oppose tras^pVriorUvToi'"'^''"'' '"*' "P'"'"" in my judgment, he has comLi/i J^ " '" ?"*'^5 '" '^''icb, he himself will acknowiedT.^f/ °'?"'€''«; and I believe er, and Musculn, t^ ' ^"''""* Brentiut, Bulang. th; Quee^lT/^;„;t,"'";« °y«»«^VEs ''^ ^-^^ Bishop,, other learned m:iT/rr«l^"S;;:\r; "T"*"*"; ""d Humphrey,, Fxdke TCli^^^^^Tl*''^'"''^' P^kington, the superiority SUiAi/h",?"'"'''''''" *^'" *''' "^"^''^d i./;hirDi;"zri;„f;:?rd7'rr ^^ '■•'^-^'^'''s •«•••«"«"» tation before ?I^^Ur^ve"v of oiford'^ "'"P"' •uperiority of Bishops. SydmneriLhf' » T,- ", "'T •"" < s . ' 4*1 .^i mm tl ' fi ■ i ■t 1 ' 1 1T« 93." Ala public academical eAercis<3, in the year 1608, in answer to a question formnlly and eolemniy propoaed, ' Whe- '.her the office of Biahap be different from that of Presbyter, id superiur toit, by JDivine right. Dr. HoliLand declared ^H ' to affirm that there is such a difference and superiority, unlb.jne right, is most Jalse, — conirnry to Scripture, — to t/ie Fathers, — to the doctrine of the Chvrch of England, yea to the very Schoolmen themselves." (Dr Dwighl's Theo- logy, Vol. 5, p. 184, 8vo.) " Archbishop Whitgipt, in his book againt -'«"''•'» ^wiioijjEwiL'atest.mQny, to which referenc- has been made .s as lollows-" But what meant Mr Hard ng (his Po^ P^^h Antagonist here to come in with the difference between ho d only by traditfon ? Or is it horrible an heresy ashoS 111 a i-riest are all on.? Or knoweth he how far and imio whom, he rcacheth the name of heretic ? Zu76hrl,o2m ' ^ S; c^e'^Ti" «'«'-P«f -P'-^in am^nnVSe sm h «r!^r'.». ••^"'""^ sa.th.,;B6mewhai in rougher sort.' I cZ be&re ?«• V"?. ''""'"« ^° ?««"'«'•• »'"'' ''« "tteth dea! theAnos.l!^! 'f ''''"[."u'""^' ^'^^'^ ^"A^'W whereas l,!^P°i'/'V'"'"'^ 'eacheth us, that Priests and b.ahops bo al! PrLt ,t'AT'""° ".'"'• ' ^^'' « « fi'«''°P. but the First brore • Jhere 17*/''" "'s'^^^' P'-««'-" So «aith St. Am- for Lh ^rfK*^ **"' **"* '°""<=''a'i'>n of Priest and Bishop; All thei «„H ?I" "'' *'''''•'• **"^ '^^ '''^hopia thefirst/ ilhl^tl"/'^^^''".''''^'"'^'^ advice, must and Si n? ^r^'^'r" (J^^f'"**. P- 202.) ^ On page^ ToJ and 101, (he Defence, he thus nuces «t. JeFome a- illrl !^ of c«.sf<,m than of any truth or right of Christ'^ n*,unon and thul, hey ought to rulo the Clfurch aU C ther. And again, 'Therefore a Priest and a Bishop are both Z n f " "•« 'g-on. und these words were uttered amonir he people I hold o. P«ul. I hold of Apollos, J hold of pX^ the Churches were covemed h., .(,„ L...' .j.:". ^.°'."' ihoTmL-^f Augus,-.no sauir, .'The"o"ffi7o"o'f a bi^hopls'bov: theofhceofaPnestCJVoffty authority of the slriptu,^^ authon'.y of the Scnptt-os. baf'^aro put in between brack- ■ l! m-i m Hi V\»bj lewel himself explanatory of St. Augustine's meaning, which IS a convincing proof tiiat Jewel believed that Bishops are above Presbyters, *• rot by authority of the Sctiptures, but" only by ecclesiastical atrangement. So also in another place he says, " TAts t5 ^Ae fAtng that we defend. £t Je- rome laith, * Let bisliops understand {whereunto we bdd fur- ther," saye Jewel, "Let the Bishops of Borne themselves xin- ileratand) thai they are in authority over Prieste more by «U8tom than by order of God'a Truth.'" (p. 99.) Jkwel *' stands in the very first class of reformers fur talent, piety, and learning; and for the ability with which he defended the •Churchof England against the Papists, * His Apology,' says Dr Randolph, (in the Preface to his EuchirideonTheologicum.) has had the sanction of public authority, and may therefore be relied on as containing the final and decided opinion of our Aefurmers, approved in the general by the church at large.' " Dr, WilLiBT, a distinguished divior of the Church uf Eng- land, in the reign of Elizabeth, in his Synopsis Papismi, a large and learned work, dedicated to that Queen, undertakes ^professedly to deliver the opinion of his Church on the subject before us. Out of much which might be quoted, the following passages are sufRcient for our purpose: ' Of the difference be- tween bishops and priests, there are three opinions: i\i9 first, «f^ertu5, who did hold that all ministers should be equal; and thai a bishop teas not, neither ought io be superior to a priest. The second opinion is the other extreme of the Papists, who would have not only a diflerence, but a princely pre-emi- nence of their bishops over the Clergy, and that by Ihe Word ■nf God. And they urge it to be so necessary, that they are no true Churches which receive not the pontifical hierarchy."-— ■ < Are there not some others of whom better things might be expected, who go, in this respect, to the full ** extreme of the Papists .'") " The third opinion is between both, that altho' this distinction of bishops and priests, as it is now received, cannot be proved out of Scripture i yet it is very necessary, for the policy of the Church, to avoid schisms, and to preserve it in unity. Of this judgment. Bishop Jewel, against Harding, «bowsth both Crysostcm, Ambrose, and Jerome to have been. * To this opinion of St. Jerome, subscribeth Bishop Jewel, and another most Reverend Prelate of our Church, Archbishop Whitgift." Dr. WiLLET also expressly renounces the ar- gument drawn by many Episcopalians from the Jewish Priest- hood. In answer to a celebrated Popish writer, who had, with great confidence, adduced this argument, to support the authority of bishops, as an order superior to presbyters, he ■observes " Th6 fJifh-'^Tif^t ihiHs^.t ih.ft lav? w^s a fi'^ur^ of Christ, who is the High-priest and Chief Shepherd of the New Testament : and therefore this type, being fulfilled in Christ, cannot properly be applied to the external hierarchy of the Church"— just whnl I had told you in my Defence. "This cbampien of the Cbwrch of England further concedes : ' That it may be Apostle Bi diocese ; f often from the place that Timot ihow bould ordained b all doubt, i the govern of unity ; y Helvetia, ( form of ecc Papists,) bishops as i OUR Bisho^ between thi ed Churche enee" now •• Bishop 31S, deliver from Jeron, Common Co understand custom thar in after the " Bishop the Papists, diction whic belong to all ancient rigl Archbishop < the foreign 1 preferment i tbat ' it coul Reformed CI How have tl "good old u "Dr. Wri the Chutch < versity ofCai Jesuit , afBrmi aW one An Scotland, he vords, that b iUa .1 ~t - - — •' ■.i:saia->;lci ajfirm, thht \ Wish some otl "hat is so we aot ? Jerome 'tma, and coi tine's meaning, i ihat Bishops he Sciiptures, also in another efend. St 3e- nto we 6dd fur- themselves un- rieste more by 1.99.) JiswsL talent, piety, e defended the Apology,* nays iTheologicum.) lay therefore be opinion of our irch at large.'" Church of Eng- isis Papismi, & sen, undertakes 1 on the subject d, the following le difference be- lions: ihe first, }uld be equal; ! superior to a e nf^the Papists, rincely pre-emi- It by the Word that they are no hierarchy."— lings might be * extreme of thn oth, that aitho' now received, very necessary, and to preserve gainst Harding, ne to have been. Bishop Jewel, rch, Archbishop lounces the ar- Jewish Priest- Iter, who had, to support the presbyters, he lerd of the New illed in Christ, ierarchy of the Bl'cnce. "This )ncedei : ' That it may be doubled whether Timothy were so ordained by th» Apostle Bishop of Ephesus, as a fifshop is now set over hil XnV '^"k"'? ""^ ^P'"'"" ^^""''^ "«'«' »^ave calleJ him so often from h.s charge. &c. It is most lik. ,y that Timothy had i'at&r' '"""5 '^ r ^"««=?««»' ? Again 'sLng that Timothy was ordamed by the authority of the eldershZ ,howbould he be a bishop strictly and precLly taken be n^ all doubt, ho observes. • Although it cannot be denied but that the government of bishops is very profitable for the preserving ieTIil ^^' *^«'^"-^"''' ^""'/emn the Churches of GeneTa! Helvetia, Germau, , Scotland, that have received another form of ecclesiastical government ; as the Papists" (mind the b^sTo*; *; tl?'"''"'''^ "^r"'' Churches, wh^h have not sC' OUR SA "'"'""?• '« be no true Churches. But so do not OUR Bishops^nd Archbishops, which is a notable difference e3 Ch"?chet -^'°r, "'/'/i ^"P'^" ^''"'^-=' ""'' °^ theSoTm! 'Le" now! ^'" ' *''''« " ""'^ " notable differ. ^i« ^'f?**P ■B.^'^'n. in his work against Seminaries. Lib. I. p. 318, delivers it as his opinion, and confirms it by quotationa from /erome, that 'the Church was at first governed by tZ Common Counoi of Presbyters; that therefore Bishops must understand that they are greater than presbyters, rather by TJT h""* ."'f'- ''PPoi»*"*ent ; and that Bishops cam» in after the Aposileb' time.' " "Bishop JHoreton, in his Catholic Apology, addressed to te Papists, tells them. • that the powef of Order and IV,^ bilir.!!' I? A ^^d""','" '** Siohops, doth, by dimne right, MongtoiWother Presbyters; and ihit to ordain is their A?f il"^"^*r c '^,''' """"^ ^"''"«' ^^>«" •>« '^"s urged by tho Archb.shopof Spa/ajo to reordain a Clergyman from one of Irpfil ^*? Reformed Churches, that he might be qualified for preferment ,n England . according to law. declined it. sayina. if • 'I could not be done but to the scandal of the othJr Reformed Churches, wherein he would have no hand."'-. How have the times changed. Mr. Shreve ! Where is tho good old way" now. Mr. Shreve ? Alas ! Forsaken ! iU n,^' T'*73:^^'='*'j' before quoted, " a learned divine of the Chuich of England, and Professor of Divinity in the Usii- versity of Cambridge, in hi» Treatise against Campion fiu, Jesuit , affirms that Bishop and Presbyter are, by divine .;;/«/, Scotland, he tells bim, • that whereas he assorts, with .xm,y words, that bishop and presbyter are divers, if ho will re.a„» - vtsaiavier oj B moaea diviue. he must not so tonMenilv ajjirm, thkt which all men set to be to evidently fnse. ' (I wish some others noto-ffl.days would take this advice.) • Fsi.- What IS so well known, says he, as this which you acknowledge Tl ^«f<"»« P'a'ny.wHteth that elders and bishops are the itm, and coafirmetb it by many places of Scripture. ' The * ^f\< '$ mM: 1«0 same celebrated Episcopalian, in writing against BeUarmme, savB, • From*2 tun. I, 6, we understand that Timothy had hands laid on liim by presbyters, who at that time governed the Churehin Common Council;' and then proceeds to speolt eeverely ol Bellarmine and tiie Romish Church for confining tbep'ower of ordination to bishops exclusively of presbyters." Aga'n : 'I confess that there was originally no difference be- tween a presbyter and a bishop. Luther, and the other heroes of the Reformation, were presbyters, even according to the ordinutionof {be Romish Church; and, therefore, they were, jure divino, bishops. Consequently, whatever belongs to bishops, belongs also, jure divino. (by divine right) to them- aelves. As for bishops being aftervBards placed over presby- ters, that toas a human arrangement— ardo humanusfuit— for the lemoviil of schisms, as the histories of the times testi- fy," (0pp. vol. 1. p. 509, &c.) Bishop Hall, in his Irenicum (or Peaccmaftcr) Sect. VI. says—" Blessed be God there is no difference, in any essential point, between the Church of £ng/ani, and her Sister Re- formed Churches. * The only difference between us con- siBis in our mode of constituting the external ministry ; and even with respect to this point we are of one mind, because we all profess to believe that it is not an essential of the Church, (though in the opinion of many it is a matter of >">• portance to her well being ;) and we all retain a respectful and friendly opinon of eacii other, not seeing any reason why so small a disagreement BhcM piod\xc& any alienation of affec- tion among us^' ... 11 u Among other things, Hooeer has the following-" TOtich- iog the ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the whole body of the church being divided into laity and clergy, the clergy are either PftESBTXERs or deacons." Now where are Bi- shops? nowhere, except they bo one and the same as Presby- ters!, Nothing can be plainer. •• For of Presbyters some were greater, some less in power, and that by our Saviour's own appointment ; the greater, they which received fulness ol spiritual power, and the less, they to whom less was granted. Let the reader carefully attend, and he will see that by the greater Presbyters he means the first Apostles endowed with power of miracles, &c. and by the less or inferior Presbyters, ho means all other ordinary christian ministers, without dis- tinction. He goes on— •• The Apostles' peculiar charge was to publish the Gospel of Christ unto all nations, and to deliver them his ordinances received by immediate revelation. Whteh --^^jjsi^-jj-j, escented to all other offices and duties incident To their'' (i.e. the'^Apostles') order, it was in them (the infe- rior Presbyters) to ordain and consecrate whomsoever they thought meet, &c." Hence, according to Hooker, it was m ihB presbyter-bishops oflUo Scriptures, who were, in the sense he has pointed out, inferior presbyters, " to ordain and con- seeiftte whomsoever they thought meet." Bellarmine, Timothy had ime governed leeds to speak for confining f presbyters." lifference be- e o\het heroes ordiug to the B, they were, :r belongs to ght) to ihem- over presby- '.manus fuit — te times testi- t&er) Sect. VI. n any esseatial er Sister Be- tween us con- ministry ; and mind, because sential of the matter of im- 1 respectful and eason why so inationofaffec- nng- •• Tooch- ihe whole body •gy, the clergy where are Bi- ame as Presby 'resbyters some our Saviour's eived fulness of i was granted." le that by the s endowed with ■tor Presbyters, rs, without dis- iar charge was }, and to deliver elation. Which duties iricident them (the infe- homsoever they oker, it was in ere, in the sense rdain and con- ijjnfiB.'. :/ L'l..i: i6i " Hooker's design was not to establish thd J)ivin"The Scripture no where expresses any distinction of order among the Elders. We find there but {(00 orders mentioned. Bishops ind Deacons. The Scripture dis.tinguisheth not the order of Bishops and Priests ; for there we find but. one Kind of ordination, then certainly but one order ; for two distinct orders cannot be con- letred in the aamu instant, by ihe same words, by the tame actions." "The character of Archbishop Ubhkr stands high with Episcopalians. He was one of the greatest and best of men. Hjs plan for the Reduction of Bpincopaey into the form of Synid''al Oovernment, received in the Ancient Church, is ' ■: lisj I ■r«i' ill 'F' I 182 well known to every one who is toleiably versed io the eccFe- •laslicdhiilory of England. The essential principle of that plan le, that Biahop and Presbyter, were originally the sme order ; and that in the primitive Church, the Bishop was only a standing President or Moderator among his fellow presby- lers. To gnard against the possibility of mistake, the illustri- ooa Prelate declared he meant to restore • that kind of Pres- hyterian government which, in the Church of England had lung been disused.' Again, in repelling a calumnious report " that he had expressed an uncharitable opinion concerning the Church of Holland, as no true Church, because she wa* *tithout diocesan bishops," he says. "1 have ever declared my opinion (o be, that Bishop and Presbyter differ only in degree, and noiin order ; and consequently, that in places where Bishops cannot be had, the ordination of presbyters standeth valid. • • For the testyfying of my communion with these (the Reformed) Churches, (which I do love and ho- nour as true members of the Church universal,) I do profess, that with the like affection I should receive the blessed sacra- ment at the hands of the Dutch Ministers, if I were in Hoi- land, as I should do at the French Ministers, if I were in Charenton." •• And his express words, quoted by Dr. Psrr in his Appendix to the 'Archbishop's Life, are these,—' A pres- byter hath the same order in specie with a bishop: eryo, a presbyter hath equally an intrinsic power to give orders, and is eqttat to him in the povoer of order,* " " Bishop Forbes, a zealous Episcopalian, in his Irenicum, explicitly acknowledges that • Presbyters have, by divine right, the power of ordaining, as well as of preaching and baptiz- tng.' Lib, H. cap. 11. And again, in the same chapter, ho declarer, 'that those Churches which have not episcopal regi- men, by no means forfeit the character of true Churches on that account, nor lose their ecclesiastical rights." " •• The concessions of Dr. Stillinqflekt, (afterwards Bishop of Worcester,) on this subject are well known. The avowed object of his Irenicum, one of the most learned works of the age in which it appeared, was to show, that no form of Church government is prescribed in the Word of God ; that the Church is at liberty to modify the details of her external order, both with respect to officers and functions, as well as discip- line, at pleasure ; and of course, that ordinations and goverrt- ment by presbyters are equally valid with those administered by diocesan bishops. He seems to acknowledge, indeed, that Presbyterian parity, is, on the whole, more agreeable to Scrip- ttjre, and to the pradtice of the primitive Church, than prelacy ; but, at the same time, denies that this ought to be considered as establishing the divine right of Presbytery. In the course oi ihiM work ilie learned author exhibits' a mass of evidence from Scripture and primitive antiquity againat the episcopal claims, and quotes declaration^ made by eom? of tlio most dis< linguished divmes of different agie« and denominations, which I io tlia eccle- ciple of that ally the eme ihop ivas only ellovv presb^- :e, >he illutlri- tind of Pres' England had nnious report >n concerning Buse she was ever declared difTer only in lat in places of presbyters Y comn^union > love and ho- I do profess, >les8ed sacra- were in Hol> if I were in by Dr. Parr, se, — • A pies- hop: eryo, a 76 orders, and his Irenicum, divine right, r and baptiz- chapler, ho piscopal regi- Churches on , (afterwards nown. The lamed woirks It no form of ■od ; that the tlernal order, II as discip- and govern- administered indeed, that ible to Scrip- han prplaey ; le considered a the course of evidence ^e episcopal the most dis< lions, which 1S3 witldoublless be read wilh surpfize by thoie who have been accuBlbhied to believe that the whole christian world, with very little eXcepiion.'has always been episcopal. '* To destroy the force of Dr. Stilliojjfleei's concessions, it is ^rged, that he afterwarda beciroe dissatisfied wilh this wofK, 9\\d retracted \.\\b leading opinion which it maintains. (Sec your pamphlet, p. 81, 112.) To this suggestion I will reply, by a quotation IVom Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, who,.iii «i pamphlet published a few years since, having occasion to ad- duce tht) Irenicum as an authority against high church notions, speaks of the performance and its author in the following terms: * As that leained Prelate waa afterwards dissatisfied with his wojk, (though most probably not with that part of It which woMid have been to our purpose,) it might seem an- candidlocite the authority of his opinion. Bishop Burn«t, hiscolempoiary and friend, says, (Hiitory of his OwnThnes, Anno 1661.) * To avoid the imputation that book brought on hirti, he went into the humours of aix high sort of people, be- yond what became him, perhaps beyond hi? own sense of thmg§.' 'Thabooft. hqivqver,' Bishop White adds, was. it seems, easier rcfra€<«rf than r*/M^crf ; for though oflensive to many of both parties, it managed, (says the same author) with so much learning arid 8kill„that none of either side ever un- dertook to answer it.' " BisHot Burnet, himself, say?, * I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be onk and the same office, and so ple^d for no n6«v office-bearer in tlie Church.* (Vindication of the Church. &c. of Scotland.) Arch6i6hopTili.otson ^^'wasilecidedly in favour of ad- mitllirtg the dissenting clergy into the Church of England, wiih- 6ul re ordaining them ; and did not scruple to 9vow that be considered their ordination ns equally valid with that whi^;h Was riciived from Episcopal Bishops. Ancl, in copforipity With this Qpmion, he advised the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland to unite with the Presbyterian Cbyrch m that country, and sobrnit to its government." (See Remarks upon the Life ef the WOBl Rev. Dr. John Tillotson, 8vo. 1764 ) AkdHBisHop Wake's opinion is given as one part of the motto ori the title poge, to >Yh»chyou'Bnd the reader are re- ferred. :- 1 . " The learned Joseph Bingham, who has written largely and ably in defence of the episcopacy of the Church of Eng- land, frankly acknowledges,, thai 'that Church does by no nieans damn or cut off from her communion, those who believe bibhojls and presbyters to be ihe same order. Some of our beat episcopa I divines, arid tf ue sons of the Church of linglarid, ft5t?c s«!tf the same, distinguishing betW6eii oidet nuti juris- diction, and made use ofthi? doctrine and distinction to justi- fy lh« ordinations of (he Reformed Chnrcbes against the 'fLo; manists. French Church's A'pol. p. 282." ,;, To the quotation from Dr. John Edwards, in the Post- •f: .1 1.1, t ' i i fv'A m 184 J/'m ft.^!l I5«C«n". yov. may add iho folio wina-M ji.e ,hon i». <|., bishop, in these 1. ,,,69 (H,o times of.er il.a A„o..l«s H«r« Presbyter,; only J.o thai prea.dodover .he bodv of n n^ bytera was caHed ^.>^e,p. while fhe re«^e rjineraVte. by ,1,0 .„ lo ofPresb;,lers: .nd.he bishop naJ. il \i^ 1"°"' . « prosbyters of so„,e Churches par.^d with^ ", ^ f«d shoJld h ^^'■"'' among themselves that •cclesiasticalmjliers He^en those who hold episcopacy to be of divine r,A. 'IV cen^e the obligation to it not to bo bL hen fi ' I !Z WouW b. destructive of publio worship ; much more mus /l,; thmk so, who indeeH venerate and prefer thai form .,.h^ no,, ancent and eligible, but «.i^A.«f an^XV^ „^„;' -^J; he great body of Episcopalians in America ; in which resn«^ U.fey .-lave ,„ their favour, unquestionably, ,ho ^ense of ^h« Churd. of J5;„g/«„rf,. and. „he i./.e^ei'.'thi opS. of iej SA m' J"*"'",''*.'' P'« "'"« '"''' P'«'>'. virtu;, anJ abililiei '" (See Milfor's Letters. aM Pn^en-a Es-ay. from which i h- pr«cedmg quotation, h..ei..:,pri„cipan7made) "•* ""^ EnT.l„ I V ': ""'■ **"*''•^^ of the ncknowledgm.nts cif Episcopal Wnters.,.f, ,^.j.,«j ,., the subiocl in debate, the con butTr'''^^.'"'%°'^"'1; ■ ''«"'""« P"'P«'' migS b. tdded : in h7. h'" T ' "°f '"V 'f '•""her'iuota.ione* BuVsuffici-' ent has been adduced to shew Row Mle vou know It ,l\. writing, of some of the most eminent div^ie. oT^oufoTn ^ S- t. ^'"' ."""' unfearned will now perceive the dilemm. oon^o^itr" »!?*•« P'-^^i/oUrself: yotrmust.ithe' cease"; wK J«e LT.^d*:* r'^"'""^ ',^ Presbyrers. or you mun op! ^m:!. .?-/ I ^. "*' *"""""' •"'*'"" «>''>o"r own Church. th« X. D ' P""^ 'vasTecognized as a scriptural fact by all id in ivL/r^ir'N R«/o^"'«*f Ci»urche,i by^hose es akiish It a/.^ if' ^''^"»''' S wilier tand, Geneva, Scotland f.Ji ^t "T" ""^ eminent ,WiW«a/,. beside those al Pr& 'l'."''\"'"'""''"^*^ '''e identity of Bishop, and Prbkb^ters aMo ordjr and ojficial powers and autZrUu nuy be given m abundance : such as Luther, MelanthoH ■aoenetrti, Owen. Snrtpr an^.. ni^.t.-... wr '~ ' ■*» ^atlS.Balduin, mringa, Mosheim, Suicer, DieterUh Potn'nT'rS''^^'""^' ;B«rfrfae,i,. A'cA/e«»ner g;;,;,,';' To this iii ip, signifiaH iort, or //lo The chief excellence, those canon Epist. ::) of I 1 Tim. 3 ) copy of the U8 he ' read 4he foliowir ordinary aut Mark, bega at Aldxandr Jy shews, at vorned by ti Presbyters as Bishops. " Episcopal over others, because the Le Clfh episco^ al ft toritini^s,'* did not veri/ and publishc «wn words ; iy staled his froiT. the Tri the accuracy dent men, tl form of chui alike ; yet t which they i attend the a that are wis ono another apt lo do ; t form, which tolic writini Christian Re cd, did Le C ment to hav thinks that i mediately c lisere llcett institution." he plain.} m Church or tc " all things I mon eonseni "Tlieshoit « Ap08tle^: I ody of protf rally known ' "JHt a pr«»- iciif>n rake, I afier agoti, 'iljerly ohJ ical mattera p 253." l08, " ^ow "ght, con- I tliat idea 3 must thet/ tm as (he Hvine. right nliment of ich respect nie of the ioni of ber bililies.' " which the gmanta 0/ >• the con* bt tidded ; But SMfHci- >to of th« >our own previously 'Vom your I dilen|naa r cease to 1 muei op- /hurch. net by all es'.a,bli8h> Scot land, essions of those al- i)opB and uthoritjf, ilanlhoH, 1 eminent [aciua, Ji- Clande, 'dftiiiiua, Ulfrieht 185 To this list GnoTios may bo added— "The offifeof a bish- ip, signifies inspection or oversight of any kind. The ttupec- ,nrs, or lltoie who pfsidi over the Church, are Presbi/ter$. The «rAi>/of iheeo Freabytcra, afte iwards, by way of excellence, began to be called Bishop, as is evident from those canons wbicli are termed apostolical canons, in the Episli;3 of Ignatius, in Terlullian, and others. " (Annot. irt 1 Tim. 3 ) "When ihis illustrious scholar had received a copy of the celebrated Epistle of Clemens Romanus, he tells U8 he ' read and re-read 11.' He (hen gives his Judgment lit 4he fuliowmg manner:-' Clemens never mentions that exirn- ordinaryaullurity of Bishops, which, fl/ter the dpath of St. Mark, began by the custom of the Church lo bo ir.troduced ut Alexandria, ai.d, by this exampi?, eli^ewhere: but he plain- ly shews, as St. Paul does, thai the Churches were then go- verned by the Common Council oj the 1 resbytera ; which Presbyters both Chmens and St. Paul say were the same as Bishops.' (Epist. No. 347.)" And as before quoied, " Episcopal p 2-e-)inence, or the superiority of one minister over others, is not of divine right. This is sufficiently proved, because the contrary is not proved." Le CLrnc, also, it is evident, did not believe that the «p»scoX a/ /orm of government is " /oMgAf in t.'te apostolic writings,'^ and is essential to a true Church. I regret that I did not verify your assertions, made in your first Letter to me, and published with my Defence, by referring lo Le Oletc's own words ; as, whether designedly or not, yoj have not fair- ly staled his opinion. The original is before me ; but 1 quote froiT. the Translation of Dr. John Clark, Dean of Sarum, to the accurocy of which you cannot object. " Wherefore pru- dent men, though they above all things wish for the apostolical form of church government, and that it might be eveiy where alike ; yet they think things had belter be left in the slate in which they now ate, than venture the hazards which always attend the attempt of new things. In the mean time, they that are wise, will by no means hate, reproach, nor condemn ono another upon that account, as the most violent men are aptlodo; as if eternal salvation depended upon either form, which do not seem lo be taught any where in the apos- tolic writings, nor can it be gathered from the nature of the Christian Religion." On what grounds, then, it may be ask- ed, did Le Clerc believe the episcopal form oi church govern- ment to have been apostolical i Simply, on inferential. He thinks that this form "prevailed every wliere in the age im- mediately aftir the Apostles;" "hence," ho infers, "co/- litTPTP limt. " it iq Jninftil tn /•qI|'><>* ih-* '•' ..•-- -T it . „ >~i:»„ I institution." So far his opinion goes and no further; whilst he plainsj maintains thai episcopacy is not essential to a true Church or to eternal salvation ! Jn his Eccl. His. he says, " ail things in the beginning seem to have been done by com- mon consent,"—" no certain form of government is orijoiwed in:' H.IB '■•?:., CI ' >, i*« ^. ^, ^ai^ "^a> IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) fe A^ {-sr C4 ^? «P 7 ""} op. /flPPLIED^^ IIVMGE . Inc .^S 1653 cbSt Main Street ^S^ Rochester, NY 14609 USA s^jS Phone: 716/482-0300 '^^S'.^B Fax: 716/288-5969 1993, Applied Image, Inc., AH Rights Reserved ^•^V^^ ,.v V ^\<^ ''"• •"«» f-'^ber Letter XII. t1bed-AI«3 Dr. Clarke" ""^'"•o-Dr. Coke's ca>e no- BsT. Sia, 'e,Wd7n:;?o•n;?re^'o?h•L:r"r'^•" P'"'- •"•» M' We.. Teatament. yourwif S^S.g ud!e''?ffn; ,' '''''P" ''^ ""' ^'^ ttbondaoily proved that the D,Si.,M,T^t" ^'.^^^'^ "»"• poweaaed every QuaJififl..!LP^ *';'*"'"'?• °'^"»« Soripturea niatry. and i^queS to « be office of thS ^ priiDitivo father of the fir'aftl^.^^'*'^ o'dinMion-tbat no ordination to have be^ant/JL f"'" "•"' »''« Power of ficera. who. for dia.iroLn v .».'"""" P-'^'Of 'tivo of thoae of- I-reabytera \ni bihora^e / 'tn Jk'* *'"'** ,*»'»'>'>?- that writer., in a manner fmpIy'nTo '? °f f "J?"^ ."'^ ""^ ?"'»'•'''• coBaeqoence of power bvdfvf.ul'^''?*^ "^ *"''«• "d. by bvter. to ordain iainanL'.'* "8*'t7««'at the right of prea by the principal refo Lr. a„d * '" "'•5"»''fi«<"y conceded iiivine».%r|.,?.. bi.hoS?„d " chslir'*'"' *t*'"' ""»" «^''««»' •nd ia held aa an aSh, of b! i^f k P"' *''^-'"""" "*« Cbuich. ley'Vo'rdi^airna'Terrfo/l* r^'l' /'»• '""''dity ofMV'we';: 187 ff-n. Sufficient h., been .Tducedrn^.""*' '^ «''""•«' •' prove ibe ecripiural v.Wi.u of ord.1V, ' V""'''''"« »»<»«•». '<» 01 ordinttion by pfe.bvie*. i„ „. '^ . "" •"•piur.l validity But •• 2>r. Whitehtad" .av^ih?. M P'''"^?^"- "on. .r. .;,„n„„, ^^J ../S^, JiL?/. .^'r''^'" *'<>'«''-• whaidoe«lhi8proM? Til.. h;-»! •*•'! 'o ceedings against him, a„d whv .hST ''1'*"*" '"»'*'"•• Pro- .h.m^.Uogethe... ( VV^allS^.'^ o''f%fri;j.;:Ti^ ieyl "rd'TiX'r.'coit'.r '• '-P**''»f Mr We.. Methodist cfurch;?„d%"e;7h:r'.t.r' f '^- Americ?« •u« a bishop could not invest UnJh" '" (Mr W.) .. not bv p. 1 18.) Mr Wesley.Tn H. s t?an«'.r 'P'^^P*' P'*"" ..- own principles. He did no Jr.Im ?f "'l ?'""''»'*"' *"«» to «n order superior to that of a pre.b?t.? "»"'"'"*"« ^' <^«*« w:|f i..!l. I i :|| 189 ■•f naada, or in olhei words to appoint Dr. Cuke to a partieu- tar iphere, in America, and to exerciae whilst there, the d'l- tiea of ministeiial auperintendency , which nuperinlendency was regarded aa an eecleiia$tieal, or prudential arrangement, ami not oa a matter of di»ine right. Mr Wealey hiwaelf, in a letter to Mr Aabury, refera ta hia paternal relatit^n to the " whole fanaily" of the Mithodiaia, and to the peculiar dutiea arising out of that relation. •• There ia, indeed, a wide diff«r. ence between the relation wherein yon stand to the Ameri- cans, and the rnlation wherein I stand to all liie Melhodiata. You are the elder brother of the American MethodiHlat I am under God the father of the whole family. Therefore, 1 na- turally care for you all in a manner no other person can do. Therefore. I. in a measure, provide foryouull &c." K, there- fore, Dr.{,Coke had been in Mr. Wealey's place, and Mr Wes- ley in Dr. Cuke'St of course, the Doctor might wiih propriety have set apart Mr Wealey to the office of a supe intendant m the American Church. You think. in this Jranaaction •• a breach was made in the Apostolic discipline of the Church :"— nay. if. as I ha^e already and fully proved, there was nohigh- «r order in the ordinaiy ministry than that of pretbyters, tho eccisaiastical bishops must have been ori;;inally consecrated or set apart by presbyters and therefo.e, hi this matter, there was no breash at all of primitive discipline. Mr Weaiey could not have been displeased at the term *• hi- $hop" itaelf aa he well knew it waa a scriptural title, and as he openly declared his belief, that he was himself a scriptu- ral epieeopia, or bishop. ••The only o»-" -iion he could have to the name," as taken by Dr. CoU I Mr Asbury, "was, that from long association it war* . .y to convey a meaning beyond hia own intention. But thia vas a matter of mere prudential feeling, confined to inmself: uO that neither are Dr. Coke and Mr Asbury to be Liumed for using that ap< pelation in Mr Wesley's sense, which was the same as Presby- ter as far as order was concrrned; nor the American Societies, (aa they have sometimes inconsiderately been,) for calling them- selves, in the same vi«w, "The American Methodist Episco- pal Church;" since their Episcopacy is founded upon the prin- ciple Ok Bishops and Presbyiers being of tho same degree,— n. more extended office only being assigned to the former &c." (Watson's Life of Mr W; p. 285 ) That Mr Wesley waa sincere in his belief of the perfect iden- tity of order in respect to presbyters and bishopa, no person, who calmly and unprejudicedly considers the subject, can for n moment doubt. It would be, perhaps loo, much, lo expect that you, so full of high-church prejudice, could give him cre- dit for oarfecl sincArilV. Dut in thn nnniji't An>t tha ••r.ro;..>l:>oW our appeal is made. You assert, notwithstanding the unan- swerable proofs, I submitted from his own undeniable state- ments, of the utter eonlrarietj/ to matter of facta ti be found in. your uncharitable opinion, •» I still continue then lo think. i I to t partieU' here, ibe d>i. iperinlendency I arrangement, y hiiiiaeir, in a ilatibn 10 the peculiar duties a wide diHiir- the Ameii< he Methodista. illioditilfl: I am ereforei 1 na- person can do. c." ir, ihere- , and Mr Wes- nith propriety iupe>intenc]ant ansaction " a e Church :"— )v>»9 no high- retbyteirf, tho consecrated or ter, there was the term " bi- title, and aa eir a scriptu- ion he could 1 Mr Asbury, I to convey a IS a matter of > that neither ■sing that ap- me a a Preaby- ican Societies, r calling: them- hodist Epiaco- i]pon the prin- e degree, — a former &c." i perfect iden- a, no peraon, ibject, can for ich, to expect give bim ere* ng the unan- iniable state- !s tn be found htn to think y i 189 thai from the circumslar.cea ill which he w.i a placed, he hatl a wish to be porjuaded that be pon^essed ihe aiubonly whicli bialiopa claim/' (p. 120 ) Then you coniinu. to assort your claim to the preroaalivo of vour Maker, to judgo of Mr Wes- ley's heort. not only wiieii there is nothing vxienial to justify your judgment, but when thare is every thing in his conUucl in opposition to it. Then you continuo to a.t on the seat orih* unchajitnble. andbacausB Mr Wesley saw didercnily from you, on ibo subject of church govemmeit, v»u nnilnrtnku (o decide that •« ho wanted a balm" for thai •' which his conscianco would not allow." «nd " Lord Chancellor King supplied him with ono* ! How have you met inysiatcmonla on this suh- joct ? Why-lst. by finding fault witl| the plac^ where Mr. Wesley read the work of Lord King-'WAc dmWjc road." Well »vhy do you not find fault with the Ethiopian ilunuch who read Esaia'. the prophet, in |fia chariot, on the publit. road " Do you not know that Mr. Weslev. waa in the habit or reading whilst pursuing his journeys frbiji place to ptitce ?— Ills Journals contain notices of many of the worka thus read ; •ndporaona of good judgment have a^ired the correctne^a of nla critir;ama. Have you proved that, in reoding Loru King'* work, he waa " disfnctod," thot " hia attention waa drawn e r°' "'** ''" ^'"^ ""* understand what he rend i Nothing of the kind. You think he comW not read it attentively and afudioualy—nnd therefore, wondroua logic, he did not read it attentively and atudiously ! 2d; By assorting that Lord King'* work •• has boon completely refuted by Slater." But whiat haa thia h> do with Mr. Wesley ? Suppoae it be aa vou say, doea this prove Mr. Wesley to have been tM»i;iefre-that ho • panted a balm?" Tou think howe-'er, •» if Wealey had taken the trouble to e.iainineoncior.t writers for hiinseir. bein^ a man of foaming and talent, he probably would hat(e delect- ed the error, and would not have been led astray." (p. J20 ) (1.) You know not that Mr. Wialev did not «oke thia Uouble, (2.) isupposing he did not. msi/iceri « could not bo cHargeU ogaiiisl bim, if ho had full credence in the integrity of tho au' thor. (3) Where is tho probability of. his "detecting tho ofror' on an e.xaminntion of ancient writers, when thia exami- nation letf so many of tho Retor,meis. divines of groat celebri- ousness of your own Church, as well as others, to the firm belief of tho perfect eq.iality in point of order of bisho^js und presby- ter*, and of the right of the latter to ordain ? You forget that so many df your own Theologians odvocafed the very " error" (!) which you palm upon Mr. Wesley. (4 ) You say Slater'a ' ' " In lians worn contaijij tt complete refutation of Lord King's, whose estimation .» In youra and of ijther high Episc-opalii So let it be. Otiiera .niial.i forin a very dillsrsnt s!"ir.i'.ni, s?h " wc may believe it con'vinrcd Lord King, who aovor al'eiwt- «a a reply, but shortly ufior tho publication of Mr. Slater's work, presented him to a Iticralive benefice." Slender ffrounds for^^-ouf belief ! This oul^j^juj^^.^j.^i ^r, 51. had a ftweroua nil ' ir I 190 mon » No V . ' •*''"«• mea«u/et for its •uour.* W«Woy (o .iavebee,, ineince,. .1, . ? .. *" "'Vfove Mr. piiblmhing h.« lre,,ic„" . IS V. " *'r''' """> ^«"" »'^«' •vh.ch he pubn.hed hi/irLi " -PP"'«d..«h« "me y.r i„ •• l'nre"on«bl«n„, of SeDfr.h^„ M ?V «""» '° 'ho world lii« lrenicominfavourofm3lHrr^'^'''"e"'nenl.i„ |,i, »ey. therefor^ wl, D^rf^.ll ' """'f °' «"•"»• Mr. We.- vernm^ni; and iWihlli^^nf/ •'**"'"''?'"' °'' Church go- «op«cy ^.8 never heXf' ''f,*'""«« "«»'t for dioce.«n epT.- •y •f hiV hetrl. he ."ercLd ,hJ ''« "P^g^'neM and .inceri- wi|h which he w;.;c";c.l.;?„*v:jf;5 "" '''"" '• *•"''"' j...;Vher"NoTkt;f:rhna^'T charge, .gai„.t hi. »«lter. that " thevt^LhttTn^K^,' T**" "'"""''" y*"' fi»' which hie (Mr W'^?!^!.!"'"**'**'"'/^ «*''»'«''«'' for . right *« ?•• Not a, you iofe J^om Wh'^rT"'!? ''/ " '** ?'«"'»• <»rrAr*,,ofihe>re.cherl whThJJf "''"''• P' '^D •• the •ame year in a orgumenla in liia otwiiliaianding liig ning and research, oihera. Mr. Wcs- said •• 1 think he hat neiihur Chrwit tm of Church gp. for diocesan epis* Church." In this htnesa and sinceri- power to ordaia, arges against his serted inyourflrst tended for a right ■llowhiro to say 1 by '• the preach- . (p. 121.) "tVDO I time been dissa- • ; for surely IMr. * by lufo or three to have been, as ■noes, in which id by which he wish to be per- >rity claimed by "y, or as o body, I he right in ques- lie charge. Al- head and others, f « Btparation" •••/eioof the f>e body of the in Ur. Wesley 'n concluding part >fof wbati say: a solemn dec- n the Church ; tentiort to faavo 191 b. persuaded that, as a prcsbX, A ''^''^ *"'' '<' •d by bishops." And >ei on |"'v.r»"L'* '';• •""•»'*'/ ^'-i™- which you quote from Dr Wh .IV 7 ""'pa?' "o that, on •• if to'affo^rd me hTstronrs • 'r, '"P^""'" «/"'*• ••"bnion" •d mi^epresentation. I r/tJe fXitj' i" f^^""^ ''"^°""'«' •ny mark.ofyourdis.pprrva|I..jtr 7 *';'""'"'°". '-"".out U wa, not probable \hiiT,,houfdJ' "'""f'^y ' *»"' *«^ The who e history of , he w«,^ 'T '5*'""« »' •'" point blank to your Lcha^ta^ra.?.'" Conference is opposed the following P.rairapb .ppjj :i"'rir-,. '" "»' '*''«"''• been, as you affirnflhSy wore a^ Jh ?' '*« P'««hers bad bition" in th* case in pomA'JZltV'V'' ""''•''y " ""• restrained by the forci^of L .Thon , S."'*^ •''<••. -"d only from these premises, is that ... '^' *•• ""'""I mferenci ledthemfmmerf/aJvloilfoZ ■'''"''»"»«. would have he had cohferred 7ut waslll ^h ''*"",•' *^^T ""» "''«ht" embracethefirstfavourrbu« ^"""- ^'^ »*••/ '"dily theye'-dly^ndatonc/v^^flP^^^^^^ for sodoilg? Did of the Sociities to ?atil.Jm . • ''" l^"^""'' '•PWied*appe,|. ch.h.nd.ofTi:;i;';ivrnL"tr>'"Ni'. a';";';- «"ppr^-- Methodists. No«rthisiVr*Z*J»i ^'" Church and the noticed at all. either XJoM-C*^^*/* «"'g«me«/ you have not ..If. p....d u :t"o>e7fecV.ii;';:^^ '^•?-'^ ^-^"«- ptwcher." i. ,he exemplficattn «f .h ' **?'"'!"'* ''^ " '*' ▼ulnereble at all on the .iibi-S ^?- '^?'' P"*^*'?'.* 5 wd if which they were vi2 ih.:,^ 5 '"•"•• "''' "'*• «''» Point in qu...ion:\:jyou"Uc''Lord"?n VoTJl' '', ?''•- ''V» ''!: «firect your ospicial attention to. h."- ''?"'"' «nd 'n jtwcice to .ntlrely overthrew X Tore ;.br'''r^^ '"•'' *» .nd therefore, you thoughUt beUe liT^?^'" ''"*^''"»- •nlire silence this pari ?f heir 1?/"^ n'*VV'''°^ '» meet the subject fair y wd bro.du i '' ^''l'^' """.fo'.. yo« •h»t, however much youTfriend^ 1^' ' T •»»hori«ed in at.ting, di.pttl.nt. neither yorrcanTurnnr^ '"u y""' **« *' * in .ho most f. voura^ble poiHt of ,"Jw''""' "•"''' " «**''»•••* You misrepresent JUr. Weslev'a rnAi:». • h.. preachers generallv to7d«%*.?-°.'i?'- '" "*» P.rn»«tin« «0d. You Wish to mike it .MMrTha't M^ w T"'" '" • J^"*' '» * "sin" in his preachers .nrf". * ^"'•J' '©"wdared •nd ''"^-toadmiSfn fengiin?;.::"'.?'? 'o OodV^prd w.r. hoc .. ri,htty ord.i„ed??'"ot.c^^^.^^^^^^^^^^^^ i :ll \u ■ 192 '•ntir, p,ro,r,.,,|, road, tl.us- ''scml J" """' '" "««=-«»'« >*uppor. and bel.cve .t wo .M 1 * . ° *'^""'"»>er Hie Lo/d'« »>ava no r fflii ovar vnnr /.«„. Hereupon I »«v, •• | follow ,o„r 'o^: ^otzz. '''r':;;riV bo?" " •r'' "•"•"" which, contequenflv I dar« n„. . i ^ '^"''"i;* " '• « "Mi ; our Society (which I !,««« „n? H ' ? f '" 'sparato from wh., I bolleva i, «o„, .; ,o l^'::/7*^ 'J'"," *''"'' P^«ctice on which hojudaed J.« «7J!- • . " ''« e^P'-'ne (he ground*. " My princyr*^^^^?e« e„uJT"';''T« "' r^'^'^" •"••".•• «Jerei..„„b,oIu.ane««i7f„''rTir/' •'V'"'" ' ''"""'ve thouaande of souls v'ouFd n-JuL ' '?"'""';'' «■ *ere ii not, b«i bec.„e their «dS rinT^ol'Ll:';"^^ conscientious submission lo ihf .^S oppo«'«>on lo his in case, of^bsoiute nece. ftv Hanl^'"'" ''■^"*««." "oep» ^«y.--Porm«nyy;"8l rvo?eanfmn"„r''J'"; P'"*' ''« lime to exarciw this risht ?»„„?.; .""P«'^'"ned from lime lo Preachers ; but I Ja»„ f i',!^ ordamingpart of our Travellio« becauae I waa de.e i' d t'^htf^^ ^ •alabiished order XeNitiir.rKPu""''''?' "» '''»'•«« «'»« At the time, tvhen ho usad h.T ^'"''*'^'o "'hich I belonged." of admlnisienngrquoird abovo T"** r ^P"' "» "-^ ••-!"" permitted by him to ad.ninis.arVn •,°'^ '•'• preachers wero and so an/our'Seciat;;^":;';;;: ; vv.tr' ■■; ^''v^^r ed dn thiB linffu.ffa ■> moL ^"ff*."'' "■ '<" *» »l la found- Nearly SJr^v 'vJ^rrer'^fi' Vr"w ' ^ "•''*'-^ •everal of the EngLh Preachar. k„ ^ -"-^^ V »PP'>in«ed if If »:;:;:^"s^L;:':^^j^l^."3ri. lat the lop- Thw convincingly prove., that I« tlu)»e preteltorc isod in 1750: — tlio [ p'enclieri, who niniyfer (lie Lo/d'a I. 1 lliink, it quiie eregpon I $ay, '•• t ou over mine:— >wn conreience.' '> •o ; and therein 'eve it i» a stn ; nd lierein I folIoH lo separate from '«o who practice leslruciive of the lins the fround*. Jestion a "am.'* », "I aubinit to conceive there ia Comiatently :9uic I conceive ' «8 were ii not, 'i Yet I do noL conceive there 1 appear, that, if it/' The "ain," d no acripturaf Gained, litat his isior in England, >po8ilJon to hia fman," exoept ther place, he 'd from time to r our Travelling peace aako, but to violate the Bh I belonged." clto the ••ain" ireachera wero not in another; ' a» it ia found* 'owing words, y " appointed I of hands, to tland." 7et, prudent iai, be Societiqa. A- 'dinaiini) from le was falaely vouid n9t auf- 'ubt tliot the prove*, that III •0 the order of the KbJi^had ffich ^^^P.?'''"!'*' "«"«' onally relaxed from hi; uiu«l ««. • ^'" """ '"» occaai- praaeher. to b.pre and rdmi;?.^ ';;, '" P' ""'"'"« "'"• '^^ ^" by Mr. Wai.on. (Life d 29r» t. ''* *^".'-«™«»'«. « -hown Prttchera by Mr. WealeV J.^M'" '«'''"«'"°." P'"ed upon hi. mit atua,. «r k1\!I ^ ""' amount to an actual " /aA- infyr4"/ei' nX^rra^thSr:,'' ""'"" ' ' l''"^ '^- you are reatnctod fro.n e«rcr«in- ^ '''*"^^"* '"'^'"•^ another pariah. whe\rp^:I! "J/rSZ' 0,"^'"" '" bishop ; and ao. your dflrl«m»ii«„ '".*-'"«)"»>«». or by your nothing ! ^ fer^laraation .gam. (p. 117.) p.„ci for rema\l" J/B^forfV^ftraVd'^'i; "?' '"' ^« "'«'"'«''• Th. quoted by you. 3 quite a d^L^n". ^""V "'^ ^'- C""*"' " from that ihich'^Jou^lde it ?Lfir'"P'"''''' **." "'" 'ff*'' Letter to me you ^present th« nn f ""''T- *" >'>"'" «"» withlhoordinatj„ofnfe,i .If-Vu' T "'««•<* it was not valid : forXlid ih^ '•" V''"'"' ^""^'^ «hat My contradiction or dii.ru , alnSf ?f '•'•'"•'''"«'"« ?" exhibit it. Ist. That DrclL^r -^'^ "'^ " >°" ''"« ley for ordaining pSlcher. fir T" ''."'""''fifd ^^'^ Mr. We.. in hi. heart fearedThat ordinr.iol.T'"'"' k^^' '^''"' ^'- Coke 3d. And that, thereforo I r /" ''^ .P'^s^'y'o" was not valid, wa. necessary in wh cli a«n ll'"''''''" ^^ » ^'°""» ^«hop Methodist Pr^eachers in hir„^^' generality of the American mit .0 this re ordini ion NoW' "'?''' ""' '«''"" '« «"»»- a does not appear that' H''^^'''^^ """"^ '^''°'*''* Wesley foorTinnJprlacheSl'ir" i''"-''^""^^ ^'tl* Mr ed in his heart that iC on bv nl^h'^ * ""' """ ''« <""'• northat he believed a re oXat^P'^^^^ "«' valid; dist Preachers by a diocesan bih!"°^'' American Metho. themtoexercisetheC?onsofa'l«TH "."l^^'M^ en.bia to which the Doctor prInZllv r«?i J •"'"""'/' ^''« P"'"'* •eparatioiiofihoAmerK&JV 'H."«' *»'• The England. 2d. A re un oJ Thlfi "' '*"" '''* C''""'' «f ho desired. Hespaaksoflha 5"\'T*'^'"'= the second and asks. '• Can t^be Imoved -^'"fo;:^^ the object he thinks •• there wou^l" h« ..f • ^^ *'»«""»>ent of Asbury to the Episcopacy " and L . ^ •" '''^'"'"•""C Mr. also; and that 'MhoSralitv of ,h« 'u^^'"' *'''»""" refuse to s,i6,«,V to aCorS La^ion 'l\r,l'^'" '^""''^ "°^ tho exclusive ground of unS. 1hrM„.i.?J .!'\'".'.' Pf^Pojed. on oDurch, so called. Neither \f7Vk'*'"'" 1^"" '"° ^'»gi'»U bishop of the Chu ch of Pn^i ^ ^"''"'^ "°* ^'- <^'>''« »" « Aabur^houtd beTonsecraSd'I'o Jh^ ffi" P ?'**j?? ""» ^r. Church, he certain,, m\r ;hL%?iof.n;^h?fr a^^ 'ii! il ill . '■< ii^ 194 quilified b«Ii«fof lh« perfett T.liJiiy of hii proviou. preibf. •e«in entfreljf to bive OTcrlooked. And to mark with ih. uimo.! dUinctn..., ih. .olemn conviction of hT.ow'n mindly |c.poct to the r.lidity of hi. own ordinttioa,. heZBlZfoU il^i:l\T' ''"«".'^!.' •'•" *'••" •»• '• '•"•'"ding B^hop 7^1n 'n ""7 ^"'i'•«?• '» «h« w»y of the contempI.teS union-" Our ordatned roiniaier* tot// not, ought not, to gSa up theu^ right c/adminUterin^ th. Sacrament."' Y.*bl tbmk., in order to their being admitted into the Englieb Church and recognized M rainiater. of the aame. they tould "not !I?^'"l•!f^^'"'V'?Vr''^*"'•«n••-thi. by noiean. implying liVh?.' '•'i.^ of their former ordination, f o gain the pfZ.' ed object, he think, they would make a .aerifioe. they would jtt6«iMo be r«.ordained . All thi. i. in proofx>f the (Vet that ?ou?.t' u y'"'1-2'* l"'™ ". ''•/•"« """ ^•"'''y ordained i ■cT Vi' .'^ ''■'!^ *''y ■P"'' of re-ordination ?" Nay. I a.k. If he did not conaider them a.orrfamed at all. why would ho .peak of "re.prdination ?•• You do not consider the repeti! tion of ordinaiion a .m ; a. you maintain the divine origin of three ordination.. Every Church ha. authority lo eVtabSfi i?. vS? I"^*"" ''J^"'P'.'«>.«. P'ovlded no principle of holy writ il violated ; and if a miniater. ordained by pre.bytera. .hould af- terward. w..h to enter the Church of Enjland! and ' «S to bere.ordained. without abnegating the validity of hi. former ordination. I am far from thinking that thereb/he commS! Had you placed thi. matter at fir.t in it. proper lijrht. of m "'DefeMe' '^ ' would have been diflereiit frbm what it ii In r„' AVt ''•^l.'i""' •"»"•?•! •* yo"' treatment of Dr. A. Clarke, (p. 181.) Who would think, that after the high elorium you learning and of deep reteareh," and quoting him with an air of tnumph in your favour, you .hould exprcM your«elf thu.-" You need not .uppo.e then, that I .hall be influenced by hi. opxnwne, whether they be /or or agaimt Epi.copaoy !•' Thi. IS the way you treat one of your own witncHe. ! I do not intend to beeonae the Apologiet of the learned Doctor.— Enough ha. been already adduced from hi. writing, to convince any man that he wa. no believer in the divine origin of the «ArM order.. A. to the Uninterrupted Succcion. of which gave 10 the Defence, .peak : " Some make thi. (Heb. 6. 4.) I.'" V^"™""* for the tinm/errup«d «uccM.u»n of pope, and Iheir bi.hop. m the Church, who alone have the authority to ordain for the aacerdotal office ; and whcoever ia not thus ap. poiated. 1. with them illegitimate.' " It i. idle to employ time m proving that there i. no $uch thing a. an uninterrunud rueeession 01 tbia kind : it doe. not e«i.t: it never did Ptis't : ILLVJ'/iS'A? f • .»'»V»*«'' *y eceleiiaetieal tyrants, and aupportedby clerical eoxeombs.'* (Note on Heb. 6, 4.)— >rovious praibjr* ince, which you nark, with (ho ii own mind, in ho uioo tho fo|. ninding Biihop 10 eontemplttoa fht not, to give int$." Yotho Engliah Church 17 would "not memo implying ain (ho propoa- !e, (hev would Dfthe fact (hat i\y ordained. -> " Nay. Iask» why would ho ler tho repeti- divioo origin of to oatabliaB ita of holy writ ia tera, ahould t(' and lubmit to of hia former he commita ain. 'oper light, of n what it ia in rOr. A. Clarke. Ii olugium you him "amanof ; him with an preaa youraelf I be influenced Epiacopacy !" neaaea ! I do ned Dootor.— iga to convince origin of the ion, of which tioc to what I I (Hob. 5,4,^ \ of popea and a authori(y to ia not thua ap< employ time minUrrupttd iver did etiat : tyrants, and Heb. 6, 4). 19S Then aa lo the Doctor'a viewa t.f Melhodiam, tbey are well known. He waa a friend of tho EatabliahmenI, and did not beaKafo (0 eay, aa quo(ed bv you, that it waa •• tho pureat and nearaat (o the apoatolio model in doctrine and diacipline of all JVattonal Churehe$." Thia waa hia opinion, (ho* vou have promiaed '• not to be influenced by hia opiniona." But becauae he apake favourably of the Church of England, doea t Jollow that ho did not more approve of the ayatem of Wee- leyan Melhodiam ? Hia decided judgment ia thua daiiberatelr and aolemnly recorded. •• While I think well of, and wiah well to, all religioua aecta and par(iea, and eapecially (o all who love our Lord Jeaua Chrlat in aincerity. yet from a long and thorough knotvUdge of the iubjeet, I am led, mo$t eon- $etenttoutly to conclude, that Chriaiianity itaelf, aa exiatine amonrfhoae called WsaLBVAif MaTHOoiaTa. la iht pureet, ine aaftit, that which ia mo$t to Ood'a glory and the benefit %7.'"*'/"*' '*"'• •***"• •■ *® ••»• '■'•"«' ^J""* profeaaed, /prm ofdisetpiine there eatabliahed. and the comequent moral preetue there vindiCAted." IietterXUI. Argainent from the Unitv of the Church annwered— Poaitlon of |heMethodut8Ju8tifi6d--Wealeyan8not Diaaentera from Mr. r^'*?;^^^'" «"'J/!^ of Schum—Argument from the uaefulneas or the Wealeyan Minuterc vindicated. Ret. Sib, .i,y^^''*u* »•{"•" *».'•** *^«»' reapecting tho " Unity o( theCnurch;' but you have failed adequately to deacribo in what thia unity conaista. Tho whole tendenc/ofyour wr Ungi, not excepting your "Sermon," ia to ahow thJt thia 3y prlncpaily .f not entirely, conaiela in more external conformf- »y, and aubmiBsion to one form of Church government: and iiV?,?l:!.T *"*^ ?••••««. places the union of the Church in ita external government ; and if you think the contrary, I challenge you ro prodace the nl.in n.«.»- -kj-i. ^^J."/^. TL^nTT,!^'- ^°- ''"'*^" ^J ^'*'"'' ''*'"••■«*• merience. .Sok.lil ?*•"'* IrVu'"'?*' "P*"»' »'"» °o» "n* »J"*«»le ia 'y pwyed, aa I firnl/ believe, that believers •• may be one," ^ d.ffere„t rorm/of Church po?,v's' '•p'^'='> T"'""*' **'»' peoiinc " unilv •' in nm^r^r.t ■ "'° •"'' written tt$- •• jrou have not vol done ih.t'i!^ . 'T •'" New Tefl.mont. ab,olute/!f and e«en«!//l L,,^ of church governmenl i, chorch. ^"tnually nece$sary to ih« unit; of the t.in.7iV';,Vri^:;ttt;;;r -"-' ^- •«-- communicated from one p.V^^cu U, efcur''ih ' ^. P.'""" '' "' «he aireot to the neit olace of wLk- 'j'P** ''• " "otiea 'Ac church, and dean .Mfi!-i"'"P',"'' '« "ceived into union here ?" (,ST ,^„W'"« "i'*' «»'"'«•'. I. Cl n.».ion into .notbeT"TouheT.b?.*h7'^'''' ^''""*' »»«•' '<«• berahip can be .ttained f„ "he ?h > f „T >:«>"•«'•«*«•. Wem- w ilmoat any other Prolla alt r^ . of England e.aier than q-ire all peraona, who wilh " b.ci^"'"' T*"' W"leyan. re- *y to Doaaeaa .n wrneat deaire f« fl r """'J."' ^'^ ""*' Socio- jn-nifSated b, iia "Zr fS. nlliT,]^' """• '» ««""•. «• worth .ny^hing\t. II. m,,;t«!?*V'''''«^^^ «' •» Med againat jou by any P^ ,h pnlf.''!! >'*"i'-''^'l ""V »'e inunicated people aLuldioin^..ri?\"''!.J?'^ *'""• •"O""- of your own^/c:.;!rnici Vi:mbe«^h^^^^^^ ' .""* "'"' commun cate at all ma« ««.. ' . * '■• " J'oo dare ex- propo.ed:_«.WiJ^"u''/MV«l ••'•?"• •*•• following were of England ia Z Selv i^^lZ") "•«!,"?' ^^.i the'church If no«: how can you nro?e ,i' '*'"?'« •"«> ^oaao of God ?- union with, the cSnrcrof En'LT"*!'""..'^^'""' »' *"»' of fold the Church of Enlnd fo ftl « * '," "*"«•' " " '' '^is «l«n Churcbe. ? f „oT by whl? n?l '"r'nu ^^"^^ *»•''" <^''"- presume to •«igmallze ih7iM.rt • "^ °^ Chri.tianiiv. dare you ought aurely to have an.werr ^'T^ '""' *^« *»"'«"• ?«" of the Kubjett in dispu?e %!, 'vn [^^ «° *° ""^ ^^'^ »>«"» •hem conaiatentCfth Ih. IV^};!'''!'- »»^'d "ot'.npwer < iliiiiish ; and t'herefnr- v 'yT'Vf'" '^'''^° enaeavouring to ed ;•» t uniljf of the tpirii clly consisieni with ' deotartiii iliere w called in one hope bapliim, on« Cod rough all. and jn on« form uf Church and written ree- '""ofgovernment, >e New Teitameni, rch government ia Ihe uniljr of the I cennot be main- A peraon ja ex- •nd he •• croiaea I it received into church. Ia there •erve, it ia not ao church to get ad- i imagine. Alem- ;land oaaier than he Wealeyana re- era of their Socio' le wrath to come, B argument, if it uraelf— It maybe •f whoae excom- ngland ; and one ia, if yoo dare ex- niled Slaiet, or received into the place*. Ia there gea you quoted ," and proposed not condeacend- following were that the Church Du>e of God ?•- rom, or want of w.'" '• la this all other Chria- ianity. dare you Br cburchea es he others, you Ihe \ery heart 9uld not anpwer 'lueuvouring to ht it better not ' are, however, 197 igtin brought forward, in expectation that row will ffiv« ih«™ ing eophiitry," becauae "in speaking of the Church" I"?! vwmi«»i«Q wiin II. (18*.) Thia charge a unworlhvof V. .r t'h. Jhtrx'whi • . " s,v/ tfifTo:'', '""-ri^ fi'Tri 5"^°"" Ch-ch'L^'En'g'i'ndf I?e7.nt?c'ot a d* ifl' With .Kl.„? "?'•••• **' "»• ^*»<='«'*" •>'■'»'• WealeVans. .*;.r to t ;^;v^l'",rtrnr «''"• ' "•" *'•""'' - "■ I'dSVVd VccoX" Kr «'; o'rt :!;• '\TT'' ^'^ 19th and 28d Article? of*the^c[;?cr of EnlCdf "ut °,lu; definition differ, from these Articles. For 'faUf^ulmla' r\ J;^« •"b.t.lut.d. ..;,r./„„ng christians:" no doubt you had your rewon for this alteration-there are many •• JroAa" nng ehrhUan$" who are not •• faiihf,.iZ^ >> ^ ?J'*\ qualification of the administrator. Moreover the ?9th in Ji! ... Genera Article, referring to the cSgeieJa ly : tbe^Sd I* a particular Artie e referrinn to tha Ch»lfh Vr v ,°V • t'iVS'of:!','"'"' '-/«?fiV.n^'m«fo a'kf u'pVlm J{! ^IJJr''' preaching, or ministering the Sacrament. S «;cu".Th?''a.r; aL" ?k ••• '"^'""y *'*"«"'• ^nd^n o -11^ !i ®L. .^''" *''<"•• «»« ought to iudee lawfuilv •• the /.ttre word of God preached" .«,«„„ .1 "*^%"'f J' "o* th.8(cr.men.."duIyX"ttd'^^^^^^^^^ JrSJ" .*S':k''7 '*',."'." "• *"»'«' »'«P'''"»^ tbe name o7th: "tt k"d. ?"• ^^ a' l^Pf!!;' T«"'''y '» «»'« 30.h Ar* iS Dom Kinaa r 4. Are not the SacramAnu h..i» .j».:^;..-.-j i?il«." *J»,»',"« •""'or.ty ;" thaU^; iy-Vh^r^uttort^ ed J that I., according to the ordination of Timothy "br the laying on of the hands of the Presbvler* V" Th- i.l question only can b. denied by you': bu?ffi;?rLg. rblck ;<■" ■ t i|» Ids 10 me Old subject, whether or not bishoDs .Inn. .- ordain. You thiJk they have^ Ind h ' 'r*''*'"'^ ^'*"» ^^'d »«> put into jour definition Ujhe cJull ''"'^"'•' «noat JlJogicaJly, only diap'utable. butThich ian'^X, Lo\E ?''*"', " "»^ word of God. For aufiht th.r«f„r. ^ "'' ^'*"" "'« P»'e contiary. the WesleJaThJ. "i^*"" "•" '''o«' »« »he tion. ui;der8taLtg^^5;^'l^T«"^V^y""' owndefin.! ••ordained... ever/ A^'ofaZ' Ch^^h"^' "^''"-"^ case. The merr'beJs of aenajM!" V . J"' ">« " ""« »he the head, even Chr"t! may *o, ":f.i !i"'^''?'^ ther. an • assSo rCranoSr.5'^'^ ""'' "">• another an interest in hrtraver »nd in'Vh"""""' 8''« *">« Christ prayed, •• be one ' J^H^.. t' ** J" "'® "«"'« '" which in the Ld ./peaSe!'' • ^^llf? •''" """*' '-^*^' "P"*' points, however, "e the reate^^^^^^^ "" non-essential unity. Th^.adv'ocacy of >'.\ue d"ZTorUnlnA^ ?^ '''"'••'•'* succession o( Episcopacy." so as nl.S ^? "»"«.'errupted rton-episcopaljans ia doir» Jl, invalidate the ministry of en the banSs ofg iuine P^o^e;^^^ ^"T ^''^' '^ «»«''■ thing. Forthesakeof the ../;". "of?." ■'"**'' "^ «>"'«" cession of Episcopacy, udclna frnl .hi- ^ uninterrupted sue- of this schoof wouWacSrSie Serr, nr''"*"' "'" •?''''*^'«» of Christ; ,nity. Ther.re Iho nTrZf I ?"■«•"'•"»««« and from them. They ouLge ihlif! T ."1^° •'''P"»'« »'''«" christian unity, anVfivoadvanai^: to ,l' •"""" ■»*'•"" ""• the sake of.n^xtern^alJo^m ^TKh'torToTr' t' necess ty and bindmir cl.arnnf»r «r l- i '^ ^' *** P'®''^ "ic unilv upon otiier. i1,m» Ti ^ h? i, «'"' "" """ "' • "•« of Jlethodist Meeting for PuW c Prayir No ^^ii'j«"/"«'"d * far you are disposed to go xo promote uJJtv - ^JjlVj"?!' h^^"' >ne, aa an ord«r orily from God (6 >. mottillogjcally, >nt which it not ed from the pure »n show lo the your own defini- ',*' acripturally indant Churches 'ut this \u not the Churches, holding tlieir minor dif- on Tor one aoo- iiiana, give one > sense in which iiy of the spit it m non-essential way of christian id uninterrupted he ministry of ' day, to weak- lost any other interrupted sue- ga, the children oteslantism and eparate others )rs against true ;non enemy, for 1 to prove the ommand from ilorical proof of tve differed in iseof a want of 9n for you to take the proud 'i;h churchisffi, Ue you willing thodist Chapel you partake of n the hands of i you attend a his shows how rhe unity you jutely nothing in doctrinA^in t nothing, ex- cxternal go- esleyan Body in separating 199 from the church of England. Here we differ. There wer« he »c/-yrf„£~"5 r„H' "?l" V'^** «*'*" "'"'« ''"ds oo« Lord Jesus ChriJ. and to the doctrine which is according to godSs he is oroid* ^jjvcrsqj pleasure more than lover, of God; HavilV'aToZl u i u| iuili 200 20. Tho new Vicar showed plainly, wU he refufed those who desired the liberty forme to pfeach^n his chTch A keener sermon I never heard. So all I have done to persusde the people to attend the Church is overturned at once All who preach thus, wiU drive the Methodists /row the Church ov//';iV-^/''i'*i' <.''«." ''''••' <^«"''-4 vol^28l) More- ih« K,l°^"'^ **t"**''"^ *^»«''"'"' gathered from person. JjuM^l^^''""'' of England, and therefore, in a proper sense, could not separate from it. In regard to thosf who were member., and who thought proper tS meet in our societieTa. greeably to the spedfied conditions, you must be aware, if you ^liJlrlv Vr^'^J'i^ Wesleyan'requlrements. thi w^e« at liberty, if they wished, to continue members of the Church: ltV.r!""l 'J?*""? '"*• *'"' C^"*"* of England, or any o raong our regulations. r.t« /f«™'"!!„*i' • ^'''' Wesleysn Body is a religious Society sepa. rate fiora, and independent of the Church of England; but Pko- I!i'h!?*'.« *' !!*'''' ^'"' wpwation. and not man. Mr Wesley wished to guard against It as much as possible; but even he. rirfV.T'^*?.*"^'''" *'*"*.'»"•''*«' which miiht occur aftJ; his death, did not dare to refrain from doinp present good, and pursuing the openings of Providence, from^any feaf of what might alterwaids lake place. His labours and measures were diVHiely over-ruled to the erection of a spiritual church, under a spiritual ^imslry. and.m usefulness, not the least active and successful of the Protestant Churches. In his own hands God took the cause, and has led the Wesleyans. step by step, to the position they now occupy in the Christian world; and with holy gratitude and joy. they can as y.t adopt the language of their dying I'oundor-" The beat of alt U, God i, with The following are quotations from Mr Wesley's writlncs- .*-««iirn J "'^'''''''^'y^^ "•'"'"'^ our own religion, to worship God according to our own conscience, according to the best light we have. Everyman living, as man. has a right to this, as he IS a rational creature. The Creator gave him this right when he endowed him with undeistanding. And every man must judge for himself, because every man must give an account of himself to God. Consequently, this is an indefeasible right ; it ia inseparable from humanity. And God did never give authority to any man, or number of men, to deprive any child of man, thereof, under any colour or pretence whatever." ( Works. 8d Ed. vol 11. 87.) "If a dispentation of the gospel is committed to me. no _s.s.._« . — ,,...„^. ,„ c:iju!si KiB Silence. Neither has the State: though It may abuse its power, and enact laws whereby I suf- fer for proaching the gospel. • If there is a law, that a Mi. nister of Christ who is not suffered to preach the gospel in the Church should not preach it elsewhere. 1 do judge that law to be absolutely ainful. If that law forbids Christian people to e refured tboia bis church. A lone to persusde 1 at once! All op» the Church, I. 281.) More- Bd froiQ persons per sense, mem- a proper sense, bose who were our societies a< t>e aware, if you lents, they were of the Church, gland, or any o. where found t- )us Society sepa. gland; but Pro- in. Mr Weaiey ; but even he, ;ht occur after esent good, and y fear of what measures were church, under least active and >wn hands God p by step, to vorld; ana with t the language Ood it toith ey'a writings— r own religion, B, according to I), has a right to e him this right ivety man must an account of lible right ; it is ve authority to if man, thereof, ,8d Ed. vol.11, itted to me, no has the Slate; whereby I suf- Vit, that a Mi- Jospel in the ge that law itian people to 201 Ifn!! »''«<'''»?«' '>''Cbriel out oftheir parish church, when ther S. '.- ^ P.2*V> Whether it be lawful to attend the m nistraLons of one whom I know God h.s not sent to Yrini! !Il."""'^ expressly disclaims that call of God which is. at least as necessary as the call of man. is really a question w. 1 off l" ' ''";, *'*': '" '»•»» "'"'»«»«J "fou, Lord. . Be. «,^^. i 1" P^''* *• "bilges me to refrain from hearing such as put darkness for l.ght. and light for darkness. I am ftill in in effect, the biddmg them God speed, the strengthening thei hands m evil and encouraging others to hear them liU ,l,ev ullT, '?" !?««'?"•". ('»>• »3. '75.) .. A kind"f epa t^ bv ..nw%* ""''^' '"tr P''"^*' ''"*' *'" '""^"•bl^ -pread. though nor preach the gospe . I dare not say are sent ofGod. Where one of these ,s settled, many of the Methodists da e no^.t! bourhooJT"^' "?• '^u'^''^ "• •"» "'••" «=''"'«»' •" •h«rnelgh- bourhood, they go to church no more. This is the ease in a few places .heady, and it will be the casein more; and nolj can justly blame me for this, neither is it contrary to anV of my professtons." (lb. 230.) .-What authorit^Kv^I "'on bd their doin^ what I believe God has callJd Ih.m" h , Eoslihu"^. i** ^u • . * •PP'*''*"'' •"«>"'» "hat the • Sigh , if possible, to be both an outward and inward call t5 bk work; yet, if one of the two be supposed w.ntZ I hudrathw want the outward than the inJLd c.r T^at4 Jl I am ca led to preach the gospel both by God and man Yet J ihin7l'i'^'' ' "ad ratber^afe ihedivL without The human han the human without the divine, call.,* (lb. 16» ) " N^r have we taken one step further than we wire convinced was our bounden duty, ft is from a full conviction of thi^ "hat we have, (1.) Preached abroad: (2.) Prayed exteraoore- 8 \iLj ed societies: And. (4.) PerniiUed PreacheSTho welj iTi episcopally ordained. And were we pushed on Thi^ sTde w«e iu!v° r?.h"""K".r ''"°**''' *«»hould judge a our bounden un ^;„v n„ 7^°"'' '° '•P"*'^ ^''"" "'« ^^"'^b. than to .iS; up any one of these points. Therefore, if we cannot stop ! edlSov"; ''p""'"; ""PP'"8 ^"y P'oachers. (that is as Jta ted above. Preachers not episcopally ordained), the case i« clear.—we cannot stop it ai all." (lb 165) The Wesleyan Methodists are not dissenter, from Mr JVesley. H,s sermons, the doctrines he preached the disc, pline he established, are still our standard S our guide He h!-"" """ll *'"""'"• ^"3^ was me siluaiion of his Minislera UblsheJcl'h^r*'! J''*y'^«'° not Minister, of thTEs. Chrisi. -„?.r ' "If"*? 'hoy were of a part of the Church of ?f Al«L/i''"""l'"^Pf°P'« '^homlbey bad gathered" it of the world, were dependant on (hem for minSterial oX m If 1 202 ■ijh«. No effort as far I k Conference h«i»ii.!'..J°' '•."''"'"•'''''•'' "•!•"•• The ha'v?do?e'?o?hl*^"''^'l" ^''^y approximated more than they TO. «e e«r .«'.«"!;""" 'i'"'' "•""•in.i.edl,.' N,^ lade by the supe- Methodist Socio- Wesleyan Afinii- power,' within its it may be called, God most righte- lid every thing jn his people to her I object by the isinterestedly un- he advised his as that work in This they have situation as ini< (he work of God now a separate endship for the lelves to be dri- ders, the misre- 9 and misguided sver re<;|uiredse- mbership. class of writers nanship, and to laving departed of Dissent; but attentive to the themselves with r readers. The egree, from the th an ill grace, odisra effect to e they reserve only executed iration. These the days of Mr step in bis at- If respect for lining the mobs los, they would eace •• :ho ar- nore than they snt, the com- s to condemn ipired wisdom, o individuals; riendly,' Jfo frowned and nisters, though r. Wesley un 20$ several important points of Theology and ecclesiastical govern, inent. will meet he Wesleyan Methodists on the MmiZty platform, as brethren, and even cultivate their personal friend^ sbjp ; but how rarely w.ll a Clergyman do eiihir one or the in 'thiM^'i IJIvl!" \I'i!' PI" 1^ "'• periodical press which is in the hands orChurchmen has long been accustomed to speak of Mr. Wesley and his Societies, end especially of his Preach- K /. P^'^Jcat.on conducted by men of this cUss. whether they be Or'hodox or Evangelical, that ha. not agiin and ««aij treated the Melhodis.a with contumely, insult and fl.Jfani misrepresentation. To give even an outline of the shameless calumnies that have been heaped upon them would be a mos" painful and an endless task. Is it any wonder that the mea r„H n, . • ' "J"'!- V" u** P"''n«'o"'y charged with tenets end practices ef which they are as innocent as their accusers, should be alienated from the Church more and more ? In con- sequence of the relentless hostility manifested towards them. ofthe Wesleyan body have urged their brethren to • whJer departure from the Establishment ; and in individua cisw 't IS impossible to avoid this result. For nearly a century th" Methodist Preachers have pursued their arduous iabour. Tbev have Itinerated their extensive Circuits, supplying the spiritual ro^"ld;;„i'!?r'"^!i'''^.'""'l"'"«.P''P"'*^'»''' «'»'•*'» '^e church could not or would not reach. In every place where ihiiir ministry has been established, they have UsSfed in promoting i";!?4 ••*''• "P"""' ««»"hip of God. Christian moraTaSd order, and in coun.eractmg revolutionary principles and seen. Sn!!!! „J V*^* ^"" ""^ '? *"'*'" quarteii with monthly effusions of nnfounded insinuation, ebloquy. and invective- end hat from the very men whose lack of wrvice Ibey Tave supplied, and whose real interest they have actually advanced by upholding the inst.tations of the country. AlieJation froin be Church IS the certain and unavoidable Jonsequence SfS intemperate proceedings. It is satisfactory to observe. thlJ in kTw'"*L"'*"**'^«*'"»™" "P'"' •ow"<'« the Wesleyan to /ni;;lT recently manifestea. which they well know how to appreciate. But whatever opposition they may be still rh«T.h »*"il'll'""'''.,'". proportion as piety frevails among tAh:. iL*!- ''* ?"!?*''• "*^'»y f««''"«' of 'e»entment. but by the conviction of duty ; and the example of their revered Fouiider will continue to exert a salutary influence upon thoJ public as well as private character. The persecuUons of fifty years could not quench his love for the Church of England/or mdHce him to deviate from the path which ha h«lJAv-5 p^" «.TJk1«k°Ik''"''^ '*"* **".'''"J '' •""* »''« contumelious "treat, ment which they may receive from the hands of the iniudieioM advocates of the Church, it is hoped, will never pZVuZ spiritual children of that great and good man to assume an at ■i ■ Ml m ill I) ^i 204 tittid* of hostility Church (ha _ ..., „ ,n Establishment, of \ w»»oied and ooaaclentiout friend." (The M.«hodi»t«, by the Rev. Thomas Jackson.) W«l«*i ■ •'•V^"'''^?' 8"'"y <"' «ripiura! •«**»«. Mr. Wesley himself created -ch .chiani in the Church of Enl reSr V miv .h^-r''"'^ there adduced you ifave made 7o '^.iirp:£x:ti Jz^a^ss-j.jSyj^tr oaiion haa been. and. still i,, guii.y of be a?v/ul sS^ wh?rh you. m your high church zeal, charitably chaieupoJi, QoS CTra «:; UuTcH ""k' ' ""• '^•'•"her^be '^Sl hod°'' ..^ .K 1 ^' ^*'""''* '" ""» "n** '•» which Mr. Weslev uiad the phrase is very questionable. Thev are howi,.!!^ moat noparalleled career of usefulneaa in .11 parts of the world rZ? mS " *"" 'I'"""* '■" • """• which !„u.l «t sfylte J ir»l.fJ«i JoatMy now judge, whether I •• oa» fully T£ mLw •'*";• "'•^ 'hiaelep," the separation, so ca led with th« Word of God and met ha approbation." If tha cir vma approbation, I know not what can. Sure I am ther do not manifeat the divine rf.«ai»pro6a«<»n. Whilst ifflJ yooara pleased to en^^cfled7f Bouis as the sea/s of thoir ministry, if ihev wera unifnrmiJ deceived m this matter, it is strange t!m ill Z[ ZZll uniformly vioaied in their behalf ai i-... . " your notLs. the •'good"?c:omp,i.h^V "'{.e r^„rutran" greater part of the good should invariably be done by the n strumontality of Episcopal Divinea. It is not reasoLble ^I menl" To^irw l*'' "''^ ''^ V ' "•'"''*'-" ^^ human appoint- ment, (p. 84.) as you contend ours is, I am at a loss to /«« cetve how you can consintently admit that God ?na„V.nea sure, would own it in accoaiplishing good. You havi Zll me instances, m which the earth Spened and sw.uIL? ! thn, you inlonile'l lo scioraaliz. il ...Zl .a r ' " *" lurt ha, I,.,. ../».; -i ., . ... '"' p"""""/ Sorerei Strip. v.n. dtspiea-ure. a. oar condact in reV;i lo tt" mi^i^lrVr. ■ j .Hi Mi txeaedingljr •• hateful" to God ; and. from your premiaea, it mutt follow, that, if we repent not of thia awful crime, though we eacape in thia world, we muat meet an "exemplary" and aggravated punishment in the future stale ! How then can you consiaiontly admit that God does own our miniatry at all, if we are guilty of ihe heinous sin which you are striving to lay to our charge? This is a very serious question— one. which you ought not to have passed over so slightly as you have done. Do you laalty think that what you have aaid about the boya and girls, men and women, and certain mimics, is suf- ficient to satisfy the minds of the thinking and intelligent ? I do not intend, at present, to enter into an extensive discus- sion on this subject. The good, tohich hat accrued to the Chut eh of England and to the world, through the operation o/Wksletan .\1ethodi8M, tj a matter of hiiiory ; and. as a means to assist you in forming a more correct opinion on thi( uubjocl, than you now seem to possess, I, with great plea> eure, recommend to you a candid, unprejudiced perusal of the late CsNTENARY Volume, by the Rev. Thomas Jackson Only, I will give you the opinion of Sir Peter Laurie, Knight, &c. expressed in a Letter to the Rev. Charles Cator, a Clergyman of the Es'ablishod Church, who, it appears, could not allow the ashes of Messrs. Wesley and Whitfield to rest in peace. Says Sir Peter, •• I deeply regretted to find you at- tacking two such excellent men as Wkolet and Whitfield, who may be termed the Apostles of the miners, and a vast body of humble and ne^/ec/ec{ persons, who owe their knowledge of religion solely to their disinterested, earnest, and pious exertions. If their zeal had had no other efiect than that of awakening the Church of England from her lethargy, and her Ministers from their torpor, that alone might have pro- tected that zeal from being considered • baneful' in ita efiects, these Divines from bemg branded as • calumniators,' and their doctrines from having * exposed the members of the christian body to the crafty policy of the Jesuiat, or the infidelity of the sealoua Owen.* *' Revering the Church of England, subscribing to its Doc- trines, admiring its Liturgy, and adhering to its Communion, still / can never approve of animadversions, however eonsei- •ntious (as I feel assured ia the case with you) on the body of Vbslbyans, who, though difTering from us in minor points, •re the firm supporters of our establishment, or of their found- ers being classed with St. Francis, St. Dominic, or Ignatius Loyala. • • • "Divisions tn the Church are much to be deplored, and none more so than that scAwm which now prevails under the name of ' PuBETisac,*'^ which ia flittering religion away into * So called from Dr. Pusey, an English Clergyman, and one •f the most strenuous advocates of the Divine Right of Ej^iseopa- •y« Uninterrupted Succession, Tradition, dcQ. r premiaei, it crime, though mplary" and ow then can inistry at all, re striving to ueaiion— one. ly aa you have B said about niimiea, ia auf- inielligent ? — insive discua- :rued to the the operation lislory ; and, ct opinion on th great plea* perusal of the 18 Jackaon.— BR Laurie, iharles Cator, ppears, could lield to rest in find you a^ Whitfielb, tid a vaal body r knowledge It, and pious than that of tthargy, and ght have pro- in its efiects, irs,' and their the christian fidelity of the ig to its Doc- Communiou, rever conaei* 1 the body of minor points, if their found- , or Ignatius leplored, and ails under the in away into 'man, and one t of E^iscopa- SOT puerile formalities, and the vicarious intercession of a Priest • ;.? ,hT. Io^kI ? '"""^ " ^i»'*^"-"*S''t the gate, the follower.' o» this school sre engaged in unmeaning quibblee about Si;c- CEssiow, Tradition, and Anthiuity, giving heed to 'fa- JyjJl^ .l"**"?^'".' ,^r. '"'' > °"'' •"iciures been direofed agains/this srAum, I should have been as prompt with my meed of approboiion. humble and feeble though it may be. as Inciter Xrv. Case of Ischiras considered— Aerius-A passage in Jerome e« p^ained-Theodoret. also, explained. afdT,?mer view. viiS-" H^Sir,"''*'-:?"' Cl'ajlenge-Blondel misr«presented-No «- EnS^r"'*"*"' «h« St- Paul established the Chureh" ZS:S^;SS^^"^ Of inconsistency .^tXl Rbt. Sir, ^LhTiHJ"^ «l"nga. stated in your pamphlet, y.t remain, to whoh »h.n" 'L"'«"'"'^ '*''«"*«'• »''• nio'iTOa/maiof wtuoh I shall now briefly nolice. I .M.*'l.'«U*"',"* '* 'Wily astonished at the strange method- Chirac^' v! "'f *•'! '^'^"'i^'y presented in the case of Is- S i' ^ 7"r»"on«hment I cannot help ; but that theme- hod I adopted IS strange I deny. You .old me that " Collu- lie was immediately degraded." I told you. that " Orieen was excommunica.od and even deposed, in a Council he"? m ot^■CV»;.'■r'«^"'* *"'"'"" and jealousy of Deme.r us. B shop Aohli ^""d ^"'"'" '•* '""' •'««" '»''«'«^'' by the biehop, of Achaia and Palestine." (Defence, p. 36.) Tho fact aialed you do not deny. But why did I instance .his \ To show tat .h fr.eiL'r '^'^Tt "'^ ''"'"'" •>'" "dination. considered i,~. n-'rf^Z;;." ■" "f "''"P'uraiiy invaiiu, but beoau«e in Its performance an eeeletiaetieal regula.ion was violated- Hence I w,,hed you and my readers, to draw the inference, that If. ».ola.,on of ecc/masrica/ regulation was sufficYent to depose a person rightly and validly o7d.in«d in the one case it was equally so in the other. You hat led to show tl"' I MS :XZiJi ,^^^ centorie.. d.d not (.k« place in con.equcnc. of roer. d.lerance lo eccle$ia$tieml, ule. Ectle«Miic«| re-o! id Zr nV.':? f """ r ''""P- '••• P'«-«»in.nce "l; po3: I.l.d ?i/„^^ !"' """r "«"'•«*«"• "0"W not recognize . a where Iheir ori(in.l r.ghi of ordainin? wi. d..Hncily .dm i'"d vir'ziZir"' I"""*" V"' •"^'' ord.„.,.on^o«r';: ment Eccles.aet.cal law did interpoae and con.rol bi$hop, MHell.apre.by,er,. " We find Bishop, xh,u..eh»/o,7id See the Council of Antioch. (90 Bi.hops.) a. D. 841. C.^O ) I. .he order of Archbishop., then, by d.vine r.ght. al ^T The.. :rdTnVd"::'.X'I'" ;NoBi.hop wa. lobe elected " ilnlTrin.lT 5'"«*"'"; .^""'"^ «A"> (the Metropoli- leJnL b„.h h "^ •PP"'"''"" J «">erwi.e the cauon, Jro- ntunee both the «/«/,or* and the ordination null.' (bin^ SJLr/rf. ./r- r*" ""ii'" •'•'•""'"d by the authoril, of 4ttiWre«f. of Bjihop. in Council ? Will they .ay it ha. divine b»ih.7rj£.« ;• "•' '^»"hey frequently were «•/ ordained by their Afetropohtan nor with his consent. Nay. it will S.K nt *t ^'^l"^'!*"' of the preieni Bishop, and Clergy Metronom/„"': ''J'^''8''"<»f "Pe^d. For the canon. requi*?J aUh!tl\ ^•J^'1?'"**' ^y *•'" ^«'"«'cA. or. at lea.t. by ^:il K .*"'' ?'^»"»P'«>v"'«. Now Parker wa. ordained bV rJo.!,*if "^Tu 'f* """"' oftheyi„/.andonly bythreJ or four. If any of tho la.t. many of the rest being oip<»ed to h» ordination.' (Powell'. Eesay. p. 98.) You^eTlben the effect of ecclesiastical canon.. — »ueB me You, alao. mention the caee of Jehus. •' In the ..me (the i-SL? '^';?!i""' "»'■••*"•<• ihatpreabytere were equal to b*«bop.. end had right to ordain ; /or trAicA. and .om. other doclrine., be wa. condemned a. a heretic" Your au thority for all .hi. I pre.un.e i. Epiphanim. Now hear whit Biahop Taylor, in hi. Liberty of Prophesying. Section 2d. mJs 1^'1:T' '' " "H 'hat consider, the Catalogue, (of h"^ •.e.) a. thfly are collected by Epiphanius. &c.. shall find that many are reckoned for heretics for opinion, in matter, dilpi- table, and undetermined, and of no consequence ; and that in iJl'*Ji. hl?"""'^'"'!.*"'*^ '^"* "« raen numbered forheri? ic, which by every side respectively, are acquitted, so that there i. no company of men in the world that admit the." •atalogue. a. eood recorda. nr anffiAi.ni .««#«- _/• -._ . ;«r* . J^"J "L" ■"^'""^ ''-' *»f Mosheim .ubatantialiH- .?iIf„S ?• ""• ""'!' •"' 'J'"*'' •"• ''"•'' «' »« reputatioE ; a? It la full of inaccuracies and error., and diacovers almo.t in mention, in the ) in contequcncv cleaiatiicti rega« nee I hey posaeu- not fecognize as . except in caeeti itinctly edmitled lalion would be the New Teata- control bithopt entsetves forbid El Jlrihbi»hop.~- D. 841, Can. 0.) [ht, biso ? These to be ulected or (the ftletropoli. )e cauont pre NULL.* (bing. ur hij;h churcb- iie authorilj of ly it haa divine •pa* ordinationa ire not ordained Naj, jt WILL rATioN, itpon >pa and Clergy anons require a or, at Jeaat, by was ordained by id only by three ing opposed to )u aee tben the (he aame (the lers were equal Icb, and tome " Your au. fow hear what Bction 2d, saya uea (of Here- Bhill find thai nattera dispu- i ; and that in )ered for here- uitted, 80 that admit these 'a at Cunusm- ubatantially a- h had sprung epntation ; as ira almost id 209 tvtrj page the leviiy end ignorance of its author •• «« - i. •or your auihoriiv Nni« ii... i • """nor. So much •imply mainla"nl that J.h l^"""' *" ""' ""d-mned for ture'; -equal to b^lp'/J^^^^/^^Vr";. 'hording to Scrip. testimony of aniiquitv on ihi. .. k; . ^ "'••"P-nng the whole waa condemned Jotaomulrr J"*' " '^P""" "••' ^eriu. that there ouglit not to bs L,?^.^ "^ .' "' '*' "'•'■«'ng in aasertin* w 0^ !.« onn ^1 f """•" """'« *«"»"'» fhent; Bishop, ^ii;:';:,'^;^;^^^^ -•?ich .hi Imnselfso obnS, Ind Ivi. /« r ^''? ^•""' "'"*'«'•'' ^*ro«,e and JugZin unou^.l .7?.'' ^^ "^ '"'"^ ' «'"'• vines of the nse ilJZ'h ,h?„ ? 'u "'"'^ "•• """" '"'"••l d«- lU same docfri^e yef escaLi". 1"'' """"^ •uba.antiallr ing, and even aTpr^Jin/.hePmJHr'" "f""""' ^^ •<>'•'••- M..hed in theirCrnft asa dlr '''''"^' '"''''^ *^" "•- aysiem founded orA«ma« .?.'T* "PPT""'"'' ^""^ " • Stillingflett observes " I L7.'""- A^ord-nply Bishop f ment of Stillingfleet may be added that ofProI«'*'^J"^«- no/rfs, B shop Morton and nth-, ■ 1, *^'0'o«»or Aai>. who frankly ^acknol^Xlhat^rw^^^^^^^^^^ ^^*««". this Bubject with Jeromi\n^\n a' «<""f«'e«J '" "pmion on undeniably taught tira^me do riL''^^ *''"'•"• «"»o ed as heretics..? (0?.^?^!^ I.^;'';;!.^;'"!/'^-''- (he case of Aeriua. ""«"». p. i»« ; go much for From Jerome I quoted as follous •• n-r .l ti« in rel,gion.and\ wa?4i?, I a'^'o Paurio ^ rV' 1"" were governed bv the rnm««« A • \.J? • **'• '"O Churcboa you.sk. "WhenVstr rsT.u""""''"'^'^'*?''^'''"''' O"*''" '7 *^»^= "^ ^'« A po-i les ? UnqnesiTonabl V '• '/„ cV\ "«"" '" youargue, that, durina the livesof .h- a„ ".i ^^ "^ """"o neceeaary that in ewrj dislrie! o/^ Apostles. •• U „•„ fou„j fullauthJrityahouKr. id ,; tt"? • ^ ''''"'''^ «"'' Apostles, .nd. presiding o7er clergy anrfj'T'?"V.' '*'^« '*» w I $ •If I fio efiiiuei.' " " This ■eema clfltrly," you ■ffirm "tobcitr- oDia'aaenitmtni." (p. 87, SS.) How clearly it teems lo be Ilia opinion w« ahall "on aee. That ha dooa not dale Epiaco- pacy, aa held by you, ud ea/ly aa the di«pule at Corinth, to which (h« passage in queation refara, " is efleclually refuted by two considerationa. lo the firat place, Jtrome adduces pioof that J9i«Aop and Presi.v/er were originally the iame, from portiona of the New Tealaroent which were certainly written afttr the firal Epistle lo the Corinthian: In the teeond place, that language of the ApoatJe, one $aith I am of Paul, and another lam ofApollon, &c. hia been familiar- ly applied in every age, by way of allusion, lo ac/ua/ divisions in the Church. And were those who put the consiruclion on Jerome which I am opposing, a little better acquainted with hie writings, thoy would know that in another place he him- aelf applieatbs same paaaage loaomediaturbera of the Church's peace in the /fftir/A century." (Dr. Miller.) Again, in re- plying to the aamo objection urged by your oracio Dr. Bow- den, Dr. i\f iller aaya, •' la Dr. B. then prepared lo adopt the opinion, that the inapired Apoatles at first adopted a form of government, whirb in a little while, they found ill judgi^d, and uiaufficient to answer the purpose ; and that they then alter- ed it for the better? Yet if there is any meaning in part of hia reasoning, t hia if Uie amount of it ! But besidea ibe blasphemy of the suggestion, Jerome could not have intended to aay that thia alteration took place during the times of the Apoatles, because he quotes the Apostolical Epistlee to prove that it had not taken place at their date ; and particularly in hia Epistle to Evagriui, he quotes the eeeond and /Atr(2 Epis- tles of /oAn to show ihat Presbyterian parity exiated when they were written, which waa about thirty yean, after thia schism at Corinth, which Dr. Bowden aasoris is the pt^ricd as- signed by Jerome for the rise of Prelacy. Jerome further tells ua, that the practice of setting one of the presbyters above the rest, waa brought in by degreee,; which could never have been the case had it been founded on a distinct and positive order of the Apostles. And, as if this wev^ not nufficienily explicit, he adds, to ttilte away all possibility oi i^. tf/,:», 'Let the presbyters (notr) Know that thny are fi i> 1 1 .) i who is set over them by the custotn of the Ci. . '< , anu Jet the Bishops (now) know, that they are preater than Presbyters, rather by the custom of the Church, than by any real ap' pointment of Christ.' " (Millet's Con. p. 1*85 ) The "cus- tom of the Church" and the "appointment of Christ," are here contrasted, or set in opposition to one another ; and t^h^rffcfB fvuf irifcrcHCu is UtnVarfaniablc, and Opposed io ibs w'it, 40 tenor of Jerome's reasoning, that " by the custom of ■ifi Church" he meant " the universal practice of the Apos- tles ;" as :>u yourself affirm, " it must be admitted that whatever Clirist's Apostles did under the immediate influence of his epirii,— istbe same aa if done by himself," (Note on ill n " to b« J«r- jt •eemi to be at dale Epiico- t Corinth, to :(ually rafuted rome adducac lly th« tame. Mare certainly iant. Jn ihe e $aUh I am I been familiar- letual divisions lunHiruction on (|uainted with place he liim- iflheCburcira Again, in re- aclfl Dr. Bow< J to adopt the led a furm of ill judged, and liey then alter- leaning in part ut besidea the have intended i timea of the )islle» to prove particularly in tnd third Epia- exiated when ir«, after this i the p«;ricd as- ne further lella I'tera above the d never have t and positive lot flufTicienily ri-iJM ;■,.*», «Let I ;i» " '.:>i who ^ anu let the in Preabjrters. any real ap- >) The "ous- f Christ," are another ; and opposed to too the custom of of the Apos- admitted that Jiate influence f." (Note on p 167.) Jtrome. of ooursa, admitted this, and therefore tb« pliraae. " appoiiilinenl ofChrist." uied by him, i lers to the ^pottle$, as well aa to Chriat himself. The phravu, '* custom of the Chutob," means eeeletiattieal, in opposition to divine, arrangement On a pa^saffe quoted by me from Whitby respecting The*- doifVs opuiioii, you ask, •• Cun it be possible. Sir. that you 'vuilu not ['(loeive that this quotation made against the cdoae you were advocating ?" (p. ttS) 1 anawer No: nor do i>et pe.'ceive it. Let me explain. 1. I quoted the paasage in question to show that Theodoret cenaidered the bithopa and jire«6y/rr« mentioned in the New Testament as being of one order. 2. He proves tlus in two ways, (a) *' There could be but one bishop properly so called in one city, (b.) " The names were then common, to both orders" — " biahope," then, in the New Testament " being called presbyters, and presby- ters, bishops " "And this saith Theodoret, ia manifeat la this place, (Philip. 1.1.) because he adds here, (beacons to the bishops, making no mention of their presbyters." And in bis comment on 1 Tim. 8, he deciarea, •• The Apoatles call a Pres- byter a Bishop, as we showed when we expounded the Epit* tie to the Fhillippians—Of old they call the same men both Bishops and Presbyters." Theodoret, then, believed that Ihe. bishops in Phillippians and Timothy were j»>e4ftyl«r«; for this, among other reasons, " there could be but one bishop properly so called in one city." In Theodorut's time, tha fifth century, prelacy was established. The bishops mentioned by 8t Paul were not diocesan bishops, because only one of these could properly be in one city. Now does Theodoret, in assigning this reason, speak o( scriptural bishops, or ecele- tioitieall "Properly so called"— does this refer to any grade of ofBcera existing in Scripture times, or to a grade ex- isting in Tlioodoret's times ? N jw, without prejudice, 1 do oandidly think he refers to the latter : as if he had said the bi- shops mentioned by the Apostio are not the same aa those that exist now, as only one uf these properly so called, can be in one city, but he speaks of many being in the city of Philippi. But LLOondly, " the names were then common to bofAorders." *• Then," say you. " there were two orders, or why speak of both orders ?" Yes, there were two orders in Theoduret's day, the^yVA century : and the two orders then existing, were not in existence during npoatolic times; for then there was noton- Jy a community of names, but " the sow* men were called both bishops and presbyters." This must be Theodoret'* meaning if you will allow him to be consistent with himself. " Tbo biibopa'" ;«at nuwum, " being then called. /)r««&y(er«, and the presbyters," that now are, " being then called bish- ops;" that is. that, though now distinct, they were then one. And this saith Theodoret, ia manifest in this place, (Phil. I. 1.) because he adds here, dearnns to the bishops, making no mention of their presbyters." Why did St. Paul wake no \ I -If 212 mention of iheir presbytert7 Evidenlly becaue* Tlieodor.t considered li.em included «ith the bishops/^vluch bilhoD. der of ordinary mimslera in Aposlolic^ime.. That hf Jia'd- dent ?rom hT " "" ^a^^T "'''" '^f ord,u.ry mini.ter. f,*;*! ii^ ofT *""j'«"'.«'«''d''. for by this very term he desicnates one of the orders in existence in his own day-" the names were tl^nOn.heN.T.) common to 6oP-"by.er. rn7bfsho;s' were in the N.T. but one, this. according to Theodoiet. was tha ..^^''';^i5^'^r■"*' ""»•'• no mention ofprSfe" oj I ame, bu added •• deacon, to the buhop,." Unless this hi til ZIZS ^^T''?.''"*". •" no «'ue sen^,: could hesay l,..? the two order, of his day were in thoN. T. desicnated bv h« promiscuous terras, bishop, and pre8bvter,Y^r\.l^!l most assuredly cotrad.c.s Theodore^ ¥esys fhat tl e tw! b!tirTiini "I'. ''« P^'^'^CV""" «"'"«, *"Ao;,s and pre,- "Ifffra, tha(4m fact the iw/jop* in his day: were iniho N T c. led pre,bj,ter,, and yet your whole scheme, a. far as the' Scriptures are concerned, is predicted on the fa" that "in the S.r,^/„r« the fir,t or hijhest order of the ministry 'is tS .ho?.M "-?M ' ""L"*™' «'""''*•" »nd 'hat thosi s lyl/d '• bi° •hops''and"pre»byterp" invariably belonffed to the *«o«i 'x.r .«/er,or order ! No w which are we to bS.eve? Theodoret or yourself? for that >ou contradict one anXr. i 'lain to he coinmonesl understanding. And what is still i " 'tmJu L JT,r^.' "J ^""i '? "Ph'>ldyo«r scheme, viz.that " the j«r*< or /irg-Ae«< order of the ministry is. in the Scr ptures to be found under the name apos//e." 'and the second is to be Th««Ho"«." 't" "'"'"'! *?'■ ^*'^'P' -"d presbyters, you oJe Theodoret, whereas, it is evident, ho plaini/ and unequivo^ cally declares that, in the New Testament, the first nldse- W./f««^'t'r'^''''^> ""''!.' '» ''o found inder .1 names of btshops and presbyters, and that, then, the bishops yvetec\ll. take a proper view of the matter," and rightly reoresent 'hi opmion of Theodoret, is evident (\om the quotation I maSj f om StUhngfleet, in which he deliberately iffirmySis bXf true hT tI.'" '"••■^'r''"9«"y Medina's judgment wiUprrve /rue. that Jerome, Jlugustin, Jlmbrose, Crysostom, Thk. as to Uie tdenttty of both the name and the order of Bishop, and Presbyter, ,n tho Primitive Church." This quotaS will, also. show, that you know but little, in r.Vll ^"!:!l'-" »ng me opinions of Presbyterians on this subiVct'/ othVrwise you would not have said that •• Presbyterians have „LZ! considered Theodoret a hiish Church - ""'^' you right" here: th^ h.ve not „f;--„,id ^ ,, J^^ "d, .1 .pptar.. that even episcopal writers have noIa/ioyV >Bue» Tiieodoret which bishops, > the liiglieat or- That he regard- tninislera is evi. I he designates Y—'* the names Jers" now exist- the preibytert, ers and bishops Bodoiet, was the preabytert by Unless this be uld he say that isignated by the Your scheme 8 that the two in the ministry, ihops and prea- ire in the N. T. > as far a« the fact that, "in ministry is to ose styled •• bi- to the seeond ve, 1'heodoret >er, is {ilain to ilia "difficul- viz.that "the Scriptures, to nond is to be era, you quote ind unequivo- firat and te- the names of >/>a were call. That I did represent the Btion I made HE his belief, nent willprove wstom. The. 'a judgment, fr of Biahopa Itis quotation lilv rAA>%-k«k« :t, otherwise lave altoaya in •• set you d him such, B not alwayt 213 viewed him in this liyhf. You have not noticed, as I can seo myargumeni from the word apoatoha (Defence ni". \f' gainst your version of the quotation ftomTheSet whictyou re al'';.;iK" ^ "♦*•-"[ -•'«<'"'«>•" That IVuS's^^l"; TBiains lis lorce. The word apostoloa sisniHea on« ,j>nt » 3. ih«t u »"'Pl"'« presbyters: much les. can you prove ihat it » so restricted by the primitive Fathers What Jor^a';.^:: u^wllh'.^ "^ admi.sion.'^wh.ch is .MhevTry t.Ig.'" Thi y ' r" *""*"'*' "»" '° understand by ibe quotation " that Theoaorer. words show that .♦ b.sbops 4re o?.ce ciued aX- lies? Absolutely noihing: unless you can prove which I wa'sVv tratr'.''' '' ''' ""PO..ible/.hat the'^re m' Apostle mListirAnn "^*"?" P°'''**«'y '««"'«=•««» •» «n order of mmisiers superior to the scripture presbyters. The adrniwio. SirerJolelVT"" ''' •• d-fficuKy" 'Jo^'J^,^ "/o73 fKnCyt^ri^Lrrng" " '" '"" ^^'^*' >*"' "-'- ^ bE Ji; Sr f •"' •""•"'u' **"" *>"'»' »°l been ordered were^ ?er« T '^ ' "",? '^e time that the blessed Apostles were here conversant." (p. 62.) 1 reply-" Till the date of c«wrcn ar Lortutlt) had been c/e«»7v preabvterial • and »•« •"•■■jr i^iiurcn, vol. ^. p. ibs ; and Bingham, b. 2. c 1 " Thi« .« a quotation by Professor Hoppus. au^thor 'of tl,; Pr,e fiLay wJfT' KT ""' *' "'""'y «f 'he Church, by the Rev G^ Wadd.ngton. M A . Prebendary of Chichester, p. 21 '''"tU *pwcopa/ form of government J«a* clearly ,, or Vet here «^ Crete''* aTo':."' "^'^ '"^'•'"•» '° the^:publ.ran pi^tTf theinri'h/. ""'"/^y"""*^'*' these dissensions. Je find them (the converts uf Corinth) flourishing under the direction llisT A^ ''"rf ''"''"P' «">"y""«.'' ib. p. 12 (Schism Lfahl .AS«'"','f"'e "uperiarity of the bishoj can claim fT- sf^c^^rlrn" ""'^ ««'««i"ti'-«l arrangement, as has beei a"- amni? origm of diocesan episcopacy. Moreover Hoolr« Iv?." 1.e K";i ;..'°.'".°°': .".'■.«'■-!> - >!» ^o n..,.. ; unm^ «f ...I • r~" . ••"""* ==rciiirj, and cigittii books." from y.« 1.... .ho ■„i.,ep,e..„,.d >h. .. ,2n'i mcH.\r 214 (p- 70 ) Dr. Miller thus convicts Dr. Bowden of similar mis- representaiion. " Dr Bowden endeavours lo press ihe learned Ulondel inio his service, by representing him as admitting that the Angels of the Asiatic churches are addressed as • having jurisdiction over both clergy and laity;' andthusby implication OS acknowledging the existence of diocesan Episcopacy in the apostolic age. This is a mistake. Blondel says no such thing. After inv stigaling this eubjecl as profoundly as any man ever Old. he tells us. thai during tbe apostolic age, and for a consi- derable lime after. Bishop and Presbyter were reciprocally one and the same; that these were combined into Classes or Pres- byteries; that the eldest minister, pastor^ or bishop belonging to the Presbytery, was, by virtue of his seniority, constantly the moderator ; that when be died, the next in age succnude'd him, of course, and continued to hold the place during life.— '•These senior pastors," says he, had & certain singular and peerless power, such a power as alt moderators, after whatso- over manner constituted, ever bad and ever will have, belong ing to them. Neither was the moderator of any of these »a- •;red colleges, chief among his coileaguo Presbyters, as & Presbyter, or as one placed ii higher order above all the oihor Presbyters; but as the eldest and first ordained pas- tor. Nor did the rest as Presbyters, but as younger Iresbyters, and afterwards ordained, yield the moden.- lorship to him. His office was to exhort the brotherhood; to war a good warfare ; to commend them to God by praver ; lo gather the Presbytery ; to give them a good example ;'and to declare himself lo be a diligent messenger of God to man- kind. And, therefore, as Christ does in his admonitions to the Angelsof the Asiatic Churches, both the good and the evil deeds of the Churches might be imputed to these moderators." And again he says, •• Linus, as he was a Bishop, had for his colleagues Clement and Jlnacletui, who were shortly after ordoined Bishops, with himself, in the same Church of Rome. But as he wos the erarch or moderator of ihe brethren, he neither had, nor could have any colleagues, (seeing the «i«- deratorship can only fall to one person at once) but only suc- cessors. There was a plurality of Bishops, Presbyters, or Go- vernors, at the came time, and in the same Church. All those Pastors or Bishops, on the very account of their Presbyterate, were endued with equal power and honour. The moderator rvi\3 subject to the Presbytery, and obeyed its commands with no less submission than did tho meanest of their number. He had the chief power in the College of Presbyters, hut had no poiccr over Hie College itself And, as if this learned man had been aware of every cavil that ignorance or sophistry couiu BU^gc-t, he expresfciy compares tiicse ancient modera- tors with Ihe moderators of Presbyteries, in the Reformed Churches of Scotland and France, and ossigns to the »"armer no inore power or pre-eminence than belongs to ihe latter. Blon- delli jjpolog. Praefat. pag. 6, 7, 16, 85, 88. I make no en of simitar mil' press the learned as admitting that ressed as ' having liusby implication Episcopacy in the i}'s no such thing, aa any man ever , and for a conai- ) reciprocally one Claaes or Pre$- bishop belonging Drily, eonttanUy n age succnnded ice during life. — lin singular and rs, after whatno. rill have, belong any of these »a- Presbyters, aa & r above all the t ordained pas- but as younger Id (lie modern - he brotherhood; God by prayer ; id example ; and A God to man- imonitions to the id and the evil ise moderators." thop, hod for his re shortly after Miurch of Rome. e brethren, he (seeing the mo* c) but only sue- csbytcrs, or Go- jrch. All those r Presbyterate, The moderator commands with r number. He irs, but had no a learned man :e or sophistry ncient modera- I (he Reformed to the iTormer no le latter. Blon- I make no 219 comment on Dr. Bowden't perversion of these plain declnra< tions. If he fell intoit tgfn<»ran//y, be is to be excused; if wilfully, no reader ivill be at a loss for appropriate reflec- tions." (Con. Lett. p. 80.) You seem to be pretty sure that the Church of England was established by the Jlpostle St. Paul.' (p. 101, kc.) Your proofs are of two kinds, probable and direct. The direct su- persede the former, and it will only be necessary for me at present to consider the latter. That your direct proofs are not satisfactory is evident from the concessions of your own writers. Afler having combated the opinion of the Papists that St. Peter converted Britain, the British Critic, quot- ed before, proceeds,—" There is rather less improbabiliiy in the traditional accounts which consign Britain to the Apostoli- cal tutelage of St. Paul. The insulae quae in marejaceni, named by Theodoret as among the spots which the great Teacher of the Gentiles visited afier his labours in Italy and, Spain, may be applied without violence to our own (the Bri- tish) Islands ; but surely the expression is too general to enu- ble any one to affirm positively that it does mean Britain." (No. 22, April. 1832. p. 270.) Again : •• Whether the Gospel was first preached to the Britains by some of the Syrian Chris- tians who were scattered abroad after the death of Stephen ; whether by pious soldiers of the same nation, who might have' accompanied the armies of Claudius into this country ; wlie- ther by Jewish converts dispersed over the world by the same Emperor, at the time when he • commanded all Jews to de- part from Rome;' or whether by some even of the Apostles themselves ; are cjuestions which have each found ingenious advocates ; but the subject is unfortunately so shrouded in the obscurity of a barbarous and unrecorded age, as to pre- sent us with little beyond the grounds of some plausible con- jecture." (Id. 470.) The following strong language on 'bis subject IS taken from •• A Short History of the Slate of the Church in England, from ihe first introduction of Christianity totheestabhshment of the blessed Reformation under Queen Elizabeth," jiMft/isAed by the " Church of England Tract Society," and. therefore, may be considered aa expressing the views of the Church of England, in 1833, when it was issued • "At what precise period, and by whom, Christianity was in- troduced into our happy Island, are ciicumstances involved in tmpenetrable darkness. Perhaps the Divine wisdom has seen fit to keep us in ignorance of these particulars, lest a correct knowledge of them should have generated in ua n «uper«/t7tot/s and tc7 t -.mawment you exclaim. " Cranmerihe founder of a Church planted by an Apoetle ! !" And. doubtless in fear that I sh«uW .gam expose my ignorance you favour me with he eVhJrtat.on -" Do be more careful in future." (p. 107. ) Bursnrelv vJ» cannot ..justly" charge me with ignirance fir beliVvr. Vh„" ceisor. Edward VI. "guided by the propitious influence of »„/h ''^- "'•' "'"u* "•« '«■' «»'*b»i8hmont of the ReformtioJ- Tn^frnf • u" P'"««' "Pon tHefcasis. which, with twobrSf BrST v' ''" •"PP'»"«d '« '*«•• 'be space of #Ar« cenruries " (Britwh CriUc. as before, p. 481.) «. Ko pains-taking were the feh oV.r "n^;""'''.'~'?'"""''Sto the'^ReformeS (Bilni'l Sketch of 1 1,0 Reformation in England ; quoted by the Bridsh Critic, p. 483.) .. Thus far." savs Mr. Blunt, -have we a« companied oi.r Re/orpters in th'eir attempt%<, r«LV «p a Church of England, &c." (Id. 487.) " Splendid Tsevfnt" siili^^T '^^ '■'""" "f ^'''^'"' '' ^''" oomVrn ?vely !ncot sdorablewhenoiir Church v,as in building." (Id. «» )1 ••The tenets of these men-were stoutly lombated by ho /.«nrf.r. of our Church." (lb.) •• It is^natuJlt.. lyj Jj Sards h« >r *" ^""^/"^ * "^'"^ ""^ Bffectiona.o curioirty tot ;;ol" L'^^r r^ri !"_-.r^' ^V^.^^^" (Reformer.) ^. to Hd iVi^" 'r^' "'"^" "Y^''' J'^^indaum of our Church. "— hi :„r ( «'""'' "* '""6"' <»" 'bese plain passages wonid Thai the Chnrch of England, was, it, the sense in which I ' ii 217 iodioal, dated 81 st lion or explanation itionally place any •er contrary to the Your own Milner was evangelised at ■«/." (Ec. Hie.) iee little is record- It is rather from y, than from any e are induced to Bnetraied into our to invalidate the Nothing. There lurch of England were, you would eme, as you derive ( British Church, erormera, may ba f England. You charge me with ly" Hence in der of a Church fear that I should h the exhortation I But surely you )r believing what his youthful sue- 9us influence of the Reformation; that the Chunk h, with two brief tAree centuries." •taking were the >rmere. (Blunt's id by the British « *' have we ac- to raise up a undid as event- aratively intion- •• (Id. 489.)— mbated by the ral," says the •e (urioshy to- leformers) " to >ur Church. ••— passages would convince you others leas, ie« in which I nted the pbr part .»d^ V^Ji/nl'Ki'.rSu?.'!!*- *'" «•''•'"»«{•". « ioriciiotoriit»ih.i I wnnw*^ "'*''' " *«"•«»« of such bit. the aiarSn... ^ ^nowieage, could presume to deny it. h«p« h»tor,oflh.Church^'Tp roJt'Bun'"^'''' *""* •*»• mj a«wrtion i Why by gLi balk fo .1 ''*''• o^"" "•» «//«• Christ! Thi.i;HlV w.T*«."i *" .• /"'^ "*• W«. buinttfinthesenw/M^mus't j;rh ***'"' a«form.tlo». used th« word. •• That the TrLhrt T *!""' '" *"'*«'> ' yo«. " became ,nMect to the So«.ft '»-^''«'?'-'''." '*y to Rome, then during \\ifi i m« of l! ? w"*''- ''"''^"* "*V«' an independent Sfci. VhS! w.e J I i"S^ •"*1; ** "" »•» we «rar« eempelled to become .ubii/iiA.i B"* ""Ppoae that moot. •At .«orced to romarond-?lh. n Bapublican GoTorn- returned to our ancZt ««?« • 1« 1? ■•».ckle., .ad joyfaUy n*ra«ce of that ind^?3ly»i!!' ''?»'J J'ou net pity fhi ^'l «om»b; andL„rrthrEiI?.t,K.*"^T*™'*"'"' ''•'•all Af»i.^ «LJ. - ■"" "!• ^-'gnth cblamed his tin* nf n.f.-' tuther. 4. Though the Brlii.h n^ • °* ?"'»'•»'»•«» agaiwe r.^:^rarf sSSH" t^T.«.^f If I ■Tt -1 H I 318 ' i"pp«ai'on'* T rttf"'''^ *'*'!""* •^*"'">'" "ff"" "d much oppoBiiion. 6. Thit doe* not alter ihe oatuie of ProlMt*ni »«. .tielf; but it .how. that the Church of EnV.nd. .o c.Kd S'o;il^'''""i!'"^^'""^°.'""' ••«'*'• ""- ought to brSifui how they charga •••chi.m" on other., who. for reaaooab^ cau.e.. hajre separated from the Englith Church TaIVou bS.?L„ K- ''* •g/'O""'" of that iDdividual." who could im- others, by a oompari.on ao irrevalent. •« Dispute how we wUl that the Pope not only claimed but exereUed the aZrem^ tear. bTen'T^, ""''•* " ^"^l'"'' •**" '"«' **»«"• '*»•«« *""d^»" ^,hnlu ,i^*V""*P"^'>fChnHMdom to the p»pai ao- «hor,ty and had been accordingly dealt with." The force of t^ll m?".T' i^'*^"-'"' P; ^^'^ '••«•'"« uni»p*ired. !tou tell me "the charge i. unfair and u«ju.t.»' (n. 108 V ,Mv charge wa. that the Church of England;, a rfi/SS "ParaM from Rome Tbe/acriLetfiainot be SoLd - That It »A. criffuna/ for it .oio di»iant and wparateTl never •ffirmed: thatitwaait. " glory,^' aiid it. rf«<>«» and error I Where * wa» the Church of Chriat in England then ? tried by the SJniirfnf 'p** f «"P*r?f' »nd '«»'«d by the doctrine. ^ the Pk . uj • ^«[°"««'' Church of England, where waii the Church during the corruption, of Popery ? You muat )>•&•>•»> WW ^mhiiimtoh haa cajied Home." •• the idolatrous Chwch.'^ TLT "ri' *" H"«ot. but alao a/ott/. filthy, old.v,Mk^Ted ...iS nil""' ("^"'"/•S^iMi Wolatry.) Ob.arve,. tbi. M the positive, unequivocal testimony of thb Church oip 4$ - «. 'A^Ai:Sk^r«JI).^:«au(^ s efibrtt and much e of Proleatant- ngland. so called, iit to be cateruj 't for reMOMble Jrch. % A,9yo» »l •• pily'J#hculd ," who could im* >Q the minds of ipule bow we wU^ ill remainjeertain, led the supreme (hop Burnet ha* i^e three liundred o, the p^pal au- '/ The foroe of i«»p*ir«d., . iToM (P lOSij) Aty a «fM«en/er And >l be d«aied<— iftparate» | never Sf.,tbH«;tprd«iaeQt rgued, and atill elfi ii no proof aaion,or,ftri9tba i 8cbisn»atica^-~ h a kisf ." , Ap. Ac to you, tbifl It betrayal pfthe » will be oJeaiJy 9 underfjtand my Tou,;yw''iall, a Chiuch«*> Bay Apoatoiie and coil of ^nglai^, a " a diannter live O^urcfa.;,',' rated from tjw wa« Ibff, aaoia and errqi: aait then. iMturaMy ih in England I error? Where ' tried by the fitrines: of .tba 'here was the muitba awAra irons Chof 0^," old^tifiti^f(red »y St. Jebn in Observe,, tltia t Churuh of Home ? Where wwthL.foo^'* ''rl'"* *''.• domination of facJ- vf„ ™ri ''t"r- The«,«A«il| not answer. The wZZaJi^^fX '«;"™ "°» >■«"••" • '"hop .nd 220 diMlnl.,." .' * ''•*® "**' "endeavoured to prejudice dS!1V '*'""1r^"*"J ''"' ' '">''• "» doubt, you be»S «i„ |! prtjodiced youraelf m the estimation of d-ssentira end of?i&Jr«/ •ent .•«!^.i'^ proteatalioDe, &c. our frienda, after your pre- brntJ!; ^ *t'V''" '»»""'"•. in which thj - f.l.e Mace'-'^w »"ace it wLu??!!..u ^*'!" y°" *"• in"""**' ^^ break the l»«ace, It would at least have been "manly ," if not "unriaht * o« fhrStlct of cV^^^^^^^ opportunity ofatatinithSirVie"; •.«!. k 1- J .? i-biirch Government to you personally I can nSrevef r;J'!?i;"^K' ''".V Churchman^. eiir/r lay or^deric." Ih^ZJntiiw^''"'^^^^^^ inwiging boat i!,r..*o .* Wealeyans by attacking tbe " weaker vel Or d«l- »««?!? u . ^'*. >'°"' ordination-vowa require it ? Yout quotilion from •• B.rwick'i Tre«ti..," („ iaa-7 1 •.lify you 10 ..ying 10 .11 .ho beJI... not ,„ ii. d''J,. oblU ri^VH;7„'r:brc;t=:v-'r;K's.E tioned, or recommended, or enforced. BytZZJ! «^f it .?LV.»l!5''™Vl'!'« '^-Teatament. an'd l^f/uircl^;! -^ .-.«„,„„, a..u puauiveiy enjomed, you apparent!? makamit a atrong caae. and impose upon the unwary.*^ Bur pUco tho ^^^n^, •" "• "■"• '•?'•♦• ""• '••• »"y «"«»«' you have ?or Si •upport » mere conjecture ; and if iere conjecture iasufficiem at* 'it. ^21 wbooi?.f„''"wh''?Kp',^' ""'"""""'^ denunciations oftho.a t^en I 3; llf * '?.* '"^'''S °" °'' "'« ''-"ds of presbyters. •• then I do confess there appears to be no very great necessilv of any plain, and positive commands Of ih- -V^- necessiiy jour quotation fr^ '' HobSTooIo^v ' Vn «n ";^'T - " which you tell me •• thrtr-jih f. ,f f.^'. ^^ riS/ 1, i " I' ''*"'« ««"Pe"or order to Priests 6y {Defenc?D loSV f '^''^r? ''^ ">« English Bishops."-! ibeCbark^^ZloPr^^ ' quoted from of England CsVfh«^'f?**7'' * ^'^Wman of the Church «i«.»cLf ."/Kr ;:.,t.S' jr^'i-'.-' ■»«»»- • Did ,<,„ „er «.d Jewell., Deftnc. of hU Apole,, J y„„, 22& many complainli against me,) which is as follows—" |CT*The first English Reformera admitted but tu>o orders ofChi'rch oT- ficers to be of divine appointment, viz. Iiis/io;>« and deacons; a pretbyter and a bishop, according to them, being but itoo names o( the same office. But Dr. Bancroft, in a sermon preached at Paul's Cross, January 12, 1588, maintained, that the Bishops of England were a distinct order from Priests, and had superiority over them jur<> dioino." On the authori- ty of Dr. Miller I add the following: " Archbishop Whitgift, referring to the great attention which Bancrojt'a sermon had excited, observed, that it. 'had done guoc' ;' but added, that with respect to the offensive doctrine whitU it contained, he " rather wished, than believed it to bo Uuu," (Lett. p. 262.) Whoever denied that the episcopal *' Junction" was of '* di- vine appointment ?" The question is, whether the superior- ity of bishops to presbyters is divine ? Until, therefore, you can produce something from the bishops preceding 1588, ivbich beara upon this question, my ** hisioricai evidence" remains unjmpeached, notwithstanding your feeble effort to set it .a- side. " Bishop Burnet, in the Preface to his Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England, ahewa that several Abbots, though no more t^ci Presbyters, not only wore the Mitre, but ordained even Bishops." (Powol!, p. 148, Note.) Your argument drawn from 4 he phrase " most excellent," (p. 151.) aa applied to the episcopal form of government, shows to wh%t petty expedients you have recourse to prop up your cause. Because the Methodists in the United States have said, that the episcopal is the " most excellent" form of Church government— THEREFORE bishops must be of an or- der SUPERIOR to Presbyters, episcopary, in your sense, is divine, and binding on all churches, under the penalty of ex- cision from the fold of Christ!!! Reasoning, this, in every way worthy ot the cause in support of which it is used! Let me tell you, however, that, in the Methodist Episcopal Church in the U. S., you may see Episcopacy in practical operation, with perfect equality of order by divine right between bishops and presbyters. There is a sentence on pages 97 and 98 of your pamphlet which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. It is deserving of attentioni as it shows the extreme views you take of the sub ject in hand. " If," say you, " episcopocy v ere contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, then the Church thus governed, could not be called the Church of God— then God's Church was not . to be found upon earth, and we would be compelled to con- clude that Christ had not fulfilled his promise to the church, * Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.' You would be compelled to come to a monstrous conclusion tapping the very foundation of religion, and depriving ever; remarks agnin.;t the vulgar pointed finf^er will apply to him ir an eminent manner, as he uses it repeatedly ! ig aa followi— •• |C7*Tlie tu)o orders orchvrcli of- z. buhop$ and deacon$ ; (o them, being but two . Bancrort, in a sermon 2, 1688, maintained, that listinct Older from Priests, lioino." On the authori- " Archbishop Whitgift, I Bancro/t's sermon had goo(> ;' but added, that ) tvhitU it contained, he bo Uuu." (Lett. p. 262.) "Junction*' wa8of«'di. I is, whether the superior- f Until, therefore, you ops preceding 1588, tvhich loricai evidence" remains feebto eflbrt to set it .a- ce to his Vindication of {land, shews that several yters, not only wore the ' (Povvol!,p. 148, Note.) ihrase " most excellent," lal form of government, have recourse to prop up Bts in the United States " most excellent" form of ithopa mnat be of an or- opafy, in your sense, ia 8, under the penalty ofox- asoning, this, in every way vhich it is used! Let me odist Episcopal Church in in practical operation, ioe right between bishops and 98 of your pamphlet iced. It is deserving of iews you take of the sub- >i8Copacy v ere contrary to urch thus governed, could icn God's Church was notj )uld be compelled to con- lis promise to the church ito the end of the world. } a monstrous conclusion ion, and depriving ever Inger will apply to him in tatcdiy ! 228 christian of hope, and dependance upon the promises cf the Redeemer." It is a matter of ostonislunoni. liiut any rea- sonable man can write Dt this rate. Those slatenionts, car- ried out to their Icgiiimato consequences, would make salva- tion out of an episcopal church impodsiblo! You argue from Jalse premises-" If episcopacy were contrary to the Sacred Scriptures." Now episcopacy may not be enjoined in tho Scriptures, and yet as a prM'' commend you (o take the o„„,i V ^"'«>»" Wiflistera, I re- i«h counciL.. Refrain from .f '*^"'*' **' °»™'«''«' '« 'he Jew- for if this council or' hiswTri'r o?"'.'"' ''' '''"' «'- " «««^A/: But if it bo of Ood v! . '?' " «"" "'«« '« h«.ply ye be found to fia ,t eJe^^^ """."A T'^'^'ow it; lost \ It « extremely foolish fS anv 1„ ? "" ^^''- " ' "»'nk then ;be o«/y forriof Chtch go7eZen°t l"^' '^^'^oP-'y be not ' " compelled to come «o a^mrsUoui?''"'."'^ '''^^"^' *^« •'« ^ery foundation o/relieiTn H,?^ conclusion, ,ap;„„^ t^e of hope, and rfe;>enrf«„c/r^^^^ ^^»y chn^stian er," By such unguarded fnZ.ifr''"*""' "-^'^^ /?^rfem- willonlydoyourSa. e,faV„ ''T^i't^^^^^^ " 'hese you reads and believes the New Ta.^^„ . '" '"' '«"'". «*ho tbal all these monstrous eviKillfniV °*" ."{'-^wly Ulieve. 'he •; divine origin" and obZaSi „r '"^' " "•« *'°«'«"no of •• uninterrupted succes;rov'l"7o„rse^^^^^^^ '"'' *'•'«''« untrue "The conclusion'' cer^ta^nlJi, w*^ "'^ P'""«' •»> should /r/^A« ''"'t «ith in •»'' - -penetrate. 'l^^tZAj^H^^^^XtlZ 24 e.hip." our miniitry, •• »,« y* '-ng the.r labour, to .ho I-on ■and* and ihousonds of .oula: rin, Clirial it not with them— ^are not authorized to perform O'-they are intrudert! Now believe the Lord's fact, or atonyloaa to decide. Away ce..ion! /Ma ya„i,hingaway tlie Wes/eyan Mimsttr.. I re- dvico 0/ Gamaliel to the Jew- '0 men. and let theni alone; I o"^ w^n, It u>,7/ c(,;«« to co«no^ ooerfArotc ,/; 'est "gauutGod." Ithmkthen tosa^.jfepiacopacybenol lent approved of God, wo are 0U8 conclusion, 5ap;„„^ /^e J deprtmng every cAr^f^an ^epromiaes of the Redeem^ «od asBcrtions aa theae you > man in bis senees, who «en , can aerioualy Leiieve, follow, ,» the doctrine of lofepiacopacy, «nd of the ir sense of the phrase, be in'y '» " monarrous," ond be most wicked of men,— mona/tfra in uiickedneaa,— ►pa of Chrisfa Church, we irchofChrist on earth! the ry christian is deprived of acedmthe promiaeaof tho " '8 a •• monstrous con- persona thus write for the of dioceaan biahops, and errupied personal succes. ;eply in the language of 'lergymen, who wrote a- He Bays, '.The Ian- blamed ; and the writer 0, by these authors. But rdly be dealt with in any suiious men, cannot be ther weapon. They ate , which no bullet of rea- be ripped up by the keen- ISA m ha. in aiv meaau iTrllj ''«■:" .i^e"ora or Notes. Iht. wri, for with levity! n , "S ir„„ ' T"' """"* *'"•• "'«verence if be ha. oni;;;;oaed ; rdon'ud;!:, •;? '"^"^ 'r ''""• »"^ rora and exlrava^ant-Jnr """"""'^ .'''• ^"nc.oa of men, the er- preventU he. Te?d*n !'""«""'''"""• '■^^ '»'° P"'P»«e of Le, no ;h'.?g:PoV"rr:vVr: ;:„":;;•.";;:: i': ?;^f '• ••" I The followZexlraa E h^"'"' ''" *'" *^''"»" (P- 26».) I your con.idorat»>n Snl u '^? ?"'"" *"'"" *« ^vorthy of Apoatolic^ sJSaien'^.'i'l'"^'''^: '• ?''""^'' ^racta. he aay, Nh^iirdivini ty Wh I ,„ '»";'^«"."y »'»e «"'" and aubalanc.of i accountable it ia that it hV» h "" '? "'^ '*•* "y''*"" "<>'«' un- 1 't ought surely lo hlle b^n "H ^'^' °"' J" '*>• <^'"'''' "'nc. !ci-,5i.bJaJlXJr^ "i^T '^ '•'•'' primary arti. erroneout waa%,vffir /? •''«''« Tracla repreaent it. Her account ofTtVwStJ a Ja.fk7rr«'\'"'''*'"« "'"• «' ««> I ;ing it no. to be imi'lpr .^^ /Vel^^J^'A^rt ^ 'l"''" ! tence t was in /ir^hL.t. "v ''eceaaary; And what inadver- upon the world, or ra'herV-VrifJ^f T"""' ••" "hoM fbroken forth from the thckdarknJ'^rp'"'''''"*!''**' "s'" »«.. I of which it ia innd« cU, .1? . '" of Popery, through meani Ithinginreliafon and h« • f «P°8'o'icnl succession ia every I Tracts; bur he sucSeasioS of^'n"., " ""'^'i. '"'"^'' »'" *» ^h* ! of bishops otoytZerVinthl^r? ""t' ^'''■^'"^'"^"g the work lChurch,'«„dnJS-SL. in^ie™'',, ^'"^ ^'"""^ «'' '^e was what DerDBi..«.o!i .k • """'em sense of the word ther waa?h;r ; hi. puVe"b'rrCb ";!•••* T. ''''' •"- dead transmitted n^ht^o\nVt,'''^' ""^ "^ <=<>""«. 'Ae into his place by electi«?*w ^ ' ""cceasor was introduced tone Fat^her?. oJi-n'^n^^f tre*" ti;^Vo7f.;:'''" V''' ''^'" ofany orrfina/i/irt. A« -#k I- / **' '"^ seconrf century. _- '" "Ja«;o about or«/erii Nnr i. .1. ' . ••'"•'' '<» So * "> any of the Apoatolfc FaThera-, or in r "1^ ^''"'^ ''"•"■'" 236 Cl.mch"oi*5;,n?*'K''f k'"'"["'^ ""'""■°"" »'•«' "•^cessions in the l3L„ -?^"J ''"^ **"' ''>'i"*» expressiona which imply the Z^Arl^fj^'^r'- " '""' "'"^f"'^ »»' without feason! jeet ii;t„?h 'Tr "'='"'*'"'' *'"" "P'"'"" on the sub- jeci. given m these letlerj—v z. 'In the Nbw T«.i«n.«„. i .hjt i..ppoin.ed to be a bishop or priest! ^ ede^h Lo Tons " c a.ion h, the Scripture; for election or apointZ thereto is Sid in tK" '^"'■"*'' thatthe''sort'"of luccrion /„rj . L *• Tracts 18 a matter of great uneertaintv w niarfe certain! Sacraments and every thin| else- To "r r^thi:"^' ' u'"*" •'^ ""•' '" ^^""rtam, iJ a n^^ 3 covery or ra^he an old one revired. first found out m the daik .ge7' • K.^^V"*'^'"^^*"«" "''" convince the impartial reader urVsweVe^lf * That the Presbyter-bishop's of ?ieScri" Sr .hT.r- *''*'" *"-^'"'''' '*»•»'« Apostles andEvao- J! V m.n f '*"r^f' ?8 considered in their character as ordl- nary mmistera o» Christ. 2. That the power exercised by Bl- shops over Presbyters, if placed on the fooling of divine right Lt t"hf ?•/' «^«'-P««?»; !hat it was gained !y degrees" and Uiat the «/««c« of primitive writers in respect to it. s no raoro m proof o .ts divine or apostolic origin, than their iilenw P .r. Ts' &c''%'"TZui«'" '' ^^^'^-i^P'' Metro'pJliS:: the nmr/h tn ' J*"*' *or some years after its establishment. distiSnn K . ""t r''''"/'y^'««''y»"'«»J and that, ih« t^Btinc on between bishops and Presbyters beinff only of eo- toTa's?' r^"*' "" J'^'^P"' '" <•«<=«. never wefe.a/cordi'g Prilvfl'"'*"' ""/"""« ""'« »^*n Presbyters. 4. Thai Presbyters have authority by the Scriptures to ordain, and a" cording to the scriptures rfid ordain; thalecclesiast cal canoM cannot deprive them of their divine Hght : and th S ome i^ atance. conc.liar canons, after the distinction was established, recognized their right. And 5; That the most em nent Re formers and divines of the Church of England havTexDres^lv conceded iheidentity of order as to bishop, anSpresK"^ •nd the validity of ordination by presbyters. You,/Jr .'C^ fl^thJ'""^- ^°"" ""](i'Mtorily Answered in accordant* oul\.LT^T' «"''«»'»?«'•'*.•" and you are left wit" voi h«^- "^"f""" '^"':."'« "''*"''' *"'J intolerant position you have assumad toward all non-episcopal Churches. Of course you «m,f answer these Lettersr To say they ^ot TJr^'u^ * '^P'^ ^'■" "»' «»*"'<'''•• people wiU not credit such a story. esDeciAlIu .- .«.. ui... ' „_ i .ceoded to reply to the firmer ones"; and^YyTu tign "^Z llcrS if ? """""■• ""*>■• P"**' "«"""«'• ^"' be very ready to StV /^ ' •'on-cous sense. of inability-a thing which a boaated "Successor of the Apostles" would not, •• were the VI $c nil im a ca I( aid tee ic* ma as are lea jeo itflM ri '. 227 ^ entiona the successions in tiia sspressiona which imply the lerefore not without reason, ed that opinion on the sub- 'In the New Testament, he •r priest, needeth no conse- :tion or apointing thereto is I that the sort of successioa atler of great uncertainty; ?. IS built the whole super- vhich every thing in religion and every thing else! To icertain, is a new discovery, found out in the dark ages." vince the impartial reader esbyter-bishopa of the Scrip. Mo the Apostles andEvan- in their character as ordi- the power exorcised by Bi. I the footing of divine right I'as gained by degrees, and lers in respect to it, is no ilic origin, than their silence rchbishops, Metropolitains, years after itsostablishment, Presbyterial; and that, ths ;esbyters being only of eo- 'act, never were, according ban Presbyters. 4. Thai riptures to ordain, and ao- ; that ecclesiastical canona right: and that in some in- distinction was established, liat the roost eminent Re- >f England have expressly bishops and presbyterb, byters. Your /our •• ques- , ' answered in accordanet \ " and you are left with- rd and intolerant position lepiaoopal Churches. Of Letters. To say they Jt answer: people will Iv ma v/%1. Ua.x. «*_J- •J =— j-*!^ tram VUIJUK" and, if you deign not to Hres, will be very ready to bility—a thing which a ' would not, •• were the 'orld laid at his feet," for a moment aanction. But before ■ou begm, get Dr. Miller's Letters, and the Continuation of Jis Letters which contain a full and satisfactory answer to Dr lowdan's objections and assertion? ; aUo Dr. Mason's Claims if Episcopacy Refuted ; also Powell's unanswerable and ela- lorate Essay on Apostolical Succession ; and read them un- t)rejudicediy, with a mind open to conviction ; and then prove fthefollowmgpoints—l. That, in their ordinary character as iMinislers, the Apostles and Evangelists were of an order eu- lerior to the prosbyter-bishops of the New Testament. Mere issertton will not be taken for proof. 2. That when the pre*- lyter- bishops were appointed or ordained, they were appoint - Id or ordained a second or inferior order ; and that any right essentially belonging to the ministerial office, say for instance, puiat of ordination, was positively withholden from them. 3 Thai, m any one instance, the Apostles or Evangelists ever did appoint, ordain, or consecrate a presbyter to the office of a diocesan bishop, with exclusive powers of governance and >rdination. 4. That the New Testament declares ordination |by a diocesan biihop, as an order superior to presbyters, es- vBfcntial to a valid ministry ; and that ordination or appointment . to the ministry by presbyters is necessarily invalid. 5 That I the New Testament either promises or commands that there Jebould be an "uninterrepted succession" of bishops, as an I order superior to presbyters, to the end of the world, ao as to |make this succession necessary to (he existence of either a true S Church or a valid ministry, and to warrant any of tho falliblt Bons of memnfallibly to decide, that all who are not of this succession are impostors and intruders into the ministerial ottice. The establishment of these points by clear and decided prools/roff* Scripture can alone substantiate the divine origin and obligation of Episcopacy as maintained by you ; but on your failure to establish them by clear and decided proofs from Scripture, your .ystem falls to the ground as the baseless fabric ofavmion. and Its intolerent and oppressive character 19 presented in its true and proper light. I now retire from this controversy with the satisfactory con- vie tion of my own mind. that. I have beea defending onlv the scnptural rights of a body of Ministers, and in factf Zlof ?l«riy?r"''^.P'"''''^'*"'*"^'°'^y'"' ^"""^ unnecessarily, '"'Prufently and unprovokedly attacked. I wish not to say a single syllable against diocesan episcopacy as an ecclesiasti- cal arrangement, and as a prudential form of Church polity : liZrV'''"''' ? '^'T' '■'^'''- Neither do I wish to be con- ?liLjpT'"i"' '%^''« Church of England, as one of the Pro^ ^ testant Churches of our country: the character of a fo« I n». ■ m.7r '."'"';, -^ T."^ " well, and hope the blessing of Gotl may est on all its bishops and presbyters, who hold the truth as It la in Jesus, and. who. in preaching the pure word of God. r/ni'. "'!;'"« '" ''""« """'' ^° C''^"" Meanwhile. I b.g tl, t u*'* ^""' attention for a single moment to the sub- ject, which more immediately gave rise to this controversy. ~ 228 '^: own Church on thi, aubjecr For your «n«f' "T« "^ >«»' recommend to your cariful nern««nh ?f°'*' "•''fixation 1 To all which." (soDerstitiou* imiinn- j "«'0"nation :— ; (. party in the Chur'ch)T.ra33 drhaV'S"^ •o^ofif CONCEIT, of the iNVA^tnTJ^^ 'wgular and e*/ra- ministered by o«e epUcovaui nlV- °Z »^''-"«. "n/w, only ^«*5 o/ all commas JitSfh"'/' '•'•**"«'• »'''■ »">« CA«rcA«,. of which. prhaj!lhevm«l- •^'"■"*" ^'"'""'anl makes '/'mfthntfAo .r?„ wUI ^Ju^?"!^^^ «<'"""<. but •mong our»elves, and n the Hom»„ n *'*!'* """»''•'• ^olh to hi. Sunnu™.'; " ,'r ,• «°"""» Communion." (Prefaw ^ I remain. Rev, Sir, Yours with candour, ALEXANDER W. McLEOD. ^^.X^itvi'^ ?f ^it^Wi-Sif ?*«»*, 28 # ' ex cathedra (hat all bapthnnk «copalIy ordained, are ^„a«!" ;« 3^7 .«:•"{««' deposed to pa" na of the dignitaries of your or your especial edification I ""'''!fi:'°"o?n my title patS and the following .jitract fiod onan of the He/brmation :- Ij j"f ■"" practicea.) "they." Ided that singular and ex/ra- »th he /flr«gn Protcitanl >y make no ^rca* aeeount, but! elation to great number* both man Communion." (Preface n, 1825. Reciprocating your! experimentally more of (hei t more completely under ii«"- • ERRATA. '8 with candour, .EXANDER W. McLEOD.1 |; J./:.^;!':^^^^^^^^^^^ of correcting .ha ffoUo.4g are the Zl r'/riatSh^-aJte^^rsUt^"' ^"^ ?a!e ?7 ' te'slh ?*"" .'h' '""'"" '«'^''-l'^"*"ar pleasure. Pa^e 17 in« li . ". '^^ '°P '^'**^' e».;»owcred to do. » age 17, me 23d ditto read, affects not Page 46. me 16.h from bottom read. ?«/jc« of bishoos '"0 o.h duto read. Th.s ,/on &c ^ ' me 2d from bottom (Note) read, ofreeta i.ne 24th trom bottoni read, was p'a^Sand not Page 68, Page 69, Page 67, Page 79, fdiocesan. ipofvr ''' ""* ''"• '■""» '»<»"'>•» ^-d. <:o«..j„e„//y the Page 112. last line read, petitio principii. pill lit' !"" ?'? ?•"" '*»P "'^''' i'a^^^rica/ oppo^'en, Page 148, me 7ih from bottom tead, peace and unitv ' ^Page 166, ime 15«h from bottom read, who could no< deny, ^^^Pago 168, line I6lh from bottom read. External Succ.s-